Culture, Morally Neutral?

I found the following quote saved in an old document file on my computer. I'm not sure of the original source, but it's thought-provoking, to say the least:

You constantly read this: 'Culture is neutral- morally neutral. So if culture changes, we can adopt it. We can do what we please.' Well, wherever do you find in the Bible that culture is morally neutral? Nowhere it's in the Bible text- it isn't in the Bible at all. The Bible says the opposite; it says there is a great world system, 'the system of this world,' which is under the sway and the rule of Satan. Culture of this world is often demonic- it's written in the vaults of Hell, it's wrong, it's antagonistic to Christian thinking and the standards of the Word of God. But no, they say, 'culture is neutral.' So whatever cultural form comes about, even if it's invented in the entertainment business by people who did it while on drugs and who are emphasizing rebellion against God and just about everybody, and sexual liberty, that's a culture which is morally neutral. And we should do the same. This is what people want, this is what the young wants, this is what the worldly wants.

"Only One Gospel:" Three Quotes by Martin Luther

Luther on the singularity of the Gospel declared in Scripture:

“One should realize that there is only one gospel, but that it is described by many apostles.” (104)

“Just as there is no more than one Christ, so there is and may be no more than one gospel.” (105)

"The Old Testament declares the same Gospel of Jesus Christ:" (Jn. 5:39, 46; Acts 3:24; 17:11; I Pet. 1:10-12)

Martin Luther, “A Brief Introduction On What To Look For And Expect in the Gospels,” Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings, Timothy Lull, ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989)

The Mission of the Church?

In both 2005 and 2011, Christmas Day fell on Sundays. At those times, there were controversies because some churches decided to cancel their regular Sunday meetings. For example, Cally Parkinson, a spokeswoman for Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Illinois, said that church leaders decided organizing services on a Christmas Sunday would not be the most effective use of staff and volunteer resources.

Parkinson noted that when the church remained open for service on Sunday of 1994 (the nearest Sunday previous to 2005 that was also on Christmas Day), only a small number of people showed up to pray.

"If our target and our mission is to reach the unchurched, basically the people who don't go to church, how likely is it that they'll be going to church on Christmas morning?" she said. [From an Associated Press article: "Some Megachurches Closing On Christmas".]

The question I would like to raise here is this: is the mission of the Church properly defined as reaching the unchurched? Why or why not?

Comments are welcomed.

"You are in danger of going to Hell." Does that statement offend you?

Imagine that you are walking down the sidewalk, a man approaches you and says, "I'm an oncologist, and I suspect that you have a rare form of cancer, do you mind if I ask you a few questions?" After a few minutes of conversation, he says, with apparent concern, "It's just as I thought! You have ten obvious symptoms of the form of cancer that I mentioned; you need to get treatment immediately, or you will soon be dead!"

How would this conversation make you feel? Certainly, you would be upset, and perhaps even offended. You were not planning to be diagnosed, you had thought that you were in perfect health, and the doctor may have been somewhat insensitive and abrupt. Also, you would not necessarily take the random oncologist- a stranger- at his word. You may want to do some more research. But if it turns out that the doctor was correct, then wouldn't your attitude change? Failing to follow up on this diagnosis could be extremely dangerous. Even if it turns out that the oncologist was wrong, you would hopefully not remain offended and upset toward that particular doctor; certainly, you would not turn bitter toward all oncologists: the random oncologist that you met saw apparent symptoms, he was genuinely concerned, and he didn't make any money from the conversation.

I present the above scenario in order to illustrate how people sometimes react to evangelists. The evangelist speaks to a non-Christian, seeks to diagnose the non-Christian's spiritual condition, and then presents the non-Christian with the idea that repentance from sin and trust in Jesus Christ are necessary if one is to escape Hell and gain a right relationship with God. Hearing this, the non-Christian is sometimes upset and offended. The non-Christian was not planning to be spiritually diagnosed, he thinks he is already in perfect health, and the evangelist is often (at least perceived to be) insensitive and abrupt.

