A Response to Matthew Vines’ 40 Questions For Christians Who Oppose Marriage Equality Part 3

A Response to Matthew Vines’ 40 Questions For Christians Who Oppose Marriage Equality Part 3

24. Do you believe that the Bible explicitly teaches that all gay Christians must be single and celibate for life?

I believe that all Christians must remain celibate while they are single, and marriage is a man and a woman. If any Christian chooses not to marry a member of the opposite sex and restrict his sexual activity to his spouse, then he ought to remain celibate.

25. If not, do you feel comfortable affirming something that is not explicitly affirmed in the Bible?

If by “something that is not explicitly affirmed in the Bible,” you mean there is no verse that says, “All gay Christians must be single and celibate for life,” I do not affirm that sentence. See my previous answer to see what I do affirm.

26. Do you believe that the moral distinction between lust and love matters for LGBT people’s romantic relationships?

No. The relevant passages, Genesis 1 and 2, Deuteronomy 18, Romans 1, etc. make no distinctions with respect to motive. They form the basis for behavior.

27. Do you think that loving same-sex relationships should be assessed in the same way as the same-sex behavior Paul explicitly describes as lustful in Romans 1?

The issue is not lust only but function. Romans 1:26b-27a states, “for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, ²⁷and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another…” No exception in any passage regarding same sex behavior is predicated on being “loving” relationships.

28. Do you believe that Paul’s use of the terms “shameful” and “unnatural” in Romans 1:26-27 means that all same-sex relationships are sinful?

I believe the passage, in context, reaffirms the sinful nature of same-sex sexual behavior. It is not predicated on two isolated words.

29. Would you say the same about Paul’s description of long hair in men as “shameful” and against “nature” in 1 Corinthians 11:14, or would you say he was describing cultural norms of his time?

Paul’s treatment of same-sex sexual activity is part of a larger set of passages dealing with sexual morality. His note about hair length is one letter to one church, suggesting a much more limited context. Therefore, the comparison is apples and oranges.

30. Do you believe that the capacity for procreation is essential to marriage?

Yes, if by essential you mean it is part of what the essence of marriage is. Essence means the “what-ness” of a thing. What is marriage? It is the union of two people whose essence is such that their intimacy produces offspring.

31. If so, what does that mean for infertile heterosexual couples?

Heterosexual couples that are infertile are no less essentially unions that produce children than an amputee is less human. The exception does not defeat the rule.

32. How much time have you spent engaging with the writings of LGBT-affirming Christians like Justin Lee, James Brownson, and Rachel Murr?

None. How much time have you spent engaging with the writings of traditional marriage-affirming Christians like Kevin DeYoung, Sean McDowell, and William Lane Craig? Your point?

33. What relationship recognition rights short of marriage do you support for same-sex couples?

With respect to public policy, live and let live. With respect to Christians in this situation, welcome to attend church, encouraged to end the romantic aspect of their relationship, but not qualified to lead, teach, or vote on church matters, and encouraged to submit to the clear teaching of Scripture.

34. What are you doing to advocate for those rights?

About as much as you are to advocate for the rights of bakers to refuse to make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings.

35. Do you know who Tyler Clementi, Leelah Alcorn, and Blake Brockington are, and did your church offer any kind of prayer for them when their deaths made national news?

With the possible exception of Clementi, I had never heard of them. Their deaths were tragic, but it does not follow that people’s struggles leading them to commit suicide obligates us to affirm whatever it is they are confused about. Moreover, if my church offered prayers for everyone whose death made national news, we would have no time for anything else. Nothing follows from how this question is answered. This seems like a set up for “you think you are right, so you are arrogant” except this would be, “you don’t grieve every gender confused person in the news, therefore your view is wrong.”

36. Do you know that LGBT youth whose families reject them are 8.4 times more likely to attempt suicide than LGBT youth whose families support them?

Do you know a family can accept a LGBT youth without affirming their LGBT youth?

37. Have you vocally objected when church leaders and other Christians have compared same-sex relationships to things like bestiality, incest, and pedophilia?

No, because when church leaders and other Christians note that Leviticus 18 passage that prohibits homosexual behavior is listed with prohibitions against bestiality, incest and pedophilia I know they are not comparing the behaviors. (There’s that fish again.) Moreover, it is entirely reasonable to ask, if you are advocating reinterpreting this and other passages against same-sex sexual behavior, what principled argument do you offer for why we should not embrace bestiality, incest or pedophilia? Who are you to say who should be allowed to love whom? The very same logic you use to defend same-sex sexual behavior can validly be applied to these questions.

38. How certain are you that God’s will for all gay Christians is lifelong celibacy?

How certain are you that it is not? Go back and read my answer to 24. Then note that certainty is not the same as truth. I can be certain about an issue and wrong, or uncertain and correct.

39. What do you think the result would be if we told all straight teenagers in the church that if they ever dated someone they liked, held someone’s hand, kissed someone, or got married, they would be rebelling against God?

They would open a Bible and show us we were mistaken, in fact, our elementary school kids could do that. Was there a point to that question?

40. Are you willing to be in fellowship with Christians who disagree with you on this topic?

Absolutely, but if I wasn’t, all that would prove is that I am a lousy Christian, or a hypocrite. It would prove nothing about the truth of the issue.

I was quite disappointed by these questions. I thought Vines had more to offer than poor exegesis and arguments from emotion. No one ever claimed living the Christian life was easy. I might not even like all the moral principles that come with it. But since Jesus did so much for me, the only way I can rightly love him back is to obey him. That means I don’t get to pick and choose what that means. It also means that the same Jesus, yesterday, today, and forever, would let us know clearly if obedience to him changes.

Any Christian who is same-sex attracted can count on me to love him or her, as long as they understand that I am going to do my best to let 1 Corinthians 13 define what that means, including verse 6, “love does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices in the truth.”

