{"id":369,"date":"2019-02-16T16:23:15","date_gmt":"2019-02-16T21:23:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/christianciv.com\/blog\/?p=369"},"modified":"2019-04-13T12:55:02","modified_gmt":"2019-04-13T16:55:02","slug":"irresistible-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christianciv.com\/blog\/index.php\/2019\/02\/16\/irresistible-part-1\/","title":{"rendered":"The Failure of Popular Christian Apologetics:\u00a0 Part One of a Review of Andy Stanley\u2019s \u201cIrresistible\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/christianciv.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/03\/Irresistible-by-Andy-Stanley-cover.png\"><img decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\" class=\"size-full wp-image-400 alignleft\" src=\"http:\/\/christianciv.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/03\/Irresistible-by-Andy-Stanley-cover.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"202\" height=\"288\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>Pastor Andy Stanley wants to be rid of having to defend the Old Testament.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The thrust of his book is that he sees the Old Testament as an unnecessary drag on the New Testament gospel, so he wants to unhitch the Old Testament from the New, allowing the gospel of the New Covenant to sail on unimpeded.\u00a0 But his approach is a copout, a lazy and shallow way to deal with the apologetic issues raised by the Old Testament.\u00a0 Don\u2019t like the Old Testament?\u00a0 Pastor Stanley says to just pretend that it\u2019s not part of the Bible!\u00a0 His approach misrepresents what the New Testament teaches and diminishes the power of the gospel.\u00a0 His approach to apologetics represents the failure of the popular approach to Christian apologetics to defend the truthfulness of the Bible.<!--more--><\/p>\n<p>In the second century, Marcion of the church at Rome also proposed unhitching the Old Testament from the New.\u00a0 He even said that the god of the Old Testament was a different god than the god of the New Testament.\u00a0 The old god was mean and judgmental; the new god is loving and gracious.\u00a0 Marcion was widely denounced by church leaders as a heretic, and his heresy now goes by the name Marcionism.\u00a0 Pastor Stanley does not go so far as to say that the two testaments teach two different gods, but he views the character of God changing radically from the mean and judgmental one in the Old Testament to the loving and gracious one in the New.\u00a0 He is on very dangerous ground.<\/p>\n<p>I am going to offer a brief exegetical response to one of Pastor Stanley\u2019s main claims about Christians and the Old Testament, but I will spend most of the time on critiquing his apologetic methodology.\u00a0\u00a0 I will follow up with additional posts on his exegetical claims.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Paul rejected the Law of Moses:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><em>\u201cPaul did not consider the law of Moses the go-to source for Christian behavior.\u201d (130)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>&#8220;Paul never leverages the old covenant as the basis for Christian behavior.&#8221; (209)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>\u201cThe Ten Commandments have no authority over you.\u00a0 None. To be clear: Thou shalt not obey the Ten Commandments.\u201d (136)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Except, among the hundred-plus times that Paul quotes the Old Testament in his letters, many times Paul appeals to the Law of Moses and other passages in the Old Testament as the standard for Christian behavior:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>1 Timothy 3:16-17 \u2013 The Old Testament in general is ethically authoritative for Christians.<\/li>\n<li>1 Corinthians 9:9, 13-14 and I Timothy 5:17-18 \u2013 Deuteronomy 25:4 and the Levite system of support under the Law of Moses justify financial support for full-time preachers of the gospel.<\/li>\n<li>1 Timothy 5:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:1 \u2013 Appeals to two or three witness law from Deuteronomy 17:6, 19:15 and Numbers 35:30.<\/li>\n<li>Ephesians 6:2-3 \u2013 Appeals to Exodus 20:12, to honor your father and mother<\/li>\n<li>1 Timothy 1:8-11 \u2013 Criminals laws of the Law of Moses are binding under the New Covenant.<\/li>\n<li>Romans 12:17-21 \u2013 Don\u2019t repay evil with personal vengeance, appealing to \u201cit is written\u201d in Deuteronomy 32:35 and Psalm 25:21-22.<\/li>\n<li>Romans 13:9 \u2013 State authorities are God\u2019s servants, so obeying the Ten Commandments should keep you out of trouble, and the Ten Commandments are summarized by Leviticus 19:18: \u201clove one your neighbor as yourself.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>I Timothy 2:11-14 \u2013 Authority of men rather than women to teach in the church is based on the Genesis account of creation and fall of Adam and Eve.