My Sheep Hear My Voice: An Argument for the Bible as Necessary Basic Belief, Part 6

How does man's rejection of the Bible as the Word of God inscripturated parallel his failure to recognize Jesus as the Word of God incarnated? For one, it is not to the detriment of either the Bible or Jesus.

Just as the Bible possesses divine-human authorship, Jesus likewise possesses all necessary divine and human attributes in order to truly be considered fully God and fully man. Thus, as the Bible carries with it certain qualities inherent to it being God's Word, Jesus' words and works carry with them their own intrinsic qualities that bear witness to him as the Messiah and Son of God.

In this concluding post, we will briefly seek to restate why the sheep are able to hear the voice of their Shepherd in the Scripture.

What's more, we will show that in order for either the Bible or Jesus to be savingly believed upon, a person must be given both moral and epistemic deliverance by way of regeneration.

Perhaps there is no more appropriate passage than John 10 to summarize the position that has been argued for in this series of posts. In the setting of this passage, Jesus is in the midst of another confrontation with the Pharisees who are demanding to be told plainly whether or not he is the Christ (John 10:24).

Jesus does not respond by performing miracles or by providing further evidences. He understands that by his divine nature his words come with self-attesting authority.[1] Instead, Jesus tells the Pharisees why they do not believe his words and others do: “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock” (John 10:25-26).

The reason the Pharisees do not accept Jesus or his words is not because of any deficiency in him or his works, but because they have not been enabled to respond as Jesus’ followers have been. “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me,” Jesus explains (10:27). Like all unbelievers, the Pharisees have not been given the moral and epistemic deliverance necessary for them to believe.

As mentioned in part one, looking back upon my response as a young Christian to the question, “How do we know the Bible is God’s Word?,” I believe that my answer described at the outset holds just as true today. As those with renewed hearts and restored minds, Christians can recognize the voice of their Creator speaking to them as they read the pages of Scripture.

Moreover, apart from God’s Word, no one can truly make sense of anything. God’s revelation of himself is the ultimate basic belief, making any and all ensuing knowledge possible. I am as much now as I was several years ago a sheep simply hearing the voice of his Shepherd.

This article is the sixth and final in a series of posts modified from a research paper submitted by Joshua M. Hayes to The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Spring 2009. Parts one, two, three, four, and five can be found by clicking the corresponding links.
__________
Footnotes:

[1]Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1998), 201. Bahnsen writes, “When Christ speaks, the very words themselves carry the justifying evidence that they are God’s, which is obvious to men and is acknowledged by God’s people.”

My Sheep Hear My Voice: An Argument for the Bible as Necessary Basic Belief, Part 5

If the Bible is so clearly the revealed Word of God and necessary to make sense of reality, as argued for in the preceding post, why do the majority of people reject it as the authority over their lives? Here, John Calvin again proves helpful:

Since for unbelieving men religion seems to stand by opinion alone, they, in order not to believe anything foolishly or lightly, both wish and demand rational proof that Moses and the prophets spoke divinely. But I reply: the testimony of the Spirit is more excellent than all reason. For as God alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word, so also the Word will not find acceptance in men’s hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit.[1]

Our sinful condition, Calvin says, prevents us from willfully recognizing the Bible as God’s Word. In a world free of sin, the Bible would present itself as convincing to everyone.[2] Its self-authenticating nature would be clear to all of its readers. Yet our sinful condition has left us neither willing nor able to receive the Bible as such. We need not only moral deliverance to submit to the authority of Scripture, but we also need epistemic deliverance in order to perceive it as God’s Word.

Scripture tells us that because of our sinful condition our minds are malfunctioning both morally and cognitively. Apart from saving knowledge of Christ human beings are “darkened in their understanding” (Eph 4:18) and “[do] not accept the things of the Spirit of God” (1 Cor 2:14). The unbelieving mind “does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot” (Rom 8:7). Further, Paul writes, “In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel” (2 Cor 4:4). Man’s refusal to accept God’s Word is not on account of any deficiency in the Bible itself. Instead, the fault lies in man’s refusal to acknowledge God that leaves him with a “debased mind” (Rom 1:28). Man suppresses the truth in his unrighteousness although God’s revelation of himself is always clear, both in nature and in his Word (Rom 1:18-20).[3]

It is at conversion that man’s cognitive functions are restored.[4] Repentance takes place not only in one’s actions but in one’s thinking as well.[5] No longer does the sinner’s deepest desire lie in seeking personal autonomy but in surrendering his intellectual efforts to the lordship of Christ (2 Cor 10:5). When the Holy Spirit accompanies the preaching of the gospel bringing about conversion, sinful man is able to recognize God’s Word. This transition is spoken of by Paul in 1 Thessalonians 2:13, stating that “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God.”

It is important to note that restoration implies something being replaced that was once present, namely the human ability to hear and respond to God’s Word. In Scripture we read from the beginning that mankind has possessed this innate ability to recognize the voice of their Creator (Gen 1:28-30; 2:16-17). It was through the Fall that this ability became corrupted, which led to the further decline into sin.

However, the ability to discern God’s Word remained functional throughout redemptive history. As Greg L. Bahnsen puts it, “Men have been made to recognize [God’s] voice. . . . God has so created men that, as it were, they are ‘conditioned’ to see and understand His signature throughout the created world.”[6]

By God’s intention, human beings such as Noah and Abram were able to identify the voice of their Creator as that of the one true and living God, even in the midst of a sin-cursed world (Gen 6:13, 22; 12:1, 4). Accordingly, human reason has always been meant to be subject to God’s revelation.

It is on this basis that rather than abolishing reason, faith in God’s Word gives reason an adequate starting point. In other words, it is faith in the all-knowing God who gives meaning to every fact in the universe that allows reason to begin. It is God’s rationality that acts as the rational basis for faith; faith in turn acts as the rational basis for human reasoning.[7] Human reasoning subject to God’s Word is human reasoning as God intended.

The following words from Bahnsen might best illuminate this reality: “It should be obvious that if man, before his disabling fall into sin, needed God’s supernatural revelation to interpret his world properly, how much more do we who live under the effects of sin!”[8]

Our next post will conclude our series, "My Sheep Hear My Voice: An Argument for the Bible as Necessary Basic Belief." In part six, we shall see how man's rejection God's Word inscripturated parallels man's rejection of God's Word incarnated. In the words of Jesus, "You do not believe because you are not part of my flock" (John 10:26).

This article is the fifth in a series of posts modified from a research paper submitted by Joshua M. Hayes to The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Spring 2009. Parts one, two, three, and four can be found by clicking the corresponding links.
__________
Footnotes:

[1]John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 1.7.4, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, Library of Christian Classics, vol. 1 (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2006), 79.

[2]Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 79.

[3]Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic: Reading and Analysis (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1998), 211.

[4]Cornelius Van Til, Christian Apologetics, 2nd ed. (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2003), 80. He writes, “The Holy Spirit’s regenerating power enables man to place all things in true perspective.”

[5]John Frame, “Presuppositional Apologetics,” in Five Views on Apologetics, ed. Steven B. Cowan (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 214.

[6]Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic, 200.

[7]Frame, “Presuppositional Apologetics,” 210.

[8]Greg L. Bahnsen, “Revelation, Speculation and Science,” Presbyterian Guardian 40 (1970-71) [on-line], accessed 25 March 2009; available from http://www.cmfnow.com, pa001.htm; Internet.

My Sheep Hear My Voice: An Argument for the Bible as Necessary Basic Belief, Part 4

In our last post, we provided an overview of the Bible's own claim to be the very Word of God. In relation to that, we looked at the logical inconsistency of subjecting an ultimate authority to outside proofs. Thus, as the great Reformer John Calvin taught, Scripture is not to be submitted to proofs or arguments if we are to take seriously its claim to divine authority.

Even so, the Scripture itself goes further to persuade us of its divine origin. Calvin writes the following:

As to their question—How can we be assured that this has sprung from God unless we have recourse to the decree of the church?—it is as if someone asked: Whence will we learn to distinguish light from darkness, white from black, sweet from bitter? Indeed, Scripture exhibits fully as clear evidence of its own truth as white and black things do of their color, or sweet and bitter things do their taste.[1]

In other words, the divinely inspired nature of Scripture should be as self-evident to us as "white from black." For Calvin, anyone who reads the Bible should be able to recognize it as God’s Word. Although we cannot prove the Bible to anyone, the Bible proves itself.[2]

Furthermore, although Scripture stands in no need of supplemental proofs, God has provided other internal evidences to confirm our faith. Calvin himself included such additional evidences in his Institutes of the Christian Religion.[3] The Westminster Confession picks up on this same line of reasoning, appealing to similar evidences in paragraph five of chapter one:

We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[4]

In other words, to say that Scripture does not stand in need of further validation is not to say that none exists.[5] However, such validation will not prove convincing to someone not already accepting the authority of Scripture.[6]

Because Scripture is a sufficient witness to itself, the Christian is justified in his conviction of its divine authority. For him, this belief is to be considered properly basic in terms of one’s noetic structure. Basic beliefs are beliefs that one holds without the support of other beliefs; it is from basic beliefs that the rest of our beliefs are derived.[7] In turn, the Christian is intellectually justified in holding to the Bible as basic belief not only in terms of rationality, but also because the Bible serves as the only sufficient basic belief to account for knowledge in all other areas.

In Cornelius Van Til’s words, “The best, the only, the absolutely certain proof of the truth of Christianity is that unless its truth be presupposed there is no proof of anything. Christianity is proved as being the very foundation of the idea of proof itself.”[8] Thus, belief in the Bible as the authoritative verbal revelation of God is the ultimate basic belief.

With that said, any thoughtful person must then raise the following questions: If the Bible is such a necessary basic belief, why do most persons simply not acknowledge it as such? And if one cannot make sense of reality apart from the worldview provided by the Bible, how have millions of people lived their entire lives with little to no knowledge of God's Word?

In our next post, we will consider the Bible's teaching as to why fallen, rebellious mankind does not recognize or submit to the authority of divine revelation.

This article is the fourth in a series of posts modified from a research paper submitted by Joshua M. Hayes to The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Spring 2009. Parts one, two, and three can be found by clicking the corresponding links.
__________
Footnotes:

[1]John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 1.7.2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, Library of Christian Classics, vol. 1 (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2006), 76.

[2]Michael E. Wittmer, Don’t Stop Believing: Why Living Like Jesus Is Not Enough (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 144-45.

[3]Calvin, Institutes, 1.8.1-13, 81-92. In this section, Calvin appeals to internal and external evidences as Scripture’s wisdom, content, antiquity, miracles, prophecy, and preservation through the centuries.

[4]G.I. Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2004), 7, emphasis mine.

[5]Kenneth D. Boa and Robert M. Bowman Jr., Faith Has Its Reasons, 2nd ed. (Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2005), 502.

[6]Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic: Reading and Analysis (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1998), 199. These evidences Cornelius Van Til recognized as “confirmatory” but inconclusive. The unbeliever will always be able to object on grounds of his own rationality.

[7]Kelly James Clark, Return to Reason: A Critique of Enlightenment Evidentialism and a Defense of Reason and Belief in God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 126.

[8]Greg L. Bahnsen, Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith, ed. Robert R. Booth (Nacogdoches, TX: Covenant Media Press, 1996), 61.

My Sheep Hear My Voice: An Argument for the Bible as Necessary Basic Belief, Part 3

Having evaluated the two major viewpoints concerning apologetic methodology in our first and second posts, we shall consider the biblical data in constructing a theological answer to the question, “How do we know the Bible is God’s Word?” In formulating our answer, over the next few posts we shall cover several areas: how the Bible evidences itself to be God’s Word, why belief in it can be justified as properly basic, and how sin affects our cognitive faculties in addition to how they are restored at conversion. We will begin our discussion of how the Bible evidences itself by looking at its own claim to be the Word of God.

Subjective experience, mere opinion, and tradition are not enough to bestow divine authority upon the words of Scripture. The Bible must make this claim for itself. However, when turning to its pages, we find such a claim made rather frequently. In fact, in the Old Testament alone, we find such statements as “The LORD said,” “The LORD spoke,” and “The word of the LORD came” nearly 4,000 times.[1]

The prophets themselves never claimed to speak upon their own authority. Quoting the covenant LORD of Israel, Moses writes, “I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him” (Deut 18:18, emphasis mine). In other words, when the prophets speak, God speaks. Consequently, this covenantal framework allowed for the sum of the Old Testament canon to be seen as divinely authored and inspired (Ps 119:160; Prov 30:5-6).[2]

The New Testament not only recognizes the authority of the Old Testament but also sees itself as on equal authority. The apostles saw the Old Testament as authoritative and inspired (2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Pet 1:20-21). Paul himself made clear his words were to be equated with those of the prophets. Writing to the Corinthian church, Paul states, “If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord” (1 Cor 14:37). What’s more, Peter attributes divine authority to Paul’s letters, equating them with “the other Scriptures” (2 Pet 3:15-16).

The authority to speak for God of course did not come from the apostles themselves. It was the Lord Jesus Christ who sanctioned their writings. In John 14:26, Jesus promises the apostles divinely aided understanding and divinely aided memory by the Holy Spirit: “. . . he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” Moreover, Christ promises them divinely aided knowledge (John 16:13).[3] In addition, Jesus himself recognized the authority of the Old Testament (Matt 5:17-20; 19:4-5) and saw his own words as having divine authority (Matt 5:21-22, 27-28; 24:35).

Still, since our conviction that the Bible's authority stems from its own internal claims, are we really able to say that we believe the Bible because it says so? Yes! Shouldn't we consider such a proposal circular and therefore invalid? Certainly not! We must realize that when appealing to an ultimate authority one will inevitably become circular at some level. What matters is if the professed ultimate authority can withstand its own claims, that there is no hidden dependency on another authority.

As we discussed in an earlier post, all worldviews at some point become self-attesting. In other words, if a worldview is true--and thus provides the right outlook upon reality--one must evaluate it on its own terms. After all, if the worldview is true, it need not appeal to external criteria derived from somewhere else in order to authenticate its claims. One must assume his or her respective outlook on reality in order to demonstrate its truthfulness.

For instance, a naturalist--one who holds that all things in the universe can ultimately be explained by natural processes--will exercise naturalistic presuppositions in making his case for the naturalist worldview, assuming any claims to the supernatural are at best suspect if not entirely impossible.

What's more, the naturalist may hold that science is his highest authority for testing truth claims and arriving at epistemic certainty. If asked to show how science is the highest authority, he would be inconsistent if he did not appeal to some form of science to verify his claim. However, this is where the naturalist's worldview falls apart since certain preconditions must exist in order to render our attempts at scientific study even possible (i.e., the external world, the law of causality, uniformity in nature, etc.). In other words, a philosophy of science must be in order to account for the possibility of conducting the scientific method. At which point, we come to see that at least philosophy proves itself to be more foundational than science in terms of one's noetic structure. Henceforth, science cannot be one's ultimate authority since it must appeal outside of itself in order to be justified intellectually.

The naturalist then has no epistemic right to assume this sort of rationality inherent to the universe since according to his worldview the current state of the universe is but a product of irrational forces, the result of chance events with no pre-vision of their outcome. As with any worldview, in its attempts to make any sort of claims or arguments, naturalism assumes the universe to be cosmos rather than chaos, something that from a logical outworking only the Christian worldview can account.

With this in mind, Christians as those submitting our lives--including our intellectual energies (2 Cor 10:5)--to the lordship of Christ must remain faithful to our King in the apologetic enterprise. We not only act inconsistently when depending on other authorities to legitimize the truth claims of the Gospel, but we do a disservice to Christ. How can we tell the unbeliever he must make Christ and his Word his ultimate authority while looking to other authorities in making our case? This seemingly implies that there are more evident truths than Christ himself, who in actuality is the truth (John 14:6). Greg L. Bahnsen puts it this way:

If the apologist treats the starting point of knowledge as something other than reverence for God, then unconditional submission to the unsurpassed greatness of God's wisdom at the end of his argumentation does not really make sense. There would always be something greater than God's wisdom - namely, the supposed wisdom of one's own chosen, intellectual starting point. The word of God would necessarily (logically, if not personally) remain subordinate to that autonomous, final standard.[4]

Additionally, Bahnsen writes:

Evangelicals sometimes utilize an autonomous apologetic method which does not assume the authority of Christ, treating it like a ladder to climb up to acceptance of Christ's claims, only then to "throw the ladder away" since Christ is now seen as having an ultimate authority which conflicts with that autonomous method.[5]

As God is self-existent, depending on nothing outside himself for his own existence, the Word of God is self-attesting, depending on nothing outside itself for its own authority. Only the biblical worldview can provide such a self-sustaining claim to ultimate authority, that of the Word of God.

In our next post, we will look at just how the Bible evidences itself to be of divine origin. Accordingly, we will then examine why many still do not recognize and respond to these evidences to no detriment of the Bible itself.

This article is the third in a series of posts modified from a research paper submitted by Joshua M. Hayes to The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Spring 2009. Parts one and two can be found by clicking the corresponding links.
__________
Footnotes:

[1]Brian H. Edwards, Nothing but the Truth: The Inspiration, Authority and History of the Bible Explained (Darlington: Evangelical Press, 2006), 98.

[2]Ibid., 102.

[3]Ibid., 107.

[4] Greg L. Bahnsen, "Autonomy is No Ladder to Christ's Supreme Authority," Penpoint I:1 (1990) [on-line], accessed 19 June 2009; available from http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa095.htm; Internet.

[5] Ibid.

My Sheep Hear My Voice: An Argument for the Bible as Necessary Basic Belief, Part 2

If someone asked you why you believe the Bible to be the Word of God, how would you answer? In our last post, we began formulating a response to that question by looking at the traditional and most typical method employed by evangelical Christians, that of classical apologetics. In this post, we will look at a different position, one I find to be more biblically cogent and epistemically satisfying.

The second of the two views is what many refer to as the presuppositional approach. According to Cornelius Van Til (the renowned apologist pictured to the right), “To argue by presupposition is to indicate what are the epistemological and metaphysical principles that underlie and control one’s method.”[1] In other words, this method seeks to discover a person’s ultimate authority, their starting point that makes knowledge possible.

For the presuppositionalist, the Bible is our starting point for knowledge since its area of authority includes that of epistemology (Prov 1:7; Col 2:3, 8). As we will examine later, the Bible makes the claim for its divine authority. This is what is known as self-authentication or self-attestation. John Calvin explained this concept to mean that Scripture “carries with itself its own credibility in order to be received without contradiction, and is not to be submitted to proofs or arguments.”[2]

When a person wishes to validate a testimony or claim, he or she will appeal to a higher authority. However, there is no higher authority than God, as it is written, “For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself” (Heb 6:13).[3] Therefore, the Bible must serve as its own witness.[4] To subject the Bible to external criteria would seem to imply that the criteria were somehow more authoritative or more reliable. Only God is fit to tell us what qualities we should expect in his Word, so a message given by God must serve as its own authority.[5]

The Christian in holding this position should not feel intellectually incompetent, trapped in a circle and forced to arbitrarily exercise faith. Eventually, all worldviews must refer to a self-attesting starting point, if for no other reason than to avoid an infinite regression in seeking validation. Subsequently, in making the case for the authority of the Bible, the Christian should argue the “impossibility of the contrary.” Greg L. Bahnsen explains:

Here the Christian apologist, defending his ultimate presuppositions, must be prepared to argue the impossibility of the contrary—that is, to argue that the philosophic perspective of the unbeliever destroys meaning, intelligence, and the very possibility of knowledge, while the Christian faith provides the only framework and conditions for intelligible experience and rational certainty. The apologist must contend that the true starting point of thought cannot be other than God and His revealed word, for no reasoning is possible apart from that ultimate authority.[6]

In other words, the biblical worldview is the only perspective that from a natural outworking can account for the intelligibility of the universe (i.e., the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, and morality), something all non-Christian worldviews presuppose but take for granted.

The Christian’s mode of argumentation then takes a two-fold procedure. Proverbs 26:4-5 reads, “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.” First, the Christian should not answer the fool by attempting to prove the Bible on the unbeliever’s criteria. Otherwise, in accepting the unbeliever’s false presuppositions, the believer will become a fool in his efforts. The case for the Bible should instead be made on its own terms, the same as with testing any worldview. Second, the Christian should answer the fool by providing an internal critique of the unbeliever’s worldview (i.e., “according to his folly”). At this point, the Christian shows that the unbeliever’s assumptions about reality cannot even allow for the possibility of knowledge if followed through consistently.[7]

In later posts, we will look more thoroughly at what it means for the Bible to be considered necessary basic belief. In other words, only God's revelation given in Scripture can suffice as the ultimate presupposition for making sense out of the world. Before we get there, however, we must first establish that the Bible actually claims to be God's Word. Our next post will provide a survey of the Bible's own testimony about its divine authority and inspiration.

This article is the second in a series of posts modified from a research paper submitted by Joshua M. Hayes to The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Spring 2009. Part one can be found here.
__________
Footnotes:

[1]Cornelius Van Til, Christian Apologetics, 2nd ed. (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2003), 128.

[2]Michael E. Wittmer, Don’t Stop Believing: Why Living Like Jesus Is Not Enough (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 145. In his footnotes, Wittmer indicates Calvin’s definition for self-authentication is provided only in French translations and not English editions of Institutes of the Christian Religion.

[3]Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001), unless otherwise noted.

[4]Brian H. Edwards, Nothing but the Truth: The Inspiration, Authority and History of the Bible Explained (Darlington: Evangelical Press, 2006), 120.

[5]Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic: Reading and Analysis (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1998), 199.

[6]Greg L. Bahnsen, Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith, ed. Robert R. Booth (Nacogdoches, TX: Covenant Media Press, 1996), 72-73.

[7]Ibid., 61-62.

My Sheep Hear My Voice: An Argument for the Bible as Necessary Basic Belief, Part 1

How do we know the Bible is God’s Word? I recall posing this question to a brother-in-Christ during my initial months as a believer. At the time, he and I were regularly involved with one-to-one street evangelism, and in this present skeptic age, the question would often come up. In trying to establish an adequate response, I quipped, “How do we know? You can tell by reading it.”

I would like to think that since then my theology and apologetics have become somewhat more sophisticated. However, in my several years of studying, conversing, and thinking about the best answer to the question, I have discovered that I was more on-target than I had first realized despite being young in Christ. The Bible does indeed provide sufficient witness in itself to be recognized as God’s Word. In more lucid terms, we know the Bible is the Word of God because we recognize it as God’s revelation to us on its own terms and on its own claims.

Before looking directly at the Bible’s own claim to divine authority, we will discuss the two major positions concerning how to make the case for the Bible. In other words, how do we argue that it is indeed the inspired, authoritative Word of God? Theologians and apologists representing orthodox, evangelical Christianity are somewhat divided over the issue of methodology. For the purposes of this discussion, we will assess the classical and presuppositional approaches.

In this post, I will provide an analysis of the classical approach in making the case for Scripture, an approach that although adopted by many respected evangelical scholars, I perceive to be erring both in terms of its methodology and in its epistemic prioritization.

Philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig serves as an appropriate example for the first of the two views we will discuss, that of classical apologetics. In answering the question, “How do I know that Christianity is true?,” Craig states it is helpful to distinguish between knowing and showing. “We know Christianity is true primarily by the self-authenticating witness of God’s Spirit,” he writes. “We show Christianity is true by presenting good arguments for its central tenets.”[1] According to Craig, certain truths of Christianity are known by those who come under the influence and conviction of the Holy Spirit. The believer can be said to know the “great truths of the Gospel” apart from supplementary evidence.[2]

Knowing gives way to showing when the Christian comes into contact with an adherent of another religion or worldview who claims to have a self-authenticating experience. Craig acknowledges that such a claim does not undermine the truthfulness of Christianity, but it does force the Christian apologist to appeal to outside proof in order to remain noncircular in his argumentation.[3] Craig shares in common with other apologists a methodology that seeks to establish neutral criteria by which to evaluate worldviews and validate the truthfulness of the Christian faith.[4]

Accordingly, classical apologetics has traditionally sought to first prove God’s existence with the various theistic proofs and then appeal to isolated evidences in order to demonstrate the veracity of Christian theism. As R.C. Sproul notes, the apologist first seeks to prove the existence of God and follows suit by arguing for the authority of the Bible.[5] However, the case for the Bible’s divine authority is not established until the case has been made for the possibility of miracles, the historical reliability of Scripture, and the deity of Christ, which consequently confirms his testimony concerning the Bible.[6] With the classical approach, one can know with certainty that Christianity is true, but one can only show it with probability.

But if one can make a probable case for Christianity, does not the unbeliever remain somewhat intellectually justified in his refusal to submit to the Bible as the Word of God? After all, the Bible could still possibly turn out not to be God's authoritative revelation to mankind once more evidence becomes available. In our next post, we will seek to demonstrate why the presuppositional approach is necessary to make an adequate case for the certainty of the Bible as God's inspired and inerrant Word, both in terms of knowability and argumentation.

This article is the first in a series of posts modified from a research paper submitted by Joshua M. Hayes to The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Spring 2009.
__________
Footnotes:

[1]William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 43-60.

[2]Ibid., 43-44. Craig lists such beliefs as “God exists,” “I am condemned by God,” “I am reconciled to God,” and “Christ lives in me” as implied by the work of the Holy Spirit upon a person, bringing not just subjective assurance but objective knowledge.

[3]Ibid., 51-52, 57. Craig later makes clear our common ground with unbelievers is “the laws of logic and the facts of experience.” For Craig, this is where apologetics begins, whereas the earlier discussion pertaining to Christian epistemology serves only as an “in-house discussion.” This implies that rather than to show the unbeliever to have the incorrect epistemology, we should seek to prove the Christian faith on grounds that will appease the unbeliever’s view of rationality.

[4]See for example Ronald H. Nash, Faith & Reason: Searching for a Rational Faith (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 51-59.

[5]R.C. Sproul, Defending Your Faith: An Introduction to Apologetics (Wheaton: Crossway, 2003), 19.

[6]For an overview of such block-house methodology, see Norman Geisler, Christian Apologetics (Peabody: Prince Press, 2003), 263-377. Geisler gives the outline of the main premises involved in classical argumentation, 264-65.

CALVINISM ON THE MARCH AMONG EVANGELICALS

A 2007 study shows that Calvinism is on the rise in the Southern Baptist Convention and is especially prominent among recent seminary graduates. Ed Stetzer, director of LifeWay Research, says that nearly 30% of recent graduates now serving as pastors are Calvinists (“Calvinism on the Rise,” Christian Post, Nov. 29, 2007). Roughly 10% of SBC pastors at large define themselves as Calvinists, but that includes only those who hold to all five points of TULIP theology and not those who hold to sovereign or unconditional election but not necessarily to all other points of Calvinism. LifeWay Research limits their surveys to a very narrow definition of Calvinism, and I suspect it might not want to know the true influence of Calvinism in the convention.

A report in Christianity Today for September 2006 was entitled “Young, Restless, Reformed: Calvinism Is Making a Comeback--And Shaking up the Church.” It documents the rapid spread of Calvinism in Evangelical circles, and I am seeing the same thing among Fundamentalists.

The report cites John Piper, R.C. Sproul, R. Albert Mohler, Louie Giglio, Joshua Harris, J.I. Packer, and the Puritans as among the chief influences responsible for the upsurge in Calvinism. Piper’s book “Desiring God” has sold more than 275,000 copies.

The trend toward the acceptance of Calvinism is evident at leading evangelical seminaries such as Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Under the direction of Al Mohler, Southern Seminary has become “a Reformed hotbed” and is turning out “a steady flow of young Reformed pastors.”

Updated March 26, 2009 (first published October 18, 2006) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org

Practice Principle

Ephesians 1:15 (ESV):

15For this reason, because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the saints,



As we continue to look at Ephesians 1:13 – 23 and determine the principles needed to experience the “fullness” (v. 23) of Christ as “head” (v. 22) of the church, we will look at what Paul says is the second important principle.

Last week, Paul stated that in order to truly experience Christ as head of the church, the church must be made up of believers (v. 13 – 14). One cannot understand nor fully comprehend the true power of the church until Christ is Lord and Savior. I call this the Position Principle.

This week, we will look at what I call the Practice Principle. Look into verse 15. Paul says that the Ephesian church has put two important things into practice: Faith and Love.

First, Paul states that they have faith and that he has heard of their faith. Very possibly, the church in Ephesus put their faith into action. James (James 1:22 – 27) tells us that we must show our faith:

"22But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. 23For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. 24For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. 25But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing. 26If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless. 27Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world."

Notice the sequence however; their working faith is step 2. A person cannot show true faith without salvation. Works religion is a dead religion.

Secondly, Paul says the church at Ephesus practices “love toward all the saints,” They loved other Christians and showed that love.
Christ told his disciples in John 13:34 – 35:

"34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. 35 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

We are to love other Christians, whether they are of our “fellowship” (local church) or not. If they claim the name of Christ, we are to show our love for them. Notice, Paul states that the Ephesian church had love for ALL “the saints”.

So, this week we must strive to put the Practice Principle into action. Show your faith and demonstrate Christ in the way you live first and foremost; secondly, show your love for other Christians: say a kind word of encouragement, help them with a task, pray together, and help them with a problem. Love them!

May God bless you richly this week.

No God...Know God...

This does not surprise me much. The link below is to a Fox News report concerning the “status of religion” in the United States:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,506849,00.html

According to the article, 15% of Americans say they have no religion. The article highlights how this aspect has increased over the last 19+ years, going back to a study in 1990.

This leads me to a question: why is this trend happening? Most who participate on the blog will easily answer this question. But I wanted to pose it anyway.

John MacArthur has a quote in several sermons and interviews: “Hard preaching makes soft people”; conversely, “Soft preaching makes hard people and hearts”. The world is having a hard time distinguishing between truly redeemed and from those who want to call themselves “Christian”…thus, giving people no true reason to look unto Christ. They see no need. The preaching and teaching is swallow, the music only appeals to the ears and not to the heart, and the people do not show the life of the redeemed.

This article is disturbing but also encouraging to me. As encouraging because I personally know men who are dedicated to preaching the true Word of God, staying true to the Scriptures, and proclaiming “Thus sayeth the Lord…”

So to my brothers on this blog, the harvest is white. You have my prayers that your ministries will counter this trend.

King James Only

KING JAMES ONLY
Posted: 25 Feb 2009 04:14 AM PST
Republished February 25, 2009 (first published January 20, 1996) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org) –

There is a lot of debate and confusion surrounding the man-made term "King James Onlyism." This term has been popularized in recent years by men who claim they are concerned about an alleged dangerous and cultic view of the King James Bible. Rarely do they carefully define this term, though, and as a result a wide variety of Bible-believing men are lumped together and labeled with a term the meaning of which is nebulous.

The term “King James Only” was invented by those who oppose the defense of the King James Bible and its underlying Hebrew and Greek texts. It was intended to be a term of approbation, and it is usually defined in terms of the extremism.

I have been labeled “King James Only” because of my writings on the subject of Bible texts and versions and my defense of the King James Bible. To set the record straight, let me explain what I believe. I know from decades of experience and extensive travels that this is also what a large number of other King James Bible defenders believe.

I WILL ACCEPT THE LABEL OF “KING JAMES ONLY” IF IT MEANS THE FOLLOWING:

If “King James Only” defines one who believes that God has given infallible Scripture in the original Greek and Hebrew writings and that He has preserved that in the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Received Text underlying the King James Bible and other Reformation Bibles and that we have an accurate translation of it in the English language in the Authorized Version, call me “King James Only.”

Will the Real Israel Please Stand Up?: The Identity of God's Israel

"You know, I'm a Jew." When those immediately surrounding you come from a Christian background, this is a statement that will usually perk some ears. In fact, I have used it at times to transition a conversation toward biblical theology--and more specifically the Gospel--when I sense confusion over the place of Jewish people in relationship to Christianity.

Of course, such a statement comes with necessary qualification, but according to Russell Moore (and more importantly, the New Testament), I'm correct in asserting my Jewish heritage.

At the recently revamped Moore to the Point, Dr. Moore has posted on the too often controversial topic of the identity of true Israel according to the Bible. In his article, "Is there a Future for Israel?", Moore notes that all Christians believe Israel has a future. However, the disagreement occurs in the discussion over to what (or whom) exactly the word Israel refers in various contexts in addition to its place in redemptive history, especially eschatology. After laying out the basic positions taken by dispensationalists and covenant theologians, Moore tells of his differences with both views. He writes:

Both covenant theology and dispensationalism, however, often discuss Israel and the church without taking into account the Christocentric nature of biblical eschatology. The future restoration of Israel has never been promised to the unfaithful, unregenerate members of the nation (John 3:3-10; Rom 2:25-29)-only to the faithful remnant.

The church is not Israel, at least not in a direct, unmediated sense. The remnant of Israel-a biological descendant of Abraham, a circumcised Jewish firstborn son who is approved of by God for his obedience to the covenant-receives all of the promises due to him.

"Israel is Jesus of Nazareth," Moore states. In Ezekiel 37:13-14, God promised to raise Israel from the dead and put his Spirit within them in order to make known that "I am the LORD." According to the apostle Paul, God has done this in Christ (Rom 1:2-4).

Once more from Ezekiel, Israel is referred to as the useless "wood of the vine" which is given over to fiery judgment (Ezek 15:6-8). In John's Gospel, Jesus speaks of himself as the true vine (John 15:1, 5-6). As Israel was judged and eventually given over to exile due to their disobedience, so too was Jesus of Nazareth exiled from the presence of God (Matt 27:46), except not for his own disobedience but ours.

The parallels between Christ and Israel are vastly numerous, indicating the Christocentric nature of the biblical narrative. The apostle Paul summarized this reality best in asserting that "all the promises of God find their Yes in him" (2 Cor 1:20 ESV). Furthermore, Paul goes on to say that through Christ we obtain our guaranteed inheritance (2 Cor 1:21-22; Rom 8:17). This inheritance is not merely the salvation of our souls but to act as rulers of the entire cosmos. Moore explains:

This is the radical nature of the gospel in the New Testament. Dispensationalists are right that only ethnic Jews receive the promised future restoration, but Paul makes clear that the "seed of Abraham” is singular, not plural (Gal 3:16). Only the circumcised can inherit the promised future for Israel. All believers-Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female-are forensically Jewish firstborn sons of God (Gal 3:28). They are in Christ. Circumcision is not irrelevant. Instead, both Jews and Gentiles in Christ are “the circumcision” because they have “the circumcision of Christ” (Col 2:11-12).

To make matters clearer, Moore adds, "In Christ, I inherit all the promises due to Abraham’s offspring because I am 'hidden' in Abraham’s promised offspring so that everything that is true of him is true of me."

Much of the time, due to the influence of dispensationalism upon our churches, evangelicals grow unnecessarily distressed over current events relating to modern-day Israel. Such an anxiety stems from Christians, as so many theologians have put it, "reading the newspaper in one hand and the Bible in another." This anxiety can be resolved in realizing that the promises of God rest not in Palestinian land disputes but in Christ, the firstborn and rightful heir of all creation (Col 1:15).

In other words, the Canaanite land promised to Abraham ages ago will indeed be given to God's people. Yet, it will stretch much farther than the Gaza Strip; it will be literally the entire cosmos (Rom 4:13). And yes, this land is reserved for ethnic Israel. As Russell Moore puts it, this land belongs to "one ethnic Jew whose name is Jesus."

To paraphrase a certain Caucasian rap artist, "Will the real Israel please stand up?" The truth remains that he has already stood up when on the third day he walked out of a Jerusalem tomb almost 2,000 years ago. In the meantime, he sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from where he will come to judge the living and the dead... and then to reign (Psalm 110).

From hereon, the question, "Are you Jewish?" should call for a bit more perplexing answer.

1 John 5:7-8

One controversial verse, when it comes to the KJV/modern translations debate is 1 John 5:7. I’ll give 5:8 also.

KJV: 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

ESV: 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.

-

Big difference, huh?

As I said in a previous comment, verses don’t simply vanish from Scripture. The accusations from KJV-users are serious indeed. If this phrase (known as the Comma Johanneum) was originally part of Holy Scripture, its deletion is an attack on the Holy Trinity. I argue on the contrary, that this phrase is not Holy Scripture, but rather something added by a scribe later. Allow me to elaborate.

When Erasmus was preparing the Textus Receptus, he originally left this phrase out. Now the phrase had been in the Latin Bible of the Catholic Church, but Erasmus never found a Greek manuscript containing the verse. Erasmus took a lot of criticism for his decision, and in the end said that if he could find only one Greek manuscript containing this verse, he would include it into the Textus Receptus.

Lo, and behold, a short while later, Erasmus was presented with such a manuscript. It is called the Codex Montfortianus, and is Miniscule #61. True to his word, Erasmus added the phrase in his next edition, though he did include a lengthy footnote explaining the curious situation around the verse, and voicing his suspicions that 61 was tailor made for the sole purpose of forcing him to include this phrase into the Textus Receptus.

Bruce Metzger’s textbook describes 61 thus: “This manuscript of the Entire New Testament, dating from the early 16th century, now at Trinity College, Dublin, has more importance historically than intrinsically. It is the first Greek manuscript discovered that contains the passage relating to the Three Heavenly Witnesses (1 Jn 5:7-8). It was on the basis of this single, late witness that Erasmus was induced to insert this certainly spurious passage into the text of 1 John. The manuscript, which is remarkably fresh and clean throughout (except for the two pages containing 1 John 5, which are soiled from repeated examination), gives every appearance of having been produced expressly for the purpose of confuting Erasmus.” (The Text of the New Testament: Its transmission, corruption, and restoration, 4th ed., page 88, emphasis mine.)

Later in the book, Metzger writes: “As it now appears, the Greek manuscript had probably been written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus included the passage in his Third Edition (1522) but in a lengthy footnote that was included in his volume of annotations, he intimated his suspicion that the manuscript had been prepared expressly in order to confute him.” (p. 147)

Since Erasmus, we have discovered more manuscripts that do indeed contain the Comma Johanneum. Eight, to be exact. Of the 8, only 4 (one of which is 61) contain the phrase in the text of the Bible, while the other 4 have it as a marginal note. The earliest of the 8 dated a full millennium after the New Testament was written. This 10th century manuscript contains the Comma Johanneum as a variant reading (i.e., NOT in the text of the Bible, but rather, in the margin). The next oldest comes about 400 years later. Of the 5800 or so Greek manuscripts we have discovered of the New Testament, only 8 late witnesses record this phrase. This is hardly the majority text.

However, to the Latin-speaking church, the Phrase goes back to the 4th century work, Liber apologeticus, written by either Priscillian or his follower, Bishop Instantius of Spain (Priscillian goes down as the first person in the history of Christianity to be executed for heresy). It was a piece of allegorical exegesis (for the record, Priscillian respected most of the Old Testament, but rejected the Creation story). The phrase never appeared in the Vulgate (despite its presence in the Old Latin bible) until about A.D. 800.

MOREOVER, we have the testimony (or rather, the lack thereof) from the Greek fathers. The early church was filled with controversy surrounding the nature of Christ and the Trinity. Several heresies (including the Sabellian and Arian heresies) popped up denying the Trinity and it was the work of the church fathers to refute them, preserving the orthodox teaching of the Church (and for that matter, the Bible, though at this point in history, the two were regarded as one and the same). It speaks volumes that none of the Greek fathers ever quoted this verse. Not a single one. However, this is the most obvious verse to quote in the entire New Testament to prove the Trinity. How could they have possibly missed it?

More than that, the translators of the ancient versions must have missed it also. This verse appears only in Old Latin Bibles from the 5th cent. on, and the Latin Vulgate after A.D. 800. No other ancient translations contain this phrase.

So I ask: Which is more likely? Did a beautiful verse explaining the Holy Trinity simply vanish from Scripture, without cause or explanation very early on, only to be recovered by (to the best of our knowledge) a Spanish heretic who denied the first chapters of Genesis , after which it caught on only in the Western (i.e. Roman Catholic) Church? Or, was this phrase added to the Scriptures centuries after 1 John was written as an attempt to more easily prove a doctrine from Scripture.

No, this isn’t a doctrinal issue. The Greek speaking church has defended the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity for centuries without this phrase. Its absence doesn’t make room for Mary. Yes, people get saved from the King James Version, and yes, people that use modern translations can still believe in a young earth and salvation by Christ alone. This isn’t about doctrine, but about textual purity. The evidence stands as it does.

(In all of this, I mean no hostility at all to my KJV-only brothers; I just love text criticism. In many ways I respect them more than people who tend to newer versions, for if someone is using a KJV, you can bank on him believing it. You’ll be hard pressed to find a liberal who believes KJV-only, and for that among many other issues, I thank God for my KJV-only brothers. It is my prayer that all evangelical churches would be characterized by the same zeal for God’s word and it’s primacy in life for all situations that characterizes churches who preach from God’s word in the King James Version.)

Grace and peace be with you through our Lord Jesus Christ,

-Elijah

(note: while my links are to Wikipedia, none of my research was done there. I used Metzger's The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed., Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd. ed., and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th ed.)

A Year in Review

Well, here we are with the end of another year behind us and the beginning of a new one ahead of us. The older I get the faster they seem to go. That makes me wonder how much faster time must be going for Ralton! Of all the years I've lived, this is certainly the one that things have changed the most for me. Things have changed for all of us this year. We serve a great God who by His providence has brought us to where we are now. I wanted to list a simple few things, some big and some small, that have really made 2008 a great year for me. In no particular order they are:

-Attending the service on the lake at Clyde Pedigo's house where Grace Community Church was born on May 25.

-I would say watching the Giants win the Super Bowl but that wasn't the best thing about that game to me. The best part was watching the Patriots LOSE the Super Bowl and become the worst ever 18-1 team in NFL history.

-Though it was also one of the saddest moments in my year, it was certainly a hilight to see my little brother off at the airport as he left for basic training in the Air Force.

-While visiting my older brother in Murfreesboro, TN I received a phone call that Sunday afternoon from my mother telling me that my good friend Jared Barnett had been saved that morning. Jared's baptism also took place on May 25 at the first GCC service.

-Getting to hear and meet John MacArthur at Bel Aire Baptist Church in Murfreesboro, TN. Fellow blog mate Haze was with me as well.

-Getting to preach my first ever sermon at Grace Community Church in August.

-Attending the metting of the Evangelical Theological Society in November and having the privelage of hearing great men speak such as Daniel Wallace, Albert Mohler and John Piper

-Enjoying the Thanksgiving holiday with my mother's side of the family (especially playing football!!).

-Enjoying the CHRISTmas holiday with my dad's side of the family.

-Getting to see The Dark Knight, even though I lamented the fact that it was laced with Nihilism.

-Getting to start this blog with you guys

-Graciously being asked to preach my first wedding by my good friends Kiril and Nicole Galloway

-But the No. 1 hilight of my entire year and perhaps my entire life was attending the Together for the Gospel conference in April with my mother and some of my best friends in the world. What a blessing that was and still continues to be in my life

There is a litany of other things I could list but this list should safice. I would love to hear how the Lord blessed you guys this past year. I know we all have many things to be thankful for. I hope it pleases God to give you a wonderful 2009. As Numbers 6 says:

The LORD bless you, and keep you;
The LORD make His face shine on you,
And be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance on you,
And give you peace.

The Resolutions of Jonathan Edwards

As we are now past Christmas and look forward to the new year, many people will start the year coming up with "New Year Resolutions". I thought I would share something from Jonathan Edwards. May we strive this year to do all for the glory of God in 2009!


THE RESOLUTIONS
of
Jonathan Edwards

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEING SENSIBLE THAT I AM UNABLE TO DO ANYTHING WITHOUT GOD' S HELP, I DO HUMBLY ENTREAT HIM BY HIS GRACE TO ENABLE ME TO KEEP THESE RESOLUTIONS, SO FAR AS THEY ARE AGREEABLE TO HIS WILL, FOR CHRIST' S SAKE.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember to read over these Resolutions once a week.

1. Resolved, that I will do whatsoever I think to be most to God' s glory, and my own good, profit and pleasure, in the whole of my duration, without any consideration of the time, whether now, or never so many myriads of ages hence. Resolved to do whatever I think to be my duty and most for the good and advantage of mankind in general. Resolved to do this, whatever difficulties I meet with, how many soever, and how great soever.

2. Resolved, to be continually endeavoring to find out some new contrivance and invention to promote the aforementioned things.

3. Resolved, if ever I shall fall and grow dull, so as to neglect to keep any part of these Resolutions, to repent of all I can remember, when I come to myself again.

4. Resolved, never to do any manner of thing, whether in soul or body, less or more, but what tends to the glory of God; nor be, nor suffer it, if I can avoid it.

5. Resolved, never to lose one moment of time; but improve it the most profitable way I possibly can.

6. Resolved, to live with all my might, while I do live.

7. Resolved, never to do anything, which I should be afraid to do, if it were the last hour of my life.

8. Resolved, to act, in all respects, both speaking and doing, as if nobody had been so vile as I, and as if I had committed the same sins, or had the same infirmities or failings as others; and that I will let the knowledge of their failings promote nothing but shame in myself, and prove only an occasion of my confessing my own sins and misery to God. July 30.

9. Resolved, to think much on all occasions of my own dying, and of the common circumstances which attend death.

10. Resolved, when I feel pain, to think of the pains of martyrdom, and of hell.

11. Resolved, when I think of any theorem in divinity to be solved, immediately to do what I can towards solving it, if circumstances do not hinder.

12. Resolved, if I take delight in it as a gratification of pride, or vanity, or on any such account, immediately to throw it by.

13. Resolved, to be endeavoring to find out fit objects of charity and liberality.

14. Resolved, never to do any thing out of revenge.

15. Resolved, never to suffer the least motions of anger towards irrational beings.

16. Resolved, never to speak evil of anyone, so that it shall tend to his dishonor, more or less, upon no account except for some real good.

17. Resolved, that I will live so, as I shall wish I had done when I come to die.

18. Resolved, to live so, at all times, as I think is best in my devout frames, and when I have clearest notions of things of the gospel, and another world.

19. Resolved, never to do any thing, which I should be afraid to do, if I expected it would not be above an hour, before I should hear the last trump.

20. Resolved, to maintain the strictest temperance, in eating and drinking.

21. Resolved, never to do any thing, which if I should see in another, I should count a just occasion to despise him for, or to think any way the more meanly of him. (Resolutions 1 through 21 written in one setting in New Haven in 1722)

22. Resolved, to endeavor to obtain for myself as much happiness, in the other world, as I possibly can, with all the power, might, vigor, and vehemence, yea violence, I am capable of, or can bring myself to exert, in any way that can be thought of.

23. Resolved, frequently to take some deliberate action, which seems most unlikely to be done, for the glory of God, and trace it back to the original intention, designs and ends of it; and if I find it not to be for God' s glory, to repute it as a breach of the 4th Resolution.

24. Resolved, whenever I do any conspicuously evil action, to trace it back, till I come to the original cause; and then, both carefully endeavor to do so no more, and to fight and pray with all my might against the original of it.

25. Resolved, to examine carefully, and constantly, what that one thing in me is, which causes me in the least to doubt of the love of God; and to direct all my forces against it.

26. Resolved, to cast away such things, as I find do abate my assurance.

27. Resolved, never willfully to omit any thing, except the omission be for the glory of God; and frequently to examine my omissions.

28. Resolved, to study the Scriptures so steadily, constantly and frequently, as that I may find, and plainly perceive myself to grow in the knowledge of the same.

29. Resolved, never to count that a prayer, nor to let that pass as a prayer, nor that as a petition of a prayer, which is so made, that I cannot hope that God will answer it; nor that as a confession, which I cannot hope God will accept.

30. Resolved, to strive to my utmost every week to be brought higher in religion, and to a higher exercise of grace, than I was the week before.

31. Resolved, never to say any thing at all against any body, but when it is perfectly agreeable to the highest degree of Christian honor, and of love to mankind, agreeable to the lowest humility, and sense of my own faults and failings, and agreeable to the golden rule; often, when I have said anything against anyone, to bring it to, and try it strictly by the test of this Resolution.

32. Resolved, to be strictly and firmly faithful to my trust, that that, in Proverbs 20:6,‹A faithful man who can find?Š may not be partly fulfilled in me.

33. Resolved, to do always, what I can towards making, maintaining, and preserving peace, when it can be done without overbalancing detriment in other respects. Dec. 26, 1722.

34. Resolved, in narrations never to speak any thing but the pure and simple verity.

35. Resolved, whenever I so much question whether I have done my duty, as that my quiet and calm is thereby disturbed, to set it down, and also how the question was resolved. Dec. 18, 1722.

36. Resolved, never to speak evil of any, except I have some particular good call for it. Dec. 19, 1722.

37. Resolved, to inquire every night, as I am going to bed, wherein I have been negligent,- what sin I have committed,-and wherein I have denied myself;-also at the end of every week, month and year. Dec. 22 and 26, 1722.

38. Resolved, never to speak anything that is ridiculous, sportive, or matter of laughter on the Lord' s day. Sabbath evening, Dec. 23, 1722.

39. Resolved, never to do any thing of which I so much question the lawfulness of, as that I intend, at the same time, to consider and examine afterwards, whether it be lawful or not; unless I as much question the lawfulness of the omission.

40. Resolved, to inquire every night, before I go to bed, whether I have acted in the best way I possibly could, with respect to eating and drinking. Jan. 7, 1723.

41. Resolved, to ask myself, at the end of every day, week, month and year, wherein I could possibly, in any respect, have done better. Jan. 11, 1723.

42. Resolved, frequently to renew the dedication of myself to God, which was made at my baptism; which I solemnly renewed, when I was received into the communion of the church; and which I have solemnly re-made this twelfth day of January, 1722-23.

43. Resolved, never, henceforward, till I die, to act as if I were any way my own, but entirely and altogether God' s; agreeable to what is to be found in Saturday, January 12, 1723.

44. Resolved, that no other end but religion, shall have any influence at all on any of my actions; and that no action shall be, in the least circumstance, any otherwise than the religious end will carry it. January 12, 1723.

45. Resolved, never to allow any pleasure or grief, joy or sorrow, nor any affection at all, nor any degree of affection, nor any circumstance relating to it, but what helps religion. Jan. 12 and 13, 1723.

46. Resolved, never to allow the least measure of any fretting uneasiness at my father or mother. Resolved to suffer no effects of it, so much as in the least alteration of speech, or motion of my eye: and to be especially careful of it with respect to any of our family.

47. Resolved, to endeavor, to my utmost, to deny whatever is not most agreeable to a good, and universally sweet and benevolent, quiet, peaceable, contented and easy, compassionate and generous, humble and meek, submissive and obliging, diligent and industrious, charitable and even, patient, moderate, forgiving and sincere temper; and to do at all times, what such a temper would lead me to; and to examine strictly, at the end of every week, whether I have done so. Sabbath morning. May 5, 1723.

48. Resolved, constantly, with the utmost niceness and diligence, and the strictest scrutiny, to be looking into the state of my soul, that I may know whether I have truly an interest in Christ or not; that when I come to die, I may not have any negligence respecting this to repent of. May 26, 1723.

49. Resolved, that this never shall be, if I can help it.

50. Resolved, I will act so as I think I shall judge would have been best, and most prudent, when I come into the future world. July 5, 1723.

51. Resolved, that I will act so, in every respect, as I think I shall wish I had done, if I should at last be damned. July 8, 1723.

52. I frequently hear persons in old age, say how they would live, if they were to live their lives over again: Resolved, that I will live just so as I can think I shall wish I had done, supposing I live to old age. July 8, 1723.

53. Resolved, to improve every opportunity, when I am in the best and happiest frame of mind, to cast and venture my soul on the Lord Jesus Christ, to trust and confide in him, and consecrate myself wholly to him; that from this I may have assurance of my safety, knowing that I confide in my Redeemer. July 8, 1723.

54. Whenever I hear anything spoken in conversation of any person, if I think it would be praiseworthy in me, Resolved to endeavor to imitate it. July 8, 1723.

55. Resolved, to endeavor to my utmost to act as I can think I should do, if, I had already seen the happiness of heaven, and hell torments. July 8, 1723.

56. Resolved, never to give over, nor in the least to slacken, my fight with my corruptions, however unsuccessful I may be.

57. Resolved, when I fear misfortunes and adversities, to examine whether I have done my duty, and resolve to do it, and let the event be just as providence orders it. I will as far as I can, be concerned about nothing but my duty, and my sin. June 9, and July 13 1723.

58. Resolved, not only to refrain from an air of dislike, fretfulness, and anger in conversation, but to exhibit an air of love, cheerfulness and benignity. May 27, and July 13, 1723.

59. Resolved, when I am most conscious of provocations to ill nature and anger, that I will strive most to feel and act good-naturedly; yea, at such times, to manifest good nature, though I think that in other respects it would be disadvantageous, and so as would be imprudent at other times. May 12, July 11, and July 13.

60. Resolved, whenever my feelings begin to appear in the least out of order, when I am conscious of the least uneasiness within, or the least irregularity without, I will then subject myself to the strictest examination. July 4, and 13, 1723.

61. Resolved, that I will not give way to that listlessness which I find unbends and relaxes my mind from being fully and fixedly set on religion, whatever excuse I may have for it-that what my listlessness inclines me to do, is best to be done, etc. May 21, and July 13, 1723.

62. Resolved, never to do anything but duty, and then according to Ephesians 6:6-8, to do it willingly and cheerfully as unto the Lord, and not to man:‹knowing that whatever good thing any man doth, the same shall he receive of the Lord.Š June 25 and July 13, 1723.

63. On the supposition, that there never was to be but one individual in the world, at any one time, who was properly a complete Christian, in all respects of a right stamp, having Christianity always shining in its true luster, and appearing excellent and lovely, from whatever part and under whatever character viewed: Resolved, to act just as I would do, if I strove with all my might to be that one, who should live in my time. January 14 and July 13, 1723.

64. Resolved, when I find those ‹groanings which cannot be utteredŠ (Romans 8:26), of which the Apostle speaks, and those‹breakings of soul for the longing it hath,Š of which the Psalmist speaks, Psalm 119:20, that I will promote them to the utmost of my power, and that I will not be weary of earnestly endeavoring to vent my desires, nor of the repetitions of such earnestness. July 23, and August 10, 1723.

65. Resolved, very much to exercise myself in this, all my life long, viz. with the greatest openness, of which I am capable of, to declare my ways to God, and lay open my soul to him: all my sins, temptations, difficulties, sorrows, fears, hopes, desires, and every thing, and every circumstance; according to Dr. Manton' s 27th Sermon on Psalm 119. July 26, and Aug.10 1723.

66. Resolved, that I will endeavor always to keep a benign aspect, and air of acting and speaking in all places, and in all companies, except it should so happen that duty requires otherwise.

67. Resolved, after afflictions, to inquire, what I am the better for them, what am I the better for them, and what I might have got by them.

68. Resolved, to confess frankly to myself all that which I find in myself, either infirmity or sin; and, if it be what concerns religion, also to confess the whole case to God, and implore needed help. July 23, and August 10, 1723.

69. Resolved, always to do that, which I shall wish I had done when I see others do it. August 11, 1723.

70. Let there be something of benevolence, in all that I speak. August 17, 1723.

I'll be Gone for Christmas

This is a wonderful time of year for so many of us. We love celebrating the birth of Christ and the beauty and joy that this season brings. We love spending Christmas with our families, we love the lights and exchanging gifts, and if you’re anything like me you especially love the food! But this year I am experiencing something new. For the first time in my life I have to spend Christmas without my little brother. Josh Lloyd shipped off on December 10 for basic training in the Air Force. He will be gone a total of 3 months.
My brother and I are very close which makes him being gone all the more difficult. But I have gained a whole new respect for our men and women in the armed services since Josh has left. I always appreciated the fact that they would just pick up and leave and go to Iraq or Germany or basic training or any other place. But this time it hit close to home. Until now, it almost had the affect of watching the news and seeing a tragedy that happened in another place far away. I might think that this event was terrible but it never really strikes you until you are in the midst of it and can see it first hand. But it is real and there is pain in being away from loved ones at this time of year. As my family ate dinner and opened some of our presents tonight my mind drifted to wondering what my brother was doing and how badly I wished he could be with us. The vacant seat at the table and the lack of another person to open gifts left us all with heavy hearts.
This pain in my heart is another reminder of sin. If there were no sin then there would be no need for a military and thus my brother could be home this Christmas. The evil in man’s heart that causes the nations to wage war against each other is the very reason we need the armed services. Were it not for them, pandemonium would certainly ensue.
We all know soldiers that won’t be home for Christmas this year. When you think of them, pray for them. They are real people who each represent whole families that will be without a loved one to sit down with at dinner and to give presents to. The dedication to their country that this shows speaks volumes. They are the ones who stand watch while the rest of us are asleep comfortably in our beds. They are the ones that give up freedoms to protect ours. They are the military of the greatest country in the world, and they are the ones that this year will sing the song, “I’ll be Gone for Christmas.”

Forthcoming series.

At someone's request, I am currently working on a series of posts on New Testament textual criticism. Actually, he just wanted me to compare KJV to ESV textually, but I decided to make you wait for that and give you an introduction to the whole of text criticism, one glorious piece at a time.

Questions? Let me have them and I'll try to answer them in upcoming posts.

-Elijah

Holy Nietzsche, Batman: Nihilism and The Joker in The Dark Knight

With the release of The Dark Knight on DVD this week, thousands are flocking--myself included--to the nearest Best Buy or Wal-Mart to purchase a copy of the record-breaking film. Comic-based movies have done very well for themselves in recent years and something is to be said for that alone. That is not our most pressing concern however. Instead, we want to raise the question, "What makes The Dark Knight surpass the rest in terms of critical review, box-office intake, and general popularity?" I'll give you one hint: it begins with a "Joke" and ends with an "Err."

While its quality in many areas plays a supplemental role in the huge success of the first sequel in the latest Batman series, the Caped Crusader himself is not the character whom audiences are left talking about. Rather than the hero, it's the villain who has captured the minds and hearts of viewers. This isn't just any villain though; it's The Joker, the antithesis of not only all things heroic but all things meaningful. He has no tangible incentive for his actions and in his mind has nothing to lose. The Joker is a man who, as Michael Caine's character Alfred Pennyworth puts it, "just wants to watch the world burn."

The Joker character stands as a symbol for full-blown nihilism. Most commonly associated with the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche, nihilism is the philosophy that the world is devoid of any meaning, standards, values, and purpose. Existence is pointless, in other words. In an August blog post titled "Why is Batman Making So Much Money?," theologian C. Michael Patton described The Joker as "the Nihilist who believes in nothing, cares for nothing, and pursues nothing." Precisely. Patton continues:

At one point The Joker says, “I have no plans. I am like a dog chasing a car. I would not know what to do if I caught it.” There is no rationalism because there is no such thing as order, reason, or ends that create purpose. It is just the moment, and the moment is ruled by randomness.

In other words, "I just do things," The Joker explains in the same scene. Why would such a blatant display of anarchy and utter recklessness prove appealing in today's culture? Patton speculates that the impulse to find nihilistic behavior entertaining stems from postmodern thinking. He writes, "Our postmodern culture may see itself in the character of The Joker. Like a person who has not seen his face in many years, we are going to the mirror to take a look."

With its rampant embrace of moral relativism and existential thought, our postmodern culture sees what it is becoming in The Joker. Once people realize that if every individual determines the truth for himself, the inevitable conclusion is that there is no all-encompassing unity to reality. Thus, existence is unintelligible and pointless. All is nothingness since there is no absolute standard or transcendent meaning. If everyone sets the truth, there is no actual truth since no person's perception or interpretation of reality takes precedence over another's.

This type of thinking will undoubtedly lead to despair and from despair to apathy, as Patton notes.

It is when the despair turns to apathy and we are what we are and we don’t care what we become. With the deconstruction of morals, truth, knowledge, revelation, and the like, is it any surprise that so many people are going to look in the mirror?

Moreover, we must admit most pre-teen, adolescent, and 20-something males are not infatuated by Heath Ledger's portrayal of The Joker because they are conscious of the implications of postmodernism. Our attraction to the character is more basic than that. The Joker was not the first to ask, "Why so serious?" Such a question was not first posed in Gotham, but rather in the Garden. It came with the Serpent asking Eve, "Hath God said?" (Gen 3:1). The temptation to create our own rules and define reality for ourselves was appealing to us then and proves to be more so now this side of the Fall.

Aware that mankind's tendency is to rebel against its Creator, Christians are to call persons to repentance, reminding them that we as creatures made in God's image are not our own. As Francis Schaeffer stated, "We must never forget that the first part of the gospel is not 'Accept Christ as Savior,' but 'God is there.'" Only the infinite, personal creator Yahweh can assign meaning to the universe, thus making it possible for human beings to reason and interpret things. Furthermore, God's existence not only necessitates that he is the One to Whom we look for meaning and purpose as revealed in his Word, but that he is the One to Whom we are accountable.

Patton is right. Our culture does see itself in The Joker--and we all should if we're honest about the condition of our hearts (Jer 17:9). Nevertheless, this is not something we should embrace or celebrate. This represents humanity gone wrong. In knowing that "God is there," we are to be ready to engage a culture of emptiness and rebelliousness.

Why so serious? Because this is no laughing matter.

A Seasonal Question

So, right now I work retail at a "Christian book store" in a big city. We sell a lot of questionable things, including Santa here, kneeling before the manger. Some even have a little prayer, in which Santa acknowledges to Jesus that He is the source of all gifts and that His gift on the cross is Santa's inspiration for giving.

-

So, when the store is empty, I get to stand up front and think about things like this. Naturally, I have a few thoughts and questions to pass on for your imput.

-

1. Why, in the WORLD, would you want to put Santa and Jesus together? You're putting the God of all creation, in His amazing act of accomodating us in His incarnation, right there next to a fictional old man. You might as well paint a picture of Harry Potter and Edward Cullen coming to Elijah's rescue as the three of them duke it out with the prophets of Baal. What happens to the child who sees this atrocity, once he realizes the truth about Jolly Ole Saint Nick? Does he throw our Lord Jesus out as fiction as well? This article has a revealing exceprt of a dialogue in such a case. It makes me sick that these things exist, and even sicker when a customer brings one to my line, knowing that I must ring it out.

-

2. This is the more important one. This one has been bugging me for a couple days now. The word "Christmas" comes from "Christ's mass." "Christ's mass" became "Christ mass," which became "Christmas." There is also a "Michaelmas," in case you were wondering.

-

Is it ok to say the word "Christmas?" Think about it for a minute. Think about where the word came from, and whose name it still contains. Christ is the Greek form of the title Messiah-a title of our Lord Jesus Himself ("Messiah" comes from the Hebrew word that means "to smear" or "to annoint.") Do we need a mass for the Annointed One of God-the God-man?

-

Moreover, when we throw around the word "Christmas," are we taking the Lord's name in vain? To be sure, it isn't intentional, but it is still Jesus' title. In fact, it is the only title so closely associated with a name that it is often confused with the name itself. (I recall when I was younger asking my grandmother what Jesus' middle name was, since I was sure His last name was Christ.)

-

In saying "Merry Christmas," have I thrown around my savior's divine title as a simple greeting? Do I treat that name with reverance when I sing "We Wish you a Merry Christmas?" I don't think I do. Most people agree that using the word "Christ" as an expletive is taking the Lord's name in vain. But is it any different how we treat it during the holidays? I guess a helpful thought would be to ask if the word "Christmas is far-enough removed from "Christ" to make a difference.

-

Maybe "Happy Holidays" isn't so bad after all.
-

Just some thoughts, I'd love to hear your opinions,

-Elijah