A Response to Matthew Vines’ 40 Questions For Christians Who Oppose Marriage Equality Part 2

A Response to Matthew Vines’ 40 Questions For Christians Who Oppose Marriage Equality Part 2

Picking up where I left off, I continue my responses.

8. How many gay brothers and sisters in Christ have you walked with on the path of mandatory celibacy, and for how long?

I have walked through the experience with as many gay brothers and sisters as I know, which is none. This says nothing about my willingness to do so, nor about the rightness of it. If a brother or sister came to me and told me of their struggle, I would advise them to remain celibate if traditional marriage was not something they would pursue, and I would walk through that struggle with them. Again, the absence of my experience in this matter is completely irrelevant to the issue of the morality.

9. What is your answer for gay Christians who struggled for years to live out a celibacy mandate but were driven to suicidal despair in the process?

The premise of this question seems to be that struggling for years to live celibate is what drove the person to suicidal despair. That someone would be suicidal over that suggests much deeper issues than celibacy in light of same-sex attraction.

10. Has mandatory celibacy produced good fruit in the lives of most gay Christians you know?

If by “mandatory celibacy” you mean celibacy because someone told you that’s what the rules were, then no “mandatory” behavior has ever produced “good fruit” in anyone’s life, if you mean spiritual fruit. However, forbidden behavior, for whatever reason, produces all kinds of bad fruit.

11. How many married same-sex couples do you know?

Just one. How many do I need before it becomes obvious that it is irrelevant?

12. Do you believe that same-sex couples’ relationships can show the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control?

Relationships don’t show the fruit of the Spirit. The fruit of the Spirit is expressed in individuals through relationships. Love? Among other things, Paul says that love “…does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth.” (1 Corinthians 13:6) Leviticus 18 and Romans 1, among other passages, clearly show homosexual behavior to be examples of “unrighteousness.” Peace? Maybe, but it sure seems like it is incumbent on those of us who disagree with you to cave in order for the peace to prevail. Among such couples? That will vary. Goodness? That begs the question. If homosexual behavior is sin, and sin is evil, then it is impossible for homosexual relationships to bear the fruit of goodness. Self control is also out the window if the claim is that same-sex attracted people cannot live celibate.

13. Do you believe that it is possible to be a Christian and support same-sex marriage in the church?

It is possible for to be a Christian and be confused and mistaken about a great many things. The issue is, on what basis does the Christian support same-sex marriage? Being a Christian means recognizing one’s sinful condition and need of a savior, and trusting in the person and work of Jesus Christ to reconcile us to God. We come to this knowledge through Scripture. If someone claims to accept this teaching of Scripture, but rejects the teaching on sexual boundaries, it is fair to ask on what basis they accept the teaching about Jesus.

14. Do you believe that it is possible to be a Christian and support slavery?

*sniff sniff * Do I smell fish? It must be that red herring over there.

15. If not, do you believe that Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Jonathan Edwards were not actually Christians because they supported slavery?

In what sense do these individuals “support slavery?” What kind of slavery? Often the indentured servant provision of the Mosaic law, this was what was provided for as a “welfare” program for those who found themselves in poverty. They could “sell” themselves for up to six years to pay off the debt. They were housed and fed, and were not considered property. However, what does it even mean that these people “support” it? In any case, see my answer to 13. It applies to any Christian and any problematic belief.

16. Do you think supporting same-sex marriage is a more serious problem than supporting slavery?

There’s that fish again.

17. Did you spend any time studying the Bible’s passages about slavery before you felt comfortable believing that slavery is wrong?

I spent enough time to realize that this question trades on the equivocation of the word “slavery.” Vines knows this word conjures up visions of the antebellum south and chattel slavery in the United States, when the Bible passages regarding slavery speak to no such condition.

18. Does it cause you any concern that Christians throughout most of church history would have disagreed with you?

It causes me no more concern than it does Vines that for 3500 years, the Judeo-Christian worldview has disagreed with him.

19. Did you know that, for most of church history, Christians believed that the Bible taught the earth stood still at the center of the universe?

Does Vines know that all the homosexual people who lived before Copernicus though the same thing? His point?

20. Does it cause you any concern that you disagree with their interpretation of the Bible?

No more than it concerns me that I disagree with the Roman Catholic interpretation of the Bible. If numbers of people and length of time counted for anything, Vines would not even be making his case.

21. Did you spend any time studying the Bible’s verses on the topic before you felt comfortable believing that the earth revolves around the sun?

No, but then I know the difference between factual assertions and phenomenological language (describing things as they appear, rather than as they are. Even in our scientific age, every weather forecasting website and newscast still speak of “sunrise” and “sunset.”)

22. Do you know of any Christian writers before the 20^thcentury who acknowledged that gay people must be celibate for life due to the church’s rejection of same-sex relationships?

I have no knowledge of any Christian writers before the 20^th century writing about how gay people should behave, and no Christian writer I read bases such ideas on what the Church accepts or rejects. The question is what does God’s Word accept or reject. This question is also a red herring.

23. If not, might it be fair to say that mandating celibacy for gay Christians is not a traditional position?

No, it would be fair to say that Scripture mandates celibacy for any Christian who is not married (in the traditional man/woman sense.) That is the traditional position.

To be continued… (cue fanfare with dramatic reverb.)

A Response to Matthew Vines’ 40 Questions For Christians Who Oppose Marriage Equality Part 1

A Response to Matthew Vines’ 40 Questions For Christians Who Oppose Marriage Equality Part 1

Matthew Vines is Founder and President of The Reformation Project. He is author of God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships. His work has been featured recently in the New York Times and Time. Vines posted the article linked above in response to Kevin DeYoung’s 40 Questions for Christians Now Waving Rainbow Flags. Vines advocates a rejection of the traditional Christian understanding of sexual morality. To his credit, Vines offers his arguments in a reasonable tone, refraining from the hostile rhetoric all too common in this debate. However, he is starting from a preconceived notion that is contrary to classical Christianity. A glance at the questions below gives a sense that he would have us read Scripture in light of experience, rather than interpreting our experience in light of Scripture. This is a common theme in Liberal Theology. Here, “liberal” is not used as a pejorative, nor does it refer to political views. Liberal Theology traces its roots to the work of Friedrich Schleiermacher (1760-1834.)[1] Ironically, if I apply this approach, and I read Jeremiah 17:9,

“The heart is more deceitful than all else
And is desperately sick;
Who can understand it?”

