“Witnessing is that deep-seated conviction that the greatest favor I can do for others is to introduce them to Jesus Christ . . . . But, many Christians are ineffective ambassadors because they’re not sure of the content of their message and are unable to communicate it clearly to others.” So writes Paul Little in How to Give Away Your Faith, which is certainly one of the most widely-read and successful books on evangelism ever written.

Published in 1966, and re-released by Little’s wife last year (Little died in 1975), this book is a sort of an “evangelism-for-dummies.” Much of what it says seems common sense now, but such was not the case forty years ago. In fact, much of what seems obvious in it, is obvious precisely because of the popularity of this book.

Little’s thrust is that Christians are to be ambassadors for Christ, and they should be out proclaiming the Gospel to the world around us. He stresses the lifestyle that the evangelist leads should be marked by holiness, and the attitude the evangelist has should be friendly. Grumps and worldly people make terrible evangelists, Little points out, because the goal is to actually show people that the Gospel transforms our lives.

How to Give Away Your Faith is an extremely practical book—more so than just about any other book on evangelism I can think of. Little divides evangelism up into two categories: one-time encounters (cold evangelism), and on-going encounters (relational evangelism). He then gives specific ideas and observations about each category. For example, he points out that one-time encounters tend to go deeper more quickly, perhaps due to the anonymous nature of the conversation. He then gives lists of ways to facilitate these conversations.

For relational evangelism, Little gives helpful examples of how to transition relationships with friends and neighbors into conversations about the Gospel. His examples are challenging and effective. He gives advice on how to meet neighbors, how to start conversations, and how to challenge people to make decisions for Jesus. He encourages you to consistently ask your friends what their opinion is on things, then listen to their answer. The more you ask, the more they talk, and the more likely they will be to listen when you explain the Gospel.

He also spends a chapter detailing the content of the Gospel. This book does not present a method-driven approach to evangelism. Unlike most current evangelistic training, Little does not give a “memorize these points and have this conversation” approach. He gives multiple different outlines, and certainly gives the reader enough training to have a conversation that centers on the Gospel.

There are weaknesses to this book. Some of his examples are certainly dated (computers are called “thinking machines,” and the threat of a nuclear holocaust is mentioned several times; he reminisces about the days when kids played “cowboys and Indians”). The book closes with chapters on worldliness, weaker brothers, gray areas, devotional life, and secret sins. The content of those chapters is good—especially the weaker brother one—but the connection to the rest of the book is unclear and they seem out of place.

It is helpful to remember that this book was written forty years ago. Little takes a strong stand in favor of Lordship salvation, and also warns against Christians who say that God speaks to them in an audible voice. But he also talks about “making the Gospel relevant” and gives advice on making listeners “more receptive” to the Gospel. It is most likely that these words (“relevant” and “receptive”) had different nuances then, but they still stand out as being unhelpful.

Today when you witness (or teach others to), you most likely understand that evangelism is more than plowing through Bible verses and spiritual laws. When you think of evangelism, you probably think of having conversations with friends and neighbors about the Gospel, and you probably view that as an essential part of Christianity. While How to Give Away Your Faith may seem elementary, it is also at least partially responsible for engraining those assumptions into the fabric of today’s evangelical mindset.

(By Jesse Johnson)

If evangelism is a lifestyle, not an event, are there certain things that pastors can do encourage people to be faithful to their calling?

Here are some ideas that we have used at Grace Church to facilitate, encourage, and equip our people for evangelism:

Hand out free New Testaments to your congregation: Have the church purchase these, and hand one to everyone on a Sunday morning. Encourage them to hand them out to someone whom they know, but with whom they have been reluctant to share the Gospel. Encourage the people to personalize it in some way, such as marking their favorite passages or favorite chapter. Many non-believers who would not read a tract or be open to a church invitation, may very well respond to a gift such as a book, especially when the person giving it has put thought into what he is asking them to read.

Offer an evangelism training class in Sunday School or at home Bible studies: More mature believers can easily forget how intimidating evangelism can be. What should people say, how do they turn a conversation toward the Gospel, how do they (or should they) witness to their boss? These are questions many people in church have. A short class (at Grace it is 4 weeks) that trains people on the basics in evangelism is very useful in answering these questions, and creating a climate where evangelism is expected. We offer these classes on Sunday morning, as an alternative to Sunday school, as well as at many of our home Bible studies. Often, small group leaders are excited to take a break from their current study in order to do a short series on evangelism.

It is not necessary to even use a particular curriculum for these classes, although many good ones are available. If you have gifted teachers, perhaps just having them teach a series through evangelistic passages of Scripture might be effective.

Take advantage of Christmas programs your church already does: Easily Grace’s biggest evangelistic event of the year is our Christmas concert. We mail tickets to our neighbors who live around the church, and many of our members invite several friends. One of our pastors does a brief Gospel presentation in the middle of the concert. This does not make the concert that much longer, but increases the church’s love of the concert dramatically. People begin praying about who they are going to invite weeks in advance, and there is a genuine excitement around the campus as it seems everyone is bringing non-believers to church that week.

