Atheism's Appraisals of Theism

Kai Nielson received his Ph.D. from Duke University. He is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. He has written authoritatively on the subject of the philosophy of religion for many years and published books on the subject in legion. A text version of a debate between him and William Lane Craig can be viewed here: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-nielsen0.html

While no atheist can speak for all atheists I do believe he offers a fair summery of religion from a naturalist's perspective. I would be surprised if any atheist could disagree with him. In this post I will be evaluating his contribution to the Blackwell Companion to the Philosophy of Religion entitled: "Naturalistic Explanations of Theistic Belief" as well as offering a response. The astute observer, or the philosophically adept, may find this latter statement an odd thing to attempt to do. Why would atheism's explanation of religion require a response? After all, worldviews are attempting to make sense of the world around them, why would we expect less from naturalism? Does not Christianity attempt to explain atheism? Well, if an explanation is anything at all it needs to be adequate. It doesn't need to be absolutely perfect, there can be gray areas and unresolved questions. What one ought to demand is that it is consistent with the assumption of the distributor. The consequences, or at least an attempt to offer a conclusion of aptness, will be forthcoming at the end of my post. For now I am going to summarize his article.

What is Theistic Belief in a World with no God?

Anything that falls under the category of existing must be composed of physical components according to Nielson. There are, at the very least, no good reasons to believe that there is anything spiritual or transcendent (burden of proof implied). Nielson warns that there are two extremes that the atheist should avoid: extreme reductionism and hyper scientism. Nielson deserves credit for his tempered approach and I think a lot of wasted debate time could be avoided if other atheists would follow his lead here. There are many propositions that are not anti-scientific, but rather non-scientific. These propositions are promoted by both the religious and the non-religious. This is not a problem, actually, it is essential to make existential sense of the human condition. All of the realities that are postulated by all people involve the physical and since, given naturalistic assumptions, we all do this we may conclude that it is fitting to see the world as equal to nature. What is natural is the world and there is nothing that is not part of nature. There are no purely mental realities. The mental relies on the physical. Religion, as defined by Nielson, is any supernaturalism whether it addresses a deity or not. Atheism need not be militant nor dogmatic for certitude in regard to supernaturalism's falseness or coherence is not ensured. Rather, states Nielson, the atheist should maintain a postmodern skepticism that presupposes or argues that supernaturalism is false (remember: he claims that the burden of proof is on the religious so all that needs to happen is a maintenance of skepticism). Atheism's critical side has a long tradition of great thinkers and philosophers (I could not agree more with him on this point, some of them are my favorite philosophers). They give grounds for rejecting supernaturalism (and thus maintaining the burden of proof in the religious camp). If the critique of religion has been effective, then what atheism has to say about why religion is or what it is becomes very important. Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud have accounts, but they are only effective if religion is defused.

I find this to be a significant statement. It renders Plantinga's critique sterile. Let me explain. And I apologize if I have covered this in a previous post. In Warranted Christian Belief Plantinga divides concern over atheistic arguments as de jure or "concerning the law" and de facto "concerning fact." Marx and Freud have similar arguments in that they claim theism to be the result of some need. It's genesis can be found in the desires and needs of the individual, not in fact. As de jure arguments the Christian need not be too concerned with them for the need of an individual is not synonymous with the genesis of belief for that is to fall into the genetic fallacy. How is this so? Well, given the circular nature of the offerings of Marx and Freud one need not go very far to offer a counter interpretation and be logically consistent with the critique. Perhaps God put the desires there to begin with? Could there not be a need for God that arose from circumstances common to believers and there still be a God? Of course! The theist is not saying this is the case, they are merely demonstrating the flaw of the argument. But, I believe that Nielson's parsing is a very good strategy. It moves Freud's and Marx's appraisals in a unilateral path behind naturalism's arguments against supernaturalism thus shielding them from this criticism. They may be able to stand simply as descriptions of theism and support for them is conducted by other arguments which will all be negative. There are no arguments for atheism do to its equivocative posture presuppositionally. This is why Nielson stresses the need for burden of proof to remain on the supernaturalist. But just in case you do not believe me click on this link and hit the "play video" button and evaluate for yourself how well Daniel Dennett does achieving a positive argument for atheism. Keep in mind, the moderator is in no way pressing him on the issue yet Dennett asserts that it is the burden of proof that matters http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/Arguments-for-Atheism-Daniel-Dennett-/33 this is highly illustrative of the logical reality atheism is faced with when positing its own position. If Dennett could have answered the question he would deserve a Nobel Prize but, it was not to be. Instead he spends almost no time on the question and moves into a negative apologetic. This is because he is a very good philosopher, why should he waste his time on a question he cannot logically sustain? This should give pause to the atheist who believes that evolution is a good argument against theism, in fact all appeals to science or nature is simply to stack ontology on top of more ontology. Christian ontology comes from the bible and general revelation, if the christian were to appeal only to the bible for arguments it would be no different than an atheist that only appeals to nature. Atheists are being reasonable when they demand more from the theist than memorizing bible versus and regurgitating them, but the same is true of the atheist who throws out scientific facts as well. There is simply no truth to the postulate that science is a bifurcation from theism or religion in general.

Nielson continues: the Enlightenment has spawned the peppering of arguments through history that, after much development, have been devastating to supernaturalism. Hume and Kant have had reconstructed forms reborn in Mackie and Martin. This refutation has been so thorough that defenders of religion have had to appeal to ever increasing erroneous, or at least, ineffective apologetics. Appeals to the emotive, faith (stacking the deck), meaninglessness, and amorality are hallmark signs of a worldview in trouble.

(Part II, if I get to it, will summarize the rest of the article, and I will offer a critique. I may be lucky enough to get a response from an opponent of my view)

Romans 3:1-8 How to Understand the Relationship Between the Gospel and Jewish History

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written,

"That you may be justified in your words,
and prevail when you are judged."

But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? ( I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world? But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.

If God's purposes were brought about apart from the law of Moses then does this not render Judaism arbitrary? This was the false assumption many had brought against the message Paul was bringing. They had assumptions about the purpose of the law that were incompatible with its intended purpose. The law was not a means to an end. Many today still stumble over the notion that they will be right with God through the law or any good works. This is not how the bible frames the law, humanity, and God.

In versus 1-4 Paul challenges his audience to live out the circumcision that is concomitant to the law. He knows they can't do it. If anyone should know it was Paul, he was a Pharisee himself. He was a rising star in his ranks. Yet, he turned away from it. Realizing that it was not law that was going to make man right before God. If one wanted to be justified through observance of the law they must be circumcised and keep the law. Again, Paul knew this was not possible as demonstrated in 2:21-24. This being the case, then how could circumcision (and all of Jewish history, circumcision is a proxy for Judaism here) have value? First, despite the well documented failings of Israel God preserved a faithful remnant, this would constitute an advantage. The Oracles Paul is referring to would include salvation (according to Tom Schreiner among other commentaries). This salvation is found in Christ due to faith as Paul will lay out in Chapter 4 when dealing with Abraham. Secondly, God was glorified and prevailed when judged. Finally, had the old covenant only served to glorify God and nothing else it would have been enough, but he did more. So we see that the gospel in no way makes Jewish history meaning less, rather it is the fulfillment of Jewish history. This leads to an ironic twist. In the old covenant if one wanted to be faithful one must be circumcised. In the new covenant circumcision was now a vestigial doctrine and a sign of faithlessness for the new had come.

Paul had been preaching for around twenty years by the time he wrote Romans and was very familiar with Jewish objections. In versus 5-8 we see a response to some criticism. First, I would like to cross over a point I have been making concerning Velvet Elvis. There seems to be an Americanized version of Christianity that I am witnessing in that book and in my conversations. This view of Christianity is summed up by the words of a conversation I had with someone Friday, they told me, "I love Jesus and Jesus loves me and that's all I need to get where I am going." This is far from the gauntlet thrown down to us by the authors of scripture. We are to think. We are to combat the ideas of our time, if for no other reason for the benefit of others. It was C.S. Lewis that said that good philosophy must exist if for no other reason than to combat bad philosophy. Paul was not content to let bad ideas go unchallenged and these versus are an example. If God demonstrates his righteousness through the wrongdoing then on what grounds could he judge? After all, his purposes were fulfilled. If this is the argument that Paul's contemporaries were bringing then Paul has a question for them, how could God then judge anyone? For the whole world has done wrong. He is taking their argument to their teleological realization. And if this is the case why are Paul's enemies saying that God will condemn him for the gospel he preaches? Should not his detractors just be happy that God is being glorified? But God does judge and inflict wrath on all who violate the law. So circumcision is not enough. We must be justified and we are not doing a very good job of doing that on our own. Some had told Paul that by the logic of his gospel one ought to do evil so that more good would come. The more God justifies evil the more good comes of it. But those being justified were showing God to be just. As we witnessed in the latter portion of chapter 2, verse 27 "Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law." So Paul responds to this argument with "Their condemnation is just." For they are left with their hypocrisy before God while the church shows the righteousnesses of God by his overlooking past sins and the faithful life they now live by his power. Think of it this way, when Jesus was forgiving sins it was a sign of his divinity for only God could forgive sin. So if the church is forgiven then God has revealed his righteousness in his people. This life of faithfulness will be like a lamp in a dark world. Some will come to it and some will hate it. That is why Jesus said he did not come to bring peace but a sword.

Romans 2:17-29 The Demonstration of the Impartiality of God

Because God shows no partiality (in regard to gentiles and Jews which about sums up everyone) Paul decides to demonstrate this truth with a bit of irony at the end. Paul had been preaching the gospel for about 20 years at this point and knew what type of objections he would be facing. The judgment was one based on obedience not on privilege. The Jews had seriously underestimated the breadth of God's judgment. I remember a movie called "Ike: Countdown to D-Day." It was based on the actual events of the planning. The movie was not that popular, probably because it was about the planning of D-Day rather than the execution. But I though it was pretty good. Anywho, one of his generals was in a bar and was drunk while trying to impress a friend and some women they were dining with. He had said they would be drinking good Paris wine by June 8th then said it would only take about four days to fight through the Germans. The place was packed. He was turned in by a paratrooper who thought his chances of survival were much better if the generals were not blurting out sensitive data in crowded public areas. When Ike confronted the general we find out that they went to West Point together and the general said, "I'm part of the inner circle, that's got to count for something." Ike looked at him and said, "That's just about the worst thing you could have said, there is no inner circle. There is just the men who live and the men who die." There was something just way too serious to be mitigated by a history. This is a bit like the attitude the Jews had. Clearly it was the gentiles that were in trouble, not them. Look at the things God had done for them and their forefathers, had God not demonstrated a favoritism that was due them? No, when it comes to sin God's judgment is absolute. Later Paul will reflect on the obvious objection: Then what was the purpose of God's oracles?

God's gifts should have led to an attitude of thankfulness and worship. Sound familiar? This was the same thing that should have happened when the Gentiles noticed the created things. So, God revealed himself in two different ways but the results were the same. There was only two ways in which to respond to God, praise or sin, both sinned.

Isaiah 2:1-4

The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.

It shall come to pass in the latter days
that the mountain of the house of the LORD
shall be established as the highest of the mountains,
and shall be lifted up above the hills;
and all the nations shall flow to it,
and many peoples shall come, and say:
"Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
to the house of the God of Jacob,
that he may teach us his ways
and that we may walk in his paths."
For out of Zion shall go the law,
and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
He shall judge between the nations,
and shall decide disputes for many peoples;
and they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
and their spears into pruning hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war anymore.

Romans 2:19-20

And if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, an instructor for the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth.

The Gentiles were to come to the Jews for instruction. The virtues of God were to be clearly manifested in his people. That is one of the purposes of the nation, to be carved out, a people for himself, clearly distinct and set apart for God. How was that working for them in Paul's day? Not too good. The teaching was meant to be a guide, but what if the teachers were not following the instruction they were dishing out? That would be a problem. By their hypocrisy the Jews, rather than fulfilling Isaiah's prophecy, were doing the exact opposite: they were shaming the name of God in the midst of the Gentiles. What of Isaiah's prophecy? Is it now mistaken if this is the case? I will get there momentarily. As it turns out, it was a really good thing the Gentiles had the law written on their hearts because they sure weren't going to learn it from the Jews!

Paul lists some of the hypocritical practices of the Jews, it is controversial today. They were preaching against stealing, but Paul asks if they themselves were stealing. The same with adultery and idolatry. The problem modern scholars are having is that the list would not encompass all Jews. This is a fair criticism, certainly all Jewish teachers were not committing these atrocities. So was Paul wrong? No. There are two distinct features that must be kept in mind when reading Romans.

1) The didactic method of citing extreme cases were meant to matriculate into smaller cases. I don't need to murder to be a murder, hate is enough. It is the spirit of the law that matters, so Paul does not have to list every single thing that one could do to displease God. The message would clearly have gotten home. We still do this today, if we were to use mundane expressions to teach lessons we would lose the impact of our teaching and Paul would have known this.

2) When I was introducing Romans to the class I made mention of an error Martin Luther made when he interpreted the epistle. He had thought the letter was talking to individuals. It isn't. Certainly it applies to individuals, but the letter is addressed to two people groups: Jews and Gentiles. The teachers that made the errors Paul is referring to represented Judaism at large. In fact, there is sin that is not in Paul's immediate preview that is a problem. To clarify my point, let me take you back to the book of Judges where the author expresses concern over the corruption within the government. So much was going on that was not being brought into order, why? Because sin was a national problem. The people were apostate and as a result there was no one to reign in the corrupt teaching that was taking place. All the people were responsible for ensuring that these atrocities did not take place. If there were corrupt teachers it was due to a corrupt nation. Everyone was responsible for the fidelity of the community. Paul is addressing the Jews in a broad sense in Romans and that needs to be taken seriously to interpret it correctly. One can see why he goes through painstaking effort to defend the truth. So, if the teachers are corrupt, how much corruption was above and below them? Since this is one of the most ubiquitous themes of the Old Testament it is not hard to believe that God's Apostles would be delivering the same message his prophets had always been giving. So, none are able to escape the need for the gospel. The covenant between God and the Jews did not lead to salvation, rather, it lead to judgment. Therefore the Jews needed the cross as well.

Romans 2:25-27

For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law.

Note that he mentions the "written code." No doubt this was meant to emphasize the unwritten code and therefore that touch of irony that I had mentioned that Paul was using as part of his teaching arsenal. If it were the Jews that were given the law, and supposed to be teachers to the Gentiles, then it is quite odd that it is now the Gentiles that are condemning them. Not vocally but in their fellowship with Christ. See James for further details.

1 Samuel 15:22

And Samuel said,

Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices,

as in obeying the voice of the Lord?

Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,

and to listen than the fat of rams.

The Gentiles are taking the intended better way, and it doesn't have to be this way if the Jews will submit to Christ. It is clear that Paul's strategy to make the Jews jealous would have been very effective to anyone that truly loved God. Circumcision is not detached from the law so if a Gentile meets the requirements without it, where does it leave those who think circumcision is part of a privileged position? This is why Paul sees circumcision as a vestige of the old covenant.

What of the fulfillment of the Isaiah passage? The passage applies to the remnant, also known as "Faithful Israel." Romans 2:28-29a "For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly." Faithful Israel is anyone who is part of the new covenant and the gospel meets the requirement for Isaiah's forecast to be fulfilled.

Velvet Bell 3: The Need for Innerancy and Conversations Surrounding it

In Bell's chapter entitled "Jump" he is trying to establish that the experience of following Christ is more important than the doctrines of Christ, this is helpful to his central theme that theology can be "repainted" because there are things that are more important. He concludes that the doctrines are not Jesus and worshiping the doctrines is faulty. I consider this a slight of hand. The doctrines should not be dismissed or changed in light of other Christian truths such as virtuous behavior. Consequently, Bell chooses doctrine that seems existentially inconsequential. Later, we will see that Bell forecasts an objection in which he calls "Brickianity." What is "Brickianity?" It is any attempt to systematize Christian doctrine. I will deal with the failure of this hypotheses later. Without doctrine how do we follow Christ? He says they are important, but he implies that they are not necessary to follow him: "The springs (doctrines) help make sense of these deeper realities that drive how we live every day. The springs aren't God. The springs aren't Jesus. The springs are statements and beliefs about (emphasis original) our faith that help give words to the depth to the experience in our jumping (experience) [pg.22]." So the experience precedes the doctrine which are descriptive of human experience, not truths about God. He explains that some doctrines, such as the trinity, are all well and good but people experienced Christianity just fine before they were developed. See? It's a mere formulation, we don't actually need it, we just need to jump. Interesting that he chose one of the more difficult doctrines to grasp as opposed to doctrines that have a greater clarity to the weight of his argument and how it would affect the Christian faith. Also, he chose a doctrine that appears to have little baring on our daily lives, but, once one begins to think systemically about it then it has a great deal to do with how we live, but that's "Brickianity" and ought to be rejected (Captain Ad Hominem rears his head again amidst other fallacious arguments against systematics). So the springs (doctrine) we are told are not the point, but it does not follow from this that they are dispensable, which is the inference he is attempting to carry over. The truth is we can't "jump" without them AND we must "jump." It is important that we live the life we are called to in light of the truth about who God is, the doctrines are the conclusions from the revelation God has given us. They are not mere words. They are indispensable, otherwise even our best efforts will fail in regard to how we ought to live as it relates to humanity, Christianity, Jesus, God, and the truth. In some sense the doctrines are God, they are Jesus. God is a trinitarian being and since we are commanded to worship him in spirit and in truth we need not shy away from what is revealed. By the way, is there a more poignant existential process prescribed in scripture other than worship? How is this done properly without true doctrine?

On pg.26 Bell begins his attack on systematics. He chooses an obscure preacher (I commend Bell for not using his name) who claims that not taking the Genesis account of the six days of creation literally meant one could not believe in the cross. I agree with Bell that the connection seems vague. What did this guy mean? Was he saying that foisting your own interpretation on one text gives allowance for one to do it to all portions of scripture? Perhaps. Anyone would have to agree that this is, by its self, an unclear argument at best (like much of Velvet Elvis) and a bad argument at worst (like much of Velvet Elvis). Bell continues, undaunted, using what most, even from the Evangelical tradition, would agree is a bad argument. Why would Bell choose a bad argument as the foundation for his opposition to the side that argument represents? Let's think about this... Maybe he has a weak argument himself? If you have a bad argument it would shine much brighter compared to an even worse one. Let's see if this is the case. He claims that systematic theology is like a brick wall and that if you even question part of it the wall begins to collapse. This is very far from the truth, there is no doctrine within historic Christianity that cannot be "questioned." I respect his fear of this being the case, but it just isn't so. There is no problem with asking questions and having doubts, as I have stated earlier. But there is a place for convictions. We hold to doctrine we struggle with even if we have doubts because we are being honest with ourselves. We have to be this way. Ephesian 4:14 "So that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes."

So eventually we have to come down on a position instead of a perpetual Cartesian evaluation like the one endorsed by Bell. In fact, my warning to Christians that may be influenced by him is that he is the kind of deceiver Paul is talking about. He is subtly, yet assuredly, eroding foundational truths in hope to gain an audience. Should I believe what he said on the back cover of his book that he is only contributing to the conversation? It seems to me that he is trying to replace it. He is substituting a version of Christianity that is incompatible with the tenants of scripture. He has his qualifications, but they are contradictory afterthoughts that are attempts at masking his epistemological Post-Modernistic thought. In the current argument he is trying to displace the need for epistemic chains that are necessary in a progressive revelation which is what the bible is. How would Bell reconcile Genesis with John 1? If I say, "denying that all things were created through Jesus is robbing Genesis of its completed message?" would I then be a "Brickianity" proponent? If that is so then the Apostle John was a proponent of "Brickianity" as well. The truth is Bell is just out of touch with the bible because of the synthetic process in which he approaches it. He wants to find a synthesis between modern American attitudes and Christianity, even the essential parts of it, rather than questioning the mode of thought that is against the truth of the message of the bible. I find it interesting that he does not want modern culture to change at all, it is only the bible that must take the heat. This is a clear cut case of needing to be very careful when others approve of us, for it can be a gauge for sinful compromise. Some compromises are acceptable and debatable but if those who are spreading the message are not being persecuted in some form, even in a small way, the bigger danger to be concerned with is that the true message is not getting through. A Christian can not live the life God has commanded and not be persecuted in some form from great to small and if we are not being persecuted we are in danger of a compromise that is an abandonment of the gospel, an abandonment of Jesus. Yes, I embrace "Brickianity" despite the fact that there are those on my side that have bad arguments, but Bell has more in common with bad argumentation and abandonment of the faith. I will gladly be bad at arguing as long as I uphold the faith. I mentioned in the introduction that the reviews of Bell's book that were negative were unfair. The reason for this is because Bell presents an argument against the virgin birth as an example of his problem with approaching the bible and Christianity systematically. The reviewers would attribute this argument to Bell directly without mentioning the fact that he says later that he actually believes and affirms the virgin birth. It was not fair to approach this section of the book this way. Bell can question the virgin birth because he has already established that he does not find doctrine necessary to begin with. Since the virgin birth is only doctrine, then it does not matter if it is incorrect. So what the reviewers should have been picking up on is that Bell offers an argument against a historical claim and then never offers a response, even though there are very good responses to the argument he supposedly does not believe. Although, I must admit that one writing a book for the cause of Christianity and then not defending an attack on it strikes me as very peculiar. I can only speculate on his motives, but I think he thinks the argument is persuasive. In fact, he goes much further in his example than he needs to to make his point. He questions the strength of the Christian message because of what he considers a weak tenant. He asks how Christianity can really be strong if by needing to defend a single notion of it the whole thing hangs in the balance. If one does not systematize (or to put it another way "be logical") then one does not need to worry about defending it. This is a catch-all apologetic, the claims are merely doctrinal, not historical, doctrine is subservient to the experience of being in touch with "the depth of reality." Reality, for Bell, is now pure transcendental and esoteric. History is irrelevant, doctrine is benign. Christianity is secure in the truths of raw reality after one begins to follow and the rest can be "repainted" as it were, for the sake of a culture that is rejecting the message. There is no need for logic in Bell's Post-modern version of Christianity. Let me offer an illustration from my side of the theological fence to give an idea of Bell's perspective. I do not doubt that some who embrace a Young Earth perspective, do so because they see it as apologetically advantageous in regard to evolution. If there is not enough time then evolution could not take root. As a result, they begin to attack dating methods and marshal evidence from Genesis for theological support and so on. As I have stated many times on this blog, I love apologetics, but it never precedes theology. If our apologetic ideas are in conflict with our theological convictions then they are potential answers at best but we should be honest that we think that they are not likely answers. Even that last sentence has me unnerved a little and were it not for John Feinberge making a convincing case of "defense versus theodicy" I would go all the way and say flat out reject apologetics that are in conflict with theology. But, nevertheless, this is what Bell is doing, if Christianity is about a "deep" or "mysterious" or any other word one can conjure for "too much for words and reason" then one needs no defense for historic errors. This is similar to those who reject inerrancy: "a perfect God spoke to us about his perfection through a book full of errors and contradictions, but he's perfect. You'll see if you just read it. All the big stuff that could be errors, no, God will work through it. Sure everything in it could be an error, but don't think about that, the deeper reality will somehow be revealed." This is the kind of thinking prevalent in Theosophy, Ariosophy, and other views that spawned all kinds of problems in world history because good, well-intentioned people chose not to think, they just committed. It was the commitment that mattered, the intent, not the results. Even if they did think, their better reason was overridden by their commitment. And here we arrive at an irony, by committing without critical thought one ends up making ANY commitment valuable. If there is no inerrancy but it is still the word of God, well then, what other errors could be deeply true? Just do them and they will make themselves clearly perceived as true. Don't think, just commit. Commit to acting out Christianity without the doctrine you will get in touch with a deeper reality; just commit to reading the bible it will be true despite logical errors, just commit to following Teutonic principles you will live them out to be true, just commit. There is no line of demarcation! Why? Because that is what the bible is: God's line of demarcation for humanity. That is where we find our definitions not in some mysterious nexus of truth that goes beyond reason. Otherwise, humanity is the line of demarcation, what has history demonstrated is good about that? If God has not spoken, and done so clearly, then do we need God for anything more than a backup plan? Why should we believe anything about God or a god if he has not made himself known and set boundaries for us? G.K. Chesterton said, "The problem with not believing that there is a God is not that people will believe in nothing- it is that they will end up believing anything." I would take that a step further and say that if God has not revealed himself, in history, in doctrine, and in consistency, then we are free to believe in anything as well. It is not just a matter of if there is a God, it is a matter of if one can know God. I'm really not talking about agnosticism here, I am talking about God being everything he is and at least being everything he has revealed himself to be. And if he is perfect then he was perfect in revelation and in history where he has acted. These people fear making the evidence testable, so they stack the deck because they think God has failed even though they would never put it in those words. They think their weak arguments are his arguments, they are sorely mistaken. Is it me, or do the promises of the deep realties of the universe, or Jesus showing reality at its rawest, and all the promises about God really speaking to us even through contradictions and stacked dismissals of historical claims starting to sound like hollow, anthropomorphic babble? This gets me to the two problems with Bell and the fulfillment of a promise I made in the introduction: 1) The need for historical fidelity from God's revelation per his impeccable attributes and 2) the rejection of inerrancy leading to the collapse of the Christian worldview, as its clarity is marginalized amidst a plurality of alternatives that can compete for emotive commitment. Notice that all of this is testable, one does not have to resort to stacking the deck if one is willing to be honest in their pursuit of truth.

Historical Fidelity: A Prerequisite

Despite the ad hominem attack on systematic theology I will show that if the virgin birth did not happen in history it would have a catastrophic consequence for the Christian worldview. If one could prove that Jesus was not born of a virgin Christianity would collapse. Bell infers that Christianity could not be very strong if it relied so heavily on a proposition to be true. I don't mean this to be a put-down but, NO DUH! No truth claim is strong if it's false. Christianity is not claiming to be the best option among many, or even the strongest one among many, its claiming to be the only one. It is a truth claim about the way the world is. If its claims are false then it is false. Since when was truth measured in strength? Truth tests may be able to fall under this category, but not truth itself, unless he is assuming it is strong in regard to equal (in the ontological sense) yet competing truth claims. Truth claims are only as strong as the truth they represent, which is to say that they also have no real strength unless they correspond with what is actually true. If the claim is false then there is another singular truth and no strength hides behind the falsehood to defend it it is just a falsehood that goes down with the ship. If the claims of Christianity are false then there is another singular truth and Christianity is just a falsehood. The thing is that God is the truth according to Christianity. He cannot lie, in him is no deceit. His word is truth. If what is written about him is false, then he has not effected the supposed revelation concerning him. If he has not affected a truth claim then it is false, all of it. Even if it were to happen to brush against some truths. Why? Because God cannot deceive, he is not going to allow something that is the revelation about himself to contain falsehoods concerning him. How could it claim to be his word? At best, it could only be man's word and all claims, no matter what feeling we get when we read them, could be false. It follows logically from his attributes that the bible is either his truth and all facets are true and not a human construct. If any of it is a human error or otherwise all of it could not be the word of God, it could only be claiming to be, and a false claim at that; for in God there is no error. Bell says what if the virgin birth was put there for the benefit of Pagan beliefs of the time [pg.26]. Then reject it and go involve yourself in what ever pleasure you want and call that searching for the deeper realities of the universe because Accommodation Theory (information to make a proposition desirable rather than stating what is true) is still lying. The bible says God cannot lie, what cult was that put in there for? What can I possibly believe about it if it has lies and errors? How can I even know he does not lie? I can't, because the potential for error equates to probable agnosticism. You see, if it is possible that it is mistaken then it is possible that it is a lie despite mystical claims about feeling its the word of God, if its possible its mistaken then it is more rational to remain agnostic toward its claims rather than being emotionally committed to them despite reason (for more on this fallacy read my post "House on Faith"). One area where I will happily concede to Bell's point: Christianity is weak if its truth claims are false, so weak that the whole thing would be a lie and we are the most pathetic, pitiable people on the planet if its false. I have studied the bible a long time and I am confident that this is not the case. The good news is that the apostles didn't need a one-size-fits-all apologetic to placate public opinion in their day, they were brave and willing to die for the truth that has been preserved for us today. God in his perfection has given us his inerrant word. His perfection ensures its historical authenticity, (it does not prove it, that's a different claim) that if it is his word then it is true for it is the manifestation of his will for humanity to know. So I conclude that Bell's attempt to marginalize historical truth claims of scripture is unsuccessful, and at worst it could leave some to intellectually abandon the faith. Christianity is either the truth or it collapses under the weight of its own postulates. It boils down to this, the bible forces us to either reject it and accept any or maybe all other truth claims or accept it and reject everything else, there is no middle ground nor need for "repainting."

The Vitality of Innerancy

One criticism that has been levied at Evangelicals is that we are guilty of an "I'm right your wrong" theology. That our theology is without the life that Christ commands us to live. I see several problems with this approach to our position(s). Each individual is accountable to God for their behavior, and each leader of the church is at a higher level of accountability. I fear that this criticism is made by many who have virtually no contact with Evangelicals. Behaving as a Christian, if we are honest with what we read in scripture, should lead all of us to grieve at our lack of action. In Fact, James commands us to grieve, to humble ourselves from our lack of action. No Christian, liberal or otherwise, can truly say they are doing enough, and are further we are being arrogant to point the finger at anyone in this regard. Indeed, they are condemning/judging in a way that the bible explicitly prohibits. Many of them criticize us for not siding with one theologian or another, E.P. Sanders vs N.T. Wright for example. And we sometimes do the same, are we not all one in Christ? This question leads me to a reflection that I am forced to make, does not the bible set boundaries for what a Christian is? And if this is the case and my liberal friends reject the core of the gospel, then I am forced to judge (in the discerning sense not the condemning sense) that only those who are in Christ are one in Christ. For a different gospel is no gospel at all. So where do we need to logically do battle? At the existential level of living the love of Christ which no man can measure and each must face God on his or her own? Or at the scriptural level which is our guide for determining what God has revealed to us? I think the latter. Is it not now reasonable to ask the question, who is right and who is wrong in their approach to scripture? This is far from the "I'm right your wrong" accusation that is foisted onto the debate. Rather, it is the most reasonable course of action. And if some of us, like Bell, wish to say that it is not inerrant, or imply that inerrancy is trivial (his position is hard to know even though he commits to the virgin birth he undermines) then the acts of scripture demanded of us are logically trivial and irrelevant as well. So, inerrancy is too important to not investigate. And therefore I will endeavorer to flesh out the issue as it stands today in light of Bell's attempt to trivialize it for the sake of action. It is not a matter of whether I or any Evangelical is right, it is a matter of whether the revelation we are conforming our lives to is what it claims to be.

Preconditions

In Norman Geisler's first entry in his systematic theology series he does an excellent job highlighting the specifics that need to be discussed before engaging in good theology. Other theological writings are excellent as well, Erickson and Grudem come to mind, but they don't put the same level of detail on the preconditions, although I'm fairly sure they would agree with most of Geisler's positions concerning preconditions. I will keep this chain of thought brief, but we need to go through it to see the reasoning behind the value of inerrancy. I will not be offering a defense of these positions, my aim is purely descriptive and light on polemics.

-God

All things that begin to exist have a cause. The universe began to exist. The best explination for the cause is God. There is a God. This God interacts with our universe in which he created. Otherwise we have left Theism and adopted Deism. Is this "Brickianity?" Based on Bell's problems with the Young Earth creationist's postulates I imagine he would have to say yes. But if God does not interact with his creation then how does he communicate with it? The act of communication constitutes interaction in the world. So the logical links once denied, no matter how moral one may claim doing so is, leads us to a theological and existential impasse. Lest we deny logic and enter into Nihilism (ironically one could make the case that this is where Post-Modernity should lead) we must conclude that this God does interact or all bets are off. At that point any statement about God is as viable or detestable as any other statement because no matter what the case, if he has not made himself known, there is no legitimate claim to what he is like. Remember when I talked about a misguided pluralism? But is pluralism the best induction from Deistic claims? Perhaps Atheism makes more sense than pluralism? Perhaps Agnosticism is a more reasonable option? But if God has spoken, then we have very clear lines of demarcation, we have a distinctive God.

-The Bible

If the bible is God communicating to man in a more specific way than nature then it needs to be internally consistent. Why would this be? Aside from the fact that contradiction is a rational way to conclude falsehood, the claims about God in the bible must be presented to us in this logical consistency that all humans need. There is nothing wrong with desiring a reasonable account of God. This does not mean that there are not matters that are difficult to understand or even accept. If the scripture says that God is good, then we see passages that say he is evil, then we would have a very good reason for questioning what we could know about this God from the text that claims to represent him. If it says he is good and we see events that appear evil, does it follow that God is evil? Well, that depends on the specific text doesn't it. It is not enough to conclude contradiction based on a surface view of the text. Context and hermeneutics is where the real battle for inerrancy is fought. So, there is no real reason to believe that the bible is the word of God if there are real contradictions unless we appeal to some circular argument like "when people read it they conclude that it is the word of God!" I have bad news for people that say that, Muslims, Jews, and a host of other religious perspectives could make the same claim. That's the way circular arguments work, just plug in your favorite proposition and presto! Your argument sounds valid even though it isn't. What if scripture talks about itself? What should we conclude. If God cannot lie, and scripture explicitly states that his word is truth, then do we have to have the actual word "inerrancy" for that to be a reasonable conclusion that the bible is indeed inerrant? No more than the trinity I would say. So as it turns out, if the virgin birth is not true there is a lot more on the line than Bell would have us believe.

- A Common Error

One thing the opponents of inerrancy mistake is the difference between inerrancy and dictation method. It is not the best conclusion that God takes over an author and uses them as a robot to dictate what he wants. This misunderstanding has led many to have much higher expectations of the scripture than is logically necessary. What we demand of any text is the kind of innocent-until-proven-guilty approach to scripture that is fair. Shelby Spong in his writings critiques the bible by saying that the sun is referred to as "rising." But the earth rotates around the sun, why would the bible report it as "rising?" Because the bible uses everyday, common language. In fact, we today still say that the sun "rises." Demanding that the bible be a scientific text is coming from an assumption of Dictation Theory and is being used to diffuse inerrancy. God did not deny the authors their perspectives nor their personalities. If the scripture had said that the sun rotated around the earth then they would have a case because it would be the author's perspective misleading the reader and therefore could not possibly be considered inerrant. However, it is my contention that there is no such instance in scripture. So, the bible uses common verbiage and there are estimations and round numbers. A plenary model of dictation allows for the author to retain their own personalities and speak at a human level to others in everyday language. This fits the data better and given that God uses agencies (angels, natural forces, humans, big fish) often it should not be a surprise that this is the case in regard to the dictation of scripture. So inerrancy is retained even if scripture describes an army with round numbers or a bowl without using pi. As long as the measuring method worked (which is the case in the latter example, a skeptic could do what is instructed and find that it works) who cares if the number uses modern measuring methods, there is still no real error. Another fallacy is that inerrancy is a reaction to modern liberalism, incorrectamundo. It can be dated, in a formulaic sense, as far back as Augustine event though he didn't use the actual word. In fact, there is a historical lineage that can be traced in church history that are still great defenses of inerrancy. Has it been a hotter issue due to recent developments in biblical criticism? I would concede that, but that is far from being the hasty dogmatism our opponents would have us believe. Some say that inerrancy as being applied to the original manuscripts is a retreat in light of problems in the bible. Not true. The earliest manuscripts do reveal that there have been late additions to our copies, however, it is curious to me that there has been no evidence of subtractions or significant divergence. What best explains that? Certainly not the retreat and regroup method we are accused of. It seems that copyists did make errors, but as earlier MSS is uncovered the more confident we become in autograph inerrancy. But is that really so hard to believe? That the originals contained no errors? The only hard part to believe is the concomitance between the texts and miracles. The study of scripture will clear up the former and the denial of the later seems odd for one who embraces Theism. For Deists I would submit that your wasting your time claiming the bible teaches you anything about God, your more logical conclusion is at the feet of Atheism for their is no significant difference between the two other than vacuous postulates.

Some Examples of Attacks on Scripture to Infer the Falsehood of Inerrancy

I am going to deal with some "problem passages," as our opponents refer to them, to show how far they will go to imply that the doctrine of innerancy is not viable or valid. In almost all cases, and, in fact, none come to mind otherwise, the problem does not lay simply on inerrancy but on hermeneutics. The most extreme attacks are usually a case of very poor interpretive efforts. Although, it must be said that some objections are reasonable, albeit still faulty in their conclusions, but, nevertheless, one could see why even someone who is committed to inerrancy could scratch their head wondering how to justify it in light of difficult passages. Keep in mind that when I say "difficult" I don't mean "problem passages" which is a pseudonym for falsehood (in the camp that attacks inerrancy, they do not want to say "incorrect" or "false" they say "problem passages," this is fairly gutless in my opinion, if its false be honest and call it that); I mean interpretively difficult to understand. The justification for these difficulties are not "stretches" to fit the inerrancy paradigm. Rather, they are the best way to understand difficult passages. I will demonstrate that it is more reasonable to hold to inerrancy than otherwise and that its opponents are in danger of being false teachers. And if this should be the case, whether it be the position of a self proclaimed prophet, pastor, denomination, or anyone in a teaching/authoritative position, then one should consider a change despite the hardships that could result. I am not saying that in order to be a Christian one must embrace inerrancy (I'm certain the thief on the cross had not developed any doctrine in this regard), although I think eventually they would, rather a person in a position of authority in the church is held to a higher level of accountability. In regard to eventually embracing inerrancy, I would remind the skeptic that within the epistemic chain that logically leads to inerrancy from scripture that Luke 8, the parable of the seed, is about believing the word of God and being saved. This passage itself is not about inerrancy but it is part of the broad understanding of the word of God and Evangelicals have a duty to warn other Christians, regardless of denomination, to embrace it. One of the arguments against Christians in regard to the study of science is that if we presume a God it will smother material inquiry. I think that this is a false accusation. In fact, I think one could make the case that the opposite is true, but for the sake of argument I will say that it is obvious that it is not necessary for a Christian to stop all inquiry as a result of faith. I would like to ask the skeptic of inerrancy, do you inquire further when interpreting "problem passages?" Or do you have a defense already built in that necessarily limits your hermeneutical efforts? I very rarely hear a critique of the defense of passages that the skeptic will point out. It seems their perspective prevents them from good hermeneutical depth. Another problem that keeps the skeptic from looking harder at the text is a pragmatism that claims that inerrancy is dangerous because it may cause a person to fall from the faith once they discover the "problem passages." Fist off, it is far more dangerous to stop our inquiry or efforts to harmonize seemingly conflicting passages for we would not arrive at correct understanding, I need not go on in regard to just how dangerous that can be but there are plenty of examples from history to support me here. Second, the doctrine of inerrancy is not central to the faith in the same way as affirming the virgin birth or the resurrection. I believe that a person can go their whole life not completely comprehending the book of Revelation and still hold to inerrancy. The pragmatic concern is that the minister should advance a proper perspective of the doctrine of inerrancy trusting God to work things together for good, rather than appealing to a mysticism that an omniscient God speaks through contradiction, and then concluding inerrancy as false for the sake of the sensitivities of the saints. Lastly (and this will add to my point):

2 Peter 3:15-18

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

We are to take care and to grow with confidence in the word of God. If we are not trying to twist it and we are trying to understand it, although it is difficult, we will grow in grace and knowledge. Peter does not claim that the difficulties of understanding tough passages absolves us from our responsibilities to understand them, rather we are to do the work required to understand, not fret that difficulty will lead to departure from the faith. We are personally accountable for our efforts in this regard. Am I saying that being a Christian requires the hard work of study? Absolutely, we should meditate on the law of God night and day, we must conform our minds despite what the Rob Bells would have us believe.

I have now set us up for a demonstration of the types of passages that are being used to show contradiction when actually there is no problem. Again, I can see that some cases are tough to wade through, but we have no excuse for ignoring and dismissing them. I will pick from the most famous "problem passages" and offer hermeneutical commentary.

-The Death of Saul

1Samuel 31:4-5

Then Saul said to his armor-bearer, "Draw your sword, and thrust me through with it, lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and mistreat me." But his armor-bearer would not, for he feared greatly. Therefore Saul took his own sword and fell upon it. And when his armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he also fell upon his sword and died with him.

2Samuel 1:1-10

After the death of Saul, when David had returned from striking down the Amalekites, David remained two days in Ziklag. And on the third day, behold, a man came from Saul’s camp, with his clothes torn and dirt on his head. And when he came to David, he fell to the ground and paid homage. David said to him, "Where do you come from?" And he said to him, "I have escaped from the camp of Israel." And David said to him, "How did it go? Tell me." And he answered, "The people fled from the battle, and also many of the people have fallen and are dead, and Saul and his son Jonathan are also dead." Then David said to the young man who told him, "How do you know that Saul and his son Jonathan are dead?" And the young man who told him said, "By chance I happened to be on Mount Gilboa, and there was Saul leaning on his spear, and behold, the chariots and the horsemen were close upon him. And when he looked behind him, he saw me, and called to me. And I answered, 'Here I am.' And he said to me, 'Who are you?' I answered him, 'I am an Amalekite.' And he said to me 'Stand beside me and kill me, for anguish has seized me, and yet my life still lingers.' So I stood beside him and killed him, because I was sure that he could not live after he had fallen. And I took the crown that was on his head and the armlet that was on his arm, and I have brought them here to my lord."

Do these two passages constitute the end of inerrancy as we know it? Let me ask a question, does something seem different between the two passages? First, what is the genre of 1Sam ? History. What is the genre of 2Sam? History. What is the history of 1Sam? It is an account of the death of Saul. What is the history of 2Sam? It is an account of an account of the death of Saul. That is why verse one says "After the death of Saul..." furthermore, the account is from an Amalekite, could this be problematic? I remember the first time I read this and thought, "If this guy turns out to be a trouble maker his testimony about the death of Saul could be questionable." I was giving the opponents of inerrancy way too much credit because only 3 verses later we see this:

2Samuel 1:13-16

And David said to the young man who told him, "Where do you come from?" And he answered, "I am the son of a sojourner, an Amalekite." David said to him, "How is it you were not afraid to put out your hand to destroy the LORD’s anointed?" Then David called one of the young men and said, "Go, execute him." And he struck him down so that he died. And David said to him,"Your blood be on your head, for your own mouth has testified against you, saying, 'I have killed the LORD’s anointed.'"

In 1Sam Saul's armor-bearer feared killing God's anointed (despite Saul's flaws) in 2Sam the Amalekite should have had the same reaction but did not and this tipped his hand to David. So 2Sam is a historical account of a false account. Negative correlation: 1Samuel's account is correct about Saul's death. There is no contradiction between the texts.

-The Death if Judas

This and the angels at the tomb are probably the most famous.

Mathew 27:5

And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and went and hanged himself.

Acts 1:17-19

For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry."(Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

This is a passage where I would not blame a Christian to scratch their head in bewilderment. This is not a simple matter of hermeneutics, but that and trying to achieve harmony between the texts. It is important to keep in mind that we do not attempt to arrive at harmony despite the text unless we want to be eisegetical in our approach and that would be a big problem. An example of this is that some may have speculated that someone came by and cut Judas's stomach open while he hung. This is foisting something onto the text that is not there. It comes from being too hasty to exonerate the text in the name of inerrancy. Falling headlong is too closely related to his bowels gushing out for this to be the best case. The best way to approach these two texts is to employ an abductive methodology and ask which scenario best fits the data we have.

1) Is it possible that this is a contradiction? Sure it is. I'm willing to admit that. It is a possibility. One says he hung and one reports a fall then him bursting open. But let us ask another question, is contradiction the only possible answer to the problem? The Greek makes it clear that Judas indeed hung himself in the traditional sense of the word, however, it does not say that he was successful in that endeavor. It may be assumed by the author that he died unless there were other factors like: not needing full disclosure of the events for they may have already been principally known by the author's audience (more on this in a moment). The Acts account doesn't explicitly say that he died either. I'm not saying he lived and is hiding with Elvis and Michael Jackson in the basement of a Free Mason lodge in Prattville, AL or anything like that. What I am arguing for is that it is possible, given the vague nature in regard to the death in both accounts, that one could be focused on his death while the other is focused on how his blood spilled out and is not attempting to be comprehensive in regard to how he died. Or, as I alluded to earlier, one may not give the full account with the expectations that the receiver would have been able to fill in the blanks that were needed to be fleshed out in the other report. So "Hanged himself" would assume he died and perhaps in the Acts account his body was found after fallen from the branch and Luke was focused on the fulfillment of the prophecy because he had been found with his middle burst and his bowls exposed. Is this approach just as possible as the one that screams contradiction? Sure it is, due to the vague nature of the accounts in regard to his death the one desiring to find a contradiction has no advantage over the one who holds to inerrancy. Because inerrancy is not the most central doctrine then we are within our right to hold to it even though it is possible that this is a contradiction.

2) But we are not done yet. I believe that through use of abductive technique (primary axiom of western scientific methodology) we can show that not only is it possible that it is not a contradiction, but that harmony is the best explanation for the data we have on hand and that appealing to contradiction falls short of explaining all of our available information. D.A. Carson, not exactly a liberal scholar, says that Mathew was written to Jews and that the purpose is unclear. The destination is also unclear. The best guess seems to be to equip Jews for evangelical purposes. But Carson concludes that this is a guess, the only thing that is certain is that it is intended for Jews who were perhaps living in the area where Mathew wrote it, or for a collective of Jews. I wonder if they would have been ignorant of the events that took place in Jerusalem. I find that to be very hard to believe. Mathew and Acts were written around the same time plus or minus five years. Now, focus in on the Lucan account in Acts, "And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem." So the event of Judas's death was famous. "Everyone knew about it" was probably hyperbole for "this was famous." If Mathew was written to Jews who would have traveled to Jerusalem every year (Acts and Luke written by AD 90 at the latest) and likely had family living there and it would not be outlandish to assume that some may have even come from there, just exactly how descriptive does Mathew have to be for an event of such magnitude? Even if Judas didn't die due to the hanging it would not have mattered. Perhaps he went to hang himself and the branch gave and he split open, then dies. Whatever the case, given that the event was well known and likely well known among those Mathew was writing to, they would have detected that Mathew had a conflicting account. Yet, if you know anything about the canonization process, we are sitting here with a copy that spread very quickly through the early church along with Acts. Why would they do this if they had a contradiction? They likely wouldn't. They didn't have a contradiction they had a vague account from Mathew because everyone knew the gory details. Who was Luke writing to? Theophilus, for a more orderly account to supplement what he had been taught. Luke was showing how the process of replacing Judas took place and explained, in my opinion, what made the event famous: A grizzly scene that fulfilled prophecy in reference to the account Luke was giving which was the replacement of Judas. So I ask, is contradiction the most plausible conclusion based on the available data? I would say no. The scenario I laid out seems to fit the data with a higher level of plausibility than contradiction; for the early spread of the letters that eventually became the bible we have is best explained by a degree of present knowledge of those receiving the letters. It is likely they would have rejected one of the accounts if they were false, or at least edited one to make the well known event more clear, but that wasn't necessary as an allusion to the event was enough to bring the memory of the event to mind, therefore it is far more plausible that the harmony between the two texts is indeed the case and contradiction is simply not warranted. When it comes to the two death accounts it is possible that there is a contradiction, but given the context and our understanding of transmission of the texts in the early church, the abductive method does not favor a conclusion of contradiction. The data is best understood in a harmonious manner.

I will deal with the angels at the tomb and finish up my discussion on inerrancy in the next post.

Sermon: The Eternal Sabbath John 5:1-18

John 5:1-18 "The Eternal Sabbath" from Travis Sheehan on Vimeo.

Anything you can do to help me improve is appreciated. If there is something I didn't mention or you felt should have been emphasized more please mention. Thanks. I hope you enjoy.

