Read About Those Old, Dead Guys

This weekend I got the opportunity to read a new biography on Charles Spurgeon, the so-called "Prince of Preachers" who built up an English church of eighty to one of thousands before turning 23 and maintained that church, while training hundreds of aspiring pastors to plant others, until his death at 58.  While I started the book just out of interest in the man's life,  it had a much deeper impact.  When reading biographies of people truly passionate about Christ, it's almost impossible for that passion not to be contagious to the reader.  That passion is reflected through their unwavering boldness for evangelism and cause of the gospel, their commitment to sound doctrine, and dedication to the spiritual disciplines.  So I encourage anybody to pick up a book on a bold missionary like Jim Elliott, a wise theologian and pastor like Jonathan Edwards or John Owen, or a true reformer like Martin Luther.

Go ahead  and read about the old, dead guys.  Luther's up next for me.

More >>

Jesus' Faith in...Rob Bell?

If you pay any attention to news within Christianity, you've probably heard of Rob Bell. He is the founding pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church, one of the fastest growing churches in America, and the author of Velvet Elvis, one of the hottest books around. He has now influenced literally hundreds of thousands and has been tagged by some as "the next Billy Graham".

Recently, he's put together a series of spiritual short films called Nooma. In one of them, entitled "Dust" (you can check out the abridged notes here), he talks about the unique relationship between Jesus and his disciples and points out how God called the disciples, this JV team of regular Joe's, to change the course of human history. He moves on to a brief exposition of Matthew 14, where Jesus walks on water and Peter tries to do the same but can't. Bell then asserts that Peter didn't sink because he lacked faith in Jesus but because he lacked faith in himself. In Bell's own words, "Faith in Jesus is important, but what about Jesus' faith in us? I mean he must have faith in us because he leaves it all in the hands of these disciples."

While Bell makes some interesting points in the video and actually seems to use OK logic in asserting that the command to us in the Great Commission must imply faith in us, this is completely unscriptural. Scripture says that apart from God we're all evil-doers (Gen. 6), impure (Prov. 20), rebellious (Isaiah 65), children of the devil (John 8), unrighteous and not seeking God (Acts 7), without fear of God (Romans 3), hostile to God (Romans 8), spiritually foolish (1 Corinthians 2), and defiled and unbelieving (Titus 1). That, to me, doesn't make it sound like we're the ones Jesus has put his faith in. Certainly God has used and does use man to spread the gospel across the world, but that is, as scripture repeatedly says, through the work of the Holy Spirit, and it's a much different thing to acknowledge what God can do through us than to say that we're worthy enough for God to put his trust in us. You can even see this in the words of Jesus. Before his ascension, Jesus commanded the disciples, before sending them out into all the world, to wait on the Holy Spirit. He didn't have faith in Peter, a man who denied him three times while he was being tortured to death, or any of the other disciples. Instead, it's the empowering grace (1 Cor. 15:10) of the Holy Spirit that Jesus trusted- the grace that works through us to work out the call of the Great Commission that Bell mentioned.

In Matthew Henry's commentary on Matthew 14, he says, "We can never come to Jesus unless we are upheld by his power. Christ said 'Peter come' not only that he might walk upon the water and so know his Lord's power, but that he might know his own weakness." This is good news! It is once we can recognize and acknowledge our own weakness that we can truly appreciate the grace we've been offered. It may be appealing or attractive to have a faith in ourselves, but ultimately that's not the gospel. More >>

Nietzsche on Christianity

"In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point."

-Friedrich Nietzsche


The formulation of Nietzsche's arguments arise from a top-down approach; he first considers his own knowledge and experience of the world, then considers Christianity's truth claims, and, finding them quite divergent, concludes that Christianity offers no real substance. What if, unlike Nietzsche, we take a bottom-up approach to evaluating Christianity's truth claims? This process is, of course, much more difficult; we will have to shed our preconcieved notions about our existence and walk a great deal more than a mile in someone else's shoes. When we do, however, we begin to find that not only does Christianity offer our lives purpose and hope, but it provides our minds with a robust philosophy, a solid reason to believe.

