Yes I said "kerfuffle." Find out why . . .

I have posted the following video, and provided the subsequent links, in hopes to spur Christians on into seeking truth. 

My perspective on this debate is as follows: I believe John MacArthur loves Jesus, and as one author stated, a biography will be written of him. His contribution to the Kingdom of God is immense. However, he does makes statements that, at the very least, infer that Charasmatics and Pentecostals are deceived and perhaps unsaved. Some people will defend MacArthur saying that to make this kind of inference is taking him out of context. Those with Charismatic and Pentecostal sympathies will cry foul. At the very least MacArthur pushes the preverbal envelope.
I've included some links below from both sides if you're interested in checking this out for yourself:

For MacArthur's "Strange Fire" book, click here.

Strange Fire website here.

A blog against MacArthur's view about the Holy Spirit, click here.

Here is someone's take on the accusations against MacArthur. He defends MacArthur and believes some of his statements have been taken out of context.

Here is Pastor Mark Driscoll's invite to MacArthur to attend an upcoming conference.

Is the Bible Trustworthy? Part 2: Historical Objections and Answers

I often hear the question, "How can I trust the Bible?" or "How do you know it's authentic?" Both are good questions and if asked from an honest and curious perspective, a lot of fun to discuss.
As I have reflected on these questions three categories have developed in my head (and now on this blog): philosophical, historical, and biblical. Generally speaking, philosophical objections come from culture, historical objections from academia, and biblical objections from within the church. Of course all three areas overlap a considerable amount. Nonetheless, I think it is helpful to tackle them independently. Below is Part 2 of 3 attempting to address the contemporary historical concerns about the Bible. If I had a nickel for every time I heard someone tell me "How can I trust the Bible if you don't have the actual documents?" I would have my student loans paid off. Below is an actual Q and A I responded to recently, via email.

Q: "Who wrote the bible?" 

A: "Great question. The answer is simple and complicated at the same time. The easy answer is many people wrote the Bible who were inspired by God. The long answer is a conversation. Suffice to say that this question has been labored over since the 17th century."

Q: "How do you know it is fact?"
A: "How did we determine that they sky is blue and that the grass is green? This is a philosophical question but there must have been a process, or evaluation in order to land on such answers. From the perspective of apologetics no book (and perhaps no faith) has undergone as much scientific scrutiny as the Bible. Yet, it remains the most verified historical document."

The first questions is an easy answer, but it is engulfed by the second question, "How do you know it is a fact?" In additional to my off-the-cuff response above I want to provide more concrete "evidence" about the validity of the Bible. Let's just consider the New Testament evidence.

Most scholars agree that the amount of New Testament documents is tremendous, well over 5,000 from various parts of the world. Although no two ancient manuscripts are exactly the same, most variants are unimportant and do not affect major biblical doctrines. This is an astounding statistic. In terms of ancient manuscripts the next most documented is Homer's Iliad with 643 copies. This illuminates the veracity of the New Testament. The amount of textual evidence point toward a consistency with the writing of the New Testament and the translations that we have today.

With the various manuscripts from numerous sources verifying one another, the initial question about authorship is now supplemental (although still important to ask and answer). The classic Evangelical answer is that multiple people wrote their respective books of the Bible guided by the Holy Spirit. The answer is more complicated in light of redaction criticism but it's not out of bounds to suggest that the Holy Spirit is able to preform such an action.


Back to the origin question of "How can I trust the Bible?" I have already given a philosophical response to relativism in Part 1. Here in Part 2, I am continuing to fill in the picture. If someone does not want to consider the Bible trustworthy then basic textual evidence needs to be disregarded.

Additional responses to this question will be answered by forthcoming posts.

Stay turned for Part 3: Biblical objections and answers

Is the Bible Trustworthy? Part 1: Philosophical concerns and answers

I often hear the question "How can I trust the Bible?" Throughout my life this question has been asked by family members, skeptics, and individuals who grew up in the church but have been disenfranchised. This is a very good question and if asked from an honest and curious perspective, a lot of fun to discuss.

As I have reflected on this question, three categories have developed in my head (and now on this blog): philosophical, historical, and biblical. Generally speaking, philosophical objections come from culture, historical objections from academia, and biblical objections from within the church. Of course all three areas overlap a considerable amount. Nonetheless, I think it is helpful to tackle them independently.

