Katrina and the Problem of Evil

The unimaginable pain and suffering of the people on the Gulf Coast is more than unbearable. It is troubling to watch the news and to view the photographs of death and devesation. If God is good, why did He allow this? If God is omnipotent, then He certainly could have stopped it. If God is all knowing, He knew it was coming. Why? Why? Why? This is the problem of evil. Surely a good, all-powerful, and all-knowing God would not allow this type of atrocity, with this level of suffering would He? The answer is hard to type, but it is true.


"Yes."

It is far better to believe that there is a God who has all of this in control, than it is to believe that this situation is nothing but utter chaos, surprising even to the Lord. If God is not in control of all this, than what hope do we have? Zero.

I want to suggest an article by Dr. Steve Cowan that goes into much detail about the problem of evil. It is called "Peering Through a Glass Darkly," and I hope it is an encouragement to all who might be struggling with this issue. I suggest e-mailing it to or printing out and passing it to a friend.

Church, Time to Step Up!

It is during a disaster on the scale of what we see in New Orleans when the church truly has an opportunity to shine with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Church, it is time to step up. Thank God for FEMA and Red Cross, but if you are a believer in Jesus Christ, you have a moral obligation to come to the aid of those in need. Remember the story of the Good Samaritan? That is our model.

So how can the average Christian help? 1) PRAYER. Please, church, spend much time appealing to the God who is sovereign over all to come and help those in need. Pray that God would use this devasting situation for His ultimate glory, bringing good out of evil. Do you believe that God hears and answers prayer? Then please pray during this time.

2) GIVE MONEY. Of course it is easy to give now days with credit card. www.redcross.org is a good place. In my own denomination (SBC), money can be given through the state conventions. Alabama's State Convention Website is www.alsbom.org. They say that 100% of the funds you give through here will go directly to the churches closest to the point of need. Of course this money will provide food and water and temporary shelter for the refugees. Here is an idea, work with your church to give a bigger donation from your church budget. There are many small churches sitting around with a surplus in your budget - use it!

3) REACH OUT. Over the course of the next several months, people are going to need you, church. Open your home, build relationships, and share Christ with those affected by Katrina. Don't allow such a powerful opportunity to pass.

At the Apologetics Resource Center, our job is to defend the Christian faith from those who would attack it, both inside and outside the church. The best and most visible defense of the Christian faith is a proper reaction to a disaster like this. Do you want to be a Christian apologist? Then, pray, give, and reach out to those whose lives were destroyed by this disaster.

Close to New Orleans Seminary

(Photo: David J. Phillips, AP)

Here is a shot of a major break in the levy system near New Orleans. I am interested in this photo because as a former student of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, I think this is the bridge you cross right before you get to the seminary. If so, I am sure that beautiful campus is flooded. Does anybody know for sure?

Touching Photo From Hurricane Katrina

(Photo: AP)

There have been many moving and disturbing images from the devestated Gulf Coast this morning. This one has a particularly acute emotional element to it.

Our prayers are with you down there.

Hurricane Katrina Aims and Fires

Here in Birmingham the slight breeze racing through the tops of trees is a constant reminder that a few hundred miles south, lives and property are being devestated. My church spent time yesterday interceeding for people, asking God, who controls storm systems, to show mercy. These powerful storms always bring to mind a number of verses from the Word of God.

Job 37:5-6
God thunders with His voice wondrously, Doing great things which we cannot comprehend. For to the snow He says, 'Fall on the earth,'And to the downpour and the rain, 'Be strong.'

Jonah 1:4
The LORD hurled a great wind on the sea and there was a great storm on the sea so that the ship was about to break up.

Matthew 8:24-27
And behold, there arose a great storm on the sea, so that the boat was being covered with the waves; but Jesus Himself was asleep. And they came to Him and woke Him, saying, "Save us, Lord; we are perishing!" He said to them, "Why are you afraid, you men of little faith?" Then He got up and rebuked the winds and the sea, and it became perfectly calm. The men were amazed, and said, "What kind of a man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?"

From these texts we discern that Almighty God is sovereign and thus raises up storms and has the ability to calm them. Those who believe that God is surprised by natural calamities do not believe in the God revealed in the Bible. So when we pray that God protect people, we truly believe that He has the power to do so. Furthermore, we pray that God would cause people to stand in awe at His power.

Welcome to the Blog, Keith Gibson

Keith Gibson is the founding Pastor of Word of Life Community Church in Grandview, MO and also the Director of the Apologetics Resource Center, Kansas City Office. He is new at the whole blogging scene, but has written many informative articles on a variety of apologetics topics. Here is one on the veracity of Benny Hinn's faith healing enterprise.

In spite of Keith's admission of lacking experience in the blogging world, we welcome him to be part of the team on From the Front Lines.

Who Died and Made God God?

I often read the comments of dissenters to Christianity, mostly atheists, and one of the major lines of attack against the thought of God is that He seems to be full of Himself. For example, the first Commandment reads, “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Ex. 20:2). Dissenters read this and scoff, “Well, who died and made God God?”

We also read in Isaiah 42:8, “I am the Lord, that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images.” Wow, sounds kind of arrogant doesn’t He? Think about it. If one of us mere mortals were to speak this way, the rest of us would declare that person to be pompous and haughty.

So, why do we Christians maintain that God is not sinfully prideful and arrogant? The answer comes in multiple parts.

1. God is not arrogant because He truly is the greatest Treasure that exists. A person who is sinfully arrogant usually pumps himself up higher than he really is. It is a dishonest bloating of the self. In God’s case, He does make much of Himself and demand praise, but this is not an empty action. He truly is everything He makes Himself out to be. He is the eternal creator, He is morally perfect and holy, He does deserve the praise of all creatures. In other words, God’s boasting in Himself is accurate, deserved, and honest.

2. God’s boasting is not an end in itself. Since He is filled with love for others, His desire to be praised spills over into the benefit of others. Sinfully arrogant people are usually only concerned about themselves and their own welfare. They exploit others to that end. God is not that way. He truly and genuinely loves others and uses His power for their good. So, we might conclude that God does love Himself supremely, He does indeed worship Himself and value Himself above all else, but in His case this is not selfish arrogance but rather understanding and responding to the truth of who He is and spilling that love and joy over into others.

3. It is illogical for God to be God and not love Himself supremely. Here is a syllogism to expand this argument.

A. God is perfect by definition.

B. A perfect being will delight most supremely in the most excellent thing (or else He is not perfect, for if He does not delight in the most excellent thing he is morally deficient).