<\/li>\n<li>1 Corinthians 6:15-16 \u2013 Do not unite with a prostitute based on Genesis 2:24 teaching that \u201cthe two will become one flesh.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>Ephesians 5:31-33 \u2013 Husbands love your wives as your own bodies based on Genesis 2:24.<\/li>\n<li>Ephesians 4:26 \u2013 \u201cBe angry and do not sin\u201d \u2013 a quote from LLX version of Psalm 4:4.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Pastor Stanley says, \u201cJesus issued his new commandment as a replacement for everything in the existing list. Including the Big Ten.\u201d (196)\u00a0 But in Romans 13:9 Paul says (like Jesus says in Matthew 22:40) that the Ten Commandments and other laws of the Old Testament \u201care summed up\u201d by \u201clove your neighbor,\u201d and <em>a summary does not annul the details that it summarizes<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>How did Pastor Stanley miss all these passages?\u00a0 The only one in the list above that he even mentions in his book is 1 Timothy 3:16. (168)\u00a0 That\u2019s irresponsible.\u00a0 (A more accurate name for his book than \u201cIrresistible.\u201d)\u00a0 And how does Pastor Stanley handle 1 Timothy 3:16?\u00a0 By claiming that \u201cPaul did not consider the law of Moses the go-to source for Christian behavior\u201d (130); therefore 1 Timothy 3:16 cannot mean what it seems to mean.\u00a0 But Paul does exactly what Pastor Stanley claims he didn\u2019t do.\u00a0 And 1 Timothy 3:16 is clear that Paul is appealing to Old Testament <em>moral standards<\/em>, about \u201ctraining in righteousness . . . to be equipped for every good work.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>And of course, not only do we have to look at what Paul wrote, but also what Jesus said, and He said that He did not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets (Matt. 5:17).\u00a0 I will address the Sermon on the Mount in more detail in a subsequent post.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>A Textless Christianity:\u00a0 The Failure of Traditional Apologetics to Defend Scripture\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n<p><em>Once upon a time, a group of textless Jesus followers, sandwiched between empire and temple, defied both. The credibility of our faith is not contingent upon the credibility of the events recorded in the Jewish Scriptures. (306)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>As passages such as 1 Timothy 3:16-17 teach, the Old Testament was the Bible for the early church.\u00a0 So, after Christ\u2019s resurrection and before the New Testament books were written, the church had <em>less text<\/em> than it would have later, but it was not textless.<\/p>\n<p>Pastor Stanley\u2019s attacks on the text of Scripture continue with statements like these:<\/p>\n<p><em>\u00a0\u201cResurrection is the horse. The Bible is the cart.\u201d (299)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>\u201cThe credibility of our faith is not contingent upon our text being infallible or inerrant. It rests securely on an event [the resurrection of Jesus \u2013 MW].\u201d (306)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>\u201cIn light of the post-Christian context in which we live, it\u2019s time to stop appealing to the authority of a sacred book to make our case for Jesus.\u201d (302-303) <\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>\u201cI\u2019m convinced the entire Bible doesn\u2019t have to be true for part of it to be true.\u201d (305)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Notice that with these statements and the one above about the early church being \u201ctextless,\u201d Pastor Stanley is not only dismissing the Old Testament as indefensible, <em>he will not stand up for the inerrant truth of the New Testament either<\/em>.\u00a0 He is unhitching both Old and New Testaments as the foundation of the Christian faith and completely basing the Christian faith on the empirical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.\u00a0 He mentions this alleged error in the New Testament:\u00a0 \u201cIn all likelihood, John expected to see his friend return in the clouds during his lifetime.\u201d\u00a0 (222)<\/p>\n<p>But, of course, Pastor Stanley is most concerned about intellectual and moral defects in the Old Testament:\u00a0 \u201cWhen it comes to sexual purity, the Bible is a mixed bag with mixed messages. The New Testament isn\u2019t.\u00a0 But the entire Bible, especially the Old Testament, certainly is.\u201d (240)\u00a0 Pastor Stanley says that \u201cThe Bible says-based faith\u201d requires unbelievers to \u201ccheck their brains, their interest in science, or their justice instinct at the door.\u201d (274)\u00a0 \u201cWhen skeptics point out the violence, the misogyny, the scientific and historically unverifiable claims of the Hebrew Bible, instead of trying to defend those things, we can shrug, give \u2019em our best confused look, and say, \u2018I\u2019m not sure why you\u2019re bringing this up. My Christian faith isn\u2019t based on any of that.