Model through your lifestyle your priority of evangelism: Those that know Pastor John know his love for evangelism. He models it from the pulpit by the way he earnestly proclaims the Gospel and offers salvation. He models it in his prayers by how he asks God to save others. He models it in his ecclesiology, by having the focus of the church be on the salvation of sinners. And he models it in his personal life, by witnessing to his neighbors, doctors, and those whom he comes in contact with. His love for evangelism is prevalent through our church, and is contagious.

(By Jesse Johnson)

* Jesse is serves as Associate Pastor of Local Outreach Ministries at Grace Church.

On Sunday afternoons I used to pass a well-dressed man standing on a milk crate at the corner of Roscoe and Van Nuys boulevards. He wore a placard around his neck that said “Jesus is Lord,” and bellowed phrases like “Jesus loves you” and “Read the Bible” into a bullhorn. Cars at the red light would roll up their windows, while the people huddled at the bus stop looked on, visibly annoyed.

This man’s evangelism caused me cognitive conflict. On one hand, he was trying to do something to proclaim the gospel. On the other hand, he was no doubt causing people to scoff at the gospel because of the frivolous way he was presenting it.

There are many misunderstandings about the nature of true evangelism. Many people don’t evangelize because when they think of evangelism, they think of the overzealous man on the street corner with the bullhorn. They think, “I’m not called to do that.” From there it’s a short leap to, “So I’m not called to evangelize.”

But the most effective kind of evangelism is often not done from street corners. Proclaiming the gospel does not involve a sign around your neck, or a bullhorn in your hand. Effective, winsome evangelism can take place with people you already know—your neighbors, your family, and your coworkers. Think of the names of nonbelievers you cross paths with; those people are your mission field.

For Jesus, evangelism was a way of life. When He crossed paths with people, He seized the opportunities to preach repentance and the forgiveness of sins. In fact, much of Jesus’ evangelism took place in conversations with individuals. Consider the woman at the well (John 4), the rich young ruler (Luke 18), and Zacchaeus (Luke 19).

Evangelism in the book of Acts follows Jesus’ example. Peter, Stephen, and Paul did not stand on street corners and shout. Instead they seized whatever opportunities God gave them, and implored people to be reconciled to God. There are at least 15 examples in the book of Acts of Christians going about their daily activity, and then getting involved in evangelistic conversations with individuals with whom they came in contact.

That is our challenge in evangelism. We want to seize the opportunities that God gives us to proclaim the gospel to those whom He puts around us. When we see evangelism as a lifestyle, rather than as an event, then our evangelism will more closely model Jesus’s.

Tomorrow we will have some ideas that pastors can use to facilitate this kind of evangelism in the life of the church.

(Review by Nathan Williams) 

In Search of a Confident Faith by J.P. Moreland & Klaus Issler

There may be no more misunderstood word in American culture today than the word faith. Many people use the term, but few grasp the biblical teaching about what constitutes genuine faith.

In their book In Seach of a Confident Faith, J.P. Moreland and Klaus Issler attempt to deal with this misunderstanding of the essential nature of faith. This book seeks to answer a number of significant questions dealing with faith. What is the nature of true faith? Why must we even relate to God in terms of faith at all? Why can’t God just appear to us and tell us up front that He is real and we must obey and follow Him?

In Search of a Confident Faith divides into two sections. The first three chapters discuss the challenges we face to our faith in God. In this section we learn exactly what faith is and why it is so significant. We also begin to understand distractions which keep us from experiencing increasing confidence in God. These distractions cover intellectual obstacles to faith and emotional obstacles to faith.

The next three chapters make up the second section of the book and focus on the growth of faith. Within these chapters we find teaching on learning to trust the promises Jesus makes in the gospels. It’s important to understand that Jesus lived a life of faith also and we can learn much from His example. In these chapters we’re also made aware of two other ways to grow our confidence in God. These are noticing the work which God is accomplishing in the world around us and learning to trust God’s faithfulness as we make life decisions. As I read there were several points which I found to be most helpful and a couple of issues of which I felt the reader needs to be wary.

First, the teaching this book provides on the nature of faith is excellent. The authors go into detail in the first chapter about exactly what real faith looks like. They discuss the three classical aspects of faith; the content of faith, the personal awareness and assent to that content, and the willful commitment to living a life that reflects the content of our faith. Many Christians have probably never thought this deeply through their faith and what it actually looks like. Often, we may forget that faith involves knowing information, assenting to that information mentally, and having that information affect the actions we perform.

The authors also walk the reader through several philosophical aspects of faith that will help as one considers the topic of faith. I found a couple of these to be particularly helpful. First, the teaching on the degrees of faith. Often we believe and act as if faith is an all or nothing endeavor. Someone either believes something or doesn’t believe it. This can be true in certain instances, but often our faith in a propositional statement or a person rises and falls. The stronger the confidence in a particular teaching, the more likely it is that we will act on that confidence. Second, the authors point out that faith does not grow directly, but indirectly. In other words, people do not have direct control over what they believe. This is a fascinating insight into how our spiritual lives work. You can never convince someone of something they don’t believe by simply telling them repeatedly to believe it. They must have some evidence brought to them or some new teaching which changes their mind and increases confidence in some truth.

As I mentioned before, there were a couple of areas of unease which I had as I read In Search of a Confident Faith. I was quite concerned throughout the book to be confronted with examples which indicated an approach taken to care for the soul including secular psychological methods. Many of the examples given looked back to early childhood experiences and concluded that these events had subconsciously affected the individual in an extremely negative way. For example, in a discussion of a roommate who feared he had committed the unpardonable sin, this analysis is given; “Due to early childhood attachment issues, he felt unloved by and disconnected from people in general and God in particular, and rather than face this head on, he projected his emotional insecurity on the unpardonable sin as a more manageable center of focus” (p. 56).

Another area of concern I had was with the strong emphasis given to experience as an authority throughout the book. The last two chapters are meant to increase our faith by noting that God is working in the world and that He can be trusted to guide our lives. Rather than attempting to increase the faith of the reader through the clear teaching of Scripture, the majority of these chapters was given to personal anecdotes which were meant to increase faith.

If Scripture remains our only authority for faith and practice, and faith comes through hearing the Word of Christ, (Rom. 10:17) then a better way to increase faith would have been through clear biblical teaching. Obviously experience is important to our ability to look back and see the faithfulness of God in our lives. But experience can never increase faith in the same way as Scripture. Several of the experiences recounted in the book involved faith healers, dreams as direct revelation from God, and God providing guidance through direct revelation to individuals. Obviously this is not the place for a detailed argument over these issues, but Grace Church’s cessationist position on these things is well known. Thus it is important to make potential readers aware.

Overall, this was a helpful read in many ways, though there were a couple areas in which extra discernment was needed. We are a people of faith and it is vital to understand exactly what we mean when we are calling people to live a life of faith.

(By Nathan Busenitz)

The following comes from Nathan’s new book, Reasons We Believe: 50 Lines of Evidence that Confirm the Christian Faith (Crossway). Today’s article is adapted from part of reason no. 13, regarding archaeological evidence for the Bible’s trustworthiness.

Recent interviews with leading archaeologists in Israel have again confirmed the historical and geographical trustworthiness of the Bible.[1] “Serious scholars, even if they’re not believers, even if they do not think this is a sacred text, still consider it to be history, because things match up so well,” says archaeologist Steven Ortiz who has been working in Israel for over 20 years. He continues, “[T]here isn’t anything to contradict or anything to make me wary of the testimony of Scripture.”[2] Speaking specifically of the Old Testament, Denis Baly notes that “the historical material in the [Old] Testament must be taken with great seriousness. It is primary evidence for the history of the time, and no honest historian or archaeologist should treat it as anything else.”[3] Echoing this sentiment, Aren Maeier of Bar Ilan University acknowledges the fact that “You can’t do archaeology in Israel without the Bible.”[4]

Their consensus on the importance of the biblical text to Israeli archaeology echoes the words of Yale archeologist Millar Burrows, who wrote over a half-century ago, “On the whole, archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by experience of excavation of Palestine.”[5] More recently, after an extensive study of Old Testament data, renown archaeologist and Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen (of the University of Liverpool) has written:

What can be said of historical reliability? Here our answer—on the evidence available—is more positive. The periods most in the glare of contemporary documents—the divided monarchy and the exile and return—show a very high level of direct correlation (where adequate data exist) and of reliability. . . . 

In terms of general reliability . . . the Old Testament comes out remarkably well.[6]

The testimony of archeology continually confirms the trustworthiness of the Bible. As Norman Geisler, Dean of Southern Evangelical Seminary, correctly points out, “While many have doubted the accuracy of the Bible, time and continued research have consistently demonstrated that the Word of God is better informed than its critics.”[7] Henry Morris presses the point even further, asserting that there is “not one unquestionable find of archaeology that proves the Bible to be in error at any point.”[8] On the other hand, notes Josh McDowell, “numerous discoveries have confirmed the historical accuracy of the biblical documents, even down to the occasional use of obsolete names of foreign kings.”[9]

Those are statements no other religious book can make. Yet they correspond directly to the Bible’s own claim to be true.

* * * * *

ENDNOTES:

[1] “The Archaeologists I”, video presentation, SourceFlix Productions (uploaded August 10, 2007) http://www.sourceflix.com/vid_arch_1.htm (accessed September 2, 2007). This clip highlights the testimony of a number of leading archaeologists who are currently working in Israel and who affirm the importance of the Bible to their work. It is part of a larger documentary to be released in 2008.

[2] Steven Ortiz, transcribed from “The Archaeologists I,” video presentation.

[3] Denis Baly, God and History in the Old Testament (New York: Harper & Row, 1976), 19.

[4] Aren Maier, transcribed from “The Archaeologists I,” video presentation.

[5] Millar Burrows, What Mean These Stones? (New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1941), 1.