I can say, “That is consistent with my experience. Therefore, I ought to interpret my experience in light of Scripture, since my heart is not reliable as measure of interpretation of Scripture.” (I realize this is simplistic, but the point is that the overwhelming evidence for human depravity really seems to mitigate against the liberal view.)

Before I address the questions, I want to respond to Vines’ opening line. He says, “Too often, LGBT-affirming Christians are the only ones asked to explain and defend their views.” One gets the sense that Vines is complaining about bearing the burden of proof. But given the long history of the traditional view, the affirming Christian is asserting a new view, and a basic rule of engagement is that whoever makes an assertion bears the burden of proof. It is like the rights of the accused. When you make an assertion, you are accusing something of being a feature of reality. For that, you bear the burden of proof.

Now to the questions.

Do you accept that sexual orientation is not a choice?

According to the American Psychological Association, “Sexual orientation refers to the sex of those to whom one is sexually and romantically attracted.”[2] If this is what Vines means, then I suppose while it is possible to train one’s affections, most people do not choose to be attracted to one sex or the other. However, if someone finds herself attracted to members of the same sex, she has a choice as to how to respond to that attraction. There is overwhelming evidence from both general and special revelation that we are intended for members of the opposite sex. Genesis 2 describes the union of the man and woman, and Jesus even refers to this in response to a question about divorce. (Matthew 19:5-6) From general revelation, we need only to look at our “plumbing.” Moreover, it’s not for nothing they are called reproductive organs. As such, attraction to members of the same sex ought to be recognized as a sign that something is amiss. So the answer to the first question is not a simple yes or no.

Do you accept that sexual orientation is highly resistant to attempts to change it?

I accept that, like many forms of disordered thought, confused sexual orientation can be highly resistant to attempts to change it. That change is difficult tells us nothing about the morality of the behavior. Drug addicts find abstaining very difficult. Many do recover. Likewise (and I am not equating same-sex attraction with drug addiction) there have been those who have successfully recovered from same-sex attraction.[3]

How many meaningful relationships with lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) people do you have?

I have family members with whom I have meaningful relationships. However, all that follows from these relationships, or lack thereof, is how the issue affects me emotionally. I never said I was indifferent to the emotional side of it. It is just not relevant to the question.

How many openly LGBT people would say you are one of their closest friends?

None. However, leaving aside the irrelevance of this, how many LGBT people would allow someone who does not affirm their lifestyle to be one of their closest friends? I do not seek out LGBT people to become friends with them, nor avoid them. I build relationships as the opportunity presents itself.

How much time have you spent in one-on-one conversation with LGBT Christians about their faith and sexuality?

The only one-on-one conversation I have had so far with a LGBT Christian was very short since the person could not differentiate between disagreement and “hate.”

Do you accept that heterosexual marriage is not a realistic option for most gay people?

That depends on how you define “gay people.” If you mean people who are convinced of the rightness of their orientation and have no interest in changing it, then obviously marriage (classically understood) is not a realistic option. However, if you mean same-sex attracted people, then it is a realistic option as evidenced by the story of Allan Edwards.

Do you accept that lifelong celibacy is the only valid option for most gay people if all same-sex relationships are sinful?

No. Go back and read my answer to question 6.

I will pick up the discussion with question 8 in Part 2.

[1] Nancey C. Murphy, Beyond Liberalism and Fundamentalism: How Modern and Postmodern Philosophy Set the Theological Agenda, The Rockwell Lecture Series (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, ©1996), 22.

[2] http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/sexuality-definitions.pdf

[3] Many stories of such people can be found here. http://www.pfox.org/personal-stories/

St. Arminius’ Bad Arguments (with apologies to Lutheran Satire)

Before my Arminian friends get their guard up, let me explain what this article is NOT. This is not a defense of Reformed theology. It is a critique of arguments offered in defense of Arminianism. I originally wanted to write a post about bad arguments for Arminianism and Reformed/Calvinist theology, but I could not find or recall enough from the Reformed side to write a post that would seem balanced, so I am hoping to generate comments from this post from which to build a second article about bad arguments for the Reformed view.

For an argument to be valid, the conclusion must follow from the premises, and to be sound, the premises must be more plausible than not. If you argue “If X then Y, X, therefore, Y” and I can show that X is false, (not sound) or that Y does not follow from X, (not valid) I have not shown that Y is false. Likewise, showing these to be bad arguments for Arminianism says nothing about the truth of Arminianism.

For those unfamiliar with the terminology of Arminianism and Calvinism (I have used the term “Reformed” because it is a little broader, but for my purposes here, I will switch to “Calvinism”) let me explain. In it’s simplest form, with respect to salvation, Calvinism holds that God’s election precedes one’s faith, (one comes to faith because God has elected him) and his non-election precedes one’s persistent lack of faith (one fails to come to faith because God has not elected him.) Arminianism holds that one’s faith precedes election, and persistent lack of faith precedes non-election.

Objections/Arguments

Calvinism means double predestination. If God predestines people for Hell, it’s unfair.

The view that the non-elect are predestined for damnation is taught explicitly in Calvinistic circles. However, the Arminian view does not get God “off the hook” so easily. The Calvinist and the Arminian agree that, as Jesus said, God must draw one to Jesus before they will come. They disagree on whether this is done for all. The Calvinist believes that God draws the elect such that the elect will come. The Arminian holds that God draws all that they may come. Both views require action on God’s part for someone to put their faith in Jesus. Since God knows how everyone will respond to the Gospel, then by not drawing some so that they will respond, God could be said to be electing some to damnation. Both views entail God not drawing some so that they will respond. Therefore, God is just as responsible for the damnation of the nonbeliever on the Arminian view as he is on the Calvinist view (if it could be said that he is responsible at all.)

