When dealing with the seeming dichotomy of ‘faith vs reason,’ William Lane Craig gave the following definition of faith—“Faith is not an epistemological category. It is not a way of knowing something. Faith is a way of trusting something. Faith is trusting in that which you have good reason to believe is true. Once you have come to believe that something is true, using reliable epistemological means, you can then place your faith or trust in those things.”

It has been said that the Christian faith stands or falls on history—either God has acted in history, by entering our space-time continuum, or he has not. Either he “created the world and everything in it,” or he did not. Either “he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead,” (Acts 17:22-31) or he has not—and here is where the Christian must place their faith, or better said, their trust in that which they have good reason to believe is true—God acting in the history of the world in which he has placed us.

Craig L. Blomberg offers an illuminating explanation on this topic in the following excerpt from his book, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels:

People may of course act inconsistently and choose to believe in God or Jesus in spite of seemingly inadequate historical evidence. But this behavior is by definition irrational, and actually sub-Christian, since Christianity is based on the concept of God acting in history. Despite the oft-quoted verse ‘we walk by faith and not by sight’ (2 Cor. 5:7), Christianity does not require a ‘leap in the dark’ or a sacrifice of the intellect. Paul is quoted entirely out of context when this verse is treated as a rationale for believing without evidence (cf. 1 Cor.15:3-8). Biblical faith is fundamentally commitment to a God who has intervened in the history of humanity in a way that exposes his activity to historical study. Christians may not be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Gospels are historically accurate, but they must attempt to show that there is a strong likelihood of their historicity.

I realize that the above quotation may be somewhat unsettling, especially the last sentence, but there is no reason for such a reaction. Paul Copan offers the following clarification as to how we should view the historicity of Christian truth claims—“being less than 100% certain doesn’t mean we can’t truly know. We can have highly plausible or probable knowledge, even if it’s not 100% certain. We can know confidently and truly, even if not absolutely or exhaustively.”  So when evaluating the events in which God acted in history, we must use the proper historical criteria, which, when applied, brings us to a strong probability, even though not 100% certainty. N. T. Wright gives the proper perspective on evaluating historical evidence as per the difference between scientific proof and historical proof—“science studies the repeatable, while history studies the unrepeatable.” Since ancient events dealing with human history and claims cannot be observed or repeated, we must look at the evidence differently. (For more on historical criteria see the section—Historicity of the Resurrection.)

In relation to the foundation of the Christian faith, that of God acting in history by raising Jesus from the dead, one must not despair that Jesus’ resurrection cannot be established with absolute historical certainty. All worldviews share the same challenge, but the difference in the proving and proof of Jesus’ resurrection is that the evidence for its establishment as an historical event, is not only strong, but exceeds all other historical events that have occurred in antiquity. So when a Christian is witnessing their faith, they can know that they are standing on the far end of the historical criteria of ‘very certain’ of the historicity of the resurrection event, and in presenting the evidence, can affirm that Jesus Christ indeed rose from the dead as the Bible teaches. As N. T. Wright affirms, “The historical datum now before us is a widely held, consistently shaped and highly influential belief: that Jesus of Nazareth was bodily raised from the dead. This belief was held by virtually all the early Christians for whom we have evidence. It was at the center of their characteristic praxis, narrative, symbol and belief; it was the basis of their recognition of Jesus as Messiah, and lord, their insistence that the creator God had inaugurated the long awaited new age, and above all their hope for their own future bodily resurrection…”

William Lane Craig offers the following qualifier in regards to what our faith, or better said, trust is to be placed in—“As we consider the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, it is important to avoid giving the impression that the Christian faith is based on the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. The Christian faith is based on the event of the resurrection. It is not based on the evidence for the resurrection. This distinction is crucial. The Christian faith stands or falls on the event of the resurrection.”

May the Lord Jesus lead and guide you as you continue your study and preparation so you may “make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect…” (1 Pet. 3:15)

“Indeed taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no single historic incident better or more variously supported than the Resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it.”― Brooke Foss Westcott—(12 January 1825 – 27 July 1901) was a British bishop, Biblical scholar and theologian, serving as Bishop of Durham from 1890 until his death.

Christian faith does not mean blind faith, or faith in the teeth of evidence to the contrary…Christian faith is not blind in the least; rather it is dependent upon a historical event that can be thoroughly investigated with eyes wide open. We can certainly trust that which we can know to be true—indeed, it is the wise thing to do. Our trust or faith is stronger when we have excellent reason to believe in whom we are trusting.”—THE RISEN CHRIST!—Craig Hazen—Defending the Defense of the Faith

Are the Gospels Historically Reliable?

Do the four Gospels in the New Testament give historically accurate information?–William Lane Craig

There are a number of pop culture sound bites being ideologically bantered around today which you may have heard from time to time. They go something like this—“that may be true for you, but not for me”…“all roads lead to God…”…”that’s just your reality…”…”so many people disagree, relativism must be true…”…”you can choose whichever religion you want, they’re all the same…” Sound familiar? You may have even made such statements yourself. But as you read back over these statements, do you really believe they are true? And even if you or others believe that they are true, does that make them true? Let’s do a bit of investigative work and see how such statements correspond with reality and our life experience. As we do, keep in mind that truth is discovered, not invented by feeling, opinion or by pop culture sound bites.

At the core of each of the above statements is the relativistic worldview, which simply put, is that “a belief can be true for one person but not for another.” In the pluralistic, multicultural, multi-opinionated world of today, it is easy to be swept along by such a worldview, one that has permeated all levels of society, from the university to the media, the workplace to religious institutions. But is the relativistic worldview really true? The truth is—NO it isn’t. How do I know? Let’s unpack it and see what we find.

In a nutshell, relativism is the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid, and that all truth is relative to the individual. Author and speaker, Dr. Frank Turek, puts relativism in context via the following illustration: “True for you but not for me is a self-defeating and therefore false statement. You can prove this one conclusively to yourself today—just drive 90 in a 55 lane and when the cop stops you for speeding, just say, “that’s true for you but not for me,” and speed off. Since it’s not true for you he can’t give you a ticket, right?” Or let’s take our experience of taking exams in school—if relativism is true, then the teacher would have to give every student an A because all the answers would have been true to the student, even if they were false/wrong. The hip hop band Lecrae, addressed the fallacy of relativism by stating, “If what’s true for you is true for you, and what’s true for me is true for me, what if my truth says yours is a lie? Is it still true?” As you can see from these statements/illustrations, relativism is self-refuting, and as such, cannot be true.

Now you may be thinking, “I’m still not convinced that relativism is self-refuting. ”Well, if all truth is relative, then the statement “All truth is relative” would be absolutely true.  If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement that “all truth is relative” is false. Let’s look at the statement, “there are no absolute truths.” The statement “there are no absolute truths” is an absolute statement which is supposed to be true.  Therefore, it is an absolute truth and “there are no absolute truths” is false. If there are no absolute truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all, including that there are no absolute truths.  Therefore, nothing could be really true for you – including relativism.[1]

In her recent book Total Truth, Nancy Pearcey explains that the very concept of truth is divided in our culture today. According to Pearcey, our culture has drawn a division between the secular and the sacred, ascribing religion, morality, and the like to a private, subjective realm — whereas the secular realm, dominated by science and other public knowledge, is the objective realm. She explains, “In short, the private sphere is awash in moral relativism…. Religion is not considered an objective truth to which we submit, but only a matter of personal taste which we choose…” In other words, religious and moral claims are matters of personal preference rather than knowledge claims about the real world.[2]

I have often heard people say, “God is true for you, and that’s great, but something else is true for me,” as if the truth about God is just personal opinion. However, the Christian faith is not a ‘personal opinion’ or someone’s ‘personal belief system’ or preference. Christianity has a tremendous foundation of scientific and historical support that no other religious belief can claim, with both the scientific and historical support being found both within the Bible, as well as sources outside the Bible—that’s right, sources outside the Bible! These include a number of Roman historians, a Jewish historian, Josephus, and others. (For further information on these extra-biblical sources, contact me at the address below).

