Why, I wondered, am I alone in my skepticism over the multitude of red flags being raised by that article? Why did that member find it compelling enough to uncritically share? And did anyone else find it compelling? (Well, it would seem that there are at least five others who did, giving his post a thumbs-up.) The pronounced absence of skepticism denoted an appalling level of uncritical credulity that ought to have been embarrassing—although I suspect that they were not embarrassed.

So I decided that I would not only perform my usual due diligence but also, given the nearly viral popularity of that article on the internet, publish the results for the sake of getting truth and history right, putting this silly twaddle in its place.

The article that he cited was not even original. It was a full reproduction (with some initial commentary) at a Livejournal account of an article published by an individual who wrote under the pseudonym ThosPayne; the article was published 24 August 2008 on the web site for Colfax Record, the online presence of a local newspaper in Colfax, California, [1] apparently under his myColfax personal blog. [2] That article no longer exists at its original location, although there exists an archived copy of it. [3] For whatever reason, that particular member could not be bothered to do even this most basic of searches in order to reference original source material—something that is of particular interest to skeptics and critical thinkers.

But what about the article itself that he cites? It is an intellectual train wreck that any skeptic would give a wide berth. Allow me to demonstrate for readers and visitors here who might be as credulous as him what skepticism and critical thinking looks like.

[Professor] John Boswell … discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents …

This label of “heterosexual marriage” is disingenuous, misleading, and question-begging, for it carries the implication that Christian liturgies recognized any other form of holy matrimony, thus preparing the reader to accept that homosexual marriage was one of them, as the cited article would subsequently attempt to argue. One must not assume the very thing to be proved, which the label “heterosexual marriage” attempted to do by implying that marriage was not strictly between a man and a woman. Although there were same-sex unions (adelphoi genesthai), these rites were neither homosexual nor were they marriages.

… there were also ceremonies called the “Office of Same-Sex Union” … and the “Order for Uniting Two Men” …

According to Shaw, who is sympathetic to same-sex marriage but does not tolerate scholarly incompetence, these titles are mistranslated. “Boswell’s translation of their titles (akolouthia eis adelphopoiesin and parallels) as ‘The Order of Celebrating the Union of Two Men’ or ‘Office for Same-Sex Union’ is inaccurate. In the original, the titles say no such thing. And this sort of tendentious translation of the documents is found, alas, throughout the book” (which the article in question is predicated upon). When these words are translated in a straightforward manner, “they impart a quite different sense to the reader.” [4]

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied [sic] in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

Not one single piece of evidence is cited to support any one of these claims, leaving the reader with no reason to accept any of them. Worse yet, given the detailed refutations by scholars such as Shaw, Young, and Woods, there exists manifold reasons to be highly skeptical of the claims. Consider for example the “holy union” of Basil and John. Although Basil was arguably a homosexual, the ceremonial in which the two were united was not one of matrimony. Boswell translates the text of historian Theophanes into English as saying that Basil “honored him with the title protospatarius and granted him intimacy with him on account of their earlier shared life in ceremonial union.” There are two misleading translations occurring here, as Young points out. [5] First is his translation of parrhesia as “intimacy,” which is misleading because the context of his argument gives a sense to the reader which the word simply does not convey. The intimacy being referred to in the text is not the romantic sort shared by lovers; rather it refers here to the freedom granted John to speak his mind plainly and boldly to Basil, which is what parrhesia means. [6] Second, the earlier ceremonial union spoken of was not a marital one; the Greek clause reads "kai tes pros auton parresias metedoke dia ten phthasasan koinonian tes pneumatikes adelphotetos," which is properly translated as “previous association in spiritual brotherhood” [7] (pneumatikes adelphotetos)—although, contrary to Young, the meaning of koinonia conveys something deeper than mere “association,” as attested in Scripture by its use in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper and the powerful communion shared by those in Christ. [8] (And therefore, contrary also to Boswell, it does not denote a union of lovers joined in holy matrimony either.)

[The curious icon] shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men.

Since the preponderance of evidence weighs in favor of the Christian church recognizing marriage only between a man and a woman, to say that this icon depicted a “wedding” scenario of a “married couple [who] are both men” is to illegitimately beg the very question. The author must not assume the very thing to be proved. Given the extensive historical evidence for Christian rites which bless adelphopoiesis or the making of a brother, it is more probable that this is the sort of union being depicted in that icon; as such, the author shoulders the burden of proving that it depicts something else. His conclusion is not impossible, but it is certainly improbable—and cannot be assumed from the outset.

The full answer [as to whether or not the icon depicts Christ sanctifying a gay wedding] comes from other early Christian sources about the two men featured in the icon, St. Sergius and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who were Christian martyrs. … In the definitive 10th century account of their lives …

Although the author references a tenth-century account, he does not cite it; evidently the reader is supposed to just take his word for it, including his claim that this text states that Sergius was the “sweet companion and lover” of Bacchus, a statement which seems rather crucial to his conclusion about what the icon depicts. But then the author also does not explain how this unnamed account from over half a millennium after Sergius and Bacchus had died can be meaningfully considered “definitive,” never mind reliable.

Sergius and Bacchus’s close relationship has led many modern scholars to believe they were lovers.

This is a significant claim of great import to his conclusion, so where are the references to these “many modern scholars”? Who are they and where is their research that shows Sergius and Bacchus were lovers? A red flag to any skeptic, the author does not cite any support whatsoever for this claim, using what Wikipedia contributors would flag as “weasel words.”

But the most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, written in New Testament Greek, describes them as erastai, or “lovers.” In other words, they were a male homosexual couple.

This is likewise a significant claim of great import to his conclusion, so why is it that the author neither cites nor includes a Greek quote from this “oldest text of their martyrology”? It would be valuable to those interested in assessing the accuracy of the claim and its interpretation. I submit that his reason is perhaps the same as or similar to the reason why Boswell neither cited nor quoted from the specific original text and its context: because the claim is utter fiction. As a salient matter of fact, the word erastai is simply not there! Starting at page 373 of Analecta Bollandiana, Vol. 14 (Indiana University Press), the skeptic can access the original Greek text of “Passio Antiquior Ss. Sergii et Bacchi” for himself and see that this claim is entirely fictitious. The author and Boswell are not content with their revisionist history; they have to further their dishonesty by inventing support.

One Greek 13th century rite, ‘Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union,’ invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus and called on God to “vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints.” The ceremony concludes: “And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded.” … Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic ‘Office of the Same Sex Union,’ uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

And here we have a direct quote; but, like before, there is not a single citation for it. The reader is simply to take the author’s word for it. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, a red flag always goes up (and should) when a Google search of a quote never points anywhere but the same article and its various reproductions. This should lead the reader to be highly skeptical of the supposed quote, to say the least.

