Faith Beyond Belief

The downbound train ...

2011-04-08T23:52:00.000-06:00

Before getting into the meat of this post, check out this video. Okay, maybe this is just an excuse to post one of my favourite Chuck Berry tunes, but it does relate to my topic today, honest :)

Since I was drawing a blank about what to blog about, I had asked over at our Facebook page for suggestions. One idea that came up, in part due to the brewing controversy surrounding Rob Bell's new book Love Wins, was to write about hell.

Hell isn't one of those topics people really enjoy studying or spending their time thinking about. RC Sproul wrote: "There is no biblical concept more grim or terror-invoking than the idea of hell. It is so unpopular with us that few would give credence to it at all except that it comes from the teaching of Christ himself."

But that last sentence is the key to why we feel this doctrine must not only be understood, but defended. Most of the teaching we have about hell came directly from Jesus during his earthly ministry; as Mark Driscoll points out: "13 percent of his sayings are about hell and judgment; more than half of his parables relate to the eternal judgment of sinners."

Yet, even though this is something Jesus himself stressed, it is something many of us either shy away from, ignore or outright deny. Again, Sproul says: "It is this doctrine, perhaps more than any other, that strains even the Christian's loyalty to the teaching of Christ. Modern Christians have pushed the limits of minimizing hell in an effort to sidestep or soften Jesus' own teaching."

But those who outright object to hell and promote unbiblical alternatives don't have a corner on the market of bad teaching either. In fact, most of us have likely been influenced more by misconceptions in popular culture than by those teaching outright errors in the non-secular realm.

This brings us back to the Chuck Berry song above (I really did have a point in including it!). In the song, the idea of hell is treated as real, but a very common misconception is displayed.

As the train barrels on to its final destination, the man hears the devil say: "Ha ha ... we are nearing home." This illustrates a common misunderstanding about the nature of hell and Satan's role - that he is the guy in charge.

Unfortunately, in the vacuum of real teaching on this subject, many have adopted this understanding. In reality, Satan's "home" is not hell. Hell is not a kingdom he does or will one day reign over. Hell is as much a place of judgement and punishment for Satan and his demons as it is for fallen man; they will be fellow prisoners and God will rule over hell, not the devil (Matt 25:41, Rev 20:10).

So what is hell exactly? Wayne Grudem summarizes it simply this way: "Hell is a place of eternal conscious punishment for the wicked." It is a suffering under God's wrath that will last forever and there will be no reprieve for those who end up there.

What will it be like? Well, many pictures are used to describe hell including fire, darkness, restlessness and the weeping & gnashing of teeth. While these are all symbols, no solace can be found in this fact. Symbols are used to point to something larger than themselves, something bigger which cannot be explained without the aid of such metaphoric language. As Sproul points out: "It is probable that a sinner in hell would prefer a literal lake of fire as his eternal abode to the reality of hell represented in the lake of fire images."

I feel like I've barely scratched the surface but the short of it is hell is real. People you and I know will go there. It will be worse than anything you can imagine and it will last forever. This should break your heart; it should be your motivation.

Ultimately this is why we do what we do.

The importance of truth

2011-01-17T23:32:00.000-07:00

Unlike Adam Savage's quotable saying, we can't simply reject reality and substitute our own. Truth is what is real regardless of whether we like it, agree with it, or even understand it; it simply is.

If I don't believe gravity is true and I jump out of an airplane at a height of 4,000 metres without a parachute I will quickly find out my belief is irrelevant.

Truth is important; understanding what is true guides our actions because to do otherwise would be asking for trouble. Like the parachute situation, knowing the truth helps us determine appropriate actions.

Now, most people don't have any problem with the idea that truth is important with regards to physical and material things. It's when we transition to the spiritual or immaterial things that people have a sudden change of heart. For many a mental-shift occurs and truth is no longer something which is important and, if it exists, it has no bearing on the decisions one must make in life.

If they are walking on a railroad track and they are warned that a train is barrelling down on their position, they will take that warning to heart and move to safety. But if they are told that a man who claimed to be God (and backed up his words) said most of us are on a path leading to destruction (Mat 7:13), the same person will often ignore or laugh off such a warning.

But is it this a correct way of thinking? We'd argue it's not; truth exists whether we are talking about the material or immaterial and in both cases it has a very real bearing on the way we live.

Do you want to explore the nature and implications of truth?

Join us at Faith Beyond Belief for our 2-day seminar Building a Faith Beyond Belief: Does Truth Matter? January 22 and 29 from 10 am to 2 pm.

This seminar will include teaching, role-playing and discussion time. This is a free seminar and it is open to all who want to come; we hope to see you there.

Discussing extraordinary claims

2010-12-15T00:25:00.000-07:00

It looks like we will be seeing some new bus ads in the coming year sporting the phrase popularized by Carl Sagan: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Overall, I like the direction these new ads are going in. While I think there are some issues with the argument it is presenting, I think it is a much better campaign than the last one¹.

Regarding these proposed ads, I think they will provide us with an excellent opportunity to open up the discussion about the evidence for God and, most importantly, the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.

From my initial reading, it looks like there are 2 main claims (or at least inferences) that this campaign will make:

To support a historical claim which involves the supernatural (like Jesus' resurrection) you require a higher standard of evidence than a "regular" historical event (like the assassination of Julius Caesar).
There is as much (or, rather, as little) evidence for the claims of Christianity as there are for Bigfoot.