Believe it or not, Christianity is based on an objective fact in history — the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Now you may reject the claim that the resurrection of Jesus is an historical fact—if so, you may want to consider the following—there are four facts agreed upon by the majority of scholars of history: 1) Jesus’ burial, 2) the discovery of his empty tomb, 3) his post-mortem appearances, and 4) the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection. I am not referring to only conservative, evangelical scholars, but scholars of all positions—liberal, skeptic, etc. James D. G. Dunn asserts that “alternative interpretations [explanations] of the data [evidence] fail to provide a more satisfactory explanation than the New Testament message that God raised Jesus from the dead.” This is not the type of claim that can be “true for me, but not true for you.” Jesus’ tomb was either empty on the third day, or it was occupied, either he appeared to over 500 people after his resurrection[3], or he didn’t, either this is the reason for the origin of the disciples’ belief or it isn’t— there is no middle ground. The evidence is so powerful that one of the world’s leading Jewish theologians, the late Pinchas Lapide, who taught at Hebrew University in Israel, declared himself convinced on the basis of the evidence that the God of Israel raised Jesus of Nazareth from the dead![4] Oxford professor, Thomas Arnold stated, “I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead.”

Oxford scholar and author, C. S. Lewis, after his conversion from atheism to Christianity, said, “Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.” He was a man who, after thorough investigative research, was willing to follow the evidence where it led him and in the process, he arrived at the conclusion that Christianity was true.  Jesus didn’t enter into our space/time continuum to tell us about truth or to proclaim a truth—He came as THE Truth, the Way and the Life. To the people of his day he said, “If you hold to my teaching…you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”[5] I leave you with the following invitation to open your heart and mind to The Truth of the universe, that of Jesus Christ himself, the Creator of the universe and all that is in it—which includes you and me.

“I come before you now, the personal God who created both the heavens and the earth, acknowledging my need for you, my Creator.  I acknowledge you, Jesus, as the Truth the Way and the Life, the one who came to this earth and paid the ransom for my sins through your death and resurrection. I turn to you now, Jesus, and ask for your forgiveness for my wrongdoing, and I invite you into my heart and life, that I may be transformed through your gift of eternal life that you have promised to all those who call upon and receive you. Illuminate my mind and open it to your truth so that I may understand and know you and the reason and purpose for my life. Thank you Jesus, for the gift of eternal life, and for revealing yourself to me.”—to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God…I stand at the door andknock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to them.—John 1:12; Rev. 3:20

“Truth is true— even if no one knows it. Truth is true—even if no one admits it. Truth is true— even if no one agrees what it is. Truth is true— even if no one follows it. Truth is true—even if no one but God grasps it fully.”—Paul Copan[6]

“Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but, in the end, there it is.”—Sir Winston Churchill

Footnotes:
[1] Matt Slick, Refuting Relativism, http://carm.org/refuting-relativism
[2] Sean McDowell, True for You, But Not for Me, http://www.christianity.com/11553860/
[3]  The Bible, 1 Corinthians 15:1-8
[4] Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. Wilhelm C. Linss (London: SPCK, 1983).
[5] The Bible, John 8:31, 32
[6] Paul Copan, Chair of Philosophy and Ethics at Palm Beach Atlantic University, author, True For You But Not For Me

Is Truth True For You But Not For Me?–Frank Turek–One Minute Apologist

True for You But Not for Me-Part 1-Brett Kunkle
The difference between subjective and objective truth is the difference between ice cream and insulin.

True for You But Not for Me-Part 2-Brett Kunkle
Test yourself and see if you can tell the difference between subjective and objective truth claims.

Critical thinking skills are essential to living the Christian life. With information bombarding us from all sides— friends, teachers, internet, television, radio, books, newspapers, etc., we need to be able to not only see ‘with the eye,’ but through the eye, using the lens/spectacles of our Christian worldview, so we are not “tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine.” As Nancy Pearcy observes, “Learning critical thinking is important not only for speaking to people outside the church but also for educating people on the inside. They often absorb ideas from the cultural atmosphere and thus need help liberating their minds from secular assumptions.”[1] But thinking “critically” is not enough. As Christians we must seek to think biblically; that is, we must be “renewed in our minds” (Romans 12:2) by the Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16). Only then will we be able to test and approve what God’s will is for our lives (Romans 12:3). As Christians we recognize that all the treasures of true wisdom and knowledge are found in Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:3; cf. 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16). It is through bringing “every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5) that we can avoid fine-sounding, but deceptive arguments (Colossians 2:3). After all, we are called to love God with all of our mind (Deuteronomy 6:5; Matthew 22:37). So, “see to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ” (Colossians 2:8; emphasis added).

As Christians, and especially those who have embraced the ministry of Christian apologetics, it is the truth that we are commissioned to bring people to believe and understand. As Pilate asked Jesus, “what is truth?”, so it is asked by those that we meet in the course of our daily life. It is our calling to bring them to the ‘way, the truth and the life.’ (John 14:6)  However, we will only be equipped to do so if we ourselves are thinking critically about the ideas, ideologies and philosophies that we as Christians encounter in the course of our lives. As Christians, we are to follow the example of the Christians at Berea. They were of “more noble character” because “they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11).

If we are to “take every thought captive” we must learn to think critically about the ideas and worldviews we encounter on a daily basis, examining them through the lens of our Christian worldview. We must then equip ourselves to present the Christian faith as both rational and intellectually engaging. As J. P. Moreland states, “Today we share the Gospel primarily as a means of addressing felt needs. We give testimonies of changed lives and say to people if they want to become better parents or overcome depression or loneliness, then Christ is the answer for them. As true as this may be, such an approach to evangelism is inadequate for two reasons.  First, it does not reach people who may be out of touch with their feelings.  Consequently, if men in our culture are in general less in touch with their feelings than women, this approach will not reach men effectively.  Second, it invites the response, “Sorry, but I don’t have a need.”  Have you ever wondered why no one responded to the Apostle Paul in this manner?  If you look at his evangelistic approach in Acts 17-20 the answer becomes obvious. He based his preaching on the fact that the Gospel is true and reasonable to believe. He reasoned with and tried to persuade people intelligently to accept Christ.  Now if the Gospel is true and reasonable to believe, then it is obvious that every person has a need for Christ’s forgiveness and power, whether or not that person “feels” that need.” [2]

[1] Pearcey, Nancy, Finding Truth: 5 Principles for Unmasking Atheism, Secularism, and Other God Substitutes, 2015, (p. 52)
[2] Moreland, J. P., Love Your God with All Your Mind, 2012, pg. 24-25

In his excellent essay, Christianity and the Birth of Science, Michael Bumbulis offers the following overview of the founders of modern science and what the vast majority had in common—a theistic worldview:

“The founders of modern science were all bunched into a particular geographical location dominated by a Judeo-Christian world view. I’m thinking of men like Louis Aggasiz (founder of glacial science and perhaps paleontology); Charles Babbage (often said to be the creator of the computer); Francis Bacon (father of the scientific method); Sir Charles Bell (first to extensively map the brain and nervous system); Robert Boyle (father of modern chemistry); Georges Cuvier (founder of comparative anatomy and perhaps paleontology); John Dalton (father of modern atomic theory); Jean Henri Fabre (chief founder of modern entomology); John Ambrose Fleming (some call him the founder of modern electronics/inventor of the diode); James Joule (discoverer of the first law of thermodynamics); William Thomson Kelvin (perhaps the first to clearly state the second law of thermodynamics); Johannes Kepler (discoverer of the laws of planetary motion); Carolus Linnaeus (father of modern taxonomy); James Clerk Maxwell (formulator of the electromagnetic theory of light); Gregor Mendel (father of genetics); Isaac Newton (discoverer of the universal laws of gravitation); Blaise Pascal (major contributor to probability studies and hydrostatics); Louis Pasteur (formulator of the germ theory).