The actual text for these Christian rites which bless adelphopoiesis—the making of a brother—comes from an eleventh-century Greek manuscript (Grottaferrata B. ii.) for Akolouthia eis adelphopoiesin (translated by Boswell as ‘Office for Same-Sex Union’), which Shaw cites and quotes using Boswell’s translation of it, while inserting “some of the significant original Greek words in transcription” [9]:

I

The priest shall place the holy Gospel on the Gospel stand and they that are to be joined together place their right hands on it, holding lighted candles in their left hands. Then shall the priest cense them and say the following:

II

In peace we beseech Thee, O Lord.

For heavenly peace, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

For the peace of the entire world, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

For this holy place, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

That these thy servants, N. and N., be sanctified with thy spiritual benediction, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

That their love [agape] abide without offense or scandal all the days of their lives, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

That they be granted all things needed for salvation and godly enjoyment of life everlasting, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

That the Lord God grant unto them unashamed faithfulness [pistis] and sincere love [agape anhypokritos], we beseech Thee, O Lord…

Have mercy on us, O God.

“Lord, have mercy” shall be said three times.

III

The priest shall say:

Forasmuch as Thou, O Lord and Ruler, art merciful and loving, who didst establish humankind after thine image and likeness, who didst deem it meet that thy holy apostles Philip and Bartholomew be united, bound one unto the other not by nature but by faith and the spirit. As Thou didst find thy holy martyrs Serge and Bacchus worthy to be united together [adelphoi genesthai], bless also these thy servants, N. and N., joined together not by the bond of nature but by faith and in the mode of the spirit [ou desmoumenous desmi physeis alla pisteis kai pneumatikos tropi], granting unto them peace [eirene] and love [agape] and oneness of mind. Cleanse from their hearts every stain and impurity and vouchsafe unto them to love one other [to agapan allelous] without hatred and without scandal all the days of their lives, with the aid of the Mother of God and all thy saints, forasmuch as all glory is thine.

IV

Another Prayer for Same-Sex Union:

O Lord Our God, who didst grant unto us all those things necessary for salvation and didst bid us to love one another and to forgive each other our failings, bless and consecrate, kind Lord and lover of good, these thy servants who love each other with a love of the spirit [tous pneumatike agape heautous agapesantas] and have come into this thy holy church to be blessed and consecrated. Grant unto them unashamed fidelity [pistis] and sincere love [agape anhypokritos], and as Thou didst vouchsafe unto thy holy disciples and apostles thy peace and love, bestow them also on these, O Christ our God, affording to them all those things needed for salvation and life eternal. For Thou art the light and the truth and thine is the glory.

V

Then shall they kiss the holy Gospel and the priest and one another, and conclude.

“It is this ceremonial,” Shaw observes, “and blessings like these, that Boswell claims to be part of a lost, or deliberately suppressed, tradition of church-legitimized same-sex marriages between men,” which he then proceeds to thoroughly refute. The point that I wish to raise here—aside from citing and properly quoting the rites which the original article made a complete mess of—is the fact that nowhere in any of this material is there so much as a hint of homosexual marriage, and that it is moreover entirely consistent with the well-established and recognized historical church rite of making a brother (adelphopoiesis).

“But it says they were to kiss!” Indeed it does. But is that a romantic kiss between newlyweds? Of course not; observe that they were to “kiss the holy Gospel and the priest” as well. Furthermore, such kissing in that culture and period was entirely customary (e.g., Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Thess. 5:26; 1 Peter 5:14) and did not connote what it largely does in the modern West. “The ancient and medieval world about which Boswell writes was not riven by the same anxieties and repressions that mark our own,” Shaw writes. “In that world, public and affective bonds between men were typical, even banal. But this is not the same thing as the legitimization, or the sacralization, of homosexuality.” [10]

Records of Christian same-sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand years from the 8th to the 18th century. …

Again, there certainly were same-sex unions (adelphoi genesthai) but these rites were neither homosexual nor were they marriages. If the author wishes to argue otherwise, he needs to do far more than simply point to the well-attested historical evidence for adelphoi genesthai church rituals. “The ‘new’ documents that Boswell has unearthed,” notes Shaw, “are nothing more than a few additional texts that shed more light on a primitive and basic power linkage between men in the ancient Mediterranean, and the rituals attendant on its formation.” [11]

[Professor] Boswell’s academic study is so well researched and documented that it poses fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their own modern attitudes towards homosexuality. For the church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be cowardly and deceptive. The evidence convincingly shows that what the modern church claims has always been its unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is, in fact, nothing of the sort.

Whom Boswell’s embarrassing work “poses a fundamental question for” is Boswell himself, whose so-called research is fraught with selective citations, revisionist history, inaccuracies, mistranslations, misleading equivocations, and other various disreputable errors that are an affront to proper scholarship. There is a reason why “Boswell’s methodology and conclusions have been disputed by many historians.” [12] There is no good reason for this embarrassing substitute for good scholarship to be taken seriously or propagated by skeptics and critical thinkers.

[1] 233 S. Auburn Road, Suite 205, Colfax, CA 95713.

[2] At the original article the author name is hyperlinked to a my.colfaxrecord.com user profile.

[3] http://web.archive.org/web/2009121908482…91429.html

[4] Shaw 1994.

[5] Young 1994.

[6] Ibid. (cf. Foucault 1983).

[7] Ibid.

[8] Koinonia. (2012, January 16). Wikipedia. Accessed 13 May 2012.

[9] Shaw 1994. Shaw’s inserted Greek words are placed within square brackets.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Saints Sergius and Bacchus. (2012, May 13). Wikipedia. Accessed 13 May 2012.

REFERENCES:

The Bollandists, “Passio Antiquior Ss. Sergii et Bacchi,” Analecta Bollandiana, Vol. 14, §19 (Indiana University Press), 373ff.

Michel Foucault, “Discourse and truth: The meaning of the word ‘parrhesia’.” From a lecture given at the University of California at Berkeley (October–November 1983).

Brent D. Shaw, “A groom of one’s own?” The New Republic (1994, July), 43–48.

David Woods, “The origin of the cult of Ss. Sergius and Bacchus,” University College Cork, Ireland (2000, April). This is a revised version of his paper, “The Emperor Julian and the Passion of Sergius and Bacchus,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 5 (1997), 335-367.

Robin D. Young, “Gay marriage: Reimagining church history,” First Things 47 (1994, November), 43-48.

