The Lion's Den

The Only Way to Defend Marriage

2012-01-17T18:11:00.000-08:00

Presuppositions Matter
By: Jonathan Harris

Ever heard of or witnessed a debate on television that went something like this?

Liberal: "It's not like we're against traditional marriage. We just want everyone to be free to make their own choices when it comes to who they fall in love with. No one should jam their religion down another person's throat. That's what America is about. The freedom to make personal choices even when others don't agree with it. Separation of church and state ensures this."

Conservative: "Yes, we are about liberty, but that doesn't mean you can change the definition of marriage! Marriage has been around for thousands of years. It's the building block of society. Kids in same-sex households don't do as well in life. A child needs a mother and a father."

Now here's the question, "Who sounds more principled, the liberal or the conservative?" The answer is of course the liberal. They are resting their case on the noble moral principle we as Americans cherish---personal freedom. The conservative is resting his case on complete pragmatism---i.e. kids are usually better off in heterosexual households (who defines “better off” anyway?). This is the reason conservative Christians are losing the marriage debate. We are accepting a Trojan horse into our worldview that completely undercuts our position. And what might this dangerous assumption be you may ask? It’s the idea that the moral principles applying to the church are somehow separate from the moral principles that have jurisdiction over individuals and their governments. What we need to do, when debating this topic, is instead of attacking the negative effects of same-sex marriage, attack the core assumption that tries to make sense of it in the first place. Let me illustrate how a conversation should go.

Liberal: "It's not like we're against traditional marriage. We just want everyone to be free to make their own choices when it comes to who they fall in love with. No one should jam their religion down another person's throat. That's what America is about. The freedom to make personal choices even when others don't agree with it. Separation of church and state ensures this."

Conservative: "While I'm in agreement that personal freedom is an important principle we all cherish, we must also realize that there are reasons and limits to this freedom. For instance, I do not have the personal freedom to physically assault you, and in so doing win this argument. The Founders understood that freedom means responsibility—and it is our individual responsibility to fulfill our roles before God, like pursue a living and think for ourselves, that gave rise to personal liberty in the first place. Those are the things government should not try to take away.”

Liberal: “But who’s to say their opinion is any better or worse than anyone else? We all have different beliefs, and part of living in a society with different religions means being tolerant of other people, even people you personally disagree with. A hundred years ago society didn’t approve of interracial marriages.”

Conservative: “I concur that society cannot be a standard for morality. If it were, Nazi Germany would have been morally appropriate. However, a standard must come from somewhere, and in our country that standard has historically been a Christian value system.”

Liberal: “There you go again getting the church involved in the state! Don’t you know our Constitution says that Congress can’t establish a religion.”

Conservative: “Congress can’t establish an official church denomination on a Federal level, but seven of the thirteen original colonies did have established churches, and those that didn’t, including our national government, had to make their rules based on a moral standard, and it’s abundantly clear from what our Founders said that the Bible was their standard.”

Liberal: “Can’t reason just be our standard? Let’s just make laws that make sense for all Americans, not ones that only apply to Christians.”

Conservative: “God’s standards do apply to all Americans. Every institution of culture is responsible to follow His moral precepts.”

Liberal: “Yeah, but that’s your God!”

Conservative: “Tell me, where do you get your moral standard from if it’s not God?”

Liberal: “I’m just reasonable!”

Conservative: “Reasonable to who?”

Liberal: “Frankly, I’m not sure what this has to do with gays getting married. This is a civil rights issue and you sir are a bigot!”

Conservative: “If God is the source of ethics, then it has everything to do with same-sex marriage. We can’t go redefining things He’s already instituted both for helping man complete his tasks on this earth with the institution of a help-mate He called ‘woman,’ and for the illustration of His love for His church demonstrated in a man’s selfless love of his wife.”

Liberal: “This isn’t Sunday School! It’s America!”

Conservative: “Do the truth’s of Sunday School such as the Ten Commandments not apply to America, and if so why not?”

I could go on with point and counterpoint but you get the picture. Instead of arguing about same-sex marriage, both parties are arguing about the real issue, “Does God’s law apply to individuals?” The answer is of course yet, and in other articles I think I’ve at least tried to demonstrate how any attempt to undermine such a truth will land someone in a heap of confusion. We need not dabble around the edges of the real issue or be afraid of being mocked because we hold God’s Word in high esteem. We need to cherish His Word and defend it! All other ground is sinking sand.

Five Things I Look for in a President

2011-10-13T09:14:00.000-07:00

Principles for Finding a Commander and Chief
By: Jonathan Harris

1. Will He/She Follow the Constitution?

This is more than asking is their character consistent and honest enough to support the law that already exists. This is a basic question about the philosophy of government the individual possesses. Do they intend to keep to the Founders biblical vision for our country, or do they want to make it something different. Will they eliminate unconstitutional bureaucracies, etc., or will they strive to eliminate them?

2. Is He/She a Christian?

While many Christians are shying away from asking this question in the light of Mitt Romey's campaign, the question still needs to be addressed. If the governmental authorities are to be "God's servants (i.e. deacons)" as Rom. 13:4 says, shouldn't they at least know who God is? How do you serve someone you don't know.?

3. Does Gender Matter?

While the Bible does not explicitly say that it is a requirement for rulers to be men (save in regards to ecclesiastical authority), women are also discouraged (i.e. through the doctrine of headship) from usurping the responsibility that ultimately belongs to a man. In the case of Deborah, it was to Barak's shame that a woman served as the judge of Israel. While William Einwechter may go a little too far in his adamant stance in "Should Christians Support a Woman for the Office of Civil Magistrate," he does make some valid points that ought to be taken into account in any discussion of the topic. Women were not meant to be civil magistrates, but it's not a sin for them to step up to the plate when a qualified man isn't willing.

4. Does He/She have a Stable Family?

While governmental authorities are to be God's "deacons" in the realm of civil magistracy, deacons are God's servants in the context of the church. Both actually possess the same office in different capacities. I do believe that Paul's use of the word "deacon" to describe civil authority beckons us to apply at least some of God's standards (that apply to both capacities) for servants to both categories. Furthermore, can someone who doesn't have their house in order really put a nation in order?

5. Is He/She Competent?

Do you want a president that knows what they're doing or doesn't? Obviously the former is the universal answer. We want someone who follows the proverbial principles in every aspect. Someone who surrounds themselves with wise counsel, understands debt, etc. All the Proverbs about "fools" should not apply to our commander and chief.

180 The Movie

2011-09-28T21:16:00.000-07:00

Great documentary by Ray Comfort. Please post this on your facebook and tell all your friends.

Rich Guys Rule

2011-09-22T08:59:00.000-07:00

And That's the Way It Is
By: Jonathan Harris

If you're part of my audience you no doubt get tired of all the griping that goes on these days about the rich paying "their fair share." We conservatives don't like it when the rich are demonized simply because we know the importance of their contribution. As Sean Hannity often says, "I never got a job from a poor person." We don't see anything wrong with being rich, and yes, we all probably secretly want to be rich ourselves (and so do the liberals who speak out against it). At the same time we resent rich "elites" who try to micromanage our lives with over-regulation, etc. It's not the wealth of the controlling class that bothers us though---it's the control. So all that to say, we don't have a problem with being well-off. But how do we convey our feeling to those who do have a problem with it? How do we argue our point against the tirade of socialistic nonsense echoing from the halls of our most prestigious academic institutions? Simple!

Proverbs 22:7 says, "The rich rule over the poor, And the borrower becomes the lender's slave." In other words, as sure as it is that the borrower is slave (i.e. has his labor owned by) to the lender (the rich guy who gave him the money), the rich in a society will always rule over the poor. Proverbs, as most of you know, is a book about general truths in which there will sometimes be exceptions. In this case however, I can't think of one. In every governmental structure this world has ever known, one truth remains---the rich always rule over the poor. It's true in capitalism, it's true in communism. It's true in constitutional monarchies, it's true in oligarchies. It was just as true during the French Revolution as it was during the Bolshevik takeover. Think about it! Money may not always mean control, but control always means money. The booshwazee, when in power, always become the aristocracy! There is no such thing as a culture in which those in control are not the well-off. The question then becomes not one of, "In which culture can everyone have equal control?" but rather, "In which culture can the poor and middle classes be protected the most from tyrannical abuses from the upper class?" This form of government happens to be a republic in which there is freedom---the very system the liberals try to argue against. So the next time your liberal friend complains about the evil rich capitalists, ask him this question, "Give me an example of a society in which the rich didn't control?" The grass is always greener when it's AstroTurf in the mind of a dreamer. Let's get the dreamers to wake up!

Cow Tipping

2011-09-20T10:32:00.001-07:00

Depression Recovery According to the Bible

2011-09-15T16:44:00.000-07:00

A Review
By: Jonathan Harris

In Dr. Steven Waterhouse's booklet Depression Recovery According to the Bible, the topic of depression is approached in a nouthetic yet realistic way. I say "yet realistic" not to demean nouthetic counseling of which I am a subscriber, but to distance Waterhouse from those in the nouthetic world who down play medical problems as contributors to spiritual conditions. Waterhouse makes it clear that there are a variety of reasons for depression, and a variety of solutions. He divides the causes of depression into three separate categories which constitute 19 possibilities. The first category has to do with depression caused by sin. The second category concerns the non-sinful (circumstantial) causes. The third category is a subset of the second, but deals more with personal circumstances (medical and wrong theology) rather than social causes.

All in all I found the booklet to be helpful in diagnosing a problem---however it may not be sufficient in dealing with that problem in a meaningful way. I don't believe the work was ever intended to zone in on specific problems in a nuanced way, so I'm not complaining. What the book attempts to do it does. I would recommend it.

I think the main thing I learned from it---mainly because I tend to be a perfectionist---is learning that while it is good to aim for an impossible dream, it is not the achievement of the dream that pleases God, but rather the intention behind it. God commends David as a man after His own heart, yet David's goal to restore the temple was never met. God's response is recorded in 2 Chron. 7:8. "But the LORD said to my father David, 'Because it was in your heart to build a house for My name, you did well that it was in your heart.'" It is not the achievement of perfection that God takes pleasure in, it is the honest attempt to obey His commandments.

To view the free e-book click here.

Don't Let the Terrorists Win

2011-09-13T06:28:00.000-07:00

Looking Back On 9-11's 10th Anniversary
By: Jonathan Harris

It's been 10 years since the most nation changing event in recent American history. All Americans remember where they were and what they were doing during the events of 9-11. We as a people have come far in the past 10 years---farther than the terrorists who perpetuated the events ever could have hoped. The goal of terrorism has always been to control by fear, and that's just what they've done.