If an appreciation for math and the cause-and-effect workings of nature were sufficient to generate modern science, how does one explain the historical fact the founders of modern science were all found in a “particular” culture that just happened to be shaped by a Judeo-Christian world view? Instead of measuring energy in joules, why don’t we measure it in platos or al-Asharis?

Of course, the cynics would claim these men were not ‘really’ Christians. That is, they really didn’t ‘believe’ in Christianity, but they professed such beliefs because they did not want to be persecuted. This is the “closet-atheist” hypothesis. But it doesn’t square with the facts.

Many of the founders of modern science were also very interested in theology. If you read Pascal, this is obvious. Mendel was a monk. Newton often said his interest in theology surpassed his interest in science. Newton did end his Principles with:

This most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being…This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God.” (end of excerpts)

As Charles Hummel notes,

 
Boyle set up Christian apologetics lectures. Babbage and Prout contributed to an apologetics series called the Bridgewater Treatises. Aggasiz, Cuvier, Fleming, Kelvin, and Linnaeus were what we now call ‘creationists.’ When I speak about Biblical beliefs that paved the way for science, I will use both Kepler and Pasteur to highlight two specific examples.

Furthermore, many of these founders of science lived at a time when others publicly expressed views quite contrary to Christianity – Hume, Hobbes, Darwin, etc. When Boyle argues against Hobbe’s materialism or Kelvin argues against Darwin’s assumptions, you don’t have a case of “closet atheists.”[1]

Dr. Bumbulis states at the beginning of his paper that, “I intend to simply clarify why it is that one might rationally think the Judeo-Christian world view was important, even crucial, in the birth of science.” A modest claim indeed, as when one follows the historical evidence where it leads, it becomes quite clear that the theistic, and more specifically, the Christian worldview that was held by many, was ‘important, even crucial, in the birth of science.’ There were factors unique to Christianity that all came together in Western Europe to give the world its only case of scientific take off which has since seen its ideas spread to the rest of the world. Other civilizations failed in this regard. On this, Dr. Bumbulis posits the following:

 
Johannes Kepler, German astronomer and contemporary of Galileo, was a devout Christian. His discovery of the three laws of planetary motion laid the foundation for Newton’s theory of gravity. The following quotation from Kepler exemplifies the theological underpinning of his science, of that which he regarded as, “thinking God’s thoughts after him”. In The Secret of the Universe he wrote:

 
As we all know, context is key, and if one doesn’t have the proper context, which leads to a distorted perception, that which doesn’t correspond to reality, then this persons context of the world will be both incoherent and inconsistent. As William Lane Craig has posited in his excellent paper, The Absurdity of Life Without God,[3] “If God does not exist, then life is futile. If the God of the Bible does exist, then life is meaningful. Only the second of these two alternatives enables us to live happily and consistently.”

The following statement made by philosopher and atheist Bertrand Russell, is one of the most depressing expressions that I have ever read, and one that I see as typifying the inconsistent scientism/atheist worldview of man’s ultimate destiny—prepare yourself for a depressing read:

 
These ‘truths’ Mr. Russell? Your ‘scaffolding’ in which these ‘truths’ are allegedly found, is one built on the incoherent and inconsistent worldview of yours, and sad to say, many others who have embraced said worldview, those who have not been willing to follow the evidence were it leads. How sad and full of hopelessness it is.

“Therefore, it seems to me that even if the evidence for these two options were absolutely equal, a rational person ought to choose biblical Christianity. It seems to me positively irrational to prefer death, futility, and destruction to life, meaningfulness, and happiness. As Pascal said, we have nothing to lose and infinity to gain.”[4]

May we go forth with the hope, faith, love and truth of the Gospel, so that the ‘unyielding despair’ of those such as Bertrand Russell, may be lifted from their shoulders and that the light of His truth may shine brightly within their hearts and minds.

Science and Faith Are Not Enemies-Prof. John Lennox

God, Science & the Big Questions-William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, John Lennox

Other Resources:

Does Science Contradict Religion?-Philip Vander Elst, here
Christianity and the Tooth Fairy-Prof. John Lennox, here
Are Science and Christianity at War?-Biologos, here
Can Science Account for Everything? Some say yes, but the answer is…-by Lane-article, here

Footnotes:

[1] Michael Bumbulis, Christianity and the Birth of Science,  http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/
[2] Ibid, Bumbulis
[3] William Lane Craig, The Absurdity of Life Without God, http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-absurdity-of-life-without-god#ixzz3YEfIwhcn
[4] Ibid, William Lane Craig

In a 1998 debate featuring William Lane Craig and Peter Atkins, Atkins posed the following challenge to Craig in which he asserts that science can account for everything. At one point in the debate Atkins states that ‘science is omnipotent.’ (It is Ok to go ahead and have a chuckle or two) The following is an excerpt from the debate with Craig’s excellent refutation to Atkins claim:

Dr William Lane Craig vs Dr Peter Atkins highlight

Peter Kreeft concurs, “…ethics is about values and the scientific method doesn’t apply directly to values as it does to facts…there’s no way that you can prove by the scientific method alone that all the things you can prove can be proved by the scientific method alone.”

After reading/viewing the above, the limitations of science have certainly been put in context. Certainly, no clear thinker would suggest that science can account for everything, much less that ‘science is omnipotent.’

In his book, God’s Undertaker—Has Science Buried God, John Lennox states, “God is ‘the ground of all explanation: it is his existence which gives rise to the very possibility of explanation, scientific or otherwise…far from science abolishing God,… it would seem that there is a substantial case for asserting that it is the existence of a Creator that gives to science its fundamental intellectual justification.”

1993 Nobel Prize winner/physics, Joseph H. Taylor, Jr., gives the following succinct explanation as to the relationship between science and religion, “A scientific discovery is also a religious discovery. There is no conflict between science and religion. Our knowledge of God is made larger with every discovery we make about the world.”

New Testament critics/skeptics, along with Islamic apologists, often raise the issue of (1) the authorship and dates of the four Gospels. In doing so, (2) the accuracy of the Gospel texts that we have today in relation to the original manuscripts, referred to as autographs, is also brought into question. As the argument goes, “because we don’t (and can’t) know who the authors were, how can we know from whence the Gospel narratives came from? Were they really written by the eyewitnesses? How can we know?” The goal of this ‘two prong’ attack, is to discredit the Gospel narratives both historically and theologically, and as such, attempt to render the Christian faith suspect, or in the extreme, a legend or fantasy.