Based on this, I see good discussions to be had and sound arguments to put forth.

First, we can discuss what evidence would be necessary for someone to accept that the resurrection did occur (and I do favour focusing on the resurrection). This is an important discussion to have because for many it will reveal that no evidence would be sufficient for them to accept this claim. In the end, it can help highlight when the issue really has nothing to do with evidence, but rather it's something either more personal or foundational.

Secondly, it provides us the opportunity to discuss the evidence that does exist; that there is strong and compelling evidence which leads us to believe that the resurrection of Jesus was a real, historic event. We can show people why many intelligent, rational men and women have and do believe this extraordinary claim is true based on the evidence we have and why they make claims like this:

According to the laws of legal evidence used in courts of law, there is more evidence for the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ than for just about any other event in history. - Simon Greenleaf

I look forward to seeing what happens when this campaign comes to our city.

1. As a side note, I found the slogan There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life. was a bit silly since Jesus' message to us was that we need not worry (Mat 6:34) and most of us are living pretty joyful lives (Gal 5:22-23) ... not perfect, or painless (John 16:33), but joyful none the less.

God of second chances?

2010-11-29T00:04:00.001-07:00

The phrase "God of second chances" is one that I've been thinking a bit about lately. Is this really an accurate way to describe our God?

After all, accurately explaining God to others is very important. This is our job, bringing the Gospel to others; introducing people to God and what he has done for us. Even if one ultimately rejects God, we've done our job if they have an accurate understanding of God and his works. It's when people reject a misrepresentation or caricature of God that we really fail.

This is what I wonder about with the term God of second chances; can it paint an incorrect picture of God?

A second chance is something you get when you fail at something but are then given the opportunity to succeed by trying again.

But is this really what God gives us?

Are we like the pardoned prisoner given another chance to be a good citizen and follow the laws from here on out?

In one way this is accurate, we are forgiven of all we've done like the pardoned man. But I think this is where the idea of a second chance breaks down.

We aren't simply forgiven of past sins; we are forgiven of all sins past, present and future. Regarding our standing with God, we are supernaturally given the righteousness of Jesus so that when God the Father views us, he sees Jesus' sinless life, not our sin-stained deeds. This is the great exchange that occurred at the cross.

If all God gave us was a second chance, we'd still be in a hopeless state. We'd as certainly fail the second time as the first; none of us can live lives which are completely righteous and honouring to God. We cannot live sinlessly, even if given the chance to start again.

For that, I am glad we don't simply get a second chance; we are given so much more.

This doesn't mean that this phrase is necessarily wrong, but maybe it's one we need to be careful with; ensuring we aren't leaving people with the impression that God is just giving them another shot at earning their way to heaven.

Survey results from Dr. Evans' UofC talk

2010-10-12T23:39:00.000-06:00

We've compiled the results of the surveys we handed out at Dr. Evans' talk at the UofC; the topic of this talk was "Is the Bible Reliable History?"

Some highlights include:

10.3% of respondents left with an increased confidence that the Bible is reliable history; no one reported a decrease in confidence
Respondents rated Dr. Evans' speaking ability an average 8.8 out of 10
93.1% of respondents said they would recommend this series of talks

These results are based on a total of 58 completed surveys. You can view the full summary of the results in PDF format here.

Our 2010 event wraps up ...

2010-09-27T23:09:00.000-06:00

Our main 2010 event featuring Dr. Craig A. Evans wrapped this past Sunday.

Looking back, I think all of our talks went well and were well received by all who attended.

Without question, the quality of the talks Dr. Evans gave were of the highest calibre; we were truly blessed to have a speaker with his knowledge and expertise. I learned a lot this weekend and am certain I was not alone.

We were also extremely honoured that so many of you chose to support our work; this is very encouraging and is hopefully a good indicator that we are not alone in seeing that what we are trying to do is needed in our city.

That said, we recognize that as a group we still have much to learn in the areas of planning, promoting and executing events. If you attend one, or all, of our talks and have any feedback please let us know, either here, on our facebook page, or using one of our other contact methods.

As a final note, we do plan on making the audio for the talks available soon; we will also be compiling the results of our survey from the UofC talk and posting them here. Stay tuned!

Our 2010 event ... almost there!

2010-09-23T00:03:00.000-06:00

Well, things have been a bit quiet here at our blog, but we've been working hard to plan and promote our upcoming series of talks featuring Dr. Craig A. Evans which are now only a couple days away.

All the details, locations, etc. for these talks are available on the schedule at our main website, but here is a quick run down of what we have planned.

Starting Friday, we have:

Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospel, which is a breakfast starting at 9 am at Full Gospel Tabernacle for local pastors and other ministry leaders.
The New Testament: Reliable, Relevant and Redemptive, is a talk for Christian post-secondary students & faculty at 1 pm at Rocky Mountain College.
Finally, in the evening, Is the Bible Reliable History?: A Discussion, is an interactive forum being held at the UofC starting at 5:45 pm.

Then on Saturday:

At 9 am our main seminar, The Origins of Christianity & the Importance of the Dead Sea Scrolls, starts at Full Gospel Tabernacle. This seminar is $20 at the door (all other talks are free of charge).
Later that evening, at 7 pm, our youth event, Why We Trust the Bible, will also be held at FGT.

