Do not judge?

Recently Rob Bell, pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church, generated a firestorm with his upcoming book and interview. The book is titled Love Wins. In one particular interview Bell seems to dodge every question thrown at him. The overriding question being asked of Bell is, "Is Jesus the only way?"; Bell never answers. Why? It is my belief that Bell does not want to pronounce judgment or suggest that anyone will be condemned to hell. Christian universalism is the belief that all will eventually be saved by Jesus. Is Bell correct, if this is his view, and how are Christians to answer the judgment questions?

Jesus does indeed say that we should not be judgmental in Matthew 7:1. This judgment is a hypocritical judgment where one is solely wanting to tear someone down. It is also clear that as Christians we should not condemn anyone to hell, as this type of judgment is left only to God. However, Later on in Matthew chapter 7, Jesus tells his followers to enter through the narrow gate (vs. 13) and to watch out for false prophets (vs. 15). Both of these verses imply that Christians need to make certain judgments. God expects us to make judgments as James indicates, "You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God (James 4:4)." Hell itself is a choice. So, why does Bell not want to say that Jesus is the only way? Again, I suspect Bell wants to create the impression that part of God's nature does not involve judgment.

Being a loving God is just one aspect of God's nature. Being a just God is another aspect of God's nature. Will individuals who rebel against Jesus (sinners) be condemned to hell if they persist in their rebellion? Yes! This is the story from Genesis on, that sin separated all humans from a holy God. The other message, that gives us all hope appears early also (Genesis 3:15), in that redemption can occur through the promised messiah - Jesus. Hell is a reality that the bible describes as many choosing to go to (Matthew 7:13-14).
One of the problems of the "Emergent Movement" is the relativizing of truth. I believe one of the reasons Bell leans this way is because of his belief and many "Emergents" that you should never offend anyone. Jesus claimed to be the exclusive way (John 14:6) and he also stated that the truth of his message would be hated (Mark 13:13). Is Jesus the only way? Absolutely! Will the message of Jesus offend? Yes! Should Christians be offensive in how they present the gospel? Absolutely not!

There is an aspect of Bell and other "Emergents" that all Christians need to follow, and that is being aware of our Christian witness. Unfortunately many Christians come across as too judgmental. Many non-Christians view the Christian community as quick to condemn. This type of attitude only hinders the Christian's ability to dialogue with those who do not know Jesus. Jesus came full of grace and truth (John 1:14). Too many Christians get involved at one end of the spectrum or the other. In other words, some Christians are all about grace leaving truth by the wayside, while others are on the truth side abandoning God's grace that needs to be extended to all people.

Should Christians judge? It depends on the type of judgment being addressed. All followers of Christ would agree that judgments are required on a daily basis on how to live your life. The real question that Bell and others seem to have problems with is, "Should we throw God's truth out so as not to offend others?"

• To read a blog I did on the need for Grace and Truth click here.
• Rob Bell's promotional video for his book, Love Wins, can be found here.
• A review of Bell's book, Love Wins, can be found here. 
• To read what some (Southern Baptists) are saying about Bell and the emergent Movement click here.

Smith vs. Meek Debate: An Analysis

On March 17th, 2011, I was privileged to attend the Khalil Meek - Jay Smith debate on the topic of, "Which way America: The Bible or the Qur'an?"  Meek defended the Qur'an while Smith defended the Bible.  Being that I hold a Christian worldview, my view was biased in that direction.  However, I believe anyone listening to  the debate would say Smith clearly won.  The debate was won on the issues that Smith presented.  Even though I am biased toward the Christian worldview, I am not biased to the point where I would say the Christian always is the winner.  In fact, I have attended a debate concerning the existence of God where I believe the atheist actually won the debate.  So, why did Smith win the debate?

Smith was obviously much better prepared and actually had a better command of the the Qur'an than his Muslim counterpart.  Smith repeatedly challenged Meek concerning troubling passages of the Qur'an, in which Meek had no answer.  One of the telling points of the debate came near the end where Meek was trying to counter Smith's accusations of the verses within the Qur'an calling for violence and discrimination against Jews and Christians.  Meek answered by quoting various passages of the Qur'an to show how inclusive and loving all individuals need to be toward one another.  Smith then delivered a severe blow to Meek by saying that all the passages quoted by Meek were dealing with how Muslims are to treat fellow Muslims, and not how humans are to interact with one another in general.  In other words, Meek was never able to defend the troubling passages in the Qur'an dealing with calls of violence toward other non-Muslims.  Before proceeding further it should be noted that Smith had a tremendous handle of the Qur'an and the religion of Islam.  Smith was quoting the Qur'an and Bible at will, even giving Arabic translations of several key words within the Qur'an.  Smith was also at an advantage due to his numerous previous debates.  Smith even engages with radical Muslims on a weekly basis back home in London.

I would like to address some of the main points of the debate.  The debate can be listened to here.

1.  Smith was interested in defending the New Testament being that the Testament contains the story of Jesus and presents the Christian worldview.  Smith started by saying that he was going to compare the New Testament ethics with the Qur'an's.  He brought both holy books to the podium to compare and contrast what they say.

2.  Smith opened by presenting troubling passages within the Qur'an that deal with the treatment of women, Christians and Jews.  Meek did not address any of the troubling passages of Smith and instead would only quote passages of the Qur'an that dealt with relationships of how people should treat one another.  Remember, according to Smith, all the beautiful passages dealing with proper relationships of the Qur'an was only Muslim to Muslim relations.  Meek never countered Smith with troubling ethical passages within the New Testament.

3.  Toward the end of the debate the subject of violence came up.  The Crusades, Inquisition, and present and past terrorism was addressed.  The Crusades and inquisition were not really focused on, but the subject of which book promotes violence was.  Smith quoted several passages of the Qur'an calling for violence against non-Muslims.  Smith then quoted recent history (within the last 150 years) of Muslim violence against Christians and Jews.  Smith then caused quit a stir by asking for any recent violence of Christians against Muslims.  Several Muslims in the front row started saying, "What about Iraq or Afghanistan?"  Smith countered by saying these instances are state controlled situations and not a Christian response to Muslim communities.

4.  One of the issues I knew would come up dealt with the trustworthiness of the New Testament.  The only counter that Meek had was that scholars such as the "Jesus Seminar" and the early Church councils show that the New Testament can't be trusted.  This point caused many of the Christians within the room to moan, knowing that this was a very week argument.

5.  One of the interesting points of the debate revolved around how Meek viewed the John 14:6 passage.  Early in the debate, Meek said he believes everything Jesus said, but when confronted with the John passage, he said this refers to Jesus having a message from God just as Moses did.  In other words, Jesus was not claiming to be the exclusive way, but was saying his words are the way of God just as Moses words were the way of God.

6.  The issue of the Trinity came up toward the end of the debate.  Meek pointed out that it is impossible for God to die on the cross, for who is in charge of the universe at that point?   Meek also found it hard to believe that God could die.  Smith countered by listing verses within the the Old and New Testament that point to the Triune God.  Smith even countered Meek's point that God cannot be contained by quoting the Qur'an where God was located within the burning bush.

The debate was cordial from both sides.  Smith was very well versed in the Qur'an and Islam.  Even a casual observer would say that the debate was no contest.  One of the main points that I would like to emphasize is the openness of the debate.  Over and over again, Smith pointed out that this would not be the case in Muslim controlled countries.  I appreciated both Smith's and Meek's attitude during the debate toward one another.  They both had serious disagreements, but were willing to dialogue without ad hominen attacks.  I have listened to several Christians debate Muslims, but none that I have listened to have a command and knowledge of Islam like Smith.  Rarely do debates end up being a draw and this held true for the Smith - Meek debate.  Smith clearly won the debate and stayed on topic, while Meek constantly avoided the challenges of Smith.

• For more information of Jay Smith click here.

Get real

If Christianity is to be shown false it will occur when someone can show by the preponderance of the evidence that the empty tomb can be explained without a bodily resurrection.  Scholars are almost in universal agreement that Jesus was a historical figure, who died on a Roman cross, was buried in a known tomb, was reported missing from the tomb days later, and was reported to be seen by many.

What are the theories explaining this known information, and which theory has the best explanatory power?  I will consider some of the popular arguments and close with the theory that Jesus actually rose from the dead in bodily form.

1.  The Swoon Theory - The Swoon Theory has Jesus not dying on the cross, but resuscitating in the tomb. 

• This can't be a proper explanation as the Romans at the cross would have been held accountable if Jesus was not dead.  In fact, Roman law pronounced a death penalty for any soldier who does not make sure an individual dies on the cross.
•  Jesus legs were not broken showing the guards believed Jesus was already dead.
• Blood and water was reported to have flowed from Jesus body due to a spear thrust through his heart.  A spear through the heart = death.
• Jesus was buried in pounds of bandages and wrappings from head to toe.  It would have been impossible for him to breath and resuscitate.
• The disciples never would have followed a swooned Jesus.
• Jesus could never have overpowered the Roman guards.  Additionally, how does Jesus move the stone?
• There is no early story of a swooning Jesus.

2.  The Conspiracy Theory - The story of Jesus resurrection was a concoction of his disciples.

• Early Christians never believed the story to be an invention.  The Jewish culture was not one to believe in non-historical stories.
• It is hard to believe that fishermen could construct such an elaborate story.
• The Conspiracy Theory goes against the disciples character.
• Why would the disciples construct such a story knowing it would condemn them to hell and pronounce a death sentence upon them due to persecution?
• There is no way this lie could escape Jerusalem without being exposed by the Jewish people.
• The story of the bodily resurrection was early (1 Corinthians 15:3-8).
• How do you explain the empty tomb?

3.   The Hallucination Theory - The disciples merely hallucinated a resurrected Jesus.

• Hallucinations are not shared group experiences.
• Hallucinations are short (a few seconds) and never are prolonged, such as the disciples spending hours with Jesus.
• Hallucinations usually happen as a one time experience and never occur multiple times later.
• Early Jewish converts of Christianity would never have been convinced of a hallucinated Jesus.
• The Hallucination Theory does not match with the disciples character.
• Hallucinated persons can't be touched and they never eat (Luke 24:42-43; John 21:1-14).
• Hallucinations do not explain the empty tomb.

4.  Grief Related Hallucination Theory - Hallucinations where individuals are so grieved they project
     the person that is being grieved for.  Some say Paul was so grieved at persecuting Jesus that he
     hallucinated in seeing Jesus.

• The same problems apply for the Hallucination Theory.
• It is hard to believe that Paul, who thought he was serving God by persecuting Christians, would ever feel sorry for what he was doing, causing him to suddenly project Jesus out of grief.

5.  The Myth Theory - Similar to the Conspiracy Theory, the Myth Theory has subsequent  writers inventing a resurrected Jesus.

• The gospels don't read as myth, but as historical documents.
• There is not enough time for myth to develop.
• Anyone creating a myth in the 1st century never would have used women as the first discoverers of the resurrected Jesus, knowing that the testimony of women in 1st century Palestine was invalid.
• The writings of the New Testament were early enough that anyone could have countered them if they were myth.
• Myth goes against the Jewish culture.
• Why create a myth that would carry with it a certain death sentence?

6.  The Stolen Body Theory - The body of Jesus was stolen by his disciples.

• What motivation would cause the disciples to do this if they knew the resurrection story would bring certain persecution?
• The disciples were afraid after the death of Jesus.
• This is against the character of the disciples.
• How did the disciples get past the Roman guards?
• How did the Jewish disciples get away with this hoax in Jerusalem where Christianity was birthed?

7.  The Twin Theory - Jesus had a twin or someone who looked just like him who died on the cross.

• Wouldn't some have know it was an impostor who died on the cross?
• Wouldn't someone have known Jesus had a twin?
• How do you explain the empty tomb?

8.  The Alien Jesus Theory - This theory has Jesus as an alien who possessed advanced technology to make it appear that the resurrection took place.

• Ummmmm, really?