When the non-Christian is offended and upset, it is often hard for the evangelist to understand. Evangelists are used to thinking about spiritual things and having spiritual discussions. As someone who has engaged in evangelism, I can say that if a devout Muslim tells me that I am going to Hell if I do not reject the doctrine of the Trinity, I am neither offended nor upset. I think that the Muslim is wrong, and hope to talk with him about why I believe as I do, but I understand where the Muslim is coming from.

The point is, society works best when every group of believers (or professing non-believers) seeks to understand where other groups are coming from. This is NOT to say that the various groups should neglect speaking from their point of view; instead, let us each vigorously contend for our beliefs (or non-beliefs), but without personal offense or rancor.

The End of the Road

Do I personally believe in an afterlife? No, but to be honest, I do not find it a particularly important question one way or the other. I am not in the least bit interested in fighting those who believe or hope in it. My own interest is in how we live our lives here below. I am sure that we are called to do the will of God "on earth, as it is in heaven." Heaven, however, I leave up to God. Earth is where our responsibility lies, that is where the Kingdom of God is lost or found. Who Is Jesus? by John Dominic Crossan. Westminster John Knox Press: 1996. 131.

Before starting down a path, it is always wise to consider where that path might lead. Similarly, before adopting a certain belief, it is wise to find out the end of that belief. Historically, the biblical faith has affirmed that "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him for ever" (The Westminster Shorter Catechism). This is much different from the belief stated by Crossan, who (throughout his writings) seems much more focused on on people's relationships to one another than on God's glory. Crossan offers little hope of enjoying God for ever, as he admits he does not even believe in an afterlife.

How can Crossan claim to be a Christian and yet disbelieve in the afterlife, when it is so obvious that Jesus taught the message of everlasting life? For in the Gospel of John chapter 3 Jesus directly connects the message of the Kingdom of God (which Crossan wishes to confine to the time we have on earth) with everlasting life through faith in Him (see John 3:3, 16).

Crossan attempts to get around this clear teaching by denying that the Gospel of John is authentic as historic narrative. What is his basis for doing so? One reason is that the Gospel of John contains so much material that is not found in the synoptic Gospel accounts (Matthew, Mark and Luke). The other is that the Gospel account of John contains language that strongly identifies Jesus as God Himself, and Crossan's theory is that Jesus was not identified as God until long after His death.

But are these objections persuasive from a historical standpoint? Are there other explanations for the unique material and the high Christology in John that do not require this book to be a fraud? For the Gospel of John is certainly a fraud if it is not an eyewitness account of historical events, as the author places such emphasis on his veracity as a witness to the events he records, as demonstrated in John 21:24, which I have quoted before, and also in John 19:35, "He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth—that you also may believe" (ESV).

But if the author of the Gospel of John had the synoptics before him as he wrote or had a knowledge of these accounts, then it makes perfect sense that he would focus on reporting important information that was not previously recorded. This explanation would make much better sense than the idea that the writer of this Gospel was a liar who hypocritically portrays Jesus naming Himself as the Truth (see John 14:6).

And the idea that the identification of Jesus with God developed over decades is historically bogus as well. For Crossan admits that the Pauline epistles were written in the 50s-60s A.D. (page 126 of his book quoted above) and these letters contian a similarly high Christology (see Philippians 2:5-7,Colossians 1:15-22). In Titus 2:13 Paul even goes so far as to refer to Jesus as "our great God and Savior" (on why it is grammatically certain that these titles both refer specifically to Jesus in this passage, see this essay Granville Sharp's Rule).

And so any reasonable basis for Crossan's rejection of the Gospel of John as true historical narrative has been proven false. It is clear, therefore, that the quote given by Crossan is in direct conflict with this teaching of Jesus as recorded by John.

Please pause to pray for John Dominic Crossan, that he would submit to the teaching of Jesus and be given the gift of everlasting life, which he now denies.

For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? (Mark 8:36-37 NKJV)

[Originally posted on 8/14/05.]

Righteous Thoughts

My tongue will speak of Your righteousness and of Your praises all day long. (Psalm 35:28 NIV 1984)

Usually when I wake up, my mind is immediately filled with the tasks of the day. This morning as I woke, my mind was immediately transfixed on the words of Christ from Matthew 5:6, "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled:" the implications of this verse for my own life, my witness, and the life of the Church. I did not plan to meditate on this passage this morning: it was a special blessing from the Lord, which arrested my heart, for which I give him glory.