We find ourselves in a timid fearful state. Don't believe me? How often do you go through checkpoints at airports and ballgames, etc. Without even thinking about it? It's considered normal now. We all get to the airport an hour early. Is this not a cultural fear? You would think that such a fear would drive a resolve against our enemies. Initially it did. Two wars were started (actually one war with two fronts), Americans displays their flags proudly, volunteerism and religious involvement rose considerably. 10 years later what's the nature of the landscape? A populace that has last sight of the purpose behind our war with orthodox Islam, a media that exalts Islam as a "peaceful religion" and Christianity as dangerous, even homeland security has stated that Tea Party members and Iraq war vets could be potential terrorists. Our culture has been intimidated and subsequently neutered.

As Christians we honor the fallen because It's our duty and our sacred pledge. Sacrifice has a special meaning to us because of the sacrifice of Christ who gave himself for our salvation. We remember because of the example he gave to us during Holy communion. We value history because of the monuments of Moses. It is our duty, even amidst a culture of fear, folly, and forgetfulness, to remain brave, strong, and always remember the warning we were given 10 years ago. We must go about our daily activities without fear. We must be controlled by our trust in God. And we must not back down from the politically correct notion that our enemies are peaceful. Only then will we honor the fallen of a decade ago.

Does Government Shape Morality?

2011-09-09T07:49:00.000-07:00

A Two Lane Highway

By: Jonathan Harris

My experience with evangelical Christianity has been wide and varied. From Jerry Falwell to John MacArthur, I've seen how each orthodox protestant group reacts to government. Not too long ago I had the privilege of attending a major conference at a premier reformed seminary. After one of the sessions on governmental power---in which the speaker assured his audience that there really was no involvement the church should have in governmental affairs---an attendee approached the speaker and assured in him in no uncertain terms that it was the influence of the pastor of the mega church at which the conference was held that had convinced him not to vote. He then went on to say how he encouraged others not to vote, and how it wasn't the Christian's responsibility to be involved in the affairs of the secular world. What was it being advocated by this flagship church that produced such a drastic reaction? Spending a little more time at the church and associated seminary I came across a professor who said very strongly that evangelical's obsession with influence was driving her to compromise, and furthermore, that her involvement in political campaigns did nothing good. Overarching the discussion was the assumed premise that the kingdom of God is really only concerned with individual salvation.

On the flip side of things, I attended another flagship church/campus of the more Arminian variety and found the exact opposite. The obsession with government affairs seemed to permeate the faculty to such an extant that I would have to say compromises were made. The acceptance of other religious groups on the grounds that they were pro-life or pro-traditional marriage was sickening. There was more concern about political institutions than there was regarding individual holiness.

So what's the deal? Is it important for Christians or the church to get involved? My answer is a simple "Yes." If "all authority has been given to Christ" it is obvious that every institution must be controlled by Him. If government has the power to "punish evil" and "promote good" then where does this standard come from if it's not Christian's providing it? But here's another question, "Is it productive to be involved in government?" This is where I want to camp.

The assertion is made by the former group in this post that "It's a waste of time to get involved in politics. It doesn't change anything anyway." They see the government as having no influence on individual morality. The latter group sees it as everything. If we just have the right president then everything will turn around. The fundamental disagreement is a simple one. One sees cultural change as coming from the bottom, the other from the top. Which one is correct?

In my estimation both are. Which is why both sides should work together and meet in the middle. Prov. 28:15 says, "Like a roaring lion and a rushing bear Is a wicked ruler over a poor people." Obviously God does have a preference in who rules, wouldn't you say? Ecclesiastes alludes to a certain order God has put in place for a government organization. "There is an evil I have seen under the sun, the sort of error that arises from a ruler: Fools are put in many high positions, while the rich occupy the low ones. I have seen slaves on horseback, while princes go on foot like slaves." A fool is someone who has "said in his heart there is no God." It is someone who does not have the "fear of the Lord." Elsewhere I have established that it is not only the atheist, but the theist who does not believe in the Christian God that gets put into this category. Therefore, logically God wants Christians in positions of power. It's only natural! But what effect does this have on the populace? The answer is in Proverbs 29. "When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, But when a wicked man rules, people groan." There is an effect the government has. This is born out in the history of Israel. We see that every time a good king emerged, the people would follow his example (In fact, that's what it means to be a leader. It means you must have followers). Every time there was a bad king the inverse happened. So does this only mean that whoever is in charge will set the moral standard? No! There becomes a disconnect when those in the front have leadership positions but don't act like leaders. Sometimes there will be an elected official who does not illicit the respect of his constituents. In this case, he or she has the title of "leader" without the actual respect that ought to go with it. People will only follow those whom they respect. This is why in one sense it shouldn't matter who's ruling. If people respect the Word of God over government they will still remain moral no matter what echoes from the halls of congress. This doesn't mean we give up though. It is a both/and not an either/or. Government does shape morality, but only because people let themselves become shaped. So if our concern is individual morality we should work toward both fronts.

One final thing I'd like to get people to think about is the history of the United States. Look what's happened in the last twenty years regarding the acceptance of homosexuality. Look how it's skyrocketed in states where the government has put its stamp of approval on the practice. What we find is that a small minority is successfully persuading a larger majority to accept them through the force of government. If we go back to the 1800s we see that secession was commonly viewed as a viable option in order to secure individual liberty and local sovereignty. Through government force of arms however, most people today think its treasonous. How about social security? It use to be that people took personal responsibility for their retirement. However, now it's expected. The same thing has happened with public education. It's assumed that children deserve it. Can you now see how the government has shaped morality over time? This is why Christians must stay involved.We need to be salt and light on a global scale. One grain does as little as does one ray of light. But both are equally required to link with other grains and rays and in so doing have an effect.

Presuppositional Apologetics Sunday School Class

2011-09-01T19:44:00.001-07:00

Part 1 - Introduction	mp3
Part 2 - Overview of Classical and Evidential Apologetics	mp3
Part 3 - Overview of Presuppositional Apologetics	mp3
Part 4 - Circular Arguments and the Nonbeliever's Ultimate Authority	mp3
Part 5 - Believer's Ultimate Authority and the Myth of Neutrality	mp3
Part 6 - The Preconditions of Intelligibility & The Don't Answer, Answer Method	mp3
Part 7 - Tactics in Apologetics & The Problem of Evil	mp3
Part 8 - Review & The Problem of Evil	mp3
Part 9 - Logical Fallacies	mp3

Handouts

Introduction
Ultimate Authority
The Myth of Neutrality
The Preconditions of Intelligibility
The Transcendental Argument
The Problem of Evil
Logical Fallacies

A Crash Course in Presuppositional Apologetics

2011-09-01T19:43:00.000-07:00

Update, Announcement, and Summer Book Reviews

2011-08-18T21:42:00.000-07:00

Saving Leonardo: A Call to Resist the Secular Assault on Mind, Morals, and Meaning

The Second American Revolution

Trusting God: Even When Life Hurts!

Atheism Remix: A Christian Confronts the New Atheists

2011-04-14T23:57:00.000-07:00

A Review
By: Jonathan Harris

Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has provided a short glimpse into the world of the new atheists through his work Atheism Remix. First, Mohler offers his readers a history of atheism up until the present, next he gives us biographical sketches of the “new” atheists including their attitudes and arguments (and how they contrast with the traditional atheists), after this we are introduced to the major contentions against the new atheists from conservative/moderate Christianity, and finally the author concludes with a comparison of liberal Christianity and atheism showing that they aren’t really that different. One of the last quotes in the book by atheist historian Eugene D. Genovese is particularly enlightening. He states, “I intend no offense, but it takes one to know one. And when I read much Protestant theology and religious history today, I have the warm feeling that I am in the company of fellow nonbelievers.” It is no wonder that the “four horsemen” of new atheism (Harris, Hitchens, Dennett) are so against religion. They have been fed an impression of Christianity and Judaism which is not entirely accurate. As Alister McGrath comments, you’re not really religious in Dawkin’s conception unless you happen to be one of those “science-hating fools who are into ‘blind faith’ and other unmentionable things in a big way.” I believe this book provides a great “first glimpse” into the world of the new atheists for those who don’t know much about them. They are hear, they aren’t going away, and they’re getting louder. At the very least we should understand who they are and what they’re saying. Al Mohler helps us do this.

Sitcoms in Society

2011-04-14T17:04:00.000-07:00

Confusion Through Comedy
By: Jonathan Harris

For most of us who are conservative Christians we know that there’s a “culture war” afoot in our society. We also know that we’re losing it—at least most of us do. Some have even said that the war is already lost. Now I’m not one to admit defeat due to my belief in God’s sovereignty and his power to turn any culture around if and when He deems it fit, but I do admit that the pendulum isn’t swinging in our direction. I hope I don’t have to go into statistics to prove any of this to you. All you have to do is look around. In fact, the culture war is raging in my own heart so much of the time that I feel as if the deadliest struggle is an internal one. My heart is at enmity with the world yet attracted to it at times, as are all Christian hearts. Some of the undermining temptations that serve to dull my senses, lower my standards, and replace my godly affections with worldly ones are television shows—especially sitcoms. Now I’ve known this for a couple years now, but it didn’t really hit me until recently that sitcoms from different time periods tend to have different effects on my heart. I then came to the realization that the culture war itself has really been fought in the area of sitcoms. Let me show you what I mean.

Laughter Is the Opposite of Seriousness

In Genesis 18 God essentially tells Abraham that his wife Sarah will bear him a son who will be the fulfillment of the covenant. Sarah’s reaction is recorded in verses 12-15.

And Sarah laughed to herself, saying, "After I have become old, shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?" And the Lord said to Abraham, "Why did Sarah laugh, saying, 'Shall I indeed bear a child, when I am so old?' "Is anything too difficult for the Lord? At the appointed time I will return to you, at this time next year, and Sarah shall have a son." Sarah denied it however, saying, "I did not laugh"; for she was afraid. And He said, "No, but you did laugh."

Now you may be wondering, “What does this have to do with the culture war and sitcoms?” It’s really very simple. Sarah was ashamed of her laughter because it was a sign of disbelief. In other words, Sarah wasn’t taking God seriously and her laughter was the outward indication. That’s what laughter is. It lightens the situations, makes it not a “big deal,” doesn’t take whatever it may be seriously, etc. You get the point. So when it comes to laughing at things like sin we have a problem don’t we—that is if through our laughter we are conveying a lack of seriousness. God takes sin seriously, so should we. Unfortunately, we’re not much like Sarah. We don’t usually hide the fact that we laugh at sin, we’ll even laugh at sin with other Christians yucking it up right beside us.

