Obviously, this shouldn’t minimize the fact that homosexuality is a sin, and gay marriage is a bad idea. However, I’ve written before that not all sin is the same, and that God Himself views some sins as worse sins than other things. And the fact is, abortion takes the life of an innocent human being without proper justification, and that is a much worse crime than homosexuals sleeping together. In fact, reading Romans 1, I conclude that rampant homosexual behavior is the result of God’s judgment on society itself, rather than the cause of that judgment.

Again, we cannot condone sinful behavior, and it is right for the church to oppose the mainstreaming of homosexuality. Nevertheless, it remains that our church today is failing to uphold Christ’s words in Matthew 23:23 (ESV): “These [minor things] you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.”

The problem that I see happening is this. Christian churches rise up with righteous indignation against homosexuality, and think that they have now done all that they need to do. Meanwhile, Christian families send their children into public schools where they are indoctrinated into a hedonistic worldview, where they can get an abortion to get rid of any messy consequences. They divorce their own spouses at a rate that rivals that of the secular masses (mainly because many of these Christian families are actually secular families that just happen to go to church). They become functionally indistinguishable from pagans, believing truth to be relative. In all this, they have a faith with no root, which persecution then causes to whither away.

I believe that homosexual advocates do have a valid argument, in that most who claim the name “Christian” do oppose homosexuals out of bigotry rather than out of what the Bible says. (Granted, these homosexual advocates believe the Bible itself is bigoted too, which I oppose.) I would be surprised if even a quarter of Christians who oppose homosexuality can actually quote a single passage of Scripture that addresses the topic—and if that is the case, then it just about has to be bigotry that motivates them to oppose it. Truly, if Christians had a Biblical worldview in the first place, they would have already seen the important issues affecting society as a whole long before Obama became America’s First Gay President (a label given to him by homosexual activist Andrew Sullivan). So to suddenly become concerned about Obama now really does smack of hypocrisy.

Naturally, that doesn’t mean that a Christian who is just now realizing that he has been living a double standard cannot become consistent in his beliefs. In fact, I would implore such Christians to do so. The best first step would be to actually read the Bible we have. There’s plenty of stuff in there that applies to our everyday lives right now, that show us how we should interact with our culture. The Greek and Roman culture that shaped the world that Christ lived in was worse than the culture we have by any objective standard, and living a righteous life enabled the church to flourish during that time.

Christians, do not call what is evil good, nor call what is good evil. Live your lives as holy, unto the Lord. Be prepared for the backlash, and stand up for the truth. That’s the formula for success in the Bible. But to do so requires consistent, constant living. It requires us not to be conformed to the image of the world, but to be transformed into His likeness. If bigotry has moved you to oppose evil, then exchange your bigotry for a truthful opposition to that evil. (You will be condemned either way so it is best not to allow them to condemn you for actual evil.) Do not just stand up against homosexual marriage as if that’s the worst thing that could happen to us. It’s not! Worse things are already condoned and need to be addressed.

The battle is not just against homosexual marriage. That, ultimately, is just a symptom. It’s the judgment of God being poured out on our society. The reason for that judgment is what we ultimately need to address, and that can only be done as we turn our hearts back to Christ.

1. If God does not exist, there are no objective, culture-transcending moral duties.

2. There are objective, culture-transcending moral duties.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Anderson then notes:

The argument doesn’t appear to be circular in that question-begging way. After all, there are many atheists who accept that there are objective moral duties (and plenty more who argue as though there are). Furthermore, a number of atheist philosophers have agreed with the first premise of the argument.

This raises a further question and invites a further refinement of our criteria for proofs. If atheists have granted both premises of the argument, and they recognize that the argument is logically valid, why don’t they accept the conclusion that God exists? The short answer is that few atheists would affirm both premises. Those who affirm premise one will typically deny premise two, and vice versa. The explanation for this, of course, is that anyone who accepts both premises is logically committed to the conclusion—and most atheists simply don’t want to accept the conclusion.

This particular point, I believe, is well-worth expanding on and repeating.

There are atheists who agree with either of the first two premises. This puts the argument in a very interesting place, and I think it makes it a very powerful argument. In a way, it is like arguing:

i) A = C
ii) B = C
iii) Therefore A = C.

Suppose that there were a group of people that disagreed with iii). These people would have to deny either i) or ii). Yet some of this group affirms i) and others of this group affirm ii). The only thing this group agrees on is that iii) is wrong.

That is essentially where the atheists are in the above example Anderson gives us. If we have atheists agreeing on each premise (though, obviously, not both at the same time), then that means that each premise by itself is not problematic even on atheistic grounds. They only become problematic for the atheist when both are affirmed. Yet there is enough evidence to convince some atheists that premise 1 is valid, and other atheists that premise 2 is valid.

Overall, therefore, it appears that there is sufficient evidence for the theist to conclude the question of the existence of God in the affirmative. We can use the evidence Atheist A uses for premise 1 and add it to the evidence that Atheist B uses for premise 2, agree with both, and affirm the conclusion. This presents the theist no problems at all. In fact, it would serve to put even more pressure on the atheist to demonstrate why he does not accept evidence for the premise he disagrees with, given that others who deny the existence of God affirm what they reject.

Seen in this light, the argument Anderson put forth truly is a remarkable apologetic affirming the existence of God.

Mormons often appeal to the emotional aspect of religion. In order to persuade Christians to become Mormons, they sometimes ask for the potential convert to try the test that Joseph Smith penned at the end of The Book of Mormon. In Moroni (the last book of the Book of Mormon), we read the following:

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things (Moroni 10:4-5).

A Mormon will, therefore, implore you to pray and ask God to reveal if these things are indeed true.