As an example of just how far opponents of the Gospels will go, during a debate between Muslim apologist, Adnan Rashid and Christian apologist, James White, Rashid stated the following—“We cannot possibly construct what was originally penned by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and the rest. It is impossible for us to know what they wrote unless a copy signed by Mark was found somewhere buried in Jerusalem or Galilee or wherever he wrote. Until that happens, we cannot be certain. And even if that happens, how do we know it was actually signed by Mark? How do we know who was Mark? How can we even know that? Because biblical testimony and authority rely on one person, for example, for the gospel of Mark. Who is Mark, we don’t know, how he lived, where he lived and how he wrote and where he wrote and who he wrote for, we don’t have these details. One person somewhere writing in the middle of nowhere, we don’t know who he is.” (Full video of the debate can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlGZdiSnuxU)

Even though this example may seem to be extreme, it is not far from the type of criticisms that are often heard from Muslim and atheist apologists. It is obvious that Rashid had not taken the time to study early church history, or if he did, he opted not to ‘follow the evidence where it would have led him.’ Even a careful reading of the New Testament itself (not to mention the early church fathers writings) would have answered the questions that Rashid posed. As a brief overview of the evidence for Mark’s authorship and historical background, J. Warner Wallace offers the following:

•  Mark was the cousin of Barnabas, and his childhood home was well known to Peter (Acts 12:12-14).
• Mark became so close to Peter that the apostle described him as “my son” (1 Pet. 5:13).
• Peter preserved his eyewitness testimony through his primary disciple and student, who then passed it on to the next generation in what we now recognize as the “gospel of Mark.”
• Mark established the church in Alexandria and immediately stared preaching and baptizing new believers. History records the fact that he had at least five disciples, and these men eventually became church leaders in North Africa. Mark disciple and taught Anianus (AD?-82), Avilius (AD?-95), Kedron (AD?-106), Primus (AD 40-118), and Justus (AD?-135), passing on his gospel along with the other early New Testament accounts from the apostolic eyewitnesses.
• There fine men eventually became bishops of Alexandria (one after the other) following Mark’s death. The faithfully preserved the eyewitness accounts and passed them on, one generation to another.[1]

In his book, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, Craig L. Blomberg, offers the following background on Mark as well as the case for the attribution of the Gospels to those named as the authors:

We can also apply the principle of prescription to the discussion, which is defined here by Cornelius Hagerty—“Prescription is a process by which a right is acquired through long use. It is important for a lawyer to show a court on which side of the case lies the burden of proof. Now it is an undisputed fact that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John have been credited with being the authors of the Gospels since the last quarter of the second century. The burden of proof is definitely on any modern scholar who contradicts this ancient tradition.” In other words, the burden of proof is on the revisionist, as not only does the early tradition hold to the traditional author position, but nothing within the Gospels contradicts the traditional author argument.

Criteria of embarrassment strengthens the traditional author argument

Another interesting point raised by Blomberg, is that of the historical criteria of embarrassment, a criteria that I have always found to be particularly powerful, and one that is glaringly absent in other religious traditions. An explanation given for the criteria of embarrassment is as follows—An indicator that an event or saying is authentic occurs when the source would not be expected to create the story, because it embarrasses his cause and “weakened its position in arguments with opponents.”[3] The conviction that apostles or close associates of the apostles penned the four Gospels already in the first century led Christians throughout most of church history to believe that they recorded historically reliable as well as theologically authoritative material.

That two of the four Gospels were attributed to individuals as comparatively obscure in early Christianity as Mark and Luke also inspires confidence in the tradition. John Mark was a companion of both Peter and Paul but best known for having ‘defected’ from the Pauline mission (cf. Acts 13:13 with 15:37). Luke was Paul’s ‘beloved physician’ (Col. 4:14 AV) and  traveled companion throughout those portions of Acts written in the first person plural, but is known by name in the New Testament only from brief references in the closing greetings of  three of Paul’s letters (see esp. 2 Tim. 4:11 and Phim. 24). Even Matthew, though one of the twelve apostles (also known as Levi, a converted tax-collector), would not have been a natural  choice for someone falsely ascribing authorship to a Christian authority, given his ignominious back-ground as a Jew who had worked for the hated Roman invaders.[4]

J. Warner Wallace brings this criteria to bear in the following paragraph:

I will be building upon the historical criteria model in other articles on this site—that of multiple, independent sources; enemy attestation; eyewitness testimony; early testimony, etc. My hope is that these concise resources will bring to your fingertips the evidence, both historically and theologically, so that you may, “always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect…(1 Peter 3:15 ESV)

Footnotes:
[1] J. Warner Wallace, Cold-Case Christianity, 2013, pg. 226
[2] Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 2007, pgs. 26-27
[3] John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1:168
[4] Ibid, Blomberg
[5] J. Warner Wallace, 2013, pgs. 172-173

The Reliability of the Gospels–Dr. Peter J. Williams

Is the Bible Reliable as a Historical Document?–Lee Strobel

Can we know who wrote the Gospels?–with Mike Licona

Who Wrote the Gospels?–Jonathan McLatchie

The article—The Historical Evidence of the Gospel Accounts of Jesus Christ[1]—begins by stating what the Bible does and does not tell us about the life of Jesus Christ. History itself will always be an incomplete account of any period of time or that of any particular person, but that fact that the Bible, and in particular, the Gospel accounts have been found to be historically accurate and verifiable, meeting and exceeding all historical criteria for verification, is a miracle in itself and shows once again, that the Scripture was not written “by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:21 ESV) According to Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University, “Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate and continued to have followers after his death.”[2] Archaeologist William Dever concurs, “But of course the Bible is not, in the final analysis, about history at all. It’s about His Story. But there is history there as well.”[3]

There are a number of archaeological finds that are mentioned in the article—I will list three:

1. In 1961 at Caesarea Maritima, an Italian expedition discovered a 2 foot by 3 foot stone with Pilate’s name on it, in the Roman theater. (Prior to 1961, some skeptics challenged whether                            Pontius Pilate ever existed, in spite of his being mentioned in the Book of Acts and 1 Timothy.)

2. In 1968, a man that was crucified c. mid-first century A.D. was discovered by Vassilois Tzaferis, in a suburb of Jerusalem called Giv’at ha-Mivtar—his findings concluded: “The feet were                        joined almost parallel, both transfixed by the same nail at the heels…the upper limbs were stretched out, each stabbed by a nail in the forearm.” (In spite of the NT stating that Christ was                     “nailed” to the cross  (John 20:25, Acts 2:23, Col 2:14), many historians doubted the accuracy of these statements, opting for the ‘tied to the cross’ rather than the biblical account of the event.)

1. Luke (2:1-3) identifies the following as an historical event occurring at the time of the birth of Jesus: “In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to his own town to register.” (NIV) The ESV translation states: “In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria,” which makes even clearer the fact that there was more than one registration. (Luke 2:1-2 ESV) Many skeptics have doubted the veracity of this statement, given that the only census known by a Quirinius until recently was one dated by Josephus as A.D. 6. (Jesus couldn’t have been born later than 4 B.C., because that was the year that Herod the Great died). Recently, Jerry Vardaman has discovered the name of Quirinius on a coin in micrographic letters, placing him as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 B.C. until the death of Herod.” (McRay, p. 154) Further evidence indicates that it is very possible that a census could have been ongoing in Israel at the time of Jesus’ birth – it was just a different census, and as Luke states, ‘was the first registration (census)…’ (and probably a different Quirinius) than mentioned by Josephus. Note also that Luke was aware of the later (6 A.D.) census, which he refers to in Acts 5:37 as “the” census, as opposed to “a” census in Luke 2:1-3).

Although there are many archeological proofs to the historicity of Jesus Christ, I will add just one more here which I see as being quite outstanding. Skeptics have often pointed out that no archaeological evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ has been discovered. (And they are correct, at least perhaps up until the present, which again, is further proof that with time and each new discovery, the case for the historicity and veracity of the Bible grows ever stronger.)   However, empirically and logically speaking, is it reasonable to expect such artifacts or inscriptions? After all, the man Jesus was not a prominent governmental leader. He was essentially an itinerant preacher, with few possessions, and eventually suffered the death of a common criminal. Would the Romans have recorded His life or death with an inscription or statue? Certainly not. Actually, Jewish archaeological evidence of the entire period is rather sparse. There are the remains of large and extensive Roman cities, and adequate inscriptions of leaders, including Herod, Pilate and Festus. There are also influential Jews such as Caiaphas, but almost nothing can be found recording the lives of ordinary individuals.

A recent incredible discovery may put to rest the criticism of the skeptics of the historicity of Jesus’ life.The Roman historian Josephus mentioned Christ several times while relating noteworthy civic events, including the execution of one named “James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ/Messiah” referring evidently to Jesus’ brother James, leader of the early church and author of the New Testament book bearing his name. The new artifact is an ossuary, a medium-sized box in which human bones were placed for permanent burial after the flesh had all decayed away. This practice was employed for only a brief period of time from about B.C. 20 to A.D. 70. The box is made of a soft, chalky, limestone, common to the area. The contents have long since vanished. Most remarkably, an inscription has been etched into the side which reads, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” in the Aramaic script of the time. Careful studies, including scrutiny under a scanning electron microscope show the inscription to be genuine. The patina, or oxidized surface equally covers both box and the interior of the etched letters. The recognized expert on such matters, Dr. Andre Lemaire, concludes: “I am pleased to report that in my judgment it is genuinely ancient and not a fake.”

All three names used were common in that era, but seldom was the deceased’s brother mentioned, unless that brother was noteworthy. To have all three listed, in correct Biblical relationship certainly supports the possibility of this being the ossuary of the Biblical James.

With or without the ossuary or other archeological evidence, we can still be confident that the events are true. The Christian faith is a reasonable faith, well grounded in the facts of history, and the Bible is an entirely accurate document. On its teachings we can base our lives and eternal destiny.[4]

Historical Evidence

In regards to the historical evidence, this article has presented a well-rounded and concise accounting of the evidence that more than makes the case for the historical Jesus. In adding to the evidence/resource material presented in this article, I will draw on the work of both Gary Habermas and William Lane Craig, with supplementary material from other sources.

One of the emphasis’ of Habermas’ work is that of enemy/skeptic attestation of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the subsequent conversions of two people who were witnesses to the risen Jesus—these two people being Paul, the avowed enemy of the followers of Christ, and James the skeptic, the brother of Jesus. I find these particular examples to be quite compelling and difficult for the opponent to refute as it moves outside of the testimony of Jesus’ disciples and/or His ‘apologists’ if you will, and places the burden of proof on the opponent to explain how a skeptic and an avowed enemy could experience such a change in views unless it was through an evidential experience.

Certainly a fable or nice story would not have convinced Paul that Jesus had risen from the dead. Indeed, in light of his hostile attitude and actions toward Christians, as well as his own Jewish studies, he most likely would have perceived the gospel to be a poor Christian attempt to imitate Jewish fables that later came to be known as Midrash. As an educated man, Paul would most assuredly been familiar with non-historical genre. It would not have lured him to follow the man he considered to be a false messiah who was cursed by God. He would have feared such apostasy from true faith, for it would jeopardize his soul.

It is important to note that Paul came to Christ through an experience in which he thought [and believed] he encountered the risen Jesus, an account that dates very early. We need reasons for his conversion from unbelief, since his conversion was based on a personal appearance of Jesus and counts very heavily against embellishment…the same applies to James. All things considered, an empty tomb by itself would not have convinced Paul or the skeptic James, both of whom appear to have been convinced by an appearance of the risen Jesus to them…it was the appearances that led to the disciples’ belief that Jesus had risen from the dead, not that of the empty tomb, with the exception of John. (John

Another criticism offered by skeptics is that all we have are the testimonies of Christians, who most likely transferred their personal biases and traditions into their writings. Therefore, these writings must be considered biased. Thus, we must suspect that they do not accurately report what really occurred. This objection is plagued with several difficulties.

First, Paul’s testimony is stronger than that of a neutral witness of the risen Jesus, since his bias ran in the opposite direction. He was certainly not sympathetic to the Christian cause. Rather he viewed Jesus as a false Christ and severely persecuted his followers. The skeptic may reply, “Yes, but after he became a Christian, he lost his standing as an unbiased source.”

Granted, that Paul lost his status as a hostile source after he became a Christian. However, he maintained hostility toward Christianity right up to the time he believed. So we still have an appearance of the risen Jesus as the reason for the belief of a hostile source. With one who persists in asserting that Christians still lack the testimony of someone who saw Jesus risen and did not convert, we might ask, “If someone actually witnessed the risen Jesus and was not changed by the experience, wouldn’t this indicate that the person was too biased against Jesus to act on the facts? Biases go both ways.” We would question the testimony of a person who really saw the raised Jesus and still rejected him.

Secondly, the biases of James the brother of Jesus also ran contrary to Christianity. The Gospels report that he was an unbeliever during the life of Jesus. Later we find reports of the risen Jesus appearing to James (1 Cor. 15:7a) and of his death for his belief that Jesus was the risen Messiah. So with testimonies in our hands from the disciples Paul and James, we have examples of friends and foes who believed that the risen Jesus had appeared to them.

Third, recognizing the bias of an author does not automatically merit the conclusion that he or she has distorted the facts.

Fourth, if we reject the testimony of all interested parties, we will have to reject most of our standard historical sources. The authors of such works often would not be writing unless they had a personal interest. It is the role of the historian to comb through the literature and attempt to see pas the writer’s persona biases to ascertain what really happened.

Fifth, the skeptic must be careful not to commit the genetic fallacy. We must recognize the difference between understanding why something is true versus understanding why something is believed or how one came to believe that it is true.

N. T. Wright comments, “”It must be asserted most strongly that to discover that a particular writer has a ‘bias’ tells us nothing whatever about the value of the information he or she presents. It merely bids us be aware of the bias (and of our own, for that matter), and to assess the material according to as many sources as we can.”[5]

This logical reasoning applies to the resurrection of Jesus. X is the proposition that the disciples of Jesus sincerely believed that he rose from the dead and appeared to them. Let’s say that there are only fine initially plausible explanations that account for these claims on the part of the disciples:

Explanation 1: Jesus rose from the dead.

Explanation 2: Fraud was involved on the part of the disciples.

Explanation 3: The disciples sincerely believe they saw the risen Jesus, but were hallucinating or delusional.

Explanation 4: Jesus never really died, so when he appeared to his disciples they thought he had risen from the dead, when he had really only revived from a coma.

Explanation 5: The entire story was a legend that developed over time.

Now consider the additional factors of the empty tomb and the conversions of the church persecutor Paul and the skeptic James because they both believed that the raised Jesus had appeared to them. These provide evidence that explanation 1 is true. One might speculate that explanation 2 (that the disciples stole the body and were lying about the appearances) may also account for the empty tomb. But it does not adequately account for the disciple’ transformed lives and willingness to die, nor does it adequately explain the appearances of the risen Jesus to the skeptics Paul and James.[6]

            In regards to enemy attestation—even though such attestation may be considered ‘indirect’—the empty tomb is attested not only by Christian sources, but admitted too by Jesus’ enemies as well. This is not an argument from silence, but rather than point to an occupied tomb, early critics accused Jesus’ disciples of stealing the body. (Matt. 28:12-13; Justin Martyr, Trypho 108; Tertullian, De Spectaculis 30).  The earliest Jewish claim reported regarding Jesus’ resurrection was to accuse the disciples of stealing the body, and indirect admission that the body was unavailable for public display. This is the only early opposing theory we know of that was offered by Jesus’ enemies.