C. God Himself is the most excellent thing.

D. God must, therefore, by irresistible logic, delight supremely in Himself.

E. This is not arrogance or boasting, for He truly is the most excellent thing.

F. In fact, if God did not delight in Himself supremely, that would be sin on His part which is impossible for a perfect being.

So it is clear that God’s loving Himself supremely is a necessary part of being God. It is what we would logically expect from God. Furthermore, He has every right to demand praise from all of His creatures for if He is the greatest being in existence, with all power, it is morally impossible for Him to do otherwise.

For those who dissent against Christianity, I believe that if this language were left out of the Bible about God’s love of Himself, they would object and say, “If He were God, He would love Himself the most.” In other words, they are going to reject God no matter what simply because, as Paul says, “they suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18).

Here is another helpful article on this subject by Gregory Koukl called “Is God Vain?”

Pat Robertson, Christian Leadership, and Big Voices

(photo- AP)

In the wake of Pat Robertson's suggestion that the United States actively assasinate a head of state, the political fallout is heavy. But really who cares? The more pressing concern relates to Robertson's connection to the Church. For whatever reason, some church provided him with the little "Rev." title before his name and now he is labeled a Christian, Evangelical, Fundamental minister. Thus, for the rest of the world at least, he is the spokesman, along with Jerry Falwell, of all who fall into, or close to, that category. But do these powerful broadcasters really speak for conservative Christianity? Sadly, the answer is often yes. By that I mean they have a lot of support from Chrisitans who are not thinking on their own, and they are content to follow a trusted and successful leader. A few suggestions.

1) Conservative Christianity needs more people speaking out (with gentleness and love) on issues from the biblical standpoint (in stark opposition to most of what Robertson says). For example, Al Mohler's work on Larry King Live has had considerable influence in painting a more accurate picture of conservative Christianity. If you have a platform at all, whether a pulpit, blog, or a talk with a neighbor on the porch, do everything in your power to demonstrate that conservative Christianity is not Robertson-styled terrorism.

2) The church in America should hold Robertson accountable for his words. The news broadcasters have been discussing how Robertson might be punished for his words and they come up empty, because his network is cable and largely untouchable by the FCC. Plus, he is a "private citizen" with an opinion. But the church does exercise discipline over its membership and does have the power to hold them accountable for their words and actions. Particularly, I call on the local church where Pat Robertson is a member to consider asking Robertson to reconsider his views on murder and the law and to keep his controversial opinions to himself.

3) The gospel of Jesus Christ is the ultimate answer to this problem. Conservative Christians must embrace more deeply and share more readily and steadily the truth that makes us what we are. The cross of Christ points us to remember our complete and utter sinfulness (we are worse than Chavez before a holy Lord) and the complete washing away of sins through the work of Jesus. He has made peace through His cross (Romans 5:1). The gospel is the only hope for humanity, but instead of promoting it as we should, conservative Christians are more often caught in the political wranglings with the rest of the world. Let us focus first on what matters eternally and then we will make a real difference in our culture.

What Can We Know about God apart from Scripture?

In another thread, the question has come up as to whether or not we can have what I will call a "natural knowlege of God." People around the world seem to have different concepts of God and this fact could lend itself to the view that we just can't know what God is really like (or even if he exists). We all must be content just to have our own "faith perspectives" on the issue.

On the contrary, I think we can know some things about God simply by reflecting rationally on the nature of that being--call him/it what you will--who created the universe out of nothing. I am alluding, of course, to the age-old tradition of natural theology which offered rational arugments for God's existence and then deduced from those arguments' conclusions some characteristics of God. To be sure, the soundness of those deductions depends upon the prior soundness of the initial arguments for God's existence. So, we will have to start there.

Here is one arugment for God's existence that has proven to be very powerful and persuasive in much contemporary discussion. It's called the kalam cosmological argument:

(1) If the universe had no beginning, then an actual infinite number of events would have occurred prior to the present moment.
(2) It is impossible that an actual infinite number of events occur prior to any moment.
(3) Therefore, the universe had a beginning.

Premise (1) of this argument is uncontroversial. If the universe literally had no beginning, then that logically entails that the set comprising all those past events prior to the present moment contains an actual infinite number of members. Put more simply, if the universe had no beginning (i.e., if the universe is eternal), then prior to the present moment there would have occurred an actual infinite number of past events.

Premise (2) is the crucial premise here. William Lane Craig and others have shown that an infinite number of concrete entities, including historical events, cannot exist because it would lead to absurdities. For example, let us imagine a library which contains an actual infinite number of books. And let us suppose that half the books are colored red and half the books are colored blue. And let us further suppose that someone visits the library and checks out all of the red books. How many books are left in the library? As unbelievable as it sounds, according to infinite set theory, the same number of books remains in the library as before the visitor arrived! But surely there could not really be such a library—a library in which half the books are checked out and yet the number of books in the library is not diminished! The idea that an actual infinite exists in reality is logically absurd. For the same reason, there cannot really be an infinite number of past events. Therefore, the universe must have had a beginning.

The second premise of our argument may be defended another way. If the set of past events has an actually infinite number of members, then that means that in order for history to have reached the present moment, an infinite number of past events would have to have been “crossed” or formed one-at-a-time, since history progresses linearly and is not given all at once.

But, here’s the problem: by definition, an infinite number of events cannot be crossed one-at-a-time. A set with a number of members that can be traversed or completed, is by definition a finite set. It is just not possible to cross an actual infinite. To illustrate, Craig asks us to imagine a man who claims to have been counting down from infinity: . . . -3, -2, -1, 0. Why didn’t he finish yesterday? Or last year? Or a million years ago? For at any point in the past, he will have already crossed an infinite! That is, if the past has no beginning, then prior to any point in the past an actual infinite number of events will have already transpired. As Craig explains,

Thus, at no point in the infinite past could we ever find the man finishing his countdown, for by that point he should already be done! In fact, no matter how far back into the past we go, we can never find the man counting at all, for at any point we reach he will already have finished. But if at no point in the past do we find him counting, this contradicts the hypothesis that he has been counting from eternity. (Reasonable Faith, p. 99)

So, the number of past events must be finite, not infinite, and that means that the universe began to exist a finite time ago. Futher, we also know that something cannot come from nothing. More specifically, we know that whatever begins to exist has a cause. Thus, the beginning of the universe had a cause.