\u2019\u201d (290)\u00a0 Whereas the Old Testament says, \u201cThe law of the Lord is perfect, . . .\u00a0 true, and righteous altogether\u201d (Ps. 19:7,9), and the New Testament says that \u201cthe law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good\u201c (Rom. 7:12) and that under the Old Testament \u201cevery transgression or disobedience received a just retribution\u201d (Heb. 2:2), Pastor Stanley says, \u201cIn the Old Testament, God played by the rules of the kingdoms of this world.\u201d (163)\u00a0 He says that when he talks to people who have left the faith because of something in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, \u201cI assure them I don\u2019t believe what they don\u2019t believe either.\u201d (277-278)\u00a0\u00a0 Really, Pastor Stanley?\u00a0 Tell us exactly what you reject as falsehoods in the Old Testament.<\/p>\n<p>But despite these statements denigrating the Old Testament, Pastor Stanley wants to reassure us that the Old Testament is inspired:\u00a0 \u201cI\u2019m not suggesting the two testaments are not equally inspired. My point is they aren\u2019t equally applicable. (103)\u00a0 This kind of \u201cinspiration\u201d is certainly not the plenary and verbal inspiration historically upheld by Christians.\u00a0 That kind of inspiration guarantees the Bible\u2019s infallibility, both Old and New Testaments.\u00a0 Pastor Stanley rejects biblical infallibility.\u00a0 His view of inspiration also entails a diminished view of God, who was somehow hindered from teaching truth to the world He created.\u00a0 In an interview with Michael Brown, Pastor Stanley presents his case as merely one of emphasis for the purpose of evangelism.\u00a0 He says, \u201cTo win someone to Christ, start with the Gospel of John, and the rest of the Bible follows.\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn1\" name=\"_ftnref1\">[1]<\/a>\u00a0 But the quotes just cited from his book clearly convey that he thinks that the Old Testament conveys falsehoods.<\/p>\n<p>To say that \u201cResurrection is the horse. The Bible is the cart\u201d means that we believe the Bible because of the evidence for the resurrection, we don\u2019t believe the resurrection because of the Bible.\u00a0 But if that is true, then the Jews had no reason to believe the Scriptures given to them through Moses and the other prophets before Christ was resurrected from the dead.\u00a0 Hopefully, the absurdity of the claim is obvious.\u00a0 If Pastor Stanley\u2019s claim were true, then I would not be able to cite passages where Jesus and His disciples <em>validate<\/em> Jesus\u2019 ministry and the meaning of His resurrection <em>by appealing to the Old Testament<\/em>.\u00a0 The early Christians did not merely recount empirical evidence for Jesus\u2019 resurrection as Pastor Stanley would have us do.\u00a0 Jesus and his disciples defended the resurrection by proving that the Old Testament predicted Jesus\u2019s life and resurrection (e.g., Matt. 16:21; Luke 24:25-27; Acts 2:16-36, 17:1-3, 18:26-28; 1 Cor. 15:3).\u00a0 Jesus said, for example, \u201cFor if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?\u201d (John 5:46-47).\u00a0 The Old Testament prophecies provided the context, laid down \u201cline upon line\u201d (Isa. 28:10) by God over the course of over fourteen hundred years, in order to correctly understand what Jesus\u2019 resurrection meant.\u00a0 After all, other people were raised from the dead (e.g., John 11:33-34; Matt. 27:52-53; Acts 9:36-43), but those resurrections did not have the same meaning as Jesus\u2019 resurrection.\u00a0 Outside the biblical worldview, a resurrection would mean nothing more than a strange occurrence in a world with a lot of strange, unexplainable things that happen from time to time.<\/p>\n<p>Pastor Stanley responds to examples of appeals to Scripture to support the resurrection by claiming that early Christians only appealed to the Old Testament when they talked to Jews, because Jews had respect for the Old Testament.\u00a0 He cites Paul\u2019s sermon on Mars Hill in Acts 17 as an example of preaching to Gentiles, and he claims that Paul avoided appealing to Scripture here.\u00a0 Pastor Stanley asks rhetorically, \u201cWhy not give \u2019em chapter and verse?\u201d (312).\u00a0 Well, genius, there were no chapter and verse divisions in the Bible back then, not until they were added over a thousand years later.\u00a0 Paul could have said \u201cit is written in the Hebrew Scriptures that . . .\u201d, but doesn\u2019t.\u00a0 Is that really that significant since Paul appeals to Scripture by informing the Greeks of the contents of Genesis 1 through 11?\u00a0 He tells them about the creation of the universe by the one true God, the creation of Adam as the first man, and then the dispersal of the nations across the globe from the Tower of Babel (Acts 17:24-27).\u00a0 The Greeks did not believe in that account of history.\u00a0 Many of them believed in eternal cycles of history, with humanity being reconstituted with each new cycle.