[6] Kenneth A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 499–500.

[7] Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 52. Cf. Thomas Lea’s commentary on 1, 2 Timothy, Titus NAC (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman Press, 1992), 239, where he notes that “any errors in the field of history would undermine the confidence of the reader in the theological trustworthiness of Scripture.”

[8] Henry Morris, The Bible and Modern Science (Chicago: Moody, 1956), 95.

[9] Josh McDowell, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, 89.  Along these lines, Jens Bruun Kofoed in Text and History (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 4–5 responds to skeptics of the Old Testament by arguing that it is much more historically reliable than many scholars claim, and that “it must be included in rather than excluded from the pool of reliable data for a reconstruction of the origin and history of ancient Israel.”

(By Nathan Busenitz)

The following comes from Nathan’s new book, Reasons We Believe: 50 Lines of Evidence that Confirm the Christian Faith (Crossway). Today’s article is adapted from reason no. 24, regarding the historical reliability of the New Testament Gospels.

Luke’s Gospel is a case in point with regard to historicity, since he repeatedly lists names, places, and other verifiable details which can be tested for accuracy (Luke 1:5; 2:1–3; 3:1–3; Acts 5:36; 11:28; 18:2, 12: 25:1). Robert Stein explains that “throughout his work Luke sought to demonstrate the truthfulness of what he recorded by tying the events to universal history.”[1] Significantly, two millennia later, Luke’s account (in both his Gospel and in Acts) has survived the attacks of skeptics and detractors. “Attempts to impugn Luke’s reliability have constantly been made,” observes Merrill Unger, “but most of these have been rendered futile by light from the monuments of antiquity and the archaeologist’s spade.”[2]

Time and time again, we find that “Luke is a first-class ancient historian. . . . He is not careless, nor is he a fabricator of events.”[3] In the words of Sir William Ramsay, “His statements of fact [are] trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense.”[4] John Stott agrees:

Luke has been vindicated in recent years as an accurate and painstaking historian, and he includes in his two volumes many references to Roman provincial administration and to the secular and political affairs of his day.[5]

Of course, the motivation behind Luke’s concern for accuracy was not primarily historical. As noted before, it was both theological and evangelistic. In the words of New Testament scholar I. Howard Marshall, “Luke was a historian because he was first and foremost an Evangelist: he knew that the faith which he wished to proclaim stands or falls with the history of Jesus and the early church.”[6] Others agree:

Luke was not only a reliable, objective historian, which is clear from his striking agreements with the historiography of Josephus, but Luke was also concerned with the infallibility of the facts. Luke wanted to describe the development of early Christianity. But he wanted above all to eliminate doubt as to the accuracy of the things that had been fulfilled, that is, the saving work of Christ, and desired to give assurance to Theophilus and his other readers regarding events in Christ’s life.[7]

It’s not surprising, then, that Luke’s accounts “have now been recognized as first-class historical writings”[8] by historians and archaeologists. “This means that Luke is fully trustworthy as a historian of the life of Christ,” concludes C. Marvin Pate. “Therefore to read the third Gospel is to encounter the authentic, historical Jesus.”[9]

Along with Luke, the other Gospels also prove to be historically verifiable. Craig Blomberg notes that, “In every case it has been concluded that an even-handed treatment of the data does not lead to a distrust of the accuracy of the Gospels in what they choose to report.”[10]  Thus the events they recount can be accepted as historically reliable. While modern historians may sometimes wish the Gospel writers had given us more data, “they should be judged for what they do tell us, not for what they do not tell us.”[11]

Each of the Gospels show themselves to be not only theological treatises, but historically reliable documents as well. Their historical trustworthiness (along with the rest of the New Testament) is “confirmed time and again by external evidence. . . . [T]o the unbiased observer, little doubt can be cast on the statement that archaeology has confirmed the historical reliability of the New Testament.”[12] 

An impressive case can be made for the general trustworthiness of the Gospels and Acts, via historical criteria alone. . . . Because the Gospels and Acts prove reliable in so many places where they can be tested, they should be given the benefit of the doubt in those places where they cannot.[13]

* * * * *

ENDNOTES:

[1] Robert H. Stein, Luke, The New American Commentary (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman, 2001), 36.

[2] Merrill F. Unger, “The Role of Archaeology in the Study of the New Testament,” Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 116 (April 1959), 155. For specific examples of places in which Luke’s account has been verified by archaeology see John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Ready with an Answer, 288.

[3] Darrell Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1994), 13.

[4] William Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1979), 222.

[5] John R. W. Stott, Basic Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1964), 26. 

[6] I. Howard Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1984), 52. 

[7] Nicholas M. van Ommeren, “Was Luke an Accurate Historian?” Bibliotheca Sacra 138:589 (January 1991), 70–71, referring to the views of W.C. van Unnik expressed in his essay, ““Remarks on the Purpose of Luke’s Historical Writing (Luke 1:1–4).”

[8] Clifford Wilson, Rocks, Relics, and Biblical Reliability (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1977), 114.

[9] C. Marvin Pate, Luke, Moody Gospel Commentary (Chicago, Moody Press, 1995), 27.

[10] Craig Blomberg, Historical Reliability, 234–35.

[11] D. A. Carson, Douglas Moo, and Leon Morris, Introduction to the New Testament, 53.

[12] J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2005), 135.

[13] Craig Blomberg, Making Sense of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2004), 70. On a similar note, I. Howard Marshall writes, “Although the Gospels were not written by scientific historians, we have found good reason to believe that they incorporate reliable information about Jesus, so that the ordinary reader . . . may rest confident that the portraits of Jesus in the Gospels are based on historical fact” (I Believe in the Historical Jesus [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1977], 235).

(By Nathan Busenitz) 

Today’s post is adapted from Nathan’s new book, Reasons We Believe: Fifty Lines of Evidence that Confirm the Christian Faith. This article is adapted from part of reason no. 34, regarding the authenticity of Jesus’ miracles.

In the course of His ministry, Jesus healed diseases (e.g. Matthew 4:23–25; Mark 3:7–12), cast out demons (e.g. Matthew 7:22; Luke 10:17), calmed storms (e.g. Matthew 8:23–27; Mark 4:35–41), raised the dead (e.g. Luke 7:11–17; John 11:1–44), fed thousands at one time (e.g. Matthew 14:13–21; 15:32–39), walked on water (e.g. Matthew 14:22–23; John 6:15–21), turned water into wine (John 2:1–11), and even controlled the whereabouts of fish (e.g. Matthew 17:23–27; Luke 5: 1–11). Because His miracles were so well-known, Jesus Himself appealed to them as verification that He came from God. As He told His critics, “For the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear witness about me that the Father has sent me” (John 5:36; cf. Matthew 11:5; John 10:38). 

Significantly, Jesus’ opponents never denied His miracles. Though they questioned the divine origin of His power (Matthew 12:24), they were never able to deny that the works He and His apostles performed were supernatural (John 11:47–48; Acts 4:16). Even today, “the fact that miracle working belongs to the historical Jesus is no longer disputed.”[1] In the words of the German scholar, Wolfgang Trilling: “We are convinced and hold it for historically certain that Jesus did in fact perform miracles. . . . The miracle reports occupy so much space in the Gospels that it is impossible that all could have been subsequently invented or transferred to Jesus.”[2]

Jewish literature from the first few centuries A.D. confirms that the Jews, like the Christians, accepted the fact that Jesus performed supernatural acts. Unlike many of the pseudo-miracles done today in the name of Jesus, the actual miracles of Jesus were irrefutable. But while they could not deny His power, the Jewish religious leaders rejected the idea that God was the source behind it. The Pharisees of Jesus’ day attributed His power directly to Satan (Matthew 12:24). In later centuries, the rabbis attempted to pass it off as sorcery and magic.[3] Thus, in the Babylonian Talmud we read this accusation: “Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and deceived and led Israel astray.”[4] Though intended pejoratively, the statement provides backhanded confirmation of the fact that Jesus performed amazing wonders (“practiced magic”) which were so compelling that many in Israel believed in Him because they were convinced by what He did (“deceived and led Israel astray”).

Jewish sources further acknowledge that Jesus’ followers also had the power to heal in His name.[5] Princeton Scholar Peter Schäfer comments on one particular account in the Talmud, in which the grandson of a Jewish man named Yehoshua b. Levi was miraculously healed by a Christian. Though the healing was successful, Yehoshua b. Levi was mortified that his grandson had been subject to such “magical” powers. Based on that account, Schäfer explains the Jewish perspective of Jesus’ miracles:

The story about Yehoshua b. Levi and his grandson . . . presents an ironical critique of Jesus’ and his followers’ belief in their magical power. True, it argues, their magical power is undeniable: it works, and one cannot do anything against its effectiveness. But it is [in the minds of the Jews] an unauthorized and misused power.[6]

Faced with the reality that Jesus and His immediate followers could perform miraculous deeds, the Jewish leaders (both in Jesus’ day and in the centuries that followed) had a clear choice. But rather than attribute “the chaste, ethical, and redemptive nature of the miracles of Christ”[7] to God, they chose instead to attribute them (either directly or indirectly) to Satan. Jesus Himself pointed out the self-contradictory nature of their claim (cf. Matt. 12:25–32): Why would He use His miracle-working power to fight against Satan, if He was in fact empowered by Satan? That Jesus used His miracles to further the kingdom of God clearly revealed the true source of His power.[8]

Though neither the Pharisees nor the later rabbis responded in belief, their writings (from the first few centuries of church history) provide historical confirmation of Jesus as a miracle worker.[9] Thus Christians today can look to Christ’s miracles as verification that He is indeed the Son of God (John 3:2; Acts 2:22). As the early Christian leader Justin Martyr (d. 165) explained to the Jewish antagonists of his day, “[Jesus] was manifested to your race and healed those who were from birth physically maimed and deaf and lame, causing one to leap and another to hear and a third to see at his word. And he raised the dead and gave them life and by his actions challenged the men of his time to recognize him.”[10] Even today, two millennia later, Jesus’ miracles still give us good reason to take His claims seriously.

* * * * *

NOTES:

[1] William Lane Craig; cited from Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, 314.

[2] Wolfgang Trilling; cited from Paul Copan and Ronald Tacelli, eds., Jesus’ Resurrection, Fact or Figment? (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 181.

[3] Graham H. Twelftree, in Jesus the Exorcist (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993), 207 argues persuasively that “it is false to think that Jesus’ contemporaries considered him to be a magician,” but that this was a charge that was invented centuries later. Our purpose here is simply to show that, because it was undeniable that Jesus did something, His opponents desperately searched for alternative explanations than those given by Jesus Himself.

[4] Cited from Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton University Press, 2007), 35.

[5] Cf. Ibid., 52–62.

[6] Ibid., 61–62.

[7] Bernard Ramm in Protestant Christian Evidences, 143 points out that, “Pagan miracles lack the dignity of Biblical miracles. They are frequently grotesque and done for very selfish reasons. They are seldom ethical or redemptive and stand in marked contrast to the chaste, ethical, and redemptive nature of the miracles of Christ. Nor do they have the genuine attestation that Biblical miracles have.”

[8] Cf. David K. Clark, “Miracles in the World Religions,” 199–213, In Defense of Miracles, edited by R. Douglas Geivett and Gary R. Habermas (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 207–8. Clark  responds convincingly to the charge that Jesus was merely a magician. Clark shows that there were significant differences between Jesus’ miracles and the supposed miracles of other “magicians.” For example, while magicians usually used objects in their work, combined with incantations and spells, Jesus simply spoke, commanding demons and diseases on the basis of His own authority.

[9] Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, 49–51 asserts that some of the rabbinic stories about Rabbi Eliezer may have been representative of Jesus. In one such account, Eliezer’s message is confirmed by miracles and an audible voice from heaven. Yet, the other rabbis reject it nonetheless, because it goes against their established traditions. If Schäfer is right, his conclusions give us an interesting insight into why the Jews rejected Jesus even after His message was confirmed by miracles and a voice from heaven.

[10] Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, 69; cited from Colin Brown, Miracles and the Critical Mind (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1984), 4.

Today’s post is adapted from Nathan’s new book, Reasons We Believe: Fifty Lines of Evidence that Confirm the Christian Faith. This article comes from part of reason no. 7, regarding the fact that life without God is meaningless.

All of the other pursuits and purposes of this life are empty apart from God. The pursuit of happiness, riches, success, fame, or power (or whatever else one might desire) is, in and of itself, ultimately doomed to disappoint. Consider King Solomon, the wealthiest, most successful, most famous, and most powerful person of his day (1 Kings 10:23–25). Despite his attempts to find happiness in his possessions, positions, and relationships, Solomon realized that life without God is vanity. “Who can have enjoyment without Him?” Solomon asked rhetorically in Ecclesiastes 2:25 (NASB). He would later conclude, “The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.” (Ecclesiastes 12:13).

Other wealthy, famous, and powerful individuals throughout history have come to understand what Solomon learned.  “Millionaires seldom smile” said Andrew Carnegie.[1] And in another place he wrote, “Wealth lessens rather than increases human happiness. Millionaires who laugh are rare.”[2] William Vanderbilt’s comment was this: “The care of 200 million dollars is too great a load for any brain or back to bear. It is enough to kill anyone. There is no pleasure in it.”[3] Henry Ford concluded, “I was happier when doing a mechanic’s job,”[4] and John D. Rockefeller admitted, “I have made many millions, but they have brought me no happiness. I would barter them all for the days I sat on an office stool in Cleveland and counted myself rich on three dollars a week.”[5]

Benjamin Franklin had it right when he said that: “Money never made a man happy yet, nor will it. There is nothing in its nature to produce happiness. The more a man has, the more he wants. Instead of it filling a vacuum, it makes one. If it satisfied one want, it doubles and trebles that want another way. That was a true proverb of the wise man; rely upon it: ‘Better a little with the fear of the Lord, than great treasure, and trouble therewith.’”[6]

Echoing the words of Franklin, Christian theologian Cornelius Plantinga, Jr., explains what the rich and famous of our world often learn the hard way:

The truth is that nothing in this earth can finally satisfy us. Much can make us content for a time, but nothing can fill us to the brim. The reason is that our final joy lies “beyond the walls of the world,” as J. R. R. Tolkien put it. Ultimate beauty comes not from a lover or a landscape or a home, but only through them. These earthly things are solid goods, and we naturally relish them. But they are not our final good. They point to what is “higher up” and “further back.”[7]

In other words, they point to God. As the famous church father Augustine prayed, “O Lord, you have made us for yourself, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.”[8]

God created us for a purpose. When we deny His existence, we simultaneously deny the purpose for which He created us. Thus, to deny God is to embrace despair and hopelessness. On the flip side, to embrace God is to discover the source of hope, satisfaction, purpose, and fulfillment. In the words of philosopher Blaise Pascal: “There is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator, made known through Jesus.”[9]

* * * * *

ENDNOTES:

[1] Andrew Carnegie, cited from Bob Kelly, Worth Repeating: More Than 5000 Classic and Contemporary Quotes (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2003), 229.

[2] Andrew Carnegie, cited from “Andrew Carnegie at 80,” The New York Times, November 21, 1915. This article can be accessed online in the archives section of The New York Times website.

[3] William Vanderbilt, cited from Millionaires and Kings of Enterprise by James Burnley (J. B. Lippincott, 1901), 500.

[4] Henry Ford and John D. Rockefeller, cited from Money, Possessions & Eternity by Randy Alcorn (Tyndale House, 2003), 47.

[5] John D. Rockefeller, cited from The Speakers Quote Book compiled by Roy B. Zuck (Grand Rapids, Kregel, 1997), 260. 

[6] Benjamin Franklin, cited from Treasury of Wisdom, Wit and Humor, Odd Comparisons and Proverbs, compiled by Adam Wooléver (D. McKay, 1891), 72.

[7] Cornelius Plantinga, Jr., Engaging God’s World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 6. 

[8] Augustine, Confessions, translated by Henry Chadwick (New York: Oxford, 1992), 145 (8.7.17); 3 (1.1.1). Cited from Cornelius Plantinga, Engaging God’s World, 6.

[9] Blaise Pascal, cited from The New Encyclopedia of Christian Quotations, compiled by Mark Water (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), 407.

(By Nathan Busenitz)

Today’s post is adapted from Nathan’s new book, Reasons We Believe: Fifty Lines of Evidence that Confirm the Christian Faith (Crossway, 2008). This article was adapted from part of reason no. 2, discussing the existence of God from the standpoint of His Creation. We will be running excerpts from the book each day this week.

Why do evolutionary scientists deny the existence of God? The answer is found in what they believe (namely, that nothing outside of the material universe exists), and has little if anything to do with true science. As much as any religion, atheistic naturalism is built on faith. “Evolution has deep religious connections,” explains Notre Dame philosophy professor Alvin Plantinga. “A good deal more than reason goes into the acceptance of such a theory at the Grand Evolutionary Story.”[1] Former NASA scientist Robert Jastrow agrees:

There is a kind of religion in science. . . . The religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover.[2]

Because of its prior “faith” commitment to a  materialistic worldview, naturalism denies the existence of God even in the face of contrary evidence. Speaking candidly, Richard Lewontin, former professor of zoology and biology at Harvard admits:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes . . . no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.[3]

More succinctly, immunologist Scott Todd notes, “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not materialistic.”[4] Such admissions confirm that evolution, in actuality, “isn’t science. [It] is dogmatism.”[5]

When the “faith” of evolution, and the faith of biblical Christianity are compared, only one can adequately answer the question of origins. There is “a possible explanation of equal intellectual respectability [to naturalism]—and to my mind, greater elegance,” notes theoretical physicist John Polkinghorne, former president of Queen’s College, Cambridge. It is “that this one world is the way it is because it is the creation of the will of a Creator who purposes that it should be so.” [6]

Thus, the existence of our universe points to God, because without a Creator there can be no creation. In the words of eminent British philosopher Richard Swinburne, longtime professor at Oxford University: “Why believe that there is a God at all? My answer is that to suppose that there is a God explains why there is a world at all . . . and so much else. In fact, the hypothesis of the existence of God makes sense of the whole of our experience, and it does better than any other explanation which can be put forward, and that is the grounds for believing it to be true.”[7]

* * *

ENDNOTES:

[1] Alvin Plantinga, “When Faith and Reason Crash,” pp. 113–145 in Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics, edited by Robert T. Pennock (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 2001), 125–26. In short, “the theory of evolution is by no means religiously or theologically neutral” (p. 123).

[2] Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (New York: Norton, 1978), 113–114; cited from Geisler and Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, 89.

[3] Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review (January 9, 1997), 31. Lewontin was still an active Harvard professor when he made these comments. Cited from Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Compromise (Green Forest, Ariz.: Master Books, 2004), 43.

[4] Scott Todd, correspondence to Nature 410(6752):423 (September 30, 1999); cited from Sarfati, Refuting Compromise, 43. Scott Todd is an immunologist at Kansas State University.

[5] William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 279.

[6] John Polkinghorne, One World (London: SPCK, 1986), 79–80. Cited from Ravi Zacharias, The Real Face of Atheism (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2004), 48. Polkinghorne’s quote was specifically in response to the idea that life could have risen from purely naturalistic causes.

[7] Richard Swinburne in “Evidence for God,” pp. 229–38 in Does God Exist? by Terry Miethe and Richard Flew (San Francisco: Harper, 1991), 229.

(By John MacArthur)

Did Jesus really claim to be God incarnate in human flesh? Or, as skeptics argue, did His followers later invent those claims and attribute them to Him? Thankfully, the biblical account of His life and ministry leaves no doubt about who Jesus declared Himself to be.