Now we come to the crucial question for this blog thread. What can we know about this cause of the universe? Several things. The first cause of the universe must be:

1. Eternal (existing outside of time) and non-spatial because it is the creator of the space-time universe.
2. Changeless/Immutable since to exist outside of time implies the absence of change.
3. Immaterial (non-physical) because materiality requires the potential for change.
4. Uncaused because if it were caused, then it would not be the ultimate cause of the universe and the first event (beginning) of the universe would not have been the first event, which is absurd. Moreover, the fact that the cause is timelessly eternal and immutable implies that it is uncaused and self-existent.
5. Enormously Powerful, if not omnipotent, because it brought the universe into existence from nothing.
6. Personal because only a personal being could account for the spontaneous beginning of the universe from nothing. If the cause of the universe were non-personal (i.e., some physical, natural cause), then that cause is either eternal or not eternal. If the cause is eternal, then the universe would also be eternal because when the necessary and sufficient conditions for some physical effect exist, then the effect exists. For example, the necessary and sufficient conditions for fire are fuel, oxygen, and heat. When these three elements come together at the same time and place, fire is the inevitable result. So, if fuel, oxygen, and heat existed together eternally, there would be an eternal fire. Likewise, if the necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of the universe were eternal, the universe would be eternal. However, we have already seen that the universe is not eternal, but had a beginning. On the other hand, if the supposed non-personal necessary and sufficient conditions of the universe’s beginning were not eternal, then the cause must have changed prior to the first event of the universe. But we have already seen that the cause must be changeless and timeless. So, the cause of the universe could not have been a non-personal, physical cause. Only a personal agent who can act and will for things to happen apart from prior physical conditions is adequate to explain the beginning of the universe.
7. Good because he apparently designed a very complex universe in order that human life might live and thrive.

This sounds a lot like the Christian God, doesn't it?

Pope Benedict and Absolutizing Ideologies

World Youth Day ran from August 16-21 in Cologne. Pope Benedict XVI, pictured left, was present and spoke to the hundres of thousands gathered to hear him. On the official World Youth Day website, this quote captures some of his understanding of the nature of truth.

"Pope Benedict XVI has sharply rejected absolutizing ideologies and totalitarianism. By making what is relative absolute, human beings enslave themselves, emphasized the Pope Saturday evening in his homily with reference to the 20th century. 'It is not ideologies that save the world, but only a return to the living God,' said Benedict XVI during the Vigil celebration at Marienfeld, in which more than 700,000 mainly young pilgrims were participating."

One must muse with care over his words, which ironically form an ideology. But certainly Benedict's words ring true with all of those who love the Lord God and His Son Jesus Christ. We must come to the living God and we have a relationship with the living God, not just a list of principles (or an ideology).

But, oh, how careful we must be here! For we read in the Bible that God's Words are inextricably linked to a relationship with Him. "You have ordained Your precepts, That we should keep them diligently. Oh that my ways may be established To keep Your statutes!" (Psalm 119:4-5). "My soul cleaves to the dust; Revive me according to Your word (Psalm 119:25). These verses, and hundreds like them bring clarity to this issue. We must have an absolute ideology in order to know God properly, it is HIS ideology as He sets it forth in His Word.

To all our Catholic readers and friends, I urge you to take up the Word of God and read it for yourself. It is the only standard by which to conduct life and build belief that will stand the test. It is a strong tower and an anchor. No matter how much respect a man has among the masses, his words can never come close to the authority of the words of Christ, who speaks and sets an axiomatic ideology that will never fall.

James Sire on "Is Christianity Just a Psychological Crutch?"

In this blog I wanted to address the age old question often brought against the Christian faith, "Is Christianity just a psychological crutch?" I love the way James Sire answers it, so I will review his brief reply to the question and encourage you to read Sire yourself.

Sire begins by defining the question with more fundamental questions. What is the Christian faith? What is a psychological crutch? When, if ever is Christian faith a psychological cruth? Is Christian faith ever only a psychological cruth?

Sire answers the first question, "What is the Christian faith?" by showing that it is more than an emotional draw to a made-up God. Rather, it is a body of doctrine that is rooted in actual historical events. True Christianity involves an assent that God is triune, that Jesus was born of a virgin, that Jesus physically arose from the dead, and that faith in Christ can lead to the washing away of sins and eternal life. If all one wants is a psychological crutch, then this body of doctrine is really unnecessary.

Sire then answers the second question, "What is a psychological crutch?" A crutch is a device that helps a person who has a handicap and needs help. The term seems most often to be used in a demeaning way. Only the weak-minded need this sort of crutch is the underlying assumption. And so a psychological crutch is an emotional tool that helps weak people cope with life.

Next Sire gets to the nitty-gritty with the question, "When, if ever, is the Christian faith a psychological crutch?" The answer, of course, is tricky, because most believers agree that the Christian faith does bring unbelievable amounts of comfort and help and provides hope that overcomes even death. Plus we agree that we are weak and sinful and handicap and need help in ever way.

But here is what Sire adds, "Of course, Christian faith is much more than a psychological crutch--so much more that most of us find it odd to use the term. Christianity, we believe, is simply the truth about reality. It is the truth about God, about us and about the universe. It seems strange to use the word "crutch" about the truth. But the truth of the matter is that for us the truth is the crutch that holds us when otherwise we would sink even more deeply into the pit of error. Of course, we seldom refer to our faith as a crutch. We don't like the connotations of the term. Rather, we talk about growing in Christ, of deepening our relationship with God, even of occasionally being swept up in ecstatic worship of our Savior and Lord. We forget the crutches when we are walking and even running with Jesus--even when we are running with crutches."

Amen! Sire answers one more question, "Is Christian faith ever only a psychological cruth?" And the answer is yes - for some people. But note carefully that some people can make a psychological crutch out of anything. In fact, I believe this question can be turned on its head and used against atheists and agnostics. They feel the weight of their own sin and guilt and imperfection before a holy God, and as a way to cope with that guilt, without surrendering their own autonomy, they create a theology (or an atheology) that dismisses God altogether. This is more of a psychological crutch, in my opinion, than the Christian faith.

The God of Peace

In working on my sermon this morning, I have been searching out the biblical idea of "peace," in preparation to deal with Hebrews 12:14, "Pursue peace with all people." I went to my trusty BibleWorks software and put the word in the search engine and was astounded at how pervasive this idea is in Scripture. In the Bible "peace" is meantioned so often and in so many ways, that I feel safe in labeling it a neglected non-negotiable.

God is called the God of peace with regularity (Judges 6:24, Romans 16:20, II Thessalonians 3:16), His city is called "Foundations of peace" or Jerusalem, Jesus Christ Himself is called the "Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6), the Sabbath Rest is seen as peaceful, peace comes from God (Psalm 29:10-11, and just about every epistle begins with "grace and peace to you from God"), and peace is a fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23, II Timothy 2:22) that is to be pursued (Hebrews 12:14, Romans 12:18).