Velvet Bell 2

Post Modernists like to cover their bases, but in the end they contradict themselves and cause confusion. If you call them on it, they will appeal to a mysticism, or deny the veracity of logic, while they use it in the midst of their denial. Bell has covered his bases and contradicted himself repeatedly. He has also engaged in multiple fallacies. He tried to make it sound like the changes he wants to bring to Christianity are not critical and within orthodoxy, however, his admission that his changes are to be theological must still be considered to be his effort since it is the clearest position he has. I am clearing up enigmatic passages in light of clear ones in this regard (funny, when trying to interpret an ancient text it would seem like something someone would have to do frequently, but a text written in 2005? It just shows how poor his argumentation is). His example of art was a false analogy rendering his argument of the importance of change hallow. Of course, even if he had a good analogy it would have made little difference; someone that uses analogies as their primary argumentation is probably coming from a weak position to begin with. He has yet to establish why Christianity needs to change (sound like Shelby Spong?) His attempt at using the Reformation as warrant for change displayed a lack of historical knowledge at best or deception at worst. Chapter One of Velvet Elvis, entitled "Jump," is enlightening. We learn a lot about Bell's thought process and convictions. Another element of his Post Modern thought comes to light and, as expected, it is a tour de force in contradictions. If the air campaign of WWI represented thought and the Germans are contradictions and logical fallacies, then Rob Bell is the Red Baron. Okay, I probably shouldn't poke fun at the guy but the whole book is so absurd I can't bring myself to respect the work. He is not a dumb guy, that's obvious, he is just blinded by his own agenda. This is not meant to be a put down to people who have followed his teaching, but they must know he has fooled them, he is a false teacher. They should not let pride keep them from rejecting such false teaching.

Bell goes through the effort of explaining that faith is something that all people have. We are all following some kind of teaching which means we are following "somebody." He implies that those who approach someone of faith in God in a cool, rational way is implicitly denying that they have faith. This is a false dichotomy. Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive propositions. Also, Bell is dismissing the rationality of the opponent in an ipso facto manner, the person of faith is not absolved of defending it rationally just because the person arguing with them has some form of faith of their own. Again, the question is about internal consistency of a given belief because beliefs require a different criterion to be deemed warranted than knowledge. There is no logical problem with a person having issues with faith, even if they don't a faith of their own. Additionally, someone may reject what they were taught and actually go in the opposite direction, not in the equivocal sense or even in an analogously direct sense, but just live a life different from which those who would seem to have been influential. For example, some who were raised in Christian households may have great respect for their parents but are tripped up by theodicy and thus answer the question with Atheism, their overall life experience is contributing, and sometimes even internally competing, for answers to questions. I agree that everyone adopts assumptions and beliefs, but faith is not always about following someone, they have experiences and thoughts as well. Are they now following their parents teaching? You may be able to make a case that they are indirectly, but for Bell, to follow is implying faith and not rationality, this is not entirely the case. As my illustration demonstrates, it may be rationality that actually contributes to their beliefs more than those one would expect them to follow. So, Bell's effort to dismiss rationality, or at least minimize it, from the conversation over faith is unfounded and it will become more clear why he wants this to be the case in short order. He does explain that some have a perspective that they are following their own ideas, but concludes that they are wrong, they are following someone or something no matter what they say. It is typical for him to tip his hat to "something" late in the conversation, his premise has been about following someone. Remember: he has to cover his bases. Some people are following ideas and I assume he would say those ideas are formed by consensus. My question would be, then what is Christianity? Is it not more than ideas? Is it not more than a communal commitment passed down to condition others? If not, then it is one of several options, then, by all means, repaint away, for it could not be the truth, at best it could be a possible truth. But if it is the truth, then argue for it as the truth. I believe it was Jesus who said he was the truth (which Bell quotes shortly). By the way, he was completely different from those who should have conditioned him. The fact is, ideas are far more complex than mere communal contribution and conditioning, they involve static, a priori logic, and sometimes there indeed is a give and take involving culture and community, as bell says himself, but does not see fit to apply to his own arguments, "there is more." Post-modernists don't believe in truth, so in this regard Bell has been consistent. Bell makes the question "Who is living rightly?" and puts it against the question of "who is right?" The real question, the one Bell is avoiding at all costs, is: what is the truth? This is the only question that really matters. Christianity is not merely an existential philosophy as Bell supposes. It is an answer to the ultimate question, it is the truth, because he is the truth. Which do you want, a way to live a good life, or the truth? If Christianity is only a way to be "in sync with the universe at its deepest levels [pg.21]." and not the truth, then what are we doing here? To be fair to Bell, perhaps he is trying, in his own way, to say its the truth, but there is a rational element which he is dismissing (again, he has his reasons which he will make clear). When I was an agnostic I was looking for answers, not a new lifestyle, the answers would determine my lifestyle. This nominalizing of reason is typical of faith leaders who come from a weak position. I believe he recognizes that his position is weak in the face of skeptics, and he's right, so he does what someone in a compromised position usually does, he obfuscates by appealing to a enigmatic mysticism and uses question laden verbiage ("universe at its deepest levels," what in Jar Jar Binks does that mean?), additionally, as he has done already and will do again in the next section, I'll be discussing his attempts at red herring by padding his side of the argument with moral fervor to make opponents seem morally misguided when attempting to critique his position. These are the attributes of a weak argument and the summit of Bell's reasoning. A point that I will make continually in my critique is this, does Rob Bell's attempts to convey the Christian message that is reflective of the authors of the bible? Is he really biblical? Does he have an apostolic attitude toward matters of faith? I will quote one verse here and let you decide for yourself if Velvet Elvis is of a godly effort, Isaiah 1:18 "Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool."

He attempts to say that the way in which one lives is not a matter of rationality or blind faith, it is just an existential reality that one must deal with. One must ask how he has arrived at the conclusion that there is a way in which one ought to live? I can tell you one thing, it is not merely a way and that is all, he got there by reason, and don't look now, but he is offering a cool, calm rationality about the way in which one should live. He expects his list to be self evident in regard to this being the way in which one ought to live: generously, forgivingly, compassionately, peacefully, wisely, and honestly. Of course these are admirable qualities. With his red herring deployed he can effectively shut down conversation as one is distracted by avoiding looking like a barbarian. The idea is that if you can be the first to be on the side of these attributes then your opponents may have to appear to be opposed to them. Who wants to be opposed to that list? Not me, I want to take part in all of those things as well. So do many Atheists that I know. In fact, many can take part in them even if they don't follow Jesus, so why include the list? It is advantageous to his argument. Bell claims that this is not about being superior to any other religion, rather it is part of a process that makes one more in tuned with reality. Cannot anyone say that they have done these things? At least at some point and to some degree? And is not a legitimate question from the skeptic at this point something along the lines of, "I don't believe that there is a God or Jesus and I do these things as part of my lifestyle, so, of what advantage is Jesus to me?" Bell's argument seems to be a refurbished version of "Only Christians can do good things." He just doesn't say it in so many words. Without a teleological or eschatological direction to good works they are fairly benign, Jesus offers us something beyond good works, they are good works with purpose. If there is no God one can do preferable works, how is Christianity any better if there is no way to actually do good works in the eyes of God? So Bell has gotten the cart in front of the horse. In light of the holiness of God no works are considered good, there must be a payment for sin before one can offer a good work that leads to an ultimate good conclusion, salvation is tethered to good works and reveals God's righteousness. Is this the position of the bible?

-Romans 1:16 "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek."

Salvation is found in belief, not in works. This serves as a good caution for trying to change or "repaint", as it were, what is expressed so clearly.

-1 John 1:8-10 "If we say 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 cleans us of all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

If we deceive ourselves in regard to sin, then we make him out to be a liar. How is this possible? If we lie then he is not in us so how is it possible that we would make him out to be a liar if he is not in us? Is that not a contradiction? No one can come to saving faith unless he fist confesses he has sinned. No amount of good works can replace that. So all of Bell's moralizing doesn't replace the problem of sin. A believer, one who is truly saved, must logically confess that they are a sinner to begin with. They would not dismiss this fact if they were a believer, for their hope is based on a need, the need of salvation from an outside source: God's righteousness. So, if they have come to that understanding then why would they say they don't sin? They wouldn't and that is John's point: they wouldn't. If they ever do they have not known what God has offered on the cross.

-Psalm 14:3 "They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does goo, not even one."

-Isaiah 64:6 "We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment."

Paul picks up on Psalms and demonstrates that no one can say they are really doing good. They may do things one would call good, but nothing good enough to warrant righteousness in the eyes of God who is the perfect judge. So what of Bell's contention that Jesus' ministry was meant to be followed to be in tune with the universe? It seems painfully short of what the bible actually teaches. We are in tune with our natures which is to sin and when we see that, then we can become in tune with God, until then we deceive ourselves. I am always leery about the prophets of altruism because while it is possible to do things that can be seen as good, if we say we are doing good enough, then we become the judge and we are dismissing our own sin. Experience tells me that all sin and as one I consider a mentor says, "It speaks to the bible's authenticity." (if your interested in looking at the bible's analysis on sin as revealed in the world read Romans 1 and I offer a commentary on this in my Faith Class section called "Faith Class: Already and Not Yet").

-Romans 5:6-11 "For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation."

This passage basically says it all. I believe that Rob Bell is misguided and distorts the beauty of the gospel when he says that the virtuous acts of Jesus are meant to bring us into harmony with the deepest levels of the universe without mentioning sin. He offers an incomplete picture that could easily lead one to believe that it is the virtuous behavior itself that accomplishes the goal he is setting out. Only after one comes to Christ can a virtuous life be properly lived out. Keep in mind the word "proper" anyone can and has done the virtuous thing Rob Bell listed, but not anyone can do them with the correct teleology, that can only be done by someone who knows they are not good to begin with. I find it ironic, like many truths.

So I must disagree with Bell that the question is "Who is living rightly?" Because the skeptic will raise his hand and say "Me," or even maybe, "By faith I believe its me." Remeber in the introduction I mentioned that if you start trying to refine the foundations of a worldview those changes make it suseptable to attack? Now that Bell has changed the question to one of how one ought to live rather than God's demands (which is the question the bible is more concerned i.e. Nicodemus) someone could say "Well, it seems a dictatorship could make one live this way," or, "Islam seems to get pretty good results in this regard." Remember when I mentioned a misguided plurality? A better question would be, "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" or "Compared to God's holiness can anyone be good?" And, as predicted, Bell appeals to a mysticism, "Over time when you purposely try to live the way of Jesus, you start noticing something deeper going on... [you live] more in tune with ultimate reality. You are more and more in sync with how the universe is at its deepest levels [pg. 21]." Try to argue that one! This is the fallacy of stacking the deck (recurring theme), no matter what you do you will prove him right, deny what he is saying and the enigmatic "deeper" goings ons don't happen and the ultimate reality is locked away so you prove him right, Live the way he is saying and what ever happens is the "deeper" happenings of the universe being realized. What separates his argument from Buddhist enlightenment? Was this really the focus of Jesus' ministry? Ahh, yes, remember when Nicodemus came to Jesus and said, "'Rabbi, we know you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.' Jesus answered him, 'Truly truly I say to you unless one is convinced of being generous, forgiving, compassionate, and what not, one will not be in sync with how the universe is at its deepest levels.'" If that sounds ridiculous then good, it means you know your bible well, what he actually said was completely different from Bell's teaching (Bell did not misquote this passage I am demonstrating the absurdity of his claim),

John 3:1-3

"Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus , a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, 'Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.' Jesus answered him, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.'"

Wait, what about the being in sync with the universe? Well, the truth is, Jesus and Bell are at odd ends. They do not offer the same message to an unbelieving world. Bell has more in common with Descartes than Jesus. Sure, he talks about Jesus, but as Bell will point out later in Velvet Elvis many will come saying that and it won't be true. At this point I imagine Bell's defense would be that change is necessary for this generation and I would respond that if the arguments he provided in the introduction are exemplary of the foundations for the need to change, I'll stick with the bible. Ironically the bible speaks of sin offering a revelation about God as well. So if coming in tune with the deepest nature of the universe is what is so important could not sin accomplish this? Revelation for its own sake is not as important as what revelation says about us as we are related to God, not uncovering the "deep" happenings for the sake of doing so. So while I find the list of virtues compelling they are being misused in their representation of Jesus. Did he do these good things, yes. Should we take part in them, yes. But they are not a means to an end. In fact my idea for a dissertation topic (although it could be more sociological history rather than philosophy) has to do with eudaimonia and its subconscious resurgence among American Christians and their leaders. Velvet Elvis would be a fantastic case study about this subject. Eudaimonia was about having the objectively best human life (human is mentioned specifically because of the gods in the Socratic era). The debate of the time predated Christ by about 400 years during the time of Socrates. The question was whether the best life required virtue (among which Rob Bell lists as if they were exclusive to Jesus teaching, they weren't, he exclusively embodied these virtues showing us that we cannot live up to them on our own) or if virtue was a hindrance to a best human life. In the midst of the debate were these gods whom were disengaged, morally, and left humans to figure this out for themselves. Modern Christians who are now becoming more and more ignorant to biblical truth claims have engaged in a similar debate. How is the best way to have the best life as a human? Has God spoke in this regard? I have listed versus in which he has and the eudaimonistic question becomes a non sequitur in light of biblical revelation, but when elements are deemphasized (like sin and God's intimate response) God appears disconnected. Almost like Deism. Humans, in turn, must determine for themselves what is the best way to live. With vestiges of the Christian ethic remaining in the American conscience they begin to appeal to them, without God's revelation concerning sin and/0r his intimacy in our lives, as the best way in which to live as opposed to seeing them as a mirror for who we are compared to God, which is what Jesus' ethics were intended to do (Mark 12:28-31 "And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the most important of all?" Jesus answered, "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."). And so you end up with modern pithy sayings like this, "we are all living a 'way'."; "Perhaps a better question than who's right, is who lives rightly?"[pages 20 and 21 respectively] So Bell bookends his argument with the eudaimonistic question. But the bible isn't interested in getting you to live rightly before you recognize that you can't live rightly and as a result you must repent to an intimate God. American Christians are now debating how to live, not for God, but for themselves. They don't include morality to honor God they do it to live a good life (if you have read Socrates that question should sound familiar, its the essence of his eudaimonistic stance compared to the Stoics and Sophists right around the time he pwnes them, in my opinion anyway) or to get to heaven or to get in tune with the universe at its deepest levels. I used to think this way myself so I have no room to judge others in this regard but I'll take a page from Paul's play book and quote one of our contemporary artists, "I did my time, and I want out..."

In the midst of this, Bell offers scraps of scripture as proof text. In the process, he embodies hypocrisy. In chapter 2 he will talk about a conference about the male being the head of the household and then criticize them for taking the scripture out of context (which he offers no evidence for being the case, I will deal with this further when I get there). In his argument from virtue he takes two passages of scripture out of context. Let us see Bell's hermeneutical process, hope you like Conventionalism (Reader Response Criticism). This is Bell's exposition of John 14, from page 21 of Velvet Elvis (VE):

"Jesus' intention was, and is, to call people to live in tune with reality. He said at one point that if you had seen him, you had 'seen the Father'. He claimed to be showing us what God is like. In his compassion, peace, truth telling, and generosity, he was showing us God [pg21]."

Later:

"Jesus at one point claimed to be 'the way, the truth, and the life'... he was telling those who were following him that his way is the way to the depth of reality [pg.21]."

Let us now look at the text and I will be taking Bell's criticism of using context from chapter 2, which he failed to deploy here, as it would have applied to himself.

John 14:1-11

"'Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. And you know the way to where I am going.' Thomas said to him, 'Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?' Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.'Philip said to him, 'Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.' Jesus said to him, 'Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves."

Where is the list of virtues that were showing us what God is like? Looks like the last thing Jesus is concerned with here is his display of goodness as it reflects God. Rather, he seems interested in letting his disciples know that he is the one preparing the way. Of course I am using that ancient practice of actually discovering the author's intentions. Not in vogue in Bell's world, but the only way to arrive at the meaning of the text in the real world. This passage is infused with eschatological realities that should be trusted. It is not a text intended to show how one should live "in tune with reality" as much as its about how the return of Christ should shape our understanding of our current reality for the one that is coming. Not following x list of virtues as a "better way to live". I want to reiterate that the virtues Bell lists are good but they are not the means to the end in which Jesus was primarily concerned, Jesus is the means to an end and in that we will find good living, not good living to follow Jesus. Again, Bell has "put the cart before the horse."