Lastly, on Sunday, at Full Gospel Tabernacle's 10 am morning service we will be holding our last official talk, The Crux of Christianity: Evidence for the Resurrection.

We look forward to seeing you this weekend.

Legend?

2010-08-31T22:55:00.000-06:00

One of the classic arguments in Christain apologetics is C.S. Lewis' trilemma. As he summarized the argument:

A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You can either shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity)

But are there really only three options: liar, lord and lunatic? Many now recognize that a fourth choice needs to be contended with: legend.

We need to include this option in our thinking because this is increasingly the position which is held by those around us. The reason for this is that each of the 3 choices from Lewis' trilemma share one underlying presupposition; that the Gospel accounts in the Bible are accurate and true.

However, this presupposition is no longer something that is a part of most people's worldview. Many believe the Bible is not trustworthy and that it does not contain a true history of Jesus life, teaching, actions and words. Therefore they hold that Jesus wasn't deity, he was simply deified by later followers.

They may think he was misunderstood or misquoted; that maybe he was a Cynic or that he secretly married and lived long after his supposed resurrection and ascension.

In any case, whether or not these alternate "legend" theories have merit really come down one main question: can we trust that the Bible contains a true history; do the Gospels accurately portray Jesus?

Due to this, we can't rest on the argument that liar, lord or lunatic are the only viable options enless we first establish the reliability and accuracy of the Gospel accounts and of the Bible as a whole.

Why Christianity?

2010-08-19T23:10:00.000-06:00

Assuming one comes to hold that there is indeed a god or some form of higher power, why should they consider the claims of Christianity?

Sure it may have lots of followers, but what sets it apart from Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam or any of the other world religions? Why not start their spiritual exploration at any one of these other systems?

There is one very practical reason to start with Christianity:

It is testable.

There is one central historical event which either proves or disproves Christianity: the resurrection of Jesus.

If he did rise from the dead, that validates his teaching that he is God and that he is the key to eternal salvation and reconciliation with God. It means this is the truth.

If he didn't, then Christianity is empty and worthless.

This is an objective truth claim which is subject to evidential examination.

The central set of evidence for the historical reality of the resurrection exists in the Bible; it contains several books which claim to present credible eyewitness testimony to this event.

But, are these books true?

How do they stand up to the tests used to determine if historical writings contain actual events as opposed to fanciful tales?

And what about conflicting accounts, like the other gospels people talk about?

These are all questions we hope to help answer with our upcoming series of talks in Calgary featuring Dr. Craig Evans. Our speaker is a highly respected and qualified academic in this field.

We are just over one month away from the talks; block off the dates in your calendar now!

Fabricating Jesus: Can We Trust the Bible?

2010-07-31T12:37:00.003-06:00

This is the title for our upcoming series of talks in September 2010.

As we announced earlier this year, Dr. Craig A. Evans is our speaker and our theme this year is Fabricating Jesus: Can We Trust the Bible?, following after one of Dr. Evans' popular books.

The purpose of this series of talks is to equip us with the knowledge of the history of the Bible, to demonstrate its reliability and to help instill confidence in the soundness of believing in it.

Please visit the event page on our main website for more details, including the schedule of events.

If you haven't had the opportunity to hear Dr. Evans before, here is an interview with him as he discusses his book Fabricating Jesus.

The Earliest Christian Creed

2010-07-24T01:02:00.001-06:00

In this post, I decided to take a look at the earliest known Christian creed.

What is meant by creed? Simply put it is a statement of belief; a codification of what a group of people hold to be true.

Why is it important? Because the earliest creed will tell us what the early Christians really believed to be true.

The earlier we can date such a creed, the more confident we can be that we have a accurate picture of what Jesus' followers really believed following his death.

So what is the earliest Christian creed? It is:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. (1 Corinthians 15:3-7 ESV)

Paul wrote these words approximately 20 years after Jesus' death and resurrection. The date of this writing itself is significant; it effectively eliminates the possibility of legendary developments and, in addition, lets us know there would have been living eyewitnesses available at the time to confirm (or deny!) his published statements.

However, as Paul states in verse 3, this is something that he "received" ... this wasn't his original work. The wording of this creed indicates a much earlier date; Oxford scholar Dr. Terry Miethe explains:

Most New Testament scholars point out that one of the ways we know [1 Corinthians 15:3-7] is a creedal statement is that it appears to have been in a more primitive Aramaic, and it's also in hymnic form. This means it was stylized Greek, non-Pauline words, and so on, which indicates that it predated Paul and was widely used, probably even used and recited in worship experiences as a form of worship or a song or a hymn or a creedal statement, and was therefore universally acknowledged. (as quoted in Resurrection by Hank Hanegraaff, p39)

So when did this early creed form? Scholars have determined this creed was formed within 2 to 3 years of Jesus' crucification.

This creed then gives us the clearest picture of what those who lived with Jesus believed following his crucification. They believed Jesus:

Died for our sins
Was buried
Was resurrected on the third day, as the Old Testament prophecies stated he would
Appeared to Peter and the disciples and 500 others (of whom many still lived)
Appeared to James ... this is significant because before Jesus' crucification his brother did not believe him, but after his resurrection this sceptic became a leader of the early church

This is the truth that the followers of Jesus proclaimed in the years immediately following his death, and it is the truth we proclaim today.

Were you there?