This is the short list - the very short list. There are literaly hundreds of references to peace in the Scriptures. As I studied this morning, it began to dawn on me that the pursuit of peace, with God and with others, is under empahsized in our teaching. Our pulpits, Sunday School classes, and education centers should be ringing with the truth that God is a peaceful God and thus so should His people be.

When it comes to the discipline of apologetics there is a certain pride in being polemical and indeed there is a necessary validity to this, for part of the discipline is in building arguments. But I feel a certain weight of conviction this morning as I encounter the Word of God and the characterisitics of peace, gentleness, meekness, and kindness that I am commanded to conduct all of life with, even my encounters on an apologetic level. Even the keynote apologetic text, I Peter 3:15, brings to the spotlight the idea of engaging in the task with "love and gentleness," or "gentleness and respect."

Because of human pride, leading to high expectations of others, peace between people is truly hard to achieve, but it must be our priority, both in the church and with unbelievers. Of course, the Bible does not paint a naive picture of peace, as if there was no such thing as sin, hate, violence, war, greed, and lust. These things are a reality that destroy many pursuits of peace, as the current situation in the city of peace demonstrates clearly. The Bible does, however, instruct the people of God to do everything within our power to reflect the peace of God, which He has granted to us through the cross of Christ Jesus (Romans 5:1), to all of those who live around us.

This means there must be continual death to self and our unrealistic expactation of others, there must be firm attempts to build bridges of connection and communication, and we need a sincere desire to work out problems that arise between us. When Jesus was born, the angels sang, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men" (Luke 2:14). May we His people propel His glory forward by demonstrating that peace among ourselves and with the world.

Cruising the Blogosphere

Here are some places you should consider visiting today.

• You Had Me From "In the Beginning" by Andrew at Dead Men's Voices is a well written plea for believers to see the Word of God in its purity and be moved by it. Read this post for its devotional quality, but I think you'll see an apologetic edge to it.

• Big money For A Little Piece of Paper: My Stupid Regrets and Inexplicable Ambition to Be "Dr Spencer" by the InternetMonk is for all of you seminary students out there. I truly appreciate the honesty of this post. Read it all.

• The Great Raid by Matthew Hall - a review of the movie from the Christian worldview.

Another note of interest: The Apologetics Resource Center now has an e-mail newsletter that you can sign up for on our website. This (roughly) weekly e-mail will provide updates on blogs, articles, and events stemming from our ministry. SIGN UP HERE.

The Simpsons and Christian Pluralism

Did anybody see The Simpsons last night? A very interesting episode. Though thoroughly hilarious as usual, its message was a bit disturbing--though I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Homer and Bart were in the process of converting to Catholicism (with their priest played appealingly by Liam Neeson), while Marge, Ned Flanders, and Rev. Lovejoy are desperately trying to keep them from falling into the errors of "popery."After the rip-roaring rescue of Bart by taking him to a Protestant theme park ("The Catholics don't have anything like this!"), the episode ends with Bart asking why the Protestants and Catholics can't just get along and accept each other. After all, they're all Christians and their differences are minor points of doctrinal minutia.Though seeming to uphold the value (perhaps even truth) of the Christian faith, the episode not-so-subtly teaches that doctrinal truth doesn't matter, and that the 500 year-old dispute between Catholics and Protestants was/is trivial. Wrong on both counts.

Why the Bible and not the Qur'an? - Part 3

In part 2 of this thread, I made the provocative claim that we can know that the Bible is the Word of God because "Jesus says so." I had hoped that that comment would generate more response than it has. But, undaunted, I intend to go on and briefly make clear the full extent of my argument. To the statement, "Jesus says so," I would fully expect the skeptic to ask, "So what? Why should I care what Jesus says about it? Why is his opinion relevant to establishing the Bible as divinely inspired?"

Good questions. To which there is a good answer. Though the reason we can know the Bible is divinely inspired is that Jesus says so, it is not simply because he says so. Jesus' authority in this (and all other matters) is confirmed by his resurrection from the dead. Since God is not in the habit of raising false prophets from the dead, Jesus' resurrection provides divine authentication of all of his teaching, including his teaching about the Bible. So the fuller argument looks like this:

(1) Jesus taught that the Bible is divinely inspired.
(2) Jesus' teaching is confirmed by the fact that God raised him from the dead.
(3) Therefore, Jesus' teaching about the Bible is true.

Matthew Hall on Scientific Theism

Matthew released results from a survey of scientists revealing that naturalistic atheists are in the minority. Here is the beginning of the summary of the survey findings.

"About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do. The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion."

If this survey is correct, how does it jive with the fact that most pop-science shows, like the ones appearing on the Discovery Channel or the National Geographic Channel, have such a heavy slant toward Naturalism? It is obvious that the minority have control of the media outlets, when it comes to science. This trend can be reversed as more theistic scientists write about the compatibility of religious faith and the scientific endeavor.

Furthermore, scientists of faith should understand that there need not necessarily be a commitment to "methodological naturalism." Many scientists have true religious faith, but refuse to conduct their science from that standpoint, instead opting to do science just like the naturalists do. A very good article by Dr. Steve Cowan on the subject of methodological naturalism can be found in the January-February 2005 issue of Areopagus Journal. Sorry it is not online yet.

One Way of Doing Apologetics

Roger Overton, over at the A-Team blog, details for us one way to actively and practically engage the culture in the apologetics process - in this case, dealing with Mormonism. My prayer is that the Lord would use the ministry hours invested. Hope the sun burn isn't to bad, Roger.

Science vs. Christianity

With Intelligent Design receiving more news these days, let me bring a helpful quote to light from Craig Branch, Director of the Apologetics Resource Center.

"I want to affirm that there is no real conflict between true Science and Christianity. The conflict arises when one moves from science to scientism, a philosophical atheistic presupposition, and when one fails to recognize the limitations of science due to our human finitude. The Psalmist writes, 'The heavens are telling of the glory of God and their expanse is declaring the works of His hands' (Psalm 19:1). And as Paul tells us, everyone knows that there is an omnipotent, omniscient Creator through observing His creation and that God has given His image bearers an awareness of absolute morality and ethics. He goes on to warn that it is man's sinfulness, his rebellion, that suppresses these truths (Rom. 1:18-25; 2:14-16)."

This quote comes from the January-February 2005 issue of Areopagus Journal, published by the Apologetics Resource Center. The articles in this issue provide strength and support to Mr. Branch's thesis, including an article by renown author Nancy Pearcy called "The War that Wasn't: Why Christianity is a Science-Starter."

Christians Are Hypocrites

When we speak to unbelievers about Christ, this objection is usually leveled with some force. Christians do not act out what they seem to be claiming to possess. Christians seem judgmental and intolerant on the one hand, but they engage in any behavior they please, no matter how sinful, on the other. If the person has done their homework and they are really angered by this, they will remind you of the crusades, which occurred hundreds of years ago.