Below is Part 1 of 3 attempting answer contemporary philosophical concerns about the Bible.

Philosophical:
When someone asks the question "how can I trust the Bible" from a philosophical perspective, relativism is usually in view. The primary concern is the search for "truth." What is truth? With so many different truths in the world how can I know which truth is correct? These questions often times lead to a view of relativism which suggests that absolute truth cannot be discovered. Hence, the Bible is relegated to one of many ways to think about "god" or spirituality in general.

This philosophical concern is valid, especially in a 21st century pluralistic culture. Nonetheless, I find relativism lacking for two reasons: the law of non-contradiction and emotional reasons.

My first concern is a matter of logic. With all the differing spiritual views that exist in culture there are clear disagreements. For example, Christians believe, and the Bible states, that Jesus is the Son of God. Islam would say that Jesus was just a prophet. Buddhism altogether neglects the historicity of Jesus and His role in spirituality. All three of these "truths" cannot all be correct. There are also various examples of differing perspectives on the afterlife, and what is takes to enter into the afterlife (if it exists at all according to some theological positions). Contradictions clearly exist and in order to discover truth contradictions either need to be reconciled or some views need to be disregarded. Philosophers call this the "law of non-condtridiction." All this said, my concern with relativism is its propensity to not explain truth. In my view, relativism provides an easy way out of difficult or uncomfortable questions and answers. My argument here is not in defense of the Bible but the defense of truth. This leads me into my second concern about the philosophical angst against the Bible.

It's hard for me to find the proper word for my second reason why relativism is an inadequate response against the Bible. I use the word "emotional" because time and again I have seen Christians who love the truth found in the Bible but move into a direction away from its authority. The reasons have everything to do with sin. Because the Bible speaks truth about morality when someone does something that the Bible condemns, a gradual transition takes place to placate one's emotions about sin. This does not happen to everyone and "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." But, for people who do not want to come to terms with sin, the Bible becomes less authoritative and eventually less trustworthy. All in all a philosophical shift regarding the Bible has taken place. The truth and authority of God's Word has been replaced within the individual—hence an innate form of relativism.

Back to the original question of "how can I trust the Bible?" One of many responses is this: a standard of truth exists somewhere, it's just a question of where. In my opinion, the Bible stands out as a standard of truth because it addresses two critical questions. First, what or who is God? Second, what or who are human beings in light of God? The answers to and interplay of these questions reveal much about how the Bible continues to speak timeless truth in every culture. And so, countless people from around the world, who love Jesus and Bible, have been changed by the message of this Book. This is an experiential response, but this in conjunction with the law of non-contridiction paint a larger picture of why the Bible is trust-worthy.

Additional responses to this question will be answered by forthcoming posts.

Stay turned for Part 2 (historical objections and answers) and Part 3 (biblical objections and answers).

Galatians 3:10-26 and Israel—a stab at a difficult question

Perhaps one of the most potent ways to divide Evangelicals is to talk about the role of Israel. Of course there is a political discourse but the theological debate is just as heated. Those who speak about present day Israel are persuaded, in part, by Israel's 'miraculous' existence despite continuous persecution. Another component emphasized is the primary role played by Israel in the Old Testament. When these two realities converge a powerful argument is made for a dispensational bent for Israel's continued prosperity. But the debate is more complicated. The Apostle Paul, who endlessly interpreted the Old Testament in the New Testament seems to suggest an alternate view. 

When I read Galatians one continuous theme strikes me, justification is through faith in Jesus Christ. Paul's primary argument is the affirmation of the "Abrahamic Covenant" over and against the Law. Point one for Paul is that the promise given to Abraham preceded the Law, thus making it a promise of greater value which cannot be added to. This is the point of his "human illustration" in verse 15. At this point few disagree with the premise of the Abrahamic Covenant. The rub comes when questions about the role of the Law—and Israel—are inserted into the conversation. Paul knows this and provides an answer to the Galatians (vv.19-26). Here is the passage and several points which he makes about the Law:

• It was added until the One to come arrived because of transgressions (v.19) In other words, in real time, God had to deal with the sin of his chosen people (v. 22).
• The Law was a mediator (v. 20). 
• The Law is not contrary to the promises of God (e.g. Abrahamic Covenant), but the Law is not life giving (v.21). Faith must always precede the Law or else the Law is legalism.
• The Law was a guardian until Christ (v. 24). 

