[HT: Dust and Clay]
Category Archives: Apologetics
N.T. Wright and the Problem of Hell
The more one listens to N.T. Wright give lectures on the topic of his new book and his strong desire to see the world put to rights by God in Jesus, the more you notice that even though much of what he says is true… he’s leaving one important topic out on purpose! In Wright’s recent Harvard lectures, found here, Bishop Wright clearly avoids talking about the topic of hell for a more positive picture of God putting the world to rights and bringing about justice through the work of Christians (along and others) in the here and now. [NOTE: I encourage everyone to listen to these free lectures in mp3 and consider the good things Bishop Wright has to say, but I want to point out that everyone needs to listen with discernment and not embrace all of Wright’s narrative.]
To be honest, this is probably the most disturbing item of disagreement that I have with the British New Testament scholar. I’m very concerned that his lecturing is going to help many people become more universalistic in their thinking and less explicit about worshipping Jesus as the one and only Saviour and Lord. Now, Bishop Wright always tells people that he is the world’s one, true Lord and Saviour, but that still does not help it when people in a postmodern culture reinterpret things so easily!
But the point of this post was to point out some good comments from another Christian pastor and writer, Doug Wilson. I encourage you to read his post here and consider what he has to say about N.T. Wright and others who seemingly marginalize the doctrine of Hell away to nothing. Below is an excerpt:
In his otherwise admirable book on evil, N.T. Wright makes the drastic mistake of leaving the subject of Hell entirely alone. But no matter how many helpful things you say, if you leave the really huge question out, then all you are really displaying is a real loss of proportion. “Well, other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?”
The questions that swirl around the issues of violence, pacifism, and the redistribution of mammon are all questions that tend to be summed up by those advocating their causes under this rubric as questions of “justice.” “No justice, no peace” the bumpersticker puts it. This is particularly the bent of the Christian left — the Jim Wallis, Ron Sider, Greg Boyd contingent. This is the myopic view of the Obama evangelicals, all singing that blues standard, “Lie to me!”
And they persist in acting as though you can define justice by taking an evangelical Christian and making him watch CNN for long enough. And lest anybody misunderstand me, I am not saying this because I think we ought to be learning from Fox News instead. No. We are to define justice exegetically (what does justice mean throughout the pages of Scripture?) and theologically (what are the ultimate displays of God’s justice?). We have done quite a bit of the former, and it is time for us to consider the latter.
Piper responds to President Obama
As everyone knows, our new President, over whom we have rejoiced, does not share this reverence for the beginning of human life. He is trapped and blinded by a culture of deceit. On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, he said, “We are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters.â€
To which I say . . .
- No, Mr. President, you are not protecting women’s health; you are authorizing the destruction of half a million tiny women every year.
- No, Mr. President, you are not protecting reproductive freedom; you are authorizing the destruction of freedom for a million helpless people every year.
- No, Mr. President, killing our children does not cease to be killing our children no matter how many times you call it a private family matter. Call it what you will, they are dead, and we have killed them. And you, Mr. President, would keep the killing legal.
Some of us wept with joy over the inauguration of the first African-American President. We will pray for you. And may God grant that there arises in your heart an amazed and happy reverence for the beginning of every human life.
[HT: James Grant]
Living Under a Pro-Choice President
John Piper discusses what it is like to be a pro-life Christian under a Pro-Choice President. He writes:
That is the title of a sermon I preached January 17, 1993, three days before Bill Clinton was inaugurated president. It is just as relevant—or more—today.
The text was 1 Peter 2:17, “Honor the king.†I closed with eight ways to honor a pro-choice president. The seventh was this:
We will honor you by expecting from you straightforward answers to straightforward questions. We would not expect this from a con-man, but we do expect it from an honorable man.
For example,
- Are you willing to explain why a baby’s right not to be killed is less important than a woman’s right not to be pregnant?
- Or are you willing to explain why most cities have laws forbidding cruelty to animals, but you oppose laws forbidding cruelty to human fetuses? Are they not at least living animals?
- Or are you willing to explain why government is unwilling to take away the so-called right to abortion on demand even though it harms the unborn child; yet government is increasingly willing to take away the right to smoke, precisely because it harms innocent non-smokers, killing 3,000 non-smokers a year from cancer and as many as 40,000 non-smokers a year from other diseases?
- And if you say that everything hangs on whether the fetus is a human child, are you willing to go before national television in the oval office and defend your support for the “Freedom of Choice Act†by holding in your hand a 21 week old fetus and explaining why this little one does not have the fundamental, moral, and constitutional right to life? Are you willing to say to parents in this church who lost a child at that age and held him in their hands, this being in your hands is not and was not a child with any rights of its own under God or under law?
Perhaps you have good answers to each of these questions. We will honor you by expecting you to defend your position forthrightly in the public eye.
You have immense power as President of the United States. To wield it against the protection of the unborn without giving a public accounting in view of moral and scientific reality would be dishonorable. We will honor you by expecting better.
[HT: James Grant]
Penn on Christian Evangelism and Hating People
Penn, from The Penn and Teller magic show, posted a video log on a recent experience he had with a Christian businessman after one of his shows. It is very telling and absolutely spot on. I encourage you to listen to it and see how you stand up in light of Penn’s analysis.
Note: Penn is a very loud and outspoken atheist and believes that much of “religion” is bad for the world. This video is simply amazing in light of what I’ve heard him say before about Christianity and other world religions.
Penn says:
I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. If you believe that there’s a heaven and hell, and people could be going to hell, and you think, ‘Well, it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward’… How much do you have to hate somebody not to proselytize?
[HT: Ed Stetzer]
Muslim Scholar Declares: “Muhammad Probably Never Existed”
Recently, Professor Muhammad Sven Kalisch, a convert to Islam and a scholar of Islamic theology, shocked the world by declaring that, based on his research, Muhammad probably never existed. (For the news about Kalisch, see “Muslim Academic Questions Muhammad’s Existence,” “Professor Hired for Outreach to Muslims Delivers a Jolt,” and “Scandal Exposes Islam’s Weakness.”)
Let’s start with the obvious. It’s quite common to find Muslim apologists appealing to the most radical, anti-Christian, atheistic writings in their attacks against Christianity. For instance, this past April, as James and I debated Jalal Abualrub, Jalal said that Christians don’t have any evidence that Jesus ever existed. Here he could only be basing such a claim on the hyperskeptical nonsense of some of the self-proclaimed “infidels” who write for the Secular Web. (Note: Some of the writers there are actually reasonable scholars–but not the ones who hold that Jesus was a myth.) The Jesus-myth theory has become quite popular in some circles, and Muslims seem quite happy with this (though I’m not sure why Muslims would be so delighted to hear that Jesus never existed; wouldn’t this refute Islam?).
But what happens when the same radical skepticism that has been applied to Christianity for the past two centuries is applied to Islam? Kalisch gives us the answer: Muhammad probably never existed.
D’Souza: Atheists Just Surfing the Wave of 9/11
Dinesh D’Souza was interviewed by Marcia Segelstein for our Salvo Magazine in “The Apologist.” An excerpt::
Segelstein: How has Islamic terrorism played into this new “missionary atheism”?
D’Souza: Quite simply, it is what has given atheists the confidence to market their claims. For a long time now, atheists have been accusing religion of being ignorant—of being unscientific and preferring blind faith over critical reason—but that could have been attributed to just harmless error. Atheists can now argue, however, that religious people are not merely ignorant; they’re also dangerous. Religion is not merely irrational; it’s also toxic. It sets man against man. It produces carnage. It causes people to fly planes into buildings after reading holy books. Atheists have been able to surf on the wave of 9/11 by generalizing the crimes committed in the name of Islam to crimes committed in the name of God. This has given modern atheism a certain sort of relevance, currency, and confidence.
The interview is worth your time. D’Souza lets Hitchens, Dawkins, and others get away with precious little. Hitchens, he notes, is not an atheist, but an “anti-theist.”
[HT: James M. Kushiner]
Did Jesus Die on the Cross? Or did God trick everyone?
[HT: David Wood]
CPX interview with Don Hagner
John Dickson of the Centre for Public Christianity (CPX) interviewed my friend and mentor, Donald Hagner, on various issues related to New Testament history. The interview has been chopped up into smaller bits each around 4 to 8 minutes long.
The interviewer was well prepared and asked excellent questions. He interacted with Don’s areas of expertise (the rabbinic model of oral tradition, the Gospel of Matthew, the apostolic fathers) and proposed questions that gave him an opportunity to answer common skeptical objections to the historicity of Jesus and the Gospels.
It will be evident, as you watch the interview, that Don does not subscribe to a doctrine of inerrancy such as that enshrined in the Chicago Statement. And yet he adopts a believing posture toward the New Testament as historically reliable and apostolic in origin.
Here are the video links below:
The apostle Paul: redneck or revolutionary?
How should we view the apostle Paul?Doubts about Jesus and the New Testament
Is the existence of Jesus in doubt?
History and faith
How does the Christian historian avoid
being a Christian apologist?Sources behind the gospels
Does the use of sources by the gospel
writers make their texts suspicious?ÂGospel of Matthew exposed. Part 1
A brief guide to Matthew’s gospel.Gospel of Matthew exposed. Part 2
How do scholars explain difficult passages
in MatthewGospel of Matthew exposed. Part 3
What are the major themes of Matthew’s gospel?How was the New Testament put together?
How did the ancient church choose which
books to include in the New Testament?Second Century Literature
Who were the key Christian writers in the
second century?