2010-07-14T01:13:00.000-06:00

Shai Linne has a song called Were You There? which deals with events leading up to Jesus' death.

Speaking of the crowd who is seeking Jesus' blood, he says:

The way they treat the Lord of glory is debased and it’s foul
But you miss the point if you don’t see your face in the crowd

This leads into the most thought provoking part of the song, where he shows how the behaviour of the various individuals involved in the events leading up to Jesus' execution are really behaviours we all have a tendency, to one degree or another, to engage in.

The following lists these individuals and the type of behaviour they typified:

The disciples on the night of his arrest: We are inattentive and don't pray when we need to.
Judas: We betray Jesus in our quest for money and possessions.
The chief priests: We want Jesus to surrender to us. We don't want him in our life when he'll get in the way of our plans.
Peter: We have a false bravado about how we'll stand up for Jesus, but really we deny Jesus when faced with real, or often even perceived, negative consequences.
Harod: Jesus intrigues us, but ultimately we bore if he doesn't entertain us.
Pilate: We see Jesus and find no problem with him, but go along with the crowd when they choose wickedness instead.

He ends the last verse with:

The way we treat the Lord of glory is debased and it’s foul
Ashamed, I bow because I see my face in the crowd

This idea of identifying ourselves with those who crucified Jesus is humbling and even disheartening, and yet it is an important concept. Like the John Stott quote near the end of the song says:

Before we can begin to see the cross as something done for us (leading us to faith and worship), we have to see it was something done by us (leading us to repentance).

Understanding the gravity of our sin and the real consequence of our actions brings us to the place where we can truly come to Jesus for forgiveness and experience the richness of the grace he offers.

Christianity and slavery

2010-07-05T00:46:00.000-06:00

Does Christianity promote, or even allow, slavery?

This is something critics of Christianity will often suggest is true, but what does the Bible really say about the topic? I guess the question is, is this a legitimate complaint against Christianity?

First, I want to clarify what exactly I'm talking about when I say "slavery." I am talking about the type of slavery typified by the transatlantic slave trade which was finally abolished in the 19th Century. Therefore this is what I am going to be examining specifically.

So, what exactly are we talking about? A slave, in our context here, is a person who is captured, and enslaved against their will, kept and worked as chattel for the rest of his days.

Does the Bible say anything about this type of behaviour? Consider the following from the New Testament:

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted. (1 Timothy 1:8-11 ESV)

The key word in the above passage being enslavers. Also translated as manstealer or kidnapper, Strong's defines this word as:

a slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer

of one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery
of one who steals the slaves of others and sells them

This behaviour is explicitly called sin. In fact, this is nothing new. In the Old Testament, we read:

Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death. (Ex 21:16)

However, in reading these sections of the Old Testament law, we do need to be a bit more careful in our thinking; we need to ensure we are employing proper hermeneutics.

Under the Mosaic law, there were 2 categories of slaves; slaves from foreign nations and slaves from Israel itself. And the rules for each category do differ to various degrees. So, while understanding we are not bound by these laws since the Old Covenant has passed away, which sets of rules should we look at to derive biblical principles for today?

A key to this is understanding that under the New Covenant there is no longer a chosen nation. For example, in Colossians 3:11 we read that the separation of Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised that once existed under the Old Covenant no longer exists today.

Since, therefore, there is no longer one chosen nation of people, I conclude that the rules which applied to Jewish slaves are the ones we ought to look to. Why? Because, as William Wilberforce put it: "as we are repeatedly and expressly told that Christ has done away all distinctions of nations, and made all mankind one great family, all our fellow creatures are now our brethren..."

So what principles do we find in the laws regarding Jewish slaves? In part:

A man would become a slave by choice or as punishment for theft
A man could not be a slave indefinitely unless by choice (at most, Jewish slaves would be released after 6 years or at the Jubilee)
If intentionally and permanently injured, the slave would be released
As mentioned above, kidnapping or otherwise stealing a man to be a slave was not allowed

Continuing with that quote above from Wilberforce, "... therefore the very principles and spirit of the Jewish law itself would forbid our keeping the Africans, anymore than our own fellow subjects, in a fate of slavery."

So, in no uncertain terms, we have the clear denouncement of the idea that one can capture and enslave a man against his will while living under the New Covenant. Even the practise of knowingly owning a slave who was enslaved in this way could not be justified.

That said, most of what we know about not only the trade, but the treatment of slaves run contrary to the biblical principles we find in not only this area, but others.

Simply put, if this clear biblical teaching had been followed, there would have been no such thing as the transatlantic slave trade.

It is Well with my Soul

2010-06-20T23:26:00.000-06:00

In church this morning, we sung It is Well with my Soul.

While containing great lyrics in itself, I have found it to be even more powerful since learning how Horatio Spafford came to write these words.

This wasn't a case of someone living what we'd consider the good life, musing about the goodness of God. This was a written by a man who experienced pain and loss that many of us cannot understand who, while in the midst of unimaginable grief, wrote the words:

When sorrows like sea billows roll;
Whatever my lot, Thou has taught me to say,
It is well with my soul.

So if you don't know the story behind this great hymn, I encourage you to watch the following video:

Think ...

2010-06-16T00:25:00.001-06:00

The use of our mind is absolutely necessary for being human and worshipful. So do this dangerous thing ... but do it well!

