Are Grace Lifers Deists? Part Three

What is Deism?

Definition of Terms

Many modern Americans are familiar with the terms Deist or Deism as it relates to the ongoing debate over the religious beliefs of the nation's founders. As products of the Enlightenment, men such as Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and possibly others, relied heavily upon the ideas of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Voltaire, Baron de Montesquieu, and Jean Jacque Rousseau in forming the philosophical foundations of the American form of government. Recent years have seen a massive debate emerge amongst historians over whether George Washington was a Deist or a Christian. Revisionist historians have tried to portray Washington as a card-carrying Deist. In 2006, Peter A. Lillback, wrote a massive book titled, George's Washington's Sacred Fire, in which he seeks to document using Washington's own journals and correspondence as well as other primary sources our first president's deeply rooted Christian faith.

For those unfamiliar with the term, Deism is derived from the Latin word dues which means God. Similarly, theism comes from the Greek word theos which also means God. As the entomology of the word implies, Deism is a form of theism that maintains the belief in a creator God unlike atheism which does not. John Orr, author of English Deism: Its Roots and Its Fruits, outlines the historical connection as well as the point of divergence in how the terms deism and theism have been utilized:

Prior to the 17^th century the terms (Deism and Deist) were used interchangeably with the terms "theism" and "theist," respectively . . .Theologians and philosophers of the seventeenth century began to give a different signification to the words. . .Both (theists and deists) asserted belief in on supreme God, the Creator. . . and agreed that God is personal and distinct from the world. But the theist taught that god remained actively interested in and operative in the word which he had made, whereas Deists maintained that God endowed the world at creation with self-sustaining and self-acting powers and then abandoned it to the operation of these powers acting as second causes.

In summary, Deists are theistic in the sense that they believe in a higher power responsible for creation. However, they are not Christian because they deny God's miraculous intervention within the created order.

To ensure accuracy it is important that we correctly define our terms. Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language offers the following definitions for Deism and Deist:

• Deism: The doctrine or creed of a deist; the belief or system of religious opinions of those who acknowledge the existence of one God, but deny revelation: or deism is the belief in natural religion only, or those truths, in doctrine and practice, which man is to discover by the light of reason, independent and exclusive of any revelation from God. Hence deism implies infidelity or a disbelief in the divine origin of the scriptures.
  
• Deist: One who believes in the existence of a God, but denies revealed religion, but follows the light of nature and reason, as his only guides in doctrine and practice; a freethinker.
  

Utilizing the definitions presented above, Peter A. Lillback, offers the following expanded definition of Deism: "a Deist is one who believes that there is a God, but He far removed from the daily affairs of men. God made the world and then left it to run on its own. The Deist's God does not take an active interest in the affairs of men. He is not a prayer-answering God. Praying to Him has no value. Deism is in some ways the natural outworking of the exalting of reason alone—that is, human reason apart from define revelation."

Historical Development

Deistic thinking has existed since antiquity. "Insofar as deism involved a negative destructive criticism of both supernatural revelations and miracles, it springs from the ancient pagan writers like Celsus and Porphyry." Also fitting Deistic conceptions of the divine was the notion of God as the logos or supreme rational principle that governs the universe as taught by Heraclitus. Likewise, Plato described God as the Demiurge or craftsman.

Despite the presence of Deistic ideas in the ancient world, Deism today is best understood as a movement toward natural theology or freethinking that occurred in 17^th-century Europe. Before 1500, scholars generally decided what was true or false by referring to an ancient Greek or Roman author or to the Bible. Few European scholars challenged the scientific ideas of the ancient thinkers or the church by carefully observing nature for themselves. The publication of On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies, by Nicolaus Copernicus in 1543, began a slow process of questioning old assumptions about knowledge. Based on his observations of the movement of planetary bodies, Copernicus concluded that the sun was center of our solar system and not the earth. Later, Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei used mathematics to prove that the heliocentric theory postulated by Copernicus was correct. Eventually, the work of Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo developed into a logical procedure for gathering and testing ideas known as the scientific method under the leadership of Francis Bacon.

Building upon the work of his predecessors, Isaac Newton helped bring together their breakthroughs under a singe theory of motion. Newton's discovery of universal gravitation explained the behavior of objects here on earth and in the heavens. The result was a universe that was controlled by the laws of nature. Theologically, a new way of viewing God emerged. God created the universe to be controlled by natural laws and then retired from the scene just as a watchmaker designs his watch to run on its own. Christian apologist Norman Geisler agrees that this is how modern Deistic concepts emerged. Geisler writes, ". . . a philosophical movement, deism borrowed the theist concept of God and understood it in terms of the mechanistic model (e.g. watchmaker) of the new scientific outline springing form Bacon and others." Consequently, as the growing explanatory power of natural law grew, skepticism about the veracity of miracles (i.e. violations of nature law) and books that reported them, such as the Bible increased.

Basic Tenets of Deism

As with any intellectual movement, there is diversity of belief amongst those who historically have identified themselves as Deists. On the other hand, all Deists do share a commonality of belief on a couple key issues. As we have already seen, a Deist is defined as one who believes there is a God beyond the world who created the world but that the world runs by natural law without supernatural interference. According to Geisler, there are three central tenants of a Deistic worldview, to which we now turn our attention.

"The first premise of a Deistic worldview is that there is a God who created the universe." In contrast with atheism, Deists maintain it is necessary to posit a God as the author and architect of the universe because there must be a first cause beyond the natural world who authored all natural processes. Unlike, pantheism which teaches that God is all, Deists maintain that God is separate from his creation. For example, the world is different from God as the painting is from its painter. Just as the painting reflects the nature and attributes of its painter, so too does the creation demonstrate the nature of its designer. In short, Deists view God as eternal, unchangeable, impassable, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good, true, just, invisible, and infinite. In summary, "there is a God who created, regulates, and sustains the world. And this world is dependent on God, not God on the world."

"The second major premise of deism is antisupernaturalism." Simply stated, miracles do not occur. Many Deists argue that a perfect God would not make an imperfect universe that demanded miraculous intervention or repair. Others assert that God set up the laws of the natural world and he cannot (or, will not) violate the laws he established in the natural world. Therefore, since natural laws are immutable, miracles are inconsistent and impossible within the Deistic worldview. Such an insistence magnifies nature of the perfect Mechanic that he made the machine of nature to run without constant need or repair. "For deists all miracle accounts are the result of human intervention or superstition."

"The third major tenet of Deism is a Unitarian concept of God that involved the denial of the orthodox doctrines of the Trinity and the deity of Christ." This premise is consistent with the first and flows necessarily from the second. "If no supernatural event occurs then assuredly Christ was not a supernatural being and definitely not Deity incarnate." Since a denial of the deity of Christ necessitates one also deny the Trinitarian nature of God, Deism is Unitarian in its view of God.

Being a natural religion, Deism maintains that all revelation as well as religions whose truth claims rely on revelation (Christianity) are spurious. While the three tenets discussed above encapsulate the fundamentals of Deistic thinking they are by no means exhaustive. For example, most Deists hold the following beliefs in some form: the existence of moral law, the good life in accord with natural moral law, and a future life of rewards and punishments.

Degrees of Deism

As with any philosophical or theological paradigm, people vary in how far they are willing to go in the application of their models' fundamental ideas. According to Peter A. Lillback, there is a difference between hard and soft Deists. Lillback suggests that a Hard Deist not only rejects God's revelation through Scripture but also denies that God acts in history at all. Consequently, Hard Deists reject the notion of God's hearing and answering of prayers. In contrast, Soft Deists believe in prayer and providence but deny the Bible as a revelation from God.

Rather than disguising between Hard and Soft Deists, Norman Geisler recognizes four distinct forms of Deism that center around God's concern for the world and the existence of an afterlife for human beings. These four types of Deism include: The God of No Concern, The God of No Moral Concern, The God of Moral Concern for This Life, and The God of Moral Concern for This Life and the Next.

• The God of No Concern: The first type of Deism was largely of French origin. According to this view, God is not concerned with governing the world he made. He created the world and set it in motion, but has no regard for what happens to it after that.
  
• The God of No Moral Concern: In this second form of Deism, God is concerned with the ongoing happenings of the world but not with the moral actions of human being. Man can act rightly or wrongly, righteously or wickedly, morally or immorally. It is of no concern to God.
  
• The God of Moral Concern for This Life: The third type of Deism maintains that God governs the world and does care about the moral activity of human beings. Indeed, God insists on obedience to the moral law that God established in nature. However, there is no future after death.
  
• The God of Moral Concern to This Life and the Next: The fourth type of Deism contends that God regulates the world, expects obedience to the moral law grounded in nature, and has arranged for a life after death, with rewards for the good and punishments for the wicked. This view was common among both English and American Deists.
  

Conclusion

While modern Deistic groups still exist, even this theistic view waned in popularity under the force of Darwinian evolution. Now that we have identified the basic teachings of the Pure Grace position and defined the basic tenets of Deism we can direct our attention next week toward answering our fundamental question—are Grace Lifers Deists?

Are Grace Lifers Deists? Part Two

What Are Grace Lifers?

At the outset, in order to ensure clarity, it is imperative to define our terms and identify the various doctrinal positions that will be discussed in this series of postings. Due to its use in a multiplicity of contexts, the expression "the grace life" is somewhat difficult to define. Teachers such as Bob George have used the term to describe the system of identity based living that stems from the fact that the old man is dead through the believers' identification with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection.(1) Often called the "exchanged life," supporters of this position stress the grace of God in giving believers a new identity in Jesus Christ. According to this view, believers struggle against their natural flesh programming to function fully in their new identity. Believers are instructed to view themselves as God views them, i.e. as completely new creatures in Jesus Christ.

Much of what Bob George and his school of thought teach is in line with Pauline theology and the views espoused by those holding the Pure Grace position. Personally, this author and his family have benefited greatly from reading the writings of those who are associated with this branch of Grace Life thinking. However, George and his followers fail to properly root their position in a dispensational understanding of the scriptures. By failing to fully recognize the distinctive message and ministry of the Apostle Paul, advocates for the exchanged life are ultimately confused in their attempts to reconcile statements of Jesus in the gospels with those in the epistles of Paul.

Herein lies a key distinction that is necessary for the reader to understand. When this writer speaks about the Grace Life, the Grace Alternatives, or Pure Grace, he is referring to a specific system of belief whose origins are rooted in a mid-Acts dispensational interpretation of scripture. Mid-Acts dispensationalists maintain that the body of Christ did not begin in Acts two as the majority of professing Christendom believes but in the middle portion of Acts with the salvation and ministry of the Apostle Paul. While there is great diversity of belief amongst those who would identify themselves as mid-Acts dispensationalists, generally all of them hold the following beliefs:

• Literal, normal, or common sense reading of the Bible.
  
• Comparative principle of Bible study, comparing scripture with scripture.(2)
  
• Dispensational reading of the Bible which seeks to answer the following questions: Who wrote it? When was it written? To whom was it written?
  
• A difference between prophecy (that which was spoken since the world began),(3) and mystery (that which was kept secret since the world began).(4)
  
• The unprophesied nature of the current dispensation of grace,(5) during which time God is reconciling both Jews and Gentiles to himself in one body by the cross.(6)
  
• Through unbelief Israel fell from the privileged position she enjoyed in time past so that God could have mercy upon all and send salvation to the gentiles apart from Israel.(7)
  
• The Apostle Paul is the apostle of the gentiles(8) and received by direct revelation from Jesus Christ a gospel, message, and apostleship distinct from that of Peter and the Twelve.(9)
  
• Salvation is a free gift of God's grace imparted to a sinner upon his placing saving faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the only payment for sin.(10)
  
• The gospel of the grace of God, the message Paul calls "my gospel"(11) was separate and distinct from the gospel of the kingdom(12) and the gospel of the circumcision(13)preached by Peter and the twelve.
  
• Believers of the gospel of grace are spiritually baptized into the body of Christ by God the Holy Spirit the moment they place saving faith in Jesus Christ.(14) This is the one baptism that constitutes the unity of the faith in Ephesians 4:5. Therefore, water baptism needs to be left where it belongs as part of Israel's earthly program. As a result, water baptism has no significance for the body of Christ despite denominational demands to the contrary.
  
• God the Holy Spirit seals believers into the body of Christ until the day of redemption, thereby eternally securing their position in Christ.(15) Moreover, this work of the Holy Spirit serves as the earnest of our inheritance as we wait for the redemption of our bodies.(16)
  
• Prophecy, tongues, and knowledge, otherwise known as the sign gifts, functioned on a temporary basis during the early stages of the body of Christ.(17) While there is great diversity of opinion amongst mid-Acts dispensationalists about what actually caused the cessation of these gifts, it is generally agreed that they are no longer in effect. It should also be noted that the majority of mid-Acts dispensationalists still believe that the gifts of pastor, teacher, and evangelist are still being given today.(18)
  
• There is a distinction between the Lord's bodily return back to planet Earth (Second Coming)(19) and his return to meet the saints in the air.(20) The later is known as the rapture of the church and is believed to be pretribulational in its timing. In addition, the catching away of the saints referred to in I Thessalonians 4 is also a portion of the revelation of the mystery given to the Apostle Paul.(21) Not only does the rapture occur before the 70^th week of Daniel begins (which is part of the prophetic program), but it also ends the current dispensation of grace.
  
• The 70^th week of Daniel, commonly referred to as the tribulation period, or the time of Jacob's trouble, will resume the prophetic time schedule that was interrupted when God revealed the mystery of the current dispensation of grace. It is during this time that numerous prophetic events will occur on earth.
  
• After the tribulation period is completed, Christ will return bodily back to earth with the armies of heaven to destroy the forces of the adversary. Satan will be chained and confined to the bottomless pit for a thousand years and the millennial reign of Christ will be instituted.(22)
  

Admittedly, the preceding list is not an exhaustive statement of the doctrines held by mid-Acts dispensationalists. However, it does encapsulate the major differences between mid-Acts dispensationalists and the teachings of Bob George, as well as the rest of professing Christendom. Consequently, for the purpose of answering the central question purposed by this series of postings--are Grace Lifers Deists?--we will be limiting the use of term Grace Life and its related descriptors to a specific group of believers who hold to the basic doctrines of mid-Acts dispensationalism listed above.

Simply stated, all Grace Lifers are mid-Acts dispensationalists but not all mid-Acts dispensationalists are Grace Lifers. As one might expect, this division within the mid-Acts camp has generated much friction. In fact, the charge of Deism against those who believe in the principles of Pure Grace has been levied most forcefully by their fellow mid-Acts brethren.

The fundamental source of the argument between the Grace Life and Non-Grace Life camps of the mid-Acts dispensationalism centers on how and to what extent their dispensational model affects God's working in time during the present dispensation of grace. Supporters of the Grace Alternatives argue that their beliefs are simply the logical implications of the mid-Acts position when taken to its theological conclusion. Detractors have accused Grace Lifers of espousing an extreme position resulting in Deism if not outright heresy. What is it then that Grace Lifers believe that would illicit such a charge from their would be doctrinal allies?

In the introduction to Things That Differ, arguably the most influential work articulating the mid-Acts position, Pastor C.R. Stam writes the following:

As we send these studies forth we humbly pray that they may prove a substantial contribution to our readers' understanding and enjoyment of the Scriptures, and a distinct help in their services for Christ. As the days grow darker may God lead us all further into the light of His truth so that we may be more intelligently and effectively used, 'to the glory of His grace.'(23)

Grace Lifers maintain that they have followed the basic truths presented in Things That Differ to their logical conclusion. If the gospel, the beginning of the body of Christ, baptism, and the sign gifts are dispensational issues, then why are issues such as the confession of sins, intervention, healing, God's will, spiritual gifts, chastening, and prayer not also affected by the mid-Acts paradigm?

Grace Lifers believe that God works in accordance with the nature of the dispensation that is in effect. During the current dispensation of grace, God is forming a spiritual body of believers in which all physical divisions have been removed.(24) Hence, all the blessings that the body of Christ receives are spiritual in nature according to Ephesians 1:3, "blessed be the God and Father or our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ." In Ephesians 1:4-9, believers received the following spiritual blessings the moment they trusted Christ: predestination unto the adoption of children, acceptance in the beloved, redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, abounded toward in wisdom and prudence, and knowledge of the mystery of his will. Moreover, believers are said to be spiritually seated with Christ in the heavenly places as we wait for the Lord's return to catch away the church.(25) In short, the salvation and blessings of the body are all spiritual in nature while our destiny is heavenly in location.

In II Corinthians 5:16-17, Paul encapsulates the main argument of the Grace Life view. He writes, "wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." Paul teaches that as new creatures in Christ our relationship with Christ is not based upon the flesh. Believers are placed into a living spiritual unity and relationship with the head of the body of Christ. This explains why Paul tells the Colossians that their circumcision was not made with hands.(26) God's entire relationship with the believers today is based upon their spiritual union with Christ.

In contrast, Israel's relationship with God in time past was based upon the flesh. In fact, Paul informs the Ephesians that the fundamental feature of time past is a distinction between those who were "gentiles in the flesh" and those who were "called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands."(27) Genesis 17:13 tells us that God gave the seed of Abraham the rite of circumcision as a fleshly token of the physical blessings God had promised them in Genesis 12. As a result, God dealt with his physical nation according to the flesh. For example, Israel was delivered physically from the hands of the Egyptians through the Red Sea.(28) Signs were utilized all throughout God's dealings with Israel because without them they would not believe.(29)

Just as mid-Acts dispensationalists maintain a clear distinction between Israel and the body of Christ, Grace Lifers observe a clear distinction between how God deals with each group. These differences have led Grace Lifers to the following conclusions regarding how God is working today in the dispensation of Grace:

• Believers have the total forgiveness of all their sins: past, present, and future.(30) Through the justification that is in Christ Jesus believers have peace with God.(31) Therefore, the keeping of short accounts or the daily confession of sins according to I John 1:9 is unnecessary and a misuse of the verse.
  
• Believers presently possess the complete redemption of their soul and spirit (inner man). Moreover, the saints are asked to wait for the redemption of their body(32) and have been given the indwelling Holy Spirit as the assurance of this future redemption.(33) Consequently, God is not presently choosing to heal people from their physical infirmities.
  
• Because believers are at peace with God, they are not physically chastened like Israel was in time past. However, they are chastened and corrected through God's written word.
  
• Paul's revelation completed God's Word according to Colossians 1:25. Once the word of God was fulfilled, all spiritual gifts including pastor, teacher, and evangelist ceased being given. While pastors, teachers, and evangelists are still needed they are no longer being given as supernatural gifts of the Spirit. Paul was already speaking of these gifts in the past tense when he penned Ephesians 4:11, "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;"
  
• God does intervene during the dispensation of grace but not the in physical sense that he did in time past with Israel. God works today through his word working in the lives of the saints as they by faith apply God's word to the details of their lives. This is viewed to be in accordance with the nature of our relationship with Christ not being after the flesh but after the spirit as taught in II Corinthians 5:16-17.
  
• Prayer also functions in accordance with the dispensation that is in effect. Many mid-Acts dispensationalists acknowledge that prayer is a dispensational issue when they teach that the Lord's Prayer is not for today. Likewise, many teach that unlike Israel in time past, members of the body of Christ do not need to confess their sins in order for God to hear from heaven because we have peace with God through the shed blood of Christ.
  

The above list is not intended to be an exhaustive articulation of Pure Grace principles. Rather, it serves as a brief summary of the main differences between Grace Lifers and their mid-Acts brethren. Furthermore, it serves to frame the central question that we are seeking to answer.

The observant reader will have noticed that Grace Lifers articulate a different paradigm for how God is working during the dispensation of grace than has traditionally been taught. This seemingly hands off approach is difficult for many believers to swallow because it is not rooted in a traditional Calvinistic framework. Not everything that happens is part of God's will or His action within creation according to Grace Lifers.

Because the Pure Grace position views God as active only through his word in the lives of believers and not intervening physically in human affairs, the charge has been made that Grace Lifers are Deists. In order to accurately assess whether this charge is correct, it would be helpful to clearly understand what Deists believe. In our next posting we will direct our efforts towards exploring what Deists believe?

Endnotes:

1. Romans 6
   
2. I Corinthians 2:13
   
3. Luke 1:70, Acts 3:21
   
4. Romans 16:25
   
5. Ephesians 3:1-5, Colossians 1:25-27
   
6. Ephesians 2:13-18
   
7. Romans 11:11, 30-32
   
8. Romans 11:13
   
9. Galatians 1:11-12
   
10. Romans 3:24, I Corinthians 15:3-5, Ephesians 2:8-9
    
11. Romans 16:25,
    
12. Matthew 4:23, 9:25, Mark 1:14-15
    
13. Galatians 2:7
    
14. I Corinthians 12:13
    
15. Ephesians 4:30
    
16. Ephesians 1:14, Romans 8:23
    
17. I Corinthians 13:8
    
18. Ephesians 4:11
    
19. Revelation 19
    
20. I Thessalonians 4:17
    
21. I Corinthians 15:51
    
22. Revelation 19-20
    
23. C.R. Stam. Things That Differ. Introduction.
    
24. Galatians 3:28
    
25. Ephesians 2:6
    
26. Colossians 2:11
    
27. Ephesians 2:11
    
28. Exodus 15
    
29. I Corinthians 1:22, John 4:48, Exodus 4:1-10
    
30. Ephesians 1:17, Colossians 1:14
    
31. Romans 5:1
    
32. Romans 8:23-25
    
33. Ephesians 1:14
    

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.