The blatant failure of Nietzsche's argument does not lie here, however. It lies in something much more fundamental: the person of Jesus. If this man, the person Jesus, never walked on this earth, then Nietzsche might just have a point. The difficulty for Nietzsche and those who appeal to the modern philosopohers is that Jesus existed in time and space; this fact is corroborated by multiple accounts other than the four gospels, and the arguments for the authenticity of all of the early accounts are striking and cannot be taken lightly. If this Jesus was able to accomplish all that is told of him, then Christianity does more than come in contact with reality, it is reality.

But maybe it is all just heresay and conjecture; maybe Jesus was just a lunatic and his disciples were his body-snatching accomplices; maybe Christains are forcing a lifestyle and a morality on themselves and others because they are afraid of what it means to be truly 'free.' The complete irony of all of this thinking is this: you may agree with Nietzsche's argument, but you would never want to live in Nietzsche's world with Nietzsche's values. When considering which worldview you would like to make your own, be sure to take a wholistic approach to the worldview instead of a top-down approach; if you can't imagine living in the world that your worldview espouses, perhaps it is time to consider a paradigm shift. More >>

Six Gifts of the Resurrection

On this Easter Sunday, click here More >>

"My God, my God why have you forsaken me?"

Just a few hours ago, I got the chance to see the story of Mark’s Gospel as told by one Christian actor, and, while it was interesting and mostly well done, there are two specific things I’m going to remember about the night. One is that the Brooklyn-born actor apparently does all his acting and public speaking in a British accent (only in New York, right?). But also, and much more importantly, I’m going to remember the actor’s explanation afterwards of a particular struggle he had while memorizing the book of Mark. For years, he couldn’t understand why Jesus, the Son of God, would, in 15:34, suddenly complain and question the Father with “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”, while in the process of finally culminating the divine plan he knew all along and boldly saving sinners from the wrath of God.

This admission hit me, because I’ve often wondered the same thing. Stephen, Peter, and many other martyrs for Christ were tortured to death and apparently never voiced anything similar in the process. And some even suffered much longer and even more gruesome deaths than Jesus did. Of course, there’s already this current false cultural idea of an effeminate wimpy Jesus with feathery hair who drank decaf and always insisted on a game of two-hand touch over tackle, and this quote doesn’t seem to help change that image. So why was Jesus the one of all these guys who cried out and questioned God?

To me, it boils down to two things. First, Jesus not only suffered physical pain on the cross, but also took on all the sins of the world in this one moment. Martin Luther once said, “Jesus became the greatest liar, perjurer, thief, adulterer, and murderer that mankind has ever known – not because he committed these sins but because he was actually made sin for us.” Having himself never known or experienced sin before, he suddenly felt the pain, the regret, and the anger towards all the wrongs we’ve ever committed. The actual physical pain he was dealing with must have paled in comparison to this- he was actually experiencing the torments of a condemned and forsaken man. Not only that, but Scripture says a darkness came over Calvary just before that moment. Jesus had prevously always and eternally enjoyed communion with the Father but was suddenly, for the first time, devoid of His presence. Although he had been forsaken by men, Jesus could before still say, “I am not alone, for my Father is with me” (John 16:32). But not now. Not at this moment. Instead, Jesus was actually and completely forsaken and tortured. Tortured by unimaginable, excruciating physical pain from a full day’s worth of beatings, cuts, whiplashes, and constant suffocation. Tortured by all of humanity’s mistakes, problems, and sins to which he had a complete and utter hatred. And, most of all, tortured by the absence of the presence of God.

This should then mean to things:

First, a true grasp of this reality must add a whole new dimension to our understanding of the Cross! Most people understand something about the physical pain Jesus suffered but not the rest of it. The inclusion of Jesus’ cry in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark seem to have been, in fact, for this purpose.