This enemy ‘attestation’ to the empty tomb, among other historical aspects of Jesus’ life, is also found in later medieval Jewish writings. One example is that of the Toledot Yeshu (1000AD), a medieval Jewish retelling of the life of Jesus. The following is a portion of the text which is extremely anti-Christian. There are many versions of these ‘retellings’, and as part of the transmitted oral and written tradition of the Jews, we can presume their original place in antiquity, dating back to the time of Jesus’ first appearance as an influential leader who was drawing Jews away from their faith in the Law. The Toledot Yeshu contains a determined effort to explain away the miracles of Jesus, and to deny the virgin birth, Jesus’ resurrection, etc. In some places, the text is quite vicious, but it does confirm many elements of the New Testament writings. Let’s take a look at a portion of the text (Jesus is refered to as ‘Yehoshua’):

“In the year 3671 (in Jewish reckonging, it being ca 90 B.C.) in the days of King Jannaeus, a great misfortune befell Israel, when there arose a certain disreputable man of the tribe of Judah, whose name was Joseph Pandera. He lived at Bethlehem, in Judah. Near his house dwelt a widow and her lovely and chaste daughter named Miriam. Miriam was betrothed to Yohanan, of the royal house of David, a man learned in the Torah and God-fearing. At the close of a certain Sabbath, Joseph Pandera, attractive and like a warrior in appearance, having gazed lustfully upon Miriam, knocked upon the door of her room and betrayed her by pretending that he was her betrothed husband, Yohanan. Even so, she was amazed at this improper conduct and submitted only against her will. Thereafter, when Yohanan came to her, Miriam expressed astonishment at behavior so foreign to his character. It was thus that they both came to know the crime of Joseph Pandera and the terrible mistake on the part of Miriam… Miriam gave birth to a son and named him Yehoshua, after her brother. This name later deteriorated to Yeshu (“Yeshu” is the Jewish “name” for Jesus. It means “May His Name Be Blotted Out”). On the eighth day he was circumcised. When he was old enough the lad was taken by Miriam to the house of study to be instructed in the Jewish tradition. One day Yeshu walked in front of the Sages with his head uncovered, showing shameful disrespect. At this, the discussion arose as to whether this behavior did not truly indicate that Yeshu was an illegitimate child and the son of a niddah. Moreover, the story tells that while the rabbis were discussing the Tractate Nezikin, he gave his own impudent interpretation of the law and in an ensuing debate he held that Moses could not be the greatest of the prophets if he had to receive counsel from Jethro. This led to further inquiry as to the antecedents of Yeshu, and it was discovered through Rabban Shimeon ben Shetah that he was the illegitimate son of Joseph Pandera. Miriam admitted it. After this became known, it was necessary for Yeshu to flee to Upper Galilee. After King Jannaeus, his wife Helene ruled over all Israel…He gathered about himself three hundred and ten young men of Israel and accused those who spoke ill of his birth of being people who desired greatness and power for themselves. Yeshu proclaimed, “I am the Messiah; and concerning me Isaiah prophesied and said, ‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.'” He quoted other messianic texts, insisting, “David my ancestor prophesied concerning me: ‘The Lord said to me, thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.'” The insurgents with him replied that if Yeshu was the Messiah he should give them a convincing sign. They therefore, brought to him a lame man, who had never walked. Yeshu spoke over the man the letters of the Ineffable Name, and the leper was healed. Thereupon, they worshipped him as the Messiah, Son of the Highest. When word of these happenings came to Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin decided to bring about the capture of Yeshu…They replied: “It is in our Torah, but it is not applicable to him, for it is in Scripture: ‘And that prophet which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.’ He has not fulfilled the signs and conditions of the Messiah.” Yeshu spoke up: “Madam, I am the Messiah and I revive the dead.” A dead body was brought in; he pronounced the letters of the Ineffable Name and the corpse came to life. The Queen was greatly moved and said: “This is a true sign.” She reprimanded the Sages and sent them humiliated from her presence. Yeshu’s dissident followers increased and there was controversy in Israel. Yeshu went to Upper Galilee. the Sages came before the Queen, complaining that Yeshu practiced sorcery and was leading everyone astray. Therefore she sent Annanui and Ahaziah to fetch him. The found him in Upper Galilee, proclaiming himself the Son of God. When they tried to take him there was a struggle, but Yeshu said to the men of Upper Galilee: “Wage no battle.” He would prove himself by the power which came to him from his Father in heaven. He spoke the Ineffable Name over the birds of clay and they flew into the air. He spoke the same letters over a millstone that had been placed upon the waters. He sat in it and it floated like a boat. When they saw this the people marveled. At the behest of Yeshu, the emissaries departed and reported these wonders to the Queen…Yeshu was seized. His head was covered with a garment and he was smitten with pomegranate staves; but he could do nothing, for he no longer had the Ineffable Name. Yeshu was taken prisoner to the synagogue of Tiberias, and they bound him to a pillar. To allay his thirst they gave him vinegar to drink. On his head they set a crown of thorns. There was strife and wrangling between the elders and the unrestrained followers of Yeshu, as a result of which the followers escaped with Yeshu to the region of Antioch; there Yeshu remained until the eve of the Passover. Yeshu then resolved to go the Temple to acquire again the secret of the Name. That year the Passover came on a Sabbath day. On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu, accompanied by his disciples, came to Jerusalem riding upon an ass. Many bowed down before him. He entered the Temple with his three hundred and ten followers. One of them, Judah Iskarioto apprised the Sages that Yeshu was to be found in the Temple, that the disciples had taken a vow by the Ten Commandments not to reveal his identity but that he would point him out by bowing to him. So it was done and Yeshu was seized. Asked his name, he replied to the question by several times giving the names Mattai, Nakki, Buni, Netzer, each time with a verse quoted by him and a counter-verse by the Sages. Yeshu was put to death on the sixth hour on the eve of the Passover and of the Sabbath. When they tried to hang him on a tree it broke, for when he had possessed the power he had pronounced by the Ineffable Name that no tree should hold him. He had failed to pronounce the prohibition over the carob-stalk, for it was a plant more than a tree, and on it he was hanged until the hour for afternoon prayer, for it is written in Scripture, “His body shall not remain all night upon the tree.” They buried him outside the city. On the first day of the week his bold followers came to Queen Helene with the report that he who was slain was truly the Messiah and that he was not in his grave; he had ascended to heaven as he prophesied. Diligent search was made and he was not found in the grave where he had been buried. A gardener had taken him from the grave and had brought him into his garden and buried him in the sand over which the waters flowed into the garden. Queen Helene demanded, on threat of a severe penalty, that the body of Yeshu be shown to her within a period of three days. There was a great distress. When the keeper of the garden saw Rabbi Tanhuma walking in the field and lamenting over the ultimatum of the Queen, the gardener related what he had done, in order that Yeshu’s followers should not steal the body and then claim that he had ascended into heaven. The Sages removed the body, tied it to the tail of a horse and transported it to the Queen, with the words, “This is Yeshu who is said to have ascended to heaven.” Realizing that Yeshu was a false prophet who enticed the people and led them astray, she mocked the followers but praised the Sages.