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

• Australian Senate considers marriage equality bill (19)
• Weep with compassion for the celebration of sin (0)
• Frank Turek – The Real Bigots (7)
• Rob Ford vs. the LGBT Agenda and PC Peer Pressure Tactics (1)
• Marriage: more than “equality of love” (0)
• How Same-Sex Marriage Affects Me (1)

In 2010 I provided some basic information for those among us who enjoy apologetics and have a desire to see it become a regular part of discipleship and training in their church, but were perhaps unsure how to get started. It was drawn largely from my own investigations and desire to do just that, but certainly not from my own experience. My intention was to help and encourage people like me, who enjoy this particular branch of evangelism and training, and think they might be able to serve their own church in this way.

Continuing in this vain, I am excited about to tell you about another resource that I have found very informative and practical.

Over the course of two months in 2010, Apologetics315.com released a series of 21 podcasts. The podcasts were simply narrated articles^[1]; articles written by regular folk from around the world (including Australia!) who wanted to share their experiences in starting an apologetics group in their own church. Apologetics315.com’s Brian Auten put it this way:

The goal of this project is a simple one: to share stories, experiences, and advice that will help Christians to start their own local apologetics initiatives. Whether you be a pastor, youth pastor, teacher, elder, or lay person, this series of short essays could hold the keys you need to get things started in your own local congregation.

The contributors to this project range from lay leaders to pastors, self-taught to formally trained. But they all share something in common: they are Christians who love Jesus, they have a passion to defend the Christian faith, and they have found an outlet for training and equipping others in the local church. As you read (or listen) you will hear them describe their situations, challenges, and testimonies as they helped initiate small groups, apologetics Sunday school classes, apologetics events, movie nights, and sermons.

I found it to be a very helpful resource that I have revised on several occasions as I prepare to introduce apologetics in my own church. And now, with the second series of podcasts on this topic to begin next week, Brian Auten is seeking more contributions to add to those collected for Series One:^[2]

Next week, part 2 of this series will launch, with even more essays from a variety of contributors. So why announce this now? Because you might have something to contribute. Do you run any type of apologetics group in your church? If you would like to contribute a short essay about your church-based apologetics group please contact info (at) apologetics315.com.

[Update: The podcast feed for the second series can be found here. Subscribe to it via iTunes and receive each new episode as it is released. Episode 1 - Why Apologetics Matters to Every Church and Every Believer - is now available. I hope you find them useful.]

1. The articles themselves are also freely downloadable in a variety of formats. Download the eBook [Kindle format | PDF | Mobi | ePub]
2. http://www.apologetics315.com/2012/04/how-to-get-apologetics-in-your-church.html

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

• An Unbelievable Podcast! (2)
• We Don’t Hate Sin. So We Don’t Understand What Happened To The Canaanites (4)
• The context is setting apart Christ as Lord (6)
• Sura 9:5: The Ayah of the Sword (5)
• Christian Apologetics–What it Isn’t (0)
• The Christology of Mark (2)
• The Illogic of Pluralism, Pt. 3 (0)

Did you know that Tim Keller is a heretic? Oh yes, the adjunct professor of practical theology at Westminster Theological Seminary (Pennsylvania) and founding pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church (New York) is a rank heretic.

At least that is what certain Baptists would have you believe because, horror of horrors, Keller believes that the earth has been around considerably longer than 6,000 years. (He also denies that the earth is constituted as a circular disc, and that it is the center of the universe; but let us ignore for the moment his denial of those biblical teachings because his rejection of young-earth creationism is bad enough.) We know that the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith (LBCF) clearly proclaims young-earth creationism as the teaching of the Bible; we know that much of the church throughout her history has affirmed a young-earth view; we know that numerous highly esteemed men of God throughout the centuries have affirmed that view; and we know that Keller definitely rejects the young-earth creationist view. Therefore, we know that Keller is a heretic.

“Wait, is not Pastor Tim Keller a Presbyterian?” Yes, he is. But that does not bring any relief for his heresy. In fact, it makes him all the more a heretic because Presbyterians baptize infants and we know that the LBCF proclaims believers baptism as the teaching of the Bible, that the early church baptized believers, not infants, that numerous godly men affirmed believers baptism, rejected baptizing infants, and so forth. Therefore, we know that Keller simply compounds his heresies.

“Keller does not subscribe to your confessional standard. He is a Presbyterian; he subscribes to the Westminster Confession of Faith” (WCF). Indeed he does, but the WCF is wrong in certain and important areas, such as baptism. As the LBCF makes clear, the biblical teaching is believers baptism; so then Keller is heretical with these strange new doctrines that are sub-biblical at best and unbiblical at worse.

“Pardon? These are not strange new doctrines. Christ’s church has been discussing these issues for centuries—millennia, even!” No. Look, they are new, because they are new to me.

~*~

No, none of the preceding conversation actually took place. Well, at least not in my experience; it would not surprise me, though, if conversations very much like that have taken place somewhere. Nevertheless, it does reflect the sort of conversations that I have observed during my time as a Christian—from the first days after my conversion, in fact, when I would hear my close friend viciously censure Calvinists as monstrous heretics (and I along with him, back then). Even the origins issue is appropriate, for I have heard many a young-earth creationist vilify as heretics all those who maintain an old-earth view, supposing that they value science more than the holy scriptures (without any apparent regard for how absurd that is when, for example, it is said about Reformed theologians with a legacy of revering and defending the word of God as fully and finally authoritative).

Indeed there are Christians who play much too fast and loose with the term heretic, willing to censure and exclude from the body of Christ (even if only wishful thinking) anyone who does not share their particular view on such non-essentials as, for example, how long this planet has been around.

Last week at our Wednesday bible study group, during the time of fellowship after the study, I had a discussion with both the senior and associate pastors of my church about the subject of heresy. “When is a belief or teaching considered a heresy?” I asked each of them. “Where is that line drawn, between potentially unorthodox and outright heresy?” We talked for nearly an hour and, at the end of our discussion, it was agreed that the only beliefs subject to the charge of heresy are those which touch upon the nature and character of God, his word, or the gospel. For example, the apostle Paul considered it heresy to preach a different gospel contrary to apostolic preaching (“not that there really is another gospel,” verse 7), such that those who did so ought to be cut off and condemned (anathema esto; Gal. 1:6-9).

