The Resurrection of Jesus – A Miracle in One of Three Ways

The resurrection of Jesus Christ was a miracle. No matter if you believe in God or not, no matter if you’re a philosophical naturalist or a Christian, the account and effects of Jesus’ resurrection are truly miraculous.

Non-Christians may scoff at this claim, but let me explain. The resurrection is a miracle in one of three ways – it is either:

1. A biological miracle
2. A psychological miracle
3. A theological miracle

Before we continue, two quick points are necessary. First, options one and two above are purely natural-only explanations of the resurrection and therefore the definition of “miracle” in their case (a highly uncommon / out of the ordinary, but still natural occurrence) is different than the third option, where the Biblical definition of miracle applies.

Second, it is important to remember that no historical scholar – Christian or non-Christian – doubts the core facts surrounding the resurrection, which are:

• Jesus was crucified and buried.
• Three days after His death, His body went missing.
• There were reported appearances of Jesus over the course of 40 days to both believers and unbelievers.
• These individual’s lives were transformed from the appearances and they began to proclaim Christ’s resurrection even up to the point of being martyred for their proclamation.

These are the core facts of Jesus’ resurrection, and these facts are not in dispute with any educated historian, secular or religious. That being the case, let’s conduct a brief tour of each possible explanation of the resurrection and see where a philosophical appeal to the best explanation leads us.

A Biological Miracle

The biological miracle option asserts that Jesus didn’t actually die, but rather those conducting His execution only believed He was dead. Sometime after He was placed in the tomb – and against all biological and medical odds – He revived, emerged, and then presented Himself to His disciples as being raised from the dead.

Among skeptics, the biological miracle option is rarely, if ever, presented as an alternate theory to Christ’s Biblical resurrection account. In fact, a couple of decades ago, an article in the Journal of American Medical Associated stated: “Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge."[1]

The lack of popularity for this option is due to the following strong points that argue to the contrary:

• The New Testament specifically records that Jesus was beaten and scourged before His crucifixion; a procedure that history says caused the death of many condemned persons before they ever reached their appointed cross. The historical gospels also record that Jesus was so physically weakened from His scourging that He could not carry His cross to Golgotha (cf. Matt. 27:32); a clear sign of His failing condition.  
• The Romans were experts at carrying out crucifixions. They knew death well; in fact, the soldiers themselves were held liable if any victim sentenced to death happened to survive.
• John 19:34-34 describes a spear being thrust into Jesus’ side, with the description by John clearly showing a rupture of the pericardium, which would be instant death if a casualty had not already occurred via the crucifixion procedure.
• Jesus’ death was viewed by close eyewitnesses, friend and foe alike.
• After He was taken from the cross, He was wrapped in cloths and bathed in heavy spices by loving friends who certainly would have noticed if He was still alive.  
• For Jesus’ ruse to have occurred, He would need to revive in the tomb, push back the huge stone covering the mouth of His grave, overpower the Roman guards sent to protect the tomb (cf. Matt. 27:62-66), and then appear to His followers and skeptics.
• The disciples’ reaction to a clearly disfigured and crucified Jesus would have been much different than the accounts recorded in the four gospels of Jesus’ resurrection.

Lastly, the biological miracle option paints a picture of Jesus’ moral character that is markedly different than His portrayed life and teachings. It means that Jesus was not only a liar, but much worse. Not only would Jesus have deliberately deceived His disciples, but He would have remained in hiding while His disciples were arrested, tortured, and murdered for proclaiming His false resurrection.

For these reasons and others, the biological miracle option is highly unlikely, which is why it is literally never raised against the resurrection of Jesus.

A Psychological Miracle

The most popular argument among skeptics such as Richard Carrier and others is that a psychological miracle occurred among Jesus’ followers. Carrier writes, “I believe the best explanation, consistent with both scientific findings and the surviving evidence . . . is that the first Christians experienced hallucinations of the risen Christ, of one form or another. . . . In the ancient world, to experience supernatural manifestations of ghosts, gods, and wonders was not only accepted, but encouraged."[2]

However, when closely examined, the psychological miracle option groans and breaks under the weight of the following opposing arguments:

• To even get off the ground, the psychological miracle option needs and confirms an empty tomb. If the disciples and followers of Jesus were the ones experiencing hallucinations and being tricked into believing Christ was alive when He was not, then who stole the body? Certainly Jesus’ enemies would not have, and if the disciples didn’t, then who would have taken such risk to steal the corpse?
• A psychological miracle option – and specifically one that proposes hallucinations as the underlying cause – fails to account for the facts behind the appearances of Jesus. The appearances of Jesus are remarkable in that they occurred not just once, but multiple times; not just to one person, but to different persons; not just to individuals, but to groups of individuals; not just at one location, but at multiple locations; not just in one circumstance, but in multiple circumstances; not just to believers, but also to unbelievers, skeptics, and even enemies.
• Every account in the gospels showcases the fact that the disciples in no way expected Jesus to rise from the dead. In fact, they are clearly portrayed as being dull to the teaching of Jesus on His predicted resurrection. This fact is highly significant in that it shows how, mentally, they were not building themselves up to believe that their murdered leader would appear to them alive.
• Jewish belief only looked forward to a resurrection at the end of the world, with no one believing that anyone would be resurrected and remain alive before that appointed time (cf. Dan. 12:2). This fact further solidifies the argument that the disciples weren’t anticipating any return of Jesus.
• It is worth calling out distinctly, although it has already been mentioned, that skeptics and enemies of Jesus – including disbelieving members of His own family – claimed to see Him alive after His crucifixion. From a psychological perspective, these individuals had no reason to mentally concoct a false appearance of a person they didn’t believe in from the start.

Lastly, skeptics try to argue that one way the psychological miracle option could be powered is through cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce mental dissonance between reality and what they want reality to be, and so they change their attitudes, beliefs, or actions to conform to what they desire. Cynics say that the disciples so greatly wanted Jesus to be their Messiah that, after He was executed, they mentally adjusted themselves to compensate for their internal grief.

However, an argument of cognitive dissonance fails to explain the two core facts of the resurrection, which are the missing body and the appearances to skeptics and enemies of Jesus. Moreover, an argument can be made that the skeptics who doubt the resurrection of Jesus are simply suffering from cognitive dissonance themselves in arguing against the Biblical account.

Although popular, as can be seen above, the psychological miracle option suffers from too many drawbacks to seriously be considered as the best explanation for Jesus’ resurrection.

A Theological Miracle

The theological miracle option asserts that God raised Jesus from the dead. Unlike the first two options that are pure, naturalistic-only explanations, the theological miracle option does not omit a supernatural possibility. It allows a transcendent Creator to be part of the equation, which automatically permits true miracles, as C. S. Lewis says: “But if we admit God, must we admit Miracle? Indeed, indeed, you have no security against it. That is the bargain."[3]

The theological miracle option claims that the New Testament is true where the accounts of Jesus resurrection are concerned. It also affirms the writings of the early Church fathers where they discuss Christ’s resurrection, such as this quote from Polycarp (a disciple of John): “For they did not love the present age, but him who died for our benefit and for our sake was raised by God.”[4]

The primary reason this option is rejected by critics is because, following their anti-supernatural bias, they rule God out in an a priori manner. It is not a review of the evidence, but rather a commitment to naturalism that causes skeptics of the resurrection to exclude the theological miracle possibility.

However, when the thinking person steps back and reviews the universally accepted historiographical criteria used when examining a historical account such as explanatory power, explanatory scope, not being ad-hoc, plausibility, not contradicting accepted beliefs, and far exceeding its rival theories in meeting those conditions, the theological miracle emerges as the best possible option.

This being the case, the rational person can hardly be blamed if he/she concludes on the basis of the evidence and a commitment to unbiased historiographical investigation that a divine miracle occurred on that first Easter morning.

Summing up this position, Dr. Thomas Arnold, the former chair of modern history at Oxford and author of the well-respected three volume “History of Rome”, says: “I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead.”[5]

---

[1] “On the physical death of Jesus Christ”, Journal of American Medical Association, March 21, 1986.

[2] Richard Carrier, “The Spiritual Body of Christ” in The Empty Tomb, pg. 184.

[3] C. S. Lewis, Miracles, Harper Collins, 1974, pg. 169

[4] Letter to the Philippians, 9:2.

[5] Arnold, Thomas. Sermons on the Christian Life - Its Hopes, Its Fears, Its Close, sixth edition, London: T. Fellowes, 1859, pg. 324.

Must see video on the Atheist's "Reason Rally"

Interesting video on the recent "Reason Rally" held in DC. Also has a very interesting endorsement of infanticide by Richard Dawkins at the end:

What Militant Atheism and Islam have in Common

At first blush, they couldn’t seem more different. Atheism denies the existence of any supernatural deity, whereas Islam (whose name means ‘submission’) is monotheistic in nature and asserts a supreme supernatural god named Allah. Atheism denies any life beyond this world, while Islam teaches that those Muslims whose good works exceed their bad will spend eternity with Allah after life on earth, with both Muslims who lack works and non-Muslims being punished after death. And on it goes.