Second, this understanding must contribute to a reshaping of our concepts of both our sin and God’s love. Think about it- knowing Jesus agreed to suffer such a terrible and agonizing death, how offensive must our sin be to him and how loving must he be?

Feel free to comment.

More >>

Are the Gospels Valid?

A few of us have been researching and working on our responses to this crucial apologetical question, and I want to get the ball rolling on the blog, so I'm going to go ahead and post my essay on the topic:

The Bible is the most popular book in the history of the world. You find it in every hotel room. You see witnesses swear on it before giving their testimonies in United States courts. More than one billion people in the world today say they own at least one copy of it. (Many of those people give up two hours of their Sunday to hear teachings on it.) Hundreds of movies and thousands of plays have been made about it. Michael Vick and Paris Hilton, among countless other celebrities, have held press conferences to announce they found the main character in it. Also, it is the most quoted source of all-time – more than Talladega Nights and Napoleon Dynamite combined. It would certainly be #1 on the New York Times’ all-time best-seller list.

What’s perhaps most astounding, however, is that it’s not treated by its most dedicated fans as an interesting piece of literature but rather a testimony of actual history where its climax is the four chapters placed two-thirds of the way through. In those four chapters, which are actually four different books (or accounts) by four different authors, we are told the story of a virgin-born Jew with a Hispanic name who spends the first thirty years of his life helping out with his step-dad’s carpentry business before taking only three years to completely change the course of history by healing the crippled beggars in the ghetto, gathering crowds of thousands around him, and boldly claiming to be God incarnate who can forgive sin, thoroughly pissing off his fellow Jews and Romans alike. Each of the four books then ends with an incredible, yet complex series of events where Jesus is betrayed by one of his closest confidants with a kiss and dies tortured on a cross, according to him for our sins, before rising from the dead three days later. So-called experts are still debating the meaning of the texts, and literally billions have dedicated their lives because of its significance in their lives – of course all of it centered around this man called Jesus and much of it based on these four books.

So the question begs to be asked – “How can we trust these books to be historically accurate in the first place?” Certainly, popularity doesn’t indicate reliability.

Well, the first step is to look at the authors’ intention, and each does, in fact, appear to be intended as historical documents, rather than literature. For instance, we are told at the beginning of Luke’s account of Jesus’ life that he checked and re-checked with eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life, “having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account…that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.” Luke knew that people wouldn’t believe oral traditions, so he put the accounts into writing to convince readers of the legitimacy that the events did occur. And, not only are we told by the authors themselves that the books are historical accounts, but both Christian and secular literary critics who are familiar with ancient fiction, say the books, because of their attention to detail, are nothing like the literature from the time. C.S. Lewis, a world-class literary critic, noted, “I have been reading poems, romances, vision literature, legends, and myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know none of them are like this. Of this (gospel) text there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage…or else, some unknown (ancient) writer…without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern novelistic, realistic narrative.” What Lewis meant was that, while, modern fiction is realistic in the sense that it contains details and dialogue like an eyewitness account, this genre of fiction is new (within the last three hundred years). In ancient times, romances, epics, and legends were high and remote. In other words, details were spotty. In the gospel accounts, however, we are given details such as where Jesus would sleep in his disciples’ fishing boat and the exact distance Jesus would be from another character. These are two of many details that aren’t relevant to the plot- something you just wouldn’t find in ancient literature. The texts, instead, appear to have been written for historical purposes.