\u00a0 If anyone questioned Paul about where he got his view of history, he would have to say the Jewish Scriptures.<\/p>\n<p>Paul\u2019s statement that \u201che has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed\u201d (v. 31) is essentially a one-sentence summary of the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah ruling the world.\u00a0 If Paul was later asked by those who wanted to hear more (v. 32) and those who joined him and believed (v. 34) where he got the idea that this resurrected man is appointed the judge of all humanity, he would have to respond that his source is the Hebrew Scriptures, like Psalm 110, Daniel 7, and Isaiah 9.\u00a0 Being resurrected from the dead does not inherently mean that you are the ruler of the world since other people were resurrected apart from that significance.<\/p>\n<p>Further note that, while Pastor Stanley would unhitch the Old Testament from the gospel, the Apostle Paul appeals to Genesis 1-11 to make his case for the gospel to Gentiles in Athens.\u00a0 According to Paul, the Genesis account of creation is the foundation of the gospel (as can also be seen in his letters, such as Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, 45-49).\u00a0 Yet Pastor Stanley says that the New Testament teaches \u201ca version of faith that had nothing to do with the creation account or the history of the Jews\u201d (321).<\/p>\n<p>Last, notice that in his speech at Athens, Paul does not provide empirical evidence that the Messiah rose from the dead.\u00a0 He simply asserts it. Does that mean that Paul rejected appealing to empirical evidence?\u00a0 (Some people have made this argument against the use of empirical evidence.)\u00a0 No, because he does so in 1 Corinthians 15:5-6 (while also saying that Christ died for our sins and was raised on the third day \u201caccording to the Scriptures\u201d in verses 3-4).\u00a0 Therefore, we should be cautious about saying, \u201cPaul did not mention <em>x<\/em> in his sermon in Athens; therefore Paul rejected appealing to <em>x<\/em> when witnessing to Gentiles.\u201d\u00a0 Paul\u2019s sermon in Athens was very brief, with just a few bullet-point highlights of the gospel message, with an emphasis on denying the Greeks\u2019 polytheism.<\/p>\n<p>Pastor Stanley did not come up with this \u201cresurrection first, Bible-at-the-periphery\u201d approach on his own.\u00a0 He is following the lead of several currently well-known Christian apologists.\u00a0 William Lane Craig of the Reasonable Faith apologetics ministry holds that inerrancy \u201cdoesn\u2019t stand at the center of the Christian faith. It is not one of the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith;\u201d rather, \u201cit stands somewhere near the periphery.\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn2\" name=\"_ftnref2\">[2]<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0 And in another place, he says, \u201cQuestions about the historical reliability of these ancient Jewish texts just has no direct bearing on whether God exists or Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead.\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn3\" name=\"_ftnref3\">[3]<\/a> \u00a0Likewise, Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason apologetic ministry says, \u201cinerrancy is neither necessary for salvation nor necessary to prove the truthfulness of Christianity.\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn4\" name=\"_ftnref4\">[4]<\/a>\u00a0 Mike Licona says, \u201cI believe in biblical inerrancy, but I also realize that biblical inerrancy is not one of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. The resurrection is.\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn5\" name=\"_ftnref5\">[5]<\/a>\u00a0 But he doesn\u2019t really believe in inerrancy:\u00a0 \u201cYou may lose some form of biblical inerrancy if there are contradictions in the Gospels, but you still have the truth of Christianity that Jesus rose from the dead, and I think that&#8217;s the most important point we can make.\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn6\" name=\"_ftnref6\">[6]<\/a>\u00a0 Norman Geisler has opposed these comprises of the inerrancy of Scripture, even though he is an advocate of the same basic apologetic method that the others adhere to.<a href=\"#_ftn7\" name=\"_ftnref7\">[7]<\/a><\/p>\n<p>How is an evidentialist like Pastor Stanley able to defend the infallibility of Scriptures?\u00a0 The evidentialist builds his case piece by piece from the empirical evidence.\u00a0 So to prove the infallibility of Scripture, he would have to provide empirical proof of the truth of everything said in Scripture, and that would include statements about both heavenly visions and earthly history.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 That is an impossible demand.\u00a0 In other words, the evidentialist <em>cannot<\/em> defend the infallibility of Scriptures.