A Practical (and Evangelistic) Presuppositionalism

The question of how to do apologetics is very important and should not be neglected. I have recently read interactions between a Christian and atheist where the Christian focused mostly on external evidences for the existence of God while the atheist simply dismissed the notions out of hand. The talk basically went like this:

ATHEIST: Where did the creator come from?
CHRISTIAN: Most common answer: He was always there.

CHRISTIAN: Where did the universe come from?
ATHEIST: It could have always been there. (We don't know what happened before the big bang). Hypothesizing a creator leads to more questions than it answers.

The cosmological argument was the tool being used, which says that every contingent thing has a cause, there cannot be an infinite regress of causes, therefore there must be a first cause. Furthermore, the best explanation for this first cause is God.

The atheists simply asked, Why postulate God? Why not take the simpler course of action and leave the question unanswerable?

The reason we cannot leave the question unanswerable is because of the demands that Jesus Christ has placed on humanity in the name of God the Father. This is the leverage needed to make answering the first cause argument an important issue.

Jesus commands us to be born again - John 3:5-6 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

Jesus commands us to believe in the Son of God - John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. John 6:28-29 Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."

Jesus commands us to obey the righteous commandments of God - Matthew 5:19-20 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

If we begin apologetics with the fact that Jesus Christ provides a perfect solution for the dilemma of mankind, that he said and proved that he is God, and that the document containing this information, the Bible, has a divine and trustworthy character about it, then natural theology takes on a whole new function. It's function is not so much to prove the existence of God as it is to confirm what Christ has told us about God.

If we attempt to begin apologetics on the so-called "neutral" ground of evidence, even though arguments for the existence of God can be powerful stand alone arguments, nonetheless the atheist can claim agnosticism concerning them (rightly or wrongly). He may not feel compelled to search for an answer or so quick to see that God is the best explanation for the first cause, for apparent design in the universe, and for universal moral values.

But if we begin on the grounds that God has commanded us to surrender our lives to Him and trust in Christ for salvation and has offered a completely coherent worldview based on the axiom that he does all things for his own glory (John 17:4-10), then we can show how the world around us, indeed our very lives, conforms to that worldview.

It seems clear that the problem of man is moral, not intellectual. Thus we must preach the depravity of man and salvation through Christ first of all. These are the facts of reality even if those facts are denied and avoided by lost individuals. And then other apologetic arguments (focused on external evidences) serve to show the reasonableness of trusting Christ over other alternative authorities (naturalistic scientists, Eastern gurus, personal intuitions, Joseph Smith, Mohammed, etc.) since the worldview taught by Christ matches what we observe to be true in reality.

A good approach to an atheist might be to begin by asking them if they are good or bad. Of course, we are operating on the biblical assumption that the law is written on their hearts and their conscious is bearing witness to them concerning their moral condition (Romans 2:15).

Then the Christian might ask the atheist on what objective basis do they believe that they are either good or bad (assuming they give an answer). If they say the basis is a man-made system (say universal utilitarianism), then of course it is not objective, for if naturalism is true, nobody is compelled to follow the system of another person. If they say they have no objective moral basis (a consistent naturalist should say this), then ask them why they intuitively feel either good or bad. A universal moral standard can be denied verbally, but it is simply unlivable practically.

At this point, the Christian could share the fact that we are finite creatures, limited in the amount of knowledge we can obtain about reality, thus we must trust some authority. Naturalists who often openly deny any objective moral standard are postulating a system that we should intuitively know is false. This is a good time to offer a better and much more trustworthy authority - Jesus Christ. A man who came on the wings of hundreds of prophecies and who proved his divinity by rising from the dead (I Corinthians 15).

The atheist must see that Jesus Christ has made demands on his life. He has commanded every person to submit to his authority. I believe this is the leverage we need to show that everything in the world conforms to the worldview that Jesus taught. From universal morality, to the universal moral dilemma of mankind, to design in the universe, to the logical need of a first cause, it all makes sense when we start with Jesus and it all confirms exactly to what he has taught us is true about reality.

This is what I call a Practical (and evangelistic) Presuppositionalism. Thank you Francis Schaeffer.

(Photo by Brandon Robbins)

Have They Really Found Jesus' Tomb?

Last night I watched the Discovery Channel special The Lost Tomb of Jesus. In the program, it is hypothesized that a tomb discovered in 1980 in Talpiot, Israel (near Jerusalem) held the bones of Jesus of Nazereth and his family, in particular, his wife Mary Magdalene and his son Jude, the Virgin Mary, and James, Jesus' brother. The clear and undisputed facts are that the tomb contained 10 ossuaries (bone boxes), one carrying the inscription "Jesus, son of Joseph," and others with the names "Mary," "Mariamne Mara," "Jude, son of Jesus,"and "Matthew." From these facts, it is (tentatively) concluded that this tomb is very likely the tomb of the Jesus worshipped by Christians for 2,000 years. The problems with this hypothesis are so numerous that it would take a book to explain them all. Below I will briefly mention a few of the more prominent problems. For those who want more, let me encourage you to take a look at the blogs of NT scholars Ben Witherington and Darrell Bock:

http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/

http://dev.bible.org/bock/


The major problems, as I see it, are these:

1. The statistics. The maker of the documdrama hired a statistician who concluded that there was a 1 in 600 chance that the tomb was NOT that of Jesus of Nazareth. IOW, it is a high probability that this is Jesus' family tomb. But, this conclusion is based on some unwarranted assumptions. First, that the first "Mary" in the tomb was the "Jesus" in the tomb's mother. There is no evidence to indicate that. It could have been a sister, a cousin, a wife, etc. Second, there is no evidence that the second "Mary" (Mariamne Mara) was Jesus' wife--again, even given the DNA testing, it could have been a half-sister or a cousin or an aunt. So, the program is totally bogus when it asks how many Jesus's in Jerusalem would have had a father named Joseph, a mother named Mary, and a wife named Mary, and then concludes that it's 1 in 600 that this wasn't Jesus of Nazareth. What should have been asked instead was how many Jesus's in Jerusalem would have had a father named Joseph and two female relatives named Mary--and the answer is: a whole heck of a lot! Joseph, Jesus, and Mary were very common names in 1st-century Israel (e.g., 1 in 4 women were named Mary!). One statistician on Witherington's blog calculates that the actual odds that this IS Jesus' tomb are (at best) 1 in 400--IOW, highly unlikely! And if you throw in the fact that we have no evidence at all (outside this tomb) that the NT Jesus had a son or a close relative named Matthew, then the odds get even worse.