So affirming evolutionary creationism and an earth that is billions of years old is potentially unorthodox but it is not necessarily heretical; unless one also denies that Adam was a real figure in history, which would arguably be heretical given Adam’s import to soteriology (federal headship and imago Dei, original sin and the nature of man, contrast with the “last Adam” and so forth). Thus the late Harold Brown: “In the early church, heresy did not refer to simply any doctrinal disagreement, but to something that seemed to undercut the very basis for Christian existence. Practically speaking, heresy involved the doctrine of God and the doctrine of Christ—later called special theology and Christology” (Heresies [Doubleday, 1984], p. 2).

There are some who are so zealous about the Christian faith that they push the envelope too far, I would submit, willing to equate truth generally with a specific confessional orthodoxy, such that anything which conflicts with their specific orthodoxy is therefore tantamount to contravening the holy scriptures. But surely this is absurd, at least for those of the Reformed tradition, for the word of God alone is the only infallible rule of faith and practice; all creeds, confessions, and catechisms are fallible documents subordinate to the authoritative rule of holy scriptures. As Philip Schaff notes in The Creeds of Christendom, “The value of creeds [and presumably confessions and catechisms] depends upon the measure of their agreement with the Scriptures. … The Bible has, therefore, a divine and absolute [authority], the Confession only an ecclesiastical and relative authority.”

I count myself among those who would maintain that Christianity stands or falls as a unit, agreeing with the likes of Calvin that one cannot isolate theological doctrines or maintain them in piecemeal fashion. Christian orthodoxy is not a doctrinal buffet. But it is not theological opinion, or church history, or particular confessional standards that define the content and boundaries of the Christian faith. It is the inerrant and infallible word of God alone, through which he speaks to his covenant people, that is definitive and authoritative. Historic traditions and practices of the Christian church may suggest a certain presumption in favor of this view or that, but it does not settle the question; tradition alone is never sufficient reason for any belief or practice in the church, for tradition may err. The holy scriptures alone are the only God-breathed and infallible rule of faith and practice for binding the conscience, which no creed, council, or confession may do. Such is the Reformation principle of sola scriptura. Moreover, extrabiblical frameworks and organizing principles “may be pedagogically convenient or effective in teaching the message of Scripture, but [they] have no authority for determining the meaning of the text itself” (Greg L. Bahnsen, “Reformed Confession Regarding Hermeneutics,” Article 8). “[T]he only unchallengeable authority for doctrine or life, either for the individual believer or the corporate church, is the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture” (ibid., Article 1).

Thus orthodoxy, and the test of heresy, must appeal to the holy scriptures through sound exegesis to warrant sufficient reason for some belief or practice. Historic confessions and catechisms themselves appeal to the scriptures to justify their doctrinal statements; such documents are self-consciously fallible, however, subordinating themselves to the infallible word of God. Yes, it is possible for historic church documents to err; their collective voices may indicate a presumption in favor of a certain doctrine, but all controversies ultimately are settled by sound exegesis of relevant biblical texts. It is the word of God that determines where the error lies in doctrinal conflicts. If you invest your argument with appeals to church history and confessional standards over against sound scriptural exegesis, then you are making your stand upon traditionalism which falls short of the glory of God’s infallible and authoritative word.

I submit that a belief or teaching (and its proponent) is subject to the charge of heresy only if it touches upon the nature and character of God, his word, or the gospel, such that all other contentions permit communion of these saints as Christian brothers who charitably disagree. Thus, a Reformed Baptist might consider his infant-baptizing Presbyterian brother as possessing a strange or potentially unorthodox doctrine but not as being a heretic, or a young-earth creationist might consider his old-earth creationist brother as holding a biblically dubious view but not as being a heretic. Only if one holds a view that impugns or denies some truth about the nature and character of God, his word, or the gospel can it be considered a matter of heresy. Like it is said: one Bible, two testaments, three confessions, four councils, and five centuries.

Most Commented Posts

• Do Homosexuals Have Equal Rights? (79)
• How to Respond to Empty Pro-Choice Rhetoric (47)
• On Old Earth vs. Young Earth debate (42)
• Revisiting old-earth presuppositions (38)
• It Is God’s Will That All Men Be Saved (37)
• Freedom and Suffering (34)
• Creationists are more critical and honest (30)

God, are you there? And if you are, well, do you care
about all my fears keeping me here?
Calling out your name, am I calling out in vain?
I’m wondering why you don’t hear my cry.
I can’t understand what your doing;
but it’s not my place to question your ways.
Lord, give me a glimpse of where your going.
Let me follow you today

But I feel like I’m lost in December,
too far from the world I used to know.
Can you see me? I’m dying in this winter.
Or is this just part of the narrow road?

I can’t understand: when I reach for your hand,
your love can’t be found; seems you’re not around.
Hearing of your perfect will, never knowing why I still
can’t see your face, can’t feel your grace.
Wishing that the questions weren’t so painful;
but I’m longing to find your truth.
Knowing that the answers aren’t so simple;
Lord, I’m needing to see a glimpse of you.

But I feel like I’m lost in December,
too far from the world I used to know.
Can you see me? I’m dying in this winter.
Or is this just part of the narrow road?

How soon I forget that the story’s not over yet.
Because late one December night, God broke the silence
with the sound of the child that would save us,
filling the world with his light.

But I feel like I’m lost in December,
(Oh my child, I hear you.)
too far from the world I used to know.
(You’re not alone.)
Can you see me? I’m dying in this winter.
(I will always be with you…)
Or is this just part of the narrow road?
(… wherever you go.)

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

• Good Friday (0)
• His Wounds Have Paid Our Ransom (0)
• Atheism reversed = renewed (resurrected) thinking (2)
• That’s my King! (3)
• Matt Redman – Nothing But the Blood (4)
• Excursion into Journey of Faith Islamic Conference (0)
• More on arrest at Arab Festival (5)

But what is the point of this kind of deal? In order to understand its significance, it is important to first understand our state of nature. An old philosopher once said that man is born free. He is clearly mistaken, because the Bible teaches that we are born enslaved to sin: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Psalm 51:5). We look at the evil people in the world around us and think that we are somehow better. Yet the word of God does not mince words when it talks about the condition of our hearts: “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. Who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9, NKJV). This is a condition from which we cannot escape by our own power, which is why Jesus said “everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin” (John 8:34). When we sin, we incur a debt on our record. Our payment for this debt is slavery in this life, and condemnation in the next, hence the scriptural saying: “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). This is why in the end, those who remain slaves to sin will experience the fiery wrath of God on Judgment day, when He cleanses the world of every last trace of evil, including those who scripture says are by nature children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3), who are destined for shame and everlasting contempt (Daniel 12:2).

Yet it is because we are enslaved to sin that the Lord has endeavoured to purchase us from the slave market sin. This is why He is called the redeemer of humanity. That language of redemption comes straight out of the marketplace. It is a commercial term. You are familiar with the idea of redeeming something. When you have won a prize, you redeem it at a designated outlet. It is the same concept in scripture: Jesus purchasing sinners out of the slave market of sin. In order to do that, the Word of God became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). He did this in order to fulfill the Law and the prophets, because not one word thereof would pass away until it has been accomplished (Matthew 5:17-18). Jesus’ perfect obedience to that Law is the price that is paid on behalf of those whom He purchases on the cross. That is why He said that “the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and give His life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). That ransom is what is paid on Calvary. So when Jesus says “it is finished,” what that really is the declaration that our debt has been paid in full. That Greek word tetelesthai was stamped on receipts in the ancient Greco-Roman world. What it indicated was that a commercial transaction had been completed, and the purchase price has been paid in full. So by saying that “it is finished,” Jesus is declaring that the cross is the receipt, as it were, that indicates that He had purchased sinners by cancelling their debt of sin, and has made them His own. Writing to the Colossians, Paul makes this statement regarding the nature of those whom Jesus bought:

And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross (Colossians 2:13-14).

And who exactly are those who were purchased by Jesus’ sacrifice? For whom are the words “it is finished” directed towards, who no longer have a record of debt keeping them in slavery? The answer is those who draw towards the person of Jesus Christ and believe in His death, burial and resurrection. If you count yourself amongst that number, then that means you are no longer a slave to sin: “For freedom Christ has set us free” (Galatians 5:1). What does this entail? What it entails is that you no longer belong to yourself. Those who are enslaved to sin indulge themselves in the sinful cravings of the flesh. But if Christ purchased you on the cross, you belong to Him now. He is your master, and you are His bondservant. You need to orient your life in a way that reflects that reality. Paul writes in Ephesians 2:8-9 that “by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” You did not contribute anything towards your own redemption because Jesus paid the full price. Yet the passage goes on to say that “we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10).

One of the ways that you can do this is by telling everyone you know about Jesus. It is always disappointing to see how embarrassed so many Christians are about sharing their faith with others. Remember the story of the man who had a legion of demons that Jesus cast out? What was the last thing He said to that man before sending him on his way? It is this: “Go home to your friends and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you.” (Mark 5:19). Ought we not to do likewise? Think about this: If someone buys for you the most expensive luxury car out on the market (Ferrari, Lamborghini, take your pick), are you going to feel ashamed of that car and hide it in your garage so that nobody would know about it? No, of course not! You would be showing it off to all your friends and boasting about it all day long. If we have that kind of mentality for worldly goods, why don’t we act the same way with regards to our salvation? Surely, if Jesus has bought for us freedom from sin and death, that is infinitely more valuable than something that will gradually depreciate and one day end up in the scrap pile! Besides, if we care about those around us, we would not allow them to remain in spiritual slavery, but desire that they should be set free from that.

Now, the bottom line is this: If you are truly a believer, then you can confidently say these words in scripture:

I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me (Galatians 2:20).

But if that is the case, then your life should reflect that, otherwise these become empty words. Let the whole world know that Christ has redeemed you. Let the world know that for you, “it is finished.”

Now that is for those who already believe. If you have not placed your trust upon Jesus as Lord and Saviour, then the above words do not apply to you, at least not yet. I would urge you to think about your spiritual condition. Or perhaps you have been calling yourself a Christian but upon examination you realize that your life does not reflect that profession. Scripture says that “whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him” (John 3:36). But if you repent from your sins and believe upon Christ, you may yet find your name upon that receipt. Believe me when I say that you do not want to remain in a condition of slavery to sin. The stakes are too high. I will leave you with these words from the apostle Paul:

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew or Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Romans 10:9-13).

“It is finished.” Do those words apply to you? That is my final question. God be with you.

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

• Are we talking about the same God? (9)
• Love seeks to perfect the object of its love (5)
• 2 Peter 3:9 and universal salvation (14)
• Can You Lose Your Salvation? (2)
• Answering questions and objections (5)
• Clearing away some of the fog (13)
• Refuting Louis Ruggiero on Calvinism (2)

I wanted to start a counter-series here on your story. The series will be, “Why I’m a Christian.” All you would need to do is send me an email … and tell me why you became a Christian and why you continue being a Christian.

Your story can be however long you want it to be. Unless you note otherwise (if you want last name, last initial, anonymity, etc.), I’ll only use your first name.

I hope to spread your stories to demonstrate the glory and work of God in your lives.

Another benefit in doing this is so we can encourage other Christians to persevere in the faith and hopefully some of your stories will resonate with the hearts others—Christian and non-Christian.

See his post here, with an email address for your submissions, which he will post as they come in. Spread the message to all the Christians you know within your own social network—including the offline one, your family, friends, and church.

Most Commented Posts

• Do Homosexuals Have Equal Rights? (79)
• How to Respond to Empty Pro-Choice Rhetoric (47)
• On Old Earth vs. Young Earth debate (42)
• Revisiting old-earth presuppositions (38)
• It Is God’s Will That All Men Be Saved (37)
• Freedom and Suffering (34)
• Creationists are more critical and honest (30)

Senate
Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600

Dear Senate,

Re: Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010

I write to the Senate Inquiry Committee to voice my opposition to the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010 and to lend my support of traditional man-woman marriage. I note my reasons in the following paragraphs, providing supporting references where appropriate.

Full equality already exists under current law

Marriage, for all Australian constituents, is an institution in which there already exists a full equality under the law; there is none to whom the Marriage Act 1961 unjustly discriminates. In order for anyone to marry, all must pass the prescribed criteria: 1. Be of marriageable age; 2. Be not already married; 3. Must not marry a close blood relative, and; 4. Must marry a member of the opposite sex. All Australians, irrespective of their sexual identity, are expected to meet these criterions; there is no inequality of law in their application to either the homosexual or the heterosexual. Both the homosexual and the heterosexual have the same restrictions.

While this response may be unsatisfactory to many homosexuals, it must be noted that the existing criterion for marriage in Australia does not require desire or love between the two being married. Although love and desire are important to the marital union, it is not required by law, but assumed. Government does not regard desire as key to the marital union because such unions encompass not only love but also provide a unique social good¹.

Why prohibiting same-sex marriage is not equivalent to anti-miscegenation

Advocates of same-sex marriage mistakenly compare its prohibition to that of anti-miscegenation laws. While anti-miscegenation was unjust discrimination (as ethnicity has nothing to do with marriage), man-woman only marriage is not unjust – this is because anti-miscegenation was about whom to allow to marry, not what marriage is essentially about. The gender difference between a man and woman has everything to do with marriage.