It is my contention that sitcoms have done more to change culture than any other media venue precisely for this reason. Think about it! Turn on the most popular modern sitcoms and what do you end up laughing at? For the last few weeks I’ve been off and on checking out the popular comedies on network television in order to answer this question and I have to say, I regret it. My conscience has been desensitized even when I’m trying to be critical. (Imagine what happens to those who aren’t being critical, i.e. no shield to protect them!) There exists a definite digression between say the 1950s and modern times when it comes to popular television. Let me illustrate.

The 50s and the “Ideal” Family

We’ll start with the classic sitcoms. Most all of the situation comedies during the 1950s featured a strong family engaging in the day to day antics and awkward situations that come naturally to families. There are times I’ve thought if cameras were put in my home it would often resemble this genre. The situations were out of the ordinary (I mean they have to be since the very nature of comedy demands it) yet somehow ordinary at the same time. They were “natural” so to speak. For instance, if we take Leave it to Beaver as our example, we’ll find a traditional family in which the mother never takes off her apron, the father is either at work or reading the newspaper, the older brother is busy trying to impress girls (in an innocent way), and the younger brother is busy trying to annoy them. When all these competing interests—the mother’s interest to keep the house in order, the father’s interest to have some peace and quiet, the older brother’s interest to be accepted by his peers and girlfriends, and the younger brother’s interest to be accepted by his brother and get into mischief—collide in a sticky situation, we end up laughing. Think about family interests in today’s sitcoms and then tell me if they are just as innocent? Usually I find that they portray situations in which the husband or wife is afraid that the other one will find out they’re watching pornography such as in Curb Your Enthusiasm, or that they’re romantically attracted to other men or women such as in the King of Queens—that is, in the shows that even feature a traditional couple.

Continuing on with our look at classic sitcoms: Have you ever heard the charge that the traditional families represented are just “too perfect?” Sometimes you’ll even hear someone call a perfectionist housewife a “Harriet Nelson” after the Ozzie and Harriet Show. Programs like the ones previously mentioned along with The Dyck Van Dyke Show, Father Knows Best, Family Affair, and The Donna Reed Show, etc. presented an ideal to shoot for even amidst the numerous innocent imperfections that accompanied each of them. This was a time in which the entertainment industry raised the bar for society by showing what people ought to act like. Women were treated with respect, men were portrayed as intelligent, and children weren’t rebellious. The family was, by and large, the canvass on which humor was painted.

The 60s Calm Before the Storm

According to Wikipedia, “A trend beginning in the 1960s was the expansion of the domestic comedy beyond the nuclear family or married couple. The Andy Griffith Show and My Three Sons featured widowers and their children. At the end of the decade, Sherwood Schwartz's The Brady Bunch focused on a blended family.” By and large though, the 60s largely kept the traditional family trend going with perhaps some slight alterations in thematic material. I Dream of Jeanie and Gilligan’s Island—both programs not centering on families—portrayed women in a slightly more provocative way. Less clothing was worn and innuendo was starting to become just a little more common though nothing compared to modern times. Compare the widowers Larry Hagman and Andy Griffith portrayed to the ones Charlie Sheen and Jon Cryer portray in Two and Half Men and you’ll see what I mean.

Shifting Foundations in the 70s

Moving on to the 1970s, sitcoms become more and more political. Some family-centered comedies did exist such as All in the Family—which eventually turned into Archie Bunker’s Place parodying the white conservative male as a racist—but by and large the family shows were relegated to the place of rural dramas like The Waltons and Little House on the Prairie. Although this is supposed to be about sitcoms, I can’t help but notice that rural comedies (i.e. The Beverly Hillbillies, Green Acres, etc.) and Westerns (The Rifleman, Have Gun Will Travel, Maverick, etc.) begun to really phase out giving way to a more cosmopolitan and urban style in programing. Families were not the center of laugher anymore. They were portrayed as serious mainstays of the past being outmoded just like the Western. They were rural, as if our grandparents could relate to them, but we couldn’t, except as something nostalgic. The light-hearted rural comedies gave way to Maude and the Mary Tyler Moore Show, both centering on feminists, The Odd Couple and Laverne and Shirley, both centering on friends, and Three's Company which really exemplifies the first time the mainstream has ever laughed at homosexuality (even if the main character was faking his orientation for cheaper rent). I see the 70s as the first big transition in American culture. Our societal foundation had shifted. It was individuals that we took pleasure in, not institutions. In other words, we weren’t primarily laughing at antics that took place in the context of the family anymore. We also weren’t laughing at the same type of things. Sexual promiscuity and potential perversion were themes that also happened to be humorous to us. In the 80s and 90s we’ll find that perversion was no longer potential, it was portrayed.

80s Deconstruction

The 1983 airing of Cheers featured a plot in which the main characters become worried that their bar will become a “gay bar.” The Golden Girls repeatedly featured lesbian characters in the mid-late 80s. The Love Boat did much the same thing in addition to the questionable heterosexual material that permeated the series. What we have in the 1980s is a general acceptance of mature thematic material in sitcoms. It used to be in the 50s-70s that sexual indecency was generally relegated to drama, and even then it wasn’t glorified (homosexuality was never mentioned). It was in the 80s the traditional glass ceiling was shattered. The feminist theme continued in shows like Roseanne, the “mixed family” theme found its salvation in Full House, and the traditional families finally had a show they could once again claim—The Cosby Show. One thing I’ve noticed is that family-centered programming never really dies throughout time, it simply becomes relegated to a lesser and lesser share of the market and morphs into less than what we would think of as a traditional family. We can take The Cosby Show as an example of this. The mother, in contrast to Mrs. Cleaver, is in the workforce, the children, in contrast to Wally and the Beaver, are slightly more rebellious and more likely to throw temper tantrums. This portrayal of the family becomes more and more common as time goes on eventually leading to the depiction of the father figure as an ignorant fool who can’t really do anything right. The 90s are simply chalked full with this type of portrayal.

One thing that should not be missed is the relationship between deconstructionism and postmodernism. They’re really two sides of the same coin. As the family was redefined and relegated to a place of lesser prominence in situation comedy, so was the idea of the narrative. Seinfeld really marks the beginning of postmodern comedy. Portraying life as it actually is in time, with a storyline, and people who acted within the context of an institution, albeit work, family, government, etc. began to die with this show. All the main characters were individuals having almost no relation to themselves and lacking any compelling reason to be on friendly terms. They all treat Jerry’s apartment like it’s their home—barging in whenever they want, drinking out of his cups, eating out of his fridge, plopping down on his couch, and watching his television. It’s almost “as if” they’re a family, when in reality they’re not (Happy Days may have been a slight precursor to this idea). This theme of the “peeps” being the family replacement becomes strong in the 90s up until the present. The program is also literally self-described as being “about nothing.” What we get when we watch this show are little “slices of life” with no apparent relationship to the next slice of life.

The 90s Nontraditional Family

By the time we arrive in the 90s, sexual perversion is the laughing point in most of the programming. 3rd Rock From the Sun, The Drew Carry Show, Frasier, The Nanny, and just about half of all situation comedies were picking up on homosexual themes. Home Improvement and Everybody Loves Raymond exemplified the traditional family, this time with the father being portrayed as the bumbling selfish appendage to the one who really got things done—the mother. Even the children had more of a chance of getting things right than did the dad. All men really want is a beer, some time pursuing their favorite hobby, and a little sexual excitement. Friends signified the continuation of Seinfeld’s “peep group” mentality as a replacement for the family—even to the point that during the course of the series different characters would end up sleeping with each other and then trading partners a couple episodes down the line. The televised family was an almost completely nontraditional one.

It goes without saying that vulgarity was given a shot in the arm during the later part of this decade, though it had been slowly gaining speed from the mid-70s onward. Most of the shows on television became slightly on the deconstructionist side by incorporating scenes that had little or nothing to do with the overall theme of the episode at times. I like to call this a “cheep laugh.” You’ll find this in comedy today as well. You’ll be watching your favorite sitcom only to find an extraneous situation in which one of the characters is made fun of for no apparent reason in view of the overall plot. If I could come up with one thing to describe the comedy from the 80s through the present I might sight the frequency of these “put downs” and cutting remarks as the distinguishing feature.

2000 A.D.: The Death of the Family

In the 2000s to the present what we find is an aggressive attempt to undermine traditionalism in an overt way. No longer are sexual things alluded to. No longer are mixed families and “peep group” replacements slowly taking the place of the customary family. Instead, they are consciously letting their viewers know what’s going on. Two and Half Men centers on sex-related themes portraying as much as is legally allowed on television. The New Adventures of Old Christine and Cougar Town actively portray middle-aged women attempting to “get laid.” Scrubs, The Office, 30 Rock, and Parks and Recreation have made a joke out of story lines by simply not having them. That 70s Show is particularly interesting simply because it does portray families. In fact most of the episodes are almost exclusively filmed in the main characters house with his parents present in the kitchen or living room. However, the identification of the main characters is not with their families, but rather with their friends. It is a continuation of the “peep group” mentality with the added bonus of having the families present as well. Community is also interesting in that its “peep group,” which is actually called a “family” throughout the series, represents people from all ethnic and age categories. Modern Family, the most popular sitcom currently, presents multiple examples of consciously nontraditional families including a homosexual couple with children. Malcolm in the Middle and Family Guy have not only depicted the father as a bumbling fool, but for a change they’ve also depicted the children as being smarter than their own mother. Gilmore Girls (a semi-comedy) salvages the maternal figure against this reinterpretation by giving her “best friend” status with her teenage daughter. After all, if the new source of identification is not to be found in parents, why not have parents join the children?