What is the problem with this? Doesn’t it seem like a reasonable thing to do, given that Christians are supposed to pray?

This technique has several problems, however. First, God has already given us revelation concerning who He is, and what He desires. The Bible is a sufficient and full guide for us. The Book of Mormon has made claims that directly contradict the Scriptures we already have, and then asks us to pray that God will reveal which is correct and which is not. But God already has revealed which is correct and which is not; namely, anything that contradicts Scripture is already not of God! There is, therefore, no need to pray that God will give you a special feeling so as to determine whether or not the Book of Mormon is valid. God already has given us Truth, and the Book of Mormon contradicts that.

You see, the Book of Mormon asserts that God will grant you knowledge that the Book of Mormon is true; but there is nothing outside of the Book of Mormon that says this is true. The moment that you pray the prayer, you have already assumed the Book of Mormon to be correct, and therefore assumed the Bible to be wrong. There is no actual testing involved, because it is already assumed that God will respond to such a prayer even though God Himself has never stated that He would answer that prayer. There is no reason, other than what is given in the Book of Mormon, to assume that God would answer such a prayer in the first place. Praying the prayer, in other words, is not a valid test of the Book of Mormon because one must already believe the Book of Mormon in order to do this test.

But there is another secondary issue that is hardly ever brought up. If you do pray this prayer and find that God has not revealed the Book of Mormon to be true, then the Mormon will simply say that you did not pray in faith. He would say that you did not approach with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ. But this is begging the question. You see, the way the Mormon has posed this test presupposes that the Book of Mormon is already true. In other words, the claim is that if you pray and God gives you a feeling of warm, fuzzy satisfaction, then Mormonism is right; but if God gives you a feeling that the Book of Mormon is wrong, then you do not have faith and therefore are unable to understand these things anyway.

Indeed, we read in previously in Moroni,

For behold, God hath said a man being evil cannot do that which is good; for if he offereth a gift, or prayeth unto God, except he shall do it with real intent it profiteth him nothing. For behold, it is not counted unto him for righteousness. For behold, if a man being evil giveth a gift, he doeth it grudgingly; wherefore it is counted unto him the same as if he had retrained the gift; wherefore he is counted evil before God. …Wherefore, a man being evil cannot do that which is good; neither will he give a good gift (Moroni 7:7-8, 10).

The challenge the Mormon gives is not a valid one to begin with. Regardless of what happens, the Mormon will say that he is proven right. Something that proves too much really proves nothing, and such is the case here.

To be sure, some Mormons have prayed that God show them whether or not the Book of Mormon is true and have indeed gotten a feeling that it is. However, the simple truth of the matter is that such a feeling doesn’t have to have come from God. Satan can produce a warm feeling in a person. He can make a person feel happy and pleased with something. Satan will do as much as he can to deceive people into thinking they are safe when they are not. He can appear as an angel of light, and he can appear in a vision pointing to another demon saying, “This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!” (Although, of course, I believe the evidence is strong that Joseph Smith was a conman who didn’t believe his own “revelation” anyway). Satan can even produce some false miracles. He can make you feel warm and fuzzy on the inside, if God allows him to do so. And why wouldn’t God allow him to if you already doubt God’s given revelation?

But the final straw for the Mormon position comes from the simple fact that they themselves do not actually believe anything because of a feeling that God has given them. We all know that feelings do not prove anything at all. It is simple to prove, even to a Mormon. Suppose a scantily clad woman walked up to a Mormon male and said, “God told me I was supposed to sleep with you. He said for you to pray and He would tell you if it was wrong.”

Let us suppose that the Mormon did pause and pray that God would give him a sign if he was supposed to have an affair with this woman. Suppose that he got a warm, fuzzy feeling on the inside and decided that God did want him to sleep with the woman. Would that make the affair moral for the Mormon?

Adultery is wrong, and Mormons and Christians agree on this principal. There is never an instance where God says, “I command you to commit adultery.” No Mormon bishop would allow people under his care to be persuaded by the argument that the woman was presenting.

What is the difference, therefore, between a woman coming up and offering her body and asking you to pray whether or not you should accept her offer and a man coming up, offering false doctrine, and asking you to pray whether or not you should accept? In both cases, God has already spoken as to what the moral response is. Any prayer that you give need not be answered, because it is an unnecessary prayer. Indeed, it is a sinful prayer based on denial of what God has already said (which, you may recall, is precisely the same temptation the serpent lured Adam and Eve with in the Garden).

The Mormon does not believe in the effectiveness of prayer giving you a feeling of what truth is any more than the Christian should. The ultimate proof of this is found in the canonization of Mormon Scripture. What need would there be for Scripture to be canonized for the Mormon if he could simply pray in every instance for God to give him a warm, fuzzy feeling about what to do? The very fact that the Book of Mormon exists disproves its final argument for its authority.

One of the charges critics of Christianity bring forth is the claim that it is impossible to know what the earliest manuscripts of the Bible really said. The argument is that just as corruption can occur during the game of Telephone, so too the Bible could have been corrupted. Yet is that the case when it comes to Scripture?

It is actually the exact opposite. We know the Bible has been accurately transmitted to us several ways. First, unlike the majority of historical texts and the events they witness to, there was a very short time between Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection and the writing of the New Testament. Most conservative scholars date the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) around 50-70 AD. Jesus died around 30 AD. This leaves a time gap of only 20-40 years from the death of Christ to the first written books chronicling His life.

This is important because it means that it was within the generation of those who had seen Him on earth, and that means that they could have verified or contradicted the stories about Christ since they would have known whether it had happened or not. In addition, since there were living witnesses at the time that the Gospels were put together, there was less time for legendary passages to appear in the text.