2. The Names. The program postulates that Mary Magdalene was also known as Mariamne (a dimunitive form of Mary), and they cite a second century Gnostic text, The Acts of Philip, as proof. There are two problems here. First, there is no evidence from the first century to confirm this view (Mary Magdalene is consistently referred to as "Mary" in the NT) and simply taking the Gnostic text's word for it is anachronistic. Second, the Mariamne in the Acts of Philip is described as the the sister of Philip and is nowhere identified as Mary Magdelene. Also, the show says that the term "Mara" on the same ossuary means "master", and thus shows that Mariamne (Mary) was a leader in the Christian Church and this supports the view that it was Mary Magdalene in that tomb. However, "Mara" is a well-known, shortened variant of "Martha." So, the ossuary inscription simply reads "Mary Martha" and indicates either that one woman had two names or that two women were buried in the same ossuary.

Also, it is important to point out that Jesus is nowhere called by his friends and followers in any documents we have "son of Joseph" (cf. Luke 3:21). The fact that this phrase occurs on the ossuary is a huge prima facie reason to deny that this is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. And when we add that two other names in the tomb (Jose and Matthew) are nowhere else associated with Jesus' family, the basis for that denial is even stronger.

Have they found the lost tomb of Jesus? I don't think so.

Why God Does Not Appear?

Many atheists and agnostics mock Christians for believing in a "sky daddy" or "imaginary friend." They say that an outrageous claim (such as the existence of an invisible divine being) must be supported with incredible evidence in order to be believed. They often say they would believe if God would appear to them or write messages to them in the clouds.

Christians often sidestep this difficult question of why God remains invisible, maybe out of the embarrassment that might come from believing in an invisible ruler God. Some Christians apparently think it is just a mystery that must be accepted. But the Word of God makes it clear, God is not showing Himself for good reason. Consider the following three passages:

John 20:24
Now Thomas, called the Twin, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said to him, "We have seen the Lord."

So he said to them, "Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe."

And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, "Peace to you!" Then He said to Thomas, "Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing."

And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Here, Jesus (who is God) made it clear that not seeing and believing anyway is important to God. In other words, this is the way God has set up the system and He has a special purpose in setting it up this way.

I Peter 1:6-8
In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials, that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ, whom having not seen you love. Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, receiving the end of your faith, the salvation of your souls.

Here it is very clear that our faith in what we are not allowed to see leads to the "praise" of Almighty God. God desires His own glory above all things. This is why He does appear before us or write in the sky "Jesus Saves." He wants us to believe without seeing. It is not a mystery, it is a fact, belief without sight brings a maximized glory to Almighty God. Thus Paul writes:

II Corinthians 5:5-7
Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee. So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. For we walk by faith, not by sight.

When Christians are moved to doubt God because they cannot see Him or when they are challenged from non-believers, it is best to turn to the Scriptures where God makes it clear why He has constructed a system that operates in this fashion - He is interested in making the most of Himself, and all His glory.

By the way, it is good to note, that God has manifested Himself several times throughout history, not the least of these was in the Person of Jesus Christ. Those who refuse to believe God, however, will not accept the eye-witness accounts of those who saw Him. What makes them think they will believe if God were to appear today? I don't think they would. Belief in Christ is a matter of the heart, not of the eyes.

What Must We Believe?

At ARC we put a lot of emphasis not only on defending the truth, but also on knowing the truth. After all, how can you defend the faith once for all delivered to the saints unless you know what the faith is?

So, what is "the faith"? Christians, of course, differ on many doctrinal issues. Yet, there are certain core doctrines that lie at the heart of the Christian faith and on which all genuine Christians agree. We call these doctrines the "essential doctrines of the faith." These are the basic truths that define what it means to be a Christian as opposed to (say) a Muslim, Hindu, Mormon, etc.

What are the essential doctrines? For a description and biblical defense of the essential doctrines of the faith, check out my August 31 post at my personal blogsite:

http://cowanchronicles.blogspot.com/

ARC on Video!

A TV ministry program called Church for Skeptics hosted by Dan Arsenault is now available online. Myself and other members of the Apologetics Resource Center staff participate in several episodes. Check it out at:

http://youtube.com/results?search_query=church+for+skeptics

Where Do We Live? An Analysis of American Culture in the 21st Century

I have almost finished reading David F. Wells' book No Place for Truth for the first time. I realize that my shame level is enormous for having just now encountered this "stinging indictment of evangelicalism's theological corruption." One of my biggest sins, it seems, is being a good deal behind the curve. Nonetheless, God put this book in my hands in recent days and I would like to simply share some of my insights that flow out of my interaction with Wells. These are not critiques, but rather a summary finished off with some of my own passion about these matters.

First, it does us well to consider some of the marks of our Modern / Postmodern culture.

Temporary / Impermanent (Fad-ish)
Ours is a styrofoam society where everything is manufactured to later be cast into the garbage. Our clothing, our food, our dinnerware, even our homes and automobiles are not made to last. "Get the latest" is one of our biggest catch-phrases.

Superficial (Not Deep)
Education is not about learning in our society, but it is about using knowledge as a tool to have a successful career. Theology is laid aside and replaced with experience: “That really blessed me.”

Relativistic (Not Center, No Truth)
“That’s fine for you but not for me.” Tolerance for all beliefs is the chief virtue. The basic laws of logic are thrown to the wolves. The only truth is that there is no truth. Instead of thinking, people simple exist.

Revolt Against All Authority Except Self (Mirror Idolatry)
With Democracy (and I am thankful for the good parts of it) government authority is placed in the hands of the voters. Church authority has been incredibly marginalized. Parental authority is questioned at every turn. The only boss of me is me.

A Sense of Restlessness (In Search of Something More)
The heart is designed by God to find that which is stable, eternal, and which provides true satisfaction. The meaningfulness of life in this culture has in many ways been drained from our thinking and thus we move and flitter from activity to activity like numb and buzzed drones.

Focus on Self (Individualism)
The Reformation and the Enlightenment led people to see that they could think for themselves and need not follow authorities, superstitions, religions, or anything else. Freedom and liberty after all, is what America is built on. Meaning is thought to be found inside the self. “I need to find myself.” Technological advances (especially the TV) have provided society with a way of watching others reflect on their selves, supplying an enduring model for the rest of us to ponder our selves.

Conformity to the Crowd (Fit In)
There is an apparent discrepancy between Freedom and Equality / Individualism and Conformity, but in America both are highly valued. After all, the self looks to the crowd for a definition of what the self should be. It is in this that the majority truly rules! Whatever the crowd says to wear, the individual wears. Whatever the crowd says to watch (Nielsen ratings) the individual watches. However the crowd votes, that is the individual who is elected.

Competitive (The Apprentice)
The business world is called “Dog eat dog” for a reason. People are befriended only as a means of using them to climb to a higher rung on the self's career ladder. On TV, we watch Survivor, the Bachelor, American Idol, and the Apprentice (just to name a small sampling) and we see what it takes to be the King of the Hill. Because our culture worships self, to be envied by others is the highest form of self worship.

Entertainment-Oriented (Killing Time)
People in our culture seem to believe that leisure activity is the activity of a king. We kill ourselves five days a week so that we can be entertained on the weekends. So the goal of our flittering and running is to get a drink, a few laughs, and a show. I remember once saying at a James Taylor concert, "All these people and I have hired James Taylor (via our ticket purchases) to put on this show for us. Therefore, he is our servant." I did not know what I was saying at the time. How ironic that we worship our superstars, and we pay them to expose their talent so that we can gawk at them at the same time. But entertainment is much more pervasive: video games, Internet surfing, fantasy sports, and useless phone chatter. Even our news broadcasts must be witty, fast, and attention grabbing or people will quickly exercise their authority as an autonomous self and, using the remote control, change the channel to Wheel of Fortune.

Now, having thought about these marks of our culture, consider what is happening to various churches who believe that the best way to reach a sinful culture is to become like that culture. What about the Church that tries to "fit in?"

The Professionalization of Ministry
Dr. Wells shows clearly the awful tendency of pastors and other ministers to find respectability in this type of culture. (I would also recommend here John Piper's book on this topic, Brothers We Are Not Professionals.) This trend in ministry has happened, according to Wells, because the clergy were being marginalized as a result of Enlightenment and Modern thinking. Their respected and prominent positions in the community (literally as the center of the community) was diminishing at an alarming rate. Thus the modern minister changed his approach. Seminaries adopted new degree programs (such as the D.Min) in order to accommodate this changed approach. The preacher went from truth broker to everyone’s best friend (since he is unqualified to be a psychologist).

The Therapeutic Model of Ministry (Instead of Moral Model)
The needs of the people determine the direction of the ministry, not the truth of God’s Word. Sin is set aside as a reality, holiness is replaced with a desire for wholeness, and the goal of ministry is to feel good about yourself (like you feeling you get when you get back to the hotel from Disney World). In this way churches have truly become seeker sensitive instead of Kingdom announcing.

Finally, if the church is going to be something special and unique in this kind of culture, it must repent and become authentic. That is, it must be counter-culture, since in almost every way the culture is antithetical to the dictates of the Bible. This world does not need more institutions that promote self worship, but rather an institution that promotes a completely different way of looking at life, where God and His eternal glory are the center of all thinking. Here is what the church needs to do:

Seek Out That Which Is Permanent
The self is impermanent, but God is eternal. Start looking for things that last instead of buying into each passing fad. Pastors, stay at your church longer than 2 years. Families, quit moving to new cities for a few bucks more in salary. Value permanence as a reflection of the permanent nature of our immutable God.

Go Deeper / Learn Theology
Stop believing that inward feelings are the criteria for determining truth. Start asking your pastor to preach more doctrinal sermons that explain the character of God, the Person and work of Christ, the nature of true salvation, and like issues. To know God and be able to meditate on His character and being in worship is the GOAL OF LIFE. Theology is not a means to an end. It is the end! Quit reading Stephen King and start reading Jonathan Edwards.

Know Truth (The Center is God)
There is one truth for all people, for all times, in all places. Be confident when you assert, "The Hindus have it wrong." They do. So do the Muslims. Almighty God, as He has graciously revealed Himself in the Bible, is truth and the source from which all true things flow. All knowledge must begin and end in God.

Submit to Proper Authorities (Elders, Government, Husband, Parents, Boss)
This is a big counter-culture move! Even if they are wrong, even if they are incompetent, even if you know the issues better than they do, it is the act of submission itself that is virtuous. This does not mean be mindlessly controlled by others, that is not what submission is. But that is another topic!

Be At Peace and Be Satisfied
If you want to stand out in this culture, quit running and relax. This is not to say be lazy! Laziness is altogether different. You still have tasks to accomplish. But this busy-bee anxiety that plagues our modern world stinks of death. Slow down! The only way to successfully do this is to anchor deeply into Jesus Christ. To know Him is to know that you are eternally secure. No situation, even a terminal illness, can shake you if you are fixed upon the Rock. Our unbelieving culture has no rock, thus it flitters. The Church should be at rest and satisfied in our Lord.

Focus on Others
Not just as a way of drawing attention to yourself, but as an end in itself. Help someone who needs money. Give away one of your extra cars to a family in need. House a missionary. Leave your high sanctuary pulpit and preach at a downtown mission to the homeless. Take a mission trip to Africa and carefully hold AIDS infected children while doctors place needed vaccines in their deteriorating bodies. For a moment, September 11 seemed to wake the Church up, that the world is desperate for true love (eternal love), but since then, we quickly went back to our self-worship. A focus on the eternal God (aided by theological musings) will lead to a focus on the needs of others.

Be Sacrificial
I worked for awhile at a bank here in Birmingham and I saw first hand how brutal the corporate world can be. Instead of competing, go counter-cultural and sacrifice yourself so others can be promoted over you! Sure, you will not make as much money, a thought that is anathema to this culture. You will even be called a wimp! People will say, "He helped others, why doesn't he save himself!" But the impact of going counter-cultural can be enormous.

Education-Oriented
Stop entertaining yourself to death! Throw out the Nintendo and turn off the tube. Read books with your children instead of attaching them to electronic pacifiers. (I am not saying do away completely with all these media, for they do have some helpful purposes, but our flaw is not in using these media too much in the helpful way, but in using them too much in harmful ways). Instead of entertainment, focus on education. Entertainment has some value, but we were not created to be amused ultimately. We were created to know. To know God. This involves using your mind in order to study theology. Do not go to church to get a high from the wonderful singers and be entertained by the pastor / comedian / self-help guru. Go to church in order to seek out knowledge of the living and true God. That is truly counter-culture!

Internet Apologist?

It is easy to suggest things, but not follow through with actions. So that is what I am going to do! I suggest that the Church establish a ministry to people who surf the Internet.

The person would be paid a salary and have board oversight and be required to surf the Internet 8 hours a day, focusing especially on forums, chat rooms, and blogs, and be a solid Christian voice there. He / she would not be a columnist but rather an evangelist. The goal would be to carry on conversations with people who talk online and to point them to the living water of Jesus Christ (John 4). As far as I know, this is not currently being done (correct me if I am wrong).

BENEFITS
People are turning to the Internet for answers. Because it is a protected environment, where people do not know each other really, where people cannot be rejected face-to-face, it is the place to go for seekers concerned about life and its meaning. Just scan the blogs on blogger.com or the thousands of myspace.com accounts and you will see clearly that the Internet is the new community of seekers, doubters, and loners who want friends (maybe?).

To have an Internet apologist / evangelist would be to provide a solid Christian voice to people at the place where they seem to be looking most for answers.

PROBLEMS
One objection to putting finances into this type of thing would be that many Christians already do Internet ministry. There are plenty of websites where non-believers, doubters, and seekers can go to read or hear audio messages about the truth of Christianity. Why should we pay someone to do it? Well, good objection! However, the position of Internet apologist would be unique. It would not be a central Christian website (though it might involve that kind of thing as a home base). Rather it would be a person being proactive in bringing the Gospel message to other websites, blogs, etc. It would be an outreach as opposed to a sitting-still kind of website. I mean, you can have an article available called, "Proofs for God's existence," and you might even get some hits, but it is unlikely that most seekers are going to end up there. Remember Jesus sends us to others (Matt. 28:19-20).

Another problem would be that when we think of evangelism, face-to-face meetings seems to be the best method. True enough. Certainly, personal contact is the best, simply because a physical connection is made when you look people in the eye. But, the Internet evangelist would be playing an important role in the process since so many people are going to the Internet to fill the void of loneliness they feel in their lives. In a broken, fragmented, postmodern age, where the individual reigns supreme, people are left to look inward on themselves. When they grow bored with that, they reach out. However, many people do not want to risk actual personal face-to-face relationships, often out of fear of rejection. So the Internet has become a place of pseudo-community. It is not the best place for relationships and Christians should not be interested in living our lives separate from each other, only to speak through our monitors. However, since that is the place people are going, looking for answers and opening up their lives, then it makes sense that we need pastors there! This is a unique people group with unique needs.

Another problem: If the people are converted to Christ, they will almost certainly not go to a church local to the Internet apologist or to a church that supports the Internet apologist. They will go to a church local to them, which could be anywhere. This means there will be little visible fruit. It might be hard to support a ministry where that is the reality. But again, what is our interest in doing this ministry? Is it to fill up our own little quivers for the purpose of showing off to others how successful we are, or is it to bring the Kingdom of God to bear upon the Earth. Those who support this ministry would have to understand that the investment is worldwide, and the fruit is real, even if it is not local. Of course, this ministry will never and could never replace local ministry and local churches. It would be an evangelistic ministry design to see people converted to Christ and supporting a local church where they live. It would, in a very real sense, make the world a better place.

Well, I am posting this idea as nothing more than an idea. Again, it is easy to lay out a theory, but difficult indeed to follow through with it. I also have to admit that I would not want to be the Internet apologist. Looking at a screen 8 hours a day would send me to the asylum! But perhaps God has laid this kind of ministry idea on someone else who might be called for just such a time as this. Whaddaya think?

A Few Thoughts on Superman Returns

The revival of Superman brings a renewed need of examining the greatest superhero pop culture has ever produced, especially from a biblical point of view. Superman Returns is a fantastic production. Even the flying looks real! (I guess I can suspend disbelief with the best of them). The portrayals of old characters by new actors and actresses were successful in all but one case, that of Superman himself. It seems as though he was trying to be Christopher Reeve instead of Clark Kent / Superman. Routh does state that this was his intent and for good reason, but this is all really a matter of opinion and really beside the point. Let’s move on to more important issues.

Christians should, of course be concerned about the gay lifestyle chosen by director Bryan Singer and the possible motives he might have in creating this movie. Every creative venture a person engages in is going to, in some way, communicate his or her worldview.

Also, there is some debate over the controversial line, “Truth, justice...all that stuff,” spoken by Perry White as he coached his Daily Planet staff to write stories about the arrival of Superman. To me this seems like no big deal. They are simply making Superman out to be more global, not just American. From a Christian point of view, this makes sense. We are not the only country in the world.

The real questions however, especially for biblical Christians, relate to the role of Superman as a messianic figure. The correlations between Superman and Christ are many and well documented elsewhere and elsewhere and elsewhere. Some Christians will argue that these parallels are good and can be used to show the basic human need to have a “savior” as Superman is called in the movie. This might be an impetus for people to look to Christ as a true Savior.

On the other hand, does Kal-El end up functioning as a distraction from the one true God? Instead of pointing people to Jesus Christ, is he simply creating wrong imagines in the minds of people about what a savior is? After all, Superman is morally inadequate, as seen in his attempt to entice Lois even after he knows she is in a new relationship with another man. Does Superman actually lower our expectations of our concept of savior for humanity?

No doubt, different people will view Superman in different ways, most of them subconsciously. Some will look beyond this modern, man-made, mythical type to see the greatest being in existence, Jesus Christ. Some will be turned away from Christ as they lower their expectation of the idea of savior for humanity. I suggest that we think through these concepts in depth. Superman will probably return again and again in the years ahead.

Encyclopedia of New Age Beliefs - A Review

In light of ARC's up and coming Areopagus Journal on the New Age, here is a book review (which will also be published in the journal) on John Ankerberg and John Weldon's helpful Encyclopedia of New Age Beliefs (Harvest House Publishers, 1996; 670 Pages).

Ankerberg and Weldon are both known for their competent proficiency on a wide variety of Christian apologetic issues (see www.johnankerberg.org, for example) and the New Age Movement is no exception. This encyclopedia receives high marks generally speaking because it is comprehensive enough to cover a vast amount of relevant information regarding New Age beliefs and practices, and yet it is clear and straightforward enough to be used by just about anybody. Here is a self-description: “The material in this book is popularly written and should be considered as introductory and intermediate in nature.” The research is presented in a friendly and accessible way.

The helpful introduction written by Charles Strohmer, defines and describes the foundational “New Age way of seeing life” identified by the author as “foreign.” Here several key terms are put in the spotlight: monism, pantheism, Gnosticism, polytheism, animism, and energy. When exploring any issue within the New Age Movement, it would be helpful to refer back to this section and review these terms, for these beliefs are the concrete bottom of the New Age structure and explain why adherents engage in many strange practices. Unless their most basic beliefs are understood, their practices will not make much sense either, especially to the Western mind.

The authors balance well between New Age organizations, personalities, beliefs, and practices. For example, there is an entire section dealing with Scientology, an organization, but there is also a section called “New Age Education,” that focuses on the individual leaders and their methods for integrating their beliefs and practices into public schools.

A further strength of this broad guide is its interaction with actual practitioners of the movement. It is not simply a book of mud-throwing. The authors truly seek to understand the movement from the standpoint of those who are or have been active in it.

One other unique and helpful feature of this work is the “Info at a Glance” segments found at the beginning of each new section. These contain brief, one-paragraph descriptions of each organization, belief, and practice, as well as information on the founder if there is one. There is also a scientific evaluation given as well, which sheds fresh light on each issue from the world of scientific discovery. However, the scientific synopsis is sometimes the simple label “discredited” without any supporting documentation.

