The more I write and interact with others about their beliefs, the more I realize that importance of holding a high view of Scripture.  If I were to engage in an extended conversation with someone else about a particular position, I would first attempt to determine what their position is on the Bible.  Depending upon someone’s belief on the reliability and authority of the Bible will determine their conclusions. 

With this in mind I wanted to being defining terms like infallible and inerrant as well as provide different arguments in favor of the authority of the Bible. 

The Classical Method in defense of Scriptural authority is one that relies upon both external and internal evidence.  In other words, it begins with the premise that the Bible, as a piece of literature, is a reliable document.  From this foundation this method builds upon the authority and teaching of Jesus Christ as a way of determining the authority and trustworthiness of the Bible.

Recommendation:  If you’re in a position to defend the authority and the trustworthiness of the Bible, then I would recommend memorizing this as a way to do so.  Make sure that you focus on Premise A before tackling the following Premises.  If the first premise is faulty, the rest of the premises cannot stand.     

The following is from R.C. Sproul Scripture Alone (72-73):

Premise A: The Bible is basically reliable and trustworthy document

Premise B: On the basis of this reliable document we have sufficient evidence to believe confidently that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Premise C: Jesus Christ being the Son of God is an infallible authority.

Premise D: Jesus Christ teaches that the Bible is more than generally trustworthy: it is the very Word of God.

Premise E: That the word, in that it comes from God, is utterly trustworthy because God is utterly trustworthy.

Conclusion: On the basis of the infallible authority of Jesus Christ, the Church believes the Bible to be utterly trustworthy, i.e., infallible.

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS

The Exodus draws a lot of attention from ordinary naysayers to refined scholars.  Apart from conservative scholarship, many believe that this event is a composition of multiple sources that are mythical (in the not true sense) and give us no reason to believe the various miraculous events that took place.

My intent today is not to address these issues, but rather to attempt to answer this one question,

“Why is There No Record of The Exodus in Egyptian History?”

It is readily known that the Egyptians not only exaggerated their history, they left many things out – typically the bad stuff – and even told outright lies.  Consider the the following examples as a means of validating their lack and fabrication of records.

Ramses II During the Battle of Kadesh

It is known that an Asiatic people known as the Hyksos, conquered and ruled the Egyptians for over 200 years (1786-1550 B.C.) and there is no mention of these time period in Egyptian history until they rose back-up and expelled them from their land

Fabrication of Records

The Battle of Kadesh was fought between the Egyptian Empire ruled by Ramesses II and the Hittite Empire.  The first historical report written on this battle in Western Civilization was based upon the work of James Breasted in 1903 and he concluded, from Egpytian records, that the Egyptians were victorious. 

However, this is not the case.  The Hittites were victorious.

Why is There No Record of The Exodus in Egyptian History?

Based upon the lack and fabrication of records by the Egyptians, it is plausible that the Egyptians decided not to record such a humiliating defeat by the very people they enslaved.  There are other facets that we could look to in validating the presence of the Israelites in Egypt, but I would like to end with this one point:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (Garrett DeWeese and J.P. Moreland’s Philosophy Made Slightly Less Difficult, pg. 20).

Such a claim is considered an argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantium) and is an informal fallacy of  reasoning.  Basically, you can’t point to the lack of not knowing something as a means of proving it’s not there.

Does this prove why there is no record of the Exodus in Egyptian history?  Not outright, but it does provide plausability to the position. 

[The above is essentially based on The Historicity of the Pentateuch; Creation from Dr. Hugenberger’s course on the Theology of the Pentateuch]

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS

The following is from Garrett DeWeese and J.P. Moreland’s Philosophy Made Slightly Less Difficult (pg. 86).

The most obvious way to formulate an argument for moral relativism is a failure.  Why else, then, might someone want to accept [moral relativism]?  Probably the most common reason today is a defective view of tolerance.

Ask the average college undergraduate or the average progressive or liberal city-dweller (country people tend to be more conservative, both politically and ethically), and you’ll be told that it is somehow wrong to judge another person or an action to be immoral.

Why?

Because we must be tolerant.

And the opposite of tolerant is bigoted.  And it is morally wrong to be bigoted.  Tolerance has become the supreme virtue in our culture, such that the only thing that can’t be tolerated is intolerance (and never mind that this is self-refuting).

Of course, the refusal to make a judgment about the morality of an action is not genuine tolerance; its moral cowardice, or intellectual laziness or plan confusion.

True tolerance is the view that even if I believe that you are wrong, I will not use coercive force to enforce my belief (Of course, there are exceptions, notably for actions that harm others).  A truly tolerant person does not refrain from making judgments, but rather refrains from using power to get others to change their beliefs, relying instead on persuasion.

For more on the inadequacy of moral relativism, see my short piece on Refuting Relativism.