Scavenging Animals?

In discussing the crucifixion, I argued that the story of Jesus' burial by his friends was totally unhistorical. If he was buried at all, he was buried not by his friends but by his enemies. And not in a tomb hewed out of stone, but in a shallow grave that would have made his body easy prey for scavenging animals.

 [Who Is Jesus? by John Dominic Crossan. Westminster John Knox Press: 1996. 120.]

Introduction

On August 27, 2005, Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries debated John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar on the subject of "IS THE ORTHODOX, BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF JESUS OF NAZARETH AUTHENTIC AND HISTORICALLY ACCURATE?" This debate held particular interest for me personally as I have received a good deal of information of how to give a biblical answer to those who oppose the Gospel through Dr. White's apologetics ministry, he became an acquaintance of mine through the #prosapologian chat room, and I also once had the privilege of having him as a dinner guest in my home (though he may not remember me now).

On the other hand, as a minor in philosophy at Georgia State University, I often encountered the teaching of John Dominic Crossan and other members of the Jesus Seminar in classes that subtly called the basic tenets of biblical Christianity into question. (Issues in this regard have already been examined in my post Jesus' View of Scripture.) And if you are in a college program that includes any philosophy classes or you know someone who is, this debate should hold interest for you as well, for the teachings of the Jesus Seminar have become so prevalent in academic circles.

Over the next few weeks I hope to post as frequently as possible on different quotes taken from John Dominic Crossan and to give a biblical, God-honoring response to these quotes.

Eaten by Wild Dogs?

The quote given at the head of this post is one of the most infamous of Crossan's sayings. If you have heard the name of John Dominic Crossan before, you more than likely heard it in relation to this saying.

Crossan gives this quote based on the historical evidence of what usually happened to criminals who suffered crucifixion. But this is just the problem with his logic. To examine what normally took place does not disprove multiple accounts of what were obviously meant to explain an exception to the rule. The fact that men do not normally walk on the moon does not mean that "one small step" never historically occurred.

And this is the main failure of Crossan's words about scavenging animals: that they contradict the historical narrative of the Gospel accounts. Most Christians reading the above quote would get angry at the thought of our Lord's corpse being so dishonored, but really, if we think about it, there would be nothing wrong with Crossan's hypothesis if we did not have a direct witness to the contrary. For Jesus was treated with the utmost dishonor in His death on the Cross, and so, with no further word from the Gospel writers, we would expect that He would have been despised in His manner of burial as well. But God chose to demonstrate His approval of His Son's sacrifice beginning with the manner of Jesus' burial. And the following points must be made, which will be repeated in different ways throughout this discussion of Crossan's work:

1. The Gospel narratives are given an an eyewitness account of historical events.

Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative about the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as the original eyewitnesses and servants of the word handed them down to us, it also seemed good to me, having carefully investigated everything from the very first, to write to you in orderly sequence, most honorable Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things about which you have been instructed. (Luke 1:1-4 HCSB)

This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which, if they were written one by one, I suppose not even the world itself could contain the books that would be written. (John 21:24-25 HCSB)

2. The historicity of the events provided in the Gospel accounts are given by God to provide basis for our trust in Christ as the fulfillment of prophecy.

Yet He was with a rich man in His death. (Isaiah 53:9b NASB)

Conclusion

As we continue to look at these quotes by Crossan, I hope that these posts will provoke you to meditate on the nature and purpose of Scripture, and I hope that we will all worship God better as a result of this focus.

[The material above is adapted from a post that originally appeared on 8/13/05.]

That Postmodern Inclusivism is Antithetical to Biblical Christianity

My Position Reiterated

Postmodern philosophy is an enemy to the gospel as surely as was the philosophy of modernism. As modernism assaulted the Word of God through rationalistic "higher criticism" that undermined the inerrancy of Scripture and proceeded to deny the posibility of God through embracing materialism, which is contrary to Jesus' teaching that "God is Spirit" (cf. John 4:24). Postmodernism assaults the Word of God by an experientialism that undermines the sufficiency of Scripture and proceeds to deny Jesus through embracing relativism, which is contrary to Jesus' teaching that "I am the Truth" (cf. John 14:6).

