Postmodernism

I often wonder if anyone thinks anymore – that is, if anyone ponders their own thoughts and actions as well as those of others. If you do (I mean sincerely do) you will notice a growing trend in thought among American culture. You will notice a blending of things – all philosophical – but extremely important. What is being blended? Well… everything. But the biggest things are: truth, right and wrong, history, and religion to name a few. We are becoming (if not already) a relativistic society which has embraced religious pluralism, and worse, skepticism.

Thus we live in what is called a Postmodern culture. “Postmodernism presupposes an era that preceded it: Modernism. And Modernism was preceded by premodernism.” Below is an explanation of each (borrowed from an article by scholar, Paul Copan who has written much on the subject):

*Premodernism: Before the 1600s, people in the West generally believed that God (or the transcendent/supernatural realm) furnished the basis for moral absolutes, rationality, human dignity, and truth. This is expressed by the noted Christian theologian Anselm (b. AD 1033), who said, “I believe that I may understand” (credo ut intelligam) he spoke of a “faith seeking understanding” (fides quaerens intellectum). That is, the starting point for knowledge and wisdom was God, who provided the lens through which one could properly interpret reality and human experience. By having faith in God, the world could be rightly understood.
Modernism: Then came philosopher René Descartes (1596-1650). As a Roman Catholic, he was troubled by the philosophical skepticism and (due to the Protestant Reformation) the theological uncertainty of his day. So he embarked on a “skeptical voyage” in the pursuit of absolutely certain knowledge. As part of his project, he determined to doubt everything: Maybe an evil genius was tinkering with his mind – or maybe everything is an illusion. But he concluded that at least he knew he was doubting, which is a form of thinking. He concluded: I think; therefore I am (or, in Latin, cogito, ergo sum). So without realizing it, Descartes’ project removed God from center stage, replacing it with the human knower as the starting point. The effect would be momentous. The rationalism of the European Enlightenment (c. 1650-1800) reflected this shift. This period was both optimistic about human potential and reason, but was also skeptical about church authority/state churches and Christian doctrine (“dogma”).

This was just one of many modernist projects that assumed that human dignity, truth, and reason could be preserved without God. Besides rationalism (with its emphasis on reason), there were Romanticism (with the emphasis on feeling), Marxism, Nazism, and other utopian schemes that sought to displace God as the starting point for understanding and living. The Jewish-Christian worldview that had deeply influenced the West was now being challenged.

Postmodernism: Then, in the wake of two World Wars, a postmodern climate started to permeate the West. Confidence in human progress and autonomy was shattered on the rocks of Auschwitz and the Soviet gulags. The systems or “grand stories” (“metanarratives”) of Nazism, Marxism, scientism, or rationalism ended up oppressing “the other” – that is, those marginalized by these systems such as Jews, capitalists, etc. These systems proved to be total failures. So with postmodernism, not only was God excluded as a foundation for making sense of reality and human experience; we cannot speak of any universal truth, reason, or morality. We just have fragmented perspectives.

If the French Revolution and the storming of the Bastille in Paris (1789) stands as a picture of the shift to modernism, the fall of the Berlin Wall exactly 200 years later (1989) symbolizes the failure of modernism and rise of postmodernism.

So premodernism showed that “God/the supernatural realm furnishes the basis for morality, human dignity, truth, and reason.” Modernism showed that “Morality, human dignity, truth, and reason rest on foundations other than God (reason, science, race, etc.)”, and postmodernism leaves us (many, not all)”deeply skeptical about (or suspicious of) big explanatory systems or stories. It is also critical of any view that claims to be neutral, unbiased, or rational. Christian philosopher Merold Westphal observes that modernism was characterized by the quest for (a) absolute certainty (think of Descartes) and (b) totalism – that all-embracing system (“metanarrative”).”

While modernism sought totalizing systems and absolute certainty, postmodernism now calls them into question in a two-fold manner. To counter totalism, postmodernism asserts that our interests and desires often use “reason” to promote their fulfillment; “truth” is simply whatever promotes my (or my group’s) will or interests. There is a “political agenda” in whatever we claim to be true. Knowledge is not neutral. (This observation utilizes the “hermeneutics of suspicion.”) In response to the unbiased certainty, postmodernism emphasizes that our ideas and judgments are embedded within a historical-cultural context; so we can never fully remove ourselves from it by pure reflection.”

So this is how we got to where society is now. Truth is perspectival (truth is a matter of perspective or context rather than being something universal. We do not have access to reality – to the way things are – but only to what appears to us – which is a self-defeating statement), right and wrong is subjective (also self-defeating), and the postmodern thought on history is absurd, in my opinion. They say, “texts-historical, literary, or otherwise-have no inherent authority or objectivity in revealing the author’s intent, nor can they tell us “what really happened.” Rather, these texts reflect the peculiarities of the writer’s particular bias, culture, and era.” So, according to postmodernist (usually those who are atheist, agnostic, liberal left, relativists) it is impossible to “tell the truth about the past or to use history to produce knowledge in any objective sense at all.”

We ALL have an innate sense of right and wrong. We all have an innate sense of Truth. Don’t be fooled by the postmodern view of reality. It is a false reality. History CAN be known. Truth CAN be known. Objective Morality is etched upon our hearts. Never think you are being intolerant for sticking to what is true, for what is (objectively) right. Postmoderns love to shout about tolerance but they are the first to show how intolerant they are when you state your opinion.

Always seek what is True, and be vigilant in that seeking.

Gethsemane

The scene is Gethsemane. In the Gospels, it is a rather quick scene. However, it is also an important scene that tells us a great deal about the human Jesus and the divine Jesus. In other words, it tells us much about God. Much can be learned about sorrow, loneliness, perseverance, obedience, faith, and understanding God’s will. As one writer wrote: “It was here in Gethsemane that Our Lord allowed all the horrors of the next 15 hours to penetrate his mind, soul and spirit. He would carefully weigh the full price of Redemption here and say ‘Yes’ out across the whole universe for all time, for all souls. Gethsemane is the reference point for commitment. This was Jesus’ moment of truth. It was here that the plan of salvation hung in the balance…the plan laid out before the foundation of the world.” [1] All four gospel tell this story. Luke’s account has additional information (Luke 43-44). For reasons unknown I decided to use Matthew’s but will incorporate Luke’s addition later.