However, there is one thing that both the faith of atheism (yes, atheism is indeed a faith-based system) and Islam have in common: they aggressively do everything in their power to silence any voice that dares to challenge their ideology.

Now, to be fair, I must add a qualifier to both atheism and Islam in this regard. I have had dialogs with both atheists and Muslims who were very respectful, truly considered my arguments for Christianity, certainly respected my intelligence, and defended my right to voice an opinion that was contrary to their own. I have benefited greatly in discussions with such people, and appreciate their correcting me on inadequate arguments that I asked them to consider. 

By contrast, it is militant Islam and atheism (which I call hatetheism) that seeks to stifle any person that calls into question the validity of their worldview. 

The fact that militant Islam practices such a thing is no news to anyone remotely educated on that movement. One needs to look no further than the high-profile imprisonment of Youcef Nadarkhani who was arrested in 2009 for being a Christian and preaching Christianity in Iran. The formal charge labeled against pastor Youcef is blasphemy against Islam.

While militant Islam’s persecution against non-Muslims is widely acknowledged, what isn’t so well known is that hatetheism operates in the exact same way as militant Islam.

Hatetheism both insults and tries to humiliate anyone who professes faith in God, and does everything it can to silence those it considers its enemies. For example, comedian Bill Maher has openly stated that the opinions of religious people should not be respected, and has gone on to say: "We are a nation that is unenlightened because of religion. I do believe that. I think that religion stops people from thinking. . . . I think religion is a neurological disorder. . . . I am just embarrassed that it has been taken over by people like evangelicals, by people who do not believe in science and rationality.”^[1]

Sporting such a spirit, it is not surprising that hatetheism has no desire for any dialog with others who do not share its position. A case in point is the first “Reason Rally”, which is being held in Washington D.C. on March 24, 2012, with headliners like Richard Dawkins and other similar famous atheists being present.

When Tom Gilson, editor of the book True Reason, contacted David Silverman of American Atheists to inform them that Christians would be present at the Reason Rally, and were interested in having a respectful dialog with the atheist group with a formal debate between Dawkins and Christian apologist William Lane Craig also being proposed, he was told the following:

Make no mistake – you are not welcomed guests at the rally. We are not going to DC for ‘dialogue’ with people who believe ridiculous things – we are going to have fun with other like-minded people. Those who proselytize or interfere with our legal and well-deserved enjoyment will be escorted to the 1st Amendment pen by security, which will be plentiful, where you can stand with the Westborough [sic] Baptists and shout yourselves hoarse.

Spreading out among the crowd is not a substitute for a permit. Indeed, I will be meeting with the Parks Commission on Thursday to discuss how to handle your infiltrative permitless counter-protest.^[2]

While Silverman and his group have no problem erecting billboards during times such as Christmas and Easter that mock Christianity and thus insert themselves into Christians’ holidays, it appears they have no desire to have Christians ‘intrude’ into their events.

So much for being ‘free thinkers’.

One last illustration of hatetheism doing its best to silence its opponents is when supposed ‘neutral’ scientists, who are really devotees to philosophical naturalism, shut down any peer that dares to challenge certain teachings of evolution. A good example of this is the current legal case of David Coppedge vs. his former employer, NASA, who first demoted and then fired Coppedge after he shared DVD’s of intelligent design with some of his co-workers. 

Commenting on how aggressive the adherents to naturalism can be, paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen has stated, “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”^[3] Those knowing the history of this battle in academia will remember that Darwinian advocates only asked that their view be taught alongside intelligent design in the early 1900’s, but now they do everything in their power to shut the door in ID’s face. Noting the double standard in situations like this, Ravi Zacharias has said: “Is it not odd that whenever it has power, liberalism is anything but liberal, both in the area of religion and politics?" We can also add science to that list.

Christopher Hitchens once wrote that "All religions take care to silence or execute those who question them."^[4] I wonder if he would classify Darwinism as a religion then? 

I think most everyone would agree with the argument that the only reason a person should believe anything is because that particular ‘thing’ is true. If Islam is true, we should all be Muslims; if atheism is true, then we should all be atheists; and if Christianity is true, we should all be Christ followers.

But the fact is, sometimes people who say they are truth seekers aren’t interested in hearing the truth. There are other factors at work other than a commitment to what’s really true, and these influences can often bring together those who are otherwise enemies of each other. 

Without a doubt, militant Islam and hatetheism seem to have absolutely nothing in common. But when it comes to shutting down anyone who dares to oppose them, they couldn’t be more alike, and indeed make comfortable bedfellows.

Update (4/11/12): Another great example of philosophical naturalists trying to silence debate over evolution can be found here.  

---

[1] This last comment is especially absurd as the number of believing scientists, philosophers, historians, and other thinkers are legion.

[2] http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2012/03/reason-rally-organizer-says-no-dialogue/

[3] John Lennox, God’s Undertaker, Has Science Buried God, pg. 93. 
[4] Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great, pg. 125. 

Lawrence Krauss and the Atheist Definition of Nothing

Dr. Lawrence Krauss is a very well educated and intelligent man. There is no doubt his prowess in the area of science exceeds my own by an extremely wide margin, and I’ll be the first to admit that physics is certainly not my area of expertise.

But I have a bone to pick with Dr. Krauss about his latest book, “A Universe from Nothing”, which has the subtitle “Why there is something rather than nothing.” Those having taken an intro to philosophy class will recognize that Krauss’ subtitle is a rendition of the most basic philosophical question of existence, which has been attributed to truth seekers such as Gottfried Leibniz who asked, “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?”

You would think that by the title of Krauss’ book, he answers the question that Leibniz posed. But, he doesn’t. Instead, he redefines what ‘nothing’ is. ‘Nothing’ to Dr. Krauss would be empty space or the quantum vacuum. Neil DeGrasse Tyson who is an astrophysicist at the American Museum of Natural History says in his brief review of the book: “Nothing is not nothing. Nothing is something. That's how a cosmos can be spawned from the void -- a profound idea conveyed in A Universe From Nothing that unsettles some yet enlightens others. Meanwhile, it's just another day on the job for physicist Lawrence Krauss.”

Dictionary.com defines ‘nothing’ as:

1. no thing; not anything; naught: to say nothing.
2. no part, share, or trace (usually followed by of ): The house showed nothing of its former magnificence.
3. something that is nonexistent.
4. nonexistence; nothingness: The sound faded to nothing.

But, I think the best definition of ‘nothing’ is Aristotle’s: “Nothing is what rocks dream about.”

Why does Krauss attempt to redefine ‘nothing’? Because Krauss is an atheist, and a fairly acerbic one at that. He not only doesn’t believe in God, he doesn’t like God. But, this is the problem Krauss faces: If nothing is really nothing, and we have something (the universe) from a real nothing, then it points to the universe having a beginning. And has Stephen Hawking has observed, “Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.”

The problem is that empty space and/or the quantum vacuum aren’t nothing; they’re something. So Krauss’ book does absolutely ‘nothing’ to answer Leibniz’s question and leaves his readers no better off than they were where the issue of the origin of the universe is concerned.

All the scientific evidence points to the universe exploding out of true nothingness, but atheists like Krauss hate this truth. So they do their best to spin and redefine the facts to try and placate their worldview. As Dr. Robert Jastrow says, "Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence."

Yes, Dr. Lawrence Krauss is a very well educated and intelligent man. But he doesn’t know anything about nothing.

UPDATE: Read David Albert's review of Krauss' book in the New York Times. Pay special attention to the beginning and ending. 

The Spirit of Cain – Alive & Well

It’s rather depressing to realize that the first person born of human parents became a murderer.

“Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, “I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD”” (Genesis 4:1). Cain, whose name means “gotten one”, was the first person born with an inherited sin nature, and it wasn’t long before his evil came to light.

After Cain’s offering to God was rejected and his brother’s accepted, Scripture describes Cain’s actions very simply: “ And it came about when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him” (Genesis 4:8). The Bible gives us no real details about the event, but one thing we do know: Cain’s act was the first to showcase the spirit behind the murder of the innocent.

That spirit of Cain is, sadly, alive and well today, and is experienced with sickening frequency. But I think nothing manifests it more clearly than the evolution occurring right now in the area of abortion, which is quickly beginning to target more than just children in the womb. The fact that the world cherishes its ability to practice abortion has recently been demonstrated in a couple of situations that clearly reveal the double standard the pro-abortion movement uses to retain its deadly ‘right’.

A Double Standard with a Single (not so) Hidden Agenda

The first example occurred when the Susan Komen foundation dared to suspend its contribution to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood’s president, Cecile Richards, denounced the “thug” tactics that she said caused the Komen foundation to withdrawal its extremely modest amount from her organization. However, Richards was more than happy to employ her own bullying techniques via a social media campaign that resulted in Komen restoring its giving to her group, which rakes in millions from performing abortions.

The theme of Richards’ attack on Komen was that the supposed reduction in funds (quickly made up by other doners) would adversely impact women’s health, with abortion never being mentioned; only other various medical tests and such were publicly discussed as being threatened by Komen’s withdrawal. The outcry that women’s health programs were at risk was heard from coast to coast.

No such protest, however, is occurring with the recent decision of the Obama administration to stop funding a Texas health program that serves 130,000 low-income women.  Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is pulling the plug on the funding because of Texas’ law that bars abortion-affiliated clinics from getting public money.

As opposed to the very small amount of money Komen was giving Planned Parenthood, the amount of money being yanked from the Texas women’s program amounts to about $36 million, with Texas unable to say if they will be to keep the program afloat without federal aid.

Where are all the voices and media reporters who said women’s health was at risk with the Komen decision? Why aren’t they protesting what’s about to happen to the low-income Texas women whose size is far greater than that which would have been affected on the Planned Parenthood side with the Komen situation?

Their lips are sealed because the Komen complaint was never about women’s health; that was a lie. It was all about defeating any supposed threat to abortion. Because the Texas law  bars public funds from going to any programs, organizations or groups that are affiliated with abortions (even if they don't perform them), no one involved in the Komen protests seems to care that women’s health programs are going to be negatively affected by the Obama administration’s ruling.

The real bottom line? Women’s health programs are not things that the spirit of Cain cares about.

The Proposal of “After-Birth” Abortions

The second illustration of Cain’s spirit being not only alive and well, but flexing its muscles in ways that pro-abortion supporters swore would never happen is the just published article in the Journal of Medical Ethics by professors Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. The Journal’s abstract of the article explains the professor’s position better than I can, so let me quote it in its entirety:

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

This is infanticide, pure and simple, and is appearing in a peer-reviewed medical journal.

The authors conclude their article with this eye-opening statement: “However, if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.”

You read that correctly. It’s the authors’ opinion that if a baby is an economic, social or psychological ‘burden’ for the parents, they should be allowed to put the baby to death.

Now, many will rightly be taken aback by their opinion, however this progression or evolution in the abortion march should really surprise no one. A selfishness and self-centeredness that has no concern for taking a baby’s life that it cannot (or will not) see will not stop just because that life is fully out in the open if that child is thought to be a ‘burden’.

Cain’s spirit couldn’t care one way or the other, with early history showing this to be the case:

“Deformed infants shall be killed." – Cicero (106-43 B.C.)

“We drown children who at birth are weakly and abnormal" – Seneca (A.D. 65)

A woman should submit to abortion so the state does not become too populous. – Plato

“[There is] a limit fixed to the procreation of offspring. . . . Abortion must be practiced.” - Aristotle

In his book, “How Christianity Changed the World”, Alvin Schmidt discusses the finding of an inscription at Delphi that revealed a second-century population sample of six hundred families. Of them, only one percent had raised two daughters. Given that second-century people had no way to determine the gender of a baby prior to its birth, it’s not hard to figure out what happened to many baby girls in that society.

The Real Abortion War

Abortion is not a war of politics, rhetoric, and rights – it’s a spiritual war. It’s a spiritual war of two sides that have two fathers.

When God spoke to Satan in Genesis after the Fall, He disclosed the fact that there are two spiritual lineages that would develop: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel” (Genesis 3:15). Many know that the last part of the verse is the first prophecy in the Bible about the coming of Christ; that He would be struck by the enemy on the ‘heel’ (the cross), but that He would ultimately deliver the death blow to Satan at the same time.

However, the verse also reveals two “seeds” or family trees that are made up of Cain (the seed of the serpent) and Seth (the seed of the woman) who replaced Abel. Behind these two lines are two spiritual fathers with radically different agendas.

Cain’s spiritual father is Satan, who works within his children to bring about death. Jesus highlights this fact in a number of places when he faces off against Cain’s line:

“I speak the things which I have seen with My Father; therefore you also do the things which you heard from your father. . . . You are doing the deeds of your father. . . . You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him” (John 8:38, 41, 44).

John also speaks to Cain’s spiritual heritage when he says, “For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another; not as Cain, who was of the evil one and slew his brother” (1 John 3:11–12).

Cain’s spirit is the spirit of his father, and it is at work today in the things we see in the abortion debate. That lying spirit whispers in people’s ears that children are an impediment to a fulfilling life – something showcased in a paper written for Planned Parenthood by Dr. William Cates: “Abortion as treatment for unwanted pregnancy, the second sexually transmitted disease.”

It was also, sadly, seen in a statement made by President Obama: “But if they [his daughters] make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby.”[1]

On the other side we find God as the spiritual Father who says this about children: “Behold, children are a gift of the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward" (Psalm 127:3).

Quite a contrast, wouldn’t you say?

How do you defeat the spirit of Cain? Of course, Christians and others who believe in the sanctity of life need to make their voices heard and participate in the political process. However, as the nations continue their slide into a post-Christian culture, without a spiritual change, all we will be doing in the public arena is talking nonsense to the children of Cain who want to do the desire of their father.

The real victory over Cain’s war on children will be had when we obey and take seriously Christ’s command to go and make disciples of Cain’s world. A change of hearts will then bring about the change in spirit, which will bring a change in a country’s laws so that abortion will  one day only be a horrific memory.

---

[1] http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0803/29/bb.01.html

What we can learn from Good Christian Belles

The new ABC TV series “Good Christian Belles” or “GCB” originated from a book by Kim Gatlin, entitled “Good Christian Bitches”. ABC intended to air the series under its original name, but came under fire from several of its affiliates as well as a few women’s organizations, and so they renamed the show to something they considered less offensive. However, they stuck to the theme of Gatlin’s book, which follows the lives of professing Christian women who, in spectacular fashion, demonstrate they are anything but.

It goes without saying that had ABC substituted another category of women for the show – take your pick – “Muslim”, “Jewish”, “Lesbian”, etc., the show would have never seen the light of day. Predictably, though, some secular humanists are calling Christians who object to the series whiners, although one wonders how they would feel to have something they cherish mocked in such a way.

But this worldview that claims to cherish respect and tolerance and yet is blind to disrespect and intolerance aimed at those who don’t share its beliefs is to be expected. As noted Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias observes, "Is it not odd that whenever it has power, liberalism is anything but liberal, both in the area of religion and politics?"

But let’s look beyond this double standard and give some serious attention as to why shows like GCB appear in the first place.

By Your Standard of Measure…

In his book “Unchristian”, researcher and Barna group president David Kinnaman surveyed a wide U.S. demographic (those born between 1965 and 2002, which make up approximately 77% of the population) of non-Christians and found that only 3% had a positive impression of evangelical Christians.[1] Asked why they viewed Christians so negatively, 85% said it was because they believed that Christians were hypocrites; that they professed one thing and lived another.[2]

Just like the characters of Good Christian Belles.

Now, the question to ask is: are those surveyed by Kinnaman correct? Is the evangelical Christian community, by and large, one that is hypocritical in the things that it says and does? If it is, then it’s not surprising that we get openly called out by the world via things like ABC’s TV series. We can expect those in the world to assume the place of God in the statement made by Jesus, “By your standard of measure, it will be measured to you” (Matthew 7:2), and react negatively when they perceive a mismatch in the Christian’s talk and walk.  

The Biblical Mandate

So, just what is our standard in this area? Not surprisingly, the one showcased by Christ Himself. When Jesus was illegally put on trial by His opponents, they had a very tough time in one particular and crucial area: finding something with which to charge Him. Matthew tells us, “Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put Him to death. They did not find any, even though many false witnesses came forward” (Matthew 26:59-60).

Jesus came through His trials absolutely squeaky clean where His character was concerned. The rest of the New Testament holds this out as our standard as well, with just a few examples being:

 “Likewise urge the young men to be sensible; in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech which is beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us” (Titus 2:6–8).

“Who among you is wise and understanding? Let him show by his good behavior his deeds in the gentleness of wisdom” (James 3:13).

“Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation” (1 Peter 2:12).

“But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame” (1 Peter 3:15–16).

What happens when the Church doesn’t do this? We get tattooed by shows like Good Christian Belles, and God’s name is trampled on; something Paul talks about when he says: “You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one shall not steal, do you steal? You who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God? For "THE NAME OF GOD IS BLASPHEMED AMONG THE GENTILES BECAUSE OF YOU," just as it is written” (Romans 2:21-24).

Our Lesson

To be sure, the Church gets slandered and lied about on a regular basis, with the work of real saints being conveniently and consistently overlooked by the world. But if we’re to be honest, we sometimes get the treatment we deserve because we fail to follow Christ’s example and forget that, while many in the world won’t read the first four gospels in the New Testament, they definitely read the fifth gospel, which is the life that we live before them.

The atheistic philosopher Frederick Nietzsche once remarked, “I’ll believe in the Redeemer when the Christians look a little more redeemed.” Whether we like it or not, he’s got a point. Ravi Zacharias explains: "How do you communicate with a generation that listens with its eyes and thinks with its feelings? You will need an apologetic that is not merely heard, but is also seen. If my Christian life is not visible to my neighbor, no amount of prophetic utterance is going to convince that neighbor that Christianity is true. Is your life in private that which you claim in public?”

Ravi’s statement is very Biblical. When Paul came to the people of Thessalonica, he explains how he brought the gospel to them in this way: “For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake” (1 Thessalonians 1:5). Don’t miss that last part – Paul lived out Christ before them and “proved” among them the truth of the message he carried via the life he displayed each and every day in their midst.

Make no mistake – I don’t like Good Christian Belles at all. But I think it can serve as something we can learn from. As we protest the new ABC series, let us also look at ourselves, remember Jesus’ moral example, and recall the simple truth He gave us that would stop shows like this from ever appearing in the first place: "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 15:16).

---

[1] UnChristian, Kinnaman, 2007, pg. 25

[2] Ibid, pg. 28. 

Why Limited Atonement is Easy to Believe

Some long-time friends came over the other night for dinner, and since they’re fellow believers, we naturally discuss Christian-oriented topics when we get together. One of them teaches at a local Christian school and he was lamenting the fact that they had hired a Calvinist (gasp!) as one of the teachers. I shocked both him and his wife by disclosing the fact that I now embrace reformed theology. That revelation produced an awkward pause in the evening, followed next by some good discussion.

After some brief back and forth on the subject, they made the statement to me: “But Jesus died for everybody!” Such a claim is very common. Of all the doctrines of grace (i.e. the five points of Calvinism), the teaching of limited atonement seems to get people’s skin the most.

The doctrine of limited atonement says that Jesus only died for those whom God chose to be the Bride of His Son and no one else. To those unacquainted with the logic and theology behind the teaching, it creates lots of questions, and also produces what are called “four point Calvinists” (those who hold to every other doctrine in Calvinism except limited atonement).

I have what may sound like a shocking statement to make: Of all the doctrines of grace, I believe limited atonement is the easiest doctrine to affirm and embrace. Let me explain why.

Can’t Touch This

Dr. John Piper is somewhat famously known for remarking “My best friends are dead men.” What he means is that, when it comes to God-fearing, solid theological teaching, it’s hard to beat the works of people like Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, and others.

One dead (but present with the Lord) man Piper and I look to for wisdom and instruction is John Owen who wrote what is perhaps the most definitive work on Christ’s atonement in “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ”. In his book, Owen delivers what I believe is irrefutable logic on why Christ’s atonement must be limited. Let me quote the full section from his book and then work through it in parts:

“God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men. If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved . . . If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world. If the first, why then are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, ‘Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.’ But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins. Let them choose which part they will” (page 61).

The Options

“God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men.

Owen first lays out the options for the atonement. Either Jesus suffered on the cross for (1) all the sins of everyone; (2) all the sins of a particular group of people; (3) some of the sins of everyone.  He then proceeds to work through those possibilities.

Option 3 - Out

If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved.

Working backwards, Owen quickly discards the third option because, if everyone still has some sins that have not been atoned for, no one will stand in the presence of God and spend eternity with Him. I don’t know of anyone who disagrees with this.

Option 2 – What Reformed Teaching Affirms

If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world.

The second option Owen presents is what reformed theology embraces – that Jesus only died for God’s chosen people and took upon Himself all their sins. Such a position ensures the salvation of that group of people because all their sins were placed on Christ at the cross and they have nothing left to atone for. This is limited atonement.

The Start of Option 1 - a Good Question

If the first, why then are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins?

Option 1 is what the vast majority of Christians believe – that Jesus took upon Himself at the cross all the sins of everyone who ever lived or will live. But Owen asks a good question: if that’s the case, and it is sin that keeps people from God, then why isn’t everyone saved?

Teachers like Rob Bell and others who hold to universalism believe everyone is eventually saved; that “love wins” in the end and that no one will be lost. Part of their rationale is that Jesus did indeed die for the sins of everyone.

But outside of Bell and the universalists, no one believes everyone will be saved. This includes those not upholding the doctrine of limited atonement as reformed theology presents it. And it is these people that Owen addresses next.

Is Unbelief a Sin?

You will say, ‘Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.’

What keeps people from eternal life with God? Their unbelief, which is a fact affirmed by both reformed and non-reformed Christians alike. The ever-famous John 3:16 limits the atonement to only those who believe – a point that showcases the truth that all Christians really believe in limited atonement in one form or fashion.

But then Owen asks an important follow up question:

But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not?

This inquiry marks the beginning of the end for anyone who attempts to deny the reformed doctrine of limited atonement. The answer, of course, is yes. Paul flatly says, “whatever is not from faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23). The writer of Hebrew, describing faithless Israel, also says, “So we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief” (Heb. 3:19).

But Owen works through the possibilities nonetheless.

If not, why should they be punished for it?

If unbelief is not a sin, Owen says then there is no reason for it to bar anyone from God’s presence.

If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not.

If unbelief is a sin (and we have seen that it is), then it was either one of the sins that Christ died for or it was not. So either unbelieving people still have something to answer for to God or they don’t.

If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death?

This logical conclusion is the deathblow for anyone saying that Christ died for all the sins of everyone, but that unbelief keeps a person from eternal life with God. Owen says if unbelief is a sin, and if Christ died for ALL the sins of everyone born of human parents, then that sin must be included in the mix and labeled as one that Christ died for. Unbelief, as a sin, could not keep anyone from spending eternal life with God more than any other sin that Jesus paid for.

If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins.

If someone wants to say that Christ did not die for a person’s unbelief, and unbelief is a sin, then Jesus did not die for all his or her sins. Thus, a person cannot make the claim that Jesus died for all the sins of the world (with “world” being defined as every human being ever born).

Let them choose which part they will.

This is polite 17^th century language for victoriously exclaiming, “Checkmate!”

Owen has shut off all possible options for those who want to claim that Christ died and bore the sins for every human being, and yet still want to adhere to the (right) teaching that all will not be saved. With options 1 and 3 being untenable, the only option remaining is the reformed doctrine of limited atonement.

Easily Understood and Easily Embraced

A short while back, I taught a ten-week series on reformed theology at a very large Arminian mega-church. For many in the class, it was the first time they had ever heard the doctrines of grace presented in a systematic manner.

When we got to the section on limited atonement, I covered the doctrine in full, discussed the verses that are sometimes used to support an unlimited atonement, and then presented Owen’s defense of limited atonement. One person in the class admitted, “You said at the beginning that this is the most controversial of all the reformed teachings, but I think this just follows naturally, especially if the other points are true.”

I agree.

In his book entitled, “The Nature of the Atonement”, John McLeod Campbell explains how he came to understand that if the death of Christ was a penal substitution (i.e. Jesus dying in the place of others), a person has to deal with the issue of why everyone is not eventually saved. He admits that the only alternative becomes a limited atonement

Recounting the just covered John Owen‘s summary of the case, Campbell concludes, “As addressed to those who agree with him as to the nature of the atonement [as a penal substitution], while differing with him as to the extent of its reference [that it was intended for all sinners], this seems unanswerable.”

I agree again. Make no mistake about one thing: every sin committed in the history of humankind will be punished and paid for. The sin will either be paid for by Christ on the cross or in Hell by the unbeliever. God does not exact double punishment or payment for sin, once by Jesus on the cross and then by those who reject Christ in Hell. He only punishes once for sin.

The doctrine of limited atonement has definitely gotten a bad rap in Christendom, but I believe it’s actually the most easily embraced of the reformed doctrines. John Owen’s brief but powerful logic demonstrates this quite well I think.

Believing I can’t choose God on my own (the doctrine of total depravity)? Thinking that God chooses only those He desires for His Son’s Bride (election)? Affirming that God somehow ‘violates’ and overcomes my will and resistance to Him (irresistible grace)? I find those are things that cause more consternation in Christians than limited atonement.

Dr. James White speaks to the simplicity and beauty of limited atonement when he says, “In its simplest terms the Reformed belief is this: Christ’s death saves sinners. It does not make the salvation of sinners a mere possibility. It does not provide a theoretical atonement. . . .Christ’s death saves every single person that it was intended to save.”

Knowing that God never fails at anything, that makes sense to me.