“Pointers” Summary

Here’s a quick recap of the “Pointers” series. Click on them for the fuller entry:

1) Most contemporary non-Christians do not know the story of Scripture well.

2) Unbelievers [normally] do not distinguish between Creation and the Fall.

3) Unbelievers tend to develop arguments against Christianity based on what seems (to them) to be fitting for God, not on what Scripture actually says.

4) Non-Christians usually do not properly distinguish between the biblical message and the history of the Church.

5) Unbelievers tend to believe that by providing a biological/sociological explanation for an event or action it is therefore unnecessary to have a theological explanation.

Superman: Jesus in Disguise? (Part 2 of 2)

In the last post we looked at the parallels with Kal-El son of Jor-El (Superman), and Jesus, Son of David (Christ). Now, I hope to touch what these parallels mean for our culture and what they mean for the gospel. Sounds like a huge goal, doesn’t it? Well, I suppose it is, but I’m only working out a sketch.

What the Superman/Christ connection means for culture. Insofar as Superman embodies the ideals of generations gone by as well as today’s generation, his iconic status clues of in on a couple of things. First, since humanity is created with a purpose, and history is unfolding toward God’s goal, humans cannot escape their design. We cannot help but notice that the world is not as it should be. There are wrongs in this world that demand righting. Second, We need a hero. But, we need a hero that can do what we never could. One that is like us, yet not like us. Third, this hero must stand against all that is evil, and must embody justice to the fullest. Fourth, despite the argument to the contrary we still, deep down at our God-created core, know good from evil, and desire good to triumph over evil. Fifth, we cannot save ourselves. We are helpless to bring about the change that we so desperately need.

What the Superman/ Christ connection means for the gospel. First, the gospel presents us with the true myth. Part of the conversion of C. S. Lewis was his realization that the story of Jesus is the “true myth.” There was a time, during his “B.C.” days, when he thought the parallels between the Gospels (i.e. Matt, Mrk, Lk, and Jhn) and ancient pagan mythology proved that the story of Jesus couldn’t be true. But, in his conversion (which came about as a result of long conversations with Lord of the Rings author, J. R. R. Tolkien) he had a life-changing “aha” moment. The similarities between the Gospels and pagan myths, rather than invalidating the story, actually proves it! God’s was guiding history, in a manner of speaking, to set the stage for Christ to walk on the stage. The belief in creation, sin, judgment, and redemption (in one form or another) are universal themes, and they strike a chord with nearly every human heart. All the highest hopes of men, and the greatest themes in all stories find their fulfillment in Christ.

Second, the story of Superman provides Christians with a cultural point of contact to share the gospel. If you live in America, then chances are on more than a number of occasions you’ve seen people wearing Superman “S” t-shirts. They’re all over the place (and Yes, I own one). The Man of Steel is probably the largest cultural icon other than Jesus in America. So, this provides us with the opportunity to turn an ordinary conversation about Big Blue into an evangelistic conversation without it seeming forced (recall the similarities in part 1). This demonstrates that anything can be used as a springboard to presenting the gospel.

Oh, and here’s another parallel between Superman and the God-man: when both were resurrected, they came back transformed. Jesus was resurrected in a glorified body, never to die again. With the resurrection of Superman (though the weaker term “resuscitation,” might be more fitting) a serious question of his immortality has been raised. It is possible that so long as Superman is exposed to our yellow sun, nothing can kill him? He is, after all, a solar battery, more or less.

Ok, I’m tapped out…

Superman: Jesus in Disguise? (Part 1 of 2)

I know I haven’t been the first to notice this, but maybe what I’m about to say is new to some of my readers. Our culture is, in a very real sense, a culture without it’s own mythology. This is one of the chief reasons why films like the 300, TV programing like professional wrestling, and comics books are so popular. One function that mythology plays is to flesh out the deepest values that a culture holds dear. For the past nearly 30 years, a ideological struggle has been going on in the comic book world. And this is a crisis in Worldviews. In 1938, two Jewish boys, Jerry Siegel and Joel Shuster, created Superman, a larger than life hero that would save us from all our fears. Superman reflected the ideals of 1) those who created him, and 2) the larger culture into which he was born. Now, this isn’t to say that those in the 1930’s lived up to those ideals (we do remember that that’s when WWII started, right?), but the point is that truth, justice, honesty, and integrity (and yes, the American way) were held up as things that should be sought before all other things.

Today, the comic industry (again, reflecting the larger culture) has struggled because while heroes such as Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man (who have vowed to never purposefully take a life) are still amongst the most popular, on the flip side we have characters such as Spawn, The Darkness, and the Punisher (anti-heroes for whom killing is part of daily lives) who are also clearing the racks. Admittedly, the line between a Batman and a Punisher isn’t absolute, but then again, nearly nothing is.

But all of this is preamble to my main point. I believe that the global and time tested success and popularity of Superman has a theological explanation. I’ve grown increasing convinced that Superman is a profound Christ figure, not only in his original story, but also in the development of his character. Both Superman and Christ, in an important sense, are not of this earth. Both are sent by their father, and come from a place far away. Both are saviors, both died, taking the very wrath of doomsday it/himself upon them (for those of you who don’t know the story of Superman’s death in the early 90’s, he died saving the city of Metropolis from a creature literally named Doomsday), and lastly, both were resurrected because death could not overcome them. Notice also how “oddly” Superman’s dual identity strangely mirrors Christ’s dual nature. Clark reflects the lowly, servant nature of Christ, while the Man of Steel resembles the glorified, divine nature of Jesus.

Is this a pure coincidence? I don’t think so. The original creators of Superman were not Christians, yet Siegel and Shuster were raised in a biblically saturated environment. They have claimed that Superman was loosely based on Moses and Samson. The rocket that Superman’s father, Jor-El (El is Hebrew for God), sends him to Earth in is a parallel to the basket that Moses was saved in as a baby. And, of course, Samson is the prototype for Superman’s heroic strength. But, being that Moses (as prophet and savior of the people of Israel) and Samson (as judge and defender of the nation) are Old Testament types pointing to their ultimate fulfillment in Christ, is it any wonder why Big Blue bears such a striking resemblance to God’s Son?

I think the clear parallel between Christ and Superman are already being acknowledged by a wide variety of people. As an example, look at this splicing of two movie trailers. We’ll take a closer look at what these parallels mean both for our culture and the gospel in part 2.

D. A. Carson Lectures

Here’s a great list of lectures and sermons by D. A. Carson, New Testament Professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (TEDS for short).

Pointers for Defending the Faith, Part 5

And now we wrap up this series.

5. Unbelievers tend to believe that by providing a biological/sociological explanation for an event or action it is therefore unnecessary to have a theological explanation.

Unbelieving scientists, both in the supposedly “hard,” as well as the “social” sciences, have often claimed that the supernatural worldview of Christianity is simply impossible. Many have claimed that people of the ancient Near East were more prone to believing in supernatural beings and occurrences because they didn’t know any better. But, so it is thought, we can’t be too harsh on those overly superstitious people, they didn’t have the wealth of science knowledge about how the world runs as we modern folk do. Contemporary, especially western, Christians have no excuse though. We should know better and not place our hopes in such fairytales.

These people may say that we have no need to believe that God causes the plants to grow, because now we know about the laws of photosynthesis. Or, you may have heard, “We no longer believe that morality comes from God, because now we are aware of just how much society and family shapes our beliefs about right and wrong, etc.”

But this misses the point, and it misses it big. It also vividly demonstrates how pointer 1 (Unbelievers often don’t really know the story of the Bible) applies to many of us Christians. You see many times if we present a strong case for God’s divine plan for things we can fall into the danger of forgetting the “us” side of the story. Does God control and direct all things? Yes (Eph. 1:11). But does He normally do this apart from “normal” means? No. This sheds light on the case of morality above. Do we become conscious of standards of morality from our culture? Yes, we do. Do we become conscious of standards of morality from out parents? Without a doubt. Do we become conscious of standards of morality from out peers, friends, and all those with whom we associate? Again, yes. But does admitting this undermine the existence of a universal standard of ethical behavior? Not at all!

If the Bible is true, then it would seem (according to the worldview presented in it’s pages) that the normal, everyday means through which God has planned humans to learn standards of morality is through both relationships in general and he family in specific. Now, of course, the word of God ultimately is given (among other reasons) to correct the faulty beliefs we have about ethics. But, the notion of right and wrong action, desires and motives, are dependent upon relationships. When I do something that I shouldn’t, something I ought not do, I am breaking fellowship with someone, whether it’s my mother, father, the government, my “fellow man,” etc. I don’t own good behavior to the universe because if it’s ultimately impersonal, then it can make no demands (like “obey me”) at all! So, just as moral obligations depend on relationships with a person, in the same way ultimate ethical obligations are depend on a relationship with an ultimate Person. The horizontal (i.e. how we come to learn things) doesn’t cancel the vertical (the authority behind what we learn, if it’s true).

One more example, and we’ll come this series. Over the last decade or so, there has been much discussion over the possible existence of the gay gene. Are people with a homosexual orientation genetically “wired” this way? Well, at this point the jury is still out (though the evidence isn’t exactly powerful). But, what is conclusive evidence could be shown that all homosexuals share this gene (when I say “all” I realize I’m grossly exaggerating. But I’m doing it for effect.)? What would we do? Would we have to say that the Bible is wrong has it clearly states that homosexuality is against God’s original desire for human sexuality? In a nutshell, we don’t have to change a bit. We would be called to a stronger recognition that these people who have this gene struggle with a particular temptation to sin that we do not all share. But this doesn’t make it any less a deviation from God’s design. Christians believe in the Fall and original sin. We also believe that there is no part of who we are that hasn’t be touched by sin. To admit (if we had to) that a gay gene exists would simply be to acknowledge that the effects of the fall run deeper than we were initially aware of. The horizontal doesn’t cancel the vertical!

So, if you’re taking with someone and this issue arises, stay alert and spot it. It’s tricky…

Pointers for Defending the Faith, Part 4

Here’s another tip to keep in mind:

4) Non-Christians usually do not properly distinguish between the biblical message and the history of the Church. This is an extremely common occurrence and a very important point. I can’t recall how many times when speaking to a non-Christian evangelistically the first objection I heard was, “But what about the crusades?” or something like that. We need to draw a distinction here. When we’re commending Jesus to someone, we’re not commending all the mistakes and blunders of the church as well. Please don’t confuse us for Jesus, He’s much better than us! Now, are they connected questions? Very much so! The church is the community that claims to be people transformed by Jesus Himself, spiritually inhabiting us through the Holy Spirit; we’re His “body” (cf. 1 Cor. 12).
But none of this should detract from the plain fact that we’re claiming that the Bible records historical, space-time events. So, the wrongs self-proclaimed Christians have done in the 1600’s (for instance) doesn’t mean that Jesus didn’t live in Israel roughly from 3 B.C. to 30 A.D. anymore than to say that because we discover that one of our elementary schools teachers was a pedophile, the mathematics that you learned from him or her is invalidated. That’s sloppy thinking.

Another important strength to making this distinction between “Bible-history” (we’ll call this (Canonical-redemptive history) and Church history is that when we do we’re free to develop some common talking points with non-Christians. We shouldn’t feel constrained to defend everything the church has always done. The church is made up of broken, fallen people who need a savior, which is the very reason why they’re in the church! So, we don’t need to defend the crusades and the wrongs they did, the passivity of the German church during WWII, the abuses that the Roman Catholic Priesthood currently finds itself in, etc. Those are wrong, and should be acknowledged, by both saint and sinner, as wrong. Believe it or not, seeing that Christians aren’t “blind” to these moral blemishes within it’s own family may actually get you a hearing.

Four down, one to go…

Fatherly Wisdom

Let us consider, then, brethren, of what matter we were formed, who we are, and with what nature we came into the world, and how He Who formed and created us brought us into His world from the darkness of a grave, and prepared his benefits for us before we were born. Since, therefore, we have everything from Him, we ought in everything to give Him thanks, to Whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

*Clement of Rome

Pointers for Defending the Faith, Part 3

Here’s our third point:

3) Unbelievers tend to develop arguments against Christianity based on what seems (to them) to be fitting for God, not on what Scripture actually says. I’ve done a pretty decent amount of reading stuff that’s written by non-Christians, both by scholars and at the popular level. A common problem I’ve noticed is that many of these arguments fail to take into account the actual accounts of God’s nature and attributes in the Bible (see point 1), i.e. they argue against a no-frills type of God. Examples like this abound, “Can God created a rock so large he cannot lift it?” From a Biblical perspective, that’s a nonsense question that shouldn’t be tolerated as a serious problem for the Christian doctrine of God. It’s like asking if God can make a squared circle. God doesn’t “do” logical absurdities (or windows!).

Here’s another example that ties together points 1 and 2: In most versions of the supposed problem of evil, unbelievers tend to

1) ignore -or are ignorant of- the biblical narrative and God’s purposes in using evil for His glory and our good, and

2) base their arguments on various assumptions such as a good God would never allow (babies to go hungry, etc.)

The point here? We need to fight the temptation to defend a conception of God that’s not taught in scripture. In my earlier series titled Prologue to Apologetics, I made the point that we defend no other God than the father of the Lord Jesus Christ. In fact, we should join hands to topple rival conceptions of God. So, if the “god” that our unbelieving friend is arguing against isn’t what we recognize as the Biblical God (and don’t let their usage of the word “God” fool you), kindly respond that you’re not recommending “that” god to them, and get back on track. Of course, this may make things harder to speak about (after all, Yahweh has allowed children to suffer, etc.), but our goal should be to winsomely recommend the truth, not merely what the non-Christian will accept.

Three down, two to go…

Pointers for Defending the Faith, Part 2

Here’s our second pointer for apologetics:

2) Unbelievers [normally] do not distinguish between Creation and the Fall. As many thinkers have already noticed, the biblical mega-narrative (and for those of you who are familiar with the term “meta-narrative”please note that I’m intentionally not using it) follows the themes of creation-fall-redemption. Some of the things we experience this side of the fall where not a part of the originally created order that God declared “good.” Of course, the easiest example of this is moral rebellion against our Creator (i.e. sin)

It is worth noting is that often what is considered natural by the non-Christian (ex: sexual lust), we may (and probably do) attribute to the Fall. We should bring to the attention of our non-Christian friends that not everything we find today is that way thing ought to be. Christians (or, at least the Bible) make a distinction between two senses in which something could be considered “natural.” First, something could be considered “natural” if it was part of the original created plan of God. In this sense, marriage, heterosexuality, and loving obedience and submission to God and His word are all natural. The second usage of the term “natural” has the opposite meaning. Yeah, I know, it’s confusing! According to this usage “natural” is contrasted with spiritual (or [Holy]Spirit-lead, cf. 1 Cor. 2:14, James 3:15). So, sexual deviation is perfectly “natural” in this sense, it “gels” well with our fallen condition. In some Bible versions, the term natural is more pointedly translated “carnal.” I think that gets my point across.

So, as we keep in mind these biblical usages of the word “natural,” we should be aware that unbelievers often blur or do not properly distinguish between Creation and Fall. So, when if they say, “what’s wrong with ____? After all, it’s natural.” We need to patiently point out that ____ (given it’s a sinful goal, motive, or action) is not natural in the first sense (which is what Christian ethics is geared toward developing), but instead is natural in the second.

Two down, three to go…

Pointers for Defending the Faith, Part 1

In this series, I plan to quickly address (and seriously, I mean quickly!) what I have found to be helpful pointers in apologetics. Now, by this I do not mean “helpful” in terms of arguments. I’m focusing on strategy, on making a persuasive case for Christ. This is essentially a “hit and run” series, I’ll make my points quickly, and leave you to your business. Here’s something to keep in mind regarding the average non-Christian:

1) Most contemporary non-Christians do not know the story of Scripture well. So, before we can “defend” our position on Christianity, we need to make sure they understanding what we’re talking about. Now, the sad thing is that most America evangelical Christians don’t understand the Bible (and various polls have demonstrated this). Now, this is not to say that they don’t “get” Jesus. They do, but often not well enough to deal with tough objections to the faith. After all, Jesus isn’t the only person teaching us in Scripture. There’s Paul, John, Peter, James, Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, and on and on…

So, be prepared to do some explaining. The non-Christian may be hostile to something that’s not taught in Scripture. Help them out. This should lead to a strong sense of responsibility to the person you’re speaking to (since apparently God has placed them in your path), and a great amount of patience. After all, for most of us, there was a time when we didn’t “get” it either.

One point down, four to go…

Relativism’s Attack on Morality

It has been said that on most college campuses it is a basic unargued assumption that all ethical codes are subjectively determined. So as we try to bring our listeners attention to the fact that all morality doesn’t make sense apart from God, we may hear, “morality is not same for everyone, therefore is cannot be objectively binding.” Or, more commonly, we hear it phrased this way, “what’s right for you isn’t right for everybody!” This is moral relativism. Moral relativism is the view that in matters of morals or ethics the individual determines right and wrong. Often a person who believes this (i.e. a relativist) will mention different cultural beliefs across the world and conclude that morality is created by societies and/or they are determined by personal preference, so we shouldn’t judge others. But there are a bunch of problems here, 1) it confuses moral claims with preference claims, 2) The conclusion simply doesn’t follow the data, and 3) It simply isn’t true that the morality of differing countries is all that different.

First, when we say that murder is wrong, we are not simply saying, “I don’t like murder.” While we may be saying that, it goes further than that. In the case of pre-martial sex, many of the people who believe it’s wrong may actually prefer it! The point? Often times what we may prefer is not what we believe to be morally obligatory.

Secondly, even where it’s true (i.e. that different cultures disagree on morality), the conclusion simply doesn’t follow the premises. If anything, it’s an only an interesting cultural observation. This is like saying that since people once believed that the earth was flat and at another time they believed that it was round, therefore the earth has no shape! If two parties disagree, we have two options. Either the first party is right and the other wrong, or they are both wrong and a third party is right. If their conclusions are mutually exclusive, they cannot both be right.

Third, we should also point out that the charge that differing cultures have altogether different sets of morality simply isn’t true. While, yes, there are differences, they are of the low scale, not “bizarro world” differences. C.S. Lewis addressed this objection more than 50 years ago. States Lewis:

There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might as well imagine a country where two and two made five.

With all the fine work published in the last several years refuting relativism, I believe that 3 chief points stand out. First, relativism usually is held by people for the sake of unity and to promote tolerance. Yet, if this is true it’s self-defeating, because it presupposes that tolerance and understanding are universal, objective moral norms. This is like saying, “There is no right or wrong, and if you disagree with us, you’re wrong!” Did you catch that!?

Next, relativism relativizes itself. As we noted, relativism offers itself as a moral absolute, but this undercuts it’s own position. So we are left to ask, “Is your belief in relativism something you believe all people ought to believe (notice that the term “ought” implies moral obligation), or is it a belief that’s only relative?” If the relativist says it’s only relative to them, then relativism is meaningless, because it doesn’t even have (or rather, it strips itself of) the ability to persuade others to believe it. After all, we do instinctively know right and wrong in most cases. We can proclaim relativism from the rooftops all day, that is, until someone steals our belongings, or hurts our family members. Suddenly we feel that it’s not something that we simply dislike, but rather that it is something that’s truly wrong! Then we become moral absolutists.

Lastly, if we reduce we moral claims to preference claims then we would have to radically change the way we commonly speak. Instead of saying “The Terrorists who flew 2 airplanes into the World Trade Center buildings were wrong, and it was an evil act”, we would have to replace it with, “I personally do not think that the Terrorists attack on Sept.11th was expedient, and it did not accord with my subjective tastes, but I could be wrong. I don’t want to ‘impose’ my morality on anyone!” I feel my point has been made.

At War with the Word? Part 2

God has preserved His Word

Another relevant subject to apologetics is the issue of whether the texts of our current Bibles have been preserved. Often when presenting a case for the Christian worldview, a detractor may ask whether the text of our modern Bibles is even the same one as early Christians read from, let alone the text that the actual Apostles wrote. Since the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, the legitimacy and historical preservation of the Old Testament is no longer seriously doubted, therefore my brief summary of the texts of Scripture will focus on the New Testament (hereafter NT). The implications of this question cannot be overstated; if we cannot trust the historicity of the Christian Scriptures then the very hope of Christianity is undermined.

In the process of examining the reliability of the NT documents, we must apply several general rules of historical criticism, while leaving our possibilities open to the reality of supernatural activity. In my presentation I will present three lines of evidence that are strong reasons for us to believe that the NT record is not only reliable, but if the NT documents are not historically reliable then no ancient work is reliable.

First, we need to examine approximately when the NT documents were written. If we can attain a good enough time frame for when they were written then we can tell if enough time passed for rumor and myth to creep in. Gary Habermas states that in testing a historical document’s reliability, “Early evidence is strongly preferred, and in reference to Jesus, data from A.D. 30 to 50 would be exemplary.” So, one is left to ask “Do the NT autographs fit within that time frame?”

Amongst non-conservative scholarship, it is usually agreed that the gospel of Mark was the first one composed. Within the conservative, evangelical ranks, scholars tend to disagree and debate over which gospel came first. Some take matthean, markan, and even sometimes lukan priority (though, admittedly, this is rare). But, the high consensus of NT scholarship would agree that the book of Acts was written after the gospel of Luke. If we work back from the book of the Acts of the Apostles, we can come to a reasonable dating of the NT gospels.

Luke, a traveling companion of the Apostle Paul, wrote the book of Acts. He set out to compose an orderly account of the early church to present to his friend Theophilus. In the process Luke paid painstaking detail to the ordering of dates and places in which their travels took place. Habermas further explains:

Evangelical scholars often date each of the synoptic Gospels ten or so years earlier than their critical counterparts, who prefer dates of roughly A.D. 65-90. Perhaps the most promising way to support the traditional approach is to argue backward from the Book of Acts. Most of this book is occupied with the ministries of Peter and Paul, and much centers in the city of Jerusalem. The martyrdoms of Stephen (7:54-60) and the apostle James (12:1-2) are recorded, and the book concludes with Paul under arrest in Rome (28:14-31). Yet Acts says nothing concerning the deaths of Paul and Peter (mid-60s A.D.) and the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70) are also strangely absent. Further, the book ends enigmatically with Paul under house arrest, without any resolution to the situation. How could the author of Acts not mention these events or resolve Paul’s dilemma, each of which is centrally related to the text’s crucial themes?… It is difficult to resist the conclusion that the author did not record these items simply because they had not yet occurred. These omissions argue persuasively for an early date for the composition of Acts, before the mid 60’s A.D.

All of this to say, that with this early date of the book of Acts, we must keep in mind that this book is the second of a two-part work (the first being Luke’ s gospel). So, whether Luke’s gospel account is the first, second, or third to be compiled, either way it was written before 60A.D. Now as we can see, that puts the authors of the gospels within at most little less than 30 years away from the events which they record. This bit of evidence alone should keep us from speculating that much time elapsed myths crept into the NT accounts.

To given a relevant example, if someone wrote a book in which they stated that it was not the German Nazis that persecuted the Jews, but rather the Chinese, we simply would dismiss it as foolishness. There is simply too much information available to us for something like that to be accepted as historical fact. And it has been about the same time between Auschwitz and today (2007) as it was between the events the gospel authors documented and the time in which the wrote them (60yrs at latest, John’s Gospel was written in the 90’s A.D.)

The second line of evidence we will briefly go over. In this line we will briefly look over points that if the gospels authors were not simply recording what actually occurred they would have been wise to leave out. If someone wanted to start a new religion it would seem like plain old common sense that you would not insert stories in your “gospel” that cast a shadow of doubt upon your character.

Yet, in the gospels we find many occasions where the disciples bickered amongst themselves about who would be greatest in God’s Kingdom, showing that they were not as “heavenly minded” as we would have believed. We also have the accounts of Peter’s denial of Christ, the disciples fleeing the scene after Christ’s arrest, Christ’s prayer to the Father to remove the cup of suffering from Him if possible, and the discovery of the empty tomb by women. If the early disciples were supremely interested in public relations for their newfound religion, these bits of information were not going to help their cause.

Once again, we have every right to believe that the reason such events where recorded in the gospel accounts was that even though they did not elevate the disciples to a “squeaky-clean” status, they nonetheless actually happened and that was the main objective of the NT writers, historical and factual accuracy. These things really did happen.

Lastly, we must look at the overwhelming support of the NT’s historicity via the manuscript evidence. Other documents that we generally consider historically reliable pale in comparison with the textual corroboration of the NT. Many other ancient works that remain for us today, such as Josephus Jewish War, and Tacitus Annals of Imperial Rome, last in fewer than 20 copies today. In the case of Tacitus’ writings, while the originals were written circa A.D. 116, His first six books exist today in only one manuscript, and it was copied about A.D. 850. Josephus‘ Jewish War exists in only nine Greek manuscripts, and these manuscripts were written tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries! Yet generally these documents are treated as reliable and historically accurate.

Generally, the numbers for the ancient historical documents is much is just as bleak, yet their reliability is not questioned. The average numbers are something like this: Manuscripts number less than twenty (normally much less), with the time interval between the original’s and earliest copies found being anywhere from 700 to 1400 years. When we turn to the NT documents we find nothing like this at all.

The amount of Greek manuscripts we have, existing in either full texts or fragments, number in the ballpark of 5,000! And when we examine the dates for the earliest copies that have been discovered we find that the range normally agreed upon by NT textual critics is anywhere from 50-200 years. Compared to other writings of antiquity this is akin to a news flash! Sir Frederic Kenyon, former director of the British Museum and the author of The Paleography of Greek Papyri stated, “in no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament.”

In closing, when we read the NT documents we can be assured that the author’s were concerned with faithfully recording the events they documented. We can also be confident that the text we have today is the very one that the early church received from the authors the NT records. While much has been left out of this presentation for the sake of brevity I feel that these are strong lines of evidence in defense of the historicity and reliability of the NT. I leave you with this thought, if the NT doesn’t pass the test of reliability, considering it’s outstanding corroboration by both textual criticism in the fields of dating and manuscript evidence, then can we really know anything about the ancient world at all?

Ultimately though, we must press the unbeliever to this point: to reject the message of the NT because it simply “seems likely” to have been corrupted in the transmission process is to beg the question. How so? If the Bible is indeed the word of God, and the God that Scripture speaks of (having full authority and control over all things) promises that His word would never pass away, then to deny that He would preserve His word is simply to reject the God of whom we speak. The objection of the nonbeliever would be reduced to “I don’t believe the Scriptures are true because they are not true,” a rather poor argument indeed (notice that essentially this is what the unbelievers argument reduced to in part 1). If Scripture is the word of God then we should readily be willing to accept the fact that the history of its transmission would be radically different from that of merely human writings.

No, God has kept His promises. He has not allowed man to corrupt the saving message of His beloved Son. Textual criticism is a great witness to this truth.

Captain America, 1941-2007

Ok, this is where you get to know a bit more about me personally. I don’t watch much television, but just a few minutes ago (right now it’s 8:22pm) I tuned in to the FOX news channel. I was about to look away when I noticed something, a drawing of Captian America. For those of you who aren’t familiar with this American comic book icon, he was created back in 1941 by the Marvel Comics corporation as a booster for both their sales as well as national morale. Now, this image of the Captian grabbed me because I love comic books. I draw, attended art schools at both the junior high and high school level, and have wanted to get into the business for the first 19 years of my life, before my interested veered in the direction of theology. So, when I see a comic book hero on a news channel I pay close attention.

Anyway, apparently something has happened to the Captain to warrant news coverage. The event? He’s dead! Captain America is dead!!! Argghhh!!! Marvel Comics has had a series going on for the past several months called Civil War, with Iron Man on one side, and Captian American on the other. I’ll spare you the details. But it seems like this news regarding the Captain is something that happens in the last issue of the 7 part series, an issue I do not own yet. Curse you, FOX news, you’ve ruined the plot twist for me!!!!!

That’s how you can tell that these people aren’t comic readers, they tell you major comic events on the day the issue is published, before most people get their chance to read it! Needless to say, this is not cool…

Wanted: Truth AND Charity

Just a thought. A typical knee-jerk of many Christians is to dismiss all non-Christian thought as foolishness. This reaction is triggered by the recognition that there’s a thick wall of separation between the deepest heart commitment of the Christian and that of the non-Christian. But, while there is truth in this position, it’s not the whole story. Reactionary positions do not reflect a robust understanding of God’s “common grace.” Common grace is the Christian teaching that though all people (other than Christ) are sinners, God still prevents sin from doing it’s complete damage to our souls and minds.

Without a doubt, we shouldn’t forget the absolute antithesis in principle that exists between the Christian worldview and all others. So, sympathetically, we can understand why this reactionary trigger exists. Christians take biblical passages such as 1 Cor. 1:18-2:5 seriously. Nevertheless, unbelievers do utter truths, and frequently God permits them to see into issues more clearly than His children do. It simply is not Christian to reject genuine insights from unbelievers. Nor is it good reasoning (it’s called the genetic fallacy, i.e. dismissing a view because of it’s origin).

Referring to the insights, gifts, and skills that God graciously bestows upon unbelievers, John Calvin said:

If the Lord willed that we be helped in physics, dialectic, mathematics, and the other like disciplines, by the work and ministry of the ungodly, let us use this assistance. For if we neglect God’s gift freely offered in these arts, we ought to suffer just punishment for our sloths.

Christian charity, and sound scholarship demand that we closely and patiently evaluate the thought of unbelievers, both for the purposes of exposing its departure from Christ-centered principles as well as to gather from the Spirit’s gift of common grace.

So please, don’t just disagree with someone, look for their strong points, things you can agree with and build on. If you hear that ____ is wrong about something, look it up, listen to them, and even read some of their writing. This way we won’t simply stand for truth divorced from charity, but will display faith (trust in God’s word) working through love (taking the time to understand what others are saying).

Fatherly Wisdom

These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him tale ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, “Ye do err, not knowing [the] Scriptures.” And he reproved the Jews, saying, “Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.”

*Athanasius, 39th Festal Letter, AD 367