Are Grace Lifers Deists?

Introduction

Recent events in Haiti have once again fueled discussion regarding the extent to which God is active within his creation. Atheists and skeptics cite these events as support for their classic argument against God's existence, the problem of evil. Supporters of this view assert that a loving all powerful God would not allow the carnage, suffering, and selfishness witnessed in Haiti over the past couple of weeks. The very fact that God did not prevent these events is proof enough for many atheists that God does not exist or if he does, that he is not all powerful, all knowing and loving. On the other side of the coin, religious leaders such as Pat Robertson have suggested that the Haitians are merely reaping the fruit of an ill-fated pact with the forces of darkness. According to this line of thinking, God intervened physically to punish the Haitian people for their past transgressions.

While many Christians might balk at or ridicule Robertson's views as extremist, the fact remains that many believers, even grace believers, are theological and philosophically committed to the notion that God is sovereign and everything happens for a reason. According to prevailing Christian orthodoxy, God is in control, and his immutable will is being executed daily in the details of life. Consequently, all events small or great, good or bad, find their origin in the sovereign will of God. Even though humanity cannot see God's purpose in such events, most evangelicals are confident that God has a higher purpose for everything that happens. Still others, perhaps sensing the implications of such a view on the character of God, try to skirt the issue by saying that God did not actively cause the Haitian earthquake, but merely allowed it.

Let us consider what God has to say about the issue. In II Timothy 2:4, the Apostles Paul writes, "who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." God's will is clearly stated in this verse that all men come to saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, this will not happen because Satan is actively engaged in blinding the minds of the lost "lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."(1) In other words, the stated will of God for all men to be saved through the light of the gospel is being actively thwarted by Satan's attempts to blot out the gospel's witness in the minds of the lost. But this is not what the prevailing Calvinist-influenced orthodoxy would have you believe.

Think with me for a moment about the theological implications of suggesting that God has orchestrated what has occurred in Haiti. Is there anyone who thinks that all of the people who died in the Haitian tragedy were saved? Unfortunately, the majority of the people who perished probably had not trusted in the shed blood of Jesus Christ as the only payment for their sin. Consequently, if the Haitian disaster is the will of God, then God is the active agent in sending countless people to eternal judgment and separation from him. Sound theological reasoning will not allow a Bible believer to reach such a conclusion, because it would violate God's stated his will that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

There is another option for the believing Bible students to consider. The existence of evil in the world is not proof that God does not exist. Possessing the gift of self determination Adam exercised his freedom(2) and disobeyed God, thereby bringing sin into the world. Romans 5:12 states, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." The reason people die whether by natural disaster, war, murder, accident, or old age is because of sin. In Romans 6:23, the Apostle Paul encapsulates mankind's sin problem when he writes, "for the wages of sin is death." Humanity was not the only portion of God's creation that was negatively affected by Adam's rebellious choice. According to Romans 8:22, ". . . the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now," as a consequence of Adam's sin. The explanation for the earthquake in Haiti, and other natural disasters is that the very ground of the earth itself has been cursed as a result of the fall.(3) Tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, mudslides, and every other type of natural disaster are caused by sin's effect upon the created order. In short, until the curse is removed, natural disasters and human calamities will continue to plague mankind. However, events such as these ought not to be attributed to God's intervention within his creation.

What God does today is work through his word rather than through direct physical intervention like he did with Israel in time past. This logically follows from the mid-Acts dispensational viewpoint. The view has been referred to by different names in different parts of the world, including The Grace Alternative, the Grace Life, and Pure Grace. Many believers, even grace believers, are uncomfortable with this view of how God works. As one might expect, the old guard within the so-called Grace Movement is less than thrilled with many of the teachings of the Grace Life movement on prayer, confession of sins, God's will, intervention, and chastisement to name a few.

Critics of the Pure Grace position have accused those who believe in the principles of the Grace Life of being Deists. The purpose of this new series of postings is to consider whether or not supporters of the Grace Alternatives are in fact Deists. In order to pursue this analysis, we will first outline the fundamental differences between supporters of the Grace Life doctrines and other mid-Acts dispensationalists. Second, we will define and explain the basic tenants of Deism. Third, we will compare the beliefs of the Grace Life with those of Deists in an attempt to answer out fundamental question: are Grace Lifers Deists?

Endnotes:

1. II Corinthians 4:4
   
2. Genesis 2:16
   
3. Genesis 3:17
   

By Him All Things Consist

In Colossians 1:16-17, the Apostle Paul writes, "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17) And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." According to Paul, not only did Christ create all of the governmental structures of heaven and earth but by Christ all things consist. Webster's 1828 Dictionary, offers the following definition for the word consist, "to stand together; to be in a fixed or permanent state, as a body composed of parts in union or connection. Hence, to be; to exist; to subsist; to be supported and maintained." Jesus Christ continues to support, maintain, or hold together that which he created. In other words, Christ is the connective glue that holds the universe together according to the revelation given to Paul.

Have you ever heard of Laminin? Laminin is the protein enzyme that holds the human body together. It holds your bones together and keeps your skin from sliding off your body. Last fall, one of the saints from our assembly send me the link to the following video. I have been saving it for a week when I did not have much time to write. Please watch this video in light of the doctrine presented in Colossians 1:16-17. I think you will be amazed.


I am aware that Louie Giglio is not a mid-Acts dispensationalist or a supporter of the King James position.

The Psalmist is still correct, "the fool hath said in his heart there is not God." Not only did Christ preexist his creation, but it is only through him that all things consist. Once again science proves the Bible to be correct.

Stay tuned next week for the beginning of a new series of articles titled, Are Grace Lifers Deists?

What is History? Complete Paper

Over the past four months, the postings on this blog have been devoted to discussing how believers should view history. Our journey began by summarizing the difference between the chaotic, cyclical, and linear views of time. In short, we conclude that chaotic and cyclical time alone where not sufficient models for conceptualizing history. In addition, we demonstrated how linearism is the main Biblical paradigm for historical investigation. Furthermore, we studied how God is the author of seasonal cyclicality, as well as time's linear progression toward His prophesied end. In summary, we argued that any historical paradigm that does not account for both linearism and cyclicality is incomplete.

The second part of these postings was dominated by a discussion of whether or not history can be objectivity known. In this section, we surveyed commonly held objections to the knowability of history. Answers to these objections were also provided in this section, proving that history can be objectively known.

Finally, we summarized the importance of history to the Christan Worldview; in addition to proving the historical reliability of the Biblical documents themselves. In the end, all of these individual postings were combined and edited to read like one continuous essay, complete with a title and works cited page. If you would like access to the entire essay please click on the title link below.