Matthew 26:36-46

Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.” 37 He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled. 38 Then he said to them, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.” 39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.” 40 Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Could you men not keep watch with me for one hour?” he asked Peter. 41 “Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak.” 42 He went away a second time and prayed, “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.” 43 When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. 44 So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing. 45 Then he returned to the disciples and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the hour is near, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 46 Rise, let us go! Here comes my betrayer!

One never knows exactly when trials and tribulations will strike. One moment you are going through life happy and content, the next moment tragedy strikes. Then everything seems to collapse on you. You can’t function, don’t know if you’ll find the strength to make it through another day. You can’t eat. Can’t sleep. All you want is your “life” back, and feeling that that is impossible, your tears stream down even harder. C.S. Lewis once said, “No one ever told me that grief felt so like fear. I am not afraid, but the sensation is like being afraid. The same fluttering in the stomach, the same restlessness, the yawning… I keep on swallowing…” We’ve all experienced this at different times and on different levels; some tragedies small, some large. Thankfully, most people eventually recover. Sadly, some do not. I believe Jesus felt this grief (sorrow) in the hours preceding his death. Jesus’ actions in the Garden provide a great example in trusting God and understanding the plan He has for us. We learn the value of submitting to God’s will.

In Gethsemane, Jesus knew exactly what lay ahead for him. I can only imagine the emotions passing through him. The physical abuse he was about to endure had to bring a sense of fear. He knew what he was sent to do, knew this had to happen, and he was so afraid. In verse 38, Jesus says to his disciples, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.” This shows me that even the “strongest” person can succumb to fear and sorrow. In the Bible, we read how Jesus has faced a raging storm on the Sea of Galilee, totally composed and unruffled. He has faced demonic opposition, satanic temptation, and the grilling of Jerusalem’s religious leaders, with total composure. But here in the Garden, the disciples must have been greatly distressed by what (little) they saw. Here, Jesus cast Himself to the ground, agonizing in prayer. Something terrible was going to happen. Jesus knew it, and the disciples were beginning to comprehend it as well.[2] How many of us have experienced an “overwhelming sorrow to the point of death?” I know when I am in deep despair I turn to trusted friends to help me through. I take their advice, pray with them, or sometimes we just remain quiet. I am comforted knowing they are just there. Jesus brought along some friends to his usual place of prayer when he wanted to be away from the crowds for just that purpose. For Jesus, in this last visit to the Garden, it was a comfort knowing they were there “keeping watch”, which to me means providing quiet comfort as well as looking out for his accusers, and remaining prayful. However, as we will see, the disciples failed to do what Jesus asked.

Jesus goes off to pray alone. He lies face down on the ground and prays. I am moved by Jesus’ words here: “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.” While some may find a “weakness” in Jesus here – a possible request for God to change his mind – I think that despite his sorrow and fear, Jesus knows and understands that God’s will must be done. Through prayer, Jesus was hearing (from God) that the most important point in His plan of salvation is at hand and that He need to remain obedient. I found an interesting piece on this from one writer who states, “Let me point out first of all that it was not Jesus who was in danger of changing His mind. Jesus was seeking to learn from the Father what His will was. Jesus was, all along, committed to do the Father’s will… Jesus has not changed His mind about obeying the Father; He is asking the Father if He has changed His mind, as it were.”[3]

Although any suffering and hardships that I have undergone may not have the intensity and experience of Jesus’, I have found myself in that same position of prayer and spoke similar words. Thinking back on it, I don’t believe I consciously did it as replicating Jesus’ act. I just did it: propelled to that action, perhaps, by the Holy Spirit. I have felt in my anguish at one with God. It is funny that I should truly feel that when I am at my lowest. It is not that God is close to us only in times of trouble: He is always there. It is just that when we are at our greatest despair you can really feel the embrace of God when in prayer. I mentioned goose bumps earlier. Early on in my “walk”, when faced with struggles, I prayed for the burden to pass from me. I knew there was something I had to do which would get me through the struggle, and it wasn’t going to be an easy task. Rather than “carry my cross” I was hard-headed and asked for God to release it from me. Those prayers then differed from Jesus’ request to “let this cup pass from me.” I didn’t know (fully) that God was at work in me, preparing me to find the strength to overcome or let go of it. Now, when I’m faced with hard times I may ask the same thing but I quickly follow it up with, “if it is your will, Lord”

The scene of Jesus lying prone in the Garden reveals to me the awesomeness of God. In knowing that Jesus is God in human form, I find here that God, the Creator of all things, who is all powerful, loves me so much and longs to be with me for eternity that He would make Himself human and undergo pain and torture, be mocked, nailed to a cross, mocked again, then die. I know that by trusting in the Lord, remaining obedient and praying confidently, He will ease my troubled mind, and then I will find new strength because I remembered God has suffered for me first. It is here that I truly understand the love of God. And though Jesus has made the ultimate sacrifice, I try to make sacrifices for others in any way I can; time with a friend when he/she is in need; monetary when the situation calls for it; gifts, emotional and moral support – whatever I can to bring a spark of hope in their lives.