Paul does not go out of his way in this passage to suggest how those living under the Law could know God. What is lucid is that God's plan to redeem the world through Jesus Christ works eschatologically forward and backward. Galatians 3:8 says, "Now the Scripture foresaw that God would justify  . . . by faith and foretold the good news to Abraham saying, 'All the nations will be blessed in you.'" Jesus is always the barometer for a right relationship with God. 

So what about Israel? At least for the Galatians Paul acknowledged the role of Israel as the barer of the Law. The Book of Romans elaborates on this idea further. What Israel was not the barer of, however, is faith in God. Faith in God transcended Israel and included 'gentile sinners.' This theme is apparent in the Old and New Testament. Therefore, at present, the question of Israel has become superfluous because of Jesus Christ. Wuest, a dispensational theologian, turns the focus on God when he says about the Book of Galatians, "sinners were saved in the Old Testament times by pure grace just as they are today, without any admixture of good works." This statement corroborates the idea that Israel could do nothing—even with the Law—to save themselves. I can hear in my head some people throwing their hands up suggesting I am a proponent of Replacement Theology. I am not arguing for Replacement Theology—although the general idea has merit. What I am arguing for is that when a Christian comes to read anything between Genesis and Revelation the primary theme is knowing God through faith because of God's grace. The promise to Abraham began this and Christ affirmed it. 

Psalm 19 revisited

 For centuries Psalm 19 has been read with two distinct ideas. In verses 1-6 God speaks about his "general revelation" to the world. Verses 7-14 instruct us to undertake an ethic to reading the Scripture. When this chapter is explained it is splint into these respective sections.

I am not going to suggest that Psalm 19 does not tell us something about God, and his creation of the world - it does. I am also not going to suggest that vv. 7-14 cannot inform us about how to approach the text of Scripture. Here are three verses that point to this: "The law of the Lord is perfect reviving the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes; the fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; the rules of the Lord are true, and righteous altogether" (ESV vv. 7-9). These verses, indeed the entire chapter, should be an encouragement to Christians. However, to explain or preach about “general revelation” and a reading ethic from this chapter misses the main point of the text. When this chapter is split into two parts an ability to reach the main point is exasperated. Let me work backwards and then suggest and alternative reading of the text.

The fastest way to send a congregation down the path of legalism is to say they have a moral obligation to do something. This is not to say that God does not set down moral guidelines for his people to follow – he does. However, Psalm 19:7-14 is held hostage by the pretense of morality and the main point of the Psalmist (David) is missed, and the hearer is misinformed. An easy way around this nonsense is to rethink what this text actually highlights—namely something about God and not the reader. Far too often this text (and much of Scripture) is first interpreted to require the reader to do something. Instead let’s ask these questions: What does vv. 7-14 tell us about God? About his character? About the sufficiency of his laws; testimonies; precepts; commandments; and rules? Once these questions have been answered only then can the reader ask, “what about me?”

 

Now let’s consider vv. 1-6 and the distinct theological category of “general revelation” which has been attributed. “General revelation” is a fine category but it again has the reader in mind. What do these verses tell us about God? Or about the creation account in Genesis? And this last question leads me to a more robust reading of Psalm 19.

A more robust interpretation of Psalm 19 does not exclude a reading ethic or God’s “general revelation” but enhances it. What if the Psalmist wrote reflecting of God’s creative acts in Genesis 1-3 and the giving of the Law (e.g. Exodus 20)? Would this not enhance one’s interpretation of the text which leads to a fuller knowledge of God? What if the giving of the Law from the Pentateuch was primarily a means of grace and mercy and not a rule causing obedience? I’ll take that kind of Law. Of course, how you understand Biblical Theology informs your reading of Law. Nonetheless, the often applied legalistic approach to Psalm 19 is a misinterpretation because the wrong question is asked. Also, the interpretation of "general revelation" only allows the reader to think about God's creation in light of themselves.The right question for the entire chapter is this: In what way does the Pentateuch inform how David understands God and ultimately what does this text say about God?

Let’s revisit Psalm 19 with this question in mind.