(By Nathan Williams)

Unless you’ve been hiding in a cave for many years you understand how important athletic competition is to our culture. I can’t even begin to count how many hours I spent during the first 18 years of my life playing or watching sports. My dad was the athletic director at my school and the varsity basketball coach. When my brother and I weren’t playing basketball, we were probably playing soccer or baseball. If for some reason we weren’t participating in a sporting event, it’s no doubt because we were watching it live or on television.

I’m pretty sure my experience was not abnormal. Our society is consumed with sports. Parents push their kids to reach the limit of their athletic potential and children dream about one day being professional athletes.

With so much emphasis in the broader culture given to sports, it’s amazing that Christians haven’t given more time and effort to discussing the place of athletics in the life of the believer. That’s why I am so thankful for Stephen Altrogge’s book Game Day for the Glory of God.

In this book, Altrogge guides the reader through a number of biblical principles that directly apply to sports. He helps us to think biblically about athletics and not to simply adopt the mindset of the culture. As he discusses these principles he provides powerful examples from the world of professional sports and takes the reader into his own struggle to think biblically about athletics.

As I read this book I found myself consistently thinking how valuable it would have been for me and a host of other young people who consistently failed to honor God with the way we played sports. Early on, Altrogge reminds the reader that God genuinely cares about the way we play sports. God cares when we play with humility and kindness. It honors Him when we reflect Christ on the court or the field. It also glorifies Him when we play hard. God isn’t pleased by a lazy athlete.

Altrogge helps the reader understand that God is the source of all talent and physical ability. From the Super Bowl to the backyard Thanksgiving football game, sporting events are filled with pride over self-accomplishments. Pride and athletic accomplishment are so intertwined in our society that it may even be difficult for some readers to understand how one can play sports without an arrogant, all-about-me attitude. Of course, it is possible to play sports to the glory of God and only then will Christians truly enjoy the abilities God has given them.

I would certainly recommend Game Day for the Glory of God to Christian athletes, but would also challenge coaches to read it with their teams. The coach of a team sets the tone for the attitude of the team. With the proper perspective on the season and what God wants to accomplish through the players, a coach can dramatically impact his players for Christ.

This book should also be required reading for every parent whose child will participate in sports at any level. Many times parents are worse sinners when it comes to sports than their children. At the end of this book there is a chapter written by C. J. Mahaney on fathers, sons, and sports. It is an excellent look at how C. J. walks his son through thinking biblically about both playing and watching sports.

Overall, Game Day for the Glory of God is a concise and helpful read that will inform your thinking from Scripture on this crucial but rarely addressed topic.

(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 Matt Waymeyer)

I want to recommend to you a fantastic book that I just read on the subject of dispensationalism. But first a little personal history: Back in 1994 I was attending a Presbyterian church in Orlando, taking a Greek class at Reformed Theological Seminary, and beginning to appreciate all things reformed. At the time, I was also thinking seriously about going to seminary full time. I had narrowed it down to either Westminster Theological Seminary or The Master’s Seminary, and I was having a difficult time deciding between the two.

The main problem is that I had never studied the issue of covenant theology vs. dispensationalism. To get me started, one of my covenantal friends suggested two books, one to help me understand covenant theology and the other to help me understand dispensationalism. The first book was O. Palmer Robertson’s The Christ of the Covenants, which is widely regarded as a classic presentation of covenant theology. A very good recommendation. The other book, unfortunately, was John Gerstner’s Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, a diatribe against dispensationalism by a covenant theologian. Not such a good recommendation. [For an excellent review of Gerstner’s book, see Dr. Richard Mayhue’s article in The Master’s Seminary Journal.]

As I began reading Gerstner, I realized pretty quickly that the dispensationalism he was critiquing was certainly not the kind of dispensationalism that TMS president John MacArthur advocated. Gerstner seemed to equate dispensationalism with Arminianism and easy-believism, and since MacArthur was the one who had grounded me in a biblical understanding of the sovereignty of God and the Lordship of Christ, I was pretty sure this book wasn’t going to help me decide where to go to seminary. In fact, Gerstner’s book did more to confuse my understanding of dispensationalism than to clarify it. Eventually I found books and articles that were more helpful, but the process was a long and difficult one, and Gerstner was definitely an ill-advised place for me to start my theological journey.

Why am I telling you this? Because I just finished a book I wish I could have read 14 years ago when I was first studying this issue. That book is Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths by Dr. Michael J. Vlach (Theological Studies Press, 2008), and it is unsurpassed in terms of clearly setting forth the core elements of dispensational theology. In this book, Vlach, an Assistant Professor of Theology at The Master’s Seminary, brings a rare level of simplicity and clarity to a very difficult and complex subject. If you are seeking to understand dispensationalism, this is absolutely the place to begin.

The format of the book is simple enough. In the introduction, Vlach describes how common misrepresentations of dispensationalism have created the need to define clearly the essential beliefs of this theological system. As Vlach explains, his goal in writing was to meet this need:

This book is not an attempt to delve deeply into every issue related to dispensationalism. Nor is it written to iron out in detail all the points of difference between variations within dispensationalism . . . . Instead, I am looking to give the reader a basic introduction to the foundational beliefs of dispensational theology so a better understanding of this theology can occur (p. 4).

In the first chapter, Vlach provides a brief history of the theology of dispensationalism, focusing on three key periods: (1) Classical Dispensationalism (1800s to 1940s), (2) Revised or Modified Dispensationalism (1950-1985), and Progressive Dispensationalism (1986 to the present). This is a helpful overview of the development of dispensationalism over the past 150 years, and unfortunately one that is often missing from these kinds of discussions. As Vlach observes later in the book, “when reading some critiques of dispensationalism, one gets the impression that dspensational thought was frozen by 1950” (p. 53).

The nucleus of the book is found in chapter 3, where Vlach sets forth six essential beliefs that are at the heart of dispensationalism. As Vlach explains:

By “essential” I mean foundational beliefs of dispensationalism that are central and unique to the system, beliefs upon which the system stands or falls. These are also beliefs that if denied, would probably make one a nondispensationalist (p. 18).

The primary strength of this chapter is how Vlach is able to distinguish clearly between core essentials of dispensationalism and possible applications of the system. In contrast, most critiques of dispensational theology focus on the latter to the virtual exclusion of the former. To whet your appetite, the first essential belief concerns the nature and implications of progressive revelation: “Progressive revelation from the New Testament does not interpret or reinterpret Old Testament passages in a way that changes or cancels the original meaning of the Old Testament writers as determined by historical-grammatical hermeneutics” (p. 18).

In chapter 3 Vlach exposes five common myths about dispensational theology which are often promoted by non-dispensationalists, a breath of fresh air for those of us who have grown weary from all the caricatures and straw men. As Vlach explains, many of these myths flow out of the erroneous assumption that dispensationalism is inherently linked to soteriology. Put simply, being dispensational doesn’t mean you believe in multiple ways of salvation; it doesn’t mean that you are Arminian, antinomian, or non-lordship in your theology; and it doesn’t require that you affirm the seven dispensations often associated with classical dispensationalism. According to Vlach, “Those studying dispensationalism should focus on the real issues and avoid such myths” (p. 49).

The final chapter contains a series of questions that Vlach is often asked about the issue and the debate surrounding it. My favorite part of this chapter was his response to the charge that dispensationalism should be rejected since it is a relatively new theological system which was not formalized until the 18th century. According to Vlach, several key elements of dispensational thought were held by the early church, and therefore the early church was closer to dispensationalism than it was to covenant theology. Furthermore, says Vlach, if someone rejects dispensationalism simply because it is new, then he should also reject covenant theology which did not start to take recognizable form until the 17th century (and therefore is not that much older than dispensationalism). As Vlach notes, the better approach is to “focus on whether any system of theology is biblical or not and no so much on when it started” (p. 55).

In the end, regardless of where you land on the spectrum of continuity vs. discontinuity—and regardless of whether you consider yourself a dispensationalist, a covenant theologian, or something in between—if you have a desire to understand the core essentials of what dispensationalism is all about, this book is a must-read. If only Dr. Vlach had written it 14 years ago!

(Review by Nathan Williams)

The story of David’s adultery with Bathsheba and subsequent murder of Uriah, her husband, stands as one of the saddest instances of sin in the Bible. How could such a man of God fall so far and so hard? The truth is that without the story of David, Bathsheba and Uriah, we would not have one of the most magnificent Psalms contained in the pages of Scripture. I would imagine that multitudes of Christians throughout the centuries have returned time and again to the words found in Psalm 51 to help express their own sorrow for sin and their own desire to experience God’s mercy.