The authors must be commended for their recognition of the spiritual dimension of the New Age movement. Apologists can often make the mistake of believing intellectual persuasion alone is sufficient for showing a person an error. However, Ankerberg and Weldon show clearly that often satanic and demonic forces are at work behind the New Age movement. In the section dealing with the New Age concept of “enlightenment” they write:

“It is our conviction that the experience of enlightenment isn’t what proponents claim it to be: an exalted and divine state of consciousness permitting experiential awareness of the pantheistic reality of all existence. We think it is just the opposite. Far from being a spiritual evolutionary leap for mankind, we think enlightenment is a rather unprogressive encounter with the demonic, which ultimately leads to possession.” (p. 242)

This type of language, looking beyond the outward, physical movement itself and to the spiritual reality behind it, is found throughout the encyclopedia. In fact, Ankerberg and Weldon have been criticized (perhaps unfairly) for having too strong a focus on this aspect of the New Age movement, finding a “demon under every rock”.

The following is an overview of the many of the topics in the book: A Course in Miracles / Attitudinal Therapy, Altered States of Consciousness, Angel Contact, Astrology, Channeling, Crystal Work, Divination Practices and Occult “Games,” Dowsing and Water Dowsing, Dream Work, Eastern Gurus, Enlightenment, New Age Seminars (Like EST), Hypnosis, Mantras, Martial Arts, Meditation, Muscle Testing, New Age Education, New Age medicine, Physics, Scientology, Shamanism, Silva Mind Control, Visualization, and Yoga.

If you are considering the purchase of this Encyclopedia for your own library, remember that it was printed in 1996 and is now out of print. Because of the ever-changing nature of the various New Age movements, leaders, and practices, constant updates need to be made to a work such as this. For example, there is nothing in this work on the new uprising of Kabballah, enthusiastically embraced by many Hollywood and pop stars, such as Madonna. In spite of this shortcoming, Ankerberg and Weldon have provided a unique, solid, and concise grasp of where things were a decade ago and certainly this is prerequisite knowledge to comprehending the world of the New Age in our day. The funny thing about history is how it keeps repeating itself.

Pastors especially should have a copy around the office. Eventually you will be confronted with some aspect of the New Age movement and this resource can give you quick reference when you need it.

A Debate Between William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman on the Historical Reliability of the Resurrection

This debate took place on March 28 at College of the Holy Cross. Dr. Craig has made a special request you might can help with.

"Since Ehrman is not permitting the publication of this debate, could you help to make this address known, perhaps providing such a link at any websites you are involved with?

Thanks,
Bill"

Gene Edward Veith on the Busted Blockbuster

Celebrated author and columnist, Gene Edward Veith explores the unsuspected fact that The Da Vinci Code turned out to be a rotten tomato. Check out his article and take seriously his last line.

"Meanwhile, Christians trying to convey a far better message should keep in mind
that aesthetics really do matter."

In a day when so many churches and ministries just try to get by packaging the glorious Gospel in unworthy wrappings, we should remember this quote and make a change.

A Key Error in the New Perspective on Paul

The following helpful and informative article was written by ARC staff member Brandon Robbins concerning the NPP, especially in its view of the conditional and unconditional covenants of God. This article will also be published in the latest Areopagus Journal on "Three Apologists Every Christian Should Know."

More often than not, the answer to a theological disagreement comes down to a proper interpretation of scripture. The following article is focused on some of the issues involved in interpreting the concept of “covenant” in Scripture. This question of “covenant” has taken center stage in many theological discussions today. Within reformed circles for example there is a group that calls itself the “Federal Vision.” This group (comprised of mostly North American Presbyterians) focuses on the objective nature of the covenant and the covenant people of God. Seeking to free us from our self-involved individualism, Federal Vision concentrates on the corporate nature of salvation. Some within this group also have loose connections to a broader movement known as the New Perspective on Paul (NPP). NPP goes well outside North American Presbyterians to include academic institutions around the globe. Those who follow NPP claim that the church has misunderstood much of Paul since the time of Luther and the other reformers. At its heart, this controversy questions our traditional understanding of Saint Paul and salvation’s covenantal roots.

My purpose here is to explore the biblical concept of covenant. I will defend one theological point that, if true, overthrows many of the erroneous ideas we find in NPP and some aspects of Federal Vision.

Two Types of Covenant Structures
Michael Horton in recently claimed that the covenants we find in scripture can be understood as falling into one of “Two kinds of arrangements: conditional covenants that impose obligations and unconditional covenants that announce a divine promise.”[1] First, let us look at an example of an unconditional covenant promise:

“When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces. On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates…” Gen. 15:17-18

Here God makes an unconditional covenant promise of land to Abram. The interesting point in this passage is that God places all obligations upon himself for Abram obtaining the land. In fact, we see in this passage an image of God as a smoking pot and flaming torch passing through the sacrificed halves of animals representing that God himself will meet the obligation of this covenant. In this passage, God literally states, “If you Abram don’t receive the land, let me (the LORD Himself) be split in half (put to death) like these animals.” This passage is a picture of Christ (by His death) securing our salvation apart from any effort on the part of the individual. According to Horton, this type of covenant promise is a picture of a royal grant.[2] A royal grant is a promise the realization of which is secured by the giver (a king) of the promise. Not only is the covenant with Abraham unconditional but it is also eternal. In Genesis 17:7 we read: “And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.” (My emphasize)This royal grant is given as an eternal promise and God alone will meet the conditions.

But, is this the only structure or type of covenant we find God making with people in scripture? No. Second, Horton also demonstrates what is called a conditional covenant, as seen in the following passage:

“If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you today, by loving the Lord your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his rules, then you shall live and multiply, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to take possession of it.” Deu. 30:16

Here God is calling the people of Israel to obey his commandments if they are to be blessed in the land. The implication is that if they do not obey, they will not possess the land and will not be blessed within it. God provides a covenant here, but only for a time to the people of Israel on the condition of obedience. But they did not obey; they failed to meet the conditions of that covenant. Does that mean that every individual failed to obtain eternal personal salvation? No, because that covenant was never meant to bring individuals to salvation. The covenant of law given to Moses at Sinai was to be a guardian or tutor leading people to the promise that had come to Abraham earlier.[3]

NPP on Covenant Salvation
So, is our hope today conditional or unconditional? To put it another way, is our hope for ultimate blessing based upon the promise and the promise Giver or on our own personal faithfulness to the obligations imposed? What does Abram have to do with Moses? How do we understand the relationship between the Abrahamic covenant and the Sinai covenant? Forgoing the numerous theological considerations involved here, I want to focus on one central issue. If we assume that there are two kinds of covenantal arrangements, we simply need to answer this question: Is the covenantal pattern of eternal salvation: conditional or unconditional?