Conclusion

Now if you think I wrote all of this to scare you you’re wrong. I’m not surprised in the least at the condition of the world. What I am a little surprised at is the reaction Christians have to it, myself included. The more I watch newer shows the more I feel my heart taking joy in perversion simply because it’s comedy. I can easily justify my reaction by saying, “Hey it’s only a joke.” When I view older sitcoms I don’t find myself laughing at the same things, and thus, while some of my time might be wasted in front of a television, at least my conscience isn’t being numbed. I do want to clarify, this isn’t an old vs. new issue. Just because something’s old doesn’t mean it’s good and just because something’s new doesn’t mean it’s bad. If our culture was going through a revival I’m sure it would be the newer stuff that would be the more wholesome. This is a right vs. wrong issue. If you feel that your conscience is being tampered with, stop being influenced by whatever it is you’re viewing. I’m not here to create any legalistic rules, or to say that the “old” shows are somehow “funnier.” In all honesty, I think a lot of newer sitcoms have writers that are geniuses, while more primitive television was a bit on the cheesy side. What I am saying is this—examine your own heart and see what direction it goes in when you watch your favorite comedies. Every time you laugh next time, ask yourself, “Would Christ laugh with me?”

A second reason I wrote this was to show how the culture war is being lost and where a huge front is that we’ve largely ignored as believers. As a result of the fundamentalist movement, Christians largely got out of the entertainment industry in the early-mid 20th century. It’s time we went back. I’m not suggesting going the Hollywood route (you can if you think you’re capable) but instead going the independent film route. I watch more television on the internet than I do on the television itself. I know I'd be willing to pay a little extra to see something that doesn't offend Christian sensibilities.Start thinking of ways you can influence film for righteous causes. I’m not saying you have to make a repeat of Leave it to Beaver. In fact, I hope you don’t! Just make sure whatever it is honors God’s standard, and is, well, actually funny (the one thing previous Christian attempts have lacked). I'm also not saying that it has to feature a family in order to be righteous. A group of friends is a fine palate on which to draw comedic material. The reason I traced the decline of family programing was for this very reason: It's a decline. We don't want this trend to continue I would hope. If it continues who knows where it will lead next? What kind of perversions will your children laugh at, and who will teach them what a true family is all about?

Solving Conflict Biblically

2011-04-03T21:57:00.000-07:00

The following reviews are reports I wrote for a seminary class I've been taking called conflict resolution. I thought the books were so good that I wanted to let everyone know about them. - Jonathan Harris

Review of The Peace Maker by Ken Sande

Ken Sande’s practical book, The Peacemaker, will teach the average layman all the way up to the powerful executive what it means to follow in the steps of the Prince of Peace. In a down-to-earth way, Sande explores what the Bible has to say about peacemaking, while at the same time interjecting his own powerful personal and career-related experience to demonstrate its applicability. Did you know that the central message of the Bible is that of making peace between parties adverse to each other? Is this not what the Father himself did in making those who were contrary to Him reconciled through the blood of His Son? For the Christian, being a peacemaker is a non-negotiable. As the author rightly points out, “Christians are the most forgiven therefore we should be the most forgiving.”

In the introduction to Sande’s book, he gives his reason for writing. “This book is designed to help you become this kind of peacemakeer [i.e. emulating Christ]. It provides a simple yet comprehensive approach to resolving conflict. Because this approach is based solidly on God’s Word, it is effective in every type of conflict.” Sande is correct when he characterizes his book as Word-driven. Just about every page you’ll read is chalk-filled with references demonstrating their origin in Scripture.

One of the major passages Sande uses to get his point across is James 4:1 which aks, “What is the source of quarrels and conflicts among you? Is not the source your pleasures that wage war in your members?” The author correlates this passage with Matthew 15:19 showing that conflict is ultimately produced by heart motivations. He writes, “These passages describe the root cause of conflict: unmet desires in our hearts. Wen we want something and feel that we will not be satisfied unless we get it, that desire starts to control us. If others fail to meet our desires, we sometimes condemn them in our hearts and fight harder to get our own way.” I think it is fair to say that without understanding this principle, nothing else in the book will make sense, the application will be unattainable, and ultimately God will not be in whatever remedy is chosen. The root problem in all conflict is rightly placed at the feet of a particular “idol(s)” by the author. “Conflict always begins with some kind of desire. . . Unmet desires have the potential of working themselves deeper and deeper into our hearts” eventually being justified and demanded.

So then, what is the remedy for this damning conflict ridden problem we all seem to possess? Sande proposes a replacement strategy that starts with dethroning our idol of choice. We must first “Repent before God,” cultivate a “Fear” of God, “Love God,” “Trust God”, and “Delight in God.” This may seem daunting at first but as we can observe, there is a common element to each step. The object of our action is always rooted in the Lord. I would like to suggest that Sande isn’t necessarily proposing a strict step by step process in which there are no relations to previous and later steps. He is proposing a simultaneous attitude that acknowledges God’s character and actions. Before providing a useful heart diagnostic at the end of the chapter entitled Conflict Starts in the Heart, Sande summarizes:

James 4:1-3 provides a key principle for understanding and resolving conflict. Whenever we have a serious dispute with others, we should always look carefully at our own hearts to see whether we are being controlled by unmet desires that we have turned into idols. These desires love to disguise themselves as things we need or deserve, or even as things that would advance God’s kingdom. But no matter how good or legitimate a desire may look on the surface, if we have gotten to te point where we cannot be content, fulfilled, or secure unless we have it, that desire has evolved into an idol that has diverted our love and trust from God.

Lest someone should think that the Peacemaker is all about correcting personal sin, let me affirm the fact that this work also provides a complete strategy for dealing with multiple party conflicts, even if you are not identified with one of the parties, or are involved but have not done anything necessarily wrong.

When an individual is a party to a conflict, Sande maintains that they have six possible negative responses to choose from — denial, flight, suicide, assault, litigation, or murder — and three basic obedient responses to select from — overlooking, reconciliation, or negotiation. Denial usually results in “temporary relief” making matters worse. Fleeing conflict usually postpones a solution to a given problem, suicide is “never right,” physical or emotional abuse “always makes conflict worse,” Litigation “usually damage[s] relationships and often fail[s] to achieve complete justice,” and murder is a direct violation of God’s commandments. What really needs to be done according to the author, is enact “peacemaking responses.” Overlooking an offense has direct endorsement from the Scripture itself. “A man’s wisdom gives him patience; it is to his glory to overlook an offense.” Reconciliation is likewise given a biblical stamp of approval in the Sermon on the Mount. Christ instructs, “Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.” Negotiation or “arbitration” as its form eventually can take, is expanded on in Paul’s letter to the Philippians (2:4). When in a conflict we should look out for “the interests of others.” When mediating, or arbitrating a conflict in which other parties unrelated to us are involved (following the Matthew 18 process), we must realize our job is to “improve communication and offer biblical counsel.” Sande goes into much detail concerning what this biblical counsel entails, but it can all be summed up in the Gospel. “The key to changing the way we deal with conflict is the gospel.” We “reflect the glory of God’s reconciling love in the midst of conflict.”

All in all, this work has many strengths. It does effectively teach the Biblical principles behind biblical counseling. The only criticism I would personally harbor is very slight. I believe Sande could have done a better job at exegeting biblical texts and using better biblical translations. I do realize that he is trying to reach a broad audience however, so part of this is understandable. Even without a lot of deep exegesis, Sande does seem to “rightly interpret” all the texts he utilizes. I would recommend this book to anyone struggling with conflict.

Review of The Peace Making Pastor by Alfred Poirier

Alfred Poirier’s vivid accounts and concrete examples of the real conflicts that exist within the context of any church will serve to encourage, enlighten, and assist all church leaders whose job includes dealing with people. Utilizing both Scripture and personal experience, Poirier offers solutions that are solidly biblical and thoroughly tested. The book of which I speak is called The Peace Making Pastor, as its subject matter pertains entirely to the topic of peacemaking among the elect. The author writes, “One of my primary objectives in writing this book has been to ground peacemaking on a solid biblical theological foundation as well as to place it within its ecclesiastical context.” Delving deeper Poirier informs us that book is organized “within the framework of who we are as people in conflict (chapters 1-3), who God is as a reconciling God (chapters 4-5), and how, therefore, God calls us to respond (chapters 6-13).” His “hope is that this book will begin to remedy the current deficiency in pastoral studies by providing pastors-in-training as well as seasoned pastors with an overview of biblical peacemaking from the unique vantage point of the pastor.” After reading this work I trust that you also will be convinced that the author’s hope has and will continue to be sufficiently fulfilled.

Poirier opens the first page of chapter 1 by giving three examples of potential situations that most pastors have encountered to one degree or another on some level during the course of their ministry. A congregant has breached a business contract and now his non-Christian associate wants you to do something about it. A church leader divorces his wife and cuts off all financial support for her and their four children. A former child molester who now claims to have repented desires to join your church despite congregational concern for their own children. The author follows each of these real-world scenarios with the question, “What am I to do?” Many seminary students, not having first-hand experience in vocational ministry, tend to ere on the side of ignorance when it comes to such a question. What course offered holds the answers to such questions? Is it Greek exegesis? No, not that one. Did hermeneutics address any of these topics? No, not really. What about systematic theology? Unfortunately, the answer once again is no. The real ministry of a pastor involves situations that only exist in the real world, and coping with such situations can possibly lead to “heresy of the heart” so to speak. The author recounts a reaction he had one day when it seemed like he was undergoing a bombardment in the area of “people problems.” He recounts, “I woke one day to find in the mirror a pastor with a tired face and a weary soul. I had entered the pastorate eager to walk in the footsteps of the pastorate and practice what the ancient church called the care of souls (cura animarum). But I woke that day frightened to find that I did not care anymore.” He then asks the tough questions—you know, the ones which just about every pastor is familiar with, yet rarely, if ever mentions out loud. “Do you ever dream of leaving your church for a less contentious one? Do you ever pray that the difficult people will just go away?” Poirier admits that he’s been there too, and like a more experienced counselor, desires to show the reader the way out. In the proceeding chapters he lays out his course on how to “exegete people” by “turning to Christ the Peacemaker.” “Instead of fleeing the world [as pastors will sometimes dream about], Jesus Christ embraces us sinners, us rebels, in all our filth, wavering, double-mindedness, hesitating, duplicity, lies, thefts, adulteries, and idolatries. . . He steps down into our pit rather than just shouting from on top.” It is then by following His example and completely adopting his motivations that we can be effective peacemakers and pastors simultaneously. Poirier writes:

Peacemaking is all about Jesus Christ, his person and work, as its ground, message, and manner of being. Jesus is he ground of peacemaking through his reconciling death. The gospel of Jesus is the message of peacemaking that we pastors bring to our people in conflict. And even the mode or manner of peacemaking is shaped by Christ himself, who was humble and gentle of heart and would not break a bruised reed. God’s cosmic work of reconciling all things in heaven and on earth to himself is through the person and work of Christ. In Christ, God reconciles all things to himself.