Paul Tripp understands that the story of David and Bathsheba is really the story of every Christian. We may not sin in the exact same way in which David did, but we all constantly sin and we are all in need of constant mercy. With this in mind, Tripp wrote this short book entitled Whiter than Snow: Meditations on Sin and Mercy. In it he gives 52 short meditations which are all taken from the words of Psalm 51.

The themes of these meditations center on sin and mercy. As one reads this book, he will uncover the depths of sin contained within his own soul, but will also come face to face with the limitless mercy God provides to overcome sin. The meditations are short and helpful, each one is only a couple of pages long. Tripp uses a variety of approaches to meditations including several long poems concerning the topics of sin and mercy.

One of the most helpful aspects of this book is the example it will provide the reader of how to meditate on the Word of God. Most of us read our Bibles and don’t push ourselves to think deeply about it. Tripp has obviously spent a lot of time thinking about Psalm 51. He draws thoughts out of the text through meditation on the context, the background, and the words used in Psalm 51. He discusses the great biblical themes presented in Psalm 51 including sin, mercy, God’s grace, and forgiveness.

At the end of each meditation, Tripp provides 2 questions dealing with how the reader can further apply to daily life the truths learned. These questions are thought provoking and challenging and will also help in the process of learning how to meditate on God’s Word.

Obviously, this devotional should be read slowly, only one or two meditations per day. Each meditation conveys a kernel of truth or a challenging thought which the reader can dwell on throughout the rest of the day. Tripp writes clearly and with great insight into the human condition and the grace of God. I found this book to be an encouraging and convicting at the same time.

Many people have read J.C. Ryle’s incredible little book A Call to Prayer. Perhaps not as many people have read Ryle’s equally important little book entitled The Duties of Parents. Easily read in one sitting, this short book brings incredible insight to those who desire to parent according to biblical principles.

Ryle begins the book by explaining the biblical command to train up children in the way they should go. He says people rarely followed this command during his day and this failure was a serious omission. Many parents act like hypocrites. They can quickly point out wrong in the parenting decisions of others, but fail to recognize their own shortcomings. Ryle understands parenting to be one area in which we all desperately need the insight of other believers. Our own judgment proves far to flimsy and our own prejudices far to strong.

The bulk of the book is made up of sixteen hints about the right training of children. Ryle expresses the purpose of his book by saying, “Be very sure, if you would train children for heaven, they are hints that ought not to be lightly set aside.” (p. 3) Considering that this book was written in the 1800’s, the hints which Ryle gives are supremely beneficial, even to today’s reader.

Sound theology forms the foundation for the hints offered. For example, the first hint offered tells the reader; “If you would train your children rightly, train them in the way they should go, and not in the way that they would.” (p. 3) By pointing out the difference between should and would, Ryle highlights the natural bent of man to sin. Parenting must operate within the framework of a biblical view of sin. Children must be trained in the pattern of life in which they should go, because if left to the way in which they would go, they would plunge deeper and deeper into sin.

The placing of this hint first shows us the importance of understanding the doctrine of depravity and how it will affect our parenting. Raising children to the glory of God cannot be something done haphazardly. Because children are born already walking on the road to destruction, our parenting must be done with purposeful passion to point them toward the cross.

Ryle goes on to give fifteen more hints which can each be meditated on and applied in a variety of ways. Here are some of the other hints which are given throughout The Duties of Parents. Hint number three says, “Train your children with an abiding persuasion on your mind that much depends upon you.” (p. 6) Number seven instructs, “Train them to habits of diligence, and regularly about public means of grace.” (p. 14) And hint number nine says, “Train them to a habit of obedience.” (p. 19) Ryle gives each hint, explains what each one means, then challenges parents to practice the principle he has just expounded.

The Duties of Parents provides basic but timeless instruction to parents seeking to walk in obedience to the Lord. I believe this small book will stimulate parents to remember what they are responsible to be doing in the process of raising children. Ryle states each hint simply and profoundly in a way which will capture the attention and encourage obedience. Here are some instructive quotes from the book:

“As a minister, I cannot help remarking that there is hardly any subject about which people seem so tenacious as they are about their children. I have sometimes been perfectly astonished at the slowness of sensible Christian parents to allow that their own children are in fault, or deserve blame. There are not a few persons to whom I would far rather speak about their own sins, than tell them their children had done anything wrong.” (p. 2)

“Remember children are born with a decided bias towards evil, and therefore if you let them choose for themselves, they are certain to choose wrong.” (p. 3)

“Kindness, gentleness, long-suffering, forbearance, patience, sympathy, a willingness to enter into childish troubles, a readiness to take part in childish joys, these are the cords by which a child may be led most easily, these are the clues you must follow if you would find the way to his heart.” (p. 4)

“Try hard to keep up a hold on your child’s affections. It is a dangerous thing to make your children afraid of you.” (p. 6)

“We depend, in a vast measure, on those who bring us up. We get from them a colour, a taste, a bias which cling to us more or less all our lives.” (p. 7)

“Precious, no doubt, are these little ones in your eyes; but if you love them, think often of their souls.” (p. 8 )

“Idleness is the devil’s best friend.” (p. 22)

“Instruction, and advice, and commands, will profit little, unless they are backed up by the pattern of your own life. Your children will never believe you are in earnest, and really wish them to obey you, so long as your actions contradict your counsel.” (p. 30)

(Review by Jesse Johnson)

Colin Hansen, an editor for Christianity Today, makes this observation (with a little hyperbole): your average Evangelical American high school student is in a youth group that emphasizes games, down plays preaching, and as a result the student does not even know the basics of the Gospel — much less the difference between justification and sanctification. But, your average American-Evangelical 22-year-old is probably a foaming-at-the-mouth Calvinist, a John Piper “fiend,” and would love to stay up all night arguing about the difference between justification and sanctification. What in the world happens to these kids between ages 18 and 22?

Young, Restless, Reformed is Hansen’s attempt to answer that question. He journeys around the country trying to figure out where all of these Calvinists are coming from, and why. He has conversations with Mark Driscoll, John Piper, Steve Lawson, C. J. Mahaney, Ligon Duncan, Rick Holland and many others. He asks them all this question: “Where does this new generation of Calvinists come from?” and their answers are surprising. He talks with dozens of students who fit this new generation of Reformed Christian, and this book tells their stories.

Despite the anecdotal nature of the book (no hard statistics here), some conclusions do emerge. High school grads who are actually Christians and who do manage to escape their cheesy youth groups realize very quickly that they do not have adequate answers to explain the basics of their faith, much less to stand up to their secular professors. When they reach the point of realizing they don’t have the answers, they generally find someone who does, and this person (or book, or CD) is usually unashamedly Reformed.

If this observation is true, and it seems to be, then this corollary is also true: the more silly youth groups are, the more people will be driven to reformed circles upon graduation. Hansen does not make this point explicitly, but it is there. Hansen shows his insight into how the God of Calvinism captures the hearts of these college students when he writes, “Calvinism has not spread primarily by selling young evangelicals a system but by inviting them to join a new way of life driven by theological convictions. Theology gives them this passion for transformation” (124).

The exact channel that brings about this transformation varies from person to person. For some it is a Passion CD, others a Piper book. Some find a Puritan Paperback, and others stumble upon an RUF campus Bible study. But all of these sources have this in common: they introduce the students to a God that is more glorious than anyone had ever told them about. Suddenly depravity makes sense, and the rest of Calvinism falls into place.

But not all transformations are rosy. Hansen tells the story about Steve Lawson’s resignation for Dauphin Way, and he looks at other young pastors that have been forced out of ministry for theological reasons as well. The most intriguing chapter is his trip to Southern Seminary—“Ground Zero,” Hansen calls it—where the reader sees the problems of infusing a new generation of Calvinists into a Christian culture that is not ready for them.

I loved this book because it was like reading my own spiritual biography. I remember the moment I found God’s Passion for His Glory, and even today I remember my thoughts as I began to realize that God was more glorious than I am, and that he chose me—not the other way around. I stayed in my previous church, hoping to disciple others and show them the doctrines of grace as well, until I eventually went to seminary.

Until Hansen’s book, I had assumed that my story was, while perhaps not unique, at least not the norm. But this book is a catalog of people who had the same experiences. In fact, the very first college student we meet is a self-described “Piper fiend” and part of a Seventh Day Adventist Church!

Young, Restless, Reformed is not a utilitarian book. It is not a polemical book, it does not argue for Calvinism. It does not seek to be objective, despite Hansen’s awkward insistence on reminding us every few chapters that he is a journalist. But what it does, it does well. It presents a series of snap-shots of the Reformed landscape in the United States, and these pictures are zoomed in on the 20-something crowd that is likely to be wearing the “Jonathan Edwards is my homeboy” shirt featured on the cover. If you have ever asked yourself, “where are all these Calvinists coming from?” then this book is for you.

(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.