What Is History? How Should Believers View History? by Bryan C. Ross

What is History? The Historical Reliability of the Bible, Part 3

The Incredible Accuracy of Luke

In last week's posting, we demonstrated by comparing scripture with scripture, that the book of Acts was the second part of a two part history addressed to Theophilus. In Luke 1:1-3, we read the following:

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2) Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3) It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

A careful reading of this passage ought to highlight the following points. First, Luke interviewed eyewitnesses who were present from the beginning of the events recorded. Second, Luke's goal is to present a chronological record of the events as they were commonly believed. While the Gospel of Luke is written to present Christ as the son of man, it also doubles as a chronological history of the life of Christ. When coupled with Acts, the Gospel of Luke takes its reader from the annunciation of the Christ's birth all the way through to Paul imprisonment in Rome in Acts 28. Considering that Luke did not write by his own will or in his own words, but rather the words of God under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,(1) the foolishness of doubting these events becomes clear.

Despite the insatiable cries of Biblical skeptics and correctors, Luke's reliability as a historian is unquestionable. Merrill Unger, author of Archaeology and the New Testament, informs his readers that archeology has authenticated the gospel accounts, particularly the writings of Luke. Commenting on the book of Acts, Unger writes, "The Acts of the Apostles is now generally agreed in scholarly circles to be the work of Luke, to belong to the first century and to involve the labors of a careful historian who was substantially accurate in his use of sources."(2) Likewise, after conducting thirty years of research into the accuracy of Luke's writings, historian Sir William Ramsay concluded that, "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy. . .this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians."(3)

Classical scholar and Roman historian Colin Hemer chronicles Luke's accuracy as a historian in his landmark book, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Hemer identifies eighty-four facts in the last sixteen chapters of Acts that have been confirmed by historical and archeological research:

1. the natural crossing between correctly named ports (Acts 13:4-5)
   
2. the proper port (Perga) along the direct destination of a ship crossing from Cyprus (13:13)
   
3. the proper location of Lycaonia (Acts 14:6)
   
4. the unusual but correct declension of the name Lystra (14:6)
   
5. the correct language spoke in Lystra—Lycaonian (14:11)
   
6. to god known to be so associated-Jupiter and Mercurious (14:12)
   
7. the proper port, Attalia, which returning travelers would use (14:25)
   
8. the correct order of approach to Derbe and then Lystra from the Cilician Gates (16:1, cf. 15:41)
   
9. the proper form of the name Troas (16:8)
   
10. the place of a conspicuous sailors' landmark, Samothrace (16:11)
    
11. the proper description of Philippi as a Roman colony (16:12)
    
12. the right location of the river (Gangites) near Philippi (16:13)
    
13. the proper association of Thyatira as a center of dyeing (16:14)
    
14. correct designations for the magistrates of the colony (16:22)
    
15. the proper locations (Amphipolis and Apollonia) where travelers would spend successive night on this journey (17:1)
    
16. the presence of a synagogue in Thessalonica (17:1)
    
17. the proper term "politrarchs" used for the magistrates there (17:6)
    
18. the correct implication that sea travel is most convenient way of reaching Athens, with the favoring east winds of summer sailing (14:14-15)
    
19. the abundant idols in Athens (17:16)
    
20. the reference to the synagogue in Athens (17:17)
    
21. the depiction of the Athenian life of philosophical debate in the Agora (17:17)
    
22. the use of the correct Athenian slang word for Paul, a babbler (spermologos, 17:18) as well as the court Areopagus (17:19)
    
23. the proper characterization of the Athenian character (17:21)
    
24. an altar to the "unknown god" (17:23)
    
25. the proper reaction of Greek philosophers, who denied the bodily resurrection (17:32)
    
26. Areopagites as the correct title for a member of the court (17:34)
    
27. a Corinthian synagogue (18:4)
    
28. the correct designation of Gallio as proconsul, resident in Corinth (18:12)
    
29. the bema (judgment seat), which overlooks Corinth's forum (18:16)
    
30. the name of Tyrannus as attested from Ephesus in first-century inscriptions (19:9)
    
31. well-known shrines and images of Diana (19:24)
    
32. the well-attested "great goddess Diana" (19:27)
    
33. that the Ephesians theater was the meeting place of the city (19:29)
    
34. the correct titled grammateus for the chief executive magistrate in Ephesus (19:35)
    
35. the proper title of honor neokoros, authorized by the Romans (19:35)
    
36. the correct name to designate the goddess (19:37)
    
37. the proper term for those holding court (19:38)
    
38. use of the plural anthupatoi, perhaps a remarkable reference to the fact that two men were conjointly exercising the function of proconsul at this time (19:38)
    
39. the "regular" assembly, as the precise phrase is attested elsewhere (19:39)
    
40. use of precise ethnic designation, beraiaios (20:4)
    
41. employment of the ethnic term Asianos (20:4)
    
42. the implied recognition of the strategic importance assigned to the city of Troas (20:7)
    
43. the danger of the coastal trip in this location (20:13)
    
44. the correct sequence of places (20:14-15)
    
45. the correct name of the city (21:1)
    
46. the appropriate rout passing across the open sea south of Cyprus favored by persistent northeast winds (21:3)
    
47. the suitable distance between these cities (21:8)
    
48. a characteristically Jewish act of piety (21:24)
    
49. the Jewish law regarding Gentile use of the temple area (21:18)
    
50. the permanent stationing of a Roman cohort at Antonia to suppress any disturbance at festival times (21:31)
    
51. the flight of steps used by the guards (21:31, 35)
    
52. the common way to obtain Roman citizenship at this time (22:28)
    
53. the tribune being impressed with Roman rather than Tarsian citizenship (22:39)
    
54. Ananias being high priest at this time (23:2)
    
55. Felix being governor at this time (23:34)
    
56. the natural stopping point on the way to Caesarea (23:31)
    
57. whose jurisdiction Cilicia was in at the time (23:34)
    
58. the provincial penal procedure of the time (24:1-9)
    
59. the name of Festus, which agrees precisely with that given by Josephus (24:27)
    
60. the right of appeal as Roman citizens (25:11)
    
61. the correct legal formula (25:18)
    
62. the characteristic form of reference to the emperor at the time (25:26)
    
63. the best shipping lanes at the time (27:5)
    
64. the common bonding of Cilicia and Pamphylia (27:4)
    
65. the principal port to find a ship to Italy (27:5-6)
    