Consider the overt references to peacemaking that Christ himself made. In the sermon on the mount our Lord proclaimed, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” Jesus’s prayer in John 17:20-21 reflects His longing for there to be peace among His followers. Again in the Sermon on the Mount Christ instructs reconciliation between men before there can be an offering made to God. In Matthew 18 we find the process of “church discipline” being administered for the sake of peace. “Christ’s way was the way of giving forgiveness even before asked, and even when it was not or never would be asked for by the others.” To make peace is to follow the example given by our Lord when he made the ultimate peace between infinitely offensive sinners and an infinitely Holy God.

Of all the principles and helpful patterns forwarded throughout Poirier’s work, I believe the most helpful is contained in the chapter entitled “The Paths of Conflict.” Poirier uses “The Slippery Slope” graph—invented by Ken Sande—to diagnose the type of response an individual gives when dealing with conflict. This grid-work will serve to help the pastor in getting to the “heart” of the matter by diagnosing the motive of the response being made on the part each party in a conflict. The author divides the various responses into three categories: “Peace-fakers,” “Peace-makers,” and “Peace-breakers.” Depending on what type of response is being evoked is the idol a pastor should focus on in dealing with the conflict. For instance, if someone is trying to escape a conflict by denying that a problem even exists, and in so doing further aggravates the situation, it could be that they have a comfort loving tendency (i.e. idol). The author quotes James 4:1 to prove that it is ultimately the desires of the heart that serve to cause contention. “Conflict erupts and with it all kinds of evil—slander, gossip, blame-shifting, malice, anger, factions, and so on—because there is evil in our hearts.” Poirier then sets out in the very next chapter to exegete James 4:1-10 to show how it is the Gospel itself that provides the answer to conflict on a heart level. It is a deep love for God as a result of his work for us that melts away our idols and causes there to be peace.

Another important, and very practical principle that Poirier introduces us to is the “PAUSE principle.” He writes, “The best way to keep brewing conflicts from bursting into flames is to apply the PAUSE principle. . . [It] can serve as a brake—helping people to be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry (James 1:19).” “PAUSE” is an acronym which stands for “Prepare,” “Affirm relationships,” “Understand interests,” “Search for creative solutions,” and “Evaluate options objectively and reasonably (according to God’s standards of justice).” The author goes into much more detail regarding each term and what it specifically means practically speaking. I think it is important to note that all the elements of the acronym have there grounding in biblical citations, thus the reader can be assured that what he is receiving is a synthesis on what the Bible actually has to say regarding conflict resolution—not what modern psychology or any other authority may put forward.

In conclusion, Alfred Poirier has put together a wonderful practical tool that will I believe help churches and pastors in many useful ways. His defense of church discipline and insights into incorporating church participatory peacemaking activities are phenomenal. I do perhaps wish even more examples of situations in which biblical principles had to be exercised in the face of conflict were offered; but this is only because I thought the examples given were so rich, vivid, and helpful. It’s not that the biblical exegetical portions were sub-par, but more that the practical portions were so good. I believe that most pastors and church leaders should, at the very least, read the first three and last six chapters of this book in preparation for both personal and corporate ministry. Preferably they should have a copy of it on their shelf for when situations do arise simply because there are quote often times that conflicts are brewing under the surface in the hearts of men and it is when we least expect them that they rise to the surface. Let’s not be caught off guard. That’s Poirier’s wish. Is it yours?

The Nine Day Queen of England

2011-03-26T18:11:00.000-07:00

The following is a review my mother wrote on Faith Cook's book The Nine Day Queen of England.

It is the year 1547 in England. A baby is born to the royal family of King Henry VIII. He is the long awaited Prince Edward who will one day inherit the throne. Within twelve days, his mother, Jane Seymour, third wife of the king, will be dead. By the time Edward is nine years old, he will see three step mothers come and go, lose his own father and become king of England and head of the church. At age sixteen, he will succumb to tuberculosis, leaving the English throne in question to a country bitterly torn between Catholic and Protestant.

The same year, about a hundred miles to the north, another baby is born. Jane Grey is fourth in line for the throne, being a cousin of Edward. She becomes the political and religious pawn of English nobles in one of the greatest travesties of modern history. By the time she is sixteen, she will be forced into marriage, crowned Queen of England, and martyred for her faith.

This book explains the history and intrigue surrounding one of the most innocent victims of the Protestant Reformation, Lady Jane Grey. Although neglected and abused as a child, Jane had been educated past her station, excelling in music, knowing seven languages and regularly corresponding with the reformers of her day in Latin and Greek. Her marriage rights were sold by her parents and she was forced to wed the son of Edward’s Lord Protector, Guildford. When Edward died, a royal coup put her on the throne in a quick chess move, only to be trumped by (Bloody) Mary nine days later. Jane was imprisoned in the tower of London until her answer to remain faithful to her God and His Scriptures brought her to the executioner’s block. This is one of the best books I have read in a long time. Its accurate quotations and insightful history introduce you to a teenager worthy of emulating. Poised, mature and stalwartly faithful to the end, Jane is inspiring in her response to the trials God allows in her life. You will read no complaints about a dysfunctional home, unfair parents, mean peers, evil teachers or intrusive government. What you will read is how a young teenage woman deals with a set of overwhelming circumstances in a way that exposes true character, glorifies God, and with her life on the line, puts Him first when it really counts.

Fulfilled Prophecy

2011-03-22T20:51:00.000-07:00

By: Seraiah Wolf

I hope I haven't lost anyone--the last post was pretty lengthy (Resurrection: HEART of Gospel). It dealed with an important topic though. Without Jesus' Resurrection, we really are a sorry bunch of fools.

So what though. Maybe Jesus did raise from the dead (maybe), but other people "rose" from the dead during that time too. How does that show he's God, like you claim? Bam, we're going to have an answer by the end of today's blog: It's all about fulfilled prophecy.

Let's set up a panel of elite futurists. Our futurists are going to be two fellow Lion's Den bloggers--The Harris': Jonathan and David.

Let's ask them two sets of questions.

1). What will the weather be like tomorrow?
Who will be the next president?
Will things get better or worse in the next 20 years?

2). Who will be elected president in 2080?
When will he be born?
What city and State?
What unusual things will accompany his life?
What unique gifts will he have?
What unique titles will he possess?
Will he die in an usual manner?
If so, how will he die?
What year will he die?

If you're a pretty regular reader of the blog, you might think that with the Harris' combined brain power, they should predict at least TWO questions from the first set correctly. How many from the second set do you think they could predict?

The first set of questions were either very general, or close enough in time for them to answer with an educated guess. The second set were a whole 'nother category. How in the world could someone predict things so specific several decades in advance? The Bible prophecies belong to this second category. These prophets predicted specific unmistakable events hundreds of years in advance, and these predictions literally came to pass.

Jesus had to fulfill about five dozen prophecies. Here are 13 of them. These were considered Massianic by the Jewish Rabbis who lived before Jesus.

Tribe of Judah Genesis 49:10	Luke 3:23,33
House of David Jeremiah 23:5	Luke 3:23,31
Enter Jerusalem on a donkey Zechariah 9:9	Matthew 21:1-8
Born at Bethlehem Micah 5:2	Matthew 2:1
Introduced by a messenger Isaiah 40:3	Matthew 3:11-3
Body pierced in crucifixion Zechariah 12:10	John 19:34
Laid to rest with the rich Isaiah 53:9	Matthew 27:57-60
Endure wounds and bruises Isaiah 53:5	Matthew 27:26
Teaching and healing ministry Isaiah 61:1,2; 32:3-4; 35:5	Matthew 9:35; Luke 4:17-21
Arrive before the Temple and Jerusalem destroyed Daniel 9:26	Temple, Jerusalem Destroyed AD 70
Labeled Lord and God Jeremiah 23:6 Isaiah 9:6	Luke 2:11 John 20:28
Killed 483 years after degree to rebuild Jerusalem Daniel 9:25-26	Gospels, History (Christ Died about AD 30)
Silent before accusers Isaiah 53:7	Matthew 27:12

Do you know anyone who belonged to the tribe of Judah, and to the house of David, entered Jerusalem on a donkey, was born at Bethlehem, was introduced by a messenger, whose body was pierced in crucifixion, was laid to rest with the rich, endured wounds and bruises?...I think you get my point.

These prophecies couldn't have been fulfilled by chance. Most of them couldn't have even been deliberately fulfilled. The predictions must have come from someone who could see into the future. Since only God knows the future, these predictions must have come from God. And whoever fulfills them must be the one that God preordained to fulfill them.

The fact that at least a dozen detailed prophecies concerning the Messiah were fulfilled hundreds of years after the predictions demonstrates that the prophecies came from an all-knowing divine being who orchestrated the coming of Jesus and intended for Him to be considered the Jewish Messiah!

Think about that and try to share the information with an unbeliever. If the bible is a reliable historical document, we have sufficient evidence to believe that Christ rose from the dead and fulfilled dozens of messianic prophecies. ---> Next up, we'll show the divinity of Christ! =]

Adventures in Theodicy

2011-03-22T19:28:00.001-07:00

Resurrection: HEART of the Gospel

2011-03-12T15:35:00.000-08:00

By: Seraiah Wolf

Jesus' resurrection is the HEART of the gospel. Without it, our own bible scoffs at us (1 Corinthians 15). Without it dear friends, we've been deceived by the biggest hoax of time. Christianity stands or falls on the answer to the question: "Did the historical Jesus physically rise from the dead?"

Is there evidence for this event in history? Well, if we're going to argue for the Resurrection, we should first demonstrate that Jesus actually died. Then we can discuss whether or not He rose from the dead.

HEART: This is the acrostic we're going to use remember the main arguments for the Resurrection. Just remember that the Resurrection is at the heart of the gospel and the heart of Christianity.

Horrible Death:
We spent the last two weeks showing that the N.T. is historically accurate. On he basis of these historically accurate documents, we have sufficient evidence to believe that Jesus actually died. We get most of these details from the Gospels.

1) Even before Jesus was crucified, He lost a LOT of blood. The Roman floggings were terribly brutal, much worse than a modern day flogging. This is a quote from a medical doctor cited in The Case for Christ:

"Roman floggings...usually consisted of thirty-nine lashes... The soldier would use a whip of braided leather thongs with metal balls woven into them. When the whip would strike the flesh, these balls would cause deep bruises or contusions, which would break open with further blows. And the whip had pieces of sharp bone as well, which would cut the flesh severely. The back would be so shredded that part of the spine was sometimes exposed by the deep, deep cuts. The whipping would have gone all the way from the shoulders down to the back, the buttocks, and the back of the legs. It was just terrible. ...One physician who has studied Roman beatings said, "As the flogging continued, the lacerations would tear into the underlying skeletal muscle and produce quivering ribbons of bleeding flesh. A third-century historian by the name of Eusebius described a flogging by saying, 'The sufferer's veins were laid bare, and the very muscles, sinews, and bowels of the victim were laid open to exposure.'"