<\/p>\n<p>In an interview, Pastor Stanley says that he was trained in \u201cClassical Apologetics\u201d (which I\u2019ll refer to as \u201ctraditional apologetics\u201d)<a href=\"#_ftn8\" name=\"_ftnref8\">[8]<\/a> by such men as Norman Geisler and Charles Ryrie.<a href=\"#_ftn9\" name=\"_ftnref9\">[9]<\/a>\u00a0 If advocates of traditional apologetics feel the need to stop defending major doctrines of historic Christianity, and this seems to be the logical consequence of the traditional method rather than a deviation from it, then they need to find another approach to apologetics, one that actually does the job it is supposed to do \u2013 fully defend the Christian faith.<\/p>\n<p>Some traditional apologists get their epistemology (theory of knowledge) from the prevailing consensus in the scientific establishment.\u00a0 Stephen Meyer, a leader of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, writes, \u201cID is not based on religion, but on scientific discoveries and our experience of cause and effect, the basis of all scientific reasoning about the past.\u201c<a href=\"#_ftn10\" name=\"_ftnref10\">[10]<\/a>\u00a0 These apologists think that they are able to get a hearing from atheist scientists because they share neutral common ground with atheists on the subject of epistemology.\u00a0 But the epistemology of the modern scientific establishment is naturalistic empiricism, and naturalism excludes the supernatural as part of its definition of science.\u00a0 Consequently, these Christian apologists are basing their arguments for the existence of God on an assumption that excludes God.\u00a0 Game over.\u00a0 The Christian loses.<\/p>\n<p>Some others, especially in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, adopted Common Sense Realism, in which common sense beliefs were supposed to function as the basic principles of knowledge.\u00a0 But what counts as \u201ccommon\u201d is not absolute.\u00a0 It is a statistical determination of what the majority believe, which can change from generation to generation.\u00a0 And even those beliefs that are found to be common in some limited set of data that has been collected may be so only from at a superficial level, where common terminology hides many shades of differences of meaning.\u00a0 George Marsden describes the Common Sense approach as one in which \u201cChristian and non-Christian thought were seldom distinguished according to first principles. Only the conclusion of either faith or skepticism was thought to matter.\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn11\" name=\"_ftnref11\">[11]<\/a>\u00a0 No <em>necessity<\/em> for God\u2019s existence can follow from the shifting sands of common sense.\u00a0 But further, if God is the Creator of all things, then we should not be able to explain knowledge apart from His existence.\u00a0 To assume that some things in life can make sense even if God did not exist is to assume that God is finite, related to some things in life but not others.\u00a0 Therefore, a common sense theory of knowledge <em>excludes<\/em> the God of the Bible, the one about whom it can be said, \u201cfrom him and through him and to him are all things\u201d (Rom. 11:36).<\/p>\n<p>And still other traditional apologists, even many Protestant ones, have fallen in love with Thomas Aquinas, who relied on Aristotle.\u00a0 Aristotle held to a sort of empiricism, but it was based on the Form\/Matter scheme held by many other Greek philosophers.\u00a0 The view was that matter, the source of diversity in the world, and Form, the source of unity for the world, have separate origins.\u00a0 Aristotle designated the Unmoved Mover as that pure form that is the source of unity; but as a pure, abstract unity, this Unmoved Mover is not the living, active God of Scripture.\u00a0 The Unmoved Mover is a static, impersonal abstraction, an \u201cit.\u201d\u00a0 The Unmoved Mover does not know the world, did not create the world, and <em>could not<\/em> create the world because it could not contemplate the changing material world and interact with it.\u00a0 Since it does not know the world, it cannot provide any revelation, whether infallible or fallible.\u00a0 The only thing that it can \u201ccommunicate\u201d is Being, but in the realm of human life on earth, Being is mixed with non-being, from which matter arises, to form the realm of Becoming.\u00a0 Since humans live in the realm of Becoming rather than Being, all truth is in the process of changing.<a href=\"#_ftn12\" name=\"_ftnref12\">[12]<\/a> To use Plato\u2019s analogy, in this life we are all still in the cave looking at distorted shadows of the Good rather than looking at the Good undistorted.\u00a0 Consequently, even if the Unmoved Mover\u2019s communication of Being is taken to be a communication of Truth, it could never be infallible Truth, only distorted Truth.\u00a0 Like the apologists who depend on naturalistic empiricism, the Thomists are basing their arguments for the existence of God on an assumption that excludes God \u2013 the God of the Bible anyway.<\/p>\n<p>The God of the Bible can communicate infallible truth in the historical realm because He created that realm and guides its course.