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Recently Noah’s Ark reentered mainstream media with its alleged discovery.  Regardless of this story’s legitimacy, I thought that it would be wise for me to refresh myself on the responses to common objections posed by naysayers of its historical validity.

The following is from Norman Geisler’s Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (258-259).  These are responses to the most common objections to the historical validity of the Ark.  What is more, these answers presuppose that the flood mentioned in Genesis 6.9-9.29 covered the whole earth, not just the Mesopotamia region.

How Could this Small Ark Hold Hundreds of Thousands of Species?

But assuming the flood was universal, the question remains as to how Noah could get all those animals in the ark.  Engineers, computer programmers, and wildlife experts have all taken a look at the problem, and their consensus is that the ark was sufficient to the task.

The ark was actually a huge structure – the size of a modern ocean liner, with three levels of deck (Gen. 6.13), which tripled its space to over 1.5 million cubic feet.  This equals 569 railroad box cars.

Second, the modern concept of “species” is not the same as a “kind” in the Bible.  But even if it were, there are probably only some 72,000 different kinds of land animals which t ark would have needed to contain.  Since the average size of land animals is smaller than a cat, less than half of the ark would be needed to store 150,000 animals – more than there probably were.  Insects take only a very small space.  The sea animals stayed in the sea, and many species could have survived in egg form.  There would have been plenty of room left over for eight people and food storage.

Third, Noah could have take younger or smaller varieties of some larger animals.  Given all these factors, there was plenty of room for all the animals, food for the trip, and the eight humans aboard.

How Could a Wooden Ship Stay Afloat in Such a Violent Storm?

The ark was made of a strong and flexible material (gopher wood).  Gopher wood “gives” without breaking.  The heavy load gave the ark stability.  Also, naval architects report that a long box-shaped, floating boxcar, such as the ark, is the most stable kind of craft in turbulent waters.  One former naval architect concluded: “Noah’s Ark was extremely stable, more stable in fact, than modern shipping” (see D. Collins, “Was Noah’s Ark Stable?” CRSQ).

Indeed, modern ocean liners follow the same basic proportions.  However, their stability is lessened by the need to slice through the water with as little drag as possible.  There is no reason Noah’s ark could not have survived a gigantic even world-wide flood.  Modern stability tests have shown that such a vessel could take up to 20-foot-high waves and could tip as much as 90 degrees and still right itself.

How Could Noah’s Family and the Animals Survive so Long in the Ark?

Another answer is that living things can do almost anything they must to survive, as long as they have enough food and water.  Many of the animals may have gone into hibernation or semi-hibernation.  And Noah had plenty of room for food on the inside an abundant water on the outside to draw on.

[Question:  Is there anything that you would add to Geisler’s responses?  Or, is there a question about Noah’s Ark that went unanswered?]

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

Consider sharing this post

This is a great chart that I found at The White Horse Inn summarizing Classical, Evidential, and Presuppositional Apologetics.  You can find the chart by clicking here.  Personally, I lean towards a combination of Evidential and Presuppositional Apologetics.  What about you?

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

Consider sharing this post

The following 3 categories are from some of the benefits of exploring Christianity in the first chapter of James Emery White’s, A Search for the Spiritual: Exploring Real Christianity.  I simply summarized 3 of the benefits he listed and elaborated on.

Exploring Christianity Helps You Own-Up to Your Own Spiritual Life

As human beings we are naturally “spiritual” people.  When someone begins to enquire about Christianity they actually begin to pay attention to their own personal spiritual life, taking responsibility for their own spiritual life.

Exploring Christianity Helps You Keep an Open Mind

In this book, Dr. White relates how many people often reject Christianity for emotional reasons or personal experiences with self-identified Christians.  Even though these emotions and experiences weigh heavily into a person’s beliefs, they do not provide reason enough for rejecting Christianity.

The claims of Christianity are not merely someone’s fanciful opinion that can be so easily dismissed.  The claims of Christianity are objective and can be examined, especially the life death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 15.1-11).

If you have so haphazardly discarded Christianity without actually engaging its claims, then you really don’t know if you’re right in your position and never will until you actually enquire its claims on its own grounds.

Exploring Christianity Helps You Figure out Why You Believe What You Believe

Once you begin to engage the claims of Christianity you will figure out what you believe and why you believe it.

At this point I believe is when people that have rejected Christianity from the sidelines will actually begin to realize what they previously believed was not actually legitimate.  They will discover that much of what they hold to is based upon personal experiences, family, friends, teachers, and pop culture.

Obviously these are substantial factors in molding our personal beliefs.  However, such influences can never take the place of actually enquiring about Christianity on its own ground and terms.

What people may discover is that much of what they held to is false and even erroneous.

If you are enquiring about Christianity, then I suggest you read 5 Suggestions When Exploring Christianity

[Question: What are some other benefits to enquiring about Christianity?]

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

Consider sharing this post

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: