Theology and Christian Apologetics Archives | CrossExamined.org

5 Reasons the Resurrection of Jesus is NOT a Copy of Ancient Pagan Myths

We are coming up on a time of year when the resurrection of a virgin-born child whose followers called the “Good Shepherd” and “Messiah” is celebrated. He had twelve disciples, performed miracles, and sacrificed himself for the peace of the world. He was buried in a tomb only to rise from the dead three days later. His followers went on to celebrate his resurrection every year, and this celebration eventually became what we call “Easter.

Think I’m talking about Jesus?

Nope. I’m talking about Mithras.

This is a common claim that is made by skeptics all over popular media, the internet, and even in some universities. The only problem—it’s simply not true. According to Mithraic tradition, Mithras was born out of solid rock (I guess it counts if the rock was a virgin?) His birth was celebrated on December 25th, but Christians already knew that wasn’t the real date of Christ’s birth. There is no evidence that he had twelve disciples, sacrificed himself for world peace, or that he was called “Good Shepherd” or “Messiah.” Many mythological characters were thought to be miracle workers (so maybe they can have that one), but there is no evidence he ever even died—which makes his “resurrection” a wee bit of a dilemma.

Church Father Tertullian wrote about Mithraic believers acting out resurrection stories, but this was well after the time of the New Testament. So, if there are a couple of similarities between Jesus and Mithras, it could be that Mithraic believers copied the Christians….rather than the other way around.

Mithras isn’t the only pagan myth that Christians are accused of copying. Although most scholars are agreed that no such “dying and rising gods” existed before Christ,[1] here are 5 reasons the resurrection of Jesus could NOT be a copycat. (These 5 points are my summary of this 5 part video series by Dr. Michael Licona.)

1. Ancient myths about dying and rising gods were usually tied to agricultural cycles.

When I was a little girl I remember asking someone why there are thunder and lightning. I was jokingly told thunder meant either that God was clapping his hands or maybe the angels were bowling in heaven. In the ancient world, people would describe things like the change of seasons, drought, and rain in a similar way…to their children.

Imagine an ancient Egyptian little boy asking his mom why it hadn’t rained in a while. The mom might tell him the story of the storm god Ba’al who was swallowed by his brother Mot, the god of death and the underworld. When the mother of the two gods was able to convince Mot to let his brother go, it would rain again—thus explaining the cycle of rain.

Unlike pagan myths, which were annual events going back to the distant past, the resurrection of Jesus was a one-time occurrence. It was reported as a recent event that happened within the lifetimes of the people who claimed to witness it—and it was not connected to agricultural cycles.

2. The earliest Christians were devout Jews who were highly sensitive to Jewish law and traditions.

First century Christians were constantly debating things related to the law. Should Jewish men maintain the temple purification rites? Should Gentile men be circumcised? Should Christians eat meat sacrificed to idols? These are the types of problems they took very seriously and went to great lengths to solve.

Bottom line—it’s absurd to conclude that people who were pious Jews, debating things as particular as whether or not Jewish and Gentile believers should even eat together—would borrow from pagan myths to create their own.

3. Correlation doesn’t equal causation.

During the course of human history, similarities in stories and parallels in experience are not going to be hard to find. For example, we are all familiar with a plane that took off from Massachusetts one morning and flew into one of the tallest skyscrapers in New York City between the 78th and 80th floors, killing everyone on the plane. You are probably thinking of the horrifying terrorist attack of 911 that forever changed our country. However, I’m actually referring to the B-52 that flew into the Empire State Building in 1945.

Although these two tragedies share some eerie similarities, there is no causal connection between them. Likewise, no causal connection has been shown between the resurrection of Jesus and pagan myths.

4. The comparisons are just not that impressive.

Much like the Mithras example given above, most of the pagan parallels are not that persuasive, once we get past the rhetoric and actually examine the evidence. The most comparable pagan myth that preceded the life of Jesus might be the story of a demi-god named Asclepius. Even so, the only thing that is really similar is that he, like Jesus, was known to be a healer, and according to the myth, raised someone from the dead.

Most of the pagan comparisons rely on taking bits and pieces from different ancient myths and figures that pre-dated Jesus and combine them with some real people who post-dated Him. The lengths one must go to in order to piece together a composite figure of Jesus is a bit of a stretch, and frankly, just not that impressive.

5. The abundance of myths doesn’t cancel out the evidence for the real resurrection of Jesus.

If you go to Barnes & Noble and take a look at the section for romance fiction, you will find cover after cover of helpless women trying to solve the biggest problem in their lives: which handsome and gallant hero will they choose? It’s a tired formula that borders on the ridiculous—but just because tons of romance fiction is out there—it doesn’t negate the idea that real romantic love exists.

The truth is that there are so many silly romantic novels because romance seems to be an insatiable desire of the human condition.

Life in the Roman Empire was brutal, with most people living in poverty, and given such a society, people were naturally looking for hope. They wanted to know that evil would be punished and goodness would be rewarded and that there would be life after death where justice would be done. Like the impetus behind modern romance fiction, this is a common desire of the human condition.

We should expect that stories would emerge that would satisfy this hope for immortality. This doesn’t mean that Jesus actually rising from the dead is fictitious or impossible. If we have good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus (which we do), there’s no reason to reject it simply because there may be some similarities in fictional stories.

This Easter, we don’t celebrate Mithras or some other impotent figure of an ancient fairy tale. We celebrate the true and living Savior who conquered death and the grave to save us and reconcile us to God. I pray this post helps you confidently agree with the angel at Jesus’ tomb by saying: He is risen!

Notes:

[1] Lund University Professor and Biblical Scholar T. N. D. Mettinger wrote, “The consensus among modern scholars—nearly universal—is that there were no dying and rising gods that preceded Christianity. They all post-dated the first century.” (Cited in Lee Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007, 160-61.)

D.O.U.B.T.S.: An Evidential Filter For Miracle Claims

4. Is the NT True?, Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

When it comes to miracles, Christians are often accused of special pleading. We’re quick to accept Christian miracle claims, but we suddenly turn into Richard Dawkins when it comes to miracle claims made by other religions. Why should skeptics start investigating the resurrection of Jesus when we don’t give other miracles the time of day? The truth is that there are dozens of different religions and thousands of miraculous claims out there. So how can the Christian hope to use miracles as an argument for their faith?

But the fact that there are miracle claims in other religions doesn’t require us to dismiss all miracle claims out of hand. Nor is it necessary for us to be haplessly credulous about all historical miracle claims. There’s a middle way. Before examining miracle claims in detail, we can and should run them through a religiously-neutral evidential filter. Failure to pass through such a filter wouldn’t necessarily prove that the miracle didn’t occur, but it does give us reasons to doubt it. From there we can move on to more promising candidates and not waste our time.

So what filter do I have in mind? Dr. Tim McGrew proposed a 6-point DOUBTS filter in his debate with Zachary Moore. DOUBTS is a backronym because Dr. McGrew is a philosophy professor, and well, teachers can’t resist making backronyms. McGrew has co-written the chapter on The Argument from Miracles in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, as well as the entry for Miracles in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, so he’s a bit of a subject matter expert here. Let’s take a look at his filter.

D – DISTANT EVENTS

For starters, the D in DOUBTS stands for distant events. When the first report of a miracle is made only at a significant distance from the alleged event, we have reasons to doubt. So for example, a 2nd-century Greek writer named Philostratus reports that Apollonius of Tyana worked all kinds of wonders. The problem is that many of these wonders often allegedly happened in India, while Philostratus was writing in Greece some 3500 miles away. This is like that socially awkward guy who claims he’s dating a really hot girl who no one has seen from Canada. We have reason to be skeptical.

O – OPINIONS ALREADY ESTABLISHED

The O in DOUBTS stands for opinions already established. When miracles confirm or affirm established opinions and prejudices, we have some reasons to be skeptical. So for example, we have reason to doubt Brigham Young’s claim that Joseph Smith walked house-to-house healing a large group of his followers from malaria while living in Illinois. Young was Smith’s predecessor and had already recognized him as God’s special prophet. There are few details in the reports, and the people who preserved them weren’t initially suspicious. They might have credulously latched onto any flimsy claim made about Smith.

U – UNCERTAIN EVENTS

Next up is U – uncertain events. Granting that the event really happened, if it can be explained without implausibility that it was a natural event, we have reasons to be skeptical. If certain saints were said to levitate but clever illusionists can replicate this trick, chances are it wasn’t a miracle. Or for another example, the Talmud tells us about Honi the Circle Drawer. When rain did not come well into the winter, Honi drew a circle in the dust and sat inside it. He then told God that he would not move until it rained. And what do you know–it began to rain. Yet I think we’re all pretty experienced with rain and how it comes and passes. While this could be a miraculous answer to prayer, this also could’ve just been a coincidence and a fully natural occurrence. It’s an uncertain event and nothing on the same level as, say, someone being raised from the dead.