Postmodern Inclusivism Explained

A prime example of the assault waged by postmodernism against the gospel of our Lord can be seen in the chapter "Between Exclusivity and Plurality: Toward a Postmodern Christian Philosophy of Other Religions" by Andrew Dell'Olio found in the book Postmodern Philosophy and Christian Thought, edited by Merold Westphal. In this chapter, Dell'Olio states that he wishes to "bracket" the issue of salvation and speak instead of truth-- he decries what he refers to as the error of "soteriocentrism"-- indeed, he directly identifies the idea of soul-winning to the crusades or jihad: acts of violence by religious fanatics.

He states, "I will argue that the postmodern Christian philosopher ought to reject the position of religious exclusivism." [In this case, "religious exclusivism" refers to the belief that Christianity is true and all other religions are false.]

Calling for "a posture of openness to the other religion," the author promotes "a postmodern version of Christian inclusivism [which] maintains that divine truth is definitely in Jesus Christ, but that Christianity- the religion- does not enjoy full possession of this truth. Postmodern Christian inclusivism thereby refrains from granting the teachings and practices of the Christian religion any absolute status vis-a-vis other religions." The author asserts that as all people are made by God for God, any person of another religion may have had divine truth revealed to them, and so we should listen to them. As could already be expected from the previous statements, it is clearly stated in this chapter that people will not go to hell for choosing some religion other than Christianity.

The Biblical Response Examined

First, I would like to point out that the attempt to discuss truth in this context while ignoring the question of salvation is an impossible task. For all religions have an ultimate goal at their core, such as gaining the favor of a god, attaining spiritual enlightenment, or living in harmony with the universe. When a Christian speaking from the biblical perspective makes the claim that the teaching of God's Word is true and all other religious perspectives are false, the point is not that the various world religions are incorrect on all points of fact, but rather that they fail to achieve the end to which they claim to aspire, whereas only biblical Christianity has the hope of achieving its stated goal- that of eternal reconciliation with God.

The basic, insurmountable problem of seeking to unite a philosophy that promotes inclusivism with Christianity is that the Christian Scriptures-- the authority on which the Christian religion rests-- are outspokenly exclusive in the sense mentioned above.

To list all the verses that prove this point would basically reconstruct the entire Bible right here on this blog, so I will give a limited sampling from some of the major groupings and teachers recorded in Scripture:

The Law, the Psalms and the Prophets

The Law of Moses commands worship to the LORD exclusively (Exodus 22:20 NKJV): "He who sacrifices to any god, except to the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed."

The Psalms teach us to that there is no god but the LORD alone, and so those who worship other gods are idolaters (Psalm 96:5 NKJV): "For all the gods of the peoples are idols, But the Lord made the heavens."

The prophet Isaiah records the words of the LORD mocking other gods and naming worshippers of other gods as an abomination (Isaiah 41:21-24 NKJV):

"Present your case," says the Lord. "Bring forth your strong reasons," says the King of Jacob. "Let them bring forth and show us what will happen; Let them show the former things, what they were, That we may consider them, And know the latter end of them; Or declare to us things to come. Show the things that are to come hereafter, That we may know that you are gods; Yes, do good or do evil, That we may be dismayed and see it together. Indeed you are nothing, And your work is nothing; He who chooses you is an abomination."

The New Testament Witness

The Apostle Paul preached an exclusive gospel (Galatians 1:6-9 ESV):

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel: not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed."

The Apostle Peter taught an exclusive gospel (Acts 4:11-12 ESV):

"This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

Jesus taught an exclusive gospel (John 14:6 ESV):

"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'"

Conclusion

It has been my desire in this post to obey the command of God:

But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil. (I Thessalonians 5:21-22 NASB)

Postmodern inclusivism has been demonstrated to be a form of evil as it directly contradicts the Word of God.

In seeking to "bracket" the issue of salvation, this philosophy has utterly forsaken the only hope of salvation, found in God's Word alone:

Where is the philosopher? Where is the scholar? Where is the debater of this age? Hasn't God made the world's wisdom foolish? For since, in God's wisdom, the world did not know God through wisdom, God was pleased to save those who believe through the foolishness of the message preached. (I Corinthians 1:20-21 HCSB)

[For further reading on related subjects, please see the following links: “The Law of Contradiction” by Phil Johnson, “A Word About Labels” by Phil Johnson, “What Should We Think of the Emerging Church?” Part One and Part Two by Al Mohler.]

Jesus' View of Scripture

The Bible: God's Word or Man's Word?

This is a question that every person must deal with: Is the Bible the Word of God or is it a book of human origin?

I was brought to this question forcibly as my faith was vigorously attacked when I entered college at Georgia State University. In class after class the Bible was presented as presenting just one human idea about God among many other (at least) equally valid ideas that people have about God.

This is now the question that I challenge YOU to deal with: is the Bible just one point of view that people have developed about what God is like, or is it the very Word of God Himself, to which we must all submit in order to live out the purpose for which we were created and to enjoy everlasting life?

In this context, there are only three possible answers to this question:
1. The Bible is the Word of God.
2. The Bible is the words of mere men only.
3. The Bible is a mixture.

Throughout Church history, until about the 18th century with the rise of so-called "higher criticism," all who wished to share in the name of Christ by calling themselves "Christians" held that the Bible is the Word of God. Before the rise of "liberal" theology, even groups with radically divergent views-- even groups who were eventually condemned as heretics-- held that the Bible is the Word of God if they wished to be called Christians (though upon closer scrutiny it is obvious that all truly heretical groups deny the plain teaching of the Bible).

In our present society, the list of people who claim that the Bible is 'the words of mere men only' would include adherents to other religions who claim belief in a god other than the God presented in the Bible and atheists who claim that there is no God.

Those that would hold to the last position listed above-- that the Bible is a "mixture"-- would include deists who claim that there is a God, but that the transcendence of the supernatural God makes it impossible for people to have direct communication with God, and also "liberal" theologians who would not necessarily claim that we are unable to have direct communication with God, but just that God has not chosen to communicate with people directly through the Bible in the way that the Church has historically affirmed. In the view of both the deists and the liberals the Bible is a mixture of writings that correspond in varying degrees with principles that God wishes to communicate. For both of these groups scholarship must sort out the truth in the Bible from the error (you can see why this view may be popular in a university setting).

The Question Raised

There may be someone reading this post who could identify with the following statements:

All of your life you have been handed a set of beliefs by your church, your family, and your friends, and so eventually you came to accept these beliefs on a certain level. But when you began to really think about why you believed what you believed, you could give no satisfactory answer. And so now you have described yourself as searching for what you really can believe in.

My reply to someone in this situation is that this is an excellent place to be at: the place where you can struggle with your personal convictions, develop them, and then begin to live life wholeheartedly following what you know to be true. So many people out there are content to live with the beliefs that they have been given throughout their childhood and so their beliefs remain childish: unexamined by the light of sound reason (and Scripture!). These people are living half-heartedly because they are really trying to live out someone else’s beliefs rather than their own. It is only those who have come to know why what they believe is worth believing (in contrast to other systems of belief) who are empowered to live consistently: in a way that truly glorifies God and benefits others as well as themselves.

I remember when I was an underclassman in college and I came to a crisis of belief in some ways similar to the one described above. I was a philosophy minor and two of the classes I elected to take were ‘Church and State’ and ‘Augustine and Aquinas,’ both of which were taught by Dr. Timothy Renick. Dr. Renick mentioned the canonization of Scripture a few times in these classes, and every time he did, it was with a certain level of contempt. He quoted a bishop named Jerome, who lived, I believe, in the late 300s-early 400s, as saying that the reason we have four Gospels is because there are four cardinal directions and four winds. In short, Dr. Renick was saying that the books chosen to be in the Bible were picked arbitrarily at best and based on political motivations at worst. In relation to the political motivations of the church beginning in the 300s-400s, Dr. Renick often spoke of the influence that Emperor Constantine had on the Counsel of Nicea.