\u00a0 Earthly history is not an alien realm to the Creator of heaven and earth.\u00a0 God is able to proclaim His message to His creatures exactly as He intends it to be proclaimed, even through a prophet who is in rebellion against Him (e.g., Balaam, Num. 22-24; and Caiaphas, John 11:49-52).<\/p>\n<p>The failure of the evidentialist approach to the resurrection used by well-known apologists is on display in recent debates between the Christian apologist and academic scholar Michael Licona and the skeptical academic scholar Bart Ehrman.\u00a0 In a 2018 debate, they were supposed to debate whether the New Testament was historically reliable, but they both agreed on the errors in the New Testament!<a href=\"#_ftn13\" name=\"_ftnref13\">[13]<\/a>\u00a0 Licona was willing to concede, for example, that Luke\u2019s account that \u201ca decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered\u201d (Luke 2:1) was unhistorical because there are no records of this event in ancient literature other than Luke.\u00a0 The mere absence of evidence was taken as evidence of absence because Licona conceded to the rules of secular academia.<\/p>\n<p>In a radio debate in 2011, Ehrman insisted to Licona that \u201cyou cannot apply historiographic methods in order to explain that a miracle happened\u201d because \u201cit is invoking something outside our natural experience.\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn14\" name=\"_ftnref14\">[14]<\/a>\u00a0 Therefore, even if there is strong evidence that Jesus came back to life after being crucified, the historian is prohibited from saying that \u201cGod raised Jesus from the dead.\u201d\u00a0 That would be a move away from history to faith, Ehrman said. \u00a0Consistent with that principle, Ehrman said that if he saw that someone was decapitated, had his head reattached, and then lived on earth another 2,000 years, as a historian he would just say that \u201cit\u2019s weird,\u201d but he couldn\u2019t call it a miracle. Licona conceded that historians should be \u201cworldview independent,\u201d including being neutral on the question of the existence of God.\u00a0 He then gave his summation of the historical evidence as that most probably \u201cJesus was raised from the dead, and be very happy\u00a0to leave the cause as a question mark.\u201d \u00a0By leaving the cause of the resurrection a question mark, Licona is essentially granting Ehrman\u2019s demand for a naturalistic approach to historical research.<\/p>\n<p>So what do you get out of a method that just relies on historical evidence with alleged worldview neutrality?\u00a0 You get a possible resurrection that has no spiritual significance.\u00a0 To make the leap to faith amounts to abandoning science on this view because modern secularists <em>define<\/em> science as a search for naturalistic explanations.\u00a0 By their definition of science, the possibility of the supernatural is excluded from the outset, before any evidence is examined.\u00a0 Christians who concede to this cannot win the debate.\u00a0 It\u2019s like Charlie Brown and Lucy.\u00a0 Whenever Charlie Brown tries to kick the football, Lucy pulls the football away, and Charlie falls flat on his back.\u00a0 Likewise, when secularists assert the naturalistic definition of science and the Christian falls for that ruse, the Christian will be defeated every time, no matter how strong the evidence is.\u00a0 The naturalistic definition of science is a veil covering the eyes of nearly the entire intellectual establishment in the world today and all the wanna-be intellectuals.\u00a0 Right now, college students in nearly every college in the world are being taught by professors who are trying to pull that veil over their eyes.\u00a0 The veil of naturalistic science prevents them from seeing the glory of the kingdom of Christ, but Pastor Stanley\u2019s approach leaves that veil untouched.\u00a0 So much for \u201cirresistible.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The presuppositional school of apologetics founded by Cornelius Van Til presents a different approach than that of traditional apologetics.\u00a0\u00a0 Van Til is often accused of opposing the use of empirical evidence in apologetics, but his concern was that evidence be presented along with a philosophy of knowledge that is consistent with the Christian worldview.\u00a0 As he says here:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Historical apologetics is absolutely necessary and indispensable to point out that Christ arose from the grave, etc.\u00a0 But as long as historical apologetics works on a supposedly neutral basis it defeats its own purpose. For in that case it virtually grants the validity of the metaphysical assumptions of the unbeliever.<a href=\"#_ftn15\" name=\"_ftnref15\">[15]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Van Til\u2019s argument for the existence of God is what\u2019s typically called nowadays \u201cthe argument from reason,\u201d that God\u2019s existence is necessary in order for human reason and an intelligible world to be possible.