The NPP believes that “salvation” has always been understood on a conditional model. The following is how NPP interprets salvation under the covenant given to Moses:

“(1) God has chosen Israel and (2) given the law. The law implies both (3) God’s promise to maintain the election and (4) the requirement to obey. (5) God rewards obedience and punishes transgression. (6) The law provides for means of atonement, and atonement results in (7) maintenance or re-establishment of the covenantal relationship. (8) All those who are maintained in the covenant by obedience, atonement and God’s mercy belong to the group which will be saved. An important interpretation of the first and last point is that election and ultimately salvation are considered to be by God’s mercy rather than human achievement.”[4]

This pattern shown above is known as Covenantal Nomism, which clearly follows a conditional understanding of one’s “right standing” before God. In the 8th part above you see that mercy only comes to those who are obedient to the covenant. This is believed by NPP followers to be how Paul understands salvation before Christ. What is even more disconcerting is that it is also close to the pattern of salvation they believe for the Christian now. Let us look at N.T. Wright’s definition of justification:

“Those who hear the gospel and respond to it in faith are then declared by God to be his people, his elect, and ‘the circumcision.’ ‘The Jews’, ‘the Israel of God’. They are given the status dikaios, ‘righteous’, ‘within the covenant.’”[5]

“The whole point about ‘justification by faith’ is that it is something which happens in the present time (Rom. 3:26) as a proper anticipation of the eventual judgment which will be announced, on the basis of the whole life led, in the future (Rom. 2:1-16).”[6]

For Wright and other New Paul theologians, the Christian life is played out much like the life of the Jews of ancient Israel. Being brought out of the bondage of sin (Egypt) we are now obligated to follow the law. If we are faithful covenant members throughout our lives then we will be declared righteous. Yes, they claim that this entire enterprise is of grace. They believe this because the law is only given after we have been brought out of bondage. Yet, it is still based on performance or proper participation in the covenant that is the guarantee of salvation. A person is righteous as long as he/she remains a faithful member of the community of God. Justification is already proclaimed only in the sense that it is an anticipation of a final declaration after one has been faithful throughout his life.

What is the Error?
At the end of the day we have an error in interpreting the concept of covenant. What NPP, Federal Vision, Theonomist and others of the same ilk fail to appreciate and consider is the other kind of covenantal structure we find in scripture. And they attempt to force a conditional structure upon the whole biblical narrative. Paul tells us of the limited nature of the law of Moses: “Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian” (Gal. 3:23-25). The law as a guardian was to lead us to knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20) and also guide us back to the earlier promise given to Abraham (Gal. 3; Rom. 4). It can be said that by their obedience Israel could have remained in the land and received blessing, but not eternal salvation. Our security in our own personal salvation rests not in our continuing obedience (salvation has never been obtain in that way), but the obedience of our Savior. Christ walked in the midst of the pieces on behalf of those who put their faith and trust in Him. Christ fulfilled the eternal promises given to Abraham and put no condition on them! “It is by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is a gift from God” (Eph. 2:8). The author of Hebrews sums it up well:

“But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises” (Heb. 8:6).


[1] Horton, Michael, God of Promise, p. 36
[2] Ibid., p. 41
[3] Rom. 3:20 “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” Also see Romans 4:12-16; Gal. 3:23-26.

[4] Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, p. 422
[5] Wright, N.T., Paul, p. 122
[6] Ibid, p. 57

The Da Vinci Code Gets C+

The opening weekend has come...and gone.

The Da Vinci Code ranked first (not surprisingly) for the weekend with $77,073,388 in ticket sales (13th best opening weekend ever in the USA and 2nd best ever worldwide). Interestingly, in spite of the high sales, professional critics and viewers alike are giving the movie low marks. Some say its is boring, some say slow, some say too talky.

Who really cares?

The movie / story / plot is a major side issue. The problem is not that the movie was so popular or that it was deemed forgettable as a movie. The problem has never had anything to do with the part of the story that is obvious fiction. The problem is and will remain the theory about Jesus' life that underlies the story. A theory that author Dan Brown has professed to personally believe to be true.

Christians must be able to see the distinction between the story (Robert Langdon and company) and the theory. How people grade the movie does not change the theory. Keep in mind, this is not the only fairytale (with no historical substantiation) that people are believing about Jesus and the early church. There are many dreamers out there who are promoting made-up views, disguised as scholarly work. Just consider the productions of the Jesus Seminar.

The Da Vinci Code has come and it is now on the way out. Much like buying a new car, the second you drive it off the lot, it begins to dimish greatly in value. So it is with movies and books. However, the impact of teaching theories that have no historical grounding and no truth within will continue to grind upon the minds of those blinded by the god of this age. It will come in waves and in different forms.

Will you be able to discern truth from error, carefully examining and weighing evidence or will you be swept away in the tide of error that leads to destruction?

Craig Branch's Veritas on Logic

The following article is by ARC director Craig Branch describing the content of the latest Areopagus Journal on logic (March - April 2006).

There is a scene early on in C.S. Lewis’s novel The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe in which the character Lucy has just returned from her first journey into Narnia and has told her siblings about this magical place.

Peter and Susan come to their guardian, Professor Kirke, concerned about Lucy. The Professor asks, “What were you doing in the Wardrobe?” Peter responds, “You wouldn’t believe us if we told you.” The Professor responds, “Try me.” As they skeptically relate Lucy’s story, the Professor challenges their assumption that Lucy is making it up. Susan asks, “Are you saying that we should believe her story?” He answers, “Why not?” Susan tells him, “Well, logically it’s impossible!” “Logic!” said the Professor, “Why don’t they teach logic at these schools? There are only three possibilities. Either your sister is telling lies, or she is mad, or she is telling the truth. You know she doesn’t tell lies and it’s obvious she is not mad. For the moment then, and unless any further evidence turns up, we must assume that she is telling the truth.”

Professor Kirke is encouraging his wards to truly apply the principles of logic to the case at hand—in which case, they would see that it is not illogical to believe Lucy’s tale. C.S. Lewis uses a similar logical “trilemma” in Mere Christianity to argue for the deity of Christ – Jesus, he argued, was either Lord, liar, or lunatic.

This issue of Areopagus Journal is about logic. When our staff decided to cover this topic, my apologist’s cynicism gave rise to anxiety. Will our readers even bother to read it? Or worse, will people not renew their subscriptions? Won’t people perceive it to be too dry, too academic, or even irrelevant? But continue to read and I believe you will perceive and understand the vital relevance of this topic.

Who Cares? Let’s begin with a few definitions of logic.