So, in this environment, my beliefs were questioned and I had to find out for myself why I believed what I believed. I’ll not go into the whole process and all the conclusions I came to at this time, but I’ll summarize by saying that through diligent searching of Scripture, through earnest prayer, and through careful study of early Church history (from both Christian and secular sources) I have become convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the collection of books we call the Bible is, in fact, God’s Word. I have also come to conclude that much of what the Bible actually has to say has been obscured by political motivations, that this kind of politically-driven error was dealt with, to a large extent, during the Reformation of the 1500s, but that there are still tendencies within the church to be overly political (rather than Gospel-oriented) as sometimes seen in the religious-rightwing movement.

And I would like to add that struggling with beliefs-- or even with God Himself-- is not condemned, but rather commended by the Bible. This is demonstrated in the life of Jacob, who wrestled with the angel all night to gain God’s blessing (see Genesis 32:22-30). This is seen often in the life of Moses, who continuously brought his fears and doubts before God, refusing to leave his time of prayer until he was sure of an answer (see Exodus 3:1-4:17; 33:12-23). Job, too, struggled with God in prayer, asking for understanding concerning his afflictions and finding satisfaction-- though not the answers to all his questions-- in the word of God (see Job 30:20-31; 38-42). The struggle with God is writ large in the Psalms, with David offering up prayers such as:

How long, O LORD ? Will you forget me forever?
How long will you hide your face from me?
How long must I wrestle with my thoughts and every day have sorrow in my heart?
How long will my enemy triumph over me?

Look on me and answer, O LORD my God.
Give light to my eyes, or I will sleep in death;
My enemy will say, "I have overcome him,"
And my foes will rejoice when I fall.

But I trust in Your unfailing love;
My heart rejoices in Your salvation.
I will sing to the LORD,
For He has been good to me.
(Psalm 13 NIV 1984)


Ultimately, this struggle with God-- with knowing and doing His will-- is seen in the life of Jesus, who, always perfectly knowing the will of the Father, still had to struggle with the implications of His will as any other man would. This is seen in His prayer on the Mount of Olives, about which the Bible records:
And being in anguish, [Jesus] prayed more earnestly, and His sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground. (Luke 22:44 NIV)

Jesus' View of Scripture

In my own struggle over whether the Bible should unequivocally be thought of as the very Word of God, one particular line of evidence struck a particular chord in my heart and mind. This positive reason for trusting the Bible as God's Word is an examination of Jesus' view of Scripture and was explained by by James Montgomery Boice in his book Standing on the Rock as follows:

1. If Jesus is who He claimed to be, and if Jesus truly gave the teachings attributed to Him in the Gospel accounts, then we can believe the Bible to be the Word of God because Jesus believed it to be the Word of God.

2. Jesus taught that Scripture is infallible, saying, "Until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18 NIV 1984), and, "the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35 NASB).

3. Jesus taught that each letter of Scripture was inspired by God as seen in Matthew 5:18, quoted above. This is not an isolated example and it is not hyperbole, as demonstrated by Matthew 22:23-32, in which Jesus points to the particular form of the verb "to be" used in a certain verse to prove the doctrine of resurrection.

4. Jesus saw His life as the fulfillment of Scripture, beginning His ministry by quoting Scripture (Isaiah 61:1-2; Luke 4:18-19), appealing to Scripture to silence His critics (John 5), and quoting Scripture while dying on the Cross (Psalm 22:1; Matthew 27:46). After He rose from the grave, Jesus explained His work to His disciples using Scripture (Luke 24:25-27). And Jesus prophesied the writing of the New Testament (John 14:26; John 16:12-14).

This is NOT circular reasoning

At this point a skeptic may object that by using Bible passages to demonstrate that the Bible is God's Word, we are engaging in circular reasoning. But under closer inspection, you will see that this is not the case. For the first stated assumption here is not "the Bible is God's Word" but rather that "Jesus is presented in the Gospel accounts in an accurate, historical way". By their own account, these narratives are meant to tell of events that really happened in particular times and particular places (see Luke 1-3; John 20-21). The assumption here is simply that the Christian men who wrote these books are not bald-faced liars.