Matt. 40-41: Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Could you men not keep watch with me for one hour?” he asked Peter. “Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak.” Three times Jesus asks of this (in the intervening moments he goes to check on Peter, James, and John to find them asleep; even his dear friends seem to have abandoned him). At a time when he was filled with such dread and sorrow he returns from prayer to find that he really is alone in all this. The disciples couldn’t remain awake for even an hour. I’m sure they truly loved Jesus, but what they were witnessing was frightening for them. If they remained in prayer, as Jesus suggested, they may have avoided the temptation to a wandering mind: analyzing the scene of Jesus in tearful prayer, making assumptions of what was about to happen and probably wondering if they were going to face death as well. Another reason might be that Jesus wanted them to avoid the temptation to drift off to sleep when they should have been praying. Prayer keeps you sharp, talking and listening to God who has the power to comfort, reveal things, teach, etc. will keep you from temptation. The disciples seemed to have things besides Jesus on their mind and, in a sense, left him alone at his greatest time of need. Their “spirit was willing, but their body was weak.” How often have we been in that situation?

It has been said also that Jesus was tempted in the Garden of Gethsemane similar to the temptation of the “First Adam” in Eden, which also contributed to his being “sorrow to the point of death.” Adam was tempted there, and as a sinless, righteous, fallible man, he said, “Not thy will but mine be done.” When he chose to do his own will rather than God’s, Adam became a sinner, dying spiritually and physically. Because of Adam’s sin, we all die. Adam’s sin was imputed to us. The Bible says “The wages of sin is death,” and ours is the cup of God’s wrath. We merit eternal separation from God. The cup of God’s just wrath against sin is both physical and spiritual death. It is eternal death, eternal separation from the blessing of God’s presence. The Father was offering Jesus the cup and Satan was tempting him. Would he drink the cup of death, the cup of God’s wrath that was against us? Would he be made sin and curse? Would he love the church and choose to be forsaken of God? So, as Satan tempted Adam in the Garden of Eden, now he tempted Jesus in Gethsemane. And in this garden of Gethsemane, the garden of the oil press, we see the height of temptation. All of Satan’s temptation has one purpose–to turn the tempted one, Jesus Christ, away from God and make him untrue to God.[4]

I have read and understood Jesus to be the “Last Adam” and the above quote helps me to understand the Gethsemane story with a little more clarity. Many times while in prayer, my mind wandered to thoughts of the day, of tomorrow, of things I forgot to do and things I still needed to do. Then before I knew it, I was waking up to a new day, realizing I had never finished my time with God. If I had “kept watch,” that is, stayed in communication with God, Satan would not have been able to tempt me with wandering thoughts. My mind would have been focused on God and there would have been no room for thoughts outside of Him. Satan is like a fiery flame that seeks out oxygen so it may consume it and grow. As he tempts us, he tries to consume our “oxygen” and take over our thoughts, turning them away from God. Praying to God is the only barrier that keeps the Satanic “flame” out, shielding us from his influence.

Jesus was able to “crush Satan” in the Garden because he prayed, and through prayer he found the strength to overcome Satan yet again and obediently submit to God’s will. As a continuation of the article I found states, “Through watching and praying, he resolved to receive the cup of God’s wrath from the hand of his Father. As the Son of God, he submitted to and obeyed his Father. He resolved to resist temptation and be faithful to his Father. He resolved to please his Father as the beloved Son with whom the Father was well pleased. He realized that the very purpose of his incarnation was to do God’s will, as we read in Psalm 40:7-8: “Here I am, I have come–it is written about me in the scroll. I desire to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart.”[5] I know when I have been tempted and had the strength to resist it, what a triumphant feeling it was! I envision myself “crushing the snake” and then the Holy Spirit surrounding me (or had He already surrounded me before I was tempted?), and hearing a voice saying, “this is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased.”

Staying along the same train of thought as the above paragraph, I turn to Luke 22:43-44. An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground. The other gospel accounts do not have these verses but that is not to say that these versed were pulled out of thin air. Perhaps this was Luke reinterpreting things, perhaps not. I’m inclined to agree with the author whose paper I’ve been quoting who states, “Verses 43 and 44 pose a problem for some. First, these verses are not found in a very few of the “older” manuscripts. Since “older” is not necessarily “better,” and since only a few manuscripts omit these verses, I find it easy to assume that the verses are original. The very fact that these verses are difficult to understand and that they are not found in the parallel accounts is strong evidence for their originality, in my opinion… The physical strengthening was, no doubt, intended to carry our Lord on through all of the physical and emotional demands of His arrest, trials, and crucifixion, but it was also given to Him to sustain Him through His night of prayer. Thus, after He was strengthened, Jesus returned to His prayer in the garden, praying, as Luke tells us, even “more earnestly” (22:44).” At any rate, I know I feel strengthened when I have struggled in prayer then resisted temptation. Be it by an angel of God or the Holy Spirit Himself, the fact remains that the strengthening comes from God.

So it is in Gethsemane that I learn that it was a place of suffering where Jesus experience great distress. He was likely troubled for He knew that His hour had come – cf. Jn 12:27: He knew what was imminent, for He had told His disciples three times – Mt 16:21; 17:22-23; 20:17-19. There was not only physical pain to endure, but also the burden of our sins and separation from His Father as He bore our sins on the cross! – cf. Isa 53:6; Mt 27:46. Gethsemane was also a place where Jesus endured great sorrow. He described Himself as “exceedingly sorrowful, even to death” – Mt 26:38. The writer of Hebrews refers to His “vehement cries and tears” – He 5:7. Again, His grief and sorrow was partly due to the fact that He was taking upon Himself our own griefs and sorrows! – cf. Isa 53:4-5. Also, it was in the Garden where Jesus encountered solemn loneliness… He wanted His closest disciples to watch with Him – Mt 26:37-38. Those who had been with Him from the beginning – Mt 4:18-22. Those who were privy to one of His greatest miracles – Mk 5:37-43. Those who saw Him transfigured on the mountain – Mt 17:1-2. Including the disciple “whom He loved” – Jn 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7,20,24. Yet after each episode of praying, He found them sleeping – Mt 26:40-41,43,45. When He desired fellowship for comfort, there was none to be found.

The Garden was also a place of strength. When Jesus expressed agonizing prayer, the agony in his prayer is seen by his posture, “He… fell on his face” – Mt 26:39, and then heard by his words: “Oh my Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me” – Mt 26:39, 42, 44. It was a “godly fear” Jesus expressed, and for such his prayer was heard – He 5:7, not that the cup (of suffering) was removed but that he would be able to drink it. Jesus resigned to be obedient as evidenced by his words, “Not as I will, but as you will – Mt 26:39, and “if this cup cannot pass away from me unless I drink it, your will be done” – Mt 26:42. When man first said, “My will, not Thine be done…” it opened the flood gate of sin. It turned man out of the Paradise of God. But when Jesus said “Not as I will, but as you will…” Victory over sin and access to the Tree of Life became possible for it prepared Jesus to go to the cross to make it possible.

We also find that Jesus enjoyed special comfort in the Garden when he received an answer to his prayer – cf. Lk 22:43 – not the answer he requested (“let this cup pass from me”), but strength from an angel. Like the apostle Paul would pray later – cf. 2 Co 12:7-10, asking the Lord to remove his thorn in the flesh Receiving an answer different than requested, but more than sufficient to meet the need. Here in Gethsemane, Jesus demonstrated renewed resolve. Strengthened, Jesus was ready to face the hour at hand – Mt 26:45. He was ready to meet His betrayer and those with him – Mt 26:46-47.[6]

In times of struggle, sorrow, or tribulation, I would always turn to the book of Job to help release me from the burden. After studying the event at Gethsemane I have more confidence in taking on suffering in the future (with always the hope of not being faced with tragedy, of course). I believe God wants us to be joyful Christians, not burdened with the difficulties (tragedies) life will throw at us from time to time. God wants us to be joyful even when we are at our lowest, because, as the scene at Gethsemane has shown us, He will always pull us through. And we will always come through stronger and wiser. No greater love have I seen as the love God has for us. What an awesome God He is!

[1] http://www.cybertime.net/~ajgood/garden.html
[2] http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1138
[3] http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1138
[4] http://www.gracevalley.org/sermon_trans/Gethsemane.html
[5] http://www.gracevalley.org/sermon_trans/Gethsemane.html
[6] http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/matt/mt26_36.htm

The Reliability of The Bible

As I’ve said before, we live in a postmodern world where relativism and pluralism (basically liberalism – Ha!) bring great scepticism to the Bible’s authenticity and Christianity in particular. My focus will be on the New Testament (NT)and the claims of Jesus, but before I get to that I should point out that in the ancient world, when the written word didn’t exist, people relied heavily on oral tradition. To us in the 21st century this may seem unreliable, but in that ancient culture it was of utmost importance, and if the speaker ever embellished a story (or more importantly teachings on God) many people (who knew the teaching) would call him on it. That is, they would instantly know the teacher/speaker was lying – or at least exaggerating. At any rate, an important point to consider when the written word came into being and Scribes began writing down these teachings from oral tradition is, (from Ralph O. Muncaster’s, A Skeptics Search for God):

The importance of the Scribes:

1. The Israelites were a theocracy (governed by God). Their laws were recorded as holy Scripture, and anything regarding that Scripture was of extreme importance and not to be taken lightly. This was especially indicated in the way they copied Scripture for future generations.

Rules for recording Scripture

- Only master scrolls were used for duplication
- Scribes were highly trained and highly esteemed. They were held in training until the age of 30; only after they reached that age could they serve officially.
- Scribes had to ceremonially wash before copying Scripture.
- Anytime the name of God was written, a sanctification prayer was said.
- The name of God was written with letters missing to ensure fulfillment of God’s command to never take his name in vain.
- Although the Scribes had memorized large portions of Scripture, each letter of each copied scroll had to be visually confirmed, one by one.
- A thread was often placed between letters to ensure separation and accuracy.
- Each letter in each scroll was counted, and the count was compared to the master scroll.
- Each word in each scroll was counted, and the count compared to the master scroll. (The Hebrew word for “scribe” literally means “counter”).
- The middle letter in each entire copied scroll was located and compared to the master.
- If there was a single mistake, the scroll was discarded as a master.
- When master scrolls were worn out, they were given ceremonial burial.

2. The Israelites memorized enormous amounts of Scripture. Unlike today many people couldn’t read or write. Education was heavily based on memorization, particularly memorization of holy Scripture, which was the law and divine guidance of the nation. Scripture – in particular the books of the law – was respected as God’s word-for-word instructions to Israel. If anyone attempted to change Scripture, it would require changing not only a vast number of written copies but the memory of hundreds of thousands of people.

3. Prophecy was seen as of utmost importance and was regarded as a criterion to test if something was from God. False prophets were to be executed (Dueteronomy 18:20). Hence any prophecy that was either prove or disproven within a prophet’s lifetime was of enormous importance. It is unlikely false prophet’s would’ve survived.

Very strict laws indeed! Unlikely someone altered Scripture back then… I think it safe to say that the NT Scribes followed this tradition. The NT, though 2000 years old, is not one source, but a collection of 27 different documents written on 27 different scrolls by 9 different writers over a 20-50 year period. And it is VERY easy to believe that any writing that is done within 1 or 2 generations of an event can be accurate by being based on eye witness testimonies and those who knew the eye witnesses. The problem is we only have copies of copies of NT manuscripts. Consider the following:

“At last count, there are 5700 hand-written Greek manuscripts of the NT. In addition there are more than 9000 manuscripts in other languages (Coptic, Syriac, Latin, Arabic). Some are complete Bibles, others are books or papers, and some are just fragments. Nothing else from the ancient world comes even close to that number (Homer’s Iliad comes 2nd with 643 manuscripts). There is also an abundant support of these manuscripts. Men of the 2nd and 3rd centuries (church fathers and others) quoted the NT so much (36,289 times, to be exact) that all but 11 verses can be reconstructed just from these quotations.”

“Especially when taken together, much data are available which confirm the traditional picture regarding the life and teachings of Jesus. This is not to say that all pertinent questions have been solved. But the available evidence from a variety of angles confirms the strong foundation on which the general reliability of the New Testament reports of the historical Jesus can be based.”

The evidence is all around us if one knows where to look. For the sake of keeping this blog from being too lengthy, I’ll move on. See, http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm1

Some conservative Christians believe the Bible to be inerrant, but it should be understood that they mean it is the Autographa (original writings) that are considered inerrant. Scholar William Lane Craig makes a good point:

To begin with, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, as I learned it and, I think, as most of its adherents today would defend it, is not arrived at inductively, but deductively. Inerrantists freely admit that no one reading through the Bible and keeping list of difficulties encountered along the way, whether inconsistencies or mistakes, would come to the conclusion at the end of his reading that the Bible is inerrant. He would likely conclude that the Bible, like almost every other book, has some errors in it. But inerrantists have maintained that belief in biblical inerrancy is justified as a deduction from other well-justified truths. For example, the late Kenneth Kantzer, Dean of the seminary I attended, argued for inerrancy by means of the following two syllogisms:

1. Whatever God teaches is true.
2. Historical, prophetic, and other evidences show that Jesus is God.
3. Therefore, whatever Jesus teaches is true.

4. Whatever Jesus teaches is true.
5. Jesus taught that the Scriptures are the inspired, inerrant Word of God.
6. Therefore, the Scriptures are the inspired, inerrant Word of God.

The claim here is that we have good reasons to think that the Bible, despite its difficulties, is the inerrant Word of God and therefore we should accept it as such. As Friedrich Schleiermacher once put it, “We do not believe in Christ because we believe in the Bible; we believe in the Bible because we believe in Christ.” One of the best examples of this approach to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is John Wenham’s Christ and the Bible (InterVarsity, 1972).

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5717

Many times in the NT we find Jesus quoting Scripture (OT). He often talked about the (divine) inspiration of Scripture and referred to it as an historical document:

1. He knew the Scriptures thoroughly, even to words and verb tenses. He obviously had either memorized vast portions or knew it instinctively: John 7:15.

2. He believed every word of Scripture. All the prophecies concerning Himself were fulfilled, and He believed beforehand they would be.

3. He believed the Old Testament was historical fact. This is very clear, even though from the Creation (cf. Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:4, 5) onward, much of what He believed has long been under fire by critics, as being mere fiction. Some examples of historical facts:

Luke 11:51—Abel was a real individual
Matthew 24:37–39—Noah and the flood (Luke 17:26, 27)
John 8:56–58—Abraham
Matthew 10:15; 11:23, 24 (Luke 10:12)
Luke 17:28–32—Lot (and wife!)
Matthew 8:11—Isaac and Jacob (Luke 13:28)
John 6:31, 49, 58—Manna
John 3:14—Serpent
Matthew 12:39–41—Jonah (vs. 42—Sheba)
Matthew 24:15—Daniel and Isaiah
4. He believed the books were written by the men whose names they bear:

Moses wrote the Pentateuch (Torah): Matthew 19:7, 8; Mark 7:10, 12:26 (‘Book of Moses’—the Torah); Luke 5:14; 16:29,31; 24:27, 44 (‘Christ’s Canon’); John 1:17; 5:45, 46; 7:19; (‘The Law [Torah] was given by Moses; Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ.’)
Isaiah wrote ‘both’ Isaiah’s: Mark 7:6–13; John 12:37–41 [Ed. note: Liberals claim that Isaiah 40-66 was composed after the fall of Jerusalem by another writer they call 'Deutero-Isaiah'. The only real 'reason' for their claim is that a straightforward dating would mean that predictive prophecy was possible, and liberals have decreed a priori that knowledge of the future is impossible (like miracles in general). Thus these portions must have been written after the events. However, there is nothing in the text itself to hint of a different author. See The Unity of Isaiah. In fact, even the Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll was a seamless unity. But as Dr Livingston said, since Jesus affirmed the unity of Isaiah, the deutero-Isaiah theory is just not an option for anyone calling himself a follower of Christ.]
Jonah wrote Jonah: Matthew 12:39–41
Daniel wrote Daniel: Matthew 24:15
5. He believed the Old Testament was spoken by God Himself, or written by the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, even though the pen was held by men: Matthew 19:4, 5; 22:31, 32, 43; Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37.

6. He believed Scripture was more powerful than His miracles: Luke 16:29, 31.

7. He actually quoted it in overthrowing Satan! The O.T. Scriptures were the arbiter in every dispute: Matthew 4; Luke 16:29, 31.

8. He quoted Scripture as the basis for his own teaching. His ethics were the same as what we find already written in Scripture: Matthew 7:12; 19:18, 19; 22:40; Mark 7:9, 13; 10:19; 12:24, 29–31; Luke 18:20.

9. He warned against replacing it with something else, or adding or subtracting from it. The Jewish leaders in His day had added to it with their Oral Traditions: Matthew 5:17; 15:1–9; 22:29; (cf. 5:43, 44); Mark. 7:1–12. (Destroying faith in the Bible as God’s Word will open the door today to a ‘new’ Tradition.)

10. He will judge all men in the last day, as Messiah and King, on the basis of His infallible Word committed to writing by fallible men, guided by the infallible Holy Spirit: Matthew 25:31; John 5:22, 27; 12:48; Romans 2:16.

11. He made provision for the New Testament (B’rit Hadashah) by sending the Holy Spirit (the Ruach HaKodesh). We must note that He Himself never wrote one word of Scripture although He is the Word of God Himself (the living Torah in flesh and blood, see John, chapter 1). He committed the task of all writing of the Word of God to fallible men—guided by the infallible Holy Spirit. The apostles’ words had the same authority as Christ’s: Matthew 10:14, 15; Luke 10:16; John 13:20; 14:22; 15:26, 27; 16:12–14.

12. He not only was not jealous of the attention men paid to the Bible (denounced as ‘bibliolatry’ by some), He reviled them for their ignorance of it: Matthew 22:29; Mark 12:24.