Jesus frequently spoke of His unique, otherworldly origin, of having preexisted in heaven before coming into this world. To the hostile Jews He declared, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world” (John 8:23). “What then,” He asked, “if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?” (John 6:62). In His high-priestly prayer Jesus spoke of the glory which He had with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5). In John 16:28 He told His disciples, “I came forth from the Father and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again and going to the Father.” Thus, John described Jesus in the prologue of his gospel with these words: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1).

Amazingly, Jesus assumed the prerogatives of deity. He claimed to have control over the eternal destinies of people (John 8:24; cf. Luke 12:8–9; John 5:22, 27–29), to have authority over the divinely-ordained institution of the Sabbath (Matt. 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5), to have the power to answer prayer (John 14:13–14; cf. Acts 7:59; 9:10–17), and to have the right to receive worship and faith due to God alone (Matt. 21:16; John 14:1; cf. John 5:23). He also assumed the ability to forgive sins (Mark 2:5–11)—something which, as His shocked opponents correctly understood, only God can do (v. 7).

Jesus also called God’s angels (Gen. 28:12; Luke 12:8–9; 15:10; John 1:51) His angels (Matt. 13:41; 24:30–31); God’s elect (Luke 18:7; Rom. 8:33) His elect (Matt. 24:30–31); and God’s kingdom (Matt. 12:28; 19:24; 21:31; Mark 1:15; Luke 4:43; John 3:3) His kingdom (Matt. 13:41; 16:28; cf. Luke 1:33; 2 Tim. 4:1).

When a Samaritan woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us” (John 4:25) Jesus replied, “I who speak to you am He” (v. 26). In His high-priestly prayer to the Father, He referred to Himself as “Jesus Christ whom You have sent” (John 17:3); “Christ” is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word translated “Messiah.” When asked at His trial by the high priest, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” (Mark 14:61) Jesus replied simply, “I am” (v. 62). He also accepted, without correction or amendment, the testimonies of Peter (Matt. 16:16–17), Martha (John 11:27), and others (e.g., Matt. 9:27; 20:30–31) that He was the Messiah. He was the One of whom Isaiah prophesied, “His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6).

The Lord’s favorite description of Himself was “Son of Man” (cf. Matt. 8:20; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:22; John 9:35–37, etc.). Although that title seems to stress His humanity, it also speaks of His deity. Jesus’ use of the term derives from Daniel 7:13–14, where the Son of Man is on equal terms with God the Father, the Ancient of Days.

The Jews viewed themselves collectively as sons of God. Jesus, however, claimed to be God’s Son in a unique sense. “All things have been handed over to Me by My Father,” Jesus affirmed, “and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him” (Matt. 11:27). In John 5:25–26 He said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself.” After receiving word that Lazarus was ill Jesus said to the disciples, “This sickness is not to end in death, but for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by it” (John 11:4). When asked at His trial, “Are You the Son of God, then?” Jesus replied, “Yes, I am” (Luke 22:70; cf. Mark 14:61–62). Instead of rejecting the title, the Lord embraced it without apology or embarrassment (Matt. 4:3, 6; 8:29; Mark 3:11–12; Luke 4:41; John 1:49–50; 11:27).

The hostile authorities clearly understood that Jesus’ use of the title Son of God was a claim to deity. Otherwise, they would not have accused Him of blasphemy (cf. John 10:46). In fact, it was Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God that led the Jews to demand His death: “The Jews answered [Pilate], ‘We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God’” (John 19:7). And in John 5:18 — “The Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.” Even while He was on the cross, some mocked Him, sneering, “He trusts in God; let God rescue Him now, if He delights in Him; for He said, ‘I am the Son of God’” (Matt. 27:43).

Jesus further outraged the unbelieving Jews by taking for Himself the covenant name of God, “I am” (Yahweh). That name was so sacred to the Jews that they refused to even pronounce it, lest they take it vain (cf. Exod. 20:7). In John 8:24 Jesus warned that those who refuse to believe He is Yahweh will perish eternally: “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” (The word “He” is not in the original Greek.) Later in that chapter “Jesus said to [His hearers], ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am’” (v. 58). Unlike many modern deniers of His deity, the Jews knew exactly what He was claiming, as their subsequent attempt to stone Him for blasphemy makes clear (v. 59). In John 13:19 Jesus told His disciples that when what He predicted came to pass, they would believe that He is Yahweh. Even His enemies, coming to arrest Him in Gethsemane, were overwhelmed by His divine power and fell to the ground when Jesus said “I am” (John 18:5–8).

All of the above lines of evidence converge on one inescapable point: Jesus Christ claimed absolute equality with God. Thus He could say, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30); “He who sees Me sees the One who sent Me” (John 12:45); and “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (14:9–10). And thus we can conclude that “in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9), and we can worship Him accordingly as “our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus” (Titus 2:13).

* Today’s article was adapted from John’s commentary on the Gospel of John 1-11 (Moody, 2006).