Calvinism leaves no reason to evangelize since on their view the elect will be saved.

It may be the case that a Calvinist view could reduce one’s sense of urgency to evangelize, however we are not commanded to respond to our feelings, we are commanded to make disciples. God commands means and ends. If Calvinists are slow to evangelize because of their view, shame on them. However, Calvinism does not entail non-evangelism. The disobedience of Calvinists does not prove that Calvinism is false.

Calvinists believe in “limited atonement” but the Bible says, “God so loved the world…”

Calvinists hold that Christ’s work on the cross only works for those who place their faith in him. Arminians (mostly, since their may be some who are universalists) hold that Christ’s work on the cross only works for those who place their faith in him. Limited simply means that it does not apply to those who do not place their faith in him.[1] Again, both groups see the atonement as limited.

Calvinists believe in “limited atonement” but the Bible says, “…whosoever will…”

Calvinists also believe “whosoever will…” but on their view, the “whosoever” are the elect. Again, the debate is over how one comes to be a “whosoever.”

“Irresistible grace” means people are saved against their will.

Arminians often see this doctrine as God acting in a manner that forces people to do something against their will. However, the Calvinist holds that God moves on the will in such a way that the elect person has no desire to resist.

Calvinist bad arguments

One bad argument I hear from the Calvinist side is “If human beings have libertarian free will, God is not/less sovereign. The problem with that is it assumes that God could not sovereignly choose to create human beings with libertarian free will. Similarly, I have heard it argued that if man has libertarian free will, God is dependent on man for his omniscience. However, this objection conflates the divine attribute of omniscience, which he has necessarily, and the content of God’s knowledge, which could be informed by the free choices of his creatures.

I hope my friends on both sides of the debate will comment on this. I intentionally omitted Molinist views (of which I am most sympathetic.) I would ask that any Molinists who comment will limit their comments to additional bad arguments.

[1] Exceptions may be children, people with developmental disabilities, etc.

Textual Transmission in High Gear

This post was prompted by some comments a friend recently posted on Facebook. I am not sure this will address her specific concerns, but her comments were similar to objections that are often raised against the reliability of the Bible. One thing she said was that she couldn’t trust every word of the Bible because it has been translated too many times and too much is missing. While I don’t know what she thinks the number of translations have to do with the reliability of the text, it is commonly believed that the transmission of the text from the original to the present was like a game of telephone. You may know this as the game where a group of people forms a line and the first person in line whispers a message in the ear of the next, and so on down the line until the last person gets the message. When the message the last person gets is compared to the original, it bears little resemblance. Likewise, it is thought that the authors of the books of the Bible wrote their autographs, which were then translated into another language, and then another, and so on until we get our English Bibles. In fact however, the transmission of the Old and New Testaments was nothing like the telephone game.

While it is true that the original documents, called autographs, are lost to us, we have good reason to believe that what we do have is a reliable copy of what they wrote.

OT Hebrew Texts

The writers of the Old Testament, also known as the Hebrew Scriptures, or the Tanakh, wrote in Hebrew, except for some portions of Daniel, which were written in Aramaic. The Pentateuch, or Torah, which contained the first five books, was written around 1400 BC. The last of the OT books, 2 Chronicles, was probably written around 450 BC. While the number of available manuscripts (handwritten copies) is much fewer than that of the NT, this is because of the meticulous approach Jewish scribes took to textual transmission. When a scroll became worn out, it was copied with great care and then destroyed. This is not to say that there are not ancient copies, however. Until 1948 the oldest extant copies were Masoretic manuscripts dating to about 900 AD. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, copies were found dating to about 100 BC. Where complete books were found, the differences were few and inconsequential. Moreover, support for the reliability of the Masoretic text can be found in an ancient translation. As Geisler and Nix point out,

Perhaps the best line of evidence to support the integrity of the Masoretic Text comes from the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint (LXX). This work was performed during the third and second centuries BCE in Alexandria, Egypt. For the most part it was almost a book-by-book, chapter-by-chapter reproduction of the MT, containing common stylistic and idiomatic differences. Furthermore, the LXX was the Bible of Jesus and the apostles, and most New Testament quotations are taken from it directly.[1]

English Bibles are translated from their original languages. While the translation committees, to better see how a particular passage was understood by other cultures, use ancient translations, there is no case in which the English translation is the end of a chain of previous translations. The same can be said of the New Testament.

Koine Greek was the language of first century Roman world.

There have been some skeptics who have suggested that the New Testament documents were not written until the second or third century AD. However, the very language of the manuscripts argues against this.

The basic language of the New Testament, however, was Greek. Until the late nineteenth century, New Testament Greek was believed to be a special “Holy Ghost” language, but since that time it has come to be identified as one of the five stages in the development of Greek itself. This koine Greek was the most widely known language throughout the world of the first century.[2]
What this means is that to suggest the NT documents were written 100-200 years after the fact is like saying Shakespeare’s works were not written until the 1800’s. It implies an attempt to deliberately deceive the reader by using an archaic language style.

NT Greek Texts

Further support for the reliability of the NT documents comes from the number of available manuscripts. These include those in Greek as well as some of the earliest translations, known as versions. “The wealth of material that is available for determining the wording of the original New Testament is staggering: more than fifty-seven hundred Greek New Testament manuscripts, as many as twenty thousand versions, and more than one million quotations by patristic writers.”[3]

As noted above, in addition to the manuscripts, the NT documents can be reconstructed from quotations from the early Church Fathers. “Not only did the early Fathers cite all twenty-seven books of the New Testament, they also quoted virtually all of the verses in all of these twenty-seven books. Five Fathers alone from Irenaeus to Eusebius possess almost 36,000 quotations from the New Testament.”[4] With such a wealth of sources, relying on a chain or translations is not only unnecessary, it would be frivolous. Moreover, if such a method had been employed, any scholar of Greek or Hebrew would have the resources to check its accuracy from the ancient sources.[5]

With respect to the “missing” parts, again I am not sure of what my friend was referring to, but there are some who think there must be missing books, or “lost books” of the Bible. I will address this by summarizing an argument put forth by Greg Koukl.[6] Views of just what the Bible is can be boiled down to two: it is either divine revelation, inspired and preserved by God, or it is a collection of literature that reflect the beliefs of the Christian Church. If some books are excluded from the canon (the authoritative list) it is either because God did not inspire or preserve their inclusion, or the Christian Church rejected them because they did not reflect their beliefs. In either case, there are no lost or missing books.

While I have offered no arguments here that the Bible is inspired or inerrant, I have shown that inspiration or inerrancy is not undermined by the textual transmission.

[1]
Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, From God to Us: How We Got Our Bible (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2012), 198-99.

[2] Ibid., 166

[3] J. Ed Komoszewski, Reinventing Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2006), 82, quoted in Jonathan Morrow, Questioning the Bible: 11 Major Challenges to the Bible’s Authority (Chicago: Moody, 2014), 96.

[4] Geisler, 217.

[5] For more information on New Testament manuscripts, see www.csntm.org

[6] http://www.str.org/articles/no-lost-books-of-the-bible#.VXXjklxVhBc

Finding Truth Study Guide: Chapter 2

P R I N C I P L E # 1

Twilight of the Gods

Building Immunity

Summarize the sociological research on young people who report having doubts or questions. Do you know anyone with doubts who is struggling to find answers? Are you struggling yourself?

The research showed that about a third of those surveyed reported abandoning Christianity because of unanswered questions, feeling as though the questions themselves are out of bounds. I was recently in a dialogue with one young man who seems to be struggling to find answers to his doubts. However, knowing human nature, it occurs to me that it is simplistic to think this is purely a matter of unanswered questions. Often these questions coincide with temptations of this world, sometimes along with new freedom to indulge these temptations. The unanswered questions become a way to justify the ensuing behavior.

Principle #1 Identify the Idol

How is the biblical word heart often misunderstood? What is its correct meaning?

In contemporary usage, heart is used to refer to emotions. Its biblical meaning is the innermost being, the mind, will, emotions, character, and spiritual commitments.

“Atheism is not a belief. Atheism is merely the lack of a belief in God or gods.” Because this is a common line among atheists today, you should know how to respond. Based on the text, what could you say?

Based on the text, I would point out that the atheist, like everyone else, holds something to be of ultimate concern. For them, it is not God. However, based on the advice of Greg Koukl, I would ask, “On the proposition ‘God exists,’ what do you say? Is it true, false, or do you withhold judgment?” If they say “true,” they are theists. If they say “false,” they are atheists. If they withhold judgment, they are agnostic. Note that if they are atheists, they have a belief about God. It is that there is no such being. The problem comes from an equivocation on what it means to “believe in God.” Classically understood, this meant more than merely assenting to the fact of his existence. It meant faith, or trust. Now it has come to mean “I acknowledge God exists.” This would be a good place to practice Columbo tactics and ask what they mean when they say they are atheists.

What are the two advantages of using the biblical term idols for both secular and religious worldviews? (The second one is under the next subhead.)

One advantage is that it levels the playing field by showing that every worldview has to have a self-existent starting point. The other is it shows how even the most secular worldview serves as a religious commitment.

Religion without God

As you read through the rest of this chapter, fill out the following diagram. On the left side, write the features that most people associate with religion. On the right side, explain why that feature is not a necessary part of the definition of religion. Give examples.

Common Definitions of Religion	Why Isn’t That Definition Adequate?
Belief in a Deity	Several religions are non-theistic
Moral code	Some religions are amoral and even immoral.
Worship rituals.	Epicureans and Aristotle thought God took no interest in humans.

Why are Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism described as atheistic religions?

They are neither founded by, nor identify any deity.

Religion without Morality

Give examples of amoral and even immoral religions.

Buddhism and Hinduism are amoral religions, as they deny moral distinctions. The gods of Greco-Roman mythology were given to greed, adultery, etc, and were actually immoral. Moreover, some ancient religions involved human, even child, sacrifice.

Search for the Divine

What is the one thing that characterizes all religions as well as all secular philosophies? Can you think of any exceptions?

All religions and secular philosophies hold something to have the status of divinity, that is, something that needs no explanation for its existence.

Philosophers and Their Gods

As you read through the rest of this chapter, fill out the diagram below. On the left side, write the name of each ism discussed. On the right side, identify its idol. Go back and start with the section titled “Search for the Divine.”

Philosophy Pre-Socratics	What Is Its Idol? Earth, air, fire, water
Pythagoreans	number
Plato/ Aristotle	Rational form
materialism	matter
Marxism	Economic conditions
empiricism	The senses

What does the Greek word arché mean? Do you agree that the early Greek philosophies qualify as idols under the definition in Romans 1? Give your reasons.

Arché means the first, or dominant principle. For the Greek philosophies that held that one of the four elements, or form, or number had the status of divinity, and therefore fits the Romans 1 definition of idol.

The Church of Physics: Idol of Matter

Dialogue: I once had a Facebook discussion with a young fan of Richard Dawkins, who was outraged that I would suggest secularism had anything in common with religion. To this young man, religion represented blind faith while science stood for reason and facts. Imagine yourself in a conversation with a young man like that. Write a dialogue in which you level the playing field by showing that all belief systems share the same basic structure.

YM: “Science stands for reason and facts. Religion represents blind faith.”

M: On your view, what exists that requires no prior cause?

YM: The universe.

M: So on your view, the universe is divine?

Explain the logical steps that lead from materialism to Marxism’s economic determinism.

If all that exists is matter, and humans are defined by the way they relate to matter, those who control the means of production control political, moral, and religious forces that determine economic conditions, which are the ultimate reality.

Hume Meets the Klingons: Idol of the Senses

Like Data in Star Trek, atheists often charge that Christianity is “irrational” simply because it accepts the existence of a realm beyond the empirical world. Based on the text, how could you answer that charge?

I would ask what empirical evidence do they have that we can only know what we can test empirically?

Inside the Matrix

Dialogue: Explain to an empiricist how his or her philosophy involves a divinity belief.

If all that can be known is what can be experienced by the senses, the senses have the status of divinity. It is an epistemology that starts and ends within the mind with the senses. Pressed to its logical conclusion, since we have no access to another’s senses, we are left with solipsism. We can only accept the existence of the world within range of our senses. If we can trust what others tell us they are experiencing by their senses, then we can know things not immediately available to our senses, therefore empiricism is false.

Go Within, Young Man

One philosopher says that Enlightenment epistemologies set up “the first-person standpoint” as the only path to certainty. They turned the self into “the locus and arbiter of knowledge.” Explain what that means and what the end result was.

The idea is that we can strip away all that we have learned from culture and education and begin from the foundation with the consciousness as the only way to knowledge. Ironically, they expect to accept their attempt to educate us on this and take it on their authority.

Truth Substitutes

Philosophers like Karl Popper and John Herman Randall point out the “religious character” of Enlightenment epistemologies. Explain what they meant.

The authority of divine revelation is replaced by the authority of the senses, or the intellect.

Kant’s Mental Prison: Idol of the Mind

What was Kant’s “Copernican revolution”? What was his God substitute? Define solipsism, and explain why philosophies that start within the human mind end in solipsism.

Kant claimed that all we have are sense perceptions on which our minds impose order. He moved our consciousness to the center of the universe. The mind became the God substitute.

Solipsism is the idea that all that you can know is your own mind. When all that can be known is our sense perceptions, or the ideas that derive from them, all that you have is solipsism.

The Artist as God: Idol of the Imagination

Describe the evidence showing that, for the Romantics, the imagination was their God substitute, and art was their substitute religion.

Describing the imagination as “autonomous, immune, or unchallengeable” shows the view that it is the Romantic’s God substitute. As such, art was their response to that which help the status of divinity.

Cure for Blind Philosophers

Read “The Blind Men and the Elephant” by John Godfrey Saxe on the following pages. How does it illustrate the origin of idols?

“The Blind Men and the Elephant”

It was six men of Indostan

To learning much inclined,

Who went to see the Elephant

(Though all of them were blind),

That each by observation

Might satisfy his mind.

The First approached the Elephant,

And happening to fall

Against his broad and sturdy side,

At once began to bawl:

“God bless me! but the Elephant

Is very like a WALL!”

The Second, feeling of the tusk,

Cried, “Ho, what have we here,

So very round and smooth and sharp?

To me ’tis mighty clear

This wonder of an Elephant

Is very like a SPEAR!”

The Third approached the animal,

And happening to take

The squirming trunk within his hands,

Thus boldly up and spake

“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant

Is very like a SNAKE!”

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,

And felt about the knee

“What most this wondrous beast is like

Is mighty plain” quoth he:

“’Tis clear enough the Elephant

Is very like a TREE!”

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,

Said: “E’en the blindest man

Can tell what this resembles most;

Deny the fact who can,

This marvel of an Elephant

Is very like a FAN!”

The Sixth no sooner had begun

About the beast to grope,

Than seizing on the swinging tail

That fell within his scope,

“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant

Is very like a ROPE!”

And so these men of Indostan

Disputed loud and long,

Each in his own opinion

Exceeding stiff and strong,

Though each was partly in the right,

And all were in the wrong!

It shows how idolatrous worldviews see some part of reality as the totality of reality and deny all else.

The Joy of Critical Thinking

How does Christianity affirm what is good and true in these

philosophies?

Materialism: God created a good material universe and made it discoverable. Therefore, even materialistic scientists can tell us useful things about it.

Rationalism: Since God is a rational being, he made a rational world and gave us rational faculties by which we can understand it.

Empiricism: God created us with sensory faculties, and gave us sense experiences that lead us to truth.

Romanticism: As created in the image of God, we have some creative capabilities that ought to be used for his glory.

“To an Unknown God”

“Paul was making the astounding claim that Christianity provides the context of meaning for the Greeks to understand their own culture.” Explain what that means. Choose one example from our own day, and explain how the same principle can be applied.

Paul was using the true parts of the Greek understanding to build a bridge, showing how the Christian worldview filled in where their view lacked. In our day, there are people arguing for same-sex marriage on the view that it is only fair. Fairness is a moral category that is best explained by the Christian worldview.

Finding Truth Study Guide: Chapter 1 Questions 16-19

Finishing up Chapter 1.

Principle #4: Test the Idol: Does It Contradict Itself?

Define self-referential absurdity. Give an example of how the argument works.

Self-referential absurdity obtains when a proposition fails its own test. Examples are:

There are no truths.
I cannot speak a word of English.
There are no English sentences more than three words long.
Consciousness is an illusion.

Explain why idol-based worldviews refute themselves. The text says that adherents of reductionist worldviews “have to borrow Christianity’s high view of reason in order to give reasons for their view.” Explain what that means.

Idol-based worldviews reduce humans to something less than rational beings, but claim to be rational in doing so; therefore they refute themselves. When those who hold these worldviews defend them, they have to assume a view of reason that is much more at home in the Christian worldview. As Frank Turek says, “they have to climb into God’s lap to slap his face.”

Principle #5: Replace the Idol: Make the Case for Christianity

“What a powerful image of people caught in cognitive dissonance, reaching out to grab on to truths that their own worldviews deny—truths that only a Christian worldview logically supports.” Unpack this sentence. Explain how secular thinkers are trying to hold on to truths that are logically supported only by Christianity.

Coincidentally, just a few months before this book went to print, Frank Turek published a book called Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God To Make Their Case. In it, Turek points out that atheists claim to hold to principles like causality, reason, information and intentionality, morality, evil, and science. None of these principles can work outside the Christian worldview. [1]

Liberated Minds

Dialogue: When Finding Truth was in manuscript form, I taught a class using it as a text. One student, a father of pre-teens, said, “Your book is convicting me that I brush off my kids when they have questions about Christianity. I have made a commitment that from now on, I will listen to my children and treat their questions seriously.”

But another student, a young woman from El Salvador, rejected the very idea of apologetics. In her view, the use of reason to defend Christianity is a matter of “pride” and “the flesh.” “Christians should rely on the Holy Spirit,” she said, quoting Paul:

“Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” and “I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 1:20; 2:2). Write a dialogue as if you are speaking with the young woman from El Salvador. How would you persuade this woman that it is valid for Christians to defend their convictions?

In this dialogue, I would note that this woman had just offered an argument for her view and even cited Scripture in support of it. I would ask her why she was not relying on the Holy Spirit, and why was her use of reason not a matter of pride and the flesh? It seems to me she recognized the value of apologetics even as she denied it.

[1] For a summary/review of Turek’s book, see https://apologeticsminion.com/2015/03/06/stealing-from-god/

Finding Truth Study Guide: Chapter 1 Questions 11-12

Principle #2: Identify the Idol’s Reductionism

Define reductionism. In what way is reductionism like trying to stuff the entire universe into a box? Give an example.

Reductionism is the view that higher, more complex things can be identified with and explained in terms of lower, simpler things. For example, a pain is said to be nothing but the firing of certain neurons. Reductionism is like trying to stuff the entire universe into a box in that the box is reduced to a size too small to fit all of reality. Whatever is explained away by the reductionism will not fit in the box. For example, on materialism, any non-physical realities will not fit, such as logic, morality, rationality, spiritual entities, etc.

How does reductionism affect one’s view of human nature? In your answer, explain this principle: “Every concept of humanity is created in the image of some god.” Use materialism as an example.

Given that every concept of humanity is created in the image of some god, and every god of non-biblical worldviews is lesser than the God who is, human nature will be less than what it is. For example, on materialism, human beings are nothing but highly evolved bipedal primates. We are animated aggregates of molecules in motion, or what Kevin Lewis calls “stardust in a cosmic blender. Morality is nothing but social conventions, and we have no greater claim to the planet or its resources than any other species. Human rights are whatever the greater culture decides they are. If the culture decides that Africans are not equal to Europeans and can be owned as property, then that is what is “right.” If 1930’s German culture decides Jews are not human and can be killed at will, then that is “right.” If 20^th/21^st Century America decides that the unborn is not worthy of human rights, then that is our “choice.”

What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?

In a recent Sunday School class, we had a discussion on the nature of divine omniscience. This is a topic that is easy to get lost in. It involves terms and concepts that most people do not understand, or care much about. Sometimes, however, wrestling with these ideas is important.

When theologians disagree on the topic, usually it is related to what is called divine foreknowledge (DF.) However, I think it is important to state at the outset that with the exception of one view of DF, it is agreed that to divide God’s knowledge into subcategories is artificial and does not reflect what we think actually happens. As an omniscient being, God has all his knowledge at once, and does not learn, or gain new knowledge over time. From the divine creation decree God has known all that is true. While the truth-value of tensed facts changes with time, and God knows this, it is not genuinely new knowledge. To speak of God’s knowledge of future events is to speak from a human perspective. It is a manner of speaking. As Shedd writes:

Divine knowledge is (a) intuitive as opposed to demonstrative or dis-cursive; it is not obtained by comparing one thing with another or deducing one truth from another; it is a direct vision; (b) simultaneous as opposed to successive; it is not received gradually into the mind and by parts; the perception is total and instantaneous; and (c) complete and certain as opposed to incomplete and uncertain. Divine knowledge excludes knowledge by the senses, gradual acquisition of knowledge, forgetting of knowledge, and recollection of knowledge.[1]

Moreover, Grudem defines omniscience, “God fully knows himself and all things actual and possible in one simple and eternal act.”[2]

There is a view, called “Open Theism” that denies that God knows what for us are future events and “counterfactuals of creaturely freedom.” (CCF) CCF are not universally agreed upon either, since not all theologians agree on the existence and nature of free will. One such proponent is Gregory Boyd. Boyd denies that future events are part of “all things actual” and therefore denial of God’s knowledge of such things does no violence to omniscience.[3] Boyd goes on to argue that events in the world include both those things that are “settled” and those that are not, whereas the classical theist holds that all things that happen are settled.[4]

Some of the relevant scriptures include Isaiah 46:9b-11,

For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is no one like Me,

Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things which have not been done,
Saying, ‘My purpose will be established,
And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’;
¹¹Calling a bird of prey from the east,
The man of My purpose from a far country.
Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass.
I have planned it, surely I will do it.

Psalm 139:3-4,

You scrutinize my path and my lying down,
And are intimately acquainted with all my ways.
⁴Even before there is a word on my tongue,
Behold, O Lord, You know it all.

Psalm 139:15-16

My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;
¹⁶Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Your book were all written
The days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them.

Moreover, with respect to CCF, we see in 1 Samuel 23:10-13,

Then David said, “O Lord God of Israel, Your servant has heard for certain that Saul is seeking to come to Keilah to destroy the city on my account. ¹¹Will the men of Keilah surrender me into his hand? Will Saul come down just as Your servant has heard? O Lord God of Israel, I pray, tell Your servant.” And the Lord said, “He will come down.” ¹²Then David said, “Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?” And the Lord said, “They will surrender you.” ¹³Then David and his men, about six hundred, arose and departed from Keilah, and they went wherever they could go. When it was told Saul that David had escaped from Keilah, he gave up the pursuit.

Note God told David what the men of Keilah would do if David stayed there, and so he did not. Does this mean God was mistaken?

Boyd argues from silence that the fact that God decrees some events does not mean all events are settled.[5] He goes on to cite verses where God expresses surprise, regret, disappointment, and the unexpected, such as Isaiah 5:2, Jeremiah 3:6-7, 1 Samuel 13:13, etc. Some passages describe God’s attributes, such as his omniscience (Isaiah 46, Psalm 139, etc). In other passages, through the prophets, God describes situations in human terms (Isaiah 5:2, Jeremiah 3:6-7, 1 Samuel 13:13, etc). Paul Helm argues that the latter need to be understood in light of the former, not vice versa.[6]

Pascal once observed that people arrive at their beliefs based on what they find attractive. Seeing God as one who is all-powerful, wise, and loving but not knowing the future completely makes him a little more understandable. It is not easy to wrap you mind around a God who knows everything that will happen. Some confuse this with fatalistic determinism. However, God knowing what some person will do does not cause that person to do it. Moreover, if God does not know the future, then when he answers prayer it seems more miraculous when he answers because he would have to intervene on a series of events already in motion. It would also mean that if God answers prayers, we can move him to action in real time to do what he might otherwise not have done. However, if God does know the future completely, he also knows every prayer I will pray and how he will answer.

To see how God would answer prayers he does not expect requires a convoluted view of God’s relationship to time that is ad hoc and unwarranted. An illustration comes to mind from one of my favorite accounts of answered prayer.[7] Helen Roseveare, a physician from Northern Ireland who has served as a medical missionary in Zaire, Africa, tells of her experience when a baby is born whose mother dies in childbirth and there is a need for a hot water bottle to replace the last one that broke. The next day, when she was about to pray with the children of the orphanage, she suggested praying for the needs of this child and her two-year-old sister. One child’s prayer was especially bold. “Please, God, send us a water bottle. It’ll be no good tomorrow, God the baby will be dead; so please send it this afternoon. And while you are about it, would you please send a dolly for the little girl so she’ll know you really love her?” That very afternoon, a package arrived with both the hot water bottle and the doll. The package was assembled by a Sunday School class Roseveare used to teach. They sent it five months earlier. I think God’s foreknowledge of the needs and the prayers is far more plausible than the idea that he created these items ex nihilo on its way, or that it was a coincidence.

Finally, it seems to me that Anselm was on to something when he developed the idea that God is the greatest conceivable being, or a maximally great being. As such, if we read passages of Scripture that describe his attributes, and some passages suggest a greater degree of an attribute than others, it is best to assume the greater.

I believe open theists are wrestling with the text of Scripture are not seeking to diminish God’s glory. Boyd even argues that his view enhances it. I think he is mistaken. It seems obvious that a God who knows all things, including future contingencies and CCF is greater than one that does not.

[3] Gregory Boyd in James Bielby and Paul R. Eddy, eds., Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views, Kindle Edition. (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2001), 13

[4] Ibid., 15

[5] Ibid., 17

[6] Ibid., 61

[7] J. P. Moreland, Kingdom Triangle: Recover the Christian Mind, Renovate the Soul, Restore the Spirit’s Power (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2007), 17-18.

Total Truth Study Guide: Chapter 1 Question 10

Five Strategic Principles

Principle #1: Identify the Idol

The text says that every nonbiblical religion or worldview starts with an idol. It must locate an eternal, uncaused cause within the created order. Explain why, and list some examples. Can you think of any exceptions to this principle?

In a course pack on Historical Perspectives on Science and Religion, Keas and Magruder point out:

Following the clear discussion in Roy Clouser, The Myth of Religious Neutrality (Notre Dame, 2005), we may define “faith” or “religious belief” as a heart-deep response to what a person takes to hold the status of divinity. By “divine” we mean, “that which is able to exist on its own without depending on anything else” (this definition is consistent with traditional Western usage from Aristotle to Aquinas and thereafter… even William James agrees with us here, and it appears to be implicit within the Bible). In this sense one’s divinity could be Yahweh, matter/energy, Number, form, self, or almost anything else.[1]

On this view, all worldviews have something that is of ultimate concern. Nonbiblical worldviews have a god-substitute, or an idol. For the materialist, the universe will be the idol. It is simply a brute reality. For the pantheist, the created order is identical with the creator. They ascribe divine attributes to the universe. Rather than explain the origin of material reality, they deny its existence. As Sire writes, “If anything that is not God appears to exist, it is maya, illusion, and does not truly exist.”[2]

Exceptions to this principle might include Islam, Mormonism, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Islam worships a god that created the universe, but is transcendent, to the point that nothing about Allah is revealed except his will. Jehovah’s Witnesses affirm a God like the biblical God, but who apparently could not preserve his word or his church for about 1800 years. Mormonism holds to a multitude of gods, and make no claims on the origin of the universe.

“When was there a beginning? There never was one; if there was, there will be an end; but there never was a beginning, and hence there will never be an end; that looks like eternity. When we talk about the beginning of eternity, it is rather simple conversation, and goes far beyond the capacity of man.” (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 47.)

Despite the fact that Mormonism, Islam, and the Watchtower all have a divinity that transcends creation, we will see how their views still lead to the reductionism to be discussed in Principle 2.

[1] Biola University, 2014

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Objections/Arguments

Calvinist bad arguments

Share this:

Share this:

P R I N C I P L E # 1

Twilight of the Gods

Building Immunity

Principle #1 Identify the Idol

Religion without God

Common Definitions of Religion

Why Isn’t That Definition Adequate?

Religion without Morality

Search for the Divine

Philosophers and Their Gods

Philosophy

What Is Its Idol?

The Church of Physics: Idol of Matter

Hume Meets the Klingons: Idol of the Senses

Inside the Matrix

Go Within, Young Man

Truth Substitutes

Kant’s Mental Prison: Idol of the Mind

The Artist as God: Idol of the Imagination

Cure for Blind Philosophers

The Joy of Critical Thinking

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: