Oh, if you have the hearts of Christians or of men in you, let them yearn towards your poor ignorant, ungodly neighbours. Alas, there is but a step betwixt them and death and hell; many hundred diseases are waiting ready to seize on them, and if they die unregenerate, they are lost forever.

Have you hearts of rock, that cannot pity men in such a case as this? If you believe not the Word of God, and the danger of sinners, why are you Christians yourselves? If you do believe it, why do you not bestir yourself to the helping of others? Do you not care who is damned, so you be saved? If so, you have sufficient cause to pity yourselves, for it is a frame of spirit utterly inconsistent with grace.  . . .

Dost thou live close by them, or meet them in the streets, or labour with them, or travel with them, or sit and talk with them, and say nothing to them of their souls, or the life to come? If their houses were on fire, thou wouldst run and help them; and wilt thou not help them when their souls are almost at the fire of hell?

(Cited in I. D. E. Thomas, A Puritan Golden Treasury [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1977], 92–93)

“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.

(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.

Every Fall, Outreach Magazine hosts its “National Outreach Convention.” As the Pastor of Local Outreach, I get invited to it, but have never quite worked up the nerve to go. The invitation to this year’s event arrived this week in the mail, and two things are worth mentioning:

1. The keynote speakers are Erwin McManus, JJohn (one word), David Anderson, and Francis Chan. McManus is listed as being the “Cultural Architect of Mosaic,” while the bio for JJohn says, “his much-loved art of story telling helps people to discover spiritual meaning in a way that makes sense of everyday life.” Notably, Chan stands out because of “his commitment to teach directly from the words of Scripture.”

2. Speaking of having “Cultural Architect” on your business card, I need a new job title. “Local Outreach Pastor” is too cumbersome, and reeks of Christaneese. Fortunately, there are 53 other speakers at the event, and some of them have really cool job titles. Consider:

• David Russell from National Community Church, which gets identified in the invitation as “America’s Most Innovative Churches” (sic). He is the “Digital Pastor.”

• Shawn Wood is Seacoast Church’s “Experiences Pastor.”

• Angela Yee is Bayside Church’s “Director of Leadership.” Yes, Angela.

• R. York Moore is a “National Evangelist” for InterVarsity.

• Marlon Hall borrowed from McManus, and is a “Cultural Architect.” Like Mosaic, Hall’s gathering does not call itself a church, but rather goes by a title that stretches English syntax, but does not perhaps break it: “The Awakenings Movement.”

• Another interesting name, in terms of grammar, is Todd Hunter’s “Three is Enough Groups” organization. Three is Enough Groups has (or have?) it’s own conference designed to teach evangelists to “connect naturally with the people Jesus misses most.”

• Thomas Doyle is “Manager of Worship Solutions” for National Cine Media.

• My personal favorite is Randy Siever.  He works for an organization called “Off the Map,” and his title is “Director of Doable Evangelism.”

Other speakers include Dan Kimball, Miles McPherson, and Lee Strobel. The whole conference is sort of a gathering for the new generation of Willow Creek leaders. After Hybels stressed that the movement needs to reinvent itself, some new names have been brought in, but the strategy seems to be the same. This conference will have a night for the “Nation’s best Christian comedians” and a session on “Willow’s most effective dramas”. You can learn “how to go from incremental to exponential growth” from another of “America’s most Innovative Churches.” There is a class on launching “small groups for spiritual seekers.”

Now, as Grace Church’s Outreach Pastor (pending a better title…), I am extremely sensitive to the tendency in Christianity for many—who do not evangelize—to bash the methods of those who do. I have no desire to critique the motives of the speakers in this conference, although one could argue that with some of their titles they are sort of asking for it. I also must point out that not all of the sessions or teachers are equally ridiculous. Some, such as Chan’s, do hold out promise to be helpful. I also do not want to criticize Chan for going there, because if I were invited to lead a session (in my imaginary world it might happen) I would probably also go.

But on the other hand, I am sensitive to the gravity of the task at hand; we are to engage this sinful world with the Gospel, and call people to abandon this life and follow Jesus. I am just skeptical that a conference that promises to help you “learn the secret to influencing people to stay at your church” is even the right tool for the trade.