The recent U.S. military action in Libya brings the issue of a biblical view of war to the forefront again. In 1996 a Christian Research Journal feature considered Just War Theory and the necessity of warfare. What are the biblical principles of Just War Theory? How do we decide when military action is or is not warranted?
–Melanie M. Cogdill, Managing Editor
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”—2 Timothy 3:16
Despite what you might glean from the media, Christians have proof positive that the whole cannon of Scripture is utterly reliable. This is an important point to internalize because in order to effectively defend the Christian faith, we must be equipped to demonstrate to an unenlightened audience that the Bible is not only divine in origin, but also one hundred percent correct.
In fact, archaeology is a powerful witness to the accuracy of the Scriptures. Over and over, comprehensive archaeological field work since the mid-nineteenth century, coupled with careful biblical interpretation, affirm the reliability of the Bible down to minute details.
Skeptics who challenge Scripture are silenced as myriad discoveries point to the accuracy of the biblical accounts. Take, for example, the skeptics’ claim that Jesus was not nailed to the cross, but was tied according to Roman custom. In 1999, archaeologists discovered the skeletal remains of a young man in his early 20s who was crucified in the first century. His remains attest to a death by crucifixion precisely as described in the Bible: his bones tell the story of open arms that had been nailed to the crossbar and a large single nail had been driven through both heels. That nail was still lodged in the heel bone of one foot, though the executioners had removed the body from the cross after death. Moreover, the shin bones seemed to have been broken, corroborating what the Gospel of John suggests was normal practice in Roman crucifixions.
Here’s another example. The Old Testament references the Hittites as one of seven Canaanite nations. In fact, Uriah the Hittite is mentioned in 2 Samuel 23:39 and is one of King David’s warriors (who is later killed in battle). Yet, prior to the early twentieth century, skeptics said the Hittites were pure mythology. Thus, many were surprised in 1906 when archaeologists unearthed the ruins of Hattutsas in Turkey, the chief city of the ancient Hittites, confirming the biblical references.
Or consider the Assyrians who, like the Hittites, were also thought to be a mythological people group. In the nineteenth century, the capital city was unearthed on the plains of Northern Iraq, including the palace of Sargon, the Assyrian King mentioned in Isaiah 20:1.
The list of archaeological discoveries that confirm the biblical record goes on and on. The reliability of the Bible is affirmed repeatedly by the eyewitness testimony of its authors—or in some cases close associates of eyewitnesses—to the recorded events. Secular historians also confirm the many events, people, places, and customs chronicled in Scripture.
It is important to note that while archeological evidence can remove doubts about the historical accuracy of the Bible, the spiritual message of our sin, man’s need for redemption, and a loving Creator who interacts in the affairs of men, providing a means of salvation, must be accepted by faith. Indeed, as the apostle Paul declared, “If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9).
—Hank Hanegraaff
For Further Study CRI Recommends:
Flip Chart: LIGHTS on Your Path
Book: How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth
Article: Biblical Archaeology: Factual Evidence to Support the Historicity of the Bible
Think you’re ready to engage Seventh-day Adventists on the question of Sabbath observance? Be careful you don’t step into a minefield.
Before arguing about the Sabbath, Evangelicals should first clarify the nature of the Mosaic Law and its relationship to Christians today. At issue are fundamental questions about the scope of the law, its purpose in the new covenant, and whether we can distinguish between those aspects that are morally binding (eternal) and those that are not. Adventists have persuasive answers to these questions. Indeed, my own thesis is that evangelicals who contend for the continuity of the Mosaic Law in whole or in part and, at the same time, argue for the discontinuity of the Sabbath command, lack biblical support and face an almost intractable consistency problem. Conversely, evangelicals who argue for discontinuity—namely, that within the context of salvation history, the entire Mosaic Law is fulfilled in Christ and thus has no direct claim on the believer—provide a biblically sound foundation for addressing the Sabbath question.
If the Mosaic Law remains binding for New Testament believers, what pressing question must evangelicals face head-on? What view of the Mosaic Law gives evangelicals the best foundation for addressing the Sabbath question? Why?
Scott Klusendorf is president of Life Training Institute and holds an M.A. in Christian apologetics from Biola University. His feature article in which this post is based appears in the Volume 34, No. 2 issue of the Christian Research Journal (a 6-issue subscription is $39.50). Or give a gift subscription.
John Dominic Crossan: A “brilliant,” “keen mind,” Jesus scholar who “loves the Bible” or a blasphemer?
A couple of weeks ago after church, I came across the CNN article “John Dominic Crossan’s ‘Blasphemous’ Portrait of Jesus,” which offered a brief biographical sketch of the co-founder of the Jesus Seminar, an extremely liberal committee of Bible scholars whose research into the “historical Jesus” attempts to undermine the Christ of the historic Christian faith. Crossan’s own portrait of the “historical Jesus” is one of a Jewish peasant non-violent insurrectionist. Crossan does profess to be a “Christian,” believes he is “trying to understand the stories of Jesus, not refute them,” and says, “if people finish with my books and now see why Pilate executed him and why people died for him, then I’ve done my job.”
Is not John Dominic Crossan really selling the Jesus of his own imagination, one which can be rightly considered blasphemous? What the CNN article does not mention is that Crossan believes Jesus was crucified; however, contrary to the four Gospel writers and Paul’s affirmation in 1 Corinthians 15, the Jesus Seminar co-founder believes the corpse was left unburied and most likely eaten by wild dogs. As for the resurrection appearances, he dismisses them as “tales” and “wishful thinking.” Finally, the Jesus Seminar method of biblical interpretation is both fanciful and flawed in that it takes a particular scholar’s preconceived notion of the “historical Jesus,” and then distinguishes the passages that fit that imaginary portrait as representing the historical person from the passages that do not fit the imaginary portrait as later mythology. For John Dominic Crossan to deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and go to great lengths to twist Scriptures in support of his own imaginary portrait of Jesus, the title blasphemous fits.
— Warren Nozaki, Research
For further study on John Dominic Crossan, we recommend:
Answering More Prime Time Fallacies (FALSE Acronym)
The FEAT that Demonstrates the FACT of Resurrection
The Jesus Seminar: The Quest for the Imaginary Jesus
The Jesus Seminar and the Gospel of Thomas: Courting the Media at the Cost of Truth
Jesus and the Earliest Sources: An Answer to John Dominic Crossan
Last weekend I went to see the new Matt Damon and Emily Blunt film, a romantic thriller called The Adjustment Bureau (PG-13*). Loosely based on a 1954 short story by Philip K. Dick called the “Adjustment Team,” the film’s themes center around “God,” free will and determinism. The film causes viewers to wonder does God exist and if so, does He change His mind? Do human beings have free will? Is there a plan for human lives that has already been pre-determined by God before we were born? Do we have guardian angels watching over and affecting our lives? And can human choices change the mind of God?
Even though director and screenwriter George Nolfi had no intention of making a movie with explicitly religious or Christian themes, he nevertheless raises the age-old question of do we truly have free will?
In the upcoming Volume 34 No. 3 issue of the Christian Research Journal, contributing writer Brian Godawa will offer his take in a review of the film and its themes. You won’t want to miss Godawa’s analysis so please subscribe to the Christian Research Journal (a 6-issue subscription is $39.50). Or give a gift subscription.
—Melanie M. Cogdill, Managing Editor, Christian Research Journal
For further study we recommend:
Book: Hollywood Worldviews: Watching Films with Wisdom & Discernment
Review: God of the Possible
Article: Neotheism: The Dangers of Making God in Our Image
Book: God Under Fire
Book: Their God Is Too Small: Open Theism and the Undermining of Confidence in God
* Film contains strong language, an implied premarital sex scene, female lead in short skirt/plunging neckline dresses.
On Guard is a fencing term. It’s also the title of a book written by Dr. William Lane Craig, with the subtitle of “Defending your Faith with Reason and Precision.” He attempts to show the skeptics/atheists that their position needs to be supported with evidence and not mere rhetoric.
I found this quote on page 41 to be very interesting: “If God does not exist, then life is objectively meaningless; but man cannot live consistently and happily knowing that life is meaningless; so in order to be happy he pretends life has meaning. But this is, of course, entirely inconsistent—for without God, man and the universe are without any real significance.” I agree with the statement. Yet many atheists I’ve encountered think they aren’t missing anything in life. In many ways, they think my life is a model for dullness and despair. I wonder, is there an effective approach that could best be utilized to illustrate how their lives are truly based on insignificance?
Eric Johnson is a researcher with Mormonism Research Ministry and coauthor of Mormonism 101(Baker, 2000). He is also an associate editor for the Apologetics Study Bible for Students (Holman, 2010).
His review of On Guard on which this post is based appears in the Volume 34, No. 2 issue of the Christian Research Journal (a 6-issue subscription is $39.50). Or give a gift subscription.
For Further Reading We Recommend:
A recent online article from Christian Century reports that at some Evangelical Colleges, acceptance of gay groups is growing perhaps due to the efforts of the gay activist group Soulforce. In 2009, the Christian Research Journal published an in-depth article on Soulforce by Joe Dallas. As Dallas writes, “But an error Christians often make when dealing with homosexual activists is to overindulge their desire for us to hear their concerns, while offering none of our own.”
Do you think acceptance of gay groups on Evangelical college campuses is inevitable? How can Christians dialog with groups and maintain fidelity to biblical truth? Should we be in dialog with these groups?
—Melanie M. Cogdill, Managing Editor
Recommended Resources on Homosexuality:
Desires in Conflict
The Gay Gospel?: How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread The Bible
The Same Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bible’s Message About Homosexuality