B – BELATED REPORTS

Moving on to B – belated reports. When the first report of a said miracle comes long after the event, we have some serious reasons to be skeptical. Let’s go back to our buddy Apollonius of Tyana. Philostratus wrote his biography 100 years after Apollonius was dead. That’s obviously a long time and any alleged eyewitnesses would’ve long been dead. Or we have the resurrection stories about St. Nicolas. Reportedly there was a horrible famine, an evil butcher lured three children into his house, killed them and pickled them. This baddy was planning to try and pass them off as cured ham. Gross stuff. Saint Nicolas saw through this scheme and allegedly resurrected the kids by making the sign of the cross. The problem is this story was first circulated in Medieval times, hundreds of years after St. Nick was dead.

T – TRIVIAL MIRACLES

Let’s now move on to the T in the DOUBTS filter – Trival miracles. These would be reports of miracles that are unconnected to any significant purpose. They make no real difference to our lives. The basic idea is captured by the Roman poet Horace when he wrote: “Let a god not intervene unless it’s a knot worthy of a god’s untying.” You’ll often hear skeptics ask crazy things like: “well, if I told you that I have a friend who flew around the room by flapping his arms, died, rose again and turned my sofa into a donkey all in one evening, would you believe me?” Well, why would God be behind something like that? What deep questions about our destiny does this answer, or what striking doctrines would this confirm? Even if such a story happened, what claim does this supposed miracle make on my life? At the most, this flying man might cause me to conclude that the world is a stranger place than I initially imagined. Such an event serves no significant purpose.

S – SELF-SERVING MIRACLES

Finally, we’ve reached the S in the DOUBTS filter. The S stands for self-serving miracle claims. When a supposed miracle serves obvious human motivations like sex, political power, greed, a lust for fame then there’s a huge reason to doubt such a miracle claim. Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba allegedly miraculously manifested clocks and watches but was accused of sexual abuse, money laundering, among other things. The Mormon founder Joseph Smith had ambitions to be the President of the United States and married over 40 different women. There are reasons to think there’s something fishy going on with his so-called revelations.

A PERSONAL CRITERION I’D ADD – V – VAGUENESS.

Granted, this takes away the coolness of the backronym but I’d add vague reports to the criteria. So for example, after apostatizing from the Mormon church and denying that Joseph Smith was a prophet, Fanny Stenhouse recorded an experience in which she said she saw Smith miraculously heal an old woman named Sister Armstrong who had been bedridden for years. In her account, Stenhouse says that this was not a fake healing. However, she attributes it to “animal magnetism” and not directly associated with God. But that’s all we have is something rather brief in her biography, there’s not a lot of details in the report. We’d have to know a lot more about what was wrong with the old woman, why she was bedridden, and what Smith did to believe it was a genuine miracle. It’s a vague report.

I think this is where we need to be careful as Christians, too. If we just rely on 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 to carry the load for our resurrection apologetic, we give vague evidence that isn’t detailed enough to warrant justified belief. Brief and confusing episodes are arguably compatible with 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 as I’ve argued here. We need the detailed, multisensory, time-extended experiences that we read about in the Gospels to make a strong case.

IS THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS WORTHY OF OUR INVESTIGATION?

Remember that any miracle claim that fails on one or more of these criteria might still be true, but these give us a reasonable basis to not investigate them. I’d argue that the resurrection of Jesus doesn’t run afoul of any of the criteria. Without the aid of a miracle, crucified and buried dead men tend to stay dead. It’s not an uncertain event. The resurrection was proclaimed in the streets of Jerusalem, within weeks after the crucifixion. The disciples stayed in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus was crucified (Galatians 2:1,9) even when the church came under heavy persecution. (Acts 7, 12)

For the disciples to preach this so soon after Jesus’ execution that their religious leaders set up was to invite the same type of persecution. They could have waited until things calmed down. But they did not. Peter shifted from denying Jesus to boldly proclaiming his resurrection just 50 days after Jesus was murdered. (Acts 2:22-24). The enemies of Christianity had the means, motive, and opportunity to discredit the story. Jesus claimed that he was the Giver of eternal life, so there’s nothing trivial about this claim.

For more details, see this video:

THE TEXAS SHARPSHOOTER FALLACY?

The skeptic might then ask: aren’t these criteria then a bit self-serving for Christians? As a believer, Dr. McGrew obviously believes the resurrection passes this filter. So isn’t this an example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy? For those of you who don’t know, the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy is where one cherry-picks a data cluster to suit your argument, or finds a pattern to fit a presumption. I don’t believe that’s the case here.

For starters, this criteria cuts against miracle claims that I’d accept. Since I believe in the inspiration of Scripture, I accept that Balaam’s donkey spoke. But I am not asking a skeptic to start their historical investigation there and I think they’re not unreasonable if they’re skeptical that such an event happened. Remember that these criteria are religiously neutral. They’re obviously sensible and keep one from wasting their time chasing after unpromising claims. Each criteria reduces the probability that a genuine miracle occurred, so a skeptic should like them. If one wants to add to this criteria, I’m all ears. I’d personally add that in the case of modern miracles where the person is still alive, medical data would be something I’d like to see.

These criteria should be embraced by the skeptic because it gives them the opportunity to say that they’re not dogmatically rejecting all miracle claims out of hand. I hope this helps show that Christians aren’t necessarily guilty of special pleading. Maybe we reject miracle claims in other religions because they’re often poorly attested.

The religion of the Force (book excerpt)

Apologetics for Parents, Theology and Christian Apologetics

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”4.15″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”4.15″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.15″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text” _builder_version=”4.15.1″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”]

By Frank Turek and Frank Zachary Turek

The Star Wars series comprises eleven wonderful movies (some more wonderful than others) that, by design, are infused with overtly religious issues.

George Lucas said, “I put the Force into the movies in order to try to awaken a certain kind of spirituality in young people — more a belief in God than a belief in any particular religious system.”

He admits that he wants to get young people to at least think about the big questions in life: “Is there a God? What does God look like? What does God sound like? What does God feel like? How do we relate to God? Just getting young people to think at that level is what I’ve been trying to do in the films.”

Not bad for Hollywood! But what kind of answers do the movies provide to viewers, and how do they compare to Christianity?

Lucas claims he’s not trying to direct viewers to definite answers. “What eventual manifestation that takes place in terms of how they describe their God, what form their faith takes, is not the point of the movie.”[1]

Of course, it was unavoidable that his movie would depict a specific kind of worldview with its own view of god. The Force isn’t a Christian view of God. The god of Star Wars is closest to the god of pantheism — it is omnipresent and binds the universe together, but the Force makes no moral demands on its users.

Moral demands are, of course, part of Christianity, which often uses the same light-versus-darkness language found in Star Wars. God calls us to be in the light, as He is (1 John 1:7). Those who are in sin are depicted as being in darkness, while those who have accepted Christ as their Savior are in the light of the Lord. In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul writes:

“For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness, and truth) and find out what pleases the Lord. Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” Ephesians 5:8–11

This idea of affiliating oneself with the light separates Christianity from any type of Force-based religion in a big way. The Force itself is quite clearly neutral — equally accessible to both sides and not preferring one over the other. Since the Force is not personal, it can’t command anyone to do good with its power.

In this way, pantheism is a lot like atheism. Whether you call nature “the Force” or simply matter and energy, you have no grounds for objective morality. Impersonal nature has no authority or capacity to tell you or anyone what to do.

Yet there is morality throughout the Star Wars series. Although the Force is technically neutral, George Lucas admits Star Wars is a “morality play.” In fact, virtually all good stories, including all superhero movies, are morality plays. There are always good guys and bad guys. Evil always needs to be defeated, which presupposes that there is an objective standard of good we ought to follow. An objective standard of good that all humans are obligated to follow can only exist if a personal God exists.

Since the Star Wars universe doesn’t have a personal God, how is morality justified in the movies? It isn’t. But that’s OK. They’re movies. Not everything has to be justified or make sense. The Force, like Harry Potter’s magic, isn’t meant to be grounded in reality. It’s science-fiction. Just like we don’t see people flying on broomsticks, we don’t see people wielding lightsabers or moving spaceships around with their minds.

While Lucas claims the Force is morally neutral, the audience isn’t. Because God has written the Moral Law on our hearts, we intuitively and immediately know that the Jedi are the heroes of the story and that the light side is morally better than the dark side.