In spite of the fact that the ancient Jews who wrote this did their best to argue for another interpretation of the Life of Jesus, they did make several claims here about Jesus. This passage, along with several others from the Toledot tradition, confirms that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, healed the lame, said that Isaiah foretold of his life, was worshipped as God, arrested by the Jews, beaten with rods, given vinegar to drink, wore a crown of thorns, rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, was betrayed by a man named Judah Iskarioto, and had followers who claimed he was resurrected and ascended, leaving an empty tomb. If Jesus’ enemies attested to the same events of that of the Gospel, even though via that of attempted refutation, the case is made as to the events that took place in the life of the historical Jesus—the Christ which is found and attested too in the canonical Gospels.[7]

[1] Robert Jones, The Historical Evidence of the Gospel Account of Jesus Christ, http://www.sundayschoolcourses.com/histjesu/histjesu.pdf

[2] Johnson, Luke T., The Real Jesus, p. 123, Harper San Francisco, 1996

[3] Dever, William, Is the Bible Right After All?, pg 31

[4] Morris, John D., Has Archaeological Evidence for Jesus Been Discovered?, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/has-archaeological-evidence-for-jesus-been-discove/

[5] Wright, N. T., The New Testament and the People of God, pg 89, Fortress, 1992

[6] Habermas, Gary, Licona, Michael R., The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, pgs 86-87, 97, 124, 208-209, Kregel Publication, 2004

[7] Is There Any Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible?, http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Is_There_Evidence_for_Jesus_Outside_the_Bible

Let’s examine the following statement: “The first thing a Christian needs to know about the evolution controversy is that a large majority of scientists are atheists, most of whom prefer to call themselves humanists….both groups are adamant that God must be excised from the public mind and that evolution is the perfect weapon to do the job. While only a small minority of the population at large, the atheists dominate the scientific community in our schools, universities and government research projects.”

Let us explore this further by looking at a more data specific breakdown of what ideological/philosophical position scientists in the U. S. hold too. The following is a recent study (2010) by sociologist, Wayne E. Baker of the University of Michigan, which is revealing as to the positions which scientists hold in the area of religious affiliation, belief, etc. Baker states, “Do scientists at our nation’s top universities fit the stereotype of anti-religion atheists? A few are hard core atheists, reports Elaine Howard Ecklund in “Science vs. Religion,” but not many. About half identify with an established religious affiliation, claiming an affiliation is one thing, [however] believing in religion is quite another. What do scientists actually believe when it comes to religion? Almost three-quarters say “there are basic truths in many religions.” This compares with just over 80% of Americans who believe the same. About a quarter of elite scientists agree that “there is very little truth in any religion.” Only 4% of the general population feels the same.

Do any scientists believe that one religion has a monopoly on truth? Not many—only 3%. But only 12% of the American people believe so anyway. A glaring difference between elite scientists and other Americans comes when asked about belief in God, Ecklund finds. Almost all Americans believe in God. But only a third of elite scientists believe in some sort of God.
How about religious practice? Just over half of elite scientists say they never attend religious services, compared with 22% of the general public. Roughly equal proportions (about 30%) attend less than once a month. Almost half of all Americans attend religious services once a month or more, compared with 18% of scientists.

The picture that’s emerging from Ecklund’s research shows that the reality is more complex than the simple dichotomy of science versus religion. Yes, scientists are less religious than the general population, but there are also many religious scientists, even a few outspoken evangelicals—like Francis Collins, who headed the prestigious Human Genome Project (1993-2008), and was appointed last year by Obama to head the National Institutes of Health. Collins says he feels no conflict between science and religion…” 2

Two points that stand out in the above article are (1) half of scientists identify with an established religious affiliation…however, believing in a religion is quite another, and (2) almost all Americans believe in [the existence of] God…only a third of elite scientists believe in some sort of God. What these findings show is that affiliation (as the church being the ‘social club’ for some) does not translate into belief—half professing affiliation, only a third believing in “some sort of God.” But what is more striking is the discrepancy of the overall population, almost all professing a belief in God, yet only a third of elite scientists professing belief in “some sort of God.” This means that two-thirds of the elite scientists, an extremely small percentage of the population, are atheists, and as it was earlier stated, “While only a small minority of the population at large, the atheists dominate the scientific community in our schools, universities and government research projects.”

The famous evolutionist, Richard Lewontin had this to say about lying: “Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies because they believe that small lies can serve big truths.” “Creation is unscientific and evolution is science.” Variation of this lie abounds in the rhetoric of the evolutionists. Creation by God supports every one of the laws and principles of science cited later. Evolution violates every one of them. Evolutionists are naturalists and insist that the present natural laws of chemistry and physics can explain the origin of the universe in defiance of the present laws. Creationists accept the present laws as valid for present operations and contend that these laws predict a Transcendent Power that used creative processes, not present noncreative processes, to bring about the origin of the universe, life and man.

1 Griggs, Jolly F., Evolution 101, http://www.creationism.org/griggs/
2 Baker, Wayne E., Science vs Religion: How Many Scientists Actually Believe?, 2010

During my studies in the area of Christian apologetics and philosophy, I came across what I consider to be a wonderful tool for grounding youth in a Christian worldview—it is William Lane Craig and Joseph Tang’s course, “The Defense Never Rests.” (See the Store section at: www.reasonablefaith.org to order) The course was put together by Joseph Tang (Australia) for his Sunday school class (ages 8 and above) and is based on Dr. Craig’s work in the area of apologetics, philosophy, arguments for the existence of God, etc.—in other words, preparing youth at an early age to understand and defend the Christian worldview so as to meet the cultural challenges that they will face throughout their life. A Christian worldview has been defined as: “A worldview is like a lens through which you see things, and you’re not really aware of the lens, you’re only aware of the things you see…so it becomes the glasses, the spectacles, the filter through which they’re actually seeing life and the whole universe and the world and human life is understood through that lens… Nobody is without a worldview. The only question is, is it a good one, or a bad one…On the basis of your world view, you make your momentary judgments in life, so everyone has a world view and I think it is the grind that forms the nature of reality for you and the judgments that you make for yourself and others in your life.” (See the following YouTube video-“What Is Worldview?” for a more in depth synopsis of the Christian worldview— http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txez9sJUtaE)

I have been working through the course with my 10 year-old grandson and he really enjoys the classes and always looks forward to the next one as they are very intellectually and spiritually stimulating. (I also supplement the classes with YouTube clips of Dr. Craig’s and other prominent philosophers and apologists’ lectures, debates, etc.) From our conversations during the classes, I can tell that there are some gaps in his understanding of theology, as what would be expected at his age, and even some foundational pillars which the course is helping to bridge, build up and fill in. I would highly recommend the course to all parents who have children in the 8-13 age range regardless of their educational milieu—public, private or home schooling. To teach the course effectively, the teacher will need to be familiar with Dr. Craig’s book, “Reasonable Faith,” (also found at: www.reasonablefaith.org) as this is what the course is based on. This is certainly a plus for the parent/teacher as in the course of teaching the child, the parent and/or teacher is also taking the course which will be a strength to them as well. “Reasonable Faith” is a tremendous book and is basically a summary of all that one needs to know regarding Christian apologetics/philosophy.

In the introduction of Dr. Craig’s book, “Reasonable Faith”, he states the following, “In high school and college Christian teenagers are intellectually assaulted with every manner of non-Christian worldview coupled with an overwhelming relativism. If parents are not intellectually engaged with their faith and do not have sound arguments of Christian theism and good answers to their children’s questions, then we are in real danger of losing our youth. It’s no longer enough to teach our children Bible stories; they need doctrine and apologetics.” The goal and purpose of “The Defense Never Rests” course is to get a jump on the ‘intellectual assault’ at an early age, before the child enters the higher grades where the assault intensifies.

Also I was listening to a new podcast from Dr. Craig this morning—”Important International Influences”—and he mentioned something that I thought was very interesting in regards to the organization “Focus on the Family” and how they are now expanding their focus to included apologetics as they see the need for their youth membership to be more equipped in meeting the challenge that secular society, and more specifically, the naturalist, atheist and scientism ideologies that are so prevalent in today’s world. Their new program is called, “True You.” Dr. Craig will be one of the guest apologists that they will be filming for the course. Here’s the blurb from Craig about the program: “They have sensed the need of intellectual engagement with our culture and with worldview thinking, so they are sponsoring projects like this “True You” project…[which is based on] interviews with scholars and address the pertinent issues today in regards to the Christian faith.”

He finished his podcast with this revealing testimony as to how the Christian worldview in the West is waning and the need for Christians to be actively and intellectually engaged in order to have an impact on the society in which they live: “It’s unfortunate when organizations have to be reactive rather than proactive. Recently at our church, I heard a representative from the Southern Baptist Convention talking about statistical analysis of various generations with regard to the Christian faith. What he shared, if we really took it seriously we would be absolutely horrified and in despair. He said, among the baby-boomer generation, about 65% claim to be Christians. In the generation after that, the gen-x generation, he said, that drops to 20 some percent, I forget the exact figures. Then the millenials, the young people today in their early 20’s, it’s about 8%. Now if these statistics are really accurate and hold up, it means that we are literally watching before our very eyes, the de-Christianization of the United States. We will become like Europe in another generation and to me that is just horrifying. It is clear that the churches have not been proactive in commending the faith intellectually to their people. So the incursions of secularism and the new atheism have gone largely unchecked. I think finally people are waking up to the need to give an answer of the hope that is in us. I just pray that it hasn’t come too late.”

Of late, I have been researching the theological, as well as philosophical premise and/or foundation for creatio ex nihilo, my main resource being the excellent book by Paul Copan and William Lane Craig entitled, Creation Out of Nothing—A Biblical, Philosophical, and Scientific Exploration. (Go to Resource Store to order) Although creation ex nihilo may not seem to fall within the category of arguments for the existence of God, I see it as an important tenant of the Christian faith and one that must be understood if ones Christian worldview is to be founded on a firm foundation that is “steadfast and immovable.” (1 Corinth. 15:58)

As a clarification and defining of creation ex nihilo I once again turn to the book mentioned in the previous paragraph: “So when one describes what creation out of nothing means, we affirm that without God’s initiating creation, only God exists. Upon creation, we have a universe because God willed it into finite, temporal being. Thus, creation out of nothing affirms that the universe is contingent on God, not just in having its (continued) existence in being (ontological dependence) but also in having its temporal origination from nothing preexistent, but simply by the will and world of God (ex nihilo).”

My focus in this brief article is in regards to the early Christian church—referring here to the first, second and third centuries—and that of the early Church fathers understanding and firmly held belief in the biblical tenant of creatio ex nihilo. Sadly, the biblical tenant of creation ex nihilo, has by some, been relegated to a second century formulation by early Christian theologians. As Copan and Craig state, “One German theologian, Gerhard May, in what has become a standard work on the doctrine of creation ex nihilo in early Christian thought, claims that this doctrine is biblically ambiguous and was a late second century formulation by Christian theologians in responding to Middle Platonic and Gnostic ideas. He suggests that the doctrine of creation out of nothing is “not demanded by the test of the Bible.” Unfortunately, May proffers little substantiation for this claim, and many who cite him simply take it on his authority that creation out of nothing is “not demanded by the text of the Bible”…his comment is regrettable and misleading. James Noel Hubler (following May’s work at many points) declares that creation ex nihilo not only “appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century CE” but also “lacked precedent”: This doctrine was “an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition.” This, we shall see, is not simply overstated; it is plainly false.”[1]

During my recent study time, I have been working my way through the book, The Early Christians in Their Own Words, by Eberhard Arnold. I was struck by the fact that almost every early church writer was a proponent of creation ex nihilo. I am including here a few of the excerpts from this book to emphasize the prominence that the early Christians place on God’s sovereignty and omnipotence.

It is the Christians, O emperor, who have sought and found the truth. We have realized it from their writings; they are closer to the truth and to a right understanding than all the other peoples, for they acknowledge God. They believe in him, the creator and builder of the universe, in whom all things are and from whom everything comes. Aristides, Apology 15,16; ca. A.D. 137.

When we are together, we remind one another of these things, and help all who suffer want the best we can, and keep together in harmony. We praise the creator of the universe through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Spirit for everything we receive.—Justin, First Apology, 67

It is the Christians, O emperor, who have sought and found the truth. We have realized it from their writings; they are closer to the truth and to a right understanding than all the other peoples, for they acknowledge God. They believe in him, the creator and builder of the universe, in whom all things are and from whom everything comes.—Aristides, Apology 15, 16; ca, AD 137

There is one rule of faith: this is the belief [testified to in the following]. There is one and absolutely only one God and no other than the creator of the universe, who, through his own Word sent down before all other things, brought into being everything out of nothing…We believe as we have always done – and even more now since we have been better instructed by the representative advocate, who truly leads men into all truth – we believe that there is only one true God, namely in that administration of his household which we call “economy,” that there is only one son of the one and only God, who is his own Word, who proceeded from him, through whom everything was made and without whom nothing was made…–Tertullian, On Shows 4; The Prescriptions of Heretics 20, 13; against Praxeus 2; Concerning the Veiling of Virgins 1

We think of God the creator of all things as being far above all that is corruptible. Justin, First Apology 20.

I have shown sufficiently that we are not atheists, for ours is the one God, uncreated and eternal, invisible, immutable, incomprehensible, inconceivable, to be grasped only by the mind and by reason, surrounded by light and beauty, by Spirit and power to an ineffable degree: he by whose word the universe was created, was set in order, and is ruled.–Athenagoras, A Plea Regarding Christians 10.

We think of God the creator of all things as being far above all that is corruptible. Justin, First Apology 20.

Is it right, I ask, to charge us with atheism, we who clearly distinguish God from matter and prove that matter is something quite different from God and that there is a tremendous distance between them? We show that the divine being is uncreated and eternal, to be grasped only by mind and spirit. Matter on the other hand is created and corruptible. Athenagoras, A Plea Regarding Christians 4.

The sacrifice most pleasing to him is that we try to recognize who stretched out and vaulted the heavens and set the earth as the center, who gathered the water into seas and separated light from darkness, who adorned the ether with stars and made the earth bring forth all manner of seed, who called the animals into being and created man. If we follow God as the molder who holds all things together and watches over all things with that same wisdom and skill with which he governs the universe, and if we lift up holy hands to him, what need does he have then of ritual sacrifices?

Beautiful indeed is the world, glorious in its magnitude, in the arrangement of the stars, both in the zodiac and around the constellation of the Great Dipper and in its form as a sphere. Yet the world for these reasons does not deserve to be worshipped; rather does its sublime artificer…God himself is everything: unapproachable light! Perfect beauty! Spirit! Power! Word! If the world were a well-tuned instrument played in rhythm, I would not worship the instrument but him who made it and tuned it, who strikes the notes and sings the song that fits the melody. God is the perfect good and eternally does only good. Athenagoras, A Plea Regarding Christians 13, 16.