13. Nor did Jesus worship Scripture. He honored it—even though written by men.

The above leaves no room but to conclude that our Lord Jesus Christ considered the canon of Scripture as God’s Word, written by the hand of men.*

* http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0406scripture.asp

C. S. Lewis wrote about the Trilemma of Jesus (Lord, Liar, or Lunatic) and shows He was neither Liar nor Lunatic; thus being Lord. Though arguments exist that show Jesus might’ve been delusional or whatnot, I find this a stretch of the sceptic’s imagination. To think that Christianity, its growth and all the good it’s done for the individual and humanity stemmed from a delusional mind is…. well, delusional! But if one dislikes the Trilemma argument, then one might look, again, at William Lane Craig. He says:

Actually, there are lots of extra-canonical sources that support Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection… [Aside from] later extra-canonical sources like Josephus and Tacitus… the really interesting extra-canonical sources are the earlier ones, that is to say, the sources used by the New Testament writers themselves. Now before you cry foul, you need to reflect that these sources are not themselves in the canon but go back even closer to the events than the canonical books. These are, therefore, the center of historical Jesus study today, not the later extra-canonical sources…

What are some of these sources? The Passion story used by Mark, the formula cited by Paul in I Cor. 15.3-5, Matthew’s special source called M, Luke’s special source called L, and so forth. Some of these are incredibly early sources (which helps to answer your second question). The pre-Markan passion story probably dates from the 30s and is based on eyewitness testimony, and the pre-Pauline formula in I Cor. 15.3-5 has been dated within a couple of years or even months of Jesus’ death. I think you can see why these are the really interesting sources, not some later report by Josephus.

Now these sources provide abundant, independent testimony to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Later references to Jesus by the Roman historian Tacitus, the Jewish historian Josephus, the Syrian writer Mara bar Serapion, rabbinical writings, and extra-biblical Christian authors confirm what the New Testament documents tell us about Jesus but don’t really give us anything new. You can find such sources cited and discussed in R. T. France’s very fine book The Evidence for Jesus (1986) or in Robert Van Voorst’s definitive Jesus outside the New Testament (2000). What is key for the historian, however, will be, not these later sources, but the New Testament documents themselves and their sources…

In my article “Who was Jesus?”… I discuss five reasons why we can have confidence in the general reliability of the Gospels:

1. There was insufficient time for legendary influences to expunge the hard core of historical facts.
2. The Gospels are not analogous to folk tales or contemporary “urban legends.”
3. The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable.
4. There were significant restraints on the embellishment of traditions about Jesus, such as the presence of eyewitnesses and the apostles’ supervision.
5. The Gospel writers have a proven track record of historical reliability.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5757

I’ve only scratched the surface of arguments for the Bible’s reliability. For me, the evidence is undeniable, and I must give a little chuckle at the sceptics – at least at those who accept other historical documents as reliable which have less evidence backing it. For example, does anyone realize that in our history classes and in encyclopedias we learned about Roman history – the Gallic Wars to be precise? Suetonius, Julius Ceasar’s biographer, was told by Ceasar to write his story. We know of the ferocity of Roman rule and what would happen if one were to go against Ceasar. So it’s fair to say Suetonius probably wrote a one-sided version of Ceasar (otherwise he might be killed). No one questions this… The primary resource for this information (Gallic Wars) is 10 copies of the original writings. The oldest of these copies we have today dates to 1000 years after the autograph by Ceasar. We learn about Julius Ceasar and we don’t question anything about these incidents. Yet the Bible has numerous copies of manuscripts that date within 125 years (Gospel of John {P52}), and we have archaeological evidence of this history told… and people STILL question the authenticity of them. If we are going to be honest with ourselves and our beliefs, we must go where the evidence points.

AGAPE

AGAPE

True love begins when nothing is looked for in return.
~ by Antoine De Saint-Exupery ~

The word “agape” (ah-gah-pay) is a Greek word for “Love.” But unlike the common understanding of love, agape isn’t that “feel-good” form of love. True Love (agape) moves far beyond feelings. Feeling is a subjective thing fleeting. How often have your feelings lead to an objective truth? I’d venture to say, not too often… Philosopher, Peter Kreeft says, “Our feelings are precious, but agape is more precious. Feelings come to us, passively; agape comes from us, actively, by our free choice. We are not responsible for our feelings — we can’t help how we feel — but we are responsible for our agape or lack of it, eternally responsible, for agape comes from us; feelings come from wind, weather, and digestion. “Luv” comes from spring breezes; real love comes from the center of the soul, which Scripture calls the heart (another word we have sentimentalized and reduced to feeling). Liking is a feeling. But love (agape) is more than strong liking. Only a fool would command someone to feel a certain way.” Agape isn’t Storge (hard “g”) (affectionate love), it isn’t Philia (brotherly love), and it isn’t Eros (erotic love). These forms of love, do not, in my opinion, compare to Agape. Storge, Philia, and Eros can “function” by themselves and/or be intertwined, but they do not contain Agape, rather, Agape contains the three – due to its nature (more on this later). But first, some very brief descriptions of Storge, Philia, and Eros:

Storge (Affectionate) is a give/need type of love – though not in a negatively selfish way. The “give/need” (or Gift-love) here is natural: parents to offspring for example (the need of the child and the Giving of the mother and vice-versa)… Affection also moves beyond that: most common, new romance and friendship. C.S Lewis says in his book, “The Four Loves, (TFL) “This warm comfortableness, this satisfaction in being together, takes in all sorts of objects. It is indeed the least discriminating of loves… But almost anyone can become the object of affection; the ugly, the stupid, even the exasperating.”

Eros (Erotic) is the state of “being in love.” And while, yes, Eros is considered “erotic love” it does not only refer to sexuality. A person can have sexual experiences without Eros. One commentary on C.S. Lewis’ idea of Eros states: He [C.S. Lewis] identifies eros as indifferent. This is good because it promotes appreciation of the beloved regardless of any pleasure that can be obtained from them. It can be bad, however, because this blind devotion has been at the root of many of history’s most abominable tragedies. In keeping with his warning that “love begins to be a demon the moment [it] begins to be a god”, he warns against the danger of elevating eros to the status of a god.