The repeated goal of “balance” in the Force is another difference between the Force of Star Wars and the God of Christianity. “The film is ultimately about the dark side and the light side,” said George Lucas. “Those sides are designed around compassion and greed — we all have those two sides of us — and we have to make sure that those two sides of us are in balance.”

This is really an odd statement to make.[2] Do we really want a “balance” between compassion and greed or between other forms of good and evil? Can you imagine your grandma telling you that as long as you do just as many nice things to the little boy next door, you can do all the bad things to him you want? Christians (and all people) should be fighting to eradicate evil completely, not balance it with good.

Furthermore, contrary to the Force of Star Wars, God and Satan are not “in balance,” as if they are equal and opposite forces. As we saw in the introduction, God is the one sovereign power, and all other creatures derive their power from Him. Just as evil cannot exist without good, Satan cannot exist without God. Neither can the angels and demons. Neither can we.

C. S. Lewis put it well, “Christianity agrees with Dualism that this universe is at war. But it does not think this is a war between independent powers. It thinks it is a civil war, a rebellion, and that we are living in a part of the universe occupied by the rebel.”[3]

The Christian concept of faith is also different from the religion of the Force. In Star Wars,faith means not trusting your senses, but your feelings. It’s why Obi-Wan prompted Luke to turn off his targeting computer and trust his feelings.

Christianity is exactly the opposite. Faith is trusting in what you have good reasons to believe is true, and the primary way you get those reasons is by using your senses. Once you’ve discovered those reasons, you don’t trust your feelings when they contradict the facts. Feelings are fickle and subject to changing emotions. Feelings change, but facts don’t.

In Star Wars, the more faith you have, the more power you have. That’s why Yoda can lift the spaceship out of the mud on Dagobah while Luke cannot. But that’s not the way the real world works.

Imagine you and your friend get on a flight to Hawaii. If you totally trust the pilots but your friend is scared to death (your faith is strong but his is weak), does that mean you’ll get there but he’ll crash? Of course not. Once he’s on the plane, the strength of his faith isn’t the issue. The skill of the pilots is. It’s the same in Christianity. It’s not the amount of faith that has power — the faith of a mustard seed is enough. Instead, power lies in who you put your faith in. Jesus, not humanity, is the source of our power.

Taken from Hollywood Heroes: How Your Favorite Movies Reveal God by Frank Turek and Zach Turek. Copyright ©2022. Used by permission of NavPress. All rights reserved. Represented by Tyndale House Publishers, a Division of Tyndale House Ministries.

Notes

[1] These quotes are from an interview Bill Moyers conducted with George Lucas in 1999, the transcripts of which are available here and here.

[2] Some may claim that by “balance” Lucas means the moderation between extremes that pantheists often advocate (signified by the yin and yang symbol). But if that’s the case, why would he claim we should want compassion and greed to be in balance?

[3] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (London: MacMillan, 1952), 50–51.

The Big Bang and Friends of the World

2. Does God Exist?, Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

“Don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.”- James 4:4 NIV

James 4:4 warns Christians to not become a “friend of the world” because the world is God’s enemy. What does that mean, though? The other day someone told me that I was in violation of that verse because I believed the “atheistic theory” of the big bang and used it as evidence that God exists. Did James mean to communicate that Christians cannot recognize when an unbeliever or group of unbelievers have a correct view of some aspect of reality? Or did he intend to communicate something else? Before I get to the specific accusation, let’s examine what actually concerns James in his letter.

Being The World’s Friends and Enemies of God

When we read all of James’ letter, we see the answer. Consider James 1:14-15:

“…each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.”- (NIV)

James is talking about having the same evil desires as the world- not necessarily believing the same way about some feature of reality. James is emphasizing that we must be committed to truth not feelings or desires. If an unbeliever believes something that is true about reality that we also believe is true about reality, James does not condemn our agreement. In fact, agreement about reality may be used as a springboard for evangelism (1 Peter 3:15) and bringing the unbeliever to Christ. Enemies of God do not intentionally point others to Christ. Enemies of God do not condemn evil desires. Condemning evil desires and pointing others to Christ are necessary steps in presenting the Gospel. Enemies of God have no such interest.

It is not that having agreement with unbelievers regarding true beliefs about reality that makes us “friends of the world” in the sense that James is speaking. It is having agreement with them regarding sinful desires that makes us “friends of the world” and thus enemies of God. We certainly could allow our sinful desires to manipulate the truth into justifying sin (which will always be logically fallacious, by the way), but is that what has happened with Christians who have accepted big bang cosmology?

The Big Bang Is Hardly An Atheistic Theory

Contrary to popular Christian thinking, the big bang theory is about the furthest from a naturalistic theory as they come. It has so many strong theistic implications that naturalists have tried for over a century to undermine it and have only in recent decades finally come to accept it as a community. But that acceptance is reluctant and is often accompanied by failed attempts to weasel out of the absolute beginning and exquisite fine-tuning implied by this rapid expansion event. The big bang necessarily requires a cause that is outside of space and time, is mind-blowingly intelligent and powerful, and caused the creation of this universe out of literally no thing (creatio ex nihilo) for His purposes. The big bang creation event simultaneously provides powerful evidence for Christian theism and against naturalism.

It is not the science of big bang cosmology that made big bang cosmology so reprehensible to naturalists; it was the theistic and thus moral implications. The world does hate all Christians, whether those Christians believe that the big bang was the creation event described in Genesis 1:1 or if they do not. The world hates us not because we followed the evidence where it leads, but the world hates us because of where (or more accurately, to Whom) the evidence leads. There is no way that big bang cosmology allows someone to justify their evil desires; in fact, it does the exact opposite, and that is why it was so vehemently opposed by atheists for so long.

The fact that the naturalistic enemies of big bang cosmology have been compelled by the continually increasing evidence for the big bang to accept that it describes how our universe came into existence provides powerful evidence of its truth. It does so just as Jesus’ empty tomb is strongly evidenced by the fact that Jesus’ enemies (the scribes and Pharisees) were compelled by the evidence to accept that His tomb was empty. If “enemy attestation” provides powerful evidence that Jesus’ tomb was empty, then it also provides powerful evidence that the big bang occurred (see Evidence for the Empty Tomb of Jesus and Big Bang Cosmology).

In Romans 1, the Apostle Paul affirms that unbelievers have access to the same data of nature as Christians do. As a result, unbelievers and Christians will believe some of the same things about the creation. Paul is adamant that nature is so clear in its revelation that unbelievers are, in fact, without excuse in their denial of God. When unbelievers discover and features of creation, no doubt those features will point to their Creator. This is exactly what is going on when believers and unbelievers examine the evidence for the big bang. The world hates Christians because we do not share and we even condemn their evil desires and actions. And the world hates big bang cosmology because they know that they stand condemned, without excuse, by the images they witness through the lenses of their telescopes.

The Foundation for Morality

But despite that strong testimony of creation to God as the Creator, many Christians still insist that big bang cosmology is a naturalistic theory. The concern is that it does away with God as an objective, moral foundation for society, and, from their view, the moral degradation that we see in culture (see my previous articles “Compromising the Kingdom” and “Unrecognized Agreement and Unity“) is a result of a culture that has accepted big bang cosmology and used it as an excuse to do away with God. But because big bang cosmology is no friend of naturalism, it should not be rejected on the false grounds that it is such a friend to the naturalist and a morally debauched society.

As mentioned above, it is true that many naturalists, skeptics, and unbelievers hold to big bang cosmology, but it is the non-theistic philosophies that have opened our culture to the moral decay that we see. God is the foundation for objective morality. God is the source of the Image of God found in all humans. And the Image of God is the foundation of humans’ intrinsic value, free agency, and moral culpability (see my posts “Why Is The Image of God So Important?” and “Do Humans Have Intrinsic Value?“). Not only have Christians who affirm big bang cosmology held tightly to the very Foundation (God) of objective morality and the Image of God, they have hard, scientific evidence of the existence of that Foundation via big bang cosmology (again, Romans 1, in action).

Conclusion

The idea that Christians, who accept the evidence God has provided for how and when He created the world, have somehow become or want to become friends with the world is misguided. Anyone who makes this accusation against a fellow Christian simply does not understand the theistic implications of big bang theory nor do they recognize that atheists saw those implications and resisted because of those implications, yet they were eventually compelled by the evidence that God has provided to us by His fully reliable actions (creation) to accept it. Even if one does not agree that the creation testifies to the big bang creation event, they cannot honestly continue to claim that the big bang is a naturalistic, anti-God theory.

Overcoming Apathy and the Straw Man Argument

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

As Christians, we are told to always be ready to give an answer for our faith. But for many of us, the opportunity seldom arises. In fact, by and large, it seems we are faced with apathy and indifference. Struggling to get past this with someone – to get them to actually think about the Christian message – requires the apologist to first deal with the source of the apathy.

One common source, in my experience, is what can be called the Santa Factor. This is the belief that Christians are simply deluding themselves when they believe in a God who will “deliver presents” to them when they die. Talking to skeptics about the rewards God has in store for those who place their trust in Him has little impact. It seems as real to them as the prospect of Santa leaving presents under their tree.

I had this confirmed recently in a conversation with an unbeliever. Seeing her indifference, I told her I felt like I was trying to talk to her about what presents she was hoping for from Santa, while she was just hanging back, secretly laughing at the absurdity of the whole concept. “It’s like I’m trying to list the reasons that there is a North Pole and flying reindeer,” I said, “and you are just politely nodding and wondering why so many people believe this … nonsense.” I asked her whether that was close to what she thought, and her reply was a candid “yes.” She thought the analogy to Santa was a perfect one, she said, one that captured her feelings in a very precise way.

Once this mindset is made clear, it’s easy to understand why my arguments gain no traction. Despite the soundness of the logic used in building my case for Christianity, to the unbeliever, I might as well be trying to explain how elves could conceivably build toys or how reindeer might possess gravity-altering organs. Since there are many reasons to believe that there is no Santa, and no reasons to believe the contrary, that conversation ends before it begins.

I have, as yet, found no sure-fire way to overcome this Santa Factor. I’d be interested to hear from any apologists who have. I do believe there is a necessary first step, however, and that is to show the skeptic that the Santa Factor is actually a variant of the “straw man” fallacy. Setting up a straw man involves defining the other side’s argument in an unfair or misleading way, and then concluding that you have the better argument when you knock down this “straw man.” When skeptics think of Christianity, they often picture a combination of strange images – Father Time with his flowing white beard, angels dancing on the heads of pins, virgin births, cannibalism, and strange “miracles.” A jumble of such images leaves the skeptic feeling comfortable rejecting the whole of Christianity as based on primitive superstitions and beliefs. Like the Santa myth, these beliefs might bring some comfort, and they’re great for tradition and ritual, but they are not really true. It’s all just a myth, based largely on “faith,” which translates roughly in their view to “wishful thinking.”

So, with that in mind, let’s take a closer look at the analogy. Santa, of course, is the supposed source of the gifts found under Christmas trees every Christmas morning. This explanation works for small children – giving them a wonderful period of anticipation and their parents a lever for a bit of behavior modification as kids struggle to remain on the “nice” list – but a moment’s reflection as a child matures would reveal that no one person could possibly build and deliver an endless stream of worldwide gifts. Not to mention keeping straight who gets what.

But considering the issue more critically, discovering that there is no Santa is not cause for concluding that there are no gifts under the tree, or that they appeared on their own. No, logic dictates that someone put the gifts there, someone with knowledge of the child, access to the home, and knowledge of the child’s wish list.

We too have “presents under our tree” that cry out for explanation. After all, we live in a universe, and on a planet, that are fine-tuned to support life. Life emerged on this planet at some point in the past and some of that life became conscious and intelligent. With that consciousness and intelligence, we can perceive and appreciate beauty and can argue about right and wrong, assuming as we do that there is a thing called morality that exists and should guide us. All these things need to be explained, and blithely concluding that God can’t be that explanation is not a rational move. Instead, the skeptic should embark upon an examination of the possible alternatives available through the use of thought and reason. Which worldview has a better explanation for all of this? Atheistic naturalism may have made sense in Darwin’s day when the universe was thought to be infinite in duration and DNA was not even suspected as the reason life displays such ordered variation. But today? Is it really plausible to assume that all the magnificence we see around us just happened on its own, with no guiding hand?

Consider: astrophysicists tell us that the universe arose from nothing 14 billion years ago. This means the universe, and time itself began to exist. But since all things that come into being require an adequate source, logic supports the conclusion that an intelligent, powerful, and transcendent being set it all in motion. Biologists today seek to make sense of the tremendous body of information that is encoded in DNA. The billions of lines of what is akin to computer code direct the construction of all life on this planet and understanding how to work with it has brought remarkable benefits to humanity. But wherever we find information, we must, of course, conclude that an intelligent source is at work. There are countless other questions that need an answer: how can the atheist explain the origin of life? If even the simplest form of cellular life contains millions of lines of DNA code, believing that it magically assembled itself from inert matter is, well, just as difficult to swallow as Santa making it down the chimney. The list of questions continues: from where does human intelligence come? How is it that inert matter became conscious and self-aware? Why do we have free will? If the universe determines all outcomes, as the secularist believes, then the free will we all intuitively recognize we possess is simply an illusion.

In the end, it really does take more blind – uncritical -faith to accept the secular view. The Christian worldview, by contrast, holds that an infinite, personal, and loving God created this universe, and us, for a purpose, and then revealed Himself to us in history. He did this in a way that provided evidence, both from the study of nature and from the personal testimony of witnesses who were so sure of what they saw and experienced – the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth – that they suffered martyrdom rather than deny it. (Contrasting the two worldviews in detail is beyond the scope of this post, but the case is well made here and here.)

Will this overcome the Santa Factor? It should if the skeptic really gives it a fair hearing. But that of course depends on the skeptic and how open he is to seeing through his little game of make-believe.

How We Got Our Bible: New Testament Canonical Reception

4. Is the NT True?, Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

This article is part 5 in a nine-part series on how we got our Bible. Part 1 considered inspiration and inerrancy. Part 2 looked at the unfolding of the Old Testament. Part 3 examined the Old Testament canon and the Apocrypha. Part 4 considered the canonical attributes for New Testament books. This article will unpack how the early church received the New Testament canon.

Marcion (AD 85-160)

Before diving into the the corporate reception of the canon, it’s first necessary to say a brief word about Marcion. According to church historian Henry Chadwick, Marcion was “the most radical and to the church the most formidable of heretics.”[1] What was Marcion’s heresy? He promoted Gnosticism—the belief that the god who created the world was evil, and thus the OT was evil. This belief led Marcion to reject the entire OT and most parts of the NT which spoke positively of the OT.

Therefore, Marcion’s canon included a mutilated version of Luke which left out all positive references to the OT as well as any hints that Jesus might have actually been a physical human. Gnosticism, after all, taught that the physical world was evil. Jesus, then, only appeared to be human—a view known as Docetism.

The Church universally rejected Marcion. Not one church Father has anything remotely positive to say about him. In fact, after Marcion made a sizable donation to the church in Rome, they returned it to him after they learned of his heretical views.

When did the Church Receive the Canon?

Marcion’s so-called canon suggests that the church already had some kind of functional canon by the middle-part of the second century. Which raises a significant question: When did the Church receive the NT canon? One’s answer to this question depends largely on how they define the canon. Michael Kruger gives three definitions:[2]

Exclusive Canon — The church solidified the canonical boundaries in the fourth century.

Functional Canon — The core canonical texts were functioning authoritatively by the second century.

Ontological Canon — The texts were authoritative as soon the apostles finished writing them.

The rest of this post will focus mostly on the functional canon and a little on the exclusive canon. For more on the ontological canon, see the first post in this series on the inspiration of biblical texts. In that article, I draw attention to the fact that the biblical authors were aware that they were writing authoritative Scripture.

The Reception of the New Testament Canon

In the remaining space, I’m going to argue that the church recoginzed most of the NT as authoritative by the second century. The church later affirmed the fringes of the canon in the fourth century. To support this claim, I will consider four key points.

1. Statements by Church Fathers

Several statements from the church fathers suggest that they recognized certain texts as authoritative. Irenaeus (AD 180), for example, notes, “It is not possible that the gospels can be either more or fewer than the number they are. For since there are four zones of the world in which we live and four principle winds . . . [and] the cherubim, too were four-faced.”[3] While we may scratch our heads at Irenaeus’ logic, one thing is for certain: He believed that four and only four Gospels were authoritative.

Justin Martyr (AD 150) also recognized their authority when he mentioned that the church was reading these texts in corporate worship alongside the OT. He remarks, “And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together in one place, and the memoir of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits.”[4] No one questions whether the early church recognized the authority of the OT. The fact that they were reading NT texts alongside the OT suggests they believed both were Scripture.

Ignatius (AD 110) recognizes the apostles’ authority verses his own when he said, “I am not commanding you as Peter and Paul did. They were apostles, I am condemned.”[5] Ignatius was an influential church leader in the second century. But even he recognized that Peter and Paul’s writings were on a whole other level from his own.

As you peruse the early church fathers, you will find several quotes referencing the authority of the NT texts.

2. Appeals to Texts as Scripture

Not only do the early church fathers state that the New Testament texts were authoritative, they also appeal to them as divinely inspired Scripture. The Epistle of Barnabas (AD 130), for example, uses the formula “it is written” when it quotes from the Gospel of Matthew. It’s well-noted that the NT authors frequently employ this formula when they quote an OT text. The Epistle of Barnabas reads, “As it is written, ‘Many are called, but few are chosen.’”[6]

Polycarp (AD 110) makes an even more explicit reference. He notes, “As it is written in these Scriptures, ‘Be angry and do not sin and do not let the sun go down on your anger.”[7] Interestingly, Polycarp quotes two texts and refers to them both as “Scripture.” The first text was Psalm 4:5, and the second was Ephesians 4:26.

In fact, by the middle to end of the second century, a few well-known church fathers appeal to a core set of canonical books, indicating that they believed those books were in fact Scripture. Irenaeus appeals to the following books as Scripture:

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, and Revelation.[8]

Only Philemon, 2 Peter, 3 John, and Jude are missing.

Similarly, Clement of Alexandria appeals to the following books as Scripture:

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thesalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, 1 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, Jude, and Revelation.[9]

Only James, 2 Peter, and 3 John are missing.

Around AD 250, Origen gives us a complete canonical list in his homily on Joshua. Notice carefully all the books that he references:

But when our Lord Jesus Christ comes, whose arrival that prior son of Nun designated, he sends priests, his apostles, bearing “trumpets hammered thin,” the magnificent and heavenly instruction of proclamation. Matthew first sounded the priestly trumpet in his Gospel; Mark also; Luke and John each played their own priestly trumpets. Even Peter cries out with trumpets in two of his epistles; also James and Jude. In addition, John also sounds the trumpet through his epistles [and Revelation], and Luke, as he describes the Acts of the Apostles. And now that last one comes, the one who said, “I think God displays us apostles last,” and in fourteen of his epistles, thundering with trumpets, he casts down the walls of Jericho and all the devices of idolatry and dogmas of philosophers, all the way to the foundations.[10]

You’ll notice that Origen attributes fourteen letters to Paul instead of thirteen. The most likely explanation for this error is the common belief that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews.

3. Manuscript Evidence

One of the best indications that the NT books functioned authoritatively in the second and third century is the amount of extant manuscripts we have in our possession. As of right now, we have over sixty NT manuscripts from the second and third century. The Gospel of John has the most with eighteen. Matthew comes in second with twelve. By comparison, we have seventeen second and third century manuscripts of all the apocryphal texts combined. In other words, we have more manuscripts of John than all the apocryphal books put together. The most manuscripts for any apocryphal text is the Gospel of Thomas which has three.

The amount of extant manuscripts indicates which books the church used most often. John and Matthew were apparently the two most popular books in the early church based on the number of extant manuscripts in our possession. The fact that we have hardly any apocryphal manuscripts indicates that the early church didn’t have much use for them.

Also of note is the fact that all of the second and third century New Testament manuscripts are in a codex format (precursor to modern books). None are on a scroll. That said, the scroll was the most popular book form of the second and third century. Over time, as Christianity grew, codex became the dominant book form in the ancient world.

While none of the New Testament texts are on a scroll, apocryphal texts are. Furthermore, because the codex allowed the church to conveniently place several books into a single codex, we have several codices with multiple Gospels and Paul’s letters. P46, for example, is a collection of nine of Paul’s letters. P75 contains Luke and John. P45 is a four Gospel codex. We don’t have a single codex which combines canonical and apocryphal gospels. In other words, no manuscript has Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Thomas. The manuscripts tell us all we need to know about which books the early church thought were authoritative.

4. Canonical Lists

In 1740, Lodovico Antonio Muratori published a Latin list of NT books known as the Muratorian Fragment. This fragment contains an early canonical list that most trace back to the second century church in Rome. The canon includes the following books:

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 John, 2 John, Jude, and Revelation.

Only Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and 3 John are missing. This list, along with the lists from the early church fathers, indicates that the second century church recognized a core group of canonical books by the middle to late second century. Only a few fringe books are missing. As time progressed, the church eventually affirmed the twenty-seven book canon that we have today.

Around AD 320, church historian Eusebius gave a canonical list that he subdivided into four categories:[11]

Recognized Books: Eusebius remarks that these books were universally accepted.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, 1 Peter, 1 John, and Revelation

Disputed Books: Eusebius remarked that these books were “disputed yet known by most.”

James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude

Spurious Books: Eusebius notes that these were books that the early church found helpful, but they weren’t Scripture.

Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermes, Revelation of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, Didache, and Gospel of Hebrews

Heretical Books: Eusebius says these books have been universally rejected.

Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, Acts of Andrew, Acts of John, and Gospel of Matthias

Notice that between the recognized and disputed books which were “known by most,” the entire New Testament canon is present. Also worth noting is that Eusebius believed the heretical books were utterly repulsive. Consider his words:

we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings. And further, the character of the style is at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious.

In other words, these books didn’t “almost” make it into the canon. The canon didn’t come down to an arbitrary vote. The church rejected these books from a very early time due to their devilish nature.

Following Eusebius, Athanasius gave a complete canonical list with all twenty-seven books in AD 367. In AD 393 and 397, the Councils of Hippo and Carthage also affirmed the twenty-seven books in the canon.

Recognized Not Determined

In closing, I want to make an important point. The church did not grant authority to any NT text. It merely recognized which books were already authoritative in the church. As J. I. Packer helpfully states, “The Church no more gave us the New Testament canon than Sir Isaac Newton gave us the force of gravity. God gave us gravity . . . Newton did not create gravity but recognized it.”

In the next post, we will transition to the preservation of the NT text. Specifically, we will take a look at the manuscript tradition and textual criticism.

References

[1] Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, 39.

[2] Michael Kruger, The Question of Canon, 29-46.

[3] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.11.8.

[4] Justin Martyr, First Apology, 67.3.

[5] Ignatius, Romans. 4:4.

[6] Epistle of Barnabas 4.14.

[7] Polycarp, Philippians, 12.1.

[8] Michael Kruger, Canon Revisited, 228.

[9] Michael Kruger, The Question of Canon, 168.

[10] Origen, Homily on Joshua 7.1.

[11] Eusebius, Church History, 3.25.1-7.

A Myth Come True

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

If you’re anything like me, you probably associate the word “myth” with an ancient fairy tale. The Greek and Roman pantheon of gods comes to mind — magical spells, curses, and multi-headed monsters. But myths are more than just old-fashioned fantasies. They serve a purpose. They appeal to our collective imaginations. Myths may be fantastical but, as the Merriam-Webster Dictionary puts it, they “serve to unfold part of the worldview of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon.” They are archetypal stories that help us make sense of the world in which we find ourselves. In other words, there is a connection between myth and reality.

The Power of a Story

C.S. Lewis grew up a voracious reader. In 1916, while waiting for a train near London, he bought a copy of George MacDonald’s Phantastes: A Faerie Romance. The book changed his life, not because it enticed him to believe in fantasies, but because it “baptized his imagination” through the power of story. His appreciation for man’s moral imagination led to a lifetime of reading and writing stories. He later studied ancient Greek and Latin literature, philosophy, and Medieval and Renaissance literature. He taught and lectured on all of those during his 29 years as a professor at Magdalen College, University of Oxford.

Great Minds Don’t Always Think Alike

While he was at Oxford, Lewis became friends with J. R. R. Tolkien. They argued about philosophy, religion, and the existence of God. Both were storytellers. And they argued about how to tell stories too. Tolkien, the author of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, believed that myths originated in the mind of God as a way to communicate his truths to the world. Lewis thought that was nonsense. Though he saw myths as beautiful charmers of our imaginations, he thought “they were lies: inventions that contain no objective truth about the world.”*

C.S. Lewis struggled with the relationship between myth, imagination, and reality for years. But it wouldn’t let him go. Finally, in 1929, alone in the quiet of his room at Magdalen College, he succumbed to God’s call. And I do mean succumbed.

The Most Reluctant Convert

Lewis describes his two-step conversion — from atheist to theist to Christian — in his autobiography, Surprised by Joy. He knew mythology. And he was intellectually honest enough to read the Christian Scriptures. Something about them rang true. Ultimately, it was his love for truth and stories that merged in the pages of the Gospels:

“I was … too experienced in literary criticism to regard the Gospels as myths. They had not the mythical taste. And yet the very matter which they set down in their artless, historical fashion . . . was precisely the matter of the great myths. If ever a myth had become fact, had been incarnated, it would be just like this. And nothing else in all literature was just like this …

Myths were like it in one way. Histories were like it in another. But nothing was simply like it … And no person was like the Person it depicted; as real, as recognizable, through all that depth of time, as Plato’s Socrates . . . yet also numinous, lit by a light from beyond the world, a god … But if a god — we are no longer polytheists — then not a god, but God. Here and here only in all time, the myth must have become fact; the Word, flesh; God, Man. This is not ‘a religion,’ nor ‘a philosophy.’ It is the summing up and actuality of them all.”**

The God who became flesh made sense of the two things C. S. Lewis knew and loved the most. He surrendered to the divine call. Lewis entered God’s kingdom kicking and screaming, “the most reluctant convert in all of England.”

Storytellers

C.S. Lewis’s conversion is notorious but it’s not unique. History is littered with the accounts of reluctant converts who were struck by the peculiar force of the Christian myth. He and Tolkien became two of the most famous storytellers to do so.

“Fortified by their faith, they proclaimed for their generation — and ours — a True Myth about the dignity of human life and its relationship to God. Against all expectation, their writings would captivate and inspire countless readers from every culture and every part of the globe … as mythmakers, [their writing] created new worlds … invented new languages, and transported us into realms of brooding darkness and unforgettable beauty.”***

In the end, Tolkien and Lewis rejected the secular myth that had dragged the world through two World Wars and into the empty despair of the postmodern worldview. They were masterful at appealing to our moral imaginations. They connected myth to reality.

The True Myth

The Christian myth is a story of the struggle between good and evil. It’s a story of flawed and rebellious people, heroes, and villains. Ultimately, it’s the most fantastic story of redemption ever told. And its hero is — as my friend Tom Gilson has put it in his book by the same name — simply “too good to be false.” Gilson’s point is that Jesus of Nazareth is the most compelling character in human history for a reason. He stepped into the story he wrote.

Jesus’ life and ministry are recorded and verifiable. The veracity of the accounts of his death and resurrection are as reliable as those of any historical event. But his impact goes beyond the reliable accounts about it. As J. Warner Wallace has so clearly summarized it in his book, Person of Interest, Jesus’ life rocked the world, even for those who never believed in him. He influenced education, literature, music, art, architecture, and science in ways that no mere mortal ever could. We restarted our calendars because of his life. He quite literally changed the world by combining history’s most fascinating character with mythology’s most compelling storyline.

He brought the myth to life.

Heaven Meets Earth

In Jesus, the infinite voluntarily reduced itself to something we could see and understand. The divine put on flesh and bone. The all-powerful became a pain-feeling person who stood for the powerless. The Almighty who spoke the universe into existence took the form of a tiny, vulnerable embryo. The Great Mythical ‘I AM’ became a little boy.

Contemplating that, I was reminded of a talented musician named Rich Mullins. Mullins died tragically in a car wreck in 1997, at age 41. But his music always resonated with me. It was thought-provoking, vulnerable, and real. Rich Mullins was a storyteller. So, it’s not surprising that the same guy who wrote the classic worship song, “Awesome God,” also wrote the little tune I offer you below.

Here, Mullins does with music what C. S. Lewis did with literature. He brings the myth to life. It will never become a classic in the genre, but that’s why I consider Rich Mullins’ “Boy Like Me” to be a Christmas song. Maybe you will too …

Boy Like Me

You was a baby like I was once … You was cryin’ in the early morn’

You was born in a stable, Lord … Reid Memorial is where I was born.

They wrapped You in swaddling clothes … Me they dressed in baby blue.

Well, I was twelve years old in the meeting house, listening to the old men pray,

And I was tryin’ hard to figure out what it was that they was tryin’ to say.

There You were in the temple … They said You weren’t old enough to know the things You knew

Well, did You grow up hungry? Did You grow up fast?

Did the little girls giggle when You walked past?

Did You wonder what it was that made them laugh?

And did they tell You stories ’bout the saints of old? Stories about their faith?

They say stories like that make a boy grow bold. Stories like that make a man walk straight.

And You was a boy like I was once … But was You a boy like me?

Well, I grew up around Indiana. You grew up around Galilee

And if I ever really do grow up … Lord, I want to grow up and be just like You.

References:

* Joseph Loconte, A Hobbit, A Wardrobe and a Great War (Nashville: Nelson Books, 2015), pp. 130-131.

** C. S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1956), pp. 236.

*** Loconte, p. 138.

Healing from Institutional Abuse

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

A cabin was nestled near the top of a mountaintop in the Great Smoky Mountains of Tennessee. This cabin served as a vacation home for my family and me. The evening was humid and muggy. Thus, we decided to take in a show in Pigeon Forge rather than exploring the beautiful hills of eastern Tennessee. On this evening, I would suffer an emotional and spiritual panic attack. The catalyst of the event was various reports of institutional abuse. One report discussed alleged cases of rape that went unreported. Other reports mentioned accusations of abuse from a person who would be the last person one would suspect of such behaviors.

Admittedly, I have suffered from bouts of anxiety in the past. Normally, I can sense when a bout of anxiety is about to commence. But in this case, it was as if I felt an overwhelming case of sorrow and distress. After requesting prayer on social media, I was blessed by the numerous supporters offering their prayers and encouragement. Many friends contacted me directly, whereas many others offered support online. It was heartwarming to see how many people truly cared. But this event left me curious as to why I would suffer such distress while on vacation of all places.

It was not until a few days afterward that I realized that the pain I had previously suffered in the pastorate was still unresolved. I still didn’t understand why I felt the way I did. Drs. David and Marybeth Baggett reached out to me. I spoke to them about my feelings and what I believed to be the culprit. Marybeth suggested two books for me to consider reading. The first was entitled Something’s Not Right: Decoding the Hidden Tactics of Abuse and Freeing Yourself from its Power by Wade Mullen. The other was Redeeming Power: Understanding Authority and Abuse in the Church by Diane Langberg.

Mullen’s book truly spoke to me. He mentioned a field of sociological research known as impression management. Canadian sociologist Erving Goffman described impression management as the “process of creating, influencing, or manipulating an image held by an audience.”[1] Impression management especially becomes abusive and unethical when people are put on display to hide underlying problems that should not be hidden.[2] Mullen further notes that “the chief desire of abusive individuals is to attain or retain power—most often the kind of power gained and held through deception.”[3] Because of this, churches can become a breeding ground for abusers to thrive.

But why do religious institutions allow such abuse to transpire? Mullen offers a reason for this as well. He says that many institutions unknowingly permit systems that are conducive for abuse because of image. If people were to know the problems that a place faced, then others may not want to come and take part of what the institution offered.[4] As I read Mullen’s opening chapter, I began to realize two things. First, I came to the realization that I had suffered a form of abuse. Speaking with numerous individuals who were concerned with my well-being, I met many who admitted that they were victims of various forms of abuse. They faced similar emotional and spiritual bouts, some of which were full-blown cases of PTSD. Their professed experiences were eerily reminiscent of my own. Second, I came to realize that institutional abuse, identified as impression management, was far more widespread than I ever considered.

The first step in healing is to first diagnose the source of pain. I cannot say that I am fully healed from the abuse that I encountered. But I do believe that I have taken the first step. Perhaps God permitted me to have this emotional episode to bring me to the place of genuine recovery. Whatever the case, I also believe that many others are facing the same issues but do not understand where their emotional and spiritual hurts derive.

So, where do we go from here? I will occasionally update you on my progress from time to time. But there are two suggestions I would make for the here and now. First, become grounded in theology and apologetics. As my good friend Jerry Bogacz said, apologetics becomes an anchor keeping one stable during times of emotional distress. While it is not understood why I endured some of the things that I have in ministry, all the while understanding my own faults[5]—the goodness of God is a constant wellspring of hope and a constant source of comfort.

Second, cases of institutional abuse must be exposed and corrected. We can no longer stand idly by while innocent people are harmed by abusers hiding behind crosses and policies. The prophet Isaiah writes, “Learn to do what is good. Pursue justice. Correct the oppressor. Defend the rights of the fatherless. Plead the widow’s cause” (Isaiah 1:17).[6] Also, consider that Jesus told the Church of Ephesus that they must “Remember how far you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. Otherwise, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent” (Rev. 2:5). While I have had an enigmatic relationship with the church throughout my life, I still love Christ’s Bride. If the problems of abuse in the American Church are not corrected, we should not be surprised if Jesus may eventually remove the lampstand from the Church of America. Be on the lookout for future posts as I discover more truths on my pathway to recovery. Continue to deepen your love for God and be kind to one another.

Notes

[1] Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (New York, NY: Anchor, 2008); Wade Mullen, Something’s Not Right: Decoding the Hidden Tactics of Abuse and Freeing Yourself from its Power (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale Momentum, 2020), 9.

[2] Mullen, 12.

[3] Ibid., 15.

[4] Mullen calls this “dark secrets…facts a person or an organization knows and conceals because if they were revealed, they could damage the image of that person or organization.” Ibid, 17.

[5] By no means am I claiming that I was sinless in all my previous encounters.

[6] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville, TN: Holman, 2020).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com, the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast, the author of the Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics, and a Ph.D. Candidate of the Theology and Apologetics program at Liberty University. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has served in pastoral ministry for nearly 20 years and currently serves as a clinical chaplain and a Senior Contributor for MoralApologetics.com.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/7Pxh7LB

February 21, 2022/by Guest

Should Christians Have Blind Faith?

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Levi Dade

A few months ago, I sat with a close friend in one of the booths of our university’s coffee shop. My friend, whom I will call Tom, is an atheist. Tom is a genuine truth-seeker, and he would be a Christian if he thought Christianity was “actually true.” During our conversation, we found ourselves discussing the topic of faith. After probing his views of the world and his justifications for them, he said something that surprised me.

“At the end of the day, I guess we all have to have faith in something.”

I wanted clarity on what he meant by that statement, so I responded, “Do you mean blind faith?”

“Yeah, I guess it is blind faith.”

**The Difference Between Faith and Blind Faith**

Notice something in this brief exchange: there is a distinction between faith and blind faith. To be clear, blind faith is believing something without reason to believe it. It can also be defined as an unquestioning belief in something, even when it is unreasonable or wrong.

Tom made the distinction between faith and blind faith. This distinction implies that faith is not always blind. If it were inherently blind faith, there would be no point in making the distinction. However, as you read this, even if you have not noticed, you already know faith is not inherently blind.

For example, as a seven-year-old child, did you doubt your parents or guardians would protect you? Probably not.

Why?

Not simply because they’re your parents, but because for the entirety of your childhood, your parents showed you that they would protect you. From the past experiences of them always giving you this protection, you realized you can always have faith that they would always protect you. Notice what came first: the proof (or reason) that your parents would protect you came first. After the proof came your faith in them.

Suppose you met your parents for the first time on your seventh birthday. Would you have faith that they would protect you? Probably not. They would be strangers! You wouldn’t have that faith in them because they hadn’t shown you that you can trust them to protect.

Consider it this way: A man can propose to his girlfriend only after she has shown him that she would be a good, faithful wife. In showing him this, he can have the faith necessary to ask her to be his wife.[1]

When proof (or evidence) allows someone to have faith in something or someone else, it is called evidential faith (or informed faith). Evidential faith is the opposite of blind faith.

As you can see from the examples, faith is not always blind.

This raises an interesting question: Are Christians supposed to embrace blind faith or evidential faith?

A better way to ask this question is to ask: “With what kind of faith does Scripture teach Christians to live?”

Informed Faith Leads to Life in Jesus

In John 20:30-31, John explains the purpose of his Gospel:

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

John 20:30-31 (emphasis added)

John’s eyewitness statements of Jesus’s miracles were intended to serve as proof that Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of God.” The implication of Jesus being the Messiah is that we would put our faith in him and “have life in His name.”

If we are to have blind faith, why would Jesus give us evidence that proves He is the Messiah? After all, blind faith asserts that evidence is not necessary.

In other words, Jesus did not want people to have blind faith, so He provided proof (miracles) to show them who He is. Faith comes after Jesus shows us who He is. Romans 10:17 communicates the same idea: “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”

Just as children can have confidence in trustworthy parents after their past experiences of protection and care, so too others can have faith in Jesus after He showed them who He is and that He is the Messiah.

Informed Faith Allows us to Share why we have Hope in Jesus

… but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect…

1 Peter 3:15-16 (emphasis added)

While faith is not explicitly mentioned in this passage, it is clear that Peter is talking about our faith when he refers to the “hope that is in you.” The content gives us an idea of what kind of faith we should have. It is not only a suggestion to have an informed faith; this verse commands it!

We are to know why we have faith in Jesus so that we can share not only our faith but the reason for our faith as well.

It is as if Peter knew someone being told to “just have faith” was not going to magically answer their questions or doubts, so under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he wrote the command to share the reason behind our faith. This assumes we have a reason. So, not only is it a “good thing” to know why we have faith in Jesus, it is a command to do so (even for practical, evangelistic purposes!).

Informed Faith Allows us to Love God Deeply

And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.

Mark 12:30 (emphasis added)

Again, we are commanded to use our minds as a form of loving God. Loving God doesn’t only come from our heart; it comes from every facet of our lives, including how we think and reason. Knowing God intellectually allows you to know about Him on a deeper level. When you know about someone on a deeper level, you can love them on a deeper level as well.

When we do not know much about God, how can we expect to love God much?

In a past article called “Loving God with Your Mind: How God Wants Your Brain Too,” I explain it this way:

In short, loving God with the mind is to allow the mind and heart to work together in a way that produces a deeper knowledge of God. This knowledge in turn leads to a more intimate relationship with God where God is loved both intellectually and emotionally.[2]

Using Our Brains for God’s Glory

Based on these passages alone, we clearly see that an informed faith is biblical. Simply put, biblical faith is believing in something with good reason to believe it’s true.

We serve a logical God (Isaiah 1:18), and He wants us to use our brains as well as our hearts. After all, He created us and our brains, so why not use them for His glory? An evidential (biblical) faith allows you to know why Christianity is true. Knowing the truth of our beliefs is important in a world where so many things try to get you to put your identity in them rather than in Christ.

In his book, Love Your God with all Your Mind, J. P. Moreland articulates the essence of faith’s relationship to reason: “By contrast with the modern misunderstanding, biblically, faith is a power or skill to act in accordance with the nature of the kingdom of God, a trust in what we have reason to believe is true. Understood in this way, we see that faith is built on reason.”[3]

May we all embrace this biblical, informed faith, which will help us stay grounded intellectually and spiritually, keeping our identity in Christ, and our eyes fixed on Him forever.

Amen.

Notes

[1] Adapted from Frank Turek, “belief that” versus “belief in” illustration.

[2] Levi Dade, “Loving God With Your Mind: How God Wants Your Brain Too,” The Rebelution, https://www.therebelution.com/blog/2021/06/loving-god-with-your-mind-how-god-wants-your-brain-too/

[3] J. P. Moreland, Love Your God With all Your Mind (NavPress: Colorado Springs) 2012, 19.

How We Got Our Bible: New Testament Canonical Grid

4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

This article is part four in a nine-part series on how we got the Bible. Part 1 looked at biblical inspiration and inerrancy. Part 2 considered the development of the Old Testament. And Part 3 investigated the Old Testament canon and the Apocrypha.

In this article, we transition to the New Testament canon. Specifically, I want to answer two questions. First, would the first-century Christians have expected new Scripture in addition to the Old Testament? And second, what attributes did the church look for in canonical texts?

Would the First-Century Church have Expected New Scripture?

Biblical scholar Harry Gamble once remarked, “There is no intimation at all that the early church entertained the idea of Christian scriptures… Therefore, the NT as we think of it was utterly remote from the minds of the first generation of Christian believers.”¹. What are we to make of Gamble’s assertion? Was he right? Did the early church assume that God was done inspiring Scripture after the close of the Old Testament? I believe we have good reason to reject Gamble’s claims. Let me give you three reasons why.²

1. First-century Jews regarded the Old Testament story as Incomplete

Several texts from the Gospels and Acts demonstrate that first-century Jews expected God to do something in their generation. Not only were they on the look-out for the Messiah (Luke 2:38; 2:25; John 1:41; 4:25), they expected God to usher in his kingdom and overthrow their oppressors (Acts 1:6; see Dan 2:31-45). Second Temple period (intertestamental) texts also confirm this same expectation (Tob 14:5-7; Bar 3:6-8). As N. T. Wright notes, “The great story of the Hebrew scriptures was therefore inevitably read in the Second Temple period as a story in search of a conclusion.”³

The close of the Old Testament also gives the impression that the Jews expected a Davidic King to rise up among their ranks. Keep in mind, according to Jewish ordering, Chronicles was the final book of the Old Testament. And that book starts off with a lengthy genealogy centered around King David (1 Chron 1-3). It’s no coincidence that the start of the New Testament picks up right where the Old Testament left off with a genealogy focusing on the Son of David (Matt 1). It’s as if the Gospel of Matthew brings the story of the Old Testament to its necessary fulfillment.

2. God’s Pattern of Bringing New Word-Revelation after his Acts of Redemption

According to the Old Testament pattern, God typically gives revelation deposits after his redemptive acts. We see this sequential pattern most clearly in the Exodus. God redeemed his people out of Egypt. He then followed up that redemption with Scriptural installments at Sinai to interpret his saving acts. Given this history, it’s not inconceivable that the early church would have expected more written revelation following Jesus’ act of redemption.