The following trailer for the upcoming Desiring God conference makes some great points regarding the necessity of right thinking (including the above quote).

Jesus said: "you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." (Mark 12:30)

Wreck of the Titan

2010-06-06T23:49:00.000-06:00

In 1898 Morgan Robertson wrote a novel titled Wreck of the Titan, or Futility.

This story shares many remarkable similarities to the real-life Titanic; from the ship's design to its fateful maiden voyage.

The fascinating part is the story was written 14 years before the Titanic would set sail, before the Titanic had even been designed.

Some similarities between this fictional work and the actual facts surrounding the Titanic include:

The Titan was the largest ship in existance (800 feet, displacing 75,000 tons); the Titanic was the worlds largest luxury liner (882 feet, displacing 53,00 tons).
Both ships had a passenger capacity of 3000 people.
The Titan carried only 24 life boats; the Titanic carried 20. In both cases less than half the number required.
One April night, the Titan, travelling at 25 knots, struck an iceberg in the North Atlantic when they were 400 miles from Newfoundland; on April 14, 1912 the Titanic, travelling at 23 knots, struck an iceberg in the North Atlantic when they were 400 miles from Newfoundland.
The Titan sank and more than half of her 2500 passengers died; the Titanic sank and more than half of her 2208 passengers died.

Based on this, would it be reasonable for me to say that the Titanic wasn't a real ship and that it's fateful maiden voyage never happened?

Of course not, no one would take such a claim seriously (and rightfully so).

And yet, this is mirrors a popular attack against the New Testament's teachings about Jesus.

One version of this argument states that Mithra (the god of Mithraism, which was a major religion in Rome) essentially mirrors many of the attributes we believe Jesus has - he was born of a virgin, had disciples, was crucified, rose from the dead on the third day, atoned for the sins of mankind and returned to heaven.

The argument goes on to assert that since such a deity was worshipped before Christ, that the disciples must have simply copied the Mithra stories and applied them to Jesus. This is then offered as evidence that the historical events and theological teachings recorded in the New Testament were fabricated.

While I believe there is good evidence that the similarities between Mithra and Jesus are overstated (if true at all), I don't know that we really even need to deal with this argument to start with.

Even if we allow for the evidence of such similarities to stand unchallenged, what does that give us? I would suggest it doesn't give us anything more than a Titan for our Titanic.

In the end, the veracity of the New Testament accounts must, and I argue do, stand on their own evidence; that someone told a similar story before the events occurred has no bearing one way or another on the question: is the New Testament true?

Jonah and the great fish ... did that really happen?

2010-05-28T01:01:00.001-06:00

The book of Jonah is often ridiculed by sceptics. They claim that no fish could swallow a man, and, even if it did, the man would not be able to survive 3 days and 3 nights in its belly.

Some well meaning believers end up compromising and claiming that the book of Jonah is a fictional story or parable in response to these attacks.

To answer this charge we need to look at two things:

Is the story of Jonah history or allegory? If the story is allegory then the story does not need to be physically possible.
If the story is actual history, is it physically impossible as the critics claim?

To answer the first question, we need to look at what Scripture says.

The first observation from the book of Jonah is that there is no hint of allegory in book itself. It reads like a straight forward account of the prophet's experience.

Second, we learn in 2 Kings 14:25 that Jonah was a real prophet.

Third, and probably most important, Jesus refers to events recorded in the book of Jonah as fact (Matthew 12:39-41). Beyond simply referring to those events, he compares Jonah's stay in the belly of the fish to his own coming death and resurrection. He said:

For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:40 ESV)

For these reasons, we can see that Scripture treats the events in this book as actual history.

This brings us to the next question, is this account as recorded in Scripture impossible?

First though, we need to acknowledge the existence of miracles and that this does count as a miracle. In reading the book of Jonah we see both that God prepared this great fish in advance (Jonah 1:17) and that Jonah was vomited out on to dry land at God's command (Jonah 2:10).

In some cases, like this one, we may be able to show that a miraculous event is physically possible, but not always (for example Jesus walking on water). We must remember that Scripture is our authority, not human reason or scientific understanding.

As mentioned above, one attack is that no fish could swallow a man whole.

This is easily shown as false, the whale shark is one species that would be more than capable of the task. Whale sharks are reported to reach lengths in excess of 46 feet weighing more that 15 tons. Interestingly, such a fish would do little damage to a human – they are filter feeders with tiny teeth that are of little use. Other species that would be large enough include the sperm whale and the white shark.

Finally we can to look at the claim that a man could never survive such a stay.

First to address the length of stay, the term "3 days and 3 nights" is a Hebrew idiom simply meaning 3 days; it minimally means that 2 full days and a portion of a third day had passed.

Second, as to the survivability, there are two aspects to look at:

Plausible natural explanations
Anecdotal evidence of similar events

Addressing the plausibility, within a whale's stomach there is always some air and digestion does not begin while the animal it has swallowed is still alive. Alternatively, if it were a whale, Jonah could have been in the beast's great laryngeal pouch (air sac).

As far as anecdotal evidence, there have been stories which seem strikingly similar to the Jonah story. One oft-quoted story is that of one James Bartley who was a harpooner on the whale-ship "Star of the East" in 1891. It is said that Bartley disappeared into the sea during a hunt only to be retrieved alive from the whale’s stomach when it was finally caught the following day.

This story is said to have first been reported in October of 1892 in the English newspaper "Great Yarmouth Mercury" and was reprinted in other papers and was included by Sir Francis Fox in his book "Sixty-three Years of Engineering, Scientific and Social Work", published in 1924.

In his 1952 book "The Harmony of Science and Scripture", Dr. Harry Rimmer tells of a personal meeting with a sailor who fell overboard in the English Channel and was swallowed by a whale shark. The shark was finally caught 48 hours later and was towed to shore because it was too large for the ships winches. The crew cut open the fish with the intention of retrieving his body for burial, but found him alive but unconscious. He was taken to the hospital, treated for shock, and released.

While, to my knowledge, neither of these stories have the documentation backing them up to use them as absolute proofs, they do seem to lend additional credibility to the Jonah account.

In conclusion, Scripture attests to the historicity of the account of Jonah and the great fish and there is nothing inherently impossible about the account itself.

The Apostles said Jesus was God

2010-05-24T00:28:00.001-06:00

In previous posts, I presented the case that the Scriptures teach that Jesus is God based on statements which clearly say that Jesus is the Creator and based on Jesus' own words.

In this final planned post, I intend to look at one additional way to establish the Scriptures teaching of Jesus' divinity. That:

The Apostles testified that Jesus was God.

There are several passages in the Scriptures where the apostles call Jesus God. However, it is this first passage that provides the strongest evidence they were correct:

Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:28-29 ESV)

It is important to note that at Thomas' declaration that Jesus was his "Lord" and his "God" that Jesus did not correct or rebuke him. Had Jesus not been God, this would have been a blasphemous statement as established earlier in the discussions surrounding the passages from John 8 and 10.

If He were just a prophet or some other created being it is inexplicable that He would allow Thomas to make such a statement unchallenged.

The following are several passages of Scripture that show the other apostles also considered Jesus to be God. First, in his letter to the Romans, Paul clearly explains that Jesus is God:

To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. (Romans 9:5 ESV)

Also in his letter to Titus, Paul assigns the title God and Savior to Jesus:

... waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works. (Titus 2:13-14 ESV)

This same title is used by Peter in his first letter:

Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:1 ESV)

Of course, one of the most prominent confessions of Jesus' deity comes from John at the start of the Gospel he penned:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:1,14 ESV)

In verse one, John's three statements bring out the different aspects of the nature of the Word: 1) His preexistence, 2) His distinctness and 3) His deity. In the 14th he goes on to tie these truths in to the truth of Jesus' incarnation. Once again we have the clear testimony that Jesus is God.

Conclusion

Based on the information presented in these 3 posts, if the Scriptures are to be trusted, there is no other conclusion we can draw other than Jesus Christ is God.

Led by the Spirit

2010-05-14T01:09:00.001-06:00

I don't know about you, but being the type who finds himself more interested in the intellectual aspects of Christianity, apologetics included, I have a harder time with the more subjective aspects of the faith.

Things like feelings and emotions don't resonate as well with me as reason and evidence. But at the same time I don't want to neglect these things since they are plainly taught in the Scriptures.

This was really brought to light for me tonight as I studied up a bit on the role of the Holy Spirit in our lives. I thought I'd share a bit of what I read:

Scripture talks ... about a day-to-day guidance by the Holy Spirit - being "led" by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:14; Gal. 5:18), and walking according to the Spirit (Rom. 8:4; Gal. 5:16). Now it is possible to understand Paul here to be referring only to the obedience to the moral commands of Scripture, but this interpretation seems quite unlikely, especially since the entire context is dealing with emotions and desires which we perceive in a more subjective way, and because Paul here contrasts being led by the Spirit with following the desires of the flesh or the sinful nature:

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh .... Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger .... But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control .... If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. Let us have no self-conceit, no provoking of one another, no envy of one another. (Gal. 5:16-26)

The contrast between the "desires of the flesh" and the "desires of the Spirit" implies that our lives should be responding moment to moment to the desires of the Holy Spirit, not to the desires of the flesh. Now it may be that a large part of responding to those desires is the intellectual process of understanding what love, joy, peace (and so forth) are, and then acting in a loving or a joyful or a peaceful way. But this can hardly constitute the whole of such guidance by the Spirit because these emotions are not simply things we think about; they are things we also feel and sense at a deeper level. In fact, the word translated "desires" (Gk. epithymia) is a word that refers to strong human desires, not simply intellectual decisions. Paul implies that we are to follow these desires as they are produced by the Holy Spirit in us. Moreover, the idea of being "led" by the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:18) implies an active personal participation by the Holy Spirit in guiding us. This is something more than our reflecting on biblical moral standards, and includes an involvement by the Holy Spirit in relating to us as persons and leading and directing us. (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, p.642-643)

This really speaks to a very personal and relational aspect of our interactions with God. While discernment is always required, this aspect of our lives isn't something that we measure or prove; that would be like trying to prove I feel love for my child.

All that I guess to say, the Christian life is more than propositions and facts; it is a life that is rich in experience as well.

I for one would do well to remember this more often.

Jesus said he was God

2010-05-07T00:08:00.001-06:00

A little earlier, I had started making the case that the Scriptures clearly teach that Jesus was God. In that post I had focused on the the fact that the Scriptures teach that Jesus is the Creator.

This time, I will look to establish my case in another way, namely that:

Jesus claimed to be God.