In actuality, promoting same-sex marriage has more in common with anti-miscegenation than it does against anti-miscegenation because it also seeks to arbitrarily include a non-essential criterion to the institution of marriage: that the complementarity of the sexes is unimportant.

The public purpose of marriage

Man-woman marriage is an important social good. As a group, as a rule, and by nature, marriages produce children. The public purpose of marriage, therefore, associates the children produced from it to their father and likewise associates the father to their mother. This cohesiveness serves to foster the best environment within which to raise children², over and above all other forms of family combinations, and is in this real sense, a unique arrangement to be promoted.

By contrast, same-sex unions, as a group, as a rule, and by nature, cannot produce children without the involvement of a third party. Homosexual unions are socially infertile; while some homosexual partnerships do involve children from previous relationships or conceived through IVF, these arrangements are intentionally designed to deny children the nurture of one or both of their biological parents. While two homosexuals can be loving parents, it defies common sense that a homosexual man can be a good “mother” to a child, and likewise that a homosexual woman can be a good “father” to a child. Author and lawyer Dawn Stefanowicz, writing of her experience growing up with a gay father, remarked: “What makes it so hard for a girl to grow up with a gay father is that she never gets to see him loving, honoring and protecting the women in his life³.”

Thus, marriage is much more than simply the expression of love and commitment between any two adults; it is the love and commitment to each other as well as to any children produced by the sexual expression of that love and commitment. That marriage between a child’s biological parents is the ideal circumstance is a great public good, and it is a good that a homosexual union cannot create or produce. Where the welfare of children is concerned, the Government cannot unjustly discriminate and ought always promote man-woman marriage over and above all other relationships for the benefit of children and for the benefit of wider society as a whole.

Legalising same-sex marriage threatens religious liberty and free speech

Where same-sex marriage is legalised (and even in some instances where it is not yet legal), ordinary citizens, business owners, religious believers and not-for-profit organisations will have their religious liberties and values and freedom of speech curtailed:

• In Jan 2011, hotel owners Peter and Hazelmary Bull from Cornwall, UK, were ordered to pay $6000 in damages to a homosexual couple who sued them for declining to offer a room as it violated their hotel policy to only make board available to married couples⁴
• In Illinois, Washington DC and Massachusetts, US, Catholic bishops voluntarily closed the Church’s adoption and foster-care organisations rather than comply with new non- discrimination laws following the legalising of same-sex marriage in those states which would have forced them to place children with same-sex couples⁵
• Massachusetts, US, 2005, father David Parker was arrested after talking with his son’s school about opting his son out of mandatory pro-homosexuality teaching⁶. (Charges were later dropped.)
• New Mexico, US, 2008, a Christian photographer was sued by a lesbian couple after
  refusing to shoot a gay wedding⁷

• Canada, 2008, evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson was fined $5000 and banned from
  expressing his biblical understanding of homosexuality⁸

• UK, Church of England lawyers state that legalising same-sex marriage in England will
  effectively force churches to comply⁹

• UK, housing manager Adrian Smith was demoted¹⁰ after posting a criticism of the UK’s
  new gay rights law on his personal Facebook page, on his own time

• Derbyshire, UK, Christians Mr and Mrs Johns denied the right to be foster parents¹¹ after
  refusing to teach children in their care that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle

Man-Woman Marriage Conclusion

Marriage ought to remain as the union between one man and one woman for life. It is this union that all cultures throughout the history of the world have recognised as the fundamental building block of their society, and it is a union that the Government of Australia has recognised and protected – and later described – as critical to the continued longevity and prosperity of its own society.

Aside from its societal importance, man-woman only marriage ought to be upheld as the norm; legalising same-sex marriage unduly threatens people’s freedoms of religion and speech – both of which are truly invaluable to any nation seeking to be equitable and prosperous.

Kind regards,
Mathew Hamilton

If you haven’t yet done so, there is still a wee bit of time left for you to email your own submission through to the Australian Senate Inquiry Committee. Your submission can be very basic; even one paragraph stating your support for man-woman only marriage is more than sufficient. In politics, numbers matter.

Email the Committee (legcon.sen@aph.gov.au) your submission, attached as a Word or PDF document. You must do this by no later than 4.30pm Monday April 2, 2012. Further detail on making submissions, including what items to note, can be found on the Australian Christian Lobby site.

References:

1. Sherif Girgis, Robert P George, Ryan T Anderson, “What is Marriage?”, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 2010, p26
2. Maggie Gallagher, “What is Marriage For?“, The Public Purpose of Marriage Law, section III A; cf. Georgina Binstock and Arland Thornton, “Separations, Reconciliations, and Living Apart in Cohabiting and Marital Unions”, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 65 No. 2, 2003
3. Dawn Stefanowicz, Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting, Annotation Press, 2007, p. 230
4. “UK Hotel Owners’ Religious Appeal Deemed ‘Discriminatory’ Against Gay Couple“, The Christian Post, February 10, 2012
5. “Bishops close adoption services over new rule on gay parents“, The Irish Times, December 30, 2011
6. “Charges dropped against jailed dad“, World Net Daily, October 20, 2005
7. “Christian Photographer Hauled before Commission for Refusing Same-Sex Job“, Life Site News, January 30, 2008
8. “Government to Pastor: Renounce Your Faith!“, World Net Daily, June 09, 2008
9. “Law on same-sex marriages mean churches ‘will be forced to conduct gay weddings’“, The Daily Mail, March 12, 2012
10. “Demoted for not backing gay marriage: housing manager’s pay slashed for criticising new law on Facebook“, The Daily Mail, October 23, 2011
11. “Christian foster couple lose ‘homosexuality views’ case“, BBC News, February 28, 2011

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

• Marriage: more than “equality of love” (0)
• Weep with compassion for the celebration of sin (0)
• Frank Turek – The Real Bigots (7)
• Rob Ford vs. the LGBT Agenda and PC Peer Pressure Tactics (1)
• How Same-Sex Marriage Affects Me (1)
• When same-sex marriage was a Christian rite (4)
• Diversity Week (3)

Relatively unique in its style among many of the podcasts I have heard, host Justin Brierly (pictured), expertly moderates, what can be at times, a dramatic discussion, on a vast range range of hot topics concerning theists and atheists alike.

I knew I had discovered something special having listened to only one show; a  lively discussion on Intelligent Design and Evolution. I was to learn later that the program won a Gold Medal at the New York Festival Awards.