Once the intentions of the texts are established, it’s important to examine the dates and authenticity of the texts, as well. First, the dates, which testify to the original authenticity. It can be confidently asserted that all four accounts were written in the first century A.D. A majority of modern scholars agree that Mark’s account came first in A.D. 65, roughly thirty years after Jesus’ death, and Matthew and Luke followed in that century’s 70’s before John finished his gospel around 90 A.D. Scholars have determined these approximate dates for two primary reasons. For one, manuscripts were circulating in various countries hundreds of miles from their origination in the early second century, indicating that the original texts must have been written decades earlier, and, second, the four gospels were both alluded to and quoted by numerous other sources in both the late first and early second centuries. Now, the significance of this early authorship centers around the fact that the early manuscripts were public documents that were quickly duplicated over and over again and spoken to crowds of people in public forums almost immediately. Since we know that the gospels were complete at most forty to sixty years after Jesus’ death, many of the eyewitnesses of the events of Jesus’ life were still alive to object to the details if there were contradictions. And there were thousands of people who witnessed his miracles, thousands who witnessed his trial, many who witnessed his death, and hundreds who witnessed him upon resurrection, yet there are no records of any disputes on the accuracy of the texts. And it was not only Jesus’ supporters who were still alive. Still alive were many bystanders, officials, and opponents who had also heard him teach, seen his actions, and watched him die. Had they objected, Christianity never would have taken off the way it did. The gospels instead seem to have been written and made public too early to have been inaccurate.

Now, the current versions must also be authentic. In other words, the original texts must have been passed down accurately to be still be considered reliable. This can be verified simply through sheer ‘numerosity’ of manuscripts. With any ancient texts there can be many variations in wording as they were all copied by hand and subject to human error, but these errors tend to be self-correcting if there are enough manuscript with which to compare. Basically, any errors can be easily corrected by comparing those copies to others. To date, we have over 5,300 Greek New Testament manuscripts (most of which are of the four gospels) that have survived until today and some of these are dated just decades after the original texts. By contrast, we have about 10 manuscripts of Caesar’s Gallic Wars (composed between 58 and 50 B.C.), and the oldest was written 900 years after the event. Additionally, we have only two manuscripts of the Histories and the Annals of the Roman historian Tacitus (composed around 100 A.D, one from the ninth and one from the eleventh century, and only eight manuscripts of the History of Thucydides (460-400 B.C.), the earliest belonging to 900 A.D. The same general picture is true of Herodotus (480-425 A.D.). As F.F. Bruce says, “No Classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest manuscripts of their works which are of any use to use are over 1,300 years later than the originals.” While it’s reasonable to expect more evidence from books that claim to bear eyewitness accounts of God incarnate, no other ancient books come close to the kind of wealth of diverse preservation of the gospels.

While there is further evidence regarding the life of Jesus, such as Paul’s confirmation fifteen years after Jesus’ death of his miracles, claims, crucifixion, and resurrection, the evidence already seems to lean towards the gospels being valid, reliable historical accounts of the life of Jesus Christ. And if these events are, in fact, true and Jesus performed dozens miracles in front of thousands of people and appeared to hundreds in resurrected form, then his seemingly outrageous claims to be the Son of God and the forgiver of sin suddenly become more valid. Of course, we must admit that if the gospel accounts aren’t valid and if Jesus isn’t who he says he is, then we should just dismiss him and move on with our lives. But if the gospel accounts are valid and if Jesus is, in fact, who he says he is, then that should dramatically alter our perspective and priorities.

Note #1: There are certainly other issues worthy of discussion, such as the canon (or selection) of Scripture, that weren’t mentioned, simply because they’re beyond the aim of this essay.

Note #2: Some good books for researching this topic further include New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? by F. F. Bruce, The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, Defending Your Faith by R.C. Sproul, Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem, and The Reason for God by Tim Keller.

More >>

About 'Rant and Reform'

RANT AND REFORM is a forum used for believers to work together to develop and cultivate a richer and fuller understanding of Jesus Christ.

In always pursuing this goal, we believe that:

(1) All of scripture is about Jesus (John 5:39)

(2) The best way to understand Jesus in scripture is to, first, study scripture, but also to work together as friends and peers, by sharing ideas and correcting errors in a cooperative manner.

...rant and reform...

More >>