Jesus made the unmistakable claim that he was God. While this certainly isn't an exhaustive treatment, let's look at a couple examples starting with this one:

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:58 ESV)

His Jewish audience understood that He was applying to Himself God's title, which was given directly to Moses at the burning bush:

God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" (Exodus 3:14 ESV)

To help provide stronger evidence that Jesus was claiming to be I AM we can look at the reaction from the Jews he was speaking to. Scripture says:

So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. (John 8:59 ESV).

In the Law, there were several offences where the punishment prescribed by God was stoning, however only one fits this situation - the Jews were going to stone him for being one who "blasphemes the name of the Lord" (Lev 24:16 ESV).

None of the other stoning offences are applicable to this situation, they are: child sacrifice (Lev 20:2), being a medium or spiritist (Lev 20:27), not observing the Sabbath (Num 15:32-35), serving other gods (Deut 13:6-10, 17:2-5), being a defiant son (Deut 21:18-21), pre-marital sex (Deut 22:21), and adultery (Deut 22:24). As you can see, only blasphemy, misusing God's name, makes sense.

Later in His ministry, Jesus would make another claim that He was God and met the same response. In this case the Jews' reason is given; this not only further supports the interpretation of John 8 above but it gives another example of Jesus directly claiming to be God. This is what Scripture says:

"I and the Father are one." The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?" The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God." (John 10:30-33 ESV)

The Jews understood with perfect clarity that Jesus was claiming to be God. That a mere man (in their view) would make this claim was blasphemy and they sought to exact the punishment that God established for this crime.

Finally, when appearing to John on the island of Patmos, Jesus had this conversation with him:

When I [John] saw him, I fell at his [Jesus'] feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, "Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades." (Revelation 1:17-18 ESV; see also Revelation 22:13)

Here again we see Jesus using a title that belongs to God, this time one recorded by the prophet Isaiah:

Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel
and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
"I am the first and I am the last;
besides me there is no god." (Isaiah 44:6 ESV; see also Isaiah 48:12)

This again clearly identifies Jesus as Deity.

2010 event: Our speaker will be Dr. Craig A. Evans

2010-04-30T00:03:00.002-06:00

Faith Beyond Belief has confirmed the speaker for this year's series of talks in Calgary will be Dr. Craig A. Evans. He is a New Testament scholar and is the Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Acadia Divinity College of Acadia University, in Wolfville, Nova Scotia.

Not only is Dr. Evans a highly respected expert in his field but he is able to present this information in a very accessible way, as I believe the following videos demonstrate. Please check out the following 2 part interview: What's So Special About Sunday?

To find out more about Dr.Evans, please visit his website. You may also be interested in his debate with Bart Ehrman on the topic: Does the New Testament Misquote Jesus?

The Faith Beyond Belief talks featuring Dr. Evans are currently scheduled for September 23rd through the 26th.

Jesus the Creator

2010-04-22T23:20:00.000-06:00

As my previous post stated, even the very early Christians taught and believed that Jesus was God. For a concise statement of Christian belief on this, we can look to the Nicene Creed which says, in part:

I believe ... in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

But you may ask where this belief comes from; by what evidence do we conclude that this man is actually deity?

Ultimately I hope to explore a couple different Scriptural arguments, but for today I will explore this one:

Scripture teaches that Jesus is the Creator.

Jesus is referred to as having created the world and all that is in it, something that is clearly taught as being a work of God. Paul wrote:

For by him [Jesus Christ] all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities - all things were created through him and for him. (Colossians 1:16 ESV)

Of course, in Genesis we read that God is the Creator:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1 ESV)

A further, and perhaps even clearer, testimony to this comes from the writer of Hebrews who penned:

And [of the Son God says],
"You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment,
like a robe you will roll them up,
like a garment they will be changed.
But you are the same,
and your years will have no end." (Hebrews 1:10-12 ESV)

The author was quoting directly from Psalms 102:25-27. In that Old Testament passage, the psalmist was applying these words to God. Here however, they are applied to Christ without qualification or the need of any justification.

The fact that Scripture teaches that Jesus created the world means that He is indeed God.

Note: the arguments explored here are built upon an understanding that the Bible we have today is both reliable and true. Exploring the reasonableness of this basis will have to be a topic for another day.

Jesus is God ... a second century look

2010-04-13T23:55:00.000-06:00

Some sceptics claim that the earliest Christians did not think Jesus was God. They teach that those early followers thought Jesus was a good man, a good teacher, but that this godhood thing was something that the over-zealous or, more likely, the power-hungry foisted upon him long after his death.

Usually, it is the Council of Nicea in 325 AD that is credited with this upgrade of Jesus' status from mere man to God. Many will suggest that it was at this time that the Canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John) were embellished so that these accepted histories would contain a divine Jesus.

However, the evidence indicates this is not the case and that Jesus was worshipped as God long before Constantine drew breath. While I think a very strong case can be made by looking at the contents and reliability of New Testament alone, here I am actually looking at a few extra-biblical sources.