1. Logic may be defined as the science that evaluates arguments. [An Argument] is a group of statements, one or more of which (the premises) are claimed to provide support for, or reasons to believe a conclusion. (1)

2. Logic is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish good (correct) from bad (incorrect) reasoning. . . .The distinction between correct and incorrect reasoning is the central problem with which logic deals. (2)

3. Logic is the study of the methods by which the conclusion is proved beyond all doubt. Given the truth of the premises, the conclusion must be true. In technical language, logic is the science of necessary inference. From such and such premises the conclusion necessarily follows. (3)

Why study logic? The use of and the need for logic is unavoidable and indispensable. One cannot not use it. Logic is a fundamental and necessary component of epistemology (the study of knowing how to know anything truly). Thoughts or conclusions usually result in choices and actions. Ideas have consequences for individuals, for relationships, for society and culture. Everyone needs to use basic logical laws to reason clearly and communicate coherently. If logic is disregarded or even disdained, then the ability to discern truth is lost, and the distinction between right and wrong, good and evil, just and unjust, will also disappear. The rejection of logic means the end of morality. If one cannot distinguish any of the above categories then there is no basis for morality!

This fact is becoming more and more clear in both Eastern and Western cultures. Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and the various “New Age” cults make the truth claim (which in itself is a contradiction) that reality is non-dualistic—i.e. there is no absolute truth, no ultimate right or wrong, evil or good. Likewise, the West’s drift into postmodernism posits the similar idea that our finitude makes it impossible to say for sure what is true.

Without knowledge and use of logic one could not point out the emptiness and irrationality of statements like, “All truths are half-truths,” “There are no absolute truths,” “All truth’s are relative,” or “To claim you are right is intolerant and bigoted.” These statements are as self-refuting as statements about “Square circles,” or sentences like “I can’t speak or write a word of English,” “I only accept statements that are five words or less and no more,” and “All generalizations are false.”

The knowledge of sound logic is necessary for the Christian in two ways. First, we are commanded to love God with all our hearts, souls, minds and strength (Mark 12:30). So, the study of logic is not optional because we are called and expected to seek understanding of God’s revealed truth and live in obedience to that truth.

The second necessity for knowledge and the use of logic is to better engage unbelief, both in unregenerate persons and in the cultural systems that are antithetical to God’s truth. So, logic is a component of apologetics.

Even though God has ordained His elect to be saved, He has also ordained the means by which they are saved. Regeneration and conversion happen at a point in time, but preceding that point there is almost always a process. No one comes to the Father except the Holy Spirit draws him (John 6:44), but that drawing is a process. The means that God has ordained are various: Christians living out their faith as a “sweet aroma” (2 Cor. 2:5, Acts 2:44-48), Christians speaking forth the gospel (2 Cor. 5:17-21; Matt. 28:18-20), and Christians reasoning, persuading, and using argumentation in correcting wrong beliefs (2 Tim. 2:23-26; 2 Cor. 5:11; Acts 18:, 19; 19:8; 28:23-24; 17:17-34).

Because we live in a world full of influences that shape the way we think, reason, and act, we need to take much more seriously the need to develop the disciplines to be good Christian thinkers so that we can be an effective part of the processes God has ordained to bring His elect to saving faith. As J.P. Moreland observes, Our society has replaced heroes with celebrities, the quest for a well-formed character with the search for a flat stomach, substance and depth with image and personality. In the political process, the make up man is more important than the speech writer, and we approach the voting booth, not on the basis of a well-developed philosophy of what the state should be, but with a heart full of images, emotions, and slogans all packed into 30-second soundbites. (4)

In order to help the reader see the practical relevance of a study of logic, let me discuss a specific theological and apologetic issue that a proper understanding of logic can illuminate. I refer to the doctrine of the trinity. Christians believe that the self revelation of the triune nature of God is essential to worshipping the one true God as opposed to the myriad of false, man-made gods.

But most cults, false religions, and skeptics deny and attack our belief in the triune nature of God. Groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals and Muslims often display an inadequate understanding of this doctrine. And some of them resort to the twisting of Scripture to undermine the biblical teaching on the trinity. In addition to a thorough understanding of what the Bible teaches about God, we need to be prepared to apply sound principles of logical reasoning to respond to the cultist’s and skeptic’s misuse of logic in attempting to disprove the trinity.

God in His Word reveals that there is only one true God and many false gods. He reveals that His Being is uniquely triune by nature. The classic formulation of this doctrine is that God is one being consisting of three distinct Persons, each person sharing one divine substance (homoousios).

At this point come the attacks. “So you’re saying that the Father is one Person and is one in substance. Then you say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each distinct Persons. Then they must be each distinct substances—three different gods. Or perhaps you mean that each Person is part of God, so that 1/3+1/3+1/3 =1. Or maybe you are saying 1+1+1= 1—which is irrational. For example John, David, and Bill are each human persons. John is not David, David is not Bill, and John is not Bill, and they are not one human being, but three. So, how can God be three Persons, yet one God? It’s illogical.”

Another attempt to (mis)characterize the trinity as irrational goes as follows:

1. The Father is God.
2. The Son is God.
3. The Holy Spirit is God.
4. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is not the Father.
5. There is one and only one God.

According to numbers 1,2,3,5 the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one thing. But according to #4, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate things. Unfortunately, Christians often use faulty analogies to try to explain the triune God. For example, you have probably heard the following: “God is like an egg. You have the shell, the albumen (white part), and the yoke, yet just one egg.” But that is a false analogy. You end up with tripartitism (1/3+1/3+1/3=1).

Or another false analogy is: “I am one person, but I am a father, a son, and a brother all at the same time.” This analogy illustrates an early heresy in the Church called modalistic Monarchianism in which God is one Person who appears in three different roles. So is the charge of skeptics and cultists a valid one? Is the revelation of the trinity illogical and irrational, violating the law of non-contradiction (“A” cannot be “non-A” at the same time and in the same way)?

Before I begin to demonstrate the logical coherency of the revelation of the triune God, it is important to note a couple of things. It is one thing to defend the revelatory belief against charges of logical incoherence and another thing to prove it is true. It is still another thing to explain thoroughly or completely how, in this case, God is to be understood. We cannot prove through logic alone that the doctrine of the trinity is true. Nor can we as finite, fallen human beings have a complete understanding of God’s triune nature—there will always be an element of mystery here. Nonetheless, we can know enough, using good logic, to know that the doctrine of the trinity is not illogical or absurd.