But the Gospels are not the earliest manuscripts about the truth of Christ’s life. Indeed, the letters of Paul are almost universally accepted as having been written before the Gospels. Paul was converted a mere two years after Christ’s death, according to most scholars—this puts him writing letters as early as 32 AD. Most agree that the latest he started writing was in the 40s or 50s.

1 Corinthians 15 quotes one of the earliest church creeds ever. Paul writes:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born (1 Cor. 15:3-8, NIV).

It is universally accepted, even amongst skeptics of the Christian faith, that the passages about Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection comes from an early church creed (see Lee Strobel, The Case For Christ, p 34-35). These creeds were written between 2-5 years after Christ’s death. In historical time, that’s a blink of an eye. For example, the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written more than four hundred years after Alexander’s death in 323 BC—yet they are considered to be generally trustworthy. The shorter the time gap between an event and when it is recorded, the less likely that it will fall prey to human error and legend. Therefore, the fact that the church creeds were written within the first 5 years or so of the Church’s existence is very important to consider, since it limits the amount of corruption that could have entered into the text.

Secondly, we have vast numbers of copies of the New Testament. This is also important because no original copy of the New Testament exists today. All we have are copies. So how do we know that the copies are accurate if we can’t view the original? Perhaps someone decided to change the original and that false copy was copied, right?

Thankfully, we are able to cross-check the various documents to see how they differ. There are thousands of Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Coptic translations. Indeed, the numbers are staggering. There are around 6,000 Greek manuscripts, 8-10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts, and 8,000 Ethiopic, Slavic, and Armenian manuscripts, for a total of around 24,000—for comparison, there are only 650 manuscripts of Homer’s Iliad, the book with the most manuscript copies after the New Testament. Comparing these thousands of texts yields astonishing consistency. It’s so amazing that Norman Geisler and William Nix said, “The New Testament, then, has not only survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer form than any other great book—a form that is 99.5 percent pure.” (See Geisler & Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, p. 367). It also must be noted that the variants (or discrepancies) between the texts are usually matters of word order (which doesn’t matter in Greek, since it is an inflected language) and spelling, and that no doctrine of Christianity is in jeopardy of having been corrupted by any of these minor errors in transmission.

Additionally, you will find the Bible quoted in many sources outside of the New Testament. In fact, if every single New Testament manuscript was destroyed, the entire Bible could still be reproduced from commentaries written by various theologians throughout the first millennium AD. This gives us even more manuscripts to test, to see how the text remained constant throughout.

With such a vast number of manuscripts available, it is relatively easy to look between them and extrapolate what the original text stated. With so many copies immediately being penned, it is impossible for someone to have corrupted the meaning of the text without it having been noticed during the lifetime of the author of the book. For instance, if the book of Mark has been radically altered to add in the resurrection (a claim some skeptics have made), every copy of Mark that did not contain that information had to have been tracked down and destroyed, while hundreds of documents that did contain that information must have been introduced in—all without Mark noticing that someone had added a resurrection into his account!

For these reasons, we can have supreme confidence that the Bible has been transmitted accurately to us through the generations. If one is to claim that our current Bibles contain errors, one must acknowledge such errors were in the original texts. The copies that we have demonstrate the faithfulness of the transmission of the text.

Sam Lucas was among the first to begin calling 911 about a wildfire burning near his home on the outskirts of Denver. But the dispatcher, having already answered a handful of calls about the fire, cut Lucas off to tell him it was a controlled burn and that the forest service was on the scene. “We got 79-mile-an-hour winds out there and they got a controlled burn?” Lucas said on the 911 call, one of 130 calls over a total of 10 hours that were released Tuesday. When the dispatcher says yes, he replies “Oh wonderful. Thank you.” Lucas hung up, and within an hour, he and his wife were dead.

…

A neighbor has said Lucas, 77, and his wife, Linda, 76, were packed and ready to go if they got orders to evacuate. Authorities say they did eventually get one but it’s not clear when.

(BTW: quick grammatical aside—I love the tense switch in the sentence beginning “When the dispatcher says” above. Before and after that point, the article is in past tense. That sentence decides, “Hey, I’m all about being in the present, yo” and switches it up. Is a journalism degree necessary to be an AP writer anymore? No? Just liberal bias? Drat. That still rules me out.)

Anyway, back on point. The story I quoted above actually does not surprise me much, other than the fact that Lucas was 77. If he was 27 it would make more sense to me, because people today, having been educated by government institutions, lack all common sense. They are dependent upon the government to make decisions for them. Apparently, this is bleeding through to the older generations too. The problem is, the government is incompetent.

Perhaps Lucas was simply naïve. Since we only have the written report here, we don’t know his tone of voice when he said “Oh wonderful. Thank you.” Perhaps he was relieved that it was no big deal and he believed what the bureaucrat said, instead of his own lying eyes. Nevertheless, he understood that when there are nearly 80 MPH gusts of wind one shouldn’t be lighting fires. In fact, he apparently had bags packed for the evacuation.

But here’s the thing. He didn’t have to wait for an evacuation order. He could have looked at the smoke and decided, “Let’s err on the side of caution.” Instead, he and his wife perished in the fire.

This actually gives an important lesson to us all, and it dovetails a bit on the post I put up yesterday on authority. Lucas trusted the government officials who said that he was safe, and it cost him his life. In a similar way, those who follow false religious leaders who give assurances that they know what’s best meet eternal fire. In the end, we are each held accountable. In life, it is our responsibility to ensure our safety—as a recent show I saw put it, the police are just a janitorial service to collect your body. Likewise, in the spiritual realm, we are accountable for what we believe. It is our responsibility to hold fast to the truth. If we trust in others to decide what we should believe, we are only as safe as the one we trust in is correct.