3. The Old Testament Predicted that the Future Messianic Age would Include Verbal Communication

Not only did the Old Testament predict a future messianic age, it predicted that communication would accompany the Messiah. Deuteronomy 18:18 predicts “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.” Isaiah 61:1-2 says of the Messiah that “The Spirit of the LORD God . . . has anointed me to bring good news to the poor . . . to proclaim liberty to the captives . . . to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” And of this Messianic age, we read, “out of Zion shall go the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem” (Isa 2:2-3).

In sum, those living after the close of the Old Testament recognized that the story was incomplete, that God typically gave word-revelation following his redemptive acts, and that the Old Testament anticipated a verbal Messianic age.

What Attributes did the Early Church Look for in a Canonical Text?

Now that we’ve established the early church’s expectation for more biblical texts, we must now ask what attributes they would have looked for in those new biblical texts. In the remaining space, I will consider three of these attributes—apostolic authority, marks of inspiration, and universal reception.⁴ Let’s consider each canonical attribute in turn.

Apostolic Authority

Going back to the New Testament, the apostles recognized that they were “ministers of the New Covenant” (2 Cor 3:6), and that the church was “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20). They also recognized that Jesus had sent them out as the guarantors and transmitters of his message to the world (John 20:21). For these reasons, the early church only received texts that could be traced back to an apostle.

Therefore, from an early time, the church received the four Gospels, Acts, and Paul’s letters. Of course, Paul makes his apostolic authority known in his letters, but the Gospels make no such claim. How then did they receive apostolic status at such an early stage in the church?

Critics argue that since the authors don’t mention their names in the body of the text, the Gospels must have been originally anonymous. It was only after some time that the church added titles to give these anonymous works some needed credibility. Yet, the critics’ assertions lack evidence. All the earliest manuscripts with titles list Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the authors. Additionally, numerous church fathers state unequivocally that Mark wrote his Gospel based on Peter’s eyewitness testimony, and that Matthew, Luke, and John all wrote their respective Gospels.

That said, why did the church receive Mark and Luke if they weren’t apostles themselves? It’s because of their close association with the apostles. That is to say, books with apostolic authority were not limited to books that were written by the apostles. Rather, books that came from apostolic circles also came with apostolic authority. Notice Tertullian’s comment about Gospel authorship: “Of the apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first install faith into us; whilst of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards.”⁵ Tertullian affirms that Mark and Luke were “apostolic men” by nature of their close association with the apostles Peter and Paul.

This close proximity to the apostles also explain why Hebrews made its way into the canon. The author indicates he knew Timothy (Heb 13:23) and that the Gospel message “was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard” (Heb 2:3). These two texts combined indicate that the author walked in apostolic circles (probably Pauline), and therefore, his book was apostolic.

Jesus’ family (James and Jude) also received quasi-apostolic status as well based on their relationship to the Lord. We don’t know as much about Jude, but we know James became a prominent leader in the Jerusalem church and later martyr for his Christian faith.

At the same time, the church rejected books from non-apostolic sources. Commenting on the so-called Gospel of Peter, church father Serapion declared, “We receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ, but the writers which falsely bear their names we reject.“⁶ Serapion asserted that the church should reject the heretical Gospel of Peter and all others that falsely bear the apostles’ names (Thomas, Philip, etc.).

The Muratorian Fragment makes a similar comment around AD 180. It notes, “There is said to be another letter in Paul’s name to the Laodiceans, and another to the Alexandrines, both forged in accordance with Marcion’s heresy, and many others which cannot be received into the catholic church, since it is not fitting that poison should be mixed with honey.”⁷ Again, the church rejected all forgeries. The fragment also notes that the beloved Shepherd of Hermes should not receive canonical status because it was written “quite recently, in our own times.” In other words, someone wrote this book after all the apostles had died out.

Marks of Inspiration

Second, the church looked for books that possessed marks of inspiration. If a book came from God, one would expect it to reflect God’s nature and other previously inspired texts. The text, therefore, should reflect the beauty and excellence of God (Psalm 19:7-10). As Jerome once remarked about a New Testament text, it is a “document which has in it so much the beauty of the Gospel,” which is the “mark of its inspiration.”⁸

Moreover, the text will be accompanied with transformative power. In other words, the text isn’t just words on a page. The text is “living and active” (Heb 4:12). Justin Martyr remarked, “For they possess a terrible power in themselves, and are sufficient to inspire those who turn aside from the path of rectitude with awe; while the sweetest rest is afforded to those who make a diligent practice of them.”⁹ Irenaeus also asserted that the Gospels are always “breathing out immortality on every side and vivifying men afresh.”¹⁰ That is to say, the early church recognized that certain texts brought about salvation and good works in the life of the church.

Not only will the text possess a certain beauty and power, it will be harmonious with other authoritative Scripture. For this reason, the church rejected books like 2 Maccabees which suggests we can offer sacrifices and prayers for the dead (2 Macc 12:43-46). They also rejected gnostic texts (Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Truth, Gospel of Peter, etc.) because they undermined the entire Old Testament altogether. And they rejected the Gospel of Thomas which has Jesus saying, “Look, I will guide her (Mary) to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven”—a clear repudiation of Genesis 1-2.

Thus, as Irenaeus remarked, “All Scripture, which has been given to us by God, shall be found by us perfectly consistent.”¹¹. And as Justin Martyr declared, “I am entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another.”¹²

In short, the church only received texts which bore the marks of divine inspiration. These marks included a certain beauty, power, and harmony, indicating that God was their ultimate author.

Universal Reception

Finally, only books that were universally received by the church obtained canonical status. This means that books like 1 Enoch, which only a few small churches received, did not receive authoritative status. After all, Jesus says, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me” (John 10:27). Therefore, we could expect the universal church to come to some sort of consensus when it came to their Scriptural texts. And this is exactly what we find in the early church.

From as early as the second century, the church recognized a core group of canonical books which included the four Gospels, Acts, Paul’s letters, Hebrews, 1 John, 1 Peter, and Revelation. This consensus is reflected in several church Fathers (Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian) as well as the Muratorian Canon. By the fourth century, the remaining fringes of the canon were universally recognizes as reflected in Eusebius (AD 325), Athanasius (AD 367), and the Councils of Hippo (AD 393) and Carthage (AD 397).

A Canonical Grid

As one considers the three canonical attributes, it becomes clear that the early church filtered books through a sort of canonical grid to help them recognize authoritative texts. Only books possessing all three attributes achieved canonical status. Consider the following chart. Notice how both Mark and Romans possess all three attributes while the Gospel of Thomas possesses none. Also notice that the Shepherd of Hermes partially possesses one of the attributes insofar that it is an orthodox text. That said, it lacks the other two attributes:

1. Ancient myths about dying and rising gods were usually tied to agricultural cycles.

2. The earliest Christians were devout Jews who were highly sensitive to Jewish law and traditions.

3. Correlation doesn’t equal causation.

4. The comparisons are just not that impressive.

5. The abundance of myths doesn’t cancel out the evidence for the real resurrection of Jesus.

Notes:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

D – DISTANT EVENTS

O – OPINIONS ALREADY ESTABLISHED

U – UNCERTAIN EVENTS

B – BELATED REPORTS

T – TRIVIAL MIRACLES

S – SELF-SERVING MIRACLES

A PERSONAL CRITERION I’D ADD – V – VAGUENESS.

THE TEXAS SHARPSHOOTER FALLACY?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Introduction

Being The World’s Friends and Enemies of God

The Big Bang Is Hardly An Atheistic Theory

The Foundation for Morality

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Marcion (AD 85-160)

The Reception of the New Testament Canon

1. Statements by Church Fathers

2. Appeals to Texts as Scripture

3. Manuscript Evidence

4. Canonical Lists

Recognized Not Determined

References

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Power of a Story

Great Minds Don’t Always Think Alike

The Most Reluctant Convert

Storytellers

The True Myth

Heaven Meets Earth

Boy Like Me

References:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Notes

The Difference Between Faith and Blind Faith

Informed Faith Leads to Life in Jesus

Informed Faith Allows us to Share why we have Hope in Jesus

Informed Faith Allows us to Love God Deeply

Using Our Brains for God’s Glory

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Would the First-Century Church have Expected New Scripture?

1. First-century Jews regarded the Old Testament story as Incomplete

2. God’s Pattern of Bringing New Word-Revelation after his Acts of Redemption

3. The Old Testament Predicted that the Future Messianic Age would Include Verbal Communication

What Attributes did the Early Church Look for in a Canonical Text?

Apostolic Authority

Marks of Inspiration

Universal Reception

A Canonical Grid

Recommended resources related to the topic:

**The Difference Between Faith and Blind Faith**