If God is Sovereign Why Was The Cross Necessary?

As Christians, we see the work of Christ on the cross as the only solution to the problem of sin. We believe that Christ had to die in order for any sinners to be saved. If God is completely sovereign over all things, however, why is atonement necessary? Why could God not simply decide that He would forgive somebody’s sins if He wanted?

The answer to the question lies not in any limitation of God’s sovereign power but rather in the essence of His character. The Bible teaches that God is sovereign (Ps. 135:6, Ps. 115:3, Is. 46:10). Nothing outside of God limits His power. He is, however, self-limited. God cannot act contrary to His own nature or He would cease to be the God revealed in His Word. The God of the Bible is perfect in all of His attributes. He is perfectly holy, just, and true. His power is therefore always consistent with those attributes, always consistent with who He is, and there is no shadow of turning with Him (Jas. 1:17).

This idea of divine self-limitation is not speculative theology, it is revealed in the Bible in several places. It is perhaps most clear in the sixth chapter of Hebrews where the writer explains that God could not swear by any name greater than His own and that He cannot lie (Heb. 6:13-18). God does what He wills but always does it in a way that is true to who He is. The Bible reveals that not only is God sovereign, but He is also holy, righteous, and just (Is. 6:3, Is. 5:16, Job 37:23).

The perfection of God makes the atonement necessary because God cannot be righteous if He allows sin to go unpunished. Unlike Islam, which teaches that Allah can simply use his sovereign power to disregard the sinfulness of those he chooses and allow them into paradise, the Christian God does not undermine His own law (thus denying His holy character) in order to do so. God is so holy that any sin is a form of cosmic rebellion and if God did not punish such treason, His righteousness and justice are compromised.

Suppose that a man was a guilty of a brutal crime such as rape or murder and the evidence of his guilt was unquestioned. Now, suppose that the man is brought before a judge and despite the evidence, the judge decides to let him go. Not only does the judge let him go, but gives him great honors and comforts. We all agree this would be a great injustice and an unrighteous judgment. In the case of salvation, the offensiveness of the crime is far worse and the mercy of the court is a far more outrageous pardon.

This brings us to one of the most fundamental theological problems for fallen humankind. How is it possible for a holy, righteous God to save sinners without being unjust? How can God fulfill the promises He has made to rebellious sinners without compromising His own perfect character?

The answer is the Gospel. The apostle Paul explains in the letter to the Romans:

“…all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”  (Romans 3:23-26)

It was not enough for sinners simply to be pardoned; they must be justified in a way that is consistent with the righteousness of God. Since none are righteous and all have sinned the solution had to come from God (Rom. 3:10, Eph. 2:4-5), while the only appropriate representative to provide atonement had to be human (Rom. 5:15, 8:3-4). Therefore, God was pleased to offer salvation through faith in the God-man Jesus Christ. Our sins, however, are not simply ignored.

Notice what Paul says about this atoning sacrifice, “This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.” In order for the righteousness of God to remain uncompromised, He had to judge sin. The suffering of Christ was a demonstration of God’s holy wrath against sin so that no valid charge of injustice or unrighteousness can be made. This is why Paul says Christ is a “propitiation”, which means that He satisfies the wrath of God. All sin is therefore justly punished; the question is if Jesus pays for our sin or if we will have to pay the penalty ourselves.

Paul goes on to say, “It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”  Because of the atoning work of Jesus Christ, God is both just and the justifier of sinners. The cross is where God’s mercy and His justice come together.

The atonement is necessary in order to for a holy God to save sinners without compromising His justice. He does not act contrary to His own nature. Salvation is the result of God’s sovereignty, but not as an expression of brute power. Instead, God’s sovereign work in the salvation of sinners is a demonstration of His love and mercy.

The perfect balance of power and love that is expressed in the cross of Jesus Christ is not only a theological necessity but is a great comfort to believers. Since God’s righteousness, grace, and power are all perfectly displayed in Christ, we can look to the cross as assurance that God will keep His promises (Rom. 8:32). Christians are not hoping on the whim of a changing God for their salvation. We trust in the promises of a perfect, righteous, holy, and loving God who has already demonstrated His commitment to those whom He loves.

Is God a Bloodthirsty Killer?

As long ago as the year 177, the philosopher Celsus attacked Christianity using the argument that the Old Testament describes a murdering, bloodthirsty God who is very different from the loving, merciful God Christians like to talk about. The argument has remained in the arsenal of critics ever since. Steve Wells, the author of the Skeptics Annotated Bible, has been particularly influential in popularizing this argument on his blog Dwindling in Unbelief and in his book Drunk With Blood: God’s Killings in the Bible. Wells seems to take pleasure in the apparent shock value of comparing the number of people that God has killed or ordered killed vs. the number that Satan has. In his book Drunk With Blood, Wells explains his purpose in making these comparisons. On the first page he writes, “It is my hope that as God’s killings become better known, people will know better than to believe in the Bible.” According to Well’s calculations; God is responsible for 2,476,636 deaths in the Bible while Satan is responsible for 60. Wells argues that if the prophesies of Revelation are included, the Bible presents 24,634,205 scriptural deaths at the hand of God verses 60 at the hand of Satan.

Is Wells correct about these numbers? If so, is it a good argument against believing in the God of the Bible?

Wells uses estimates to develop the numbers, as the Bible often does not record exact figures in these cases. I have not bothered to evaluate the estimates but it is clear even from a cursory reading that the Bible attributes far more loss of human life to the agency or command of God than to anyone else. If this is shocking, it is only because of a deficiency in the popular understanding of God’s character and holiness. In fact, the actual number of deaths attributable to God is far higher than Wells estimates. Death is the result of God’s judgment of sin (Gen. 2:17, Rom. 5:12, Jas. 1:15). Every funeral home, every cemetery, and every mausoleum is a testimony to the sinfulness of humankind and the righteousness of God (Rom. 3:23, 6:23). It is therefore wise to live tempered by the knowledge that we too will die and face judgment (Eccl. 7:2, 11:9). The sovereign God determines when our earthly lives will end (1 Sam. 2:6, Job 14:5). Therefore, in an ultimate sense, God has taken the life of every person who has ever died.

Since Wells seems to be correct that God takes human life and even sometimes uses other humans to do so, is it true that God is immoral? Is his argument against Christianity persuasive?

Although it may have emotional appeal, it is not a very strong argument. As Dr. William Lane Craig observed, “it [is] ironic that atheists should often express such indignation at God’s commands, since on naturalism there’s no basis for thinking that objective moral values and duties exist at all and so [there is] no basis for regarding the Canaanite slaughter as wrong. As Doug Wilson has aptly said of the Canaanite slaughter from a naturalistic point of view, “The universe doesn’t care.” So at most, the non-theist can be alleging that biblical theists have a sort of inconsistency in affirming both the goodness of God and the historicity of the conquest of Canaan. It’s an internal problem for biblical theists, which is hardly grounds for moral outrage on the part of non-theists.”

The argument must assume some standard of morality by which to judge God. Atheistic materialism can support no such standard. Ironically, the standard often assumed is the moral standard derived from the Bible. If the argument is intended to charge God with moral inconsistency then it is necessary that each of the events be considered within the broader context of the biblical teaching.