Justin Brierley, produced and presented the award winning show on evolution that features atheist Pete Hearty of the National Secular Society defending the theory of Evolution, while Peter Williams of the Damaris Trust argues for Intelligent Design.

“We chose this particular debate because it is timely.” Brierley said. “There are a number of court cases in the USA discussing what public schools should be teaching regarding evolution and similar heat is now being generated in the UK over schools that have included Intelligent Design on their syllabus.”

The evolution episode of Unbelievable has secured the programme it’s first award, within a year of going to broadcast.

Obviously thrilled, Brierley said, “For us to win an award so early on in the life of the show is wonderful, but for it to be a gold world medal at the New York Festival Awards is astounding.”

The Chief Executive of Premier Christian Radio, Peter Kerridge, said of the show, “Unbelievable is like nothing else on Premier.” Well, not only is it unlike anything on Premier Christian Radio, I haven’t heard anything quite like it anywhere. And I say that as someone who listens to a number of different podcasts, from Greg Koukl’s Stand to Reason radio show to the thought-provoking Apologetics.com broadcast. Those have their niche and I think Unbelievable? have theirs. It certainly is a rare type of show.

Closer to home (my home, that is) fellow Aussie blogger, Stephen Cracknell, wrote a great article that captures the unique mood and style of the show, in words that I’m sure I would’ve used, if only I had written them first. And so I hope he doesn’t mind me closing by quoting him at length.

Just recently a few of us lads headed off to the Katoomba Men’s Convention – a long way from the Mid-North Coast (Coffs Harbour) but, hey, it was worth it.

On the way back home, my son Sam, plugged his iPod into the car’s speaker system and we all settled back (apart from the driver!) to listen to a discussion between a Christian and a non-Christian.

We were stunned! We were impressed! We were focussed!

The actual podcast we listened to was a somewhat tense discussion (at times) between Peter Hitchens (anti-theist Christopher Hitchen’s brother) and Adam Rutherford (atheist and editor of the science journal ‘Nature’).

Christian v non-Christian!

And that, essentially, is what Premier Christian Radio’s ‘Unbelievable?’ is about – provoking discussions between Christians and non-Christians.

…

Occasionally there is the Christian who gets grilled by a number of atheists (‘Grill a Christian’) and sometimes 2 Christians discuss their differences (e.g. is the King James Version the ‘best’ available English translation?).

But mostly, the very likeable Justin Brierley invites prominent Christians (e.g. William Lane Craig, James White, Os Guinness) to debate prominent non-Christians (e.g. John Hick, Dan Barker, Paul Davies).

Justin has that very healthy skill of knowing when to allow discussion (and passion) flow but also knowing when to include his thoughts and questions into the ‘debate’. He’s an intelligent guy, with sensitivity. These qualities help shape “Unbelievable?” as a really valuable podcast.

…

‘Unbelievable?’, I believe (couldn’t resist it!) is essential apologetics podcast listening – I really like it, my friends really like it and I’m sure you would too!

Why? Because there is nothing to hide behind!

‘Experts’ present their views but then must be prepared to defend them, publicly, – how good is that!

My References & Notes:

http://www.apologetics315.com/
http://www.premier.org.uk/
http://www.christianfaith.com.au/

Note: The show does also discuss/debate some topics within the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy. For example, as Stephen mentioned, “Is the King James Version the Best?” And another recent discussion that I found very interesting featured opposing views on how we should support Gay Christians. Titled “Ex-Gay and Gay-Affirming approaches to homosexuality – Two different approaches to supporting gay Christians”  with Jonathan Berry & Jeremy Marks.

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

• Dead Theory Walking (0)
• Another problem of evil examined (7)
• Another atheist faceplant (13)
• Synthetic Evolution: The Art of Equivocation (4)
• How to Get Apologetics in Your Church: Series 1 and 2 (0)
• Phil Stilwell, misfiring incoherently (4)
• Phil Stilwell, the paralogical atheist (19)

Last Modified: 14 March 2012.

• William Edgar, “Fides quaerens intellectum: What is presuppositionalism?” The Gospel Coalition (2012, March 11).
   
• Paul Copan, “Questioning presuppositionalism,” The Gospel Coalition (2012, March 12).
   
  
  • James Anderson, “Does presuppositionalism engage in question-begging?” Analogical Thoughts (2012, March 13).
     
  • James White, “Apologetics methodology: Paul Copan’s questioning of presuppositionalism,” The Dividing Line (2012, March 13). [Video.]
     
  • Steve Hays, “Copan on presuppositionalism,” Triablogue (2012, March 13).
     
  • Joshua Whipps, “Questioning Copan,” Choosing Hats (2012, March 13).
     
• K. Scott Oliphint, “Answering objections to presuppositionalism,” The Gospel Coalition (2012, March 13).

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

• You smelt it, you dealt it (15)
• And the light bulb clicks on (0)
• ‘Angry Calvinists’ are not the issue (7)
• Answering the charge that my presupposition cannot be held as axiomatic (4)
• Sola Ratione and his problem of evil (0)
• Revisiting old-earth presuppositions (38)
• Does ID Damage both Science and Theology? (4)

Mike Duran at his blog posed what he considers a dilemma regarding the relationship between apostasy and abandoning the Bible as authoritative. [1] Duran invoked the example of Leo, son of the famed intelligent design proponent Michael Behe, who said that his trust in the Bible was shaken by reading The God Delusion by Dawkins and considering for the first time “the fallible origin of Scripture.” [2]

It did not occur to me until later in life to examine the reliability of the Bible, the infallibility of which my Christian opponents would always agree upon. [3]

That point in particular was what originally shook my specific faith—Catholicism—and planted seeds of skepticism … [4]

Once my trust in the Bible was shaken, I still believed strongly in a theistic god, but I realized that I hadn’t sufficiently examined my beliefs. Over the next several months, my certainty of a sentient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity faded steadily. I believe that the loss of a specific creed was the tipping point for me. [5]

This erosion of trust in the Bible “is often the first step in Christian apostasy—‘the loss of a specific creed’,” writes Duran, quoting Behe’s phrase.

The first step toward the deconstruction of Christianity must always be the deconstruction of Scripture. For once “the foundations are destroyed” (Ps. 11:3), you are free to construct another worldview, preferably one to your own liking.