God reveals that He is one being. And He has revealed Himself to consist of three distinct Persons (having self-consciousness and other communicable attributes) in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He is not three beings (or “things”) but one being. Yet, despite appearances, these truths are not contradictory. We may see this by use of a simple illustration. Consider an individual human being—call him John. How many beings is John? One being, of course. How many persons is John? He is one person. Now consider a chair. How many beings is a chair? One being, of course. (A “being” is defined as something having existence.) But, how many persons is the chair? Zero. The chair is not a person at all. So, if a being can be one person and less than one person at the same time, there is no logical contradiction in saying that a being could be more than one person at the same time. The same argument can be made for three persons existing as one substance. (5)

Contradictions in the Bible? There are many texts in the Bible that critics say are contradictory. The following list provides a few examples of some of these “problem” texts:

Jesus asks the Father not to lead us into temptation (Matt. 6:13) yet God tempts no one (Jas 1:13).
Not everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved (Matt.7:21), yet whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved (Rom. 10:13).
God is all powerful (omnipotent), He can do anything, yet God cannot sin.
Jesus and the Father are one (John 10:30), yet the Father is greater than Jesus (John 14:28).
Jesus was God incarnate (John 1:1,14), yet Jesus was a man approved by God (Acts 2:22).

All of these alleged contradictions arise because the Bible critic has engaged either in faulty interpretation or faulty reasoning (either bad hermeneutics or bad logic). This is another area where a study of logic can be helpful.

Sometimes, as with the doctrine of the trinity, skeptics seek to undermine Christian beliefs by formulating arguments designed to show our beliefs to be false or unreasonable. Here are some further examples:

The Bible is written by human authors.
Humans err.
Therefore, the Bible has errors.

God is eternal and immortal and therefore cannot die.
Jesus died.
Therefore, Jesus is not God.

Jesus was a human being.
All humans sin.
Therefore, Jesus sinned.

If God is all powerful, He would be able to prevent or eliminate evil.
If God were all good, He would want to prevent or eliminate evil.
So if God were both all good and all powerful, there would be no evil.
Evil exists.
Therefore, there is no all powerful or all good God.

Again, confronted with these challenges, it is incumbent upon the Christian to learn how to think clearly and correctly. ARC has published earlier issues of Areopagus Journal that are foundational to this calling. One is an issue on the inspiration, inerrancy and authority of the Bible (“The Breath of God”—January 2002). Another is on epistemology, the discipline of how and why we know truth (“How Do We Know?”—April 2002). The difficult problem of evil and suffering is addressed as well (“Why, Lord?”—May-June 2005). We also have an issue on biblical canonicity (“Do We Have the Right Books?”—November-December 2005). This was followed by our last issue (“Biblical Interpretation”—January-February 2006) which deals with the science and art of proper interpretation of the Bible. The knowledge conveyed in these journals underscore our need expressed by the Psalmist, “Give me understanding, that I may keep your law and observe it with my whole heart” (Ps. 119:34), and the application of Jesus’ prayer for us, “Father sanctify them in the truth, for Your word is truth” (Jn. 17:17).

This issue of Areopagus Journal will build on the concepts introduced in past journals by giving you the tools to use good logic (think and reason well) and to point out the faulty logic and reasoning of unbelief. The first article is by W. Jay Wood, Professor of Philosophy at Wheaton College, entitled, “Virtue & Knowledge.” In this article, Jay explains the connection between the acquisition of knowledge (and avoidance of error) and the development of good habits of thinking known as intellectual virtues.

ARC’s Steve Cowan writes, “Minding Your P’s and Q’s: A Primer on Logic for Christians.” In this article, Steve lays out the basic principles of logic and the most common forms of rational argumentation. He also points out some common fallacies that should be avoided.

Picking up on the theme of fallacies, Roy Massie, a graduate student at Birmingham Theological Seminary, contributes the article, “Don’t Be Deceived: An Informal Introduction to Informal Fallacies.” Roy explains and illustrates several of the most common misuses of human language and rhetoric designed to lead people astray.

NOTES1. Patrick J. Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 4th ed., (Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth, 1991), 1.2. Irving Copi, Introduction to Logic, 7th ed., (New York: MacMillan, 1986), 3, 5.3. Gordon H. Clark, Logic, 2nd ed. (Jefferson MD: Trinity Foundation, 1985), 1.4. J.P. Moreland, Love Your God with All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1997), 21. I would add to Moreland’s list “illogical rhetoric.”5. For a thorough Scriptural exposition on the revelation of the Triune God, ask us for our free information packet on the Trinity (click here to request online, or 866-403-0102), and see the article by Ron Rhodes, “Defending the Deity of Christ and the Trinity against the Jehovah’s Witnesses,” Areopagus Journal 5:4 (July-August 2005): 23-28.

Dealing with The Da Vinci Code

The interest level in The Da Vinci code seems to be at a high peak. In preparation for the May 19 release of the movie, there is a tsunami of books, articles, videos, and other forms of media both for and against the theory underlying the book. The purpose of this post is to make a couple of unique (I hope) points concerning this event.

First, the hope of all believers in Jesus Christ should not be only to defend our faith and the Word of God, but also to see Dan Brown come to Christ. I am afraid that we sometimes allow our anger to be the driving fuel as we lash out against error. And yes, Dan Brown has made major historical errors, attempting to pass them off as fact. This clear disregard for truth does get under our skin, certainly it gets under mine, especially when unthinking people buy into his theory. Quite frankly, it feels like stepping on a nail and feeling the metal slowly creep up into the flesh, muscle, and bone of the foot.

Nonetheless, our driving conviction should not be to prove Dan Brown wrong or anybody who follows him. We should rather be praying that Brown be saved. Perhaps his encounters with the Word of God (though his motivation is to attack) would be used of the Spirit to reveal the living Christ to Him. Perhaps the Lord Jesus will show Brown that "it is hard for you to kick against the goads" (Acts 26:14).

Second, I want to simply point out the weak nature of the attacks against the Bible and historic Christianity in The Da Vinci Code. To some, it may seem that Brown's attacks are so sophisticated and complex that the average Christian cannot deal with them. This is not so. You do not have to be a trained historian to know that you need evidence before you make an assertion. If, for example, you say that Jesus was married, then you need to have something to back that up. Brown has nothing. He might say, "Oh, but what about The Last Supper." Sorry, Mr. Brown, reading hidden codes out of a centuries old work of art doesn't count - it is too ambiguous. He might say, "What about the Gospel of Philip?" Sorry, Mr. Brown, it was written nearly a century after Jesus' life. Whoever wrote that work was part of a twisted cult group and was using the person of Jesus to support his own religious claims.

You might be asking, "What should I say if I get into a conversation with someone about The Da Vinci Code?" It is simple really. Just make it abundantly clear that there is not a shred of historical evidence for this fantasy-land theory. The factual claims that Brown makes are just as fictional as the fiction itself.