In many conversations with Mormons, the time comes when the Mormon asks a seemingly simple question: “By what authority do you believe what you say?” (And while this article deals mostly with Mormonism, I have also been asked the same question from Roman Catholics, so it is not unique to Mormons alone.) The question is motivated by the fact that people want assurance for their belief, especially as it relates to understanding what Scripture means. The Mormon Church stands up as a beacon in the land saying, “Here ye shall find your assurance!” And this does draw many people to that religion, without them even realizing that the answer to their original problem remains unanswered.

The Mormon remains in the same boat that the Christian is in when it comes to authority. Declarations of authority are not proof of that authority. It does not matter that there is a “living Prophet” for the Mormon—the individual Mormon believer is still left on his own trying to figure out what the First Presidency meant when it says something. The individual Mormon is still left with their own private interpretation of the decrees passed down by his leaders. It is still up to the Mormon himself to figure out what has been said, and he is still accountable to believe it.

The Christian holds to the Bible as being the sole infallible rule of faith in his life. This is because of the nature of what the Bible is. It is the very Word of God, and as such it cannot be broken. It is sufficient and it is a safe guide for the Christian. This idea, known as Sola Scriptura, is often attacked by religions that wish to elevate men above the Word of God. This is because, in order for them to gain authority for themselves, they must first tear down the authority of Scriptures. If there were no contradiction between the two, there would be no need to do this. As it is, the Mormon Prophet must destroy belief in the Bible as being a safe, infallible guide in order for him to announce things that go against Scripture.

But is the Prophet any more reliable for the Mormon? How does the Mormon know that the Prophet is teaching correct doctrine any more than, say, the Pope or Reverend Moon is? What assurance does the Mormon have in this regard?

The Mormon, of course, claims that Joseph Smith gained authority to do all that he did because of God. They say that Joseph Smith and his scribe, Oliver Cowdery, baptized each other (after being granted that authority by John the Baptist) to gain the Aaronic Priesthood. Then, later, they were visited by Peter, James, and John to gain access to the Melchizedek Priesthood. As a result, they had the “authority” to start their own church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

The Christian, however, asks what the original preachers of the Gospel did. What authority did they point to as they preached the Gospel to various groups?

One of the most important stories in the book of Acts comes in chapter seventeen. Paul came to Thessalonica and began to preach the Gospel. Verses two and three state how Paul did this: “And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, saying, ‘This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.’”

Paul reasoned with the Jews at Thessalonica for three weeks. How many of us have the patience to go through an entire hour reasoning with someone before just giving up, branding them a heretic? But more importantly than how long Paul took is what method Paul took. He did not reason with them by saying that he had received a special vision from God (although he had indeed). He did not reason with them saying that he had apostolic power (although he was an apostle). Instead, he “reasoned with them from the Scriptures.” He used the Scriptures that the Thessalonicans had, which would have been only the Old Testament.

And what was the result? “And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women. But the Jews, becoming jealous and taking along some wicked men from the market place, formed a mob and set the city in an uproar; and attacking the house of Jason, they were seeking to bring them out to the people” (verse 4-5).

Paul’s approach was met with mixed results. Some people were persuaded, especially the God-fearing Greeks and some of the leading women. But the Jews, who had the Scriptures in the first place, became jealous and attacked Paul instead.

So what happened to Paul? “The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews” (verse 10).

Paul and Silas had to flee Thessalonica because of the oppression. But did that change what they had been saying? Not one bit. As soon as they got to Berea, they immediately went to the synagogue once more. And what did they do this time? Did they, recognizing that the Scripture just “didn’t work” for persuading enough people, stop and say, “Hey, we’ve got apostolic authority here! Let’s use that!” Not at all. They continued using the same methods as before. And what was the result?

“Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men” (verses 11-12).

The Bereans were “more noble-minded” than the Thessalonicans. Why? Because they examined the Scriptures daily, in order to see if what Paul and Silas were preaching was in fact true. It is because they examined the Scriptures that they were persuaded that Paul and Silas were correct.

What is the point? The point is that never do we see any disciple of Christ preaching the Gospel by his own authority—it is always because of the authority of Scripture. Bear in mind that the Scriptures the Bereans had would not have included the New Testament. From the Old Testament alone, the early church had more than enough ammunition to present the Gospel clearly and logically, to such an extent that those who did search the Scriptures believed the message. And it was because they turned to Scripture, not to the authority of man, that they were considered “noble-minded.”

The same thing is true today. Christians do not preach a Gospel based on the authority of a man in Salt Lake City, or in Rome, or anywhere else on Earth. No, the authority by which we preach the Gospel is none other than the authority of the very Word of God, the Bible. This authority alone is all that is required to preach the Gospel.

And Paul did not change as time went on. When it came near for the time for him to die, he wrote to Timothy and stated, “All Scripture is inspired by God (literally, “God-breathed”) and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Not only did Paul say that Scripture was inspired by God, and therefore correct, but he said that Scripture was sufficient to make the man of God “adequate” (or as some translations have put it even better, “complete”), and “equipped for every good work.” There is no good work that a man can do that is not found detailed in Scripture.

What is the Christian’s authority to preach the Gospel, to baptize, to offer communion, to worship the LORD our God? It is nothing less than the statement of John 1:12, “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name.” The word that is translated as “right” is the Greek word exousia, which is the same word translated for “authority” (see Matthew 21:23, for example). In other words, this verse says that all who believe in Christ (that is, all who are Christians) have the “authority” of being a child of God.

Furthermore, there is no need for a priesthood in order for the Christian to have authority before God, for Revelation 1:5b-6 states, “To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood—and He made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.” All who believe in Christ are already priests unto God. Now we are not Aaronic priests or Melchizedek priests, or any other kind of priest that has to go out and make sacrifices—Christ alone suffices. Rather, we are all believer priests. We are the body of Christ, His Holy assembly, all the Elect of the world.

By what authority do Christians go forth and proclaim the Truth of the Scriptures? Nothing less than the authority of the very Scriptures themselves. The messenger is not important when the Gospel is proclaimed—the message is. Prophets are not special people who have been granted extra authority by God to reveal a message. No, the only authority that a Prophet has is by virtue of the fact that the message spoken is true. Any false message destroys the Prophet’s authority completely.

The authority of God’s Word is that God has spoken it. This is all the authority needed.

As most know, Sola Scriptura means Scripture Alone. As a theological term, it means that the Bible is our sole infallible rule of faith. Sola Scriptura does not mean that we have an exhaustive encyclopedia about reality in the Bible, but instead that we have a sufficient source of truth for everything that we need to be saved and to live a godly life. In other words, we don’t need to know how tall Amos was so the Bible doesn’t record it for us. Also equally true is the fact that we don’t need to know everything that Jesus did while He was here on Earth—what we have is sufficient to prove His claims about His deity. As a result, passages like John 21:25, which say that not everything was recorded in the Bible, do not disprove Sola Scriptura for Sola Scriptura never claims to be exhaustive in that manner.

It also does not claim to be the only rule of faith people can use to worship, etc. Instead, it claims to be the only infallible rule of faith. Having come from a Presbyterian background, I hold the Westminster Confession of Faith in high esteem, but it does not replace my Bible by becoming infallible itself—it is only correct as long as it is Biblically sound. Many other denominations use other rules of faith in how they conduct their church services and other functions. We have complete freedom to have various church functions that differ between denominations, as long as the standards we use conform to Biblical standards and we do all that God requires of us.

Sola Scriptura also does not mean that people will always interpret everything correctly either. Catholics often claim that Sola Scriptura is the cause of the many different denominations, but that is actually not true. The real culprit is the lack of people using Sola Scriptura, not Sola Scriptura itself! Is the problem that the Bible is unclear? Not hardly! Instead, the problem is caused when people allow their traditions to interpret Scripture. James White has given an analogy that works well here. If you have a printer manual that tells you everything you need to do to make your printer work and you ignore it and end up breaking your printer, is it the manual’s fault? Of course not—it is your own fault. The same is true of the Bible. If you do not study it and listen to what is says, it is your fault for any heresy you accept as valid.

So to wrap up our discussion on what Sola Scriptura is not, we see that Sola Scriptura does not say the Bible is an exhaustive source of all reality, nor that it is the only rule of faith people can use in church services, nor does it say people won’t twist Scripture through ignorance or evil intent. It does say the Bible is the infallible Word of God, and as such, if used correctly, it is a clear, safe, and sufficient guide for all Christians.

There is ample evidence that Christ existed in history and that He was worshipped as God by His followers, even apart from the word of Scripture. Many skeptics deny that there is any historical reference to the person of Jesus, but this is simply wrong. The skeptics have either not studied the truth, or they are seeking to suppress it, because it is obvious after any historical inquiry that Christ truly did exist.

Let’s start with evidence from those who had the job of preserving history—the historians from the day.

First century Roman historian Tacitus is considered one of the most accurate historians of the ancient world. He refers to Christ when he writes about the fire in Rome during Nero’s reign:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures of a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischevieous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular (Annals 15.44).

Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian (who reigned from 117-138 AD), made two references:

Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the city (Claudius, 25).

After the great fire at Rome…. Punishments were also inflected on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief.” (Nero, 16)

Another famous historian of the period was Flavius Josephus, who lived from around 37AD to 97 AD. In his “Antiquities” he wrote two passages of interest, the first referring to James as “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” (20:9). The second reference is more explicit, but is also controversial, for good reason:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. (Antiquities 18:3)

Josephus, a Jew, probably did not write all of this passage. Even the theologian Origen (about 185-254 AD) said that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Messiah (Contra Celsum, 1:47). However, Edwin M. Yamauchi, Ph.D., says of this text,

[T]oday there’s a remarkable consensus among both Jewish and Christian scholars that the passage as a whole is authentic, although there may be some interpolations…. That means early Christian copyists inserted some phrases that a Jewish writer like Josephus would not have written. For instance, the first line says, “About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man.” The phrase is not normally used of Jesus by Christians, so it seems authentic for Josephus. But the next phrase says, “if indeed one ought to call him a man.” This implies Jesus was more than human, which appears an interpolation (quoted in The Case For Christ, Strobel).

Another writer, from around 52 AD, was Thallus. None of his works are extant, but some fragments are preserved by other writers. One was Julius Africanus, who wrote about 221. He says:

On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun (Extant Writings, 18 in the Ante-Nicene Fathers).

Africanus identifies this darkness (or eclipse) with the darkness surrounding Christ’s death.

Pliny the Younger, a Roman author and administrator, wrote to the Emperor Trajan around 112 AD and said of Christians

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to do any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food-but food of an ordinary and innocent kind (Letters, 10:96).

This passage confirms that early Christians worshipped Christ as God, rather than having the “Godhood” of Christ added as legend at a later date.

The Talmud also records several references of Jesus. The ones of importance were compiled between 70 and 200 AD, during the so-called Tannatic Period. The most significant text is Sanhedrian 43a:

One the eve of Passover Yeshu (Jesus) was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.” But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover! (Babylonian Talmud)

This passage confirms the crucifixion, the time it occurred, and the fact that Jesus was accused of sorcery in regards to His miracles.

Mara Bar-Serapion, a Syrian, wrote to his son Serapion sometime between the late first and early third century and said:

What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samon gain from burning Pythagorans? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given (British Museum, Syriac ms, add. 14, 658; cited in Habermas, 200).

Besides these manuscripts, there are many other hinted at by other manuscripts. The Acts of Pontius Pilate are referred to by Justin Martyr in 150, and by Tertullian in 200. Justin Martyr wrote:

And the expression, “They pierced my hands and my feet,” was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in his hands and feet. And after he was crucified, they cast lots upon his vesture, and they that crucified him parted it among them. And that these things did happen you can ascertain from the “Acts” of Pontius Pilate (First Apology, 35).

It seems extremely unlikely that Martyr would have referred to a book that didn’t exist, or to a passage that didn’t exist in a book, since he was writing a defense of Christ and anyone at the time could have checked his sources.

Phlegon’s Chronicles are also referred to. He is cited by Origen (4:455) as saying, “Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails.” He also mentioned “the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquake which took place” (Origen, Contra Celsus, 14). Julius Africanus confirms the same passages.

The resulting, non-biblical passages show us the following points, as summarized by Norman Geisler:

(1) Jesus was from Nazareth; (2) he lived a wise and virtuous life; (3) he was crucified in Palestine under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius Caesar at Passover time, being considered the Jewish king; (4) he was believed by his disciples to have been raised from the dead three days later; (5) his enemies acknowledged that he performed unusual feats they called “sorcery”; (6) his small band of disciples multiplied rapidly, spreading even as far as Rome; (7) his disciples denied polytheism, lived moral lives, and worshipped Christ as Divine. This picture confirms the view of Christ presented in the New Testament Gospels (Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics).

It is not by accident that the first time my own Arminian ideas were questioned came at the hands of an atheist. (Yes, I was at one point in time an Arminian.) You see, atheists, for all their incorrect assumptions about God, are not stupid people. They can see a fatal flaw in Christianity if ever there was one.

Well, there isn’t one. But I found that as an Arminian, I could not adequately defend Christianity. For the Calvinist, there is little surprise as to why I could not—I couldn’t defend Christianity when I was an Arminian because Arminianism is self-contradictory. Of course, I do not expect Arminians to agree with this. Yet my own experience convinces me that it is impossible to defend Arminianism under the close scrutiny of a logic-oriented atheist.

Given this, it is little wonder to me that so many Arminian Christians flee debates with atheists. Indeed, looking at the many Arminian websites around the net today, they are almost exclusively oriented toward attacking Calvinism rather than toward defending the faith against atheists. Could it be that their own thinking shows us flaws in the Arminian system of salvation and because they know these flaws are there, they do not feel comfortable talking to atheists?

Atheists are quick to jump on Arminians, and it’s easier to do so because Arminians are wrong. Since most Christians in America today are Arminians it is no wonder that atheists seem to be gaining the upper hand in much of the scholarly debate.

The simple fact of the matter is this: Atheists can defeat Arminianism. But atheists cannot defeat Calvinism. Why? I claim that it is ultimately because Calvinism is right and Arminianism is wrong.

Yet it is one thing to claim and another thing to prove. Therefore, I shall spend the next bit of this post demonstrating the illogical beliefs at work in Arminianism. These points will not apply to every single Arminian across the board. There is a wide range of belief. In fact, Arminians are still undecided as to whether or not you can lose your salvation. But I am looking at the views of Arminians I have debated and read from. My aim is to accurately portray modern Arminian thought (as opposed to what Arminius himself taught—which is often vastly different than modern Arminianism) since there are far more of these types of Arminians than the so-called Classical Arminians.

“If God is sovereign, then you cannot have free will.”

During a high school trip, one of my atheistic friends (Nate) said those words to me. I, like any other typical Arminian Christian, quickly jumped at him with the usual, “Yes there is!”

So Nate offered an example. “Suppose that I have a hamster in my hand. I am completely sovereign because the hamster must do what I demand it to do. If I put it down on a table, it can now make free choices, but I am no longer sovereign, because I cannot determine what the hamster will do.”

It was the first time I had heard such an argument. Try as I might, I couldn’t think of a way out of that simple argument. Could it be that there was no such thing as free will, or was it that God was not sovereign? But didn’t all the preachers and theological writers of the time proclaim that we had free will and God was sovereign? I had heard a sermon in the local community where the pastor said, “God will never violate your free will” yet this same pastor also said he believed that God was sovereign. So, how could I defend this position?

The problem arose because I couldn’t. Here’s why. What I thought of as freedom was really autonomy. And if His creation has autonomy, God had no sovereignty. It is precisely this confusion of terms that led atheist Nate to his attack on Christianity.

Autonomy—literally: self-law. Theologically: absolute freedom to do as one wishes.

The most common understanding of what it means to have free will renders God as kind of a nebulous spectator watching the world. Most Christians today feel that God doesn’t interfere in our choices; that He has set events in motion, but that He allows us to do as we please, watching how things will turn out. Yet, those same Christians also believe God is sovereign. (Truly, if you do not believe that God is sovereign at all, then you cannot be a Christian, for you do not even believe in a “god” let alone the God of the Bible.)

In other words, if there is a famine, God is sovereignly using that to His ends—but if you decide to commit adultery, then God will not interfere. At this point, let me make the distinction between the two classes of Arminians. There are Arminians who believe that God CANNOT interfere with your free will because He is unable to do so (these people would rightly be called Pelagians, and are not even true Christians). The other class (which is where most Arminians belong) believe that God could interfere, but that He never will.

The point I wish to make is this: that even though Arminians (not the Pelagians listed above!) say that God can interfere with your freedom, in actuality, He cannot do so. This is because the arguments that Arminians use to say Calvinism is immoral (for example) would equally apply to the Arminian view, meaning that if their arguments are actually sound, the Arminian view can only pay lip service to the idea that God could interfere if He chose to do so. The result is that under the Arminian system, you still have autonomy.

I was once asked, “Why can’t God have made a planet somewhere with even one autonomous human being on it? Aren’t you limiting God if you say He can’t?” My answer is this: “It is no more limiting to God than to say that God cannot make a round square.” It is impossible for God to make an autonomous being, for to be autonomous you must thereby be a law unto yourself so that God cannot do anything to you, nor can He interfere with anything that you choose.

The will cannot be free in that sense at all, because to be free it must be autonomous. Otherwise, it is not free but bound by some other law. Granted, most Arminians will say that human will is contingent on the will of God (in which case, I must point out it is no longer “free” will but “contingent” will).

This presents the Arminian with a choice (pun definitely intended). Either they become full Pelagians, or they must recognize that their will is not as free as they think it is.

But let’s look at the fundamental question again. Why can’t God violate your free will? Under the Arminian position above, it is because He doesn’t want to violate your free will. Arminians believe that God loves us so much that He gives us free will. What this effectively does is take God out of the picture completely, at least as it regards our choices. It says that God sovereignly grants us freedom to act apart from Him—which is to say God sovereignly grants us the nullification of His sovereignty. As a result, in Arminianism, God has granted us autonomy.

At the heart of Arminianism is this issue of free will. Upholding free will is so important to the Arminian when it comes to salvation that they will literally sacrifice God’s sovereignty to uphold it. This is because the Arminian views free will as essential to morality. Indeed, a common Arminian refrain is, “God is sovereign, but also just. We cannot give so much to His sovereignty that it takes away from His justice.”

But what does Salvation have to do with God’s justice at all? The answer is, of course, nothing. Salvation depends on God’s mercy (Romans 9:16), not justice. So the Arminian position on the Sovereignty of God in salvation begins from a flawed starting point, for it is looking upon Salvation as if it needed to be just. Suppose God were to work out Salvation in matters of Justice. If God was only Justice without Mercy, what do we have?

“For the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23).

“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)

We all sin, and the wages of sin is death. If God were only Just, then all would deserve death. But what does the end of Romans 6:23 say? “But the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Therefore, salvation is dependent on the gift of God. It must be so, because if God were only Just then all would die and go to hell.

But does this mean God is unjust? Far be it from being so! To use RC Sproul’s terms, God is not unjust, but rather non-just. Non-justice comes in two forms: injustice and mercy. Mercy is not justice, but neither is it injustice; it is simply non-justice. We do not want justice from God; we want non-justice in the form of mercy. Mercy is the good form of non-justice, while injustice is the bad form.

Salvation is a gift of God. As such:

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by his works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness (Romans 4:1-5).

Our salvation is a result of the gift of God. A gift is not something that we deserve, otherwise it would be a wage (or a payment) not a gift. What do we deserve? We deserve death (for the wages of sin is death).

So what does this have to do with the sovereignty of God? It has everything to do with it, because of the way that typical Arminians view salvation. In the Arminian scheme of salvation, we are dead in our sins. (This is a stand from classical Arminianism; Arminius himself taught Original Sin. If you don’t believe this, then you are a Pelagian, not an Arminian.) But though we are dead in our sins, God makes us alive. Does God make just some alive, under Arminianism? No, but rather all are made alive enough so that they can choose whether or not to follow God. This being made alive is not the same thing as Regeneration. Rather, God gives each sinner the ability to make a choice about salvation.

Herein lies the problem. In Arminianism, the sinner decides whether or not to believe. As such, God is out of the picture in regards to that choice. He makes the ability to choose, but does not determine the outcome of the choice. By definition God is thereby not sovereign over the choice of salvation.

Arminians believe that God gives all sinners a choice to believe or not to believe. It is thereby contingent on the individual person as to whether or not they will believe. Further, God does not interfere one way or the other in the decision. In Arminianism, God cannot justly interfere with the sinner’s choice, for if God made a sinner believe in Him then the Arminian claims it is not true love toward God, and if God made a sinner choose hell, then everyone agrees that would make God a tyrant (no matter what system of theology you believe). So here is the point where Arminians make freedom into autonomy—if God is completely outside of the picture, then there are no laws restricting the sinner in this choice; the sinner is therefore a perfectly free agent (and has, by definition, autonomy over that choice).

So, as you can see, by definition, God is not sovereign in the Arminian system of salvation. He does not control who will believe—each individual autonomously decides that himself. Arminians try to maintain sovereignty here by saying that God still knows what the future is.

Let’s examine this argument for a moment. Suppose you see a man on the street. He has a gun, and has pointed it at the head of a passing motorist. If you know that the murderer will pull the trigger and kill the motorist, does that make you sovereign? Obviously not. You can know all the future events forever, but that doesn’t make you sovereign. Things can still happen that you don’t want to happen, and just because you know they will happen doesn’t mean you are in control of the situation, any more than the apostle Peter became sovereign when Jesus told him what kind of death he would have. No, you see, foreknowledge does not give you sovereignty.

Let’s put it another way. Suppose you’ve watched Top Gun five thousand times so that you have every line memorized and you can mentally recall every single scene. If you put the DVD in your player and start the video, does your knowledge of what will happen make you sovereign over the events that unfold? Can you keep Goose from being killed in the film? Obviously not.