However, this creates a problem. If we can’t question and debate the  authenticity, authority, and limits of Scripture, how do we know we can trust it? Unquestioned belief in the Bible is just as wrong as unequivocal rejection of it. [6]

“Unquestioned belief in the Bible is just as wrong as unequivocal rejection of it,” he said, to my astonishment and incredulity; and both his statement and the point raised in his article intuitively brought to mind the Edenic narrative wherein Eve was led by temptation to second-guess God and his word, so it surprised me that neither Duran nor anyone in the comments area invoked the point illustrated in that narrative. Did not the apostle Paul state that, by second-guessing God and his word, Eve fell into the state of “transgression” (1 Timothy 2:14)? In our context here it is uncontroversial that rejecting God’s word is wrong, but exactly how is it “just as wrong” to believe God’s word without question?

On the contrary, if the Edenic narrative taught us anything it’s that accepting and trusting God’s word as authoritative and embracing that attitude existentially is our only sure good! In his second letter to the Corinthian church the apostle Paul expressed the godly jealousy he had for them, such that he promised them as a pure virgin in marriage to Christ their one husband; and yet, he said, “I am afraid that just as the serpent deceived Eve by his treachery, your minds may be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:2-3). Just as Peter encouraged the saints about defending the faith, our task begins from a foundation of setting apart Christ as Lord in our hearts (1 Peter 3:15), a foundation Paul echoes in his letter to the Colossians: “Therefore, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live your lives in him, rooted and built up in him and firm in your faith just as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness. Be careful not to allow anyone to captivate you through an empty, deceitful philosophy that is according to human traditions and the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him all the fullness of deity lives in bodily form, and you have been filled in him, who is the head over every ruler and authority” (Colossians 2:6-10; emphases mine). It is on the foundation of accepting and trusting God’s word as authoritative and embracing that attitude existentially that our evangelical and apologetic weapons “are made powerful by God for tearing down strongholds. We tear down arguments and every arrogant obstacle that is raised up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to make it obey Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5; emphasis mine; cf. Romans 1:18-22 for “against the knowledge of God”).

On the one hand we have Eve who fell into the state of transgression by second-guessing God and his word; on the other hand we have Jesus Christ who, as the spotless Lamb, never once second-guessed God and his word, who at all times and in every moment trusted and did the will of the Father in all things. Do we follow the covenant-breaking pattern of our first parents and their posterity, or do we embrace the covenant-keeping pattern of the Son of God and his posterity? In this sense it raises a glaring red flag when I hear people suggesting that it may be proper to entertain the question apart from or beyond his word (like Eve did), “Has God really said…?” In stark opposition to Duran, unquestioned belief in the Bible is not wrong; as God’s own word, it is our only sure good.

May we “question and debate the authenticity, authority, and limits of Scripture”? There is so much packed into this question that it is difficult to answer. What is meant by authenticity? And what is meant by authority? And what is meant by limits? Insofar as these are hermeneutic questions answered by historical and grammatical exegesis, we certainly may answer them from the scriptures. But if we are disassociating truth and knowledge from the triune God of scriptures, then what authoritative source are we standing upon to question God and his word? And is that not the very sin by which Eve fell into a state of transgression? This is God’s universe, we are his creation, and his saints are captivated only by such philosophy as that which is according to Christ, setting him apart as Lord in their hearts, who is the head over every authority and to whom by grace in love their minds and hearts are obedient.

“How do we know we can trust it?” I don’t think it is an epistemic question of knowing but an existential question of doing; namely, either we do or we don’t take God at his word as authoritative in all things. As for me, and my church family also, we do not conclude but rather presuppose the truth of the Bible’s content as our foundational starting point. To the extent that people seek to establish the authority of the Bible on some basis apart from the Bible, they demonstrate that it is not their final authority; whatever that extrabiblical basis might be, that is their final authority.

Update: 13 March 2012

Mike Duran stopped by to publish here his response (see the comments section below), which began with his displeasure that I did not include in my article here his concluding summary, thus potentially misleading readers to think that he questions such foundational beliefs as captured by his home church’s statement of faith. I don’t want Duran or anyone else thinking that I was insinuating anything of the sort, so at his implicit behest I wish to include the sentence by which he summarized his point at the end of his article:

Doubting Scripture, asking hard questions of it, is part of the process of spiritual growth and arriving at Truth. But it is also the first step in the path of apostasy.

What Duran believes about the Bible is captured by what his home church affirms in that regard, which he quotes as follows: “We believe the Bible is the authoritative record of God’s self-disclosure and is wholly trustworthy. All the books of the Old and New Testament are given by divine inspiration and are the written word of God, the only infallible rule of our faith and practice.” Duran says that he whole-heartedly agrees with that statement, and I want our readers to know that. He states in his comment:

Not only am I not questioning the truth of God’s word, I’m suggesting that how we arrive at the belief that God’s word is true is of utmost importance.

But in his article Duran did appear to be saying that it’s not only permissible but a moral obligation to question such foundational beliefs (though he might now possess satisfactory answers himself). Maybe I am misunderstanding his point, but he not only suggested that we can “question and debate the authenticity, authority, and limits of Scripture”—for how do we trust it otherwise?—but he also suggested that failing to do so is “just as wrong” as unequivocally rejecting the Bible. But then again, as I said previously, it is important to know what he meant by authenticity, authority, and limits; for example, he could mean those terms differently from their foundational sense.

Also, a commenter named Sally said,

You are wrong to say that Duran sins like Eve when he says unquestioning belief is as wrong as unequivocal unbelief. … You can hardly expect us to take you seriously when you make the outrageous claim that Duran is guilty of the same sin as Eve.

Therein lies another potential confusion I want to avoid. I never accused Duran of that sin. I was arguing that unquestioned belief in the Bible is the opposite of wrong; “On the contrary,” I had said above, “if the Edenic narrative taught us anything it’s that accepting and trusting God’s word as authoritative and embracing that attitude existentially is our only sure good!” It is second-guessing God and his word that is wrong.

[1] Duran, 2012, par. 2ff.

[2] Shaffer, 2011, par. 12.

[3] Ibid., par. 6.

[4] Ibid., par. 12.

[5] Ibid., par. 14.

[6] Duran, pars. 7-8; emphasis his.

References:

Duran, M. (2012, March 2). “The prerequisite to all apostasy.” deCompose [web].

Shaffer, R. (2011, September–October). “The Humanist interview with Leo Behe.” The Humanist [web].

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

• The God Delusion: Updated (1)
• We Don’t Hate Sin. So We Don’t Understand What Happened To The Canaanites (4)
• Does ID Damage both Science and Theology? (4)
• Can Science Disprove God? (4)
• “Discussing” God, Science and Sanity (9)
• How to Yoke an Invisible Horse to a Tractor (0)
• The Greatest Hoax on Earth (5)