So, how do these reliable, historical books present Jesus?
1. They present Him as God Incarnate (John 1:1, 14).
2. And God-- in order to be God-- must speak the Truth (Hebrews 6:18).

So, what does Jesus teach about the Bible?
As examined above, Jesus teaches that the Bible is infallible, perfect in every letter, and that it is fulfilled in Him.

Concluding Questions

In conclusion, I would like to challenge you with these questions:

1. How carefully have you examined your beliefs? Have you thoroughly contemplated life, death, the afterlife, and the authority on which you base your decisions? Have you come to the point of personal, whole-hearted convictions on these issues or are you lazily depending on the ideas of others without checking the facts?

2. What is your view of the Scriptures? Do your views line up with those of Jesus? If not, do you realize that you are rebelling against your only hope for peace with God and everlasting life? I urge you now to call out to God now for His mercy:

Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Grieve, mourn and wail. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up. (James 4:7-10 NIV 1984)

[Adapted from a post originally published on 7/15/05.]

universal atheism

Psalm 14:1, which begins with, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'," is often a text cited by Christians when speaking against atheism. But, while this verse certainly has a valid application regarding atheists, I wonder if we do not regularly overlook the wider point of Psalm 14.

Christian brothers and sisters, doesn't it gall you when someone says he or she is an atheist: when someone enjoys the beauty of nature, yet refuses to acknowledge the Creator; when someone enjoys telling people what they 'should' do (using the moral imperative), yet refuses to bow before the Moral Lawgiver; when someone enjoys the comfort of loving relationships, yet refuses to pursue the One who is Love? Isn't it obvious that the atheist is a fool?

BUT, lest the above reflection provide a pretext for pride, consider: in your natural state (Eph 2:3) YOU are a fool as well. Apart from the grace of God, we ALL are fools.

Psalm 14 begins with the phrase, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'." Note that it does NOT say, 'The fool says in his mind...' It does not seem that this Psalm is written primarily as a polemic against a philosophical movement. A person may say "There is no God" in his or her heart even if he or she would never dream of saying this statement aloud. A person may say "There is no God" in his or her heart even if he or she never thinks these exact words. This is because the heart of sinful people is bent against God: sinners desire fleeting pleasures and self-recognition, and do not submit to God and seek God's glory.

AGAIN: Psalm 14 is NOT just directed against people who would call themselves atheists. This is evident even from the end of Psalm 14:1, "There is no one who does good." This idea is further developed in verses 2-3:

² The Lord looks down from heaven
    on the sons of men
to see if there are any who understand,
    any who seek God.
³ All have turned aside,
    they have together become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
    not even one. (NIV 1984)

(These exact words are picked up by the Apostle Paul in Romans 3:10-11 as he argues that all people are under God's judgment due to their sin.)

In our natural state (Eph 2:3): who understands spiritual matters? The answer comes: "No one." Who seeks God? "No one." Who does good? "No one... not even one." On the other hand, "All have turned aside; they have together become corrupt."

And even believers-- those who have been rescued from this natural state by the Holy Spirit-- when we sin, we act as if there is no God: we act like fools.

Reflecting on Psalm 14 should make us cry out for a Savior. Indeed, note that this Psalm ends with a cry for salvation:

Oh, that salvation for Israel would come out of Zion!
    When the Lord restores the fortunes of his people,
    let Jacob rejoice and Israel be glad!

This is the good news of the Christian faith: as Jesus suffered and died on the Cross, the One who is Wisdom took on the penalty for our willful ignorance; the Savior took on the penalty for our defiant lostness; the One who is Good took on the penalty for our badness; the One who always did the will of His Father took on the penalty for our straying; the One who is perfectly pure took on the penalty for our vile corruption of morals and conscience. Jesus rose from the dead-- showing that He is victorious over sin, death, and Hell-- and now He lives, offering eternal life to all who turn from their sins and believe in Him.

Trust in Him today.