66. the slow passage to Cnidus, in the face of the typical north-west wind (27:7)
    
67. the right rout to sail in view of the winds (27:7)
    
68. the locations of Fair Havens and the neighboring site of Lasea (27:8)
    
69. Fair Havens as a poorly sheltered roadstead (27:12)
    
70. a noted tendency of a south wind in these climes to back suddenly into a violent northeaster (27:13)
    
71. the nature of a square-rigged ancient ship, having no option but to drive before a gale (27:15)
    
72. the precise place and name of this island (27:16)
    
73. the appropriate maneuvers for the safety of the ship in its particular plight (27:16)
    
74. the fourteenth night—a remarkable calculation, based inevitably on a compounding of estimates and probabilities confirmed in the judgment of experienced Mediterranean navigators (27:27)
    
75. the proper term of the time for the Adriatic (27:27)
    
76. the precise term (Bolisantes) for taking soundings, and the correct depth of the water near Malta (27:28)
    
77. a position that suits the probable line of approach of a ship released to run before an easterly wind (27:39)
    
78. the severe liability of guards who permitted a prisoner to escape (27:42)
    
79. the local people and superstitions of the day (28:4-6)
    
80. the proper title Publius (28:7)
    
81. Rhegium as a refuge to await a southerly wind to carry them through the straight (28:13)
    
82. Appii Forum and Tres Tabernae as correctly placed stopping places on the Appian Way (28:15)
    
83. appropriate means of custody with Roman soldiers (28:16)
    
84. the conditions of imprisonment, living "at his own expense" (28:30-31)(4)
    

The accuracy of the preceding list is quite astounding when one considers that Luke recorded these details without the aid of modern GPS, maps, or nautical charts. Can there be any doubt that Luke was an eyewitness to the events he records or at least possessed access to eyewitness testimony, not to mention the knowledge of the Holy Spirit himself? In short, Luke's use of geographical details, specialized knowledge of nautical details, and specific local knowledge testify to the historical reliability of his writings.

Simply stated, the historicity of the book of Acts is confirmed by overwhelming evidence. As one might expect, this reality makes skeptics rather unconformable. In the same book that Luke reports eighty-four historically confirmed details, he also records a total of thirty-five miracles. To make matters worse for the skeptics, many of these miracles are recorded in the second half of the book of Acts within the same historical narrative that has been verified extra Biblically. For example, Luke records the following Pauline miracles:

• temporarily blinded a sorcerer (13:11)
  
• cured a man who was crippled from birth (14:8)
  
• exorcized an evil spirit from a possessed girl (16:18)
  
• performed many miracles that convinced many in the city of Ephesus to turn from sorcery to Jesus (19:11-20)
  
• raised a man from the dead who had died after falling out a window during a long-winded lecture (20:9-10)
  
• healed Publius's father of dysentery, and healed numerous others who were sick on Malta (28:8-9)(5)
  

Dr. Norman Geisler offers the following assessment of the situation, "in light of the fact that Luke has proven accurate with so many trivial details, it is nothing but pure anti-supernatural bias to say he's not telling the truth about the miracles he records."(6)

Nothing from antiquity compares with the amount of detailed confirmation that exists for the historical reliability for the book of Acts. Not only does this offer direct confirmation of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, it also indirectly proves the historical reliably of the Gospel of Luke. Paralleling Matthew and Mark, the evidence suggests that all three of the so-called synoptic gospels were written before 60 A.D., within thirty years after the death of Jesus.(7)

It is only a foolish heart attitude that would doubt the historical reliability of the Bible. As we said in Part One of this posting two weeks ago, "if Christians can demonstrate that the Bible is truthful in all areas in which it can be validated, we have before us the most powerful and compelling evidence for the truthfulness of Christianity."(8) After weighing the evidence, any reasonable person must accept the Bible as God's chosen medium for revealing spiritual truth to humanity. The Bible alone can sustain its truth claims in any area in which it can be investigated; therefore, it is reasonable to trust the Bible in the arena of spiritual truth.

Endnotes:

1. II Timothy 3:16, II Peter 1:21
   
2. Merrill, F. Unger. Archaeology and the New Testament. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1962), 24.
   
3. William Ramsay. The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915), 222.
   
4. Colin Hemer. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990).
   
5. Norman Geisler. I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004), 260.
   
6. Ibid., 60.
   
7. Norman Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 8.
   
8. Dan Story. Defending Your Faith: How to Answer the Tough Questions. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1992), 34.
   

What is History? The Historical Reliability of the Bible Part 2

Reliability of the New Testament

When it comes to the historical reliability of the New Testament, the bibliographical evidence alone is astounding. There are more extant (existing) manuscripts that bear witness to the readings of the New Testament than for any other document from antiquity. More than 24,000 partial and complete New Testament manuscripts are in existence today compared with only 643 copies of Homer's Iliad.(1) Other famous works from antiquity have even less textual evidence than Homer. For example, the writings of Plato, Pliny the Younger, Thucydides, Herodotus, and Caesar have fewer than two dozen surviving copies.(2) "In addition, to the Greek manuscripts themselves there are over 86,000 patristic (church fathers) quotations from the New Testament and several thousand lectionaries (early church-service books containing selected Scripture readings) dating from the earliest centuries of the church."(3) In fact, from these sources alone, one is able to reconstruct the entire text of the New Testament with the exception of only eleven verses from materials that date within 150 to 200 years of the life of Christ.(4)

Not only does the available manuscript evidence for the New Testament dwarf secular works, the amount of time that transpired between the events themselves and their written record is incomparable. The time span between authorship and extant copies for the New Testament is shorter than for any other document from antiquity. While scholars differ on when the New Testament documents were written, there is virtually unanimous agreement, including even the most liberal scholars that all the books of the New Testament were written by 100 A.D., approximately 70 years after Jesus death.(5) Christian apologists have referenced the fact that Luke does not discuss in the book of Acts the destruction of the temple in 70A.D. by the Romans as proof that Acts was completed in the early 60's A.D.(6)

Using the traditional dating presented by Ussher in The Scofield Reference Bible, Luke finished the book of Acts in 63 A.D. This date is significant for many reasons. First, most of Paul's epistles were written during the Acts period including the Prison Epistles which he wrote under house arrest in Rome as recorded in Acts 28. This is significant because it dates the documents by the New Testament's most prolific writer within thirty years of the life of Christ. Second, according to Acts 1:1, the book of Acts is the second portion of a two part history addressed to Theophilus. By comparing scripture with scripture, it is clear that the first edition of this treatise addressed to Theophilus was the book of Luke. Luke 1:3 records the following, "It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus." If Luke finished the book of Acts in 63 A.D. that means that the gospel of Luke had to have been written first, thereby conclusively proving that the gospel accounts themselves were written within 30 years of the death of Christ. Based upon the authority of Colossians 1:25, this author believes that when Paul penned his last epistle, II Timothy, in 66 A.D. that the cannon of the New Testament was complete.(7)