A person going through this would experience horrible pain and lose a tremendous amount of blood. That is why Jesus collapsed on His way to the place of Crucifixion and they had to find someone else to carry his cross. Jesus was already in critical condition even before He was hung on the cross.

2) After a person had been crucified, soldiers would trust a spear into a victim's side to make sure he was dead. Physicians agree that blood and water flowing out is a sign of death. If Jesus was not dead, blood alone would have spurted out.

3) Soldiers would break the legs of the Crucifixion victims in order to speed up their deaths because it would be much harder to breath if the victim couldn't push himself up. In the case of Jesus, when they came to him to break his legs, they didn't--because they knew he was already dead. And with their experience, they would
have known whether someone was dead or not.

4) Pilate asked for assurance from the centurion that Jesus was dead.

5) He was wrapped completely in bandages and laid in a tomb.

6) Non-Christian sources confirm the Crucifixion of Jesus.

No one was in doubt that Jesus was dead. Christ's death by Crucifixion is acknowledged by Jewish and Roman historians. We mentioned this last time.

If the resurrection really did happen, then the body that was buried would vacate its tomb. Remember we're not talking about a spiritual resurrection but a bodily, physical resurrection. This is what Jesus predicted, and what the apostles later preached. Why is the bodily resurrection taught by the apostles significant to apologetics?

Hint: It has to do with proving the Resurrection.

Pause.

If the disciples had really wanted to deceive the world, they wouldn't have taught a physical resurrection! That needs proof! It would have been much easier to teach a non-literal resurrection. But they didn't teach that, instead, they taught that Jesus literally, physically rose from the grave. This mean that there would need to be REAL proof for the Resurrection. The tomb, for one thing, would need to be empty.

Empty Tomb:
1) The Jews through history have admitted that the tomb was empty. They only give reason for the tomb's vacancy--belief in the empty tomb was assumed.

Trypho, a Jew, said in the second century:

"One Jesus, a Galilean deceiver,...we crucified, but his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended into heaven." (dialogue with Trypho, by Justin Martyr)

2) Christianity could not have originated in Jerusalem within a few weeks of the supposed Resurrection if there were no empty tomb. Why not? No one would have believed the Resurrection if there were no empty tomb, seeing the Resurrection was first preached in Jerusalem (the very city in which the body had lain) within a few weeks of the crucifixion and burial.

3) The other explanations for the empty tomb aren't even reasonable. These are the three most popular:

A. The disciples stole the body.

The disciples would have to sneak by or overpower the Roman guard outside the tomb. If they stole the body, they died for what they KNEW was a lie. Can we trust the apostles to have told the truth? Look at this:

Peter

Andrew

Matthew

James, some of Alpheus

Philip

Simon

Thaddaeus

James, brother of Jesus

Thomas

Bartholomew

James, son of Zebedee

Crucified

By the sword

Crucified

Killed by arrows

Stoned

Spear thrust

Crucified

The sword

"Nothing in law so convinces court and juries of the truthfulness of a stor as the fact that a man's life has been consistent with such story" (Henry Barnett, attorney)

The apostles' lives (and deaths!) were consistent with their testimony to the Resurrection. Myth Busted.

B. Maybe the Jewish or Roman authorities removed the body.

Wha? If they removed it, why wouldn't they have produced it for everyone to see? Remember, the Jews wanted to destroy what they thought was heresy; the Romans wanted to keep peace.

That was easy. The next is actually pretty comical.

C. It's called the swoon theory. This is basically that Jesus never really died. Look back at that evidence for his death. After all he went through, how could he still be alive. EVEN IF he hadn't died, but had instead survived in an extremely weakened state, how could this wasted leader have rolled away a huge stone and then convinced his followers (after he survived the ordeal) that he was Lord of Life and Victor over death. Can you imagine that?

Appearance after the resurrection
1) In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Paul gives a list of some of those who saw Christ. This includes Peter, The Twelve, and 500 brethren at once, James, and Paul himself. Most of them were still alive when Paul wrote to Corinth. He wrote this list around AD 55, only 20-25 years after the Resurrection! You don't mention 500 ALIVE eyewitness testimonies if the resurrection hadn't happened. Seems like he was open to having his word challenged.

2) The Gospel also records the testimony of others who saw Christ after he had been crucified. Some of these were Mary Magdalene and other women. And why do we believe the testimony of these early Christians? 'Cause these Christians risked their lives form what they said they saw, and many died for this belief. If the resurrection hadn't taken place, they'd have known it and they wouldn't have died for what they knew to be a lie.

Record of Women as the First Witnesses.

This point is stronger than it might initially seem. Remember I mentioned women were included among those who saw Jesus after He rose? They're actually identified as those who every saw Jesus and the empty tomb. That's of significance. A woman's witness wasn't respected in court in those days. They were not legal witnesses. They had a lower social status. If the gospel writers were making a story up, they weren't doing to a good job. You don't just make women be the first witnesses of the empty tomb and Jesus.

Transformation of the Disciples.

Peter: He was transformed from a cowardly denier of Christ to a courageous proclaimer of the Resurrection.

Paul: The greatest antagonist of Christianity became the its greatest advocate.

James, Jesus' brother: A skeptic of his half-brother until the Resurrection; afterwords he became the leader of the Jerusalem Church.

Each of these men had nothing to gain of the Resurrection were false.Just a quick reminder of the five points

Horrible Death
Empty Tomb
Appearances after the Death and Burial
Record of Women as the First Witnesses
Transformation of Disciples

Lets make a few inferences from this:
1) Jesus is ho he claimed to be--the Son of God, God in flesh. Only God has the power to raise the dead and I'm pretty sure He wouldn't resurrect a blasphemer of that magnitude. We'll later show that Jesus did make the claim to be God.

2)It confirms the Atonement:It gives validity to Jesus' claim that His death would "ransom many."

3)It shows He can overcome Death. It suggests he's able to give the same life to His followers like he promised.

I hope that was really cool. At school I tend to be overwhelmed from every single possible angle with secularism humanism evolution and an onslaught of every worldview except my own. It's always all around me. Being so alone, one tends to think "Am I wrong? Could I be wrong?" All I have to do is remember these apologetics and I'm reminded that God, in flesh, came upon the world and died--and came back to life. This was no hoax. We have not been fooled. I hope that's not only comforting for you too, but that you'll be able to share what you're learning here with others.

Peace in
-Seraiah

Is God Good?

2011-03-11T10:19:00.000-08:00

Even When an Earthquake Hits Japan?
By: Jonathan Harris

Late last night I found out that an earthquake of the magnitude of 8.9 had hit the country of Japan. Tsunami's are expected to hit off the coast of L.A.- where I'm living - relatively soon. Information is still coming in on the death toll and those who could potentially die in what happens during the coarse of this day. The turn of events caused me to think about God's goodness. Why Japan? They're not as evil as Iran right? Why couldn't God have punished an evil nation if He was going to punish someone? Is this God's punishment? How can He be good and allow this to happen? I'm sure questions like these, and many more, are jumping to the forefront of people's minds just as they do in the event of any natural disaster. Last year I wrote a post on the problem of evil but never really went into specifics on how to apply the principles to life situations such as these. I'd like to take the opportunity now to briefly do this.

In Luke 13 we read Christ's reaction to a similar event. " . . . do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." The Bible makes it abundantly clear that all our sinners and deserving of hellfire. It is this concept that determines how we will react to natural disasters. If we really believe we are innately good and undeserving we will be in shock and horror - perhaps even moral outrage. On the other hand, if we accept the Bible's anthropology, that man is by nature a violator against the highest law of God and deserves nothing but condemnation, we will be grateful that the disaster wasn't worse and we will learn to both fear and love God. Fear Him because He judges and love Him because he withholds His judgment so frequently. James White in a radio broadcast recently made the point that if what astonishes an individual about Romans 9:13 (Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated) is the "Esau I hated," they're looking at things in immaturity blind to their own nature. What should surprise us is not "Esau I hated," that should be a given, but rather the "Jacob I loved." Many people refuse to worship "a God like that," but He is the one magnified in Scripture. Learning to love a deity that loves, is forbearing, and yet still upholds justice is our prerogative. Who are we to stand in judgment over Him?

Once biblical anthropology is understand cultivating both a healthy fear and love, we must understand the person of Jesus. He was "bruised for our iniquities." If anyone has a right to complain about a tough life it would be He, yet for the "joy set before Him He endured the cross." He is a character that relates to what's happening in Japan and all over the world. His Spirit is in the midst of it divinely sparing the life of some. Those maimed and emotionally ruined have sympathy from the one who sweat drops of blood at Gethsemane. He is a "High priest who can sympathize with our infirmities." He is not overjoyed when seeing the effects of sin (which natural disasters our a result of), He weeps over such things like He did over Jerusalem and at the death of Lazarus.

In addition to understanding the nature of man and the relatability of Christ, we must also understand the sovereign plan of God. We so often look at things from such a temporal vantage point we don't realize that life goes on forever. Think about this for a moment. No seriously, stop reading for 30 seconds and really ponder this thought. The earthquake had no affect on the death rate (stop). The people that died would have died anyway. Everyone dies eventually. Do we get outraged over this? Usually not, we in our foolishness get outraged when that time comes before we're ready for it. Yet God is the one that determines the end from the beginning. His plan is for every person to live forever either in heaven or hell. This goes back to Christ's words regarding the tower of Siloam. "Unless you repent you will all likewise perish." There is a death that lasts forever, a death everyone deserves, but in God's grace not all receive it. Christ's substitutionary death, taking our punishment for sin upon Himself, satisfies the just wrath of God. However, it does not guarantee a good life here on this earth. We are instead told that we will suffer for His namesake and take up our cross and follow Him.

In conclusion, the earthquake has and will not kill anyone who was not going to die already. The real question is, where are they going? We must have compassion in the midst of this just as Christ did weeping over Jerusalem, yet we must keep in mind that our job is not to overcompensate for our "mean" God. Marvelous stories of His goodness will come flowing through the midst of this tempest. We are called to tell others about Him, so when a disaster hits our area the people we've had the privilege of having an impact on will be thankful despite circumstance. Just as Paul was content in all circumstances, so should we. Solomon said it was "better to be in the house of mourning" because there a man "considers his end." Turn this disaster into a witnessing opportunity- a testament to our just, but magnificently good, God.

Appologetics: Reliability of the N.T.

2011-03-05T04:54:00.000-08:00

By: Seraiah Wolf

Hey guys! If you remember from last week I presented a general outline which I was planning on fleshing out over the next few weeks, well, I finally got an image of it that'll help you visualize where we're going.

Today we're still on "The N.T. is Historically Reliable" and the material is going to be helpful. I know it look like a lot, but it's important to get the foundation before we build the next two lessons, Prophecy and Resurrection. I looked over that material today and was just put in a state of awe over the events recorded in this book. Each lesson builds on each other and when I saw the puzzle pieces fall in place to form the deity of Christ, it just filled me with this immense bubbly joy. Guys, this is amazing, you just have to get through today. Stick with it. We're going places.

Last week we used the Bibliographical method to show that what we have today in our N.T. is what was in the original manuscripts. We did not, however, demonstrate that the content in the N.T. was accurate. What if the N.T. writers weren't honest? Maybe they were creating a myth, maybe it was a conspiracy to gain power or popularity. Sure we know we have what they wrote, but how do we know what they wrote was true? Welcome to the last two tests for the historical reliability of the N.T. Let me introduce you to Internal and External (evidence, that is).

Internal Evidence:
A working definition of internal evidence is basically analyzing what was written by the author to determine weather we can trust him. It didn't sound sensible to me, but I think it'll make more sense once you see it.

Before we get started, I want to mention Aristotle's Dictum, that is "The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document and not to the critic." For example, if there is a possible explanation for a contradiction in a document, the document shouldn't be considered in error on the basis of that supposed contradiction. The Law of Non-Contradiction states, "If one statement absolutely contradicts another statement, without qualification, at least one of those statements cannot be true". So, a statement MUST violate the Law of Non-Contradiction to be considered a real contradiction. In order for one statement to contradict another, there must be no sense in which the statements can both be true. If there's a possible logical explanation, it's not a real contradiction.

Apparent Contradictions:
Are there contradiction in the bible? To illustrate, one Gospel says there was one angel at Jesus' tomb; another says there were two. I there an absolute contradiction here? No, because the gospel says that there was one angel doesn't say there was ONLY one angel. If it did, that would be an absolute contradiction to the gospel that says there were two.

What about this one? John 19 says that Jesus was standing before Pilate the 6th hour. Mark 15 says Jesus was crucified the 3rd hour. How could Christ be standing before Pilate after He was crucified? It's a contradiction!

Or, John was in all likelihood using Roman time (like our time, counting with time beginning at midnight and going through the next day), while Mark was using Jewish time (counting time beginning around 6pm and then again around 6 am). This would mean Jesus was standing before Pilate at 6am (6th hour-Roman time) and was crucified at 9am (3rd hour-Jewish time). That gives Jesus three hours to get from before Pilate to the Cross. That's a reasonable expiation.

A seminary student said to professor R.C. Sproul, author of Reason to Believe "The bible is full of contradictions" Sproul says that he responded like this, "The bible is a large book. If it is full of contradictions you should have no problem finding 50 clear violations of the law of contradiction in the next 24 hours. Why don't you go home and write down 50 contradictions and we'll discuss them at the same time tomorrow." The student accepted the challenge. He returned bleary-eyed with 30, after having searched long into the night. He presented Sproul a list of the most blatant contradictions he could find (he had made use of crital book that listed such contradictions). Sproul says, "He went through the next, one at a time, aplying the test of formal logic to each alleged contradiction. We used syllogisms, the laws of immediate inference, truth tables, and even Venn diagrams to test for logical inconsistency and contradictions. In every single incident, we proved objectively, not only to my satisfaction but to his, that not a single violation of the law of contradiction was made."

There are NO proven absolute contradictions in the bible. Plus, any surface contradictions that we do see actually help the case for the reliability of the N.T. Why, you ask? Because they show that the authors were truly writing from their own perspectives rather than scheming together to get their "story" right. (This is especially important for the Resurrection narratives.)

2 Peter 1:16

For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.

1 John 1:1

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life—

Luke 1:1-4

Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.

These make it obvious that the Gospels were based on the memories of people who had a close contact with Jesus and a direct knowledge of what happened. I don't know about you, but I don't even remember the details about significant things that happen to me. Jesus told His disciples that the Holy Spirit would bring to their remembrance all that He had said to them (John 14:25-16). The agreeing accounts from many different eyewitnesses confirms their recall ability.

These eyewitness died for their doctrine. People will sometimes die for what they believe to be true, but not for something they know to be false. The authors willingly gave their lives for their belief in Christ's Resurrection. This confirms their honesty.

It looks like the evidence favors the idea that the N.T. writers were honest and close enough to the facts to be able to present them accurately. They were trustworthy and competent. That's the internal evidence for the reliably of the N.T.

External Reliability:
This is evidence for the reliability of the N.T. from outside sources.

We're going to cover three external evidences before we leave for the afternoon. Evidence from other Christian writers, from non-christian historical sources, and archaeology.

Supporting Evidence from Other Early Christian Writers:
Papias, acquaintance of John the apostle said

"The Elder [the Apostle John] used to say this also: 'Mark, having been the interpreter of [Peter] wrote down accurately all that he [Peter] mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ, not, however, in order."

Irenaeus, student of Polycarp (a student of John) said

"So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and starting form these documents, each one of them [the heretics] endeavor to establish his own particular doctrine".

Even those in the early church who didn't respect the apostolic doctrine till respected the Gospel records. The Gospels must have been considered extremely reliable documents in those days.

Supporting Evidence from Early Non-Christian Historical Sources.
What would we know about Christ and Christianity if we didn't have the Bible?
If we combine the testimonies of Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, and the Talmud--all contemporary non-Christian sources-- we get the following picture

Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate at Passover time. (Tacitus, Thallus, Josephus, Talmud)
He was believed by his disciples to have risen from the dead three days later. (Josephus)
Jewish leaders charged Christ with sorcery and believed he was born of adultery. (Talmud)
The Judean sect of Christianity spread to even Rome. (Tacitus, Suetonius)
Nero and other Roman rulers bitterly persecuted and martyred early Christians. (Tacitus, Suetonius)
Early Christians denied polytheism, lived dedicated lives according to Christ's teaching, and worshiped Christ. (Pliny, Lucian)

We'd know all of the above simply by reading secular and Jewish history. As you can see, there is outside confirmation that the N.T. is historically accurate.

Archaeology as External Evidence:

Sir William Ramsay was a well-known, highly-respected archaeologist. He went to study the Bible lands as a liberal; fifteen years later he became a firm believer in a reliable N.T. He was originally a skeptic, and therefore neglected to consult it for help in his research, but eventually he used the writings of Luke to study Asia Minor and was surprised at how reliable Luke was. Ramsay said that Luke was unsurpassed as a historian. For example, when Luke made reference to 32 countries, 54 cities and 9 islands, he made no mistakes.

The pavement near the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem where Jesus was tried before Pilate was once considered a myth because there was no record of it in Jewish or secular history. It was finally found. When Titus destroyed Jerusalem, he built barracks there. When these were abandoned, and had crumbled, other buildings were built on top. Archeologists had dug down to the barracks, but no further until recently. When they did go underneath, the found the pavement.

The pool of Bethseda was mentioned in John 5 as the plae where Jesu healed an invalid. John said the pool had five "porches", or walkways. Ther was no record in Jewish or secular maps or histories and therefore was considered myth. In 1888 it was found while archaeologists were digging around the church of St. Anne. It lies about forty feet below the ground. Guess how many porches at the pool there is evidence of?

Nelson Glueck, a Jewish and universally esteemed archaeologist said that no archaeological discovery as ever contradicted the bible.

Conclusion:
Guys, the New Testament passes the three tests (Bibliograpical, Internal, External) that determine whether a document is historically reliable. The N.T. is a trustworthy historical document. Now we have a solid foundation on which to build our case for Christianity! That's where we're going!

I'd like to point out that all images came from Answers in Genesis.com. The teachers book is available for purchase and the powerpoint lessons are available for download. We covered lesson 8 today, so you can imagine that we glossed over a lot of material from chapters 1-6. If you're interested in learning more and don't quite like my style of teaching, the teachers book is absolutely great.

Appologetics: Evidence for Christianity

2011-02-26T19:18:00.000-08:00

Bibliographical Tests
By: Seraiah Wolf

Hey guys, my name is Seraiah and I’m going to be shooting several blogs your way on the topic of apologetics. I’m going to throw you in right now, click play, we’re getting started.

So with that as an outline, we’re going to spend the next few weeks providing support for those premises which will give credence to our conclusion, namely that Christianity is the true religion. Our topics will include:

o The Bibliographical Test: Historical Reliability of Ancient Documents

o Internal and External Tests: Historical reliability of the N.T.

o The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

o Fulfillment of Messianic Prophecies

o The Deity of Christ

The topic we will start on today is the historical reliability of ancient documents using the bibliographical test. You see, if someone proved that the N.T. is not historically reliable then all of us would be proved to be gullible followers of a false religion, but, if the N.T. IS historically reliable, then we have some evidence to support our next few premises.

Now that I just have you dying to read the next section, I’m going to pause and say that all this information comes from Defending Your Faith, a twelve lesson series on apologetics by Dr. Mark Bird, my professor in Creation Apologetics at God’s Bible School and College in Ohio. As part of my class, I am required to teach lessons from this book to a small group. This is my small group (hi guys) and these are my lessons. So far I have learned an incredible amount as I’m sure you will too, but I don’t want you to think I’m wickedly smart. My professor is wickedly smart and his hard work allows me to share this with you.

When the N.T. was written:

If the bible was written 100-200 years after the life of Christ, we probably wouldn’t get an accurate account of the events during that period. The message most likely would be distorted, since there would be ample time for myth to develop. Fortunately we don’t have this problem. There is strong evidence to suggest that the bible was written during the eyewitness period—that is, during the time that there were still people around who actually witnessed the events described in the N.T. That’s within 60 (most books within 30) years of the death of Christ in AD 30.

Evidence:

Manuscript have been found that date within or close to the first century. An example would be John Pyland Papyrus, dated AD 125, which included a fragment of John. The original manuscript must have been in circulation earlier.
Early church fathers (Clement, Ignatius) were quoting many of the N.T. books by around AD 100. The books that were quoted had to be in circulation at that time
There is no suggestion that the N.T. writers knew of the destruction of Jerusalem (AD 70) as a fact that had already happened.
According to history, Paul died in the AD mid-60s. At the end of Acts, Paul is dead. Therefore, it’s most likely probable that Acts and the books that Paul wrote were written before AD mid-60s (^_^). Luke also wrote the book of Luke before he wrote the sequel Acts, so Luke must have been written earlier than AD mid-60s.

Now this only shows the approximate time of when the N.T. was written, but this doesn’t determine the reliability of the document. To do that, we are going to start with the biographical test, and finish with the external and internal proof next week. These three major tests are used on every ancient document to determine their reliability.

The Bibliographical Test

This test evaluates the reliability of manuscripts by looking at the time span between original and existing manuscripts, the number of those manuscripts, and the quality of them. We know WHEN the N.T. was written, but how do we know if we HAVE the same document that was written then?

Timespan:

We mentioned John Ryland Papyrus manuscript already. Another is the Cheter Beatty Papyri, dated AD 120-150. These papyri contain most of Paul’s letters, the Gospels, and Acts. Here, it’s only taken 90 years from when the N.T. was written to the oldest ancient records that we have. Does that seem like a long time? Well, feast your eyes on these numbers.

Author/Work

Aristotle

Tacitus

Caesar

Odyssey

N.T.

Timespan

between penned date & our physical manuscripts

1,400 years

1000 years

950 years

500 years

90 years

If one can accept other ancient documents are reliable and reject the N.T. as unreliable, even though the N.T. passes the test for reliability much better than the other documents, then there is a double standard. We don’t believe that classical literature was significantly corrupted; why would we think that the N.T. was corrupted during the 90 year span?

Number:

Are there are WAY too many differences among surviving N.T. manuscripts for us to know what the original actually looked like? Are there large numbers of conflicting manuscripts? Let’s talk about that.

It’s much better to have many manuscripts; the more manuscripts we have for comparison, the closer we can get to the original manuscript reading. If a great variety of manuscripts are analyzed, we can be sure that whatever all the copies agree on was in the original manuscript. Well, how does the N.T compare to other ancient documents? Just check out the numbers, baby.

Author/Work

Plato

Caesar

Tacitus

Homer

N.T.

Number of Copies

643

5,700 (Greek)

After you take into account the 10,000 Latin manuscripts, 9,300 manuscripts of other versions and tens of thousands of quotations from the N.T. by early church fathers, you have superior manuscript evidence! The piece of ancient literature with the greatest quantity of existing manuscripts (besides the bible) is Homer’s Iliad with only 643 copies.

“The number of manuscripts of the N.T., of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world” Frederick Kenyon, renowned paleographer and textual critic.

Quality:

Alright guys, check this baby out. 7/8s of the N.T. is the same in ALL manuscripts. Of the 1/8 that is left, most differences are in spelling, style, or grammar differences . Only 1/8 of that (1/60) are significance differences. In other words:

About 400 differences are significant to the meaning of the N.T. This is less than one page in an English translation. Now before you go into freak mode, listen to this: In spite of any errors in the copying, no variant reading harms any doctrine of the N.T. Though a disputed passage may touch on a doctrine, every doctrine of the N.T. is taught in its indisputable parts.

Also, the only textual variant which affect more than a sentence or two are John 7:53-*:11 (the story of the woman caught in adultery) and Mark 16:9-20 (the end of the book). Most variants affect only individual words or phrases.

Now compare this with other ancient literature. Most piece of literature cannot even be reconstructed enough to know what percentage was in the original for sure. One exception is Homer’s Iliad, with 643 copies. It is about 95% pure. The N.T., which is at least 98% percent pure compares very well with other ancient literature.

Conclusion:

Though these arguments do not prove that the Bible is the Word of God (more on that later), they do confirm that we have what was originally written. If what was written is the Word of God, then we can be certain we have that same Word today. We can state with certainty, along with Frederick Kenyon

“The Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear or hesitation that he holds in it the true Word of God, handed down without essential loss from generation to generation throughout the centuries”(Frederick Kenyon)

How to Know if Your Pastor is a Hyper-Calvinist

2011-02-18T16:15:00.000-08:00

Molecular Romance

2011-02-17T22:22:00.001-08:00

Introducing Semi Pelagian

2011-02-17T21:38:00.000-08:00

Eternal Security: More Than A Doctrinal Distinctive

2011-02-09T04:00:00.000-08:00

(Or more simply: Why you can’t lose your salvation and why it matters)
By: David Harris

After several semesters of being heavily involved in campus ministry, I’ve realized that a Christian can have unity with other Christians, even if they have a wide range of theological differences- as long as Christ is central, unity can be present. However, this is not to say that some issues cannot be debated, and it is also not to say that they aren’t IMPORTANT. One issue in particular I’ve had numerous discussions/debates with fellow Christians is that of eternal security. I’ve oft found myself among a group of people, where I am the only one among them that holds to this doctrine- and I have the obligation thus of defending it. I’d like to take a fairly brief look at the importance of this doctrine, because if not carefully thought through and considered, extremely serious consequences may result- consequences as critical as one’s eternal destiny.

First off, let me just be clear on one thing: I don’t believe that believing in eternal security is essential for salvation (especially considering those who are saved are eternally secure). Some of my closest and dearest friends do not believe in this doctrine, and it has had no great effect on our friendships. However, if this theology is taken too far I believe it can be damning because ultimately salvation rests not on Christ, but on the individual person.

Let us examine the antithesis of eternal security first: let’s say we CAN lose our salvation. There are three possibilities as to how one could lose it (with the third being “intertwined” with the other two). Number one: a person’s deeds have a negating effect on salvation. So perhaps if a man accepts Christ, but then goes out and murders someone, he has lost his salvation and is now out of the saving grace of God. Number two: a person loses their FAITH in Christ. So while he made a “decision” to follow Christ, now he has turned his back on Christ and no longer believe in His saving grace- this triggers the negating effect on that individual’s salvation. Thirdly, and finally, God removes you from His grace (which could intersect with the other two). Let’s take a look at each of these individual options.

Option one: sin removes salvation. Let’s take a man who came to faith in Christ as a young man of 15. He appeared to be convicted of his sin at the time of his conversion, and immediately had a changed life. However, several years later the young man is now an unrepentant fornicator- he is persisting in sin of which God directly commands not to commit (1 Corinthians 6), and has therefore “lost” his salvation. There are several problems with this assessment. For one, there is a strange and unanswered haze around this. The question remains: what sin does it take to remove salvation? Insert any sin you want. We know from James 2:10 that if someone even breaks one of God’s laws, he is held accountable for breaking all the law- therefore we could say that no sin is “worse” than another. So what sin does it take to lose salvation? Is it a lie? Sexual sin? Not putting God first in life? What is the time of the loss? Minutes? Seconds? Milliseconds? 1 John 1 says that if someone says they have no sin (Christians included) they are liars- so we will never be 100% rid of our sin. Romans chapter 7 gives the portrayal of a very mature Christian (Paul). He only becomes more aware of the depth of his sin in his maturity. Furthermore, 1 John 2 talks of how Christ is our advocate when we do sin (“But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous”). This statement does not have any salvation “qualifiers”; it is all encompassing. In verse 12 John says: “I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name’s sake.” When someone comes to Christ, they are totally and fully forgiven of their sins- past, present, and future.

Let’s examine the second “possibility”; that when one loses their faith in Christ’s atoning work on the cross, that person loses their salvation. First of all, there is an entirely (and I would argue more biblical way) to look at this: if someone renounces their faith in Christ, then it’s a good indication that they were never a Christian to begin with. 2 Corinthians 5:17 says: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.” If when God draws someone to faith in Christ they are a totally new person and have a new heart and new desires, does their new God given nature in Christ somehow “become old” again? Cannot God keep those who (as asserted in Ephesians 1) foreknew before the foundation of the world?

This last “possibility” is perhaps the most difficult to deal with, because it has to do with a fundamental understanding of God’s work in salvation. If you believe that God “does the saving” in salvation, then you are in a much better place to understand this issue- this is one of the reasons I believe that the issue of eternal security is so critically important. While ignorance may be a viable excuse, if you are relying on your own works to “maintain” your salvation, I fear you could be in danger of being among those whom Christ says: “Depart from me ye who practice lawlessness”. Your reliance on yourself for salvation does not equate to trusting in the saving work of Christ. In no way am I trying to make lightly of sin- 2 Peter 1 warns to “make your calling and election sure”. Notice however, he doesn’t say: “make sure of your salvation”. He isn’t warning against falling out of God’s grace, but having a false profession of faith. One verse often used for those arguing for eternal security is John 10:28: “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. The common retort is: well, it says no one else, but it doesn’t say anything about them leaving the hand. To that I say: What about never perishing? Is Jesus lying here then? He said that those who are His sheep will have eternal life- once again, there is no qualifier here. John 6:39-40 says: "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I will lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life, and I myself will raise him up on the last day." We see two things of great importance here: Salvation is decided by God, and not one of those whom God has chosen will be lost (so one would at the very least have to say that even if a man loses his salvation many times, if God has chosen him he will be raised up on the last day and inherit eternal life no matter what).

In all my various discussions with those of the opposite persuasion, I’ve still never been given a reasonable, hermeneutical response to Ephesians 4:30: “and do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.” The word sealed here does not merely mean being “set” in Christ, but being totally secure from all outside and inside harm. Finally, Romans 8:38 says: “For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor thing to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Speaking in the context of the redeemed, this passage also is a great example of God’s everlasting and unchanging holding on our salvation.

Once again, I would like to make sure that the readers of this piece know that I’m in no way making light of the seriousness of sin. “Are we to sin more so that Grace may more abound? May it never be!” Paul fought fiercely against the doctrine of antinomianism, which says: “as long as we’re eternally secure, we might as well sin!” However, Paul never compromised the doctrine of eternal security while fighting against antinomianism- he only affirmed it while he rebuked those who were living carnally- in fact (in 1 Corinthians) he never even assumes that those whom he is rebuking are not saved.

While I admire the concern of living holy for those who deny eternal security, I would strongly warn and admonish those deny this key doctrine to “make sure they’re calling and election”. There is nothing in this life as important as knowing where you will spend your eternity, and if you are relying on yourself instead of the cross, you may find yourself in the wrong line when you meet your maker.