So let us suppose that God looks through time and sees what’s going to happen and decides that He wants it to happen that way without interference from Him. Does that make Him sovereign? No, merely an oracle and a fortune teller. If God is sovereign then He must be able to interfere in the events that are going to happen. If God just looks through time as a spectator, then it is nothing less than Him saying, “Hmmmm. I decree that that which shall happen shall happen because that’s what I want anyway.”

But that brings up another problem in Arminianism. God doesn’t always get what He wants! And this brings us to an interesting logical dilemma. By definition, a sovereign gets what he or she wants. That’s what being sovereign means. So the problems mount for the Arminian. How can a sovereign God not get what a sovereign God wants?

The Arminian often counters that a sovereign God wants us to have free will more than He wants us all to be saved. This seems to be rather disturbing though. Why would a loving God want freedom more than salvation? If a child wanders into the street and is about to be struck by a car, we all know that we should care more for saving the child than for allowing them freedom. Even if the child is petulant and throws a fit on the side of the road and annoys us to the point of our wanting to throw the child under the nearest city bus, the moral thing is still to save the child rather than saving the child’s freedom, isn’t it? Maintaining freedom as higher than salvation simply doesn’t fit in Arminian ethics.

Let us return to the issue of sovereignty again. Arminians claim that though God loves everyone and wants all to be saved, He would rather we have freedom to choose to reject Him. So God wants us to have free will more than He wants us all saved. The result is that God’s salvation is subservient to human will. God wants our wills to be so intact that He will allow you to go to hell rather than sacrifice your freedom. Even if He doesn’t want you there, He will still rather have you there than to violate your freedom.

Now remember what was stated above: By definition, a sovereign gets what he or she wants. When it comes to salvation, who gets what they want under Arminianism? It is not God, for He wants all saved and clearly not all are saved. But who does always get what he or she wants? Every single person who chooses whether or not to believe. Our choices are sovereign. We determine our salvation. We get what we want. If we want to be with God, we will be; if we do not, we will forever be away from Him. Therefore, we—not God—are sovereign.

But look at another erroneous concept from the Arminian. They presuppose that God loves everyone, and that He wants all to be saved. Now, if God is sovereign and if this is true, then there’s no logical reason why any should be damned. I’m not God, yet I can devise several ideas that would get all men saved if I want them all saved.

If I was in the place of God, I could do the following:

1) Arrange the stars to spell “Jesus Christ is Lord” in every human language.

2) Have choirs of angels sing out what the stars say so that illiterate people are saved too.

3) I could whisper in the minds of everyone that I Am The Way.

4) If anyone was blind, mute, or deaf—I could cure them, and show them everything else I’ve done.

5) I could send my Son Jesus to every house to personally perform miracles for all to see.

6) I could make faith no longer a prerequisite for salvation, and instead just say “any who exist are saved”.

And you see, none of these ways would even violate free will. And though no one doubts this, God’s a lot smarter than I am! Why can’t He come up with better plans for everyone to be saved?

The answer is simple: God doesn’t love everyone the same. “Just as it is written: ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” (Romans 9:13). What did Jacob do to deserve the love of God? “Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works, but by him who calls—she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’ Just as it is written: ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’” (Romans 9:11-13).

Arminians dislike this passage (to be fair to them, they will say they only dislike the Calvinist interpretation of the passage). The plain meaning is obvious. God doesn’t love everyone.

Now why would this be wrong for God to do? It is only wrong if those people that God “hates” deserve love instead. But we have already shown above that all deserve hell. How, then, is it wrong for God to hate people who have sinned?

I was given this analogy by an Arminian: Suppose a ship sank and you can save all the people by tossing a life preserver into the water. If you do not do so, isn’t that immoral?

But the analogy has two problems. First of all, sinners do not deserve salvation. It is one thing when people are dying in the water—from the human perspective, they do not deserve that. But if they did deserve death, it would actually be non-just for anyone to save them! Is it just for you to save someone from the electric chair when he justly deserves to die? Likewise, if people deserve hell, and you do not give it to them, then you are not acting in justice, but in mercy.

The second problem is this: in this analogy, if one person dies because you didn’t save them, even though you had the power to, then you are not being just. But with God, that already happens. God already doesn’t save everyone even though He could. Even Arminians realize that God could save everyone by forcing them to believe, if He so chose to do so! Indeed, there’s no reason why God had to insist on faith being the requirement for someone to be saved, even on Arminian grounds. So every time an Arminian uses this illustration, he is literally arguing that God is not just.

Again, they claim that God doesn’t want to violate our free will (again, asserting our autonomy). Yet God can and does save us, and does so without violating our “free will!” God can save all the people without violating free will at all. God is all powerful! Going back to the analogy: Suppose He tosses you a life raft and you do not accept it, God can still make it possible for you to breathe underwater. He is sovereign! He can make the ocean dry up! He can do anything He wants, none of which would violate your free will, so that you will be saved. In salvation, He merely needs to change the basis of salvation to existence instead of faith. But He doesn’t do that! Why would God not do that if He wants all saved? Because He doesn’t want all saved. He wants something more than salvation, even on Arminian grounds (He at the very least wants us to freely choose Him more than He wants us to be saved).

So you can see that Arminians have inconsistent views, not only because they believe they can be autonomous while claiming they do not believe such things, but because they believe that God wants all men saved while He acts in a way that even they must agree will not get all saved. Arminians claim God is sovereign, yet man is sovereign in salvation. The Arminian view is full of self-contradictions and is therefore rightly considered illogical.