Once again, no other religious document compares to the New Testament in terms of the space of time between when the events occurred and when they were first written down. For example, "the teachings of Buddha were not recorded until five hundred years after his death."(8) Likewise, when one compares the amount of time between the events recorded and the earliest available textual witnesses, the New Testament is infinitely more historically reliable than any other work of antiquity. Consider that Homer's Iliad was originally written in 900 B.C. while the earliest surviving copy dates around 400 B.C., resulting in a time span of 500 years. On the other hand, the New Testament which was written between 40-90 A.D. depending on whose dating you use, has early textual witnesses that date around 125 A.D., a time span of less than 100 years.(9) In The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell documents the same reality for eight other leading ancient works. Dan Story offers the following summation of the situation, "In the case of the New Testament, unlike other ancient works, whether secular or religious, not enough time elapsed between when Jesus spoke and when His words were recorded to allow for misrepresentation or the development of legendary material about him."(10) The central point here is that despite the attempts of heretics in the 1^st century to corrupt the word of God (II Corinthians 2:17), when compared with other classical works, the Bible stands alone in terms of the time gap between when the events recorded occurred and their manuscript witnesses.

The fact that the New Testament was written by eyewitness to the events recorded stands out as a third proof for the historical reliability of the New Testament. In short, the New Testament possesses primary source value. "The New Testament Gospels were written either by eyewitnesses to the events in Christ's life (Matthew and John) or by men who knew and interviewed eyewitnesses (Mark and Luke)."(11) Paul, having seen the risen and glorified Christ, along with the other authors of the New Testament, was careful to note this first-hand, eyewitness testimony as verification of authenticity. Consider the following examples:

• Luke 1:1-3--
  Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2) Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3) It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
  
• John 19:35--
  And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
  
• John 20:30-31--
  And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31) But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
  
• Acts 10:39-42--
  And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: 40) Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; 41) Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. 42) Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
  
• I Corinthians 15:6-8--
  After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7) After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8) And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
  
• I Peter 5:1--
  The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
  
• II Peter 1:16-- For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
  
• I John 1:1-3--
  That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2) For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) 3) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
  

In addition, the New Testament writers appealed not only to their own observations but also to those of their readers and listeners even when the witnesses were hostile (Acts 2:22, 26:24-28).(12)

Paul and the other New Testament writers appealed to the testimony of eyewitnesses because people who knew Jesus and had observed his miracles were still alive when the New Testament was being written. This allowed critics and skeptics to openly refute the truth claims of the Biblical writers. The fact that not a single piece of historical information surfaced during the first century to refute the miraculous birth, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is proof that the New Testament documents are historically reliable.13)

Have you ever noticed how no one questions whether Plato, Caesar, or Homer have been properly understood? Yet the Bible is criticized by academia as being historically inaccurate and unreliable. All of this demonstrates the bias of unsaved scholarship against the Bible and its central message. Simply stated, the Bible is the most trustworthy historical document from antiquity. "If the Bible is thrown out as unreliable and the critics' standards remain constant when evaluating the truth-claims of other ancient books, then virtually all other books from antiquity must be discarded as unreliable."(14) In conclusion, "there is more evidence for the reliability of the text of the New Testament as an accurate reflection of what was initially written than there is for any ten pieces of classical literature put together. . . [the Bible is] also in better textual shape than the thirty-seven plays of William Shakespeare written in the seventeenth century, after the invention of printing."(15)

Endnotes:

1. Josh McDowell. The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 34.
   
2. Ibid., 38.
   
3. Dan Story. Defending Your Faith: How to Answer the Though Questions. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1992), 38.
   
4. Ibid., 38-39.
   
5. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004), 235.
   
6. Ibid., 237-239.
   
7. Colossians 1:25—"Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God." The word "fulfil" in this verse means to complete. Given the immediate context, Paul is saying that when the revelation of the mystery concerning the Dispensation of Grace is finished, the word of God will also be fulfilled or complete. Therefore, according to the witness of God the Holy Spirit, Paul's writing complete the New Testament cannon not John's.
   
8. Story. Defending Your Faith: How to Answer the Though Questions. 40.
   
9. McDowell. The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. 38.
   
10. Story. Defending Your Faith: How to Answer the Though Questions. 40-41.
    
11. Ibid., 43.
    
12. Ibid., 43.
    
13. Ibid., 44.
    
14. Ibid., 47.
    
15. Josh McDowell. A Ready Defense. (San Bernadino, CA: Here's Life, 1990), 24.
    

What is History? The Historical Reliability of the Bible Part 1

Christian apologists and historians have spilt much ink documenting the historical reliability of both the Old and New Testament. Works such as Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell, among scores of others, have adequately and conclusively documented the historical reliability of the Bible. Dan Story, author of Defending Your Faith: How to Answer the Tough Questions, summarizes the evidence documented by McDowell by observing: “If Christians can demonstrate that the Bible is truthful in all areas in which it can be validated, we have before us the most powerful and compelling evidence for the truthfulness of Christianity. Every apologetic argument rests on the reliability of the Bible, including the deity and resurrection of Jesus Christ.”(1)

Reliability of the Old Testament

In the interest of brevity, we will look at the arguments presented by Dan Story as a tool to summarize the reams of information available on this topic. Story offers the following three proofs for the reliability of the Old Testament: the transmission of the text, archeology, and fulfilled prophecy. Old Testament scribes from the Hebrew tribe of Levi knew they were copying God’s word and therefore went to great lengths to ensure accuracy by counting every line, word, syllable, and letter.(2) Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947, the oldest existing Hebrew copy of the Old Testament was the Masoretic Text dated around 900 A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls have been dated almost a thousands years earlier than the Masoretic Text, around 150 B.C. The Dead Sea Scrolls, which contain two complete copies of Isaiah as well as fragments from virtually every other Old Testament book, were word for word identical to the Masoretic Text in over 95 percent of the readings.(3) The minimal variations that did exist were comprised of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.(4) For believers in God’s providential preservation of the scriptures the preceding information is historical proof of preservation, our Old Testament is exactly the same as it was when originally inspired by God.

Nelson Glueck, author of Rivers in the Desert, informs his readers that “no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference.”(5) Time and again, the archaeologist’s spade has confirmed Biblical events, customs, cities, and nations mentioned in the Old Testament that skeptics had dismissed as mythological.(6) Dan Story offers the following summary of the archaeological reliability of the Old Testament:

• Archaeology has proven that Israel derives its ancestry from Mesopotamia, as the Bible teaches (Genesis 11:27-12:24).
• Archaeology suggests that the world’s languages likely arose from a common origin, as Genesis 11 teaches.
• Jericho, and several other cities mentioned in the Old Testament, previously thought to be legendary by skeptics, have been discovered by archaeologists.
• Bible critics used to claim that the Hittite civilization mentioned in Genesis did not exist at the time of Abraham because there was not record of it apart from the Old Testament. However, archaeology has discovered that it not only existed but lasted more than 1,200 years. Now you can get a doctorate in Hittite studies from the University of Chicago.
• Social customs and stories in the Old Testament credited to the time of the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) are in harmony with archeological discoveries, casting additional light on the historical accuracy of the Biblical record.(7)

In short, every time the Bible has been checked against extra-biblical sources, the scriptural report has been corroborated, thereby proving the accuracy of the Bible.(8)

“One of the strongest evidences that the Bible is inspired by God is its predictive prophecy.”(9) Unlike any other religious documents, the Bible offers over two thousand fulfilled prophecies that validate its historical claims. The specific nature of these predictions cannot be ignored. They deal with the birth, life, and death of Jesus Christ, the nation of Israel, gentile nations (Babylon, Media-Persia, Greece, and Rome), cities (Jerusalem, Sidon, and Babylon), and individual people (Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus). In The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell chronicles 61 Old Testament prophecies that were fulfilled in Jesus Christ.(10) In his book reviewed by the American Scientific Affiliation, Science Speaks, Peter Stoner comments on the mathematical probability that any man up to the present time might have fulfilled just eight of the sixty-one prophecies covered by McDowell. Stoner writes, “We find the chance that any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled all eight prophecies is 1 in 1017. That would be 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000.” In order to comprehend this staggering probability Stoner offers the following illustration:

If we take 1017 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They will
cover all the state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars
and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man
and tell him that he can travel as far as he wished, but he must pick up one
silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance does he have
of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets had of
writing eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man, from
their day to the present time, providing they wrote them according to their own
wisdom.(11)

When one considers the probability of forty-eight Old Testament prophecies being fulfilled in one person, the odds increase to 1 in 10157, according to Stoner.(12) Compared to the Biblical prophets, the highly revered seer Nostradamus can only be viewed as a false prophet. Contrary to tabloid claims, Nostradamus never predicted the place or year of a single earthquake nor do his vague prophecies regarding the rise of Hitler compare to the astounding accuracy and specificity of the Biblical prophets.(13)

Based upon the available manuscript and archeological evidence, as well as the compelling testimony of fulfilled prophecy, there is no reason for any fair-minded person to doubt the historical reliability of the Old Testament.

Endnotes:
1) Dan Story. Defending Your Faith: How to Answer the Tough Questions. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1992), 34.
2) Ibid., 35.
3) Gleason L. Archer. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1974), 25.
4) Ibid., 25.
5) Nelson Glueck. Rivers in the Desert. (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publications Society of America, 1969), 31.
6) Story. Defending Your Faith: How to Answer the Tough Questions. 36.
7) Ibid., 36.
8) For additional reading on the archeological evidences for the historical reliability of the Bible, consult the following works, Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Clifford A. Wilson, Rocks, Relics, and Biblical Reliability, Edwin Yamauchi, The Stones and the Scriptures.
9) Norman Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker Books, 1999), 609.
10) Josh McDowell. The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 168-192.
11) Peter Stoner. Science Speaks. (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1963), 100-107.
12) Ibid., 109-110.
13) Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 615.

The Case For Christmas with Lee Strobel

Bryan is aware that Lee Strobel is not a King James Bible believer or a mid-Acts Dispensationalist. However, Bryan finds many of his apologetic arguments interesting and useful. Please enjoy these video clips from Lee Strobel's presentation on The Case For Christmas. Merry Christmas from the saints at Grace Life Bible Church.

What is History? A Response to Historical Relativism, Part 2

Note: This is part two of the article posted from last week.

Response to the Metaphysical (Worldview) Objections

While every historian has a worldview through which he interprets events, this reality alone does not render objective history impossible.

Response to the Problem of Arranging Materials

The past is not distorted simply because the historian must arrange his materials. Since neither the historian or the geologist was present for the original events, it is necessary to reconstruct the past based upon the available evidence. However, reconstruction does not automatically equate with revision. It is true that every historian needs to arrange his material, but this can occur without neglecting significant matters. As long as the historian incorporated consistently and comprehensively all the significant events in accordance with the way things really were, then objectivity would be lost.(1) Objectivity is distorted when facts are either neglected or twisted on purpose by the historian. Simply arranging materials does not undermine objectivity assuming it is done honestly.

Response to the Problem of Structuring Materials

"Those who argue against the objectivity of history apart from an overall worldview must be granted the point, for without a worldview it makes no sense to talk about objective meaning."(2) Without a context meaning cannot be determined, and context is provided by the worldview and not the mere facts themselves. All of this points to the necessity of establishing a worldview in order to achieve objectivity. Without a metaphysical structure, one is simply arguing in a circle regarding the assumed causal connection and the attributed importance of events.(3) To assert that facts have internal arrangement begs the question, "How does one know the correct arrangement?"

As we have already seen, since historical facts can be arranged in at least three ways (chaotic, cyclical, and linear), it is fallacious to assume that one of these structures is the way the facts should be arranged without the aid of an overriding worldview. Consequently, objective meaning in history cannot be established without appealing to a particular worldview for guidance.(4) If facts alone could produce objectivity the best they could do is provide only the what of history. But objective meaning deals with the why of these events, which is impossible apart from a structure of meaning in which the facts may find significance. Dr. Norman Geisler offers the following proof that objective meaning apart from worldview is impossible:

Nevertheless, granted that there is justification for adopting a theistic worldview, the objective meaning of history become possible, for within the theistic context each fact of history become a theistic fact. Given the factual order of events and the known causal connection of events, the possibility of objective meaning surfaces. The chaotic and cyclical frameworks are eliminated in favor of the linear, and within the linear view of events causal connections emerge as the result of their context in a theistic universe. Theism provides the sketch on which history paints the complete picture. The pigments of mere fact take on real meaning as they are blended together on the theistic sketch. In this context, objectivity means systematic consistency; that is, the most meaningful way all the facts of history can be blended together into the whole theistic sketch is what really happened—historical facts.(5)

Response to the Problem of Miracles

Despite having proven that objective history is possible, many historians object to any history that contains miracles, which is a problem for the Christian view of history. The famous skeptic David Hume wrote that no testimony about alleged miracles should be accepted if it contradicts the uniform testimony of nature.(6) If one defines a miracle as a special act of God, and God does exist, than miracles are possible. Therefore, any alleged historical paradigm that excludes miracles is faulty.(7) Second, Hume's assessment assumes a naturalistic interpretation of all historical events. Hume's is a methodological exclusion of the possibility of accepting miracles in history which in the end reaches too far.(8) According to Richard Whately, Hume's uniform dismissal of the possibility of miracles not only excludes the possibility of miracles but any unusual events from the past.(9)

For the purpose of illustration, consider the following regarding the career of Napoleon Bonaparte. There can be little doubt that the odds against Napoleon's success were extremely high:

His prodigious army was destroyed in Russia, and a few months later he led a different army in Germany that likewise was ruined at Leipzig. However, the French supplied him with yet another army sufficient to make a formidable stand in France—this was repeated five times until at last he was confined to an island.(10)

While no one doubts that this chain of events is highly improbable, there is no compelling reason to doubt the historicity of Napoleon's exploits. Contrary to scientific demands, history is not dependent upon universal and repeatable experimentation. Rather it stands on the sufficiency of good testimony for unrepeatable events. Likewise with miracles, it is an unjustifiable mistake in historical methodology to assume that no unusual and particular event can be believed no matter how great the evidence for it. An honest historian must be open to the possibility of unique and particular events in the past whether they are miracouls or not.(11)

While God is not currently working miracles during the Dispensation of Grace, miracles have happened in history but are not the result of history. This reality is consistent with a theistic worldview and does not subvert historical objectivity.

Response to the Psychological Objection

Critics of the New Testament constantly assert that the religious motivations of the Gospel writers cancel their ability to present an objective historical report. As we saw previously, the gospel writers are routinely accused of creating the words of Jesus in their own terms rather than simply reporting them. Dr. Geisler offers the following ten reasons for why this assertion is without foundation:

First, there is no logical connection between one's purpose and the accuracy of the history he writes. People with no religious motives can write bad history, and people with religious motives can write good history.

Second, other important writers from the ancient world wrote with motives similar to the Gospel authors. Plutarch (46 A.D.), for example declared, "My design was not to write histories, but lives."

Third, complete religious propaganda literature, such as some critics see the New Testament, was actually unknown in the ancient world.

Fourth, unlike other early accounts, the Gospels were written, at a maximum, only decades after the events. Many other secular writings, such as those of Livy (59/64 B.C.-A.D. 17) and Plutarch, were recorded centuries after the events.

Fifth, as shown above, the historical confirmation of New Testament writings is overwhelming. So the argument that their religious purpose destroyed their ability to write good history is simply contrary to the facts.

Sixth, the New Testament writes take great care to distinguish there words from the words of Christ. . . This act of distinguishing reveals their honest attempt to separate what Jesus actually said form their own thoughts and feelings on the mater.

Seventh, in spite of the religious purpose of Luke's gospel (Luke 1:4, Acts 1:1), he states a clear interest for historical accuracy, which has been overwhelming corroborated by archaeology (see Luke 1:1-4).

Eighth, the existence of religious bias is no guarantee of historical inaccuracy. A writer can recognize his own bias and avoid its crippling effects. If this were not so, then even people with nonreligious (or anit-religious) biases could not write accurate history.

Ninth, the New Testament is confirmed to be historical by the same criteria applied to other ancient writings. Thus, this criticism either misses the mark or else it destroys all ancient histories.

Tenth, if the historicity of an event must be denied because of the strong motivation of the person giving it, then virtually all eyewitness testimony from survivors of the holocaust must be discounted. But this is absurd, since these people provide the best evidence of all. Likewise, a physician's passion to save his patient's life does not negate his ability to make an objective diagnosis of his disease, nor do an author's religious motives nullify his ability to record accurate history.(12)

Response to the Hermeneutical Objection

There are several basic reasons why this argument completely fails to demonstrate that objective history is not possible.

The Relativity Argument Presupposes Some Objective Knowledge

There is a big difference between arguing about the interpretation of historical facts and quit asserting that there are no historical facts to argue about. Historical relativists presuppose objective knowledge while arguing that objective knowledge does not exist. First, in speaking about the need to select and arrange the facts of history, subjectivists imply that the facts represent objective knowledge in and of themselves.(13) Second, "the very fact that relativist believe one's worldview can distort how one views history implies that there is a correct way to view it."(14)

Total Historical Relativity is Self-Defeating

How does one know that history is completely unknowable without claiming to know something about it? How could one know that all historical knowledge was relative without possessing some objective knowledge of it? Having seen the logical end of relativism, some historians have hedged slightly by arguing that history is only partially relative. Once one opens the door to even partial objectivity, one cannot claim to have eliminated in principle the possibility that the Christian claims are historically knowable.(15) Moreover, partial relativism does not eliminate the historical verifiability of Christianity since there is more evidence for the central truths of Christianity than for almost any other event from the ancient world. In summation, total historical relativism is self-defeating, and partial historical relativism admits verifiable truths.(16)

Conclusion

The details of many other arguments against historical relativism could also be cited, but the core of these positions has already been examined and found wanting. These arguments include the following: historical relativists attempt objective history themselves, an ability to recognize bad history implies objective knowledge, and historians employ normal objective standards. Some may be wondering why we went through all the trouble to outline and respond to objections against the objectivity of history. Believers must always remember that Christianity is a historical faith that is built upon the historicity of Christ's life, ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection. As we said in the article entitled, The Importance of History to the Christian Worldview, our faith rises or falls based upon the historicity of the New Testament documents. As believers we need to be prepared to give a defense when our faith is skeptically challenged. We ought not to allow those who would reject the knowablity of history to thwart the defense and confirmation of the gospel. While charges of myth are often levied against the Christian view of history, these charges need not trip believers up. As we have demonstrated, history can be as objective as science.

Endnotes:

1) Norman Geisler. Systematic Theology: Volume One. (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2002), 194.

2) Ibid., 194.

3) Ibid., 194.

4) Ibid., 195.

5) Ibid., 195-196.

6) Norman Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 327.

7) Ibid., 327.

⁸⁾ Ibid., 327.

9) Richard Whateley. Historical Doubts Concerning the Existence of Napoleon Bonapart.

10) Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 327.

11) Ibid., 327.

12) Geisler. Systematic Theology: Volume One. 199-200.

13) Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 328.

14) Geisler. Systematic Theology: Volume One. 201.

15) Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 328.

16) Geisler. Systematic Theology: Volume One. 201.

 

What is History? Response to Historical Relativism Part 1

Over the past two weeks we have discussed the objections levied against the objectivity of history by the historical relativists. While the outlook for the knowability of history may look bleak at this point, the door is by no means shut on this question. Problems abound within the arguments postulated by historical subjectivists, and over the next two weeks we will focus our attention on answering the objections raised by the historical relativists. In the end, both the knowability of history and the historicity of Christianity will be vindicated.

Response to the Epistemological Objections

In seeking to deconstruct the assertions made by those who argue that history is not knowable an elementary mistake in reasoning becomes apparent. How can the relativist really know that everyone's knowledge of history is not objective unless one had an objective knowledge of it, by which they could determine that all other views were in fact not objective? As a result, it is not difficult to see that the basic premise of the relativist's entire argument is self-defeating. It does not pass its own standard for determining truth. One cannot claim that objective history is not possible without also asserting to have an objective knowledge of history.

Response to the Problem of Unobservability of Historical Events

How one defines the word objective is very important in answering those who doubt that history can be objectively known. If by objective one means absolute knowledge, then no human historian writing under his own power can be objective. However, if objective means an accurate and adequate presentation that reasonable men and women should accept, then the door is open to the possibility of objectivity.(1)

If one accepts the latter definition presented above, than history is no less objective than some of the other so-called empirical sciences. For example, paleontology or historical geology, a science which deals with physical facts and processes of the past, is widely considered one of the most objective of all the sciences.(2) This is somewhat curious since the events represented by the fossil record are no more observable or repeatable than historical events are for the historian. Dr. Norman Geisler offers the following assessment of the situation:

The fossil is a mechanically true imprint of the original event and the eyewitness of history may be less precise. But natural processes also can mar the fossil imprint. At least if one can determine the integrity and reliability of the eyewitness, one cannot slam the door on the possibility of objectivity in history any more than on objectivity in geology.(3)

A scientist might counter that the processes of the past can be repeated by experimentation in the present whereas historical events cannot. Once again this argument is not entirely correct since we have shown earlier that while God is advancing history forward in linear fashion towards its prophesied end, cyclical patters do occur along history's linear plane. Therefore, history does repeat itself to some degree. "In short, the historian no less that the scientist, has the tools for determining what really happened in the past. The lack of direct access does not hinder one more than the other."(4)

Finally, it should be noted if either the historian or the geologist takes "fact" to mean the original event than neither possess any facts. As a result, "fact" must be taken to mean information about the original event and as such they are not the subjective imaginations of the historian. Facts are objective data whether anyone reads them or not. Consequently, there remains both for science and history a sold core of objective facts because whatever meaning or interpretation one chooses to ascribe to the facts, the data is not eliminated. In fact, if there where no objective historical facts, one could not distinguish between good history and propaganda.(5) Geisler offers the following summation of this point:

If history is entirely in the mind of the beholder, there is no reason one cannot decide to behold it in any way he desires. In this case there would be no difference between good history and trashy propaganda. But historians, even historical subjectivists recognize the difference. Hence, even they assume an objective knowledge of history.(6)

Response to the Problem of Fragmentary Accounts

The fact that the historical record is fragmentary does not render history unknowable anymore than the fragmentary nature of the fossil record destroys the objectivity of geology. Fossils, like primary sources, represent only a small percentage of the history of all living things. However, this does not keep the geologist from reconstructing a picture of what happened in the past based upon the fossils available in the present. How is this different from the process of writing history? In fact, geologists have been known to reconstruct entire animals and people from only a single bone. One should not be quick to demand that every piece be present before reconstruction is attempted. If one possess key pieces of evidence reconstruction can occur with a measurable degree of probability.(7) "For example, by the principle of bilateral similarity one can assume that the left side of a partial skull would look like the right side that was found."(8)

Despite the recent controversy, history like science is subject to revision only if the discovery of new facts warrants a reinterpretation of events. New finds may provide new facts which call for new interpretations. Consequently, interpretations can neither create facts nor can they ignore them if they wish to remain objective. Therefore, one can conclude that history is not any less objective than geology simply because it depends upon fragmentary accounts.(9) "Scientific knowledge is also partial and depends upon assumptions and an overall framework which may prove to be inadequate upon the discovery of more facts."(10)

In conclusion to this point, consider the following summation by Dr. Geisler. He writes:

Whatever difficulty there may be, from a strictly scientific point of view, in filling the gaps between facts, once one has assumed a philosophical stance toward the world, the problem of objectivity in general is resolved. If there is a God, then the overall picture is already drawn; the facts of history will merely fill in the details of its meaning. If the universe is theistic, the artist's sketch is already known in advance; the detail and coloring will come only as all the facts of history are fit into the overall sketch known to be true from the theistic framework. In the same sense historical objectivity is most certainly possible within a given framework such as a theistic worldview. Objectivity resides in the view that best fits the facts consistently into an overall theistic system which is supported by good evidence.(11)

Response to the Axiological (Value) Objection

Just because everyday language is laden with value judgments does not automatically eliminate the possibility of writing objective history. Objectivity means to be fair in how one deals with the facts; it means to present what occurred in the past as accurately as possible. Furthermore, objectivity means that when the historian interprets why events unfolded as they did, language should ascribe to these events that value they had in their original context. When this is accomplished objectivity is achieved. When viewed in this fashion, historical objectivity demands the making of value judgments. The real question here is not whether value language can be objective but rather whether value statements objectively portray the events the way they really occurred.(12) According to Geisler, "Once the worldview has been determined, value judgments are not undesirable or merely subjective; they are, in fact, essential and objectively required. If this is a theistic world, then it is not objective to place anything but a proper theistic value on the facts of history."(13)

Response to the Methodological Objections

Historical objectivity is not canceled out simply because every historian must employ a methodology when composing history.