The first comes from a Roman by the name of Pliny the Younger (62-c.112 AD). In 103 AD Pliny was appointed the governor of the provinces of Bithynia and Pontus; he held the highest rank and position possible for a Roman governor. A number of Pliny's letters have been preserved, but the one I am going to look at comes from this time in office and was written to the Emperor, Trajan. In part, he writes:

... as to those persons who have been charged before me with being Christians, I have observed the following method. I asked them whether they were Christians; if they admitted it I repeated the question twice, and threatened them with punishment; if they persisted I ordered them to be at once punished. I could not doubt that whatever might be the nature of their opinions, such inflexible obstinacy deserved punishment.
...
They [those who said they were no longer Christians] declared that their offence or crime was summed up in this, that they met on a stated day before daybreak, and addressed a form of prayer to Christ, as to a divinity, binding themselves by a solemn oath, not for any wicked purpose, but never to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, never to break their word, or to deny a trust when called on to deliver it up: after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble and to eat together a harmless meal.

While there are certainly a number of insights that can be gained from this letter, there is one I want to focus on. This is a report of Christians worshipping Christ as God (praying to him "as to a divinity") which dates the the very early second century.

Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of John the Apostle, was a contemporary of Pliny's and, due to his faith in Christ, was sentenced by the Emperor Trajan to be "bound by soldiers, and carried to the great [city] Rome, there to be devoured by the beasts, for the gratification of the people."

During this journey to Rome, Ignatius wrote several letters to various churches. In these letters, he repeatedly teaches that Jesus is God; here are a couple excerpts from his Epistle to the Ephesians:

There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible ... (VII)

For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. (XVIII)

As a final example from a little later in the second century, Justin Martyr wrote the following regarding Jesus in response to Jewish opposition to Christianity's teachings:

For if you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God. (Dialogue with Trypho, CXXVI)

In fact, there are at least eleven early Christians whose writings we still have today that teach Jesus is God which were penned prior to the Council of Nicea.

All this to simply say, Jesus was regarded as God by the earliest Christians. His divinity was not something invented and subsequently imposed upon Christianity in the 4th Century.

A creative apologetic for the resurrection

2010-04-04T22:44:00.001-06:00

In an earlier post, I had said that I found the testimony of the disciples, even to their death, to be one of the more convincing evidences of the reality of the resurrection of Jesus.

Needless to say, I was greatly interested when I found reference to the use of this argument which dated back to the early 300's AD. It was then that Eusebius of Caesarea wrote his Demonstratio Evangelica (Proof of the Gospel) in which he provided many positive arguments for the truth of Christianity, including the credibility of the disciples' testimony.

He fleshes out his arguments in this area in the fifth chapter of the third book, including one portion where he imagines the conversation that would have been needed had the disciples and others determined to enter into a conspiracy to lie about the teachings and resurrection of Jesus. It goes like this (in part):

... we [the disciples] must insist that he really did and said what we never saw him do, or heard him say. But since his last end was a notorious and well-known death, as we cannot disguise the fact, yet we can slip out even of this difficulty by determination, if quite shamelessly we bear witness that he joined us after his resurrection from the dead, and shared our usual home and food. Let us all be impudent and determined, and let us see that our freak lasts even to death. There is nothing ridiculous in dying for nothing at all. And why should we dislike for no good reason undergoing scourging and bodily torture, and if need be to experience imprisonment, dishonour, and insult for what is untrue? Let us now make this our business. We will tell the same falsehoods, and invent stories that will benefit nobody, neither ourselves, nor those we deceive, nor him who is deified by our lies. And we will extend our lies not only to men of our own race, but go forth to all men, and fill the whole world with our fabrications about him.
...
None of us must fail in zeal; for it is no petty contest that we dare, and no common prizes lie before us - but most likely the punishments inflicted according to the laws of each land: bonds, of course, torture, imprisonment, fire and sword, and wild beasts. We must greet them all with enthusiasm, and meet evil bravely ... what could be finer than to make both gods and men our enemies for no reason at all, and to have no enjoyment of any kind, to have no profit of our dear ones, to make no money, to have no hope of anything good at all, but just to be deceived and to deceive without aim or object?

Not only does Eusebius provide some great arguments in this work but, in the case quoted above, he provides us with a great example of how creative elements can be used effectively to make an apologetic point.

On incorporating creativity and apologetics, Craig J. Hazen wrote:

If you have creative gifts and a passion for Christ and for lost people, and if you are willing to drink deeply at the well of timeless Christian knowledge, the impact of your fresh apologetic work will be felt far and wide - perhaps for generations to come. (Apologetics for a New Generation, p. 108)

Perhaps this is something we tend to overlook, but creativity and the arts have definite a place in communicating the truth; yes, even in apologetics.

A new (old) catechism

2010-03-23T23:11:00.005-06:00

Just fall back, and with the eyes of faith
Behold the beauty of surprising grace
Because the Lamb has died, third day He had to rise
He’s magnified - God’s wrath is satisfied
Shai Linne, Atonement Q&A

A couple artists I've recently added to my music collection are Shai Linne and Stephen the Levite.

A couple years ago, these artists paired together on Shai Linne's album The Atonement and produced a modern-day catechism of sorts titled Atonement Q&A. Here is a copy of the song with the lyrics presented in the video:

I love not only how they present these timeless truths in this (relatively-speaking) new genre, but how they don't dumb it down at all ... instead they use and define important, technical, theological terms.

If you aren't already familiar with the song, it is worth the listen - even if it isn't your favourite style of music.

You can also find a copy of the lyrics here; Shai Linne has links to all his lyrics over at his blog, Lyrical Theology.