First, the Bible teaches that God is the creator and His character is the source of truth, love, and justice. As a result, it is not possible to appeal to any moral standard outside of God without first denying the biblical understanding of who He is. It is impossible within a Christian worldview to define any moral standard apart from God Himself. God, Himself, is the ultimate basis upon which any judgment of truth or morals can be made. We simply have no standard by which we could judge what He Himself does. Whatsoever He does is assuredly just on the basis that He does it. On this basis, the argument ultimately degenerates into more basic questions of apologetics, namely, is the Bible true and does God exist.

Second, the most violent Old Testament events that these critics call attention to occur within a particular context within the broader story of God’s plan to redeem a people for His own glory. None of those whose life God takes was “innocent” or undeserving. Rather than be shocked by their judgment, we should be amazed at His patience with us. The transgression of men and women brought about curse and only the guilty fall under its power.

Furthermore, God in His gracious love has saved from this curse those who by faith are united to Christ who paid the penalty of death we deserved while we were still His enemies (Gal. 3:13, Rom. 5:8). Keep in mind that God repeatedly warns people that He will judge sin. The coming judgment is usually not immediate, giving people an opportunity to repent. Eventually, the judgment comes, but in each case, God spared a remnant of faithful people. These historical events are a foreshadowing of God’s final judgment and salvation. We do well to recognize that we are currently living in a period of restraint whereby we have an opportunity to join to the faithful remnant. It is because of God’s grace that He records His terrible judgments for our instruction.

God is not bloodthirsty but He is holy. Well's argument is only persuasive if we, who are sinners, are bold enough to put ourselves in a position to judge God rather than accepting His judgment and appealing to His loving mercy with faith and repentance.

Could He Have Called 10,000 Angels? Modality and the Mission of Christ

Ray Overholt had a successful career as a songwriter and performer; he was one of the original singing cowboys of the early television age and was the star of the Ray’s Roundup TV show. In time, Ray realized that the lifestyle of drinking and partying was empty and while still performing on the club circuit he decided to write a song about Christ. He knew that in order to write a song about Jesus he had to learn something about Him and his first serious exposure to the Bible was the reading he did as research for the song. After reading about the arrest and execution of Jesus, still not a believer, he wrote the song He Could Have Called 10,000 Angels. One evening, however, after singing the song at a church and listening to the sermon that followed, Overholt became a believer in Jesus Christ and accepted the message he had been proclaiming through his own song.

The song was inspired by Matthew 26:53-54 where Jesus rebukes Peter for cutting off the ear of one of the arresting officers saying, “Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” Overholt later said that he did not realize at the time that 12 legions would actually be around 72,000.

When we consider that a single angel was powerful enough to destroy an entire city (1 Chron. 21:15) and see what they are capable of in the book of Revelation we realize that anyone who commands a group of either 10,000 or 72,000 possesses unimaginable power. The point is that Rome, even had they assembled all of their legions, could not have taken Jesus by force. He went voluntarily. It is this willingness of Christ to refrain from using His power so that He might redeem men that Overholt captures in his famous song:

He could have called ten thousand angels

To destroy the world and set him free

He could have called ten thousand angels

But he died alone, for you and me

This raises an interesting theological question. Was it actually possible for Jesus to call for these angels and avoid the cross? Had He done so, all of the Old Testament promises and prophesies would have been invalidated and God’s word would have been false. If He could not do this, then it seems His claim is either incorrect or a lie. If that is true, He could not be who He claims to be and the promises of God have been invalidated and God’s word is false.

The word of God, however, stands on both accounts. We need to recognize that the terms “possible” and “impossible” function on multiple levels. As a result, certain things can be both possible and impossible depending on the sense of the terms. The study of statements and propositions about possibility, necessity, contingency, etc., is known as modal logic and is an important supporting discipline for theology and apologetics. One of the most important things to keep in mind when thinking about modal statements is the distinction between the real world and the world of concepts.

Many things in the real world could be different from the way they are. Anytime we are imagining a world where something is different than it actually is, we are no longer talking about the real world but are thinking about a conceptual world. Philosophers often refer to these conceptual worlds as “possible worlds”. There are an almost infinite number of possible worlds but only one, the real world, is actual. When we ask if something is “possible” we must distinguish between it being merely possible if the world were different, or possible in the actual world, given the way things are. The reason is that for something to be actually possible it must be conceptually possible but certain things that are conceptually possible are not actually possible.

There are certain things that are not possible in any world because they involve logical contradictions. For example, all triangles must have three sides. Triangles must have three sides in every possible world. Since a four-sided triangle is conceptually impossible, it is also actually impossible. Just because something is conceptually possible, however, does not mean that it actually exists. For example, it is conceptually possible that Bigfoot exists but as far as we know, he does not actually exist.

Of course, it is possible that Bigfoot could actually exist. He is both conceptually and actually possible. There are certain limitations within the actual world, however, that make it impossible for some things that are conceptually possible to be actually possible. For example, it is conceptually possible that someday a person could be born who had the ability of unaided flight. Human physiology, along with physical laws in operation in the real world, however, makes this an actual impossibility. Unaided human flight is therefore conceptually possible but actually impossible (we might say reality has an opportunity cost).

This brings us back to the statement of Jesus about calling the angels. If we look carefully, Jesus makes it clear that He is distinguishing between the actual world and a conceptual world. Jesus said:

“Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?”

In the first part of the statement, He is telling Peter that if He wanted to He could ask the Father who would send the angels. It is His choice to make. It is therefore conceptually possible for Jesus to have called upon the Father to send angels. The second part of the statement, however, begins with the word “but” and imposes certain limitations associated with the actual world. His mission was the redemption of humankind at the cross. His greatest desire was to fulfill the scriptures and submit to the will of the Father. Jesus and His sinless nature are a part of the real world. This creates certain limitations on which conceptual world He can possibly actualize.

Jesus is therefore telling the truth that it was possible for Him to call upon the Father but to actualize that choice is impossible, not because of any limitation placed upon Him from outside but because of His own identity and nature. God cannot lie and His word stands forever (Num. 23:19, Heb. 6:18) therefore there was no possibility that Jesus would actually call for those angels even though He had the power to do so.

The short answer then is that yes, it was possible for Jesus to do what He claimed but it was not possible for Him to do so and also accomplish His purposes. His faithfulness to the Father is why He overcomes at Gethsemane and why the Bible calls Him the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. It is the same reason that we can have complete confidence in our Savior to keep God’s promises to us.

Is The Bible Hearsay?

The testimony of the Bible is the foundation for the Christian faith. Many have argued, however, that the testimony the Bible gives is hearsay. As such, they argue that it would not even be admissible in court and is insufficient as testimonial evidence for anything it affirms. One of the best examples of this argument is found in the writing of the American revolutionary Thomas Paine who was one of the first to publish it widely for a popular audience. Paine is most famous for his pamphlets Common Sense and Rights of Man, but he also penned a theological treatise (arguing for Deism) called The Age of Reason where along with various other attacks on the Bible, he offers the hearsay argument against the Christian faith.

Paine writes, “But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it. It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.” (Paine, The Age of Reason, Section 1)

This argument goes right to the heart of the obligation of humankind to accept the Word of God and so it deserves an answer. A common Christian response is to offer an analysis of types of evidence and testimony, usually pointing out that in any case not all hearsay is inadmissible in court. Often, this is followed by evidence that the text of scripture is historically reliable and so forth. These responses may have their place but in this case, the response must address something more fundamental. Technically speaking the criticism is a straw man argument because although it might work on a popular level it does not properly address the Christian doctrine of how revelation through the Word of God functions.

The thrust of the argument is that we believe that God revealed certain information to prophets or apostles who then told others, either in person or through their writing. That, however, is not the Christian doctrine. Some modern theologians have argued that the Bible is the record of God’s revelation but the traditional Protestant view is not that the Bible is a record of revelation but that the Bible is revelation. This is a small distinction but it makes a massive difference.

Hearsay describes an indirect communication as when a person receives information that is at least one level removed from the source. The Christian view of revelation, however, is that the Bible is direct communication from God to those who read or hear it. We do not consider the Bible to be an indirect communication. We do not understand its accuracy to be dependent upon the veracity of Moses, Paul, or John. It is in every sense the Word of God and people are therefore under obligation to believe it. The Bible itself makes this claim in various places, perhaps most clearly in Paul’s 2^nd letter to Timothy. Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, says, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." (2 Tim 3:16 ESV) He is claiming unequivocally that God is the author of the Bible. The claims are not the claims of the apostles and prophets; they are the very claims of God. The transmission of the Bible is therefore a miraculous process whereby God reveals through rather than merely to His chosen messengers.

The written Word of God is therefore similar to the incarnate Word of God in that it is both human and divine. The scriptures are the thoughts of God expressed through human language and literature. The Bible is not merely a witness to revelation, nor does it only become revelation in encounter, or depend on the responses of men for its validity or its standing as revelation. The inspiration of its writing is not in the sense that God dictated each word but rather that the Holy Spirit influenced the mind of the human author such that he selected out of his own experience and vocabulary exactly those words that conveyed God’s message precisely. These human words are therefore properly God’s words though communicated through the particular style and vocabulary of the various human authors.

The message is not mediated to us through the prophets or apostles in the sense that it is a message they received and then give to us. Rather, the message is mediated directly to us through the work of God the Holy Spirit as His word is read or preached. As a result, anyone who has read the Bible, heard a scripture reading, or heard a faithful exposition of the Bible from a teacher or preachers has heard the very voice of God and is therefore under obligation to submit to it. If, as Paine argues, revelation is limited to the first communication then based upon a proper understanding of the doctrine of the Bible any who have heard the message have received direct testimony from God. They will therefore be responsible for their acceptance or rejection of it. 

The Transcendental Argument: A Follow Up

When I wrote the earlier article on the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (TAG), I was hoping to provide a simple explanation of what it is and how it works. I wanted to do this because it is an interesting argument but many people are unfamiliar with it. Because I wanted to keep things simple and there just is not a lot of room in a blog length article, I was not able to provide an example of the argument in the article itself. Instead, I explained what the argument was and how it works and then gave two examples of assertions that one might use TAG to argue for. I then linked to an example of a skilled apologist using the transcendental argument in a debate. If the reader did not listen to the debate or read the transcript then how to construct or use a transcendental argument might not have been obvious. Since I posted the article, I have had some feedback through conversation and the comments left on the site. In light of that feedback, I thought it might be helpful to write a follow up to clarify a couple of things.

First, I provided an explanation of how the argument works but I could have developed that a bit more. Second, there seems to be some question about what exactly this argument proves and what the function of rational arguments in general are in these cases. I will try and briefly address both of these issues. 

As I said in the previous post, a transcendental argument makes the logical claim that (A) is necessary for (B) to be the case therefore if (B) is the case, (A) must also be the case. If there are necessary preconditions for something that exists then the preconditions must also exist. To deny that is impossible. TAG works by showing that if (B) is true then it is undeniable that (A) is also true. This is how it works but it might be easier to understand if we flesh it out a bit more.

To begin with, to use this kind of argument you must have a good understanding of not only the facts and evidence that the unbeliever is using but also the basic ideas (presuppositions) they use when evaluating and interpreting facts and evidence. TAG highlights certain inconsistencies between those presuppositions and some process or assumption that is used by the unbeliever. The argument is used to show that the unbeliever accepts (B) but rejects (A) even though (B) is not possible without (A). Let us walk through an example.

An atheistic worldview presupposes that there is no reality outside of the material world. This means no purpose or design is governing the universe. Everything is random and evolved, the result of chance and the nature of material objects. Therefore, in an atheist world the laws of logic cannot have an existence that somehow goes beyond the minds in which they operate since there is no foundation in a random material universe for laws that are universal, unchanging, and necessary.

Of course, atheists unavoidably use logic but how can they explain it? Various attempts have been made by atheists to explain the laws of logic. They could be descriptions of the way that the neurons in our brains fire or of the chemical processing that takes place there. The problem here is that your brain is not mine and yet the laws of logic are universal not individual. Perhaps they are simply conventions that people have agreed upon, but that leaves the door open to the possibility that some people may decide they would rather use different laws. Unfortunately, logic is not that democratic. Since the laws of logic are necessary to all human thought and communication no such consensus could be achieved. If the current laws of logic are abandoned nothing-intelligible remains. They are not only commonly held but are necessary and unavoidable.

Maybe they are simply a description of the way that our minds have evolved to help us survive and they are universal because they derive from a common ancestor. If true, then they might have evolved differently and thus they are conventions even though not agreed upon. This would mean that at some point in the evolutionary process what is false today might have been true. If this is the case, then at one time a cat may have been identical to a walrus while being completely different from a walrus in every way and circles might have had four sides. Even the mechanisms of natural selection seem inadequate to explain how and why that could possibly be the case.

None of the materialistic solutions provides an adequate foundation for laws that are necessary, universal, and unchanging. The atheist is thereby challenged to explain how the standards they propose to use in evaluating the evidence (logic and reason) even exist. The Christian then proceeds to the formal argument:

(     A)   Theism is a necessary precondition for the existence of universal, necessary, and unchanging              entities such as the laws of logic.

(         

      B)   The laws of logic exist and they are universal, necessary, and unchanging.

(         

      C)   Therefore, theism is true.

The argument holds that the unbeliever cannot deny the truth of (B) and since an atheistic worldview cannot provide a reasonable and sufficient explanation of (B) without involving itself in a logical contradiction then (A) is undeniably true. The conclusion is that if you deny that God exists then thought itself is impossible. I hope that this explanation is a little easier to understand and is helpful to those who had questions.

Some of the comments also had to do with the effectiveness and use of the argument. One person wrote, “This proof is no more effective than the older ones. It maybe show problems with other systems but does not prove that the Christian God exists.” I replied that I agree it fails as a “proof” and that I did not think you could prove the existence of God using rational arguments to which another commenter replied, “I wouldn't say you cannot prove the existence of God through rational arguments. What other arguments are there, non-rational?”

Let me begin with the second comment first. I was not contrasting rational arguments with some other type of argument. My point was that there is no way for us to prove by evidence or argument that God exists. People do not reject God because of a lack of evidence or rational support. A spiritual not intellectual problem causes men to suppress the knowledge of God.

The particular weaknesses of TAG are technical, require a long explanation, and are beyond the scope of this post. (If you want more information on this, feel free to email me) This does not mean, however, that the argument is not useful. It is effective as a reductio argument. It demonstrates the inadequacy of atheism as a logically coherent system. Even if it is not a “proof” it can still be effective and we need not feel too bad about that. There are many things we cannot “prove”. For example, we cannot prove with certainty the existence of other minds or that we are not living in a constant dream state.

At the end of the day, TAG is interesting and a powerful tool for exposing the unbeliever’s position as irrational but it cannot change a heart. It cannot give new life. A fallen mind will always find sufficient reasons to reject the Truth. Arguments do not change people’s minds… only the Holy Spirit can do that. TAG cannot open hearts, only shut mouths.

The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God

(For more information see the Follow Up to this post)

One of the arguments for the existence of God that many Christians are unfamiliar with is the transcendental argument (TAG). Too often descriptions of this argument make it sound complicated but (like most philosophical arguments) it is generally understandable once you have the basic idea. Because it is such an interesting (and I think useful) argument I would encourage more Christians to be familiar with it. For that reason, I am going to attempt a simple explanation of what it is and how it works. If you are already familiar with all of this you can certainly find more detailed discussions about it elsewhere, but if you are not familiar with TAG I pray this will be helpful to you.

The term Transcendental Argument does not refer to any single argument, but rather to a particular type of argument. A transcendental is something that goes beyond (transcends) particular facts, thoughts, or knowledge but are necessary to them. A transcendental argument begins with a given fact or state of affairs and then argues from it for the truth of those conditions that are necessary for that fact or state of affairs to be the case. To put it another way, a transcendental argument makes the logical claim that (A) is necessary for (B) to be the case therefore if (B) is the case, (A) must also be the case.

Transcendental arguments for the existence of God are arguments for the impossibility of the contrary. They try to show that God must exist because if He did not the world we live in would be impossible. The argument attempts to demonstrate that the unbeliever, based on their own worldview, has no rational foundation for logic, mathematics, science, ethics, and other necessary preconditions for knowledge. By appealing to and/or utilizing any of these without being able to provide an adequate foundation for them the atheist is being inconsistent and therefore irrational. Rather than arguing with an unbeliever about the interpretation of any particular fact or evidence TAG challenges the unbeliever to explain how they can explain (on the basis of atheism) the very methods they want to use to evaluate facts and evidence to begin with.

Perhaps some examples would be helpful. Given the space constraints here I can only give a couple of extremely simplified examples but if you are interested in learning more I suggest you click on the recording below of the debate between Dr. Stein  and Dr. Bahnsen and pay attention to the way Dr. Bahnsen is arguing. This is a classic example of TAG by a skilled debater.

Example 1:

Unbelievers often try to use the problem of evil to argue against God but an atheistic system cannot provide any foundation for absolute moral judgments such as good or evil. By using the problem of evil, they are inappropriately importing a theistic concept into a worldview where it can have no logically consistent meaning.

Example 2:

 Many atheists love to talk about how logical they are and how illogical Christians are and all atheists use logic (it is impossible to think, know, or communicate anything without it) but an atheistic worldview cannot account for laws of thought that are necessary, universal, and unchanging. They may be able to show why laws of thought could be universal but not necessary or unchanging. Therefore, the very fact that atheists can think is inconsistent with their worldview.

There have been various criticisms against TAG but by far the most common is that it is simply begging the question. Despite the popularity of the accusation that TAG is simply an example of circular reasoning the criticism fails to distinguish between the assumption of first principals and the premises of a particular argument. Those who are interested can find an excellent explanation of why this accusation is an overstatement at James Anderson’s site HERE. The other criticisms are far less common and more sophisticated so I am not going to try and handle them here.

The bottom line is that the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God simply holds that the non-existence of God is impossible because without Him we have no adequate foundation for knowledge itself. It is a challenge to unbelievers to demonstrate how their worldview can support necessary, universal, and unchanging laws of thought and morality or how they can support the assumptions of causality and uniformity that science assumes. It argues that these things are ultimately dependent upon a theistic worldview and before unbelievers can argue against theism based on what they presume to know, they must first explain how it is that they can justify knowledge itself on the basis of their view. If you are interested in the Transcendental Argument then it will be well worth your time to watch the video below to see how Dr. Bahnsen develops and uses the argument against Dr. Stein.

The “Great” Stein, Bahnsen Debate

(if you do not see the embedded video above you can watch it HERE or you can download a transcript of the debate HERE)

Unhelpful Answers: "Everything Must Have a Cause"

One of the arguments that I have occasionally heard Christians use to defend their belief in a creator God is that “everything must have a cause”.  I have sometimes heard parents use this line of reasoning with their children and also in general conversation with one another. I suppose that it is not reasonable to expect everyone to be altogether precise in their everyday speech but when engaging in this kind of conversation slight variations in the use of the terms can completely change the conclusions that are drawn. Although we are burdened with many theologians and philosophers who seem to enjoy being virtually incoherent, good theological arguments are built upon clearly defined and consistently used terminology. Clear and consistent terms can often be the difference between a valid and fallacious argument. That is exactly the case when people make the statement that “everything must have a cause” in order to argue for God as the ultimate cause. If you take the time to think about it carefully you will quickly realize that there is a significant problem with this argument. It is an unhelpful answer.

The argument that God exists based upon the premise that everything must have a cause is a form of an argument known as the cosmological argument. Cosmological arguments are an attempt to prove the existence of God (or some other primary cause) by reasoning from the existence of the world back to its origin. The specific form of cosmological argument that is being attempted in this case is known as the Kalām argument which is an old argument that has been given new attention in recent years due to its use by the apologist William Lane Craig. The problem is that the proper form of the actual argument does not start with the premise that everything must have a cause. Rather, it begins with the premise that all effects must have a cause or anything that begins to exist must have a cause.

This may sound like a minor distinction but it is very important because if everything requires a cause then so does God. Clearly Christians do not believe that everything requires a cause. Only effects (caused things) require a cause. If the distinction is not made when using this kind of argument the logical conclusion will not be one that is supportive of the existence of God. In fact, those who argue against Christianity will often attribute to us this misstated version of the argument because it is easily defeated. For example, in his famous 1927 speech Why I am Not a Christian Bertrand Russell said the following:

If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all.

Bertrand Russell was an intelligent man so I find it difficult to believe that he lacked basic understanding of the argument. Whether he truly misunderstood the argument or was simply knocking down a straw man I do not know (although Dr. Coppleston did call him on it). What I do know is that the cosmological argument is not the same as elephants and tortoises but only if the argument is stated properly. When stated properly the question then becomes whether the world is an effect. Russell claims that there is no reason to believe that the world is an effect or that it had to have a beginning. Modern science disagrees with him. The evidence for the big bang suggests that there was a point at which the world began (just as Christians had always claimed). If, however, the world is an effect then it follows that there was a cause and so the argument proceeds. Since the consensus is now that the world had a definite beginning most modern atheists have shifted to claiming that energy, matter, or potential matter rather than the world itself are eternal. The debate continues.

We can therefore see that in order for this kind of argument to be useful to the Christian it is important that it be stated properly. Even when stated properly, however, there is a sense in which the argument is unhelpful depending upon what it is being used for. For a number of reasons that would require a separate discussion I am convinced that the argument fails as a logical proof for God’s existence. But even if I am incorrect and it does in fact demonstrate the existence of God, it cannot demonstrate the existence of the Christian God. Even if the argument “works” all it shows is that there is some force beyond the creation and there is nothing in this argument that would demonstrate that this “First Cause” is anything like the Judeo-Christian God.

Though it falls short as a “proof” it does show us some things and may be useful as a supplement to other (better) arguments for Christianity. It is important, however, that when using this argument that the premises are carefully stated. The often stated assertion that “everything must have a cause” actually argues against the Christian God rather than for Him.

Book Review: Greg L. Bahnsen, Presuppositional Apologetics- Stated and Defended

The story behind this book is quite remarkable. This book was supposed to be published many years ago. Dr. Greg Bahnsen wrote the draft and had even edited the galley proofs. The publisher was prepared to move ahead with publication pending final editing but then the edited galley proofs were inexplicably lost. Dr. Bahnsen was very busy at the time, the book could not be found and eventually the publisher could wait no longer and destroyed the plates. Normally that would be the end of the story. In this case, however, after Dr. Bahnsen’s death the envelope containing the edited proofs was found. It had fallen behind a cabinet in Dr. Bahnsen’s office and lay there undisturbed for years. Fortunately, the technological developments of the past couple of decades made it possible to proceed with publication even though the original plates had been destroyed. The proofs were scanned and converted to a publication format that was then edited by Joel McDurmon. So, we finally have the ability to read this “lost” book by Dr. Bahnsen.

The book is organized into two parts with three appendices that provide additional information that Bahnsen had edited out but that McDurmon has chosen to include as supplementary material. The first part is an explanation and defense of the presuppositional approach to apologetics in the tradition of Van Til. It is one of the best condensed yet thorough explanations of the Van Tillian approach that I can recall reading. It is certainly much more accessible than the writings of Van Til himself. Those familiar with Bahnsen and Van Til will likely find much of this material to be a review but people not familiar with Van Til or Bahnsen who are looking for a readable, but not overly simplistic, explanation of the how and why of their approach will benefit greatly from this book.

In part 1 Bahnsen explains why a presuppositional approach is required, gives biblical support for it, and discusses the method itself. As I said earlier, Dr. Bahnsen has taken the best of Van Til and organized it in a consistently logical expression that is accessible to non-scholars who are interested in philosophical apologetics. There are some areas where an understanding of basic principals of logic would be helpful to the reader but even these areas should be understandable with careful reading.

The highlight of part 1, however, was Bahnsen’s argument in the 3^rd chapter that epistemology is not primary over metaphysics and that the two cannot be divorced from one another. He argues that in constructing any theory of knowledge a person must assume certain metaphysical realities. Bahnsen then argues that since the sovereign God has revealed Himself to mankind an acceptance of proper (Christian) metaphysical and epistemological systems is fundamentally an issue of ethics. He says, “All men begin with genuine knowledge- true belief about the state of affairs and justification for that belief- and then proceed to use or misuse it. The beginning of philosophy is not a subjectivist guessing game but a matter of ethics.” The third chapter therefore provides the connection that is the theological and philosophical basis for the primacy of the transcendental argument as opposed to other forms of apologetics in his view.

The second part of the book is a critique of non-Van Tillian apologetic systems that claim to be presuppositional. In order to do this he specifically analyzes the apologetic methods of three other Reformed apologists and comments on a fourth that are often considered presuppositional. He examines in detail the systems of Gordon H. Clark, Edward J. Carnell, and Francis Schaeffer and then comments briefly on Ronald Nash. Bahnsen concludes that each of these other systems falls short of the standards of Biblical presuppositionalism and should ultimately be considered weakened forms of natural theology.

The criticisms that he offers are strongly colored by the influence of Van Til and in some cases they are a bit overreaching. He begins each critique by providing a number of quotes from each scholar that he agrees with and then he goes on to demonstrate how he thinks they were inconsistent in their commitment to those principals. In the cases of Clark and Schaeffer in particular, he ignores clarifying statements or definitions that would resolve the issues that he is pointing out. In other cases he is criticizing them for approaches that he himself uses even in this very book. Although there are cases where I think his analysis of these other apologists is unfair, I also think that he touches on legitimate weaknesses in the systems of each of these other men. He capably summarizes some of the best arguments against each those systems. Part 2 is particularly valuable in helping the reader to understand the Van Tillian perspective on other systems of Reformed apologetics. It is also a good starting point for critical examination of those systems if the reader is willing to evaluate the criticisms along with the respective responses to those criticisms made by those being criticized.

Overall this is a good book and I recommend it to anyone who is interested in apologetics in general or presuppositional apologetics in particular. Dr. Bahnsen has smoothed some of the rough edges off of Van Til and given us a clear and coherent description and defense of his system along with a Van Tillian perspective on other presuppositional approaches. Bahnsen was a first rate scholar, apologist, and writer. This book is no exception and although it was published years after it was written its material remains relevant. I expect that it will be a blessing and a resource to the Church for years to come.

Circles & Crosses

Circular arguments are usually an indication of sloppy thinking. As believers we are to be people of truth and should do our best to give honest and proper reasons for our conclusions and using fallacious arguments such as circular reasoning should be avoided. Not every situation, however, is the same. One of the areas where we are most likely to be accused of using circular logic is in our acceptance of Scripture as God’s word. A simplified exchange between a Christian and a non-Christian might go something like this:

Christian:         I believe the bible is God’s word.

Non-Christian: Why do you believe that?

Christian:         The bible claims that it is God’s word.

Non-Christian: That is circular reasoning!

Of course the non-Christian is absolutely correct, this is circular reasoning. That does not mean, however, that in this case the Christian is engaged in sloppy thinking. There is an important difference between this example and most others where circular logic would be unacceptable. The difference is that the Scripture is the authority or basis of reasoning that is the foundation of the Christian system of thought. It is, as Gordon Clark used to say, the axiom or starting point for all subsequent reasoning for believers. The old time theologians used to say that the scripture was norma normans non normata which is Latin for “the norm that norms but is not normed”. It means that the scripture establishes itself and does not rely upon anything else for its authority or legitimacy. It is the standard by which everything is judged and it is not itself judged.

Therefore within the framework of Christian faith an appeal to the truth of the bible to support the conclusion that the bible is true is an appeal to the foundational authority of Christianity itself. It is not simply an argument resulting from a logical progression but is rather a question of presuppositions. While those who reject the authority of scripture will not accept that the truth of the bible stands on its own, in fact, all systems of thought eventually must make a similar circular appeal to some unproven authority. There is no such thing as a purely objective approach to ideas.

If someone rejects the proposition that the bible is God’s word they are then forced to accept one of two alternative propositions; that the bible is not God’s word, or that the bible might not be God’s word. The first alternative suggests that the person has tested the scripture by some other authority and found it to fall short. The second alternative implies that it needs to be tested by some other authority so that a conclusion can be formed. This creates an interesting dilemma, however, because ultimately they are arguing that another authority be accepted in the place of the scripture but cannot demonstrate the superiority of that authority without appealing to it just as the Christian has done with the bible.

If the person appeals to some other alleged divine revelation such as the Koran, the mystical experience of a Buddhist monk, or the Bhagavad-Gita then they must show why their starting point is superior to that of the Christian. Of course they cannot do this without a circular appeal to their own chosen authority.

Perhaps, others would say that we need to evaluate the scriptural claim scientifically. Unfortunately this does not solve the problem because science has its own authoritative starting point. Scientific observations and judgments are built upon the authority of materialistic and empirical assumptions. Unfortunately for those who make an ultimate appeal to science, the primacy of empirical data cannot itself be demonstrated empirically so it is ultimately accepted by faith. Like the Christian and his or her bible it is an appeal to an assumed authority.

Ultimately any other historical or philosophical standard that is set up to evaluate the truth claim of the bible is elevating some other arbitrary authority above the word of God. There are plenty of other reasons to believe the teaching of the bible than its own claims about itself but it is its self-testimony (that we come to understand and believe through the enlightening work of The Spirit) that establishes it. It does not rely upon anything outside itself for its authority.

As believers we have a responsibility to think clearly and sloppy and circular logic should be avoided. Our acceptance of the bible as the true word of God, however, is not a conclusion based upon our reasoning from some other authority. When we reason backward from various conclusions to our dependence upon the truth of the bible we have arrived at the fountainhead. We cannot, and need not, go back any further. This is the foundation for all knowledge and truth. As Christians we do not have to feel intellectually inferior for our reliance on the bible. All systems choose their own starting points. We should boldly proclaim that God’s word stands in judgment over us and not us over it. We know that is true because the bible tells us so.

Gordon Clark's Scripturalsim: A Few Considerations

In a previous post on Dr. Clark I mentioned that his work always forces me to think more carefully about my own positions regardless of if I agree or disagree with his position. A brother in Christ who appreciates Dr. Clark but who is still growing in his understanding of philosophy asked me what positions of Clark I disagree with. He pointed out that there are not many readily accessible resources for reading Clark critically from a sympathetic perspective. Most of the information available is either strongly for or strongly against his system. Like Dr. Clark I would be classified philosophically as a rational presuppositionalist and would fall into the “Clarkian” camp on many issues, however, great men are men nonetheless and Dr. Clark’s system, like the work of all teachers, must not be accepted uncritically.

Before I give any critique of Clark’s Scripturalism let me say again what a blessing his work has been to me and that I think it deserves far more consideration than it is usually given. I should also point out that each of the weaknesses that I mention below are worthy of a great deal more examination and explanation than I give. My intention is simply to provide some thought starters for those who are interested in Dr. Clark’s philosophical position that he called Scripturalism (perhaps I will address his theology at some other time).

1)      Clark’s scripturalsim is founded upon the premise that all knowledge is restricted to the propositions in scripture or valid deductions from the propositions in scripture. Unfortunately, this proposition itself does not meet the necessary criteria to be knowledge in his system. There is no verse in scripture that claims that all knowledge is exclusively found in scripture and I have found no biblical teaching which necessarily entail this. Dr. Clark pointed to biblical verses such as Colossians 2:3 which states that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are found in Christ but the fact that all wisdom and knowledge are to be found in God (either Father or Son) is not surprising and it does not follow therefore that God chooses to impart knowledge solely through His Word. Clark pointed out many scriptural statements that extol the supremacy of the wisdom and knowledge found in the Word but the bible is not a philosophy textbook and any good exegete will recognize that these statements are not to be understood as technical epistemological pronouncements. They are better understood as arguing for supremacy as opposed to exclusivity. A case can be made that salvific knowledge comes exclusively through the Word (imparted directly or indirectly) but that does not exclude the possibility that knowledge of some things might be acquired through other means. Clark’s Scripturalism therefore does not clear the bar on its own first principal.

2)      If we can show that there is any certain, undeniable, knowledge that is not deduced from the axioms of scripture then Clark’s position would be defeated. Admittedly, he defines knowledge in such a way that would make this task extremely difficult. Nevertheless, I think that every person who is engaged in philosophical or theological thought necessarily, and undeniably, possess at least one type of knowledge of this sort, namely our knowledge of self. Augustine and later Descartes both arguing against skepticism famously demonstrated that one thing that can be proven without any doubt is ones own existence because it is impossible to question your own existence if you do not exist. Skepticism about ones own existence is self-defeating therefore, though we might each doubt if anyone else exists, we know that our own mind must necessarily and undeniably exist. I believe this is an issue for Clark’s Scripturalism because my existence (or yours) is neither a proposition of scripture nor can it be deduced from any proposition of scripture. Therefore, if I know I exist I must know it from some source outside of the bible. Dr. Clark addressed the question of self-knowledge by demonstrating (quite capably) that nobody really knows themselves. He points out that the collection of propositions that are attached to particular identities are not fully known even by those that they describe. This is all quite true, but also quite beside the point. Clark is correct that we do not possess perfect knowledge of self but whatever else we may not know about ourselves we can certainly know that our minds exist. If we know this, and it isn’t in the bible then Dr. Clark is wrong.

3)      Scripture itself appears to assume that certain types of knowledge are possible through observation (I am not arguing here for empiricism… the relationship of such observation and the rational processes are not detailed in the bible and warrant much more detailed discussion). The bible repeatedly talks about what we see and hear as the basis for knowing certain things. Obviously the text isn’t using the word “know” in a technical philosophical sense but the fact remains that certain conclusions are said to be drawn from certain observations. Dr. Clark often responded to this criticism by demonstrating that quite often the words “see” and “hear” in the bible do not refer to sensation. He is quite right about this and just like in modern English these terms usually mean to understand rather than having a reference to sensation (do you see what I am saying?). This being the case, however, it is not sufficient for him to demonstrate that in 20 or 30 examples this is the case and then claim that this must be sufficient for us to except that the hundreds of other instances follow the same pattern. If even a single example can be given that these words do in fact refer to sensory observation then Dr. Clark would have a problem. I submit that there are many such instances but I will give two. First is  2 Samuel 20:10, “But Amasa did not observe the sword that was in Joab's hand. So Joab struck him with it in the stomach and spilled his entrails to the ground without striking a second blow, and he died.” In this verse it was Amasa’s failure to know that Joab was armed due to a lack of observation that allowed Joab to get close enough to him to kill him with one blow. The second example is Matthew 24:32 “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near.” Jesus often appeals to things that the people who heard him already knew in order to then point them to another truth. Those to whom these words were first spoken would not have been able to deduce the lesson of the fig tree from any previous scripture. They would have known what Jesus was saying because they had observed through nature what He was describing.

I believe that there are other issues that might be pointed out but I think that these three are issues that anyone who is considering Clark’s position must carefully think through. If the good doctor were still with us he would no doubt have a clever and formidable response to these criticisms. As it stands, however, I do not recall in any of his books or classes that he fully and satisfactorily answers these questions (If I have missed it or forgotten it please let me know).

We can affirm that the Lord is the source of all knowledge and that His revelation of Himself in the Scriptures is epistemologically supreme without being so narrow as to exclude the possibility of knowing in any other way. The propositions of scripture are canonical in the purest sense. They alone serve as the standard for all potential knowledge. Any reasoning that contradicts them is unsound. I believe that Dr. Clark demonstrated the unreliability of many other forms of supposed knowledge showing that only scripture can offer certainty regarding what can be considered justified true belief. His arguments should be carefully considered but his solution to the problem of knowledge is not without its own difficulties.

Unhelpful Answers: Who Would Knowingly Die for a Lie?

Publications on Christian apologetics tend to serve a couple of different functions. Primarily they serve to aid people who already believe by addressing certain challenges to the faith thereby strengthening the believer’s confidence in what they already accept. This is one of the most valuable functions of the apologist, however, it is important that even when used in this way that the arguments are effective enough to hold up under rigorous examination. The average Christian may not require the most sophisticated formulation of an argument as would be used in formal apologetics but as children of the Truth we should still expect that they are arguments that work. Unfortunately some of the most popular arguments used in common conversation are not the most helpful or useful arguments when considered carefully.

One of these “unhelpful answers” as to why Christianity is true is the argument that it is very unlikely that you could get 11 people to knowingly die for a lie. I first recall reading this argument in Josh McDowell’s book More Than a Carpenter and since then I have seen it used by other apologists such as Lee Strobel etc, as well as many other well meaning Christians. The force of the argument is that most people will do whatever necessary to sustain their lives and it is therefore highly unlikely that you could get multiple people to all submit themselves to torture and ultimately death for something that they know to be a lie.

There are a few weaknesses to this argument but there is one in particular that I think disqualifies it as a serious apologetic defense. This is fundamentally an argument from probability. The person using this argument is saying that the odds of 11 people being willing to die for something they know to not be true is so highly improbable that it is more reasonable to assume that they were telling the truth. Taken in isolation as an abstract argument it seems on the surface to be reasonable. The problem is that if you use this argument then you must weigh the probability of those 11 people being willing to die for a lie against the probability that what they were saying is true.

In this case we have to ask which is more probable, that 11 people were willing to die for something they knew was not true or that God took upon Himself humanity, allowed Himself to be delivered over to sinful men, was crucified, and then resurrected Himself. To keep it simple let us just focus on a single element of the Christian message. What is the probability that a human being who has been dead for 3 days would come back from the dead? I agree with McDowell and others who claim that it is highly improbable that 11 people died for a lie, however, we must ask if that is more or less probable than one person coming back from the dead.

When taken together the various elements of the Christian gospel are far less probable than 11 people dying for something they know to not be true. Indeed, it is the uniqueness of what happened in Christ that is emphasized in the scriptures. The willingness of those men to die for the truth of the gospel is a testimony to the strength of their faith and an example to us of the commitment we are all called to. Their unwavering dedication to their Lord is therefore a powerful message for us but we should be careful not to rely upon it as a “proof” for the truth of the gospel. Our salvation rests upon us accepting that something that is tremendously improbable happened… that the almighty sovereign God of the universe sent His only begotten Son to die in our place and be raised from the dead so that His mercy and love might be demonstrated and His righteousness vindicated. We must admit that this is about the most unlikely thing that we could ever conceive of and yet we believe that this is exactly what happened. Let us pray that God would grant us the same commitment to that truth that He granted to the apostles by faith even unto death.

Unhelpful Answers: On the Incarnation

One of the most persistent criticisms of the Christian faith is that the incarnation is impossible and involves a logical contradiction. This criticism has been around since the time of the apostles and has been raised by Jews, Muslims, ancient Greek and modern philosophers, some theological liberals, and many others. The basis of this charge is the idea that the attributes of the divine and the attributes of the human are mutually exclusive and cannot exist together in the same person or entity. The divine is eternal, omniscient, immutable, and impassible whereas the human is temporal, limited in knowledge, subject to change, and passionate.

A common but unhelpful answer that Christians sometimes give (following Kierkegaard) is that the incarnation does involve a contradiction and that true faith requires accepting such contradictions. As we have frequently pointed out in other posts this is not an acceptable solution. If Christianity involves actual contradictions then it is necessarily false because something cannot be both true and false at the same time. While our faith certainly involves believing things that we cannot fully comprehend (beyond reason) we are never asked to believe things that are irrational (against reason).

If, however, we maintain that the Christian faith is logically coherent how do we respond to the assertion that the incarnation is contradictory and therefore impossible? The most popular response, known as the Kenotic view, is to explain that Christ emptied Himself of certain divine attributes when He came as a man. The chief support for this explanation comes from an incorrect interpretation of Philippians 2:5-7.

 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,  who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,  but made himself nothing [literally emptied himself], taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

(Philippians 2:5-7 ESV)

Despite the popularity of this explanation it has some rather serious problems. If Jesus relinquished divine attributes such as omniscience, omnipotence, etc. then either He ceased to be God while on Earth or those attributes that He gave up are not necessary attributes of divinity. If Jesus wasn’t fully God then obviously Christianity is false. On the other hand, if Jesus was God but was able to give up attributes such as eternality then they are not essential to God. If this is the case then the Christian understanding of God is incorrect and Christianity is false. The Kenotic view requires either a Christ that isn’t fully divine or a God that does not have the intrinsic attributes that the Bible attributes to Him.

A much better logical defense of the incarnation is given by the philosopher Thomas V. Morris in his book  The Logic of God Incarnate . We must realize that the Christian teaching is not that the infinite divine nature was encapsulated within a finite human nature (a common mischaracterization) but rather that the divine nature was united with a human nature. It is not that God laid aside His nature to become human but rather that in the Son humanity is added to the divine nature. A contradiction would arise if any of the essential properties of divinity and humanity were mutually exclusive. Morris argues that this isn’t the case.

First, Morris points out that there is a distinction between being something fully and being something merely. To be something fully is to possess all of the essential properties necessary to its being (an essential property is something that it must necessarily possess in order to be what it is). To be something merely is to possess the necessary properties to be a member of one particular class but does not possess the essential properties necessary to also belong to another class. For example, the Eiffel Tower is fully a radio broadcasting tower but it is not merely a radio broadcasting tower. It has all of the essential properties necessary to be a broadcasting tower but it also possesses other properties that give it a definitive identity as a symbol of Paris that other broadcast towers do not.

Morris then goes on to argue that the criticism of contradiction is the result of a failure to make an important distinction between common and essential properties. If something is an essential property it is necessary that all members of a particular class possess it. Common properties on the other hand are those properties that are generally possessed by any member of a particular class but are not necessary. For example, a human nature is an essential property of humans while arms are a common property. An entity without a human nature is by definition not a human but a person without arms is fully human though they lack something that is common to humans. Morris explains that just because every human possesses some property it does not follow that it is essential. He gives the example of being born within a certain number of miles from the surface of the Earth. Every human who has ever lived has been born on Earth (common property) but it is not necessary that this is the case. If a baby were born in a space station somewhere else in the solar system the child would still be a human being.

According to Morris, properties such as limited power, knowledge, and life span are common but not essential properties of humanity. If this is the case then there is no logical contradiction involved in God taking upon Himself humanity because a being that possessed all of the essential properties of both humanity and divinity would be fully divine and also fully, though not merely, human.

There are other arguments in Morris’ book that are problematic but his demonstration that the incarnation does not involve logical inconsistencies is brilliant. He shows us that there are reasonable responses to such criticisms that do not require abandoning the historical claims of the faith or a retreat into an irrational mystical faith emptied of doctrinal content. There is no reason to retreat from the faith in the face of critical arguments because they will all fail, just as they always have “for it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” (1 Cor. 1:20).

Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch

This post is a spin-off of a two part sermon on the reliability and Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch preached by Pastor Bill Connell at Grace Bible Church the past couple of weeks. The sermons are not necessary to an understanding of what is posted here but they provide support for the Mosaic authorship I am defending and can be heard here… part1, part2.

By far the most popular view of the authorship of the Pentateuch held outside of conservative circles over the past couple hundred years is known as the documentary or Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis. This is the view that what we now know as the Pentateuch, or first five books of the bible, are not the result of a single author such as Moses but rather they are an editorial compilation of works by a series of authors writing over a period of time. According to this theory these books; Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy in their current form date from many centuries after Moses lived and could not have been written by him as the text of the bible claims and are instead the work of a redactor, that is an editor that pieced together parts of other separate writings into a new form. There are many competing theories on the details of how and when this redaction was done and what the origin of his or her source material might have been but essentially the bottom line is that the claims for the date and authorship given in the text itself is unreliable.

This hypothesis developed as a result of applying source-criticism to those documents and identifying the fact that there are a number of different names used for God and that each of the names tended to be associated with a different view of God. Rather than seeing this as the work of a single author providing different emphasis to various aspects of God in a single literary work they saw this as evidence of separate authors. The most common delineation (though not always) was the identification of four separate sources known as J, E, D, and P respectively. The theory is that a series of later redactors (editors) known as R wove together documents written by JEDP to produce the Pentateuch we now have. The result is a quite cumbersome and sophisticated splicing of texts as the following illustration shows.

Once these scholars decided that Moses was not the author of the texts in questions and that a series of source documents were involved the next question became the question as to the date of the composition of those various documents and the final editing. As a result of various verses that they considered anachronistic, the scholars concluded that the source documents were written between 1,000 and 500 B.C. (depending upon the source) and that the final editing took place somewhere between 500 and 350 B.C.

To be sure there are a number of difficulties that those holding to a traditional view of Mosaic authorship have to contend with such as examples where cities are listed with names that, as far as we know, they did not have until later periods etc. Whatever those difficulties, however, there are plausible explanations for them that do not require jettisoning both the plain testimony of the books themselves as well as that of Christ and other biblical writers as to who wrote them. The various textual indicators supporting early authorship by Moses are strong and I would suggest that the development of these complex literary theories have more to do with a rejection of supernaturalism than with the historical or grammatical concerns of the text. Nevertheless, I would like to consider two of the passages that these scholars often point to as evidence that these books could not have been written by Moses.

Genesis 36:31

These are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom, before any king reigned over the Israelites.

(Genesis 36:31 ESV)

Critics point to this verse as evidence that Moses could not be the author of this text. The statement “before any king reigned over the Israelites” is seen to be conclusive evidence of late authorship because the monarchy was not established in Israel until the time of Saul (around 1,000 B.C.), between 300 and 500 years after the time of Moses. This verse does raise some interesting questions. How do those of us who believe that the predominance of the internal evidence of the text is in harmony with its own claims to have been written by Moses approach a text like this? Is this an unexplainable or irreconcilable problem for the traditional view?

Like any other verse of scripture we need to try and understand it through an analysis of its function in the broader context of the passage and book in which it appears being careful to ask appropriate observational questions pertaining to the historical, grammatical, and contextual elements that are included in it and surrounding it. In this case doing that leads to a conclusion that explains this seeming difficulty in a rather simple way.

God’s promise of redemption is the central theme developed in the Pentateuch and among the many developments of this promise in the text is that there would be a great king who would come and reign justly over his people. Moses, as a prophet looked forward to this coming king and as he recorded the development of an elective monarchy in the southern territory of Edom he no doubt had in mind the coming king who was promised for his own people. In the chapter just prior to the verse in question Moses recorded the promise given to his ancestor Jacob regarding this coming king.

And God said to him, “I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply. A nation and a company of nations shall come from you, and kings shall come from your own body.

(Genesis 35:11 ESV)

This was a reiteration of the earlier promise God had made to Abraham which Moses had recorded in chapter 17:

“Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you. And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.”

(Genesis 17:4-8 ESV)

The promise of a king coming out of Abraham, through Jacob, in the line of Judah (Gen. 49:10) was a promise that Moses was familiar with, recorded, and believed in. Although he did not witness the establishment of the monarchy in Israel it was an anticipated reality for him no less real than the promises of deliverance from Egyptian bondage for which he risked his life. Genesis 36:31 is simply a recognition that monarchy came to Edom before it was established (as it inevitably would be) in Israel.

Deuteronomy Chapter 34

Perhaps the most famous and obvious passage that critics use to support their view that Moses could not be the author of the Pentateuch is the 34^th chapter of Deuteronomy which records the death of Moses. Even the most conservative scholars admit that that this chapter could not come from the hand of Moses but they do not believe that this implies that the claim of Mosaic authorship for the rest of the law is also questionable.

If it is true that here we have an undoubted example of a redaction then how can we, who believe the traditional view, make a case that this example is an exception and not a clear example of the rule? The chapter begins with the following words:

Then Moses went up from the plains of Moab to Mount Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, which is opposite Jericho. And the LORD showed him all the land, Gilead as far as Dan, all Naphtali, the land of Ephraim and Manasseh, all the land of Judah as far as the western sea, the Negeb, and the Plain, that is, the Valley of Jericho the city of palm trees, as far as Zoar. And the LORD said to him, “This is the land of which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, ‘I will give it to your offspring.’ I have let you see it with your eyes, but you shall not go over there.” So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD, and he buried him in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Beth-peor; but no one knows the place of his burial to this day. Moses was 120 years old when he died. His eye was undimmed, and his vigor unabated. [8] And the people of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days. Then the days of weeping and mourning for Moses were ended.

(Deuteronomy 34:1-8 ESV)

Critics point out that not only did this have to be written at least 30 days after Moses died, thus clearly excluding him as the author since someone cannot record their own death, but also that the statement “no one knows the place of his burial to this day is another clue that this was written much later. What is often neglected is that the very next verse says And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands on him. So the people of Israel obeyed him and did as the LORD had commanded Moses.. As you read on into the book of Joshua it is clear that Joshua is to continue as the successor of Moses and was gifted by God with the wisdom to fulfill that commission. We know from Joshua 8:32 and 24:26 that Joshua was literate and was familiar with the writings of Moses so it is entirely plausible that under inspiration it was he who recorded the events in the 34^th chapter of Deuteronomy.

Conclusion

A person’s position on these issues will be essentially determined by the presuppositions that are brought to the text. If one believes that there can be no supernatural or prophetic utterances regarding future events then they will have difficulty with much of what appears in these first five books of the bible. There will be a natural desire to account for such statements by placing the author within later contexts where the events discussed are contemporary or at least more fully developed theologically in the contemporary writing or worship. If, however, we accept that certain allusions, such as Genesis 36:31, are consistent with prophetic wisdom bestowed by God then the number of difficulties diminishes quickly. If we maintain a supernatural outlook and accept the revelation of God as the foundation for our understanding of Truth then reconciling various textual emphases is much more straightforward and does not require complex literary theories.

We certainly agree that careful analysis of the text is an important discipline and some of what the critics have identified in the shifting vocabulary and focus of the various texts is valuable in that it helps us to identify shifts in the teaching segments within those works. We do not, however, have to assume that this is evidence of multiple authors that have been spliced together. Even many modern critics recognize that these texts function as coherent and complete literary units and the scattered sequencing of the documentary hypothesis is being challenged even by literary scholars who are unbelievers. Regarding stylistic shifts It is possible that Moses, like Luke, had access to other records and documents as he produced his inspired accounts but ultimately we accept the testimony of the books themselves and of Jesus that the first five books of the bible were the work of Moses.