Response to the Problem of Historical Conditioning

Every human being does occupy a relative place in the changing events of the spatio-temporal world. As a result, in at least a limited sense, each historian is a product of his time. However, it does not follow that because the historian is a product of his time; his history is also purely a product of the time. Just because a person cannot avoid their relative place in history does not mean they cannot achieve a meaningful degree of objectivity. This objection confuses the content of knowledge and the process one uses in attaining it.(14)

Moreover, if relativity were inevitable, historical relativism is self-defeating, because this view would either be historically conditioned and therefore unobjective or it is not relative but objective. If the latter is correct, the historical relativist must admit that objective history is possible. On the other hand, "if the position of the historical relativism is itself relative, it cannot be taken as objectively true—it is simply subjective opinion."(15) In summary, "if it is a subjective opinion it cannot eliminate the possibility that history is objectively knowable, and if it is an objective fact about history, then objective facts can be now about history."(16) The bottom line is that objectivity is possible, if the first seneario is true objectivity is not eliminated and in the second relativism is self-defeated.(17)

In the end, is not the constant historical revisionism undertaken by modern historian predicated on the assumption that objectivity is possible? In short, there is no basis for doubting the possibility of a high degree of historical objectivity.

Response to the Problem of Selectivity of Materials

Every day in the United States jurors make judgments about the guilt or innocence of their fellow citizens "beyond reasonable doubt" without having all the evidence. One need not know everything in order to know something. No scientist possesses all the facts yet objectivity is routinely claim and applauded. As long as the historian considers the relevant and critical evidence without overlooking important facts, history is no less objective than science. What is necessary is that facts be selected and reconstructed within the context in which the events represented actually transpired. Selectivity is necessary because no historian can account for everything available on a particular subject. As a result, selectivity does not imply distortion.(18)

In the end, since the evidence for the historicity of the New Testament is greater than for any other document from antiquity, it could easily be argued that if the events recorded in Scripture cannot be objectively known, then it is impossible to know anything else from that time period.(19)

Endnotes:

1. Norman Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 323.
   
2. Ibid., 323.
   
3. Ibid., 324.
   
4. Norman Geisler. Systematic Theology: Volume One. (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2002), 190.
   
5. Ibid., 190-191.
   
6. Ibid., 191.
   
7. Ibid., 191.
   
8. Ibid., 191.    
   
9. Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 324.
   
10. Ibid., 324.
    
11. Ibid., 325.
    
12. Geisler. Systematic Theology: Volume One, 192.
    
13. Ibid., 192.
    
14. Ibid., 192.
    
15. Ibid., 193.
    
16. Ibid., 193.
    
17. Ibid., 193.
    
18. Ibid., 193.
    
19. Ibid., 193.
    

 

What is History? Objections to the Objectivity of History Part 2

Previously, we examined the objections to the objectivity of history raised by historical relativists. Epistemological, axiological, and methodological objections were explored in last week’s posting. This week, attention will be given to three other types of objections: metaphysical, psychological, and hermeneutical.

The Metaphysical (Worldview) Objections

Simply stated, the various metaphysical objections to the objectivity of history steam from the notion that one’s worldview colors his perspective of the past.

The Need to Structure the Facts of History

One of the epistemological objections we studied last week dealt with the fragmentary nature of existing historical documents. For the historical subjectivist, this observation leads to the conclusion that our partial knowledge of the past necessitates that we to fill in the gaps or connect the dots between events with our own imagination. Dr. Norman Geisler illustrates this criticism by comparing it with a connect the dot game often found in children’s activity books. Just as the child starts with dot number one and draws lines connecting each dot, thereby rendering a complete image, so too does the historian. However, unlike the child’s activity historians utilize only their imagination in connecting the fragmentary facts, according to historical relativists.(1)

Second, historical subjectivists make a distinction between a chronicle and history. A chronicle is the unrefined source material used by historians to construct history. Here in lies the problem according to the relativist-the historian is not content to tell his readers what happened but feels compelled to explain why it happened. As one might expect, relativists argue that these connective explanations are influenced by the worldview of the historian and therefore are not objective.(2)

The Unavoidability of Worldviews

The second metaphysical objection is similar to the first. Objectivity is compromised because every historian interprets the past within the framework of his own worldview. As discussed in a previous posting there are only three philosophies of history from which the historian can choose, chaotic, cyclical, and linear. Relativists charge that facts occupy a secondary role compared to the philosophy of history chosen by the historian. Rather, one’s faith and philosophical preferences skew their choice of philosophical paradigm. Facts therefore are not allowed to speak for themselves but are given voice based upon the worldview of the historian.(3) Consequently, “if there are several different ways to interpret the same facts, depending on the overall perspective one takes, then there is no single objective interpretation of history.”(4)

The Problem of Miracles

“Even if one grants that secular history could be known objectively, there still remains the problem of the subjectivity of religious history.”(5) Subjectivists argue that since miracles are supernatural there is no way to objectively verify them. This, of course, presents a potential problem for Bible believers because scripture records many miracles including the resurrection of Christ as historical facts. According to relativists, spiritual history has no connection with the spatiotemporal continuum of empirical events, thereby relegating miracles to the category of myths. As a result, any worldview which accepts miracles as valid would render history written from that vantage point not objective. Therefore, relativists argue that “the historian, like the scientist must adopt a methodological skepticism toward all alleged events in the past for which he has not parallel in the present—the present is the foundation of our knowledge of the past.”(6)

The Psychological Objection

At this point the attentive reader has no doubt noticed similarities among the arguments asserted against the knowability of history. The psychological objection is no exception. This argument is once against biased against anyone writing history from a religious point of view. In simple terms, the psychological objection asserts that history written by persons with religious motives cannot be trusted because their religious passions obscure their objectivity. Supporters of this position will commonly say that the New Testament writers cannot be trusted because they sought to recreate what Jesus said and not simply report His sayings. As a result, the Gospels are more reflective of the experiences of Christians than they are an accurate recording to the words and life of Jesus.(7)

The Hermeneutical Objection

In his book, Metahistory, author Hayden White claims that history is poetry. According to this view, history should be treated in the same manner as any other piece of literature. White argues that no history can be written apart from some unifying concept which can only be chosen from one of the following archetypal plot structures: romance, tragedy, comedy, or satire. Since one of these poetic plot structures is not better than the others but merely different, White views all debate about how history should be written as a matter of stylistic variation thereby rendering the entire discussion of historical objectivity moot.(8)

All the objections considered in the last two articles have one thing in common-they all seek to overthrow Christianity by challenging the validly of the faith’s historical underpinnings. Next week, we will begin to present a defense for the objectivity of history against its detractors.

Endnotes:

1)Normal Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 322.
2)Ibid., 322.
3)Norman Geisler. Systematic Theology Volume One. (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2002), 186.
4)Ibid., 187.
5)Ibid., 187.
6)Ibid, 188.
7)Ibid., 188-189.
8)Hayden White. Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-CenturyEurope. 41-42.