Philia (Friendship) all of us have an understanding of this type of love. It is special in the sense that we choose who we will become friends with, and as the affection grows, so does this philia love. C.S. Lewis says (TFL) philia is the least natural of loves. He says it’s, “the least instinctive, organic, biological, gregarious and necessary. It has least commerce with our nerves; there is nothing throaty about it; nothing that quickens the pulse or turns you red and pale. It is essentially between individuals; the moment two men are friends they have in some degree drawn apart together from the herd.” And Aristotle says in his work, Rhetoric, “things that cause friendship are: doing kindnesses; doing them unasked; and not proclaiming the fact when they are done.”

The philosophy of love goes much deeper than this, and beyond the scope of this paper. What I want to get to is the greatest of all loves… Agape: One explanation says “Agape refers to the paternal love of God for man and for man for God but is extended to include a brotherly love for all humanity… draws on elements from both eros and philia in that it seeks a perfect kind of love that is at once a fondness, a transcending of the particular, and a passion without the necessity of reciprocity.” I would have to agree.

Love means to commit oneself without guarantee, to give oneself completely in the hope that our love will produce love in the loved person. Love is an act of faith, and whoever is of little faith is also of little love.
~ by Erich Fromm ~

It is my belief that the biggest problem we have in regards to love is that we seek to get something from it rather than desire to give it away. As mentioned above, Love is not just a feeling and feelings cannot always be trusted. Have you ever felt you were in love with someone only to later discover it wasn’t real (actually, “complete” is a better word)? Indeed! We are not perfect and it would be dishonest to say that we’ve never been victim of self-deception. Sometimes we desire for something to be real and true so badly that we ignore the “red flags” (i.e. what our conscience tells us), and thus open ourselves up to (self) deception. When we complain that we are not getting what we want out of a relationship (not just romantic ones) we ought to stop and remember that we don’t always need that which we are wanting. Only by giving will you get. And this giving must be selfless. To give expecting return implies a wanting (desire)… you cannot fool, reshape, or manipulate True Love – Agape. The moment that you do there begins a ripple effect of selfish desires which leads to forced Love which then leads to resentment – and eventually, separation. If one or both parties stop freely giving Love, then the “roots” of the relationship dry out. Eventually the “tree” withers and dies… One major problem in relationships is the lack of (or repressed) Agape in one’s life. The best way to Agape is to have an understanding of its origins. Forget subjectivity. This Love is Objective. It exists even if no one is aware of it. The best one can do is to discover it, accept it as True (what it is), and then apply it to his/her life.

God’s nature is love itself. Peter Kreeft says, “We fall in love but we do not fall in agape. We rise in agape. God is agape, and agape is not feeling. So God is not feeling. That does not make him or agape cold and abstract. Just the opposite: God is love itself, feeling is the dribs and drabs of love received into the medium of passivity. God cannot fall in love for the same reason water cannot get wet: it is wet. Love itself cannot receive love as a passivity, only spread it as an activity. God is love in action, not love in dreams. Feelings are like dreams: easy, passive, spontaneous. Agape is hard and precious like a diamond. We as fallible humans cannot fully attain Agape because this type of love is without flaw, without the slightest blemish (God-Love). However that does not mean that we let it go. This is the Love we should always strive for in our relations to one another. The “bar” – if you will – has been set and because of that we know what perfect Love is.

You will never understand God until you are willing to stand under Him. By Him all things become clear. You cannot see light, though by light things are seen and God is that Light. In a sense, Agape Love is our light to each other. The love we selflessly give to another is a light that allows our love to be seen by others. And that light is reflected onto all people… To put it another way, you will never understand True Love (agape) until you first stand under it. Love is not about you but it is about them (this is not to say that you shouldn’t love/respect yourself. That goes without saying because you are made in the image of God). But, “[b]ecause of our fallen nature, we are incapable of producing such a love. If we are to love as God loves, that love—that agape—can only come from its true Source. This is the love which ‘has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit given to us when we became His children (Romans 5:5). Because that love is now in our hearts, we can obey Jesus who said, ‘I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. As I have loved you, you should also love one another’” (John 13:34).

It should be noted that Jesus is saying [in John 13:34} that we ought to love the individual (imperfect as he is). He is not saying that you should love/accept his/her behavior. Provided that you have “taken the log out of your own eye,” (Matt. 7:5) you are well within God’s command to judge another’s actions (behavior). You would not be showing agape love otherwise. Loving one another demands that we (in the proper context) help “sharpen” each other. Likewise, the term “turn the other cheek” (Matt. 5:39) does not mean that you do not defend yourself. The context that Jesus was speaking in was that Love (and when He speaks of love he’s usually referring to agape love) is your responsibility. You are responsible for your own words and actions, not anyone else’s. What another does or says to you in anger or hatred should not be returned to him in kind. You are to “turn the other cheek.” That is, you are to love them regardless of the fact that they despise you.

The Bible passage most quoted at weddings is 1 Corinthians 4-7 which states, Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. This is speaking of Agape love. It is not limited to Storge, Philia, or Eros as most people suppose it is. Also, it was not written so that people can shove it back onto others when they feel they are not getting what they want out of “love.” The moment that you do this, Cor. 6 (love does not delight in evil but rejoices in truth) comes back to bite you: you are doing exactly what it tells you you ought not do. In this passage, the apostle Paul is talking about Perfect Love and telling us we should strive for this kind of love toward others. He is certainly not limiting it to romantic love.

I love thee, I love but thee
With a love that shall not die
Till the sun grows cold
And the stars grow old.
~ by William Shakespeare ~

So love one another wholly (and Holy!). Agape incorporates Storge, Philia, and Eros. It moves beyond them – reaching as high as heaven. That is, it IS heavenly. Give of yourself and expect nothing in return. Our greatest disappointments occur when we hold faulty expectations of another. Let this go… Love as God first loved you – as He perfectly designed Love, and for His purpose. Love must be an act of the will not a passivity that allows you feel good.