9.  The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Theory - Jesus bodily rose from the dead.

•  Prophesies exist to confirm the person of Jesus, even detailing the type of death he would receive (Psalm 22; Isaiah 53).
• The bodily resurrection explains the empty tomb.
• The bodily resurrection explains the encounters that numerous people had with Jesus.
• The bodily resurrection explains the times Jesus had physical contact after the resurrection (eating, being able to be touched).
• The resurrection was the earliest story (1 Corinthians 15:3-8).
• The resurrection story explains the changed lives of the disciples.  It is hard to believe that 1st century Jews who witnessed Jesus would be willing to die for a lie.
• In sum, the bodily resurrection of Jesus has the best explanatory power when all theories of the resurrection story are lined up.

• Much of the material derives from Kreeft and Tacelli's book, Handbook of Christian Apologetics.  To see more detailed information click here.

Is the New Testament Historically reliable?

You can't say that!

Anyone wanting to invent a religion would surely never say anything that might cause problems for your future devotes.  Would you want to have any embarrassing sayings?  Would you want to mention that the leader of your religion is ignorant in a certain area?  Would you want to have confusing statements that are not crystal clear to the masses?  The answer to all of these questions is, surely not!  If one is to invent a religion, it should be expected that the religion answers all questions, without embarrassment, and the leader(s) would be be completely above reproach and knowledgeable of all facts.

The above mentioned problems are exactly what we see in the New Testament.  Consider the problem of embarrassment.  In the 1st century, a woman's testimony was considered invalid, but yet we see that the discovers of the empty tomb of Jesus are all women (Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20).  Why would the writers of the gospels include this embarrassing situation?

What about ignorance?  Ignorance simply means to lack knowledge.  Most would agree that Jesus was not ignorant, but there is recorded an incident where Jesus lacked knowledge of an event.  When Jesus was speaking about the end times he said concerning this event, "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father (Matthew 24:36)."  Why would you want to include this fact of ignorance about the leader of your religion?

What about difficult statements?  One of the most bizarre statements of the New Testament occurs in Matthew 27:52-43.  In this passage Matthew notes that the tombs of Jerusalem were breaking open and holy saints of the past were entering the holy city.  This is the only mention in the entire New Testament of this event.  Why include this difficult statement if all you are trying to do is invent a religion?

What about Peter, one of the closest disciples of Jesus?  Peter is mentioned in the New Testament (Mark 14, John 18) as denying that he even knew Jesus.  Why would one want to include this character flaw of an early leader of the church?  How about the brother of Jesus, James?  James did not even believe in Jesus at one time (Mark 6:3), so why would anyone want to include this damaging statement?  Even Paul, the great apostle responsible for much of the New Testament and spread of Christianity said this, "For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing (Romans 7:19)."  Again, Paul says, "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst (1 Timothy 1:15)."  Why would anyone who is inventing a religion want to portray severe character flaws with the individual leaders of the movement?

The New Testament presents itself in an honest and open way.  If one is to make the charge that the New Testament is a later invention, then why do we have embarrassment, difficult passages, and ignorance from the founder of Christianity?  The New Testament documents can be trusted because of these difficulties that are included.  In other words, in trying to invent a religion, one would never have the damaging statements that are presented in the New Testament.  Instead, if a religion is invented, the leaders of the religion would be fluffed up without the appearance of any flaws.  The embarrassing and difficult passages of the New Testament only validates the fact that the writings cannot be an invented religion.

Anjem Choudary vs. David Wood: Would Sharia Help the West? (Debate)

Interview with Nabeel Qureshi

This is an interview of Dr. Nabeel Qureshi by Dr. Mike Licona.  Mike heads up the apologetics program of the North American Mission Board, which is a part of the Southern Baptist Convention.  I actually was able to spend some time in discussion with Nabeel one Summer at Biola, as we were both pursuing a Master's in Christian apologetics.  Not only did Nabeel provide a wealth of information on Islam, but he also had much to say on a variety of other apologetic topics in some of the classes we took together.  I encourage everyone to listen to this interview as Nabeel discusses his conversion to Christianity and a variety of issues that relate to the Islamic faith.  The interview can also be found on "Apologetics 315."  To listen to the interview, click here.