I agree, for whatever its worth that Christians do not live up to the standards God has set for humanity. Christians do not keep the Ten Commandments as we should. We lie, we envy, we hate, and often our marriages are in shambles like the rest of the world. So how do we overcome this obstacle? After all, what they say about Christians being hypocrites is actually true!

Here is the answer. The perfect One is Christ not His people. Christians are born into a state of sin and utter depravity, just as the non-Christian (Romans 3:23). We are rebels, we are disobedient, we are man-centered, and we are idol worshippers. There is no difference in terms of our condition as sinful humanity. The difference comes in the Person of Christ. He saves us and cleanses us eternally of our sin. However, that cleansing process is not complete. The Scripture teaches that Christians are New Creatures enrolled in a process called “sanctification,” which is to be made holy.

Consider this verse of Scripture. “Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of the Lord” (II Corinthians 7:1, ESV). Here it is clear that Paul is teaching a process of becoming holy. If it is a process then we have not achieved the end yet; that means Christians are still sinners and prone to fail in a myriad of ways. The Apostle Peter is a startling example of a believer failing miserable when he denied Jesus three times. Later however, he was forgiven and restored by the Lord (John 21:15-19).

Thus, the objection is true: Christians are hypocrites, but that objection does not disprove the veracity of Christ’s perfection. He is the One in whom we can find no fault, and He is the One who has given us a new heart and enrolled us in the process of sanctification. To the unbeliever, do not primarily look at Christians to see if Christianity is true, look at Christ. To believers, let us daily be more molded in the image of Christ our Savior, demonstrating His holiness more and more.

Why the Bible and not the Qur'an? - Part 2

In my last post, I agued that the Qur'an has no significant credentials to substantiate its claim to be the Word of God. I turn now to the question of the Bible's credentials.

There are many evidences for the historical reliability of the Bible and several "secondary" arguments for its divine inspiration (e.g, fulfillment of prophecy, unity, etc.). However, it seems to me that there is one very powerful primary argument for the Bible's divine inspiration. It has the virtue not only of being powerful, but also extraordinarily simple. Here it is: The Bible is divinely inspired (i.e., it is the Word of God) because Jesus says so!

Why the Bible and not the Qur'an?

Two great world religions, Christianity and Islam claim to be revealed religions. That is, they both claim to have been the recipients of infallible, divine revelation which marks out their respective religion as exclusively true. For the Christian, the divinely inspired written document is the Bible. For the Muslim it is the Qur'an.

But, of course, both books cannot be the Word of God. They contain contradictory messages. Both the Muslim and the Christian are agreed that God would not inspire two contradictory books. So, at most, only one of them can truly be the Word of God. The other is a fraud. So, the question before us is: which book— the Bible or the Qur’an—is truly the Word of God?

In this blog, perhaps over the course of the next several days, I would like to pursue this question in some detail. First, let us consider what credentials, if any, the Qur'an has for being the Word of God. It seems to me that there is absolutely no good reason to believe that the Qur’an is the Word of God, and every reason to believe that it is a purely human book, fraudulently claiming to be divinely inspired. One day, Muhammad walked out of the desert and said, "I've got a message from God!" But, what reason is there for anyone to believe this claim?

Sometimes Muslims will try to give supportive arguments. For example, the most popular argument given for the Qur'an's inspiration is its supposed literary elegance. One Muslim apologist, Yusuf Ali, says, “No human composition could contain the beauty, power, and spiritual insight of the Qur'an.” Muhammad himself said, “This Qur’an is not such as can be produced by other than God” (Sura 10:37). In fact, the Qur’an lays down a challenge which Muslims believe has never been met: “And if you are in doubt as to what we have revealed from time to time to our servant, then produce a sura like unto it” (Sura 2:23). The challenge is for someone to produce a literary work of equal quality to the Qur’an. Supposedly, if this could be done, the Qur’an would be shown to be a merely human work. But, the Muslim is confident that it cannot be done. The argument from literary elegance may be formulated like this:

(1) The literary elegance of the Qur’an is such that it could not have been composed by a human being.
(2) Any literary work the elegance of which is such that it could not have been composed by a human being must be divinely inspired.
(3) Therefore, the Qur’an must be divinely inspired.

But, we can challenge both premises of this argument. Let’s start with premise (2). The premise claims that any book which is of such a high literary quality that it could not have been produced by a human being must, therefore, be the product of God. However, this premise assumes that the only possible candidates for the authorship of a work like the Qur’an are human beings and God. But, this assumption is dubious at best. Even supposing that the Qur’an possesses a literary excellence that would surpass what we would expect from any human being, it doesn’t follow that the book would be divinely inspired. We might suppose that angels or demons, or some alien race are capable of producing a great literary work that no man could produce. So, non-human authorship does not imply divine authorship.

And we might add here that even Muhammad himself entertained the possibility that someone other than God might have been the source of the Qur’an. When he first began to receive the revelations that would later become the Qur’an, he suspected that he might be possessed by a jinn (i.e., a demon). So, we might wonder how seriously we should take the claim that the Qur’an is so clearly superior in literary quality that only God could have produced it.

As a related note, we might also ask how we could ever know whether a book is of such superior quality that it could not have been composed by a human being. What are the criteria for recognizing this level of literary elegance? As far as I can tell, no Muslim has ever set out such criteria.

Premise (1), which claims that the Qur’an possesses this kind of literary elegance is even more doubtful. Arabic scholars, who are well-acquainted with the Arabic language, have challenged the Qur’an at this point. For example, C.G. Pfander says that “it is by no means the universal opinion of unprejudiced Arabic scholars that the literary style of the Qur’an is superior to that of all other books in the Arabic language.” He then cites several Arabic books that surpass the literary elegance of the Qur’an. Moreover, even Muslim scholars have pointed out numerous grammatical irregularities in the Qur’an. For example, Shi’ite scholar Ali Dashti writes:

"The Quran contains sentences which are incomplete and not fully intelligible without the aid of commentaries; foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used with other than the normal meaning; adjectives and verbs inflected without observance of the concord of gender and number; illogical and ungrammatically applied pronouns which sometimes have no referent; and predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects. These and other such aberrations in the language have given scope to critics who deny the Quran’s eloquence. . . .To sum up, more than 100 Quranic aberrations from the normal rules and structure of Arabic have been noted.11Dashti cites numerous examples of such literary irregularities including Sura 2:172, 177; 4:160; 9:49; 20:66; and 74:1."

The conclusion to be reached in light of these facts is that the Qur’an’s literary elegance is not nearly so wonderful as the Muslims claim. And this means that this argument for the divine inspiration of the Qur’an fails.

If someone claims to be a prophet, it is not rational to simply take his word for it. Such a strong claim, especially in light of competing prophetic claims, requires some strong evidential support. Yet, such support is lacking with regard to the Qur'an.

Apologetics and Evangelism

Sadly, many people see these two disciplines as unconnected, and even mutually exclusive. Whereas, apologetics is seen as a strong defense, evangelism is seen as earnest plea. Some see apologetics as purely deflecting the blows of the enemy while evangelism is an active sharing of the gospel with the lost. These distinctions, though partially true, will not hold, for both of these disciplines are part of the same process.

Apologetics, in fact, has been rightly called “pre-evangelism.” That is, it is the process of removing obstacles that might stand in the way of a person’s faith. It is not merely a deflecting of their attacks in order to assure us that our faith is genuine (even though this does happen), but it is designed to convince a person of the truth of the gospel.

Someone is trying to find my house and from a few miles away he calls me on his cell phone and says, “I just past Taco Bell, where do I turn?” I respond, “Turn up into my driveway.” Pause. He says, “I am nowhere near your driveway, I am still out on the main highway looking for your neighborhood.” I gave him bad advice when I said turn into my driveway because he is far away from my driveway.

Sometimes, people are very far away from the gospel. They have questions like, “If God is so good why is there evil in the world?” “Wasn’t the Bible written by mere men? Why should I trust it?” “Why is there so much hypocrisy among religious groups?” “Aren’t all religions basically equal anyway?” A person asking these questions does not have a proper grid of understanding the heart of the gospel: Christ died on the cross for sins, trust Him and be saved. Note carefully that as you talk to that person, you should weave that gospel-heart into what you say, but they want answers to their questions first.

That is why Christians need to be trained in basic apologetics. Christians need to have answers ready for those who doubt and those who do not care. Many churches are good at training people how to start a conversation and share the gospel, but we need more churches willing to invest education time in the area of apologetics. These two disciplines are not separate but part of the same package.

The Apologetics Resource Center can help. Invite one of our staff members to come one Sunday to your church and hold a mini-conference. You would be surprised how much can be accomplished in a Sunday School hour, morning service, evening training session, and evening service. The people of your church can get a crash course and begin immediately being saltier and brighter.

But Aren’t all Religions Basically the Same?

This question is an Eiffel Tower sized problem for many people who are contemplating faith in Christ. They see Christians holding to an exclusive view, namely that Jesus Christ is the only way to God and to heaven. This becomes an offense because, hey, what makes a Christian any better than a Muslim or a Jew or a Hindu? Furthermore, what if the Muslim is right and the Christian is wrong? If it is a possibility that any of the world’s hundreds of religions could be right or that they all are right, then no wise person would adopt only one of them.

What are Christians to make of this objection to the Christian faith, or more directly the exclusive nature of it? Let me make some suggestions that I have used and found effective.

Go over the most basic law of logic with people, the law of non-contradiction. The formula looks like this: A cannot = non-A. This means that 2 opposing beliefs cannot both be true. Note carefully, they both can be false, but they cannot both be true. To take a stark example, if an atheist disbelieves in God and a Christian does believe in God, they cannot, by irresistible logic, both be right. One or both of them is wrong, incorrect, and in error. So if Muslims believe a certain thing about God and salvation and Christians believe another, they cannot both be right. When explained this way, people truly find it tough to avoid the logic. Consider what a Bishop, Phillip Jenson said a few years when he was installed as the Anglican Dean of Sydney.

"There are many lovely, wonderful Hindus, Muslims, Jews and atheists in our city. Good citizens who have every right to expect to have all the same rights and responsibilities as citizens as anybody else...But their different religions cannot all be right. Some, or all of them, are wrong, and if wrong are the monstrous lies and deceits of Satan, devised to destroy the life of the believers, to capture them into the cosmic rebellion against God and to destroy the freedom they should have in Christ. Christians in Sydney are being pressured to preach at best a muted message of Christianity. Certainly not one that will ever deny falsehood." Read the Article Here.

Be sure you know what other religions teach so that you can show clearly that it is different than orthodox Christianity. Do your research. The Apologetics Resource Center offers many free information packets on world religions and cults. Just go to our website and click on the “information packets” link. Only when you know the contradictions between Christianity and other faiths can you show another person how the law of non-contradiction applies.

Once the person realizes that all versions of faith cannot all be right, then it is time to push the comparison. Show the superiority of Christianity by showing how God has been working through history with His people, preparing the Bible as His communication, and most of all sending Christ to die. The person of Christ is impressive beyond imagination and as He is lifted up, He draws people to Himself. Be sure to share the basic gospel, that Christ died and rose again in order to redeem fallen humanity, and those who trust in Him by faith are saved.

It is usually wise to note that another person can be wrong and still be respected and tolerated. This culture’s buzz word is tolerance, and though it is immensely overused it is seldom understood. It is not arrogant to be right from a Christian perspective. After all, we believe that we are guilty sinners deserving of unquenchable and eternal damnation in hell. That is who we are – all of us. How can we be arrogant about anything? We know we are correct because God has spoken to us through His Word and given us the answers. We do not hold them arrogantly, nose in the air, but rather with great humility. Thus, we show others the utmost amount of respect and kindness, even while maintaining that their views are in error.

The Proper Use of Scripture

California pastor Rick Warren has been the center of controversy and hype, having paved a path of non-traditional and unique ministry methods. He has been criticized, mostly from within the church, and primarily because of his questionable use of Scripture. His situation raises this most important question for us.

How should a pastor handle the Word of God? From an apologetic standpoint, this is a vital question, after all, it is the Scripture that is foundational to all that a pastor says (or certainly should be). Without the foundation the house falls. Without the anchor, the ship drifts into open and dangerous waters. Warren agrees with this I am sure, however he seems to think a text can be loosened somewhat from rigid translation without loosing its essential meaning. But how far can we go in this loosening process? At some point, we cross the line and we are making the Bible say what we want it to say, not what it actually says.

This is why pastors should preach from a solid, recognized, literal translation (NKJV, NAS, ESV). Why play with fire? A congregation needs to hear the Word spoken as close to the original as possible. Now then, after the foundational anchor is studied, then many implications and applications can be drawn. These are many and varied, but should stem in some way directly from the text. But the text should be the text, not a loose interpretation of it.

Pastors and teachers, do your homework. Do not accept loose translations of Scripture, but feed your people the real thing. Do not assume they are too dumb to get it.

"The unfolding of your words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple" (Psalm 119:130).

