Scriptures

For some time now, Darthcynic and I have been discussing the historicity of Christ over on AnAtheist.net in the comments of James article Did Paul Know Jesus’s Disciples. Responding in the comments there has become a bit complicated as our posts now exceed the comment limit, so I’m moving my response here instead. Darthcynic, feel free to reply in the comments of the original discussion, in my comments, or on your own blog. If you don’t post in my comments or on AnAtheist, please make sure to post a link in my comments.

For those who may not have read the original discussion, we started discussing the historicity of Christ (was Jesus are real person who lived in history) and the disciples/apostles (was Peter the apostle Peter the disciple?). The discussion has largely centered around the authenticity of the gospels and extra-Biblical sources confirming the historicity of Christ (Josephus, Tacitus, Talmud, etc.). Because the primary reason James and Darthcynic reject the authenticity of the gospels seems to be alleged contradictions, we have been discussing them as well.

Below is my response to Darthcynics most recent remarks. I did not respond to some sections because I think we’ve exhausted discussion of those topics and further remarks would just be repitive.

I am not suggesting that the religious nature of documents does not raise questions. However, the fact that someone was religious does not necessarily imply their account is or should be considered to be false or should simply be ignored, which is what you are claiming.

What is your criterion for accepting documents as historically meaningful? You seem to be using a criterion which dismisses any document for which any question(s) can be raised. It seems to me that questions can probably be raised for just about any ancient record and therefore rejected by your criteria.

Eyewitness Accounts

Your claim that the gospels were not eyewitness accounts is an unsupported assertion. Your claim that the events are not supported by historical evidence assumes the gospels are not historic evidence. Whatever your opinion on their historical accuracy, they are evidence indicating possible historic events for which no explicit, contradictory evidence exists.

Secular Bias

Accepting the historicity of Christ does not by itself require one to deal with the possible reality of His miracles, which is why I added “especially the gospel accounts”. Once one accepts the premise that much of the gospel accounts represent reliable historic accounts, one can’t simply say “except all that supernatural mumbo jumbo”. There is no reason to think that the gospel authors, especially if many of them were eyewitnesses, would accurately report natural events and then knowingly insert supernatural fabrications.

Furthermore, you reveal your own bias when you say, “Some of these miracles go against the laws of physics and therefore cannot have occurred”. That is the whole point of a miracle, it is not something that is naturally possible. It is also not something you can claim did not happen simply because you believe nothing supernatural exists. The ultimate question between atheists and theists is if a divine being exists. If a divine being does exist, it is reasonable to conclude that being would be capable of doing that which is not naturally possible. Therefore, you can not justify atheism by simply denying all possible supernatural events based on your atheism!

Finally, your statement that “science is the best tool we have of explaining how the world works; it is not a competing dogma with Christianity” is rather peculiar. It seems to me that the term “science” is generally used in one of four ways:

1. The scientific method (experimentation and observation)
2. Scientific dialectic (publishing, rationally explaining data gathered via application of the scientific method).
3. Scientific consensus (most scientists agree)
4. Assumed naturalism.

Your application of the laws of physics in rejecting the possibility of miracles and interpretation of my reference to naturalism as a reference to science suggests you are using the fourth definition. Therefore, it is odd to suggest that this dogma does not compete with Christianity. In fact, it contradicts Christianity, which accepts as a foundational principle the existance of a supernatural being and His intervention in the world.

Extra-Biblical Sources

Josephus

Unlike Theudas and Judas, Jesus did not gather a large band and revolt (Judas) or try to leave the area (Theudas). Therefore, there are differences between Jesus and these men which render a different treatment for them plausible.

Darkness

I am sorry, I misspoke. Tertullian was a church apologist. I meant to refer to Thallus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thallus_(historian)).

Conclusion

Cthulhu

Like the Flying Spaggheti Monster, Cthulhu is not a parallel case to Christ. I am not positing the existence of a being for which there is no serious historic claim that He existed. There may be some questions regarding the evidence but one can not definitively conclude that all the evidence is fabricated and therefore can be ignored.

Explicit Evidence

Your description of Theophilus and Minucius is not one which contradicts the notion of a historic Christ. First, not claiming that Jesus ever lived on earth is not the same as claiming He never lived on earth. I clearly qualified my premise as relating to “explicit evidence”. An inference from silence is outside that domain. Second, the quotation from Minucius does not deny the crucifiction as you suggest. Minucius is responding to someone who characterized Christianity as worshipping a criminal and his cross (in other words, Christians stupidly worship a common, human criminal). Minucius statement contradicts the characterization of Christ as merely human and a criminal. He does not deny that Jesus was human (He does claim that Jesus was more than human) nor does He deny that Jesus was crucified.

Paul the Apostle

Again, Paul’s work is not historic in nature. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that Paul does not refer to many historic events in the life of Christ. However, Paul does refer to Jesus as an historic person, mentioning repeatedly that he took on flesh or became a man (Rom. 1:1, 5:12-15, 8:3; 1 Cor. 15:21; Eph. 2:15; Col. 1:20-22; 1 Timothy 3:16).

Critical Methods

Part of the problem with so called “critical methods” of historical evaluation is that they often begin, as you did earlier, with the assumption that any supernatural event is impossible. This is an assumption that God does not exist. If one has begun with the assumption that God does not exist and therefore reject all possible supernatural events, it is not valid to then argue that your assumption is justified because God does not exist because your conclusion based on that assumption is that there is no evidence for God because there can not be any evidence for Him because He does not exist because you have assumed He does not. A conclusion based on an assumption can not also prove the assumption. That is invalid, circular reasoning, similar to your claim that my argument begins with the assumption that the premise that the historic Christ is true.

My Assumptions

Your accusation that I am using circular reasoning is unsupported. I have not argued that we should begin with the assumption that Jesus existed as you have argued that we should begin with the assumption that the supernatural is impossible. I have argued (1) that your evaluation of the historic value of the gospels as irrelevant is (a) based on personal prejudice and (b) a gross exaggeration of perceived problems (time between events and recording, authorship, etc.) and (c) contradictions, especially considering our very limited focus: whether the person of Jesus lived or not. I have also presented (2) collaborative historic evidence for the life of Jesus, which like much historical evidence is not without questions. I have also pointed out (3) the lack of explicit evidence contradicting the life of Jesus. All of these are significant, reasonable arguments supporting the premise that a man named Jesus actually lived upon which the person of Jesus Christ as understood by Christians is based and no a priori assumption is necessary. These arguments certainly do not establish that all the events and actions attributed to Him must have happened, but that is not our immediate focus.

The fact that I believe Jesus lived, may render me more likely to accept arguments in favor of the life of Christ, just as anyone is more likely to accept data which fits what they already believe or want to believe. Clearly, evaluating the relative strength or weakness of certain arguments is often a somewhat subjective process and we have a difference of opinion on the strengths of our various arguments. I appreciate your attempt to account for this difference, but attributing the difference entirely to my bias seems like an unsupportable ad hominem attack and lazy approach to me. What would be more productive is an argument or criterion which demonstrates that rejecting all the evidence is more reasonable than accepting it. This is what I am attempting to do in my conclusion: arguing that despite questions for each piece of evidence, it is more likely that the basic premise (historicity of Christ) is true, resulting in some authentic historic records (but perhaps not all those we discussed) than the alternative solution you advocate: that Jesus never lived and all this evidence is fabricated or uninformed and all the statements of the greatest problem with Christianity (Jesus never actually lived as the gospels claimed and the early Christians believed) were lost.

Biblical Errors

Old Testament

Creation

Gen. 2:8 is clear. It states that God planted a garden. After mentioning God creating trees, verse 9 also mentions the trees of Life and the Knowledge of Good and Evil being in the center of the garden. Concluding that this refers to the initial creation of plants ignores the immediate context and demonstrates a desire to manufacture contradictions by accepting the most problematic interpretation possible. Gen. 2:4-6 is a context issue as well. It states that before God created the plants, the land was watered by a mist. The creation of man comes after this statement, it is not part of it. Furthermore, it is my understanding that this passage follows the format of a traditional Hebrew narrative which begins with a summary (Gen. 1-2:3) and then fills in some details (before plants, land watered by mist, after creating man, God made Eden, etc.).

My impression of the theory of Macroevolution is that it is a reasonable, but improbable theory. It has been said that “if all other options are ruled out, that which remains must be true, no matter how unlikely”. This premise underlies much of the “evidence” for evolution. Because all other options have been ruled out, it becomes the most likely solution. However, in the case of divine creation, it is not the evidence, but philosophical bias of the exact kind you demonstrated when you argued the gospels should be rejected as historical based on the laws of physics which has been used to rule out divine creation. In other words, naturalism is assumed a priori. Therefore, the conclusion of naturalism is unsurprising.

No doubt you find this to be an unfair assessment. I am willing to discuss any problems you see in the above statement and any key elements or evidences of evolution you find to be particularly compelling.

Flood

It is certainly traditional to mock the invocation of “God did it”. But that’s really the point isn’t it? This isn’t really about the flood. You don’t just think that God is “the most ridiculous and useless of all possible answers” to the question of the flood. You beleive that God is “the most ridiculous and useless of all possible answers” to any question of reality. Reality, however, cares little for your opinion or mine. If there is any particular geological or archaeological evidence you find particularly persuasive, feel free to bring it up.

Everest would not necessarily have been higher during the flood. In order to cover the entire earth with water, God broke up the fountains of the deep and opened the windows of heaven (Gen. 7:11), which probably involved releasing water from water above the atmosphere (Gen. 1:7). In order to uncover the land from the extra water, God probably had to raise the land, deepen the oceans, or both.

Exodus

The Exodus account itself, at least, is evidence that the Israelites were once held captive in Egypt and wandered in the wilderness.

I am not saying that the reality of the Exodus is the only reasonable conclusion. However, it is a reasonable conclusion.

Can you be more specific regarding the evidence you are citing? What kinds of things were found? When would you expect the Exodus to have taken place? What are the periods of habitation you cite? What oasis are you referring to and what connects it to the Exodus account? I would also not be surprised to find that nomads traveling through the desert over periods of thousands of years left more traces, than the children of Israel did over a mere 40 years of wandering.

My reference to debatable timing regarding the conquest account (and subsequently the Exodus account) refers to pinning down when the Exodus would have happened. It is my understanding that the actual time period is uncertain.

Ezekiel

Please provide references for passages you find contradictory of passages or reality (in an obvious way, not solely related to assumptions you make). Again, your argument that “Ezekiel is ridiculous” because it describes angelic “creatures that do not exist” is not a contradiction. The fact that you believe supernatural beings do not exist does not prove they don’t. Therefore, the fact that you do not believe they exist does not imply the Bible contains a contradiction. This is essentially the same argument as saying the Bible claims God exists, but He does not (based on your worldview), therefore the Bible is contradictory. If you would like to discuss the existence of God in or outside of the Bible, we can certainly do that, but please don’t pretend your personal incredulity at the suggestion of the existence of supernatural beings is a serious argument against their existence or a special contradiction in the Bible.

My View

As you suspect, I am a Christian. I believe in a literal interpretation of the inerrant and historically credible Bible, including the Creation account. I also consider this to be a perfectly rational position. I understand that that does not prove anything to you. When discussing Biblical contradictions with someone like yourself, contradictions generally fall into two categories: internal and external.

External contradictions are contradictions between the Bible and what is thought to be true about reality, such as the Creation account contradicting the order of the Evolutionary tree, the Flood, and the Exodus. The issue here is assuming scripture to be true (which involves issues of interpretation) how does it line up with our understanding of reality (such as, biology, geology, archaeology, etc., which also involves issues of interpretation).

Internal contradictions are contradictions between different statements in the Bible, such as the genealogies of Jesus Christ. The logic here is to assume the Bible is true in all statements and demonstrate that if all those statements are true, a contradiction emerges (logically, reductio ad absurdum).

In both cases, scripture is assumed to be true in an effort to prove or disprove compatibility with (1) reality or (2) itself. Your claim that Ezekiel could not have seen angels and therefore the Bible must be false does not seem to try to be an attempt at positing an internal contradiction, but the real problem is external (your assumptions about reality). However, these really are not related to the Bible, but a larger critique in belief in the supernatural. You do not really need a reference to Ezekiel to make that argument and as such you do not really need the Bible either. In fact, referencing Ezekiel only confuses the real issue. What is it that makes you so sure no supernatural being can possibly exist?

Gospel Errors

Nativity Account

What exactly are you looking for here? You seem to be presenting a criterion that demands biographical accounts to include exactly the same information; otherwise, they must be rejected as historical.

Furthermore, the gospels may not all start with the birth of Christ, but their beginnings do seem reasonable given their authorship and goals. Matthew clearly wrote to a Jewish audience and focused on Jesus as the Messiah. This made covering the birth of Christ necessary to establish Jesus as meeting the criteria to be the Messiah. Luke, clearly intending to write a biography, would have started at the beginning, with the birth of Christ. Mark and John, if they represent the accounts of Peter and John, start where Peter and John’s experience with Jesus start: the baptism of John. John 1:35-42 describes how many of the apostles first met Jesus. John is generally considered to be the other of the two of John’s disciples and Andrew brings Peter to meet Jesus shortly after the baptism of Jesus. Therefore, just as the baptism of Jesus by John was the beginning of their experience with Jesus, it is the beginning of their record of Him.

Herod

How do you conclude that Luke’s account implies Herod is dead?

Genealogies

Matthew clearly goes through Joseph, but Luke is not so clear. He mentions that Jesus was supposed to be the son of Joseph and then lists a bunch of names. Curiously, according to the italics in my Bible the words “the son” in the phrase “the son of x” are inserted. They do not appear in the original. Also, for the reason you mention, Jesus not receiving blood relation to David through Joseph, many conclude that Luke gives the genealogy of Mary. Thus, Matthew, a Jew, would have been more concerned with the legal line of Jesus, establishing His kingship. Luke, a Greek, focusing on the humanity of Christ, would have included His real bloodline, proving kingship (Matthew) and blood decent from David fulfilling the Davidic Covenant (Luke). Because of the difference between legal and blood geneologies and the mention of Joseph in Luke 3:23, others suspect this is Joseph’s bloodline. Either is reasonable.

Anticipation of the Resurrection

I understand you are claiming all but John declare knowledge of the impending resurrection while John does not. Please cite the passages that back this up. I’m not going to skim all four books and try to guess what you are referring to.

Signs

Jesus had already performed miracles before the Pharisees asked to see a sign from heaven. Therefore, they were asking for a sign according to a criterion which excluded them. Thus, when Jesus said no sign would be given them He was not contradicting His miracles as signs. Regarding no sign vs. the sign of Jonah, I can not say why Mark left the sign of Jonah out, but the sign of Jonah was clearly not what the Pharisees wanted.

Fig Tree

The disciples noticed it and asked about it (Matt. 21:20; Mark 11:20). Jesus replied with a message on the power of faith. There isn’t much inferring going on here. Matthew’s account mentions an immediate withering and Mark’s account mentions passing the fig tree in the morning.

Day of the Crucifixion

Please provide references.

First Resurrection Appearance

Wishful thinking is insisting something must be a problem when it is not. The resurrection accounts clearly differ and piecing together the exact sequence of events is not easy. That does not mean they contradict.

If the Bible and the gospels are as poorly written as you suggest, explicit contradictions should exist. As explicit contradictions are also more compelling than this kind of inferred or worst possible interpretation contradiction, why don’t we focus on those?

Contradictions

James Tracy from AnAtheist.net has responded to my article on The Resurrection Account. In it, he makes it clear that his position is not simply that the gospels are full of contradictions, but that historically, he believes they represent a manufactured narrative for religious purposes that grew out of the early Pauline tradition, particularly, his references to Old Testament prophecy. We have also been discussing this idea in comments over on AnAtheist in the articles Paul on the Crucifixion and Did Paul Know Jesus’ Disciples?.

Before moving on to our specific disagreements, I’m going to cover some basic philosophical differences related to our criteria for contradictions and our opposing biases.

When determining whether something is a contradiction, my criteria is as follows:

1. Both passages must explicitly contradict
2. Where ambiguity allows a non-contradicting interpretation, prefer it.

For example, (1) if I say the cat is a dog, I have explicitly contradicted myself. This is a contradiction. (2) If I say “Bob is a cat” and “Bob is a dog”, I am being ambiguous. I may be saying one entity named “Bob” is both a cat and a dog, which would be a contradiction as before. Or, I might be referring to two separate entities. Without an explicit basis to determine the meaning, I would assume the author probably knew what he was talking about and meant two different entities.

I do not know exactly what criteria James is using, but his criteria is clearly broader than mine. For example, he finds an implicit contradiction between Matthew and the other gospels (soldiers guarding the tomb) and accepts a contradicting interpretation in an ambiguous case (Luke and John on the last words of Christ).

Bias

Also, it is fair to point out, especially when discussing something as uncertain as history, that personal bias can become an important factor. As such, reasonable to point out that as a Christian, my worldview biases me to view the gospels as historic and true. However, an Atheist is similarly biased by his worldview to view religious accounts in purely naturalistic terms and suspect the authenticity of any historic material that reports supernatural events.

The Apostle Paul did teach a Historic Christ

A key part of James’s case is his argument that Paul does not present a historical Christ. Rather, James suggests, Paul may have believed in a spiritual narrative played out in heaven rather than on earth. James bases this claim on the premise that Paul’s epistles are not explicit. They focus on the spiritual implications of Christ, but do not explicitly mention an earthly history.

This premise is false. While Paul’s emphasis is clearly spiritual, he also presents Jesus as a historic, earthly figure. First, Paul parallels Christ’s death and resurrection with the earthly death and future resurrection of the saints (1 Cor. 15). Second, Paul repeatedly speaks of Jesus as taking on flesh or becoming a man (Rom. 1:1, 5:12-15, 8:3; 1 Cor. 15:21; Eph. 2:15; Col. 1:20-22; 1 Timothy 3:16).

Paul and the Gospel Accounts

I brought this up in commenting on Paul on the Crucifixion and this is probably why James adds the parenthetical comment “at least not as portrayed later in the gospels”, adding another way in which James can justify the interpretation of the gospels as spiritual allegory or prophetic extrapolation.

Due to Paul’s lack of biographical material on Christ, the position that the gospels portray a different, historic Christ than the one Paul was familiar with is a more plausible position, but still not very well supported. Indirectly, Paul confirms a great deal about the Life of Christ by affirming His fulfillment of OT Prophecy. Also, having established that Paul believed in a historic Christ and that that historic Christ fulfilled a great deal of Old Testament prophecy, Paul clearly taught the historic nature of Christ’s death (by crucifixion), burial, and resurrection on the third day, all events the gospels record. This does not entirely discredit James’s premise, but it does narrow the gap between what Paul clearly accepted regarding the historic Christ and what the gospels record.

The Gospels and the Historic Christ

Regarding the gospels themselves, there is a lot we could cover, but it seems to me there are two primary issues here:

Self-testimony

First, the text of the gospels does not support James’s premise explicitly. In fact, if anything, they explicitly deny an allegorical interpretation. They also do not present an extrapolation from prophecy to history, but rather, the other way around. The most explicit case is Luke’s opening declaration:

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. (Luke 1:1-4)

we also have the genealogies of Matthew and Luke which present Jesus not only as a historic person, but someone clearly connected to other historical figures. We also have statements such as that in John 1:14: “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us”.

Therefore, the gospels present themselves as historic, not allegorical.

Textual Analysis

Second, and probably the most important issue, is textual analysis. I view the gospels as presenting a unifiable, consistent account, as one would expect from eyewitness accounts. This is not the creation of a new gospel, but a reasonable attempt to harmonize eyewitness accounts. Variance certainly exists, but it is reconcilable with the other accounts, generally revealing unique details.

On the other hand, James sees the gospels as plagued by numerous contradictions. If they exist, such a scale of contradictions would at least indicate sloppy work and lend reasonable credit to the premise of distancing authorship from eyewitnesses, as James attempts to do. Furthermore, once the premise of more distant and erroneous authorship is established, the re-understood documents require a new historical context. If they were not written by eyewitnesses and the authors did not particularly care about consistency and accuracy, their purpose also reasonably must deviate from history. As such, James conclusion, although lacking external historical support, follows rather logically from the conclusion of sloppy and contradictory accounts.

But are the gospels as sloppy and contradictory as James presents? Clearly, I dispute that premise. As noted in my introduction, I contest many of James’s “contradictions” as being unjustified, implied contradictions or assuming contradictions in reasonably ambiguous cases. Therefore, this really is the crux of the issue: do the gospels discredit themselves through contradictions, supporting a distorted historic or non-historic view of them? I would conclude not and challenge James to provide either 3 contradictions consistent with my criteria or with a counter-criteria he may wish to provide and justify.

The Cross

James Tracy over at anatheist.net posted a whole slew of articles over the past few days related to the gospels, the cross, and the resurrection to counter the recent celebration of Resurrection Sunday. I don’t have time to deal with all of them, so I’ll be focusing primarily on Are the Gospels Histories, which essentially deals with three topics: the cross, the tomb, and the gospels themselves.

Eloi vs. Eli

James claims that Matthew intentionally changed Marks transliteration of the Aramaic version (Eloi) of Ps. 22:1 to the Hebrew version (Eli) to make the opening easier for the crowd to confuse with Elijah (Eleian). This seems like a simple issue of differences in language and the mere observation of the sources of the two different spellings supports this. Trying to argue that there must have been a devious rewrite of history here is unsupportable.

Last Words of Christ

This is followed by the worst argument James presents. He next argues that the Matthew and Mark accounts record Ps. 22:1 as the last words of Christ and compares them with the last words presented in Luke (Luke 23:46 “And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, ‘Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit’: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.”). However, it is not true that Matthew and Mark declare Ps. 22:1 to be the last words of Christ. Rather, they continue on to report that after quoting the psalm, Jesus cried out with a loud voice (Matt. 27:50; Mark 15:37), just as Luke reports, but without quoting His last words.

Some passages in scripture are hard and some parallel passage take some work to reconcile. This issue does not fall into this category and making this argument indicates ignorance or sloppiness on the part of the author.

One of those harder passages in the Johhn account does initially appear to contradict Luke. John records that Jesus said “It is finished” and then gave up the ghost (John 19:30). However, it is quite possible that Jesus said both. Therefore, there is no inherent, irreconcilable problem, even between Luke and John.

The Tomb

Significance of the Stone

James attempts to read into the gospel accounts a difference of opinion regarding Jesus’ resurrected state. He argues that because Matthew has the stone there when the women arrive, Matthew held that Jesus must have been able to leave the tomb without the stone being moved. Conversely, because Mark has the stone rolled away before the women arrive, Jesus must have needed it to be moved before He could escape. However, the gospels make it clear that the significance of the stone is not how Jesus left the tomb, but enabling people to see that Christ had left the tomb, which was the angel’s invitation.

Rolling of the Stone, Before or After?

While Mark, Luke, and John report that the women saw the stone rolled away upon their arrival at the tomb (Mark 16:4; Luke 24:2; John 20:1), Matthew reports that the women went to the tomb, an angel came down and rolled the stone away, frightening the soldiers, and sat on the stone. However, Matthew does not report at what point the women arrived. He reports that the women went to the tomb and what the angel did, but not the point at which the women arrived in the angels narrative (Matthew 28:1-5). By comparing Matthew to the other gospels, it seems likely that the angel(s) arrived before they did.

Angelic Appearance

James then attempts to create a contradiction out of the various authors description of the angels. He argues that because Mark describes one of the angels as a youth dressed in white (Mark 16:5) while Matthew and Luke describe the angels differently and in more amazing terms, Matthew and Luke must be embellishing the original account. While the Matthew and Luke accounts describe the angels in more impressive terms, they do not contradict the Mark account. Matthew reports that the angel’s appearance was like lightning and he was dressed in white (Matt. 28:3), extended and confirming Mark’s account. Luke simply reports that the angels wore shining garments (Luke 24:4), which fits with Matthew’s record that their appearance was like lightning. Even Mark’s account records that the youth’s frightened the women.

Two Angels

Nor is there any contradiction regarding the number of angels. Matthew reports an angel outside the tomb, Mark reports an angel inside the tomb. Luke reports two angels. John does not report any angels until Mary Magdalene sees two later. However, none of the accounts state at any time that no angels were seen, which would constitute a contradiction. Rather the accounts all report angelic appearances with similar messages at difference times, all of which could easily have occured.

To Gallilee

Nor is Luke in error when He records that Jesus had told them in Gallilee that He would go to Jerusalem, be killed, and rise again (Matt. 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). It is consistent with all accounts for the angel to have said both that Jesus told them this would happen in Gallilee and that they should return to Gallilee. There is also no contradiction between Luke’s account of Acts and the disciples visit to Gallilee to meet Christ. They could easily have traveled to Gallilee to meet with the Lord and returned to Jerusalem to begin the Acts account.

Report of the Women

In another article, James also points out that while Mark reports the women did not say anything (Mark. 16:8), Matthew and Luke (Matt. 28:8; Luke 24:10) report that they went to tell the disciples. It is not perfectly clear how these accounts fit together, but it is easy to imagine several scenarios that reconcile the accounts: First, it is possible that there initial response was to say nothing because they were afraid. Second, it is possible that in obedience to the angel, they went to tell the disciples, but for fear, told no one they met along the way. Third, it may be that some of the women were too afraid to talk, but some were not. Even the Mark account continues on to record that Mary Magdalene went and told the disciples (Mark. 16:10).

The Gospels

James claims the gospels are copying off Mark because of a lack of deviation from the Mark account. Then he claims each deviation is a contradiction or intentional creation of fiction based on the implicit assumption that anything Mark omitted he omitted because it was not true. This is especially clear in his article regarding the soldiers outside the tomb reported in Matthew. His argument is based solely on the assumption that anything Mark did not include was excluded because Mark did not know about it and therefore it was not true, completely ignoring the obvious alternative that the authors were either eyewitnesses or consulted with eyewitnesses and therefore had different memories, perspectives, and goals in their accounts. This is especially true if Matthew and Luke were aware of Mark’s account. There would be no point in writing another gospel to simple repeat everything Mark said. Instead, the most reasonable reason to write another gospel would be to augment the Mark account. In reality, the variation in the gospels does create internal contradictions and provides strong evidence of independence in the accounts and the veracity of the events contained therein.

Clarification

Jason and Rich have posted counter-arguments to Salvation Mechanics in defense of the Reformed view that saving faith is not free, but also a gift from God (selection salvation).

Before addressing their specific arguments, I’d like to answer a question Rich asked. In discussing depravity, Rich asked what I mean by “believe”. I apologize for the vagueness of the quotation Rich cited (”believe in God”). Within this context, when I say “faith” or “believe in God”, I mean saving faith or trust in Christ’s work for salvation. I do not mean intellectual assent to the existence of a higher being. Such assent may be a major step towards saving faith, but it does not save. As James wrote:

Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

Freewill

Citing John 1:13, Jason argues that faith is a gift:

I agree with your choice of scripture references. You should remember this one though.

“who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” – John 1:13

Without any specific analysis, Jason’s argument here is neither clear nor explicit, but I believe his argument centers around the phrase: “nor of the will of man, but of God”. To understand exactly what is being referred to here, we must examine the preceding verse. Together:

Joh 1:12-13 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (KJV)

The passage is referring to becoming sons of God. This is related to salvation, but is given as a result, not a requirement of receiving or believing. It is not by our will or power that we become sons of God. Rather, it is His will to make those who receive and believe His sons by His power. Freewill Salvation is consistent with this doctrine. My view does not hold that we are saved by our own power or made sons of God by our own wills. Rather, it is God’s will to use His power to save those who freely believe and His will to make them sons.

Furthermore, a valid interpretation of scripture must consider all related verses. You can’t agree with the references I listed and my interpretation of them and consistently hold the view of Selection Salvation. For example, consider Romans 8:29, which declares that predestination is dependent on God’s foreknowledge. I argued that this foreknowledge must be of a freewill choice. If that is not the case, what is God’s relevant foreknowledge of? It must be consistent with the rest of scripture. Possible alternatives to freewill faith are inconsistent with God’s character or circular. Consider John 1:12, which declares that it is God’s will to make those who receive Jesus and believe on His name the sons of God. What does it mean that sonship is dependent on faith if God also gives faith? That God chose to save them because He knew they would receive Christ because He was choosing them to do so based on His own choice? Such a conclusion is absurdly circular.

Depravity

Following my organization, Rich begins with addressing the role of freewill in faith. However, his argument is based on depravity. Rich essentially argues that prior to salvation people are “servants of sin” (Rom. 6:20). As a servant of sin, one is incapable of doing that which is not sin (totally depraved). Faith, being the key act of righteousness, is not sin. Therefore, no one is capable of faith without God giving them the gift of faith in order to receive the gift of salvation. To put it in theological terms, depravity precludes the will from faith.

As I emphasized in Salvation Mechanics, depravity does indeed preclude the natural man from taking the initiative in a search for God, neither can he understand the things of the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:14). God must take the initiative in seeking us. However, God addresses this inability through general revelation, special revelation (the Bible), believer outreach (missions), and the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

Given this divine intervention, depravity is not a sufficient barrier to the will to faith. The natural man will not seek God, but God confronts him. The natural man is incapable of fully understanding the spiritual message of the gospel by himself, but the Spirit makes the truth clear. At this point, man is free to choose faith. Seeking is not the same as believing. Depravity requires that God seek us. It does not require that He force us to believe the gospel.

The analogy of one enslaved to sin is apt. Like a slave, the natural man by himself has no choice. He must serve the master (sin). But if another master comes to him and offers to buy him if he wills it, the slave has a choice, not from himself, but granted by the Master’s intervention.

Jason closes his remarks to me with a quotation from Sinclair Ferguson regarding the enslaved nature of man’s will. In my original remarks, I discussed depravity in detail with specific regard for Romans 3:10-11. Rich provided some more related references. In all of those cases, the passages do not say that man can not choose to believe the gospel via freewill. They do not say that man is so depraved he can not freely accept God’s gift. What they do say is that left to himself man sin nature dictates evil. Man will not seek God. We clearly agree on this point. Where we disagree is man’s position after God intervenes. God dramatically intervenes throughout history and directly to every person through the Holy Spirit to push them towards saving faith in Christ. Therefore, the question is not “will man seek God?”, but “can man, confronted by God with truth, accept it freely?” I have yet to see a convincing passage analysis affirming the negative to that question.

Election

As previously discussed, God predestined some to salvation before the beginning of the world “according to the good pleasure of His will”. I identified His will as the will to save those who will (that is, God desires to save those who freely trust in Christ’s work). Rich rejects this conclusion based on four counterarguments:

Alternate Criteria

Rich begins by arguing that there are alternative criteria to faith that God could base election on.

Glorification

First, Rich presents glorification (Rom. 8:30) as a possible criterion. However, this confuses the criterion with the ends and would make God’s reasoning circular. Romans 8:29-30 states:

Rom 8:29-30 29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

The initial “cause” of this process is God’s foreknowledge. Its end is glorification. If God’s criterion is glorification, then He would be choosing to glorify those He foreknew He would glorify because He foreknew He would glorify them. This is clearly not an acceptable criterion.

Secret Reasons

Alternatively, Rich argues that God’s criterion is secret, citing Romans 9:6-26. I think this primarily a reference to Romans 9:15:

Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

However, God does not say here that He has secret reasons for saving some. Rather, He is declaring that He does will to save some and it is not according to merit, but His will. In the context of the citation (Ex. 33:19) the people of Israel have just disobeyed God’s command to take the promised land, choosing instead to accept the negative report of 10 of the spies. God grants Moses’s request to spare them, based on His grace and mercy. God does not spare them because of merit. This is merely indicative of the fact that it is not by works which we do that God chooses to elect us to salvation.

Responsibility

Rich then claims that Election does not preclude human responsibility. While I agree that that principle is found in Romans 9, that does not mean the Calvinist interpretation of Election does not preclude any reasonable sense of human responsibility. Responsibility implies choice. For example, I can not be reasonably held accountable for something that a complete stranger does. If you throw a rock, I can not be reasonable held responsible for gravity pulling it down. Similarly, it is unreasonable to damn someone because of a choice God or Adam made over which that person had no control. Any definition of responsibility that does not lead to this conclusion would seem to be an utterly foreign definition of the word.

God Chooses

Next, Rich argues that scripture declares several times that God is the agent of choosing the elect and their subsequent salvation, sanctification, and glorification. This is true. What is also true is that God’s choice is founded on foreknowledge (Rom. 8:29). That is the real issue here. We agree that God chooses the Elect. Scripture is also clear that it is based on foreknowledge of some event(s). What event(s) are in question is the key to this discussion.

In order for God to hold an individual reasonably responsible, that foreknowledge must be regarding that individual. Because salvation is not according to works, God’s criterion can not be merit for “all of our righteousnesses are as filthy rags” (Isa 64:6). The only suitable criterion is that which is again and again associated with salvation: faith.

Respecter of Faith

Finally, Rich objects that the faith criterion amounts to some form of conditional respect for certain people. By that interpretation of “respecter of persons” any criterion other than random selection would make God a respecter of persons because any criterion that chooses some and rejects others “respects” them. In the context of Deuteronomy 10:17, from which Peter quotes, God is talking about the fatherless and the widow (Deut. 10:18). In Acts 10:35, Peter makes it clear that he is referring to nations, even emphasizing that God accepts “he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness”. That is, God does not have a special regard for the rich, the powerful, or particular ethnic groups. In a similar way, our Declaration of Independence declares: “all men are created equal.” Everyone has the opportunity to find salvation and it is the good pleasure of God’s sovereign will to save those who believe.

Rich’s closing remarks return to this theme:

A great preacher once noted, “The doctrine of justification itself, as preached by an Arminian, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works…” If a man chooses to believe in God, how is this not a work? If faith comes from within the person and not from God, who is really doing the saving? Is it God or man who justifies?

One might note on the other hand that the doctrine of justification itself, as preached by a Calvinist, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by accident. But the doctrine of freewill salvation by faith is not a doctrine of works. The concept of salvation by works is the idea that by doing good deeds one earns a place in heaven. One has a right to demand entrance into heaven, of God based on one’s own merit. Saving faith is the completely opposite idea. The concept of salvation by faith is the concept that we can not earn God’s favor in the manner just described. However, God, in His love for us, sent His Son to live the perfect life performing the good works that do merit God’s favor. His Son also died the substitutionary death for all our failings. By Christ’s work, those who exercise faith are justified. Faith is not an action that inherently cancels sin and makes us positional perfect. Faith applies the work of Christ to us. To argue that the concept of salvation by freewill faith is the same as the concept of salvation by works forgets the essential work of Christ that exists in the latter and is lacked in the former. The man of faith demands entrance into heaven not based on his merit, but rather based on Christ’s merit and promise.

On another note, I should be clear here that I am not professing Arminianism, as I accept the doctrine of eternal security.

Scope

Rich and I appear to agree on the question of scope. Rich sums up his position:

…saving grace is freely available to all, but only effectual for some…In other words, Christ died for the whole world, but the atonement provided through His blood sacrifice will only be counted as effectual for those whom God chooses.

Here, Rich, in keeping with His view on the deciding factor of salvation emphasizes the sovereignty of God in election, whereas I would have highlighted personal faith, but we agree on the central premise, that Christ’s death is for all and applied only to the elect, whether their freewill has a part in election or not.

God’s Priorities

Rich also explains that this view is consistent with passages declaring that it is God’s will to save all. Again we agree. Because God is sovereign, it is the stated will of God that no one perish (2 Peter 3:9), and we know that only a few will be saved (Matt. 17:13-14), God has clearly decided to allow some to reject salvation. I would argue that this is because God desires to allow us freewill. In respecting the freewill of man, God allowed Adam and Eve to sin, allows people to sin today, and even allows people to reject salvation. The bottom line is that if it is God’s known will to save everyone and it is also known that not all are saved, God’s priority of saving everyone is superceded by another priority. In my view, this priority is freewill.

However, while the different wills or priorities of God provide an acceptable answer to the question “If God claims He wants to save everyone, why doesn’t He?” It doesn not answer the question “what priority supercedes His priority to save?” Freewill salvation provides a clear answer: freewill. The Reformed view lacks a clear answer that is also consistent with God’s declared fairness (not a respecter of persons, etc.). As such, an appeal to God’s priorities does not fully address the problem presented by passages such as 2 Peter 3:9 to the Reformed view.

Limited Payment

On the other hand, Jason argues that Christ died only for the elect. He cites John 17:1-2,9. However, John 17:1-2,9 does not discuss the scope of the offer. Jesus refers only to the scope of reception. Certainly, not all receive eternal life, nor are all the sons of God. However, those facts do not mean that the offer is not open to all. Nor does it mean Christ only paid for the price of those that do receive Him. The scope is discussed in John 3:16 which states that God loved the world (that is, all people). Because of this universal love God gave His Son, Jesus. The goal is saving the world. Unfortunately, as you point out and as I did state in my previous post (”to anyone that believes”), not all will believe. 2 Peter 3:9 and Ezekiel 33:11 are also clear. God has not divided humanity into two groups of those He will save and those He won’t. Humanity, by it’s choices, good and bad, has divided itself into two camps before Him. One group choosing to accept Him and the other rejecting Him. God’s desire is to save all.

Few there be that find it

Jason also takes issue with the idea that only a few are saved. It may be true that the number of believers throughout history is great. However, the number of those who do not believe is greater. Relative to the multitudes of the lost, the saved are few in number. As Jesus said:

Mat 7:13-14 13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Hyper-Calvinism

As a side note, Rich’s remark regarding “Hyper-Calvinism” seems to have sparked a discussion of what “Hyper-Calvinism” consists of. The term itself carries with it the negative connotation of extremism. Therefore, I am not surprised that very few accept the label. Although most would probably consider the denial of the universal offer of salvation as extreme, it seems to be a rather logical conclusion if, as all Calvinist’s profess, salvation is ultimately determined solely by a divine and impenetrable choice of God to save some and damn others. If God has chosen to save only some apart from any choices they might make for some mystical reason, there does not appear to be any reason to even make salvation available for any others. However, it also seems logical to conclude that if no choice of man is involved, but that salvation is brought about solely by the inexorable force of God’s divine will acting on a person, then there is no need to preach the gospel, for those who God has chosen will come to understand it and those who have not been chosen can not be persuaded to receive it.

However, as Jason points out, Jesus was direct and specific when He commanded the disciples and the church to:

Mat 28:19-20 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

To teach anything else is contrary to scripture. Even if God did chose only some, He has not told us who they are and clearly intended that the gospel should reach the elect through outreach to the world. This is the point where the doctrine explicitly dictates different action. It seems that Rich, Jason, and myself all believe that whatever the precise mechanismm of salvation is, the message is to be distributed to the world. Those who take the doctrine of selection election this far propose not only a theological barrier, but an application barrier. For this reason, I would be inclined to agree with Jason and Dr. Lloyd-Jones, that “Hyper-Calinism” probably best describes the group that teaches a different and clearly unbiblical application.

However, due to the seemingly logical progression from selection salvation to the limited offer of salvation to the irrelevance of universal outreach, that is from Calvinism to Hyper-Calvinism, I would be inclined to question the supporting premises as well. The goal and desire of God is clearly for universal salvation. A limited offer seems to contradict this goal. Furthermore, a divine, selective salvation also seems to contradict the stated purpose of God. God wants to save all people and clearly holds them responsible for rejecting Him. This would seem to lead clearly to one conclusion: God makes salvation available to all (universal offer) and we are freely responsible to accept or reject it, not because God is not sovereign, but because His sovereign will is for us to freely choose. It seems absurd that God should hold people accountable for rejecting Him if their rejection is not free, but caused by God’s own choice. If God is the cause, how can man justly receive the condemnation?

The Lord’s Prayer

Last week, an Atheist Under Ur Bed published What Must We Do To Be Saved on AnAtheist.net. In it, he goes through various passages in the New Testament claiming they present contradictory ways to salvation and eternal life.

Matt. 6:12,14-15 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors…For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

This is not the sinner’s prayer (a prayer of salvation). As such, the theoretical speaker has already believed and been saved. The forgiveness here is not for salvation, but of post-salvation sins for the renewal of fellowship with God. Salvation does not perfect the believer. Believers still sin. Post-salvation sin does not condemn one to hell, but it does disrupt one’s communication with God.

Jesus briefly discussed this principle when he washed the disciples’ feet. When Peter protested, Jesus replied that those who were not washed by Him have no part with Him (they were not saved). Peter then requested a full washing. Jesus replied that someone who had already been washed (saved) does not need to be completely washed again (saved again), but merely to have one’s feet washed. (John 13:6-10)

In writing to the church,, John discusses the mechanics of this process in greater detail in 1 John 1:6-9:

If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

John declares that sin (walking in darkness) disrupts the believer’s fellowship with God. If we confess our sins (ask the Father to forgive our debts) He will “wash our feet”, cleanse us from unrighteousness, and forgive our debts. However, if one continues to be unforgiving of the slights of others, one has not stopped sinning and the confession is incomplete or false. In that case, “neither will our Father forgive our trespasses” because one’s heart is not right. Therefore, the forgiveness mentioned here is for neither salvation nor eternal life.

Justified by Words

Matt. 12:36-37 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

The passage essentially makes two statements. First, that men shall give an account for every idle word in the day of judgement. Second, that some will be justified and others will be condemned by their words.

Regarding the first statement, each unbeliever will give an account not only for every idle word, but for every work they did at the Great White Throne judgement:

Rev 20:11-15 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Ultimately, because their names are not in the book of life, they will all be condemned because “all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23) and “there is none righteous” (Rom. 3:10). No person has ever lived a perfect life and therefore no person will be saved by their works.

As for the second statement, the confession of sin and acceptance of Christ’s work, if accompanied by true faith in the heart justifies a person. Similarly, lifelong rejection often accompanied by verbal pronouncements against faith effectively condemns the unbeliever, for He has rejected the one way to justification. As it is written:

Rom 10:8-10 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

This passage clearly does not contradict the simple message of the gospel: salvation is through faith in Christ alone. It does not proclaim a secondary path by speaking good words.

Condemnation for Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit

Mat 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
Mat 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

This also presents no contradiction for scripture. The Spirits ministry is convicting the world of the need for saving faith (John 16:8-12). As a result, those who blaspheme the Spirit are rejecting His message. Because they have rejected the means of salvation, that is, the source of forgiveness, they shall not be forgiven for they have rejected God’s forgiveness.

The Rich Young Ruler

Mat 19:16-22 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

An Atheist misinterprets this passage. Jesus is not telling the young man the way of salvation because that is not what the young man asked. The young man asked not “what must I do” but “what good thing shall I do”. The young ruler has asked how to earn entrance into heaven. Jesus gives the young man three answers. First, he tells the young man that only God is good. This should have informed the young man that the standard was God’s perfection and no man would ever measure up to that standard. This young man apparently ignored this so Jesus continued by pointing him to the Law. The Law was given as a perfect standard. By keeping it, one could earn salvation. However, no person besides Jesus Christ ever fully kept the Law. For those who make think that keeping a bunch of rules would have been possible for at least a few, the standard covered not only deeds, but thoughts:

1 Sam. 16:7 But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

Mat 5:27-28 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Again the young man does not make the connection. He claims perfection in the keeping of the Law, but he still wants something more to ensure his merit. Jesus then gives him a final command: to give all he had to the poor and follow Jesus. Notice that Jesus prefaces the command with “if thou wilt be perfect”. Jesus is proving the young man’s imperfection to him by giving him something he will not do. This command is not a command given to Christians to follow in order to receive eternal life. It was a proof to a young man that one could not earn eternal life. Rather, the only way to receive eternal life is to accept God’s gift of salvation through the work of Christ. We are imperfect and therefore can not earn eternal life by doing good things.

Therefore, the story of the Rich Young Ruler also does not contradict the message of salvation as An Atheist claims. Instead, it highlights the need of every person for the work of Christ because no one save God is perfect.

Inheriting Eternal Life

Matt. 19:27-29 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

Again An Atheist misinterprets the passage. This is right after the dialogue with the Rich Young Ruler. Jesus has declared that it is impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God on his own, but with God his salvation is possible (Matt. 19:23-26). Peter then asks what reward the disciples will receive for the deeds they had done. It is in response to that question that Jesus declares that every one who suffers losses for His name’s sake shall receive a hundredfold and inherit eternal life. Clearly, the assumption Christ is making is that the people in question have received the gift of salvation. By this they receive everlasting life. However, by their deeds (following Christ despite the losses) they shall inherit a hundredfold of what they lost in eternity. Salvation and accompanying eternal life are come free with the gift of salvation. An eternal inheritance, on the other hand, is earned by good works. It is that inheritance which Christ refers to here, not salvation alone.

Baptism

The Athiest then turns to Mark 16:16:

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Baptism is an important ritual testifying to belief, a good work that we are commanded to perform. However, scripture does not teach that salvation is dependent upon immersion or sprinkling with water in this verse or elsewhere. It is important to note that the second part of the verse lists only lack of faith as leading to damnation. It does not say “but he that believes and is not baptized shall be damned”. Whenever salvation is associated with water baptism, it is always also associated with faith. Faith on the other hand is frequently associated with salvation without baptism.

Mark 16:9-20

An Atheist digresses from pointing out supposed contradicting ways of salvation to briefly claim that Mark 16:9-20 is “a lie”. He makes three arguments:

Only in Mark

This is a tired argument often used by higher critics to attack specific events recorded only in one of the gospels. If I wrote a book about my experiences during my 3 years at Western and someone else wrote a book about the same 3 years, perhaps even attending classes for the same degree, one would not expect our accounts to contain all of the same events. Nor would we claim that an event I wrote about did not occur merely because the other author omitted it. Additionally, if each book contained 100% of the same events and details, one would have a fairly solid case for collusion or perhaps plagiarism by one of the authors. Inclusion in only one gospel is not sufficient proof to reject an event.

Furthermore, the preceding verse, Mark. 16:15 is very similar to the beginning of Matthew 28:19. The exact words differ, but each mentions a commission from Christ to go forth into the world and preach. Matthew even includes a command to baptize them.

Omitted in the “Best” Manuscripts

According to McGee, two manuscripts omit this passage, the Aleph and the Vatican. On this issue, McGee says the following:

The omission of this portion from two of our better manuscripts is not sufficient grounds to remove it from Scripture, especially when all the other manuscripts and uncials contain it. The internal evidence is not enough to dismiss it either as the style is still that of Mark… [1]

Signs shall follow the believers

Finally, the Atheist claims that verses 17-18 are obviously lies because they are not fulfilled today. The Atheist comes to this conclusion by again misinterpreting the passage in an extreme way. According to the Atheist, for this passage to be true, any Christian living today would have to be immune to “arsenic-laced lemonade”.

However, the passage itself does not say that these signs will follow every believer. It merely says that these signs will “follow them that believe” (the group, that is, the church). Scripture itself records many of these signs being fulfilled. In Acts 16:18, Paul cast a devil out of a woman. In Acts 2:4 and in many other places, mention is made of believers speaking in other languages. In Acts 28:3, Paul is bitten by a poison snake and lives. Numerous healings by the apostles are recorded, including the healing of Publius of a fever by Paul (Acts 28:8), healings by the shadow of Peter (Acts 5:15), and healings by things that had touched Paul (Acts 19:12). I do not know of a reference to anyone drinking poison and living in the NT, but that does not mean it did not occur. No time frame is attached to these signs and many scholars conclude that they ended once scripture itself was completed.

The Conversion of Zacchaeus

Luk 19:8-9 And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold. And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.

Again, An Athiest misinterprets the passage. Jesus does not say that Zacchaeus was saved by the works which he declared that he would perform. Salvation is not about us doing something. It’s about faith in what Jesus did. Jesus, seeing his heart, saw that salvation (that is, justification by faith) had come to Zaccheus and his house.

Born Again

John 3:3: Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

John 3:5: Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

John 3:15: …whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Because An Athiest provides no analysis regarding the perceived problem here, I can only guess. I suspect his reference is to the difference between this method of salvation (whosoever believes) with the previous supposed ways to gain eternal life. However, as demonstrated again and again above, those alternatives are either references to the faith mentioned here or not true presentations of the way of salvation. Here again we see the true path to salvation, faith in Christ saves us from eternal death and grants us a new birth to eternal life.

Election

An Athiest moves onto Acts and other passages in the NT as well as Psalm 65:4 in the OT which some interpret as declaring that ultimately God simply chooses some to be saved and others to be damned. There is no way for any one to determine their ultimate destiny.

The key to properly understanding the detail of God’s election is found in Romans 8:29-30, which the Atheist cites. It declares:

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Notice that predestination is preceded by foreknowledge. The Election of the saved (and consequently others to damnation) is neither random nor merited by works. Election is determined by God’s foreknowledge of an individual’s faith (or lack thereof) in Christ. For a more detailed discussion on this topic, see my recent article on Salvation Mechanics. The ability of men to freely believe in Christ and receive salvation is unfortunately rejected by some believers. I am inclined to agree with An Atheist regarding the depressing implications of rejecting the concept of freewill salvation.

Closing Remarks

An Atheist then makes a general complaint regarding the lack of clarity in the Bible’s presentation of salvation. That someone determined to jump to the most damning, contradicting, and convoluted interpretations of scripture passages taken out of context for the purpose of justifying rejection finds confusion is unsurprising. However, as argued above, scripture is clear regarding the true way of salvation. God’s perfection is required to merit eternal life with God. Law and conscience reveal to each person personal imperfection and sin. Our only recourse is the grace of the perfect good works and atoning death of Jesus Christ. Only by faith in His work to save us from damnation can we receive the free gift of eternal life with Him. After giving us this free gift, God expects us to perform good works for which He offers eternal rewards (not damnation for lack of works).

Questions

The Atheist proceeds to list a series of questions for which he claims no good answers exist.

Loss of Salvation

1. One can lose salvation

   This view draws from several verses, many of them like Matt. 19:29 which refer to an eternal inheritance. This is often better understood as a loss of rewards, not salvation.

2. No

   The best answer to the question of losing salvation is no. Salvation is a gift. Since it is not earned, it can not be unearned. As Paul declares in Romans 8:33-39:

   Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
   Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Deathbed Conversions

Yes. A deathbed conversion is sufficient to receive eternal life. Again, this is because salvation is dependent not on our merit via good works, but on the work Christ has already done. However, like the Rich Fool, we do not know when we will die:

Luke 12:16-20 And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: 17 And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? 18 And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. 19 And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.
20 But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?

2Co 6:2b …behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.

Deathbed Denial

See loss of salvation.

The Real Illusion

The Atheist closes with the admonition to stop chasing illusory religious answers and find more productive ways to spend one’s time. However, the real illusion is that any of that matters in the cold, dead world of naturalism. To the atheist, we are all nothing more than cosmic accidents which happened to occur between a big explosion and a silent, dead cosmos. There is no absolute morality. There is no absolute value. Productivity is ultimately irrelevant and meaningless. To even make a judgement valuing one activity over another presupposes absolute standards which an atheist must logically deny. The real illusion is that any one can really live now without God.

[1] J. Vernon McGee. Thru the Bible Vol. 4. Thomas Nelson Publishers. 1983. pg. 234-235.

Salvation Merit

Jason recently commented on a conversation Cameron and I had a while back on the gift of salvation.

Cameron essentially asked how salvation is not a reward for faith in Christ. I answered that faith does not merit salvation. The debt of sin we owe is a large debt. Only the work of Christ can cancel it. Faith merely accepts the gift which cancels sin. Faith by its own merit can not save us from sin. All we can do is choose to believe in Christ’s work. This is a fundamental difference between Christianity and most other religions. Most religions seek to enumerate good works by which we can please God and His favor. In other words, most religions seek salvation through faith in one’s own works. Conversely, Christianity teaches that faith in Christ’s work is all that is necessary.

Gift of Faith

Jason’s remarks focus on a mechanical detail of salvation within the context of the above discussion:

Yahweh changes the heart, mind and soul to accept Him through sanctification which is part of the lifelong process of regeneration. Without His actions, acceptance of the faith is impossible. Is this free will? Yes. Free will has always been limited by Divine Governance. Those who truly wish to find Him in life are conformed to do so by God.

The noetic effects of sin prevent people from seeing the full extent of their depravity. My mind was made to search for God by Him. First election then, sanctification as an overall part of regeneration. I couldn’t find him before then, let alone accept him. The elect cannot elect themselves or accept that path by their will alone.

Is faith rewarded? Yes. Sometimes the faithful are in crisis, some faulter and lose hope; others are steadfast in their faith. No human is perfect. All who have any faith, are made to have faith. Faith alone, through Christ alone, grants justification but, this faith must be received first. God gives faith as part of election. Simply put, salvation isn’t open for everyone – Jason

As I understand it, the argument Jason is putting forward is simply this:

Faith is:

1. A gift from God
2. Necessary to be saved
3. Is not given to all

My View

I reject the idea that faith is a gift of God prerequisite to salvation. Rather, faith is simply trust in the work of Christ rather than our own merit for acceptance of us into heaven by God. Anyone can choose to believe this.

At issue are four primary principles regarding salvation:

1. Freewill
2. Depravity
3. Election
4. Scope

Freewill

I’m not sure exactly what Jason is claiming regarding freewill. If he is claiming that we still have freewill to accept the gifts of salvation/faith, it is unclear why one could freely accept the gift of faith but not freely accept the gift of salvation. Alternatively, the reference to depravity seems to appeal to the Reformed concept that man’s depravity prevents him even from accepting God’s gift of salvation. As a result, God elected some to be saved, not by choice, but by intervention. This would violate man’s freewill. Jason appears to argue that this is fine because God has overruled the will of man in other cases.

A supposed classic example of God causing someone to do something is the Pharaoh of Egypt. However, it is important to note that Pharaoh refused to let them go before God hardened his heart. In other words, God kept Pharaoh in a previously chosen state of mind. This is hardly equivalent to overruling the will of multitudes and forcing them to be saved.

Depravity

Perhaps the clearest text regarding depravity and salvation is Romans 3:10-11:

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

Some interpret this passage as meaning that man is so depraved that he can not choose to believe in God. However, that is not what this verse says. It says no man seeks God on his own. As a result, God must make the first step to reach out to man. He does this in many ways. First, He has provided general revelation through creation (Rom. 1:18-20), conscience (Rom. 2:14-15), and the inner light (John 1:9). Furthermore, God Himself came in the person of Christ to reach out to us directly. In his absence, God seeks the unsaved through believers (Matt. 28:19) and the ministry of the Holy Spirit (John 16:7-11).

In conclusion, although in our depraved state we will not seek God, God actively seeks and confronts us with the message of salvation.

Election

Another issue raised against a person choosing to accept the gift of salvation is a particular brand of the doctrine of election. This view is derived from references to God choosing, electing, or predestining people to salvation. A good example text is Ephesians 1:3-6:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

Some interpret passages such as this as meaning the primary cause of an individuals salvation is not the individuals choice to accept the gift of salvation, but that choice is ultimately caused by God’s overruling choice to predestine some “according to the good pleasure of His will”.

But what is the good pleasure of His will? Why does He choose some and not others? Romans 8:29-30 provides the most complete explanation of this process that I am aware of:

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Of particular importance is the ordering. God’s foreknowledge is enumerated to proceed His predestination or election in the causal chain. Therefore, according to something God foreknew about us, He elected us to salvation.

This passage does not enumerate what God foreknew about us that caused Him to choose us, but there is only one criteria that fits. God elects an individual to salvation from before the foundation of the world based on His foreknowledge of that individuals free acceptance of the gift of salvation. The criteria is repeated again and again by Christ and the apostles. Three such examples come from Jesus, John, and Paul:

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Acts 16:31 And [Paul and Silas] said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved…

Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Any other criteria would amount to favoritism or random selection. Favoritism would violate God’s fairness, for He is not a respecter of persons, as Peter declared in Acts 10:34-35:

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Random selection on the other hand, would destory any sense of responsibility for our final destiny. Men would be saved for no reason and damned for no reason. It would be pointless for God to give man freewill, and then make his ultimate destiny a matter of inexorable fate.

Scope

Simply put, salvation isn’t open for everyone – Jason

The idea of limited election based on God’s choice rather than our’s logically implies that salvation is not open for everyone. If God selected some to be saved and others to be damned and those who have not been selected can not be saved in anyway, why would Christ pay for their sins?

Unfortunately, for this view, scripture repeatedly contradicts the idea that God desires to save only a few and as a result offers salvation to only a few. As already noted, Peter observes that God is not a respecter of persons. In 2 Peter 3:9, Peter also declares that God is “not willing that any should perish”. Ezekiel declares that God has “no pleasure in the death of the wicked” but desires him to “turn from his way and live”. Mostly famously, the Apostle John declares in the John 3:16:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

God loves the world and sent His Son to make salvation available to anyone that believes.

Closing Remarks

In closing, I want to be clear that the issues raised in this article or largely technical doctrines. I believe a proper understanding of them is important to understanding God and His work. However, salvation is not dependent on a proper understanding of these matters and I continue to count those holding the opposing view as brothers. I appreciate Jason’s efforts and views and I look forward to continued discussion on this topic and other discussions in the future.

What is a Right

I recently shared The Meaning of Mumbai on FriendFeed sparking a discussion with Cameron concerning various security measures after 9-11. Cameron’s initial remarks focused on security and fear extremes (live in a box and do nothing) and slippery slopes. While it is important to be aware of possible dangers, such general extremes do not inherently delegitimize specific, less extreme measures.

However, Cameron’s latest response appeals to basic rights:

I don’t see how any of that makes it reasonable to get rid of any hope for a fair trial, suspending basic human rights for others just because we think they may be bad, and ignore torturing laws by using loop holes in location. I know most don’t mind “I would rather some subset of innocent people to make sure all the bad people are dead,” but I guess I don’t believe in the good ol’ fashioned “Kill them all, and let god sort them out.” So, the point I’m trying to make, is that why should you take away other people’s right, morally / legally / etc, just because you don’t use them / if you were in that position your going to heaven anyways / etc. Why do you get to decide that they don’t need that right, or that they don’t get a second chance?

This demands a more detailed answer.

In particular, I think the kinds of security measures we’ve seen post 9-11 raise 4 particular questions:

1. Privacy
2. Citizenship
3. Secrecy
4. Torture

I plan to blog about each one separately. I don’t expect to cover each exhaustively or arrive at any definite conclusion about any of them. My goal is to lay the ground work for a discussion about these issues and more than ever I want to encourage the reader to join this discussion in the comments or on their on blog/notes.

The concept of a right within this context is that of a moral right. As Jefferson put it in the Declaration of Independence:

all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In other words, a right is a moral obligation granted by the Creator and existing between any two people by virtue of their humanity. I am inclined to recognize four basic human rights:

1. Life
2. Liberty
3. Property
4. Legal Equality

Legal equality is not generally included, but equal treatment under the law (all men are created equal) is generally recognized as just and it seems reasonable and simplest to include it in the list.

Privilege

The concept of rights must be distinguished from legal privilege. Legal privileges may have similar status under the law in certain countries, but unlike rights, they are neither unalienable nor endowed with inherent moral power by the Creator. Privileges are endowed by organizations (such as government) to people. Because they are granted by government, they can just as easily be taken away by government.

As a side note, a necessary consequence of the argument I recently made concerning the lack of moral obligation within the philosophical framework of atheism is that those who reject the existence of a higher power also deny any foundation for a universal moral standard, thereby denying any foundation for inherent human rights. Such philosophical frameworks can support only concepts of utilitarian privilege.

Privacy

For an appeal to privacy to be relevant to government security measures, it must be a right, as privileges lack moral power and are subject to the whims of government. It seems reasonable to me to derive a limited right to privacy from the rights of liberty and property. By virtue of being free to direct one’s life, define personal happiness goals, etc. one seems free to decide not to reveal what they think. Similarly, by virtue of property rights, one is secure in property. One has a right to keep other people off one’s land, a right against unreasonable search and seizure, etc.

What isn’t so clear is how this extends beyond one’s property. For example, consider FBI requests for telephone records. IF privacy rights extend to phone records then one must have an inherent property right over information shared through someone else’s property (phone lines, switching stations, etc.) and the record of that call (time, source, destination). Because another’s property is in use, and that person has the right to do as they wish with their property, it seems to me that they have the right to offer their property in service to others as they wish. They may elect to promise certain contractual privileges to users of their service, but I don’t see any justification for that the idea that when I use someone else’s property to communicate, I receive any inherent rights in that property.

General Revelation

On Blogger, James and I have been discussing the argument I made regarding general revelation and gospel ubiquity. As a result of that discussion, some clarification seems to be necessary:

Creation

Paul does not claim that Creation leads cultures to general monotheism. Indeed, Paul describes many as “changing the truth of God into a lie, and [worshipping] and [serving] the creature more than the Creator” [Rom. 1:25]. The claim is not that cultures are driven to monotheism or there exists a significant cultural awareness. Rather, the argument is that the information is available to individuals, but is generally rejected.

Conscience

Nor is Paul claiming that cultures gravitate towards a Christian ethical understanding. Rather, he is saying that a general sense of morality is given to all men which they and their cultures sometimes follow. For example, when a person or a culture recognizes murder as wrong, they do by nature the things in the Law as a result of conscience. I would expect a study of cultural morals to reveal similarities in some morals to those presented in the Law, just as we have already observed religious similarities across many religions. Paul attributes these similarities to a universal conscience given to all people, providing a general moral understanding and conviction of our own moral imperfections.

Burden of Proof for General Revelation

As a result, your burden of proof is excessive. First, it exaggerates my claims from personal understanding to cultural ideas. Second, our knowledge of ancient and isolated cultures is limited at best. This makes it hard enough to know what they actually believed, let alone, what ideas they may have been aware of, but rejected.

Revelation of Christ

Regarding the propagation of the final principle of salvation I am aware of two views. First, anyone who accepts the 2 principles of general revelation will be sent a human messenger to address that question (perhaps indirectly, by making literature available or directly by word of mouth). Examples include the sending of Philip the Evangelist to the Ethiopian Eunuch [Acts 8] and the sending of Peter to Cornelius [Acts 10]. If this is true, the fact that the gospel was not sent to a Native American in AD 600 is considered proof that no Native American accepted general revelation. This is reasonable and hard to contradict. The second view observes that there is no passage in scripture in which God explicitly states He will not provide special revelation to those unreachable by the common method outlined above. After all, Jesus Himself intervened in the salvation of Paul (Acts 9) and John mentions the inner light given to every person.

Your argument seems to be that it is likely some Native American accepted general revelation and was denied the final principle for spatial reasons. As a result, you conclude that Christianity violates the salvation ubiquity criteria and must be rejected as a valid world view. At best, the existence of this Native American is highly hypothetical and rejects without substantiation the possibility of special revelation for that individual.

Conclusion

All of the above remarks substantiate my claims. Creation and Conscience are available to all men and God is more than capable of providing the specific revelation of Christ to anyone accepting the first two. A detailed study of isolated cultures is unnecessary and would be inconclusive at best given our spotty knowledge of such cultures. Christianity clearly provides mechanisms for meeting the salvation ubiquity principle. That does not make it true, but it does make it a reasonable possibility given our discussion so far. Furthermore, the salvation ubiquity principle provides a clear example of a criteria that can rationally evaluate religions, accepting some and rejecting others, providing hope that the morass of religions is not as un-navigable as Atheist Under Ur Bed suggested in the article I originally responded to or James suggested in his initial comment on my initial post.

Messiah Cut Off – Daniel 9

James responds to my previous claim in “More On Faith” in “An Atoning Messiah”. Both my claims and his responses deal with two specific passages:

In Daniel 9, Daniel is given the following prophesy:

Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself [Dan. 9:24-26]

James essentially presents two arguments contesting the credibility of the book of Daniel and the interpretation of the passage as referring to the Messiah:

Timing and Authorship

James cites Harper’s Bible Commentary in order to question the credibility of Daniel and explain away many of the amazingly detailed and accurate prophecies in this book. By assuming that the book can not be prophetic and that the manner of Antiochus Epiphanes death contradicts the death of the king in Daniel 11, with whom he is associated, Harper’s conludes that the book was finalized during Antiochus’s life time.

However, Jesus makes it clear in Matthew 24:15, that Antiochus was a type (one who exemplifies or parallelizes the life of another in some way) of the Antichrist. As a result, the passage is about Antiochus and Antichrist and has not been fully fulfilled. The commentaries I consulted presented some reasonable arguments for where the break occurs. Speaking specifically to it would require more study, but the bottom line in relation to our discussion is that there is a reasonable approach to this passage which does not place it in contradiction with history. As such, the late date given by Harper is not the foregone conclusion they have presented, based, primarily, on the assumption that the book is not true in the first place and an easy readiness to accept supposed contradictions.

If we accept dates given in the book of Daniel, it would have been completed in the late 6th century BC, much earlier than the 2nd century BC date given by Harper’s.

Messiah or others?

In responding directly to the passage of Daniel I cited, James makes the unsupported claim that the Messiah here is simply “an annointed one” or leader and tries to identify Messiah as two men in this passage, citing the New Oxford Annotated Bible. He then provides a general response that it’s all history recorded after the fact and false prophecies based on the alleged contradiction in the manner of Antiochus’s death. I discussed this latter claim above.

As for the identification of the “Anointed One” in the passage, a proper understanding of the prophecy seems to make this pretty clear. In the context of the passage, Daniel understood by the reading of the word of God through Jeremiah the prophet, that the Babylonian capitivity of Israel would last 70 years. Daniel prays to God concerning this knowledge and the future of Israel. While he is praying, God sent Gabriel to reveal to him the passage I cited above (and a few other verses). In the original Hebrew, the word “week” in 70 weeks is really the word seven (seventy sevens). Because the context is Daniel’s prayer concerning the 70 years of captivity, this is clearly a reference to 490 years.

Gabriel gives the starting point of this 490 year period as the “going forth of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem”. This is generally taken to be the decree of Artaxerxes to Nehemiah in Nisan 1, 444 BC. James claims the proper edict is that of Cyrus the Great in 538 BC, but that edict was not to rebuild Jerusalem. Cyrus’s proclaimation was to rebuild the temple [Ezra 1:2], whereas the edict of Artexerxes was to rebuild the city [Nehemiah 2:5].

Gabriel further declares that from the commandment to “Messiah the Prince” shall be 69 “weeks” or 483 years. Adjusting for the Jewish prophetic calendar of 360 days versus our solar calendar of about 365 days places the end of the 483 years on Nisan 10, AD 33, considered to be the day Jesus, the Messiah rode into Jerusalem on a colt. This is much later than the lives of Joshua the high priest and Onias III.[1][2] It also presents an amazingly accurate prophecy, even if we accept the very late date of 2nd century BC, still about 200 years before this event took place.

Jesus, the Suffering Servant

While the term servant is clearly applied to Israel, it is also contrasted with Israel.

In Is. 42:7, the servant is sent to open the eyes of the blind. In verse 19, the Lord is condemning those who worship idols and refers to the servent as blind. Later, in verse 24, Jacob and Israel are identified as being judged for their sins against the Lord. Clearly, the latter servant is in need of the ministry of the first servant.

In the following chapters, God refers to Himself as the Savior of Israel [Is. 43:3] and the redeemer of Israel [Is. 43:14]. In the passage in question, similar language is applied to the servant. He bears our griefs, carries our sorrows [Is. 53:4], wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, chastised for our peace, striped for our healing [Is. 53:5] and so on.

In verse 6, the iniquity of us all (the world) is placed on Him. In verse 8, He is stricken for the transgression of the Lord’s people (that is, the Jews). The redemptive nature portrayed for this servant is unmistakeable. It strongly contrasts with the blind and sinful state of the servant Israel, who is in need of God’s redemption. In chapter 53, the ultimate redemption for sin for all and for the servant Israel is enumerated at the cost of the suffering of the one servant. This is clearly not Israel. Further, this servant is clearly identified with the redemptive role of God. The profile fits no other than “Messiah who would be cut off, not for Himself” as in Daniel and Jesus Christ, the Word [John 1:1], who suffered for sin.

[1] Josh McDowell. The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. 1999. Here’s Life Publishers, Inc. pg. 197-201.
[2] Dr. J. Vernon McGee. Thru the Bible Vol. III. 1982. Thomas Nelson Publishers. pg. 586-589.

Jewish Texts

Over at AnAtheist, James has posted a response entitled God: The Great Communicator? to my article More On Faith focusing on critiquing God’s decision to use inspired writings to communicate His truth.

James is of course correct regarding the division of the Bible, primary source languages, etc. However, he makes several errors in later descriptions.

Authorship

James claims the Jewish scriptures are written by anonymous authors. While some books may have unclear or anonymous authorship, many of the books in scripture make claims concerning authorship or have traditionally accepted authors. As the primary reason for rejecting those traditions is largely rejection of the truth of the text and not solid archaeological discoveries that contradict said authorship, the credibility of authorship critiques is largely questionable and often hangs on accepting the Word or rejecting it (and as such, is generally a circular argument when applied as an attack on the integrity of the Word). A good example is the argument James cites in the next post which regards the authorship of Daniel. Because the book is prophetic and it is assumed to be true, the author is assumed to be anonymously written after the events rather than by Daniel be for the events, primarily because the idea that God revealed the events to Daniel before they happened is rejected.

Salvation in the Old Testament

While it is true that the Old Testament focuses primarily on Jewish people, it does not teach that salvation was limited to them. Numerous non-Jews are listed as being saved in it. The best examples are probably Job and the Ninevites (to whom God sent the unwilling prophet Jonah). Throughout both testaments, salvation is offered to all.

Eternal Fate Dependency

Both testaments of the Bible are about a lot more than salvation. Salvation itself is a fairly simple proposition: Faith, not in our works, but the works of Jesus or the Messiah, as the basis for escaping the condemnation of sin (hell) and the reward of a heavenly future. A lot of the book is post-salvation details and guidance directed primarily towards believers. Your eternal fate does not depend upon a detailed study of the totality of scripture and the correct understanding of numerous intricate and complex propositions.

Arguments

Moving on from his background discussion, James proceeds to make 3 distinct arguments:

Transcription Errors

This is a common claim made about the Bible, that it inevitably is inaccurate. Not only would God obviously have an interest in preserving the text, but men dedicated to the preservation of the scripture were placed in charge of maintaining an accurate transmission.

In The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell cites Dr. Gleason Archer as saying:

in this respect [to transmission] the Old Testament differs from all other pre-Christian works of literature of which we have any knowledge…we do not possess so many different manuscript of pagan productions, coming from such widely separated eras, as we do in the case of the Old Testament. But where we do, for example, in the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the variations are of a farmore extensive and serious nature. Quite startling differences appear…Whole clauses are inserted or left out, and the sense in corresponding columns of text is in some cases altogether different…[In contrast] even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered [among the Dead Sea scrolls] were a thousadn years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (AD 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The…variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling. They do not affect the message of revelation in the slightest. [1]

McDowell also cites Dr. Robert Wilson:

The proof that the copies of the original documents have been handed down with substantial correctness for more than 2,000 years cannot be denied. That the copies in exstence 2,000 years ago had been in like manner handed down from the originals is not merely possible, but…is rendered probable by the analogies of Babylonian documents now existing of which we have both originals and copies, thousdands of years apart and of scores of papyri which show when compared with our modern editions of the classics that only minor changes of the text have taken place in more than 2,000 years and especially by the scientific and demonstrable accuracy with which the proper spelling of kings and of the numerous foreign terms embedded in the Hebrew text has been transmitted to us. [2]

McDowell includes similar citations regarding the New Testament, such as John Montgomery:

to be skeptical of the resultant test of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament [3]

and Sir Frederic Kenyon:

besides number, the manuscripts of the New Testament differ from those of the classical authors…In no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest extant manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament. The books of the New Testament were written in the latter part of the first century; the earliest extant manuscripts (trifling scraps excepted) are of the fourth century — say from 250 to 300 years later. This may sound a considerable interval, but it is nothing to that which parts most of the great classical authors from their earliest manuscripts. We believe that we have in all essentials an accurate text of the seven extant plays of Sophocles; yet the earliest substantial manuscripts upon which it is based was written more than 1400 years after the poets death. [3]

As a result, the claim that the Bible is an old text and therefore comes to us only in a highly distorted form is unsupported by the facts. While there may be some minor changes that scholars discuss, they do not appear to effect the message in any substantial way. If anyone has any specific examples they believe contradict this conclusion, please present them.

Ubiquity

James also repeats the lack of ubiquity argument. I addressed this in On the Implications of Consensus and Gospel Ubiquity.

Not all Scripture is Directed to All People

James also refers to a remark a made regarding Jesus’s clear intent to obfuscate teaching through parables. The point of this argument was to point out that not all the truth God has given us is directed towards all people. Some of the message clearly is, that being the message of the gospel. Other communications from God clearly were not, such as the parables of Christ.

The foundational premise to arguments regarding the inefficiency of God communicating to us via the Bible is that God intended to write an open letter to all people for the express purpose of making sure everyone in the world had access to this book in its entirety. That is clearly not the case. Based on Jesus’s remarks, this is clearly not God’s sole purpose in all His communications.

[1] Josh McDowell. The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. 1999. Here’s Life Publishers, Inc. pg. 70.
[2] Josh McDowell. The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. 1999. Here’s Life Publishers, Inc. pg. 71.
[3] Josh McDowell. The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict. 1999. Here’s Life Publishers, Inc. pg. 35.