For the engaged and married, seek the other’s happiness… always. You are married or engaged in order to GIVE (of) yourself to the other. If you allow the roots of Agape to dry out, so will your relationship. If you stop tending to the garden that is (potential) family (husband, wife, kids), the nourishing food will be lost. To seek it elsewhere will surely lead to disaster. You must work at it with single-minded determination and perseverance! You both must deal (wisely) with the abundant rains and the searing droughts in your relationship… For those who are dating: love each other for a purpose – and not the purpose of sexual gratification – rather seek in your relationships Agape and apply it. If you discover that you both have it (or wish to attain it), then plant the seeds in good soil and trust your budding relationship… For those who are single and hoping for love: take these words and allow them to spark a seeking for agape. In that seeking you will surely find. Now, I leave you with more from Peter Kreeft…

“Love is a flower, and hope is its stem. Salvation is the whole plant. God’s grace, God’s own life, comes into us by faith, like water through a tree’s roots. It rises in us by hope, like sap through the trunk. And it flowers from our branches, fruit for our neighbor’s use.

Faith is like an anchor. That’s why it must be conservative, even a stick-in-the-mud, like an anchor. Faith must be faithful. Hope is like a compass or a navigator. It gives us direction, and it takes its bearings from the stars. That’s why it must be progressive and forward-looking. Love is like the sail, spread to the wind. It is the actual energy of our journey. That’s why it must be liberal, open to the Spirit’s wind, generous.”

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/love.htm
The Four Loves. C.S. Lewis; Harcourt, Bruce & Company: Orlando, Fl. 1960
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Loves
http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/love.htm#SH2b
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/love.htm
The Four Loves. C.S. Lewis; Harcourt, Bruce & Company: Orlando, Fl. 1960
http://www.gotquestions.org/agape-love.html
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/love.htm

Intolerant Tolerance

The relativists/pluralists are usually the ones who scream ”tolerance!” and demand we all should be tolerant of others. Though I don’t believe this to be a bad thing, except that the “tolerance” they speak of is not tolerance in the traditional sense. Rather, it is a muddled self-contradictory “tolerance.” Our postmodern culture has brought us to a point where we are blending everything together so that no one or nothing is left out, and what once was is no longer the same but only a twisted version of its old self… The proper understanding of “tolerance” (in a view that I’m in agreement with) can be explained as such…

 ”Many people are confused about what tolerance is. According to Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition, the word tolerate means to allow or to permit, to recognize and respect others’ beliefs and practices without sharing them, to bear or put up with someone or something not necessarily liked.With that being said, Christians might notice that the relativist/pluralist who see truth as subjective, religions basically the same, ALL paths leading to God, and (insert any idea and blend it together with any [many] other[s], as they love doing), STOP TOLERATING Christians and any of its conservative views. That is to say, they’ve become INTOLERANT to Christians/Christianity. So as we  can see they contradict their own worldview by NOT tolerating us and by telling us (by implication at least) we are wrong (thus, intolerant tolerance). As is shown, just about every aspect of relativism/pluralism self-destructs. In my opinion, when self-defeating or contradictory claims collapse on themselves they become “dust in the wind” – non-issues. That is to say, that type of thinking/worldview has entered the absurd and all rational thought disintergrates. What’s the use in having any type of discourse once we’ve entered the absurd? In continuing the above quote…

Tolerance, then, involves three elements: (1) permitting or allowing (2) a conduct or point of view one disagrees with (3) while respecting the person in the process.

Notice that we can’t tolerate someone unless we disagree with him. This is critical. We don’t “tolerate” people who share our views. They’re on our side. There’s nothing to put up with. Tolerance is reserved for those we think are wrong.

This essential element of tolerance–disagreement–has been completely lost in the modern distortion of the concept. Nowadays, if you think someone is wrong, you’re called intolerant…

Three Faces of Tolerance

Tolerance of persons, what might be called “civility,” can be equated with the word “respect.” This is the classical definition of tolerance: the freedom to express one’s ideas without fear of reprisal.

We respect those who hold different beliefs than our own by treating them courteously and allowing their views a place in the public discourse. We may strongly disagree with their ideas and vigorously contend against them in the public square, but we still show respect for the persons in spite of the differences.

Note that respect is accorded to the person, here. Whether his behavior should be tolerated is an entirely different issue. This is the second sense of tolerance, the liberty to act, called tolerance of behavior. Our laws demonstrate that a man may believe what he likes–and he usually has the liberty to express those beliefs–but he may not behave as he likes. Some behavior is immoral or a threat to the common good. Rather than being tolerated, it is restricted by law. In Lincoln’s words: There is no right to do wrong.

Tolerance of persons must also be distinguished from tolerance of ideas. Tolerance of persons requires that each person’s views get a courteous hearing, not that all views have equal worth, merit, or truth. The view that no person’s ideas are any better or truer than another’s is irrational and absurd. To argue that some views are false, immoral, or just plain silly does not violate any meaningful standard of tolerance…

 

Historically, our culture has emphasized tolerance of all persons, but never tolerance of all behavior. This is a critical distinction because, in the current rhetoric of relativism, the concept of tolerance is most frequently advocated for behavior (think promiscuous sex, abortion, ect). People ought to be able to behave the way they want within broad moral limits, the argument goes.

Ironically, though, there is little tolerance for the expression of contrary ideas on issues of morality and religion. If one advocates a differing view, he is soundly censured. The tolerance issue has thus gone topsy-turvy: tolerate most behavior, but don’t tolerate opposing beliefs about those behaviors. Contrary moral opinions are labeled as ‘imposing your view on others.’”*

*Stand to Reason: The Intolerance of Tolerance

As I age, and the longer I go through life… the more I feel we are heading toward the absurd.