Philosophy and Christianity

We want to know the truth. Every person does. It is a fundamental human drive that has given rise to centuries of philosophical enquiry and the mind-boggling cinematography of The Matrix and What Dreams May Come. The questions have remained the same in the core: What is real? How do we know? Does history have any meaning? What is a human? What are good and bad?

Christians go to the Bible for answers to these questions, realizing that our knowledge is so utterly limited by our own sphere of existence, that we must look outside of ourselves to find the truth. We are mocked by rationalistic philosophers who maintain that truth can be known, or better known, by beginning with ourselves, that is, what we can logically deduce concerning us and our world. But the ridicule is most unfounded, for the answers the Bible gives to these questions are far superior to the answers the non-Christian philosophers provide, and further the answers of Scripture provide a powerful framework for the interpretation of reality, that actually fits reality as we experience it. Non-Christian philosophical grids are cheap imitations for the truth. They might hint at it, or perhaps even illustrate it, but always fall short.

Philosophy, or the pursuit of knowledge and understanding, works together beautifully with Christian theology when, and only when, we begin with the revelation of God, for philosophy does indeed ask the right questions. One area of commonality that the Christian should have with Postmodern or relativistic philosophers is that of reducing the amount of truth that we can obtain on our own. Often Christians are belted with the charge that we think we know it all, or that we arrogantly hold to a myth, when nothing could be further from correct for a biblical Christian. It is the emphatic claim that we know nothing truly, and certainly not the most important things, apart from help, and the help comes in the form of revelation. We know nothing about answering these questions properly apart from what God has communicated to us about them (Heb. 1:1-3). That is why when we feel that we are right, it is not because we believe we are right on our own, but because God is right and we have heard from Him. “You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”

Nothing Against the United States

In an article detailing the amazing survival of an infant after the devasting blast at Hiroshima 60 years ago, the now-grown survior has what may seem to be an unusual stance:

"Shimizu, a visiting teacher in the Carrollton Public School District, holds nothing against the United States for the attack. To the contrary, he said it ended a war that could have cost millions of lives."

A lot of Americans have made this comment, but this is the first time I have read of a Japanese person agreeing, especially a person who was on the receiving end of the blast. He adds:

"'It is better that they dropped the bomb,' said Shimizu, 25, who lives less than two miles from where the bomb exploded. 'If American Army didn't drop the bomb, the war probably would have continued.' Instead of harboring anger and resentment, Shimizu said his people mark the occasion with calls for peace."

The anniversary of Hiroshim naturally raises the question of if and when a war is justified. Dr. Steve Cowan's article on this matter is succint and helpful. Question - Was the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?

Political Tensions on CNN

According to this article, political conservative journalist Robert Novak stormed off the set of a CNN broadcast, adding a little shady language as he left. Angered by former Clinton advisor, James Carville, in a debate, Novak could not contain his anger, though he has apologized to CNN.

Although tensions are high between conservatives and liberals on a political level in this country, nonetheless, believers in Jesus Christ can take comfort in these words spoken by King Nebuchadnezzer, upon his realization that God alone rules over the affairs of men.

"At the end of my days I, Nebuchadnezzer, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored Him who lives forever, for His dominion is an everlasting dominion, and His kingdom endures from generation to generation" (Daniel 4:34). (ESV)

A Christocentric Apologetic

The following is an example of showing the truthfulness of the Christian faith by beginning with the person of Jesus Christ.

1. There is a person who has claimed to be God, namely, Jesus of Nazareth. (John 8:58; 9:35-38; 10:33; 20:28)

2. It is wise to listen to and examine all people who claim either divine or prophetical status. All persons who claim or who have ever claimed divine or prophetical status should at least be heard and have their claims tested. The test should include logic, consistency, and substantiation of their teaching and claims. Furthermore, all gods, who have been revered or worshiped throughout history should have equal and fair treatment to this examination.

A. It is wise because the existence of life leads to the strong possibility that an eternal being of some sort created life. Other Theistic arguments such as the Cosmological, Teliological, Fine-tuning, Irreducible Complexity, and Moral Law arguments also show that the existence of a divine being has a high degree of plausibility. This leads to 3 plausible theistic options.

i. There is no god(s) or supernatural beings. Naturalism is correct after all.
ii. There is a god(s) or supernatural being who has not in any way revealed himself / itself.
iii. There is a god(s) or supernatural being who has revealed himself / itself to humanity.

(If i. is correct, than to believe ii. or iii. or anything else matters nothing ultimately. If ii. is correct than no matter what is believed we have no way of knowing whether it is correct or true; ii. is a guessing game. If iii. is correct than we should strive to find the revelation, test the veracity of it, believe it, and obey the being who revealed it.)

B. It is wise because closed-system (and closed-minded) models such as Naturalism, cannot persuade with a high degree of plausibility that their system is possible. For example, a closed-system model must account for such extraordinary claims as life coming from non-life, matter being eternal, or matter spontaneously existing. None of these seem plausible and they are certainly not satisfactory, thus we should at least listen and examine all people who may have other answers from a divine source. This is only fair and logical.

3. There are a large number of documented miracles performed by Jesus, including His own Resurrection, which are validated through various proofs. These miracles confirm that Jesus has divine status and has the right to speak as such. (John 2:11; 5:18; 36).

4. There are a large number of Old Testament prophecies that were directly fulfilled in the life of Jesus Christ. The sheer number and specificity of these makes it difficult to believe in a forgery and deception.

5. All other world religions or cult groups fall into the following categories: Jewish/Biblical Christianity distortion, Deism/Agnosticism/Prevailing Theology (None of which are grounded in authority), or Eastern Mysticism, which is by and large illogical. In other words, no other prophetical claim or claim to divinity has anywhere near the same grounding in reality, history, and logic as the person and claims of Jesus of Nazareth.

6. By claiming the status of Divinity, and not just prophet, Jesus is in a very small class of people. Nobody else has ever made similar claims and substantiated those claims the way that Jesus did.

7. If Jesus truly is God, then all that Jesus said is by necessity true. Thus, when Jesus authenticated the Old Testament (John 10:35), then the Bible took on the highest level of authority in terms of defining who God is and what He wants. By implication, the New Testament is on the same authoritative par as the Old Testament.

8. The Scriptures repeatedly affirm that God’s motive in His actions is ultimately His own glory. This universal axiom explains most, if not all, of the difficult questions that might arise about His actions.

A. The problem of Evil is explained.
B. The existence of Hell is explained.
C. Why a small remnant is chosen is explained.
D. Why suffering is necessary is explained.

All of this to say, when we begin with the person of Jesus Christ and His self-claim of deity, we must conclude in the end that His words are trustworthy and true.

Do Mormons Worship a Different Jesus?

A Review of Robert Millet’s A Different Jesus?
by Keith Gibson

Over the last several years Mormons have increasingly attempted to portray themselves as just another Christian denomination. BYU professors such as Stephen Robinson and Robert Millet have attempted to recast the Mormon Church in a more Evangelical light. The most recent example is a book by Dr. Millet entitled A Different Jesus? which was unfortunately published by the Christian publishing company, Eerdmans. In this book, Millet does a very nice job of presenting a softer, gentler version of classic Mormonism. He makes frequent references to his “Christian brothers” and “Christian friends of other denominations”. Dr. Millet demonstrates that he is very familiar with a number of Christian thinkers. Further, he tries to downplay and reinterpret early statements Joseph Smith said he heard directly from God such as, “all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt;” “that they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me”; “they teach for doctrines the commandments of men; having a form of godliness but they deny the power thereof”, stating they referred only to the anti-Mormons of Joseph’s day and not to Christians in general.(1)

Additionally, Dr. Millet seems very likeable and sincere throughout the book. He discusses how it pains him when he is accused of not being a Christian. Overall, the book is a good resource on current LDS theology and thought. However, the danger is that its attempt to mainline the Mormon Church could prove persuasive to an uninformed reader.

By far the most damaging sections of the book, however, do not come from Millet but from Fuller Seminary President Richard Mouw. This is the same Dr. Mouw who recently apologized to the LDS people on behalf of Evangelicals everywhere for what he perceives as the spreading of false reports by counter-cult ministries. Dr. Mouw contributed both a forward and an afterward for the book. In the afterward, Dr. Mouw comes to the following conclusion, “I think that an open-minded Christian reader of this book will sense that Bob Millet is in fact trusting in the Jesus of the Bible for his salvation.”(2) (emphasis added). This disastrous statement is tantamount to declaring Bob Millet and Mormons like him to be Christians.

At the risk of placing myself outside the camp of the “open-minded”, I would like to evaluate this conclusion. Mouw’s statement is patently shocking to most of us familiar with the classic LDS theology which Bob Millet affirms on every page of the book, despite his gentle style.
Let us examine the Jesus Dr. Millet affirms in his book. The Mormon Jesus:

• Is the literal first spirit offspring of the Father(3) who is also an exalted being and who was not always God(4)
• Is a separate being from the Father. Jesus and the Father are very close, but they, along with the Holy Spirit, are completely separate personages and not part of the Trinity.(5)
• Is the spirit brother of the rest of mankind who are also the spirit children of the Father(6)
• Attained divine status as he grew over time in his premortal existence until he became “like unto God”(7)
• In his incarnation differs from other men in that he is the literal offspring of a union between the Father and Mary(8)
• Is the spirit brother of Lucifer(9)
• Presented his plan for the salvation of humanity before the divine counsel (of the gods) and was chosen to be the redeemer(10)
• Was subject to sickness(11)
• Provides a salvation that is based on faith plus works and not faith alone(12)

Does this sound like the Jesus of the Bible? These differences are substantive. Dr. Mouw seems to minimize these differences. He states, “…reading this book has made it even clearer to me that many—not all but many—of the arguments that I as a Calvinist evangelical have with Mormons are not too far removed from the arguments that I have pursued with theologians who represent traditions that are clearly in the Christian mainstream.”(13)

One wonders how Dr. Mouw could possibly be serious in this comment. I understand the desire of one academic to be congenial to a fellow scholar, but this goes well beyond the bounds of being congenial. It is true that Joseph Smith relied heavily on the Arminian tradition for much of his theology, but there is no traditional Christian denomination that holds to any of the doctrines we have just sited.

This is more than perspective. These doctrinal differences go to who Jesus is in His essence. Let me illustrate the difference. I am approximately 5’ 9”. Now to someone who is 6’5” I might be considered short and to someone 5’1” I might be considered tall. This is a difference of perspective. Each person is viewing the same Keith Gibson from their own vantage point. But both would agree that I am a male. Maleness is not a perspective. It is a part of my essence. Anyone speaking of a Keith Gibson who was not male would be speaking of a different Keith Gibson.

In the same way, speaking of Jesus as having a beginning is an issue related to His essence. This is a different Jesus altogether than the eternal Jesus, the second person in the Godhead that the Bible presents. One wonders when the differences will become big enough for Dr. Mouw to consider them significant. I asked him this very question in an email correspondence but received no response.

Dr. Millet’s book can be very valuable for anyone wanting to understand current trends and thought within Mormondom. His style is easy to read and his arguments are well thought out. Since I do not know Dr. Millet personally, I will not attempt to make any judgments concerning his motives. However, it might be good to allow a Mormon General Authority to answer Dr. Millet’s question. In an interview with the LDS “Church Times,” current President and Prophet of the Church, Gordon B. Hinkley, stated that the LDS
do not believe in the traditional Christ. No I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. (Church News, June 20, 1998)

I appreciate President Hinckley’s candor and most certainly agree with his assessment. The Jesus of the Bible and of the historic Christian faith is a different Jesus from the one proclaimed by Mormons. It is for this reason that we strive to reach the Mormon people with the truth of the Biblical Jesus. The salvation of 12 million Mormons is at stake. The gospel demands that we are clear on this issue. In answer to the question, “Do Mormons worship a different Jesus?”, the Christian must resoundingly answer, “Yes!”

NOTES
1. Robert Millet, “A Different Jesus? The Christ of the Latter-Day Saints”, William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI 2005 page 54-55

2. Ibid page 183

3. Ibid page 20 and 73

4. Ibid page 144-145

5. Ibid page 67-68

6. Ibid page 19-20

7. Ibid page 20

8. Ibid page 74 It should be noted that though Dr. Millet states in a footnote that there is no authoritative statement regarding how this literal incarnation and conception took place, other Mormon leaders have clearly taught that it was sexual and it is difficult to interpret the statement that Jesus is the literal offspring of the Father in any other way. Further Dr. Millet himself states that Jesus is not the son of God in a mystical or metaphorical sense. What option is left?

9. Ibid page 21

10. Ibid page 21

11. Ibid page 67 This statement is serious because it would mean that Jesus had a fallen human nature.

12. Ibid page 100 In fact the entire chapter “Salvation in Christ” elaborates on this
Ibid page 181

ARC Blog

The ARC staff has been blogging individually for awhile under our own names, but now we are going to begin team blogging. We look forward to interacting with those interested in Christian apologetics and in looking at the world through a biblical lense.

We are still working out the details, but blogs should be regular in about a week or so, and we will begin promoting better.