\u00a0 It\u2019s also called a \u201ctranscendental argument\u201d because it addresses that a certain <em>X<\/em> is the necessary condition for <em>Y<\/em>, in this case that God\u2019s existence is necessary for the possibility of rationality.\u00a0 Van Til\u2019s argument has, however, a specific content to it that is somewhat unique in that it appeals to the issue of the one-and-the-many and how that relates to the biblical nature of God in order to make this argument.\u00a0 The argument is that there are two basic choices: 1) an absolute Mind must exist, in which all facts in history (the \u201cmany\u201d) are related to the concepts (the \u201cone\u201d) that apply to them from all eternity, or 2) the universe is ultimately non-rational, and rationality could never arise in such a universe.\u00a0 Concepts can only exist in a mind, and universal concepts could only have their origin in a universal Mind.\u00a0 Concepts must relate to individual facts, so a personal Creator who is the source of all facts and all concepts necessarily exists for the possibility of rationality.\u00a0 This kind of Creator can be called \u201cabsolute\u201d because He is the origin of all facts and all the concepts that apply to them.\u00a0 He created all things, and nothing exists apart from His will.<\/p>\n<p>To give one example of what I am talking about, many prominent secular scientists in the twentieth century have remarked about the strange conformity of the physical phenomena that they observe to abstract mathematical laws.\u00a0 Nobel Prize-winning physicist Eugene Wigner observed, \u201cThe miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics\u00a0for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve.\u201d <a href=\"#_ftn16\" name=\"_ftnref16\"><sup>[16]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 Albert Einstein said, \u201cThe most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn17\" name=\"_ftnref17\"><sup>[17]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 And Stephen Hawking asked, \u201cWhat is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?\u201d <a href=\"#_ftn18\" name=\"_ftnref18\"><sup>[18]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 God being an absolute Mind who is the source of the laws of mathematics as well as the empirical facts of the universe explains why the two fit together, and the assumption of an ultimately non-rational universe cannot provide an explanation of that.\u00a0 Much more could be said about this argument, but I\u2019ll have to move on to how this relates to the issue of biblical inerrancy.<\/p>\n<p>Such an absolute God as proven by this argument, one who is the source of all facts and the concepts that apply to them, would be the source of all knowledge, and as such, He would be all-knowing (a.k.a omniscient).\u00a0 There is no way that such a God could be mistaken about any facts.\u00a0 In other words, the God that necessarily exists in order for knowledge and rationality to be possible is necessarily <em>infallible<\/em> regarding any subject whatsoever, whether science or souls.\u00a0 If the argument is sound, then God must exist in order for there to be empirical evidence.\u00a0 Consequently, there is no such thing as a religiously neutral fact.\u00a0 The only possible facts are God-created facts.\u00a0\u00a0 The only objective way to view facts is to view facts as God-created.\u00a0 This means that before we ever get to particular evidence for or against the truth of some historical claim in the Bible, reason requires that we assume the existence of a God who is necessarily infallible.\u00a0 We can only have the \u201chistorical reliability of Scriptures\u201d (as many traditional apologists like to talk about instead of the infallibility of Scriptures), if an infallible God exists.\u00a0 Thus Van Til says, \u201cthe argument for the Scriptures as the infallible revelation of God is, to all intents and purposes, the same as the argument for the existence God.\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn19\" name=\"_ftnref19\">[19]<\/a>\u00a0 On the presuppositional view, the doctrine of Biblical infallibility is deduced from the nature of the necessarily existing God rather than, as in the view of traditional evidential apologetics, being built up piecemeal by finding various empirical evidence that all the particular events described in the Bible really happened in history.<\/p>\n<p>In terms of Van Til\u2019s argument from reason outlined above, while we can say that God is necessarily infallible, the argument does not prove something as detailed as \u201cthe Bible contains 66 books.\u201d\u00a0 Determining the content of the canon of Scripture involves a number of factors.\u00a0 Consistency with prior revelation from God that has been verified is part of the test (Deut. 13:2-3; Gal. 1:8).\u00a0 In addition, the verification test includes several types of empirical evidence, such as fulfillment of prophecy and miracles (Deut. 18:21-22; Heb. 2:1-4).<a href=\"#_ftn20\" name=\"_ftnref20\">[20]<\/a>\u00a0 Then there is the empirical task of determining the accuracy of the transmission of the autographs in the various extant copies.<a href=\"#_ftn21\" name=\"_ftnref21\">[21]<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Beyond the tests for canonicity, there are all sorts of historical claims that are made in the Bible; it would be impossible for finite humans to verify all of those.\u00a0 A text that is found by the method outlined above to be the original words of God must be considered infallible, even if other historical references are unable to be confirmed.\u00a0 Contradictions in Scriptures as a challenge to infallibility are handled in the same way.\u00a0 Determining that a contradiction exists involves knowledge of ancient facts, particularly facts about how certain words were used in a particular ancient time period.\u00a0 Resolving contradictions is a factor in determining canonicity, since consistency with prior revelation is given in Scripture as a test of canonicity.\u00a0\u00a0 But given that we are interpreting a long-dead language from long-dead cultures, from which we only have scraps of remains to examine and interpret, so that we have a greatly limited knowledge of the ancient culture and its language, some irresolvable contradictions should not be surprising.\u00a0 A claim to revelation that commands, \u201cDon\u2019t worship Yahweh, the God of Israel,\u201d is obviously disqualified as canonical.\u00a0 But other statements in a claim to revelation may not be so clearly contradictory to prior revelation.\u00a0 The other tests of canonicity may be very clear in that case, however, which provides warrant for regarding the revelation as genuine nonetheless.\u00a0 And if it is genuine, it is infallible.<\/p>\n<p>The presuppositional apologetic allows the Christian to overcome the compulsion that many traditional apologists seem to have to try to accommodate the views of the modern scientific establishment. Christians who advocate for a Big Bang and the earth being billions of years old often defend this position by saying that God\u2019s works in nature can never contradict God\u2019s word, so if science shows that the universe is billions of years old, then we shouldn\u2019t interpret God\u2019s word to contradict it.\u00a0 We must find a way to accommodate God\u2019s word to God\u2019s works.\u00a0 They often add that interpretations of God\u2019s word are not infallible.\u00a0 That\u2019s true, but neither are scientists infallible.\u00a0 Since God is absolutely rational, it is true that God\u2019s works in nature cannot contradict God\u2019s word, but science at any point in history cannot be said to conclusively understand God\u2019s works in nature.\u00a0 That would require omniscience of the scientists of everything in nature.\u00a0 \u201cScience,\u201d after all, is an abstraction.\u00a0 \u201cScience\u201d amounts to individual people, scientists, and their opinions about their areas of study.\u00a0 Scientists, like all people, are finite, fallible, sinful human beings.\u00a0 In our day at least, scientists are often at open war with their Creator.\u00a0 They \u201dsuppress the truth\u201d (Rom. 1:18) that God is \u201cclearly\u201d revealed \u201cin the things that have been made\u201d (Rom. 1:20).<\/p>\n<p>It is unreasonable to say that the Bible must conform to the scientific consensus at any point in history given that the consensus of scientists in the past has often been refuted by a later consensus of scientists.\u00a0 For example, throughout most of history until the 1800s, nearly everyone believed in spontaneous generation, including scientists.\u00a0 They believed that mice could come into being out of grain, maggots could come into being out of rotting meat, and frogs could come into being out of mud.\u00a0 The decisive proof against spontaneous generation was Louis Pasteur\u2019s experiment in 1859.\u00a0 He devised a goose-necked bottle that allowed air to reach boiled broth in the bottom of a flask but trapped bacteria carried by dust in the air in the dip of the flask\u2019s neck.\u00a0 The broth remained germ-free.\u00a0 That disproved spontaneous generation of germs from broth.\u00a0\u00a0 Genesis 1 says that God created all creatures on earth in six days.\u00a0 Would Christians before 1859 have been warranted to reject the truthfulness of Genesis 1 by appealing to spontaneous generation?\u00a0 I say not, even though the scientific evidence was not available to say otherwise.\u00a0 They had sufficient reason to believe that Genesis 1 was divinely inspired despite the scientific consensus.\u00a0 The Bible is the only revelation in the world that teaches an absolute God, and Genesis is the foundational book of that revelation.<a href=\"#_ftn22\" name=\"_ftnref22\">[22]<\/a><\/p>\n<p>The same goes for the days of Genesis.\u00a0 If the most reasonable interpretation of Genesis 1 is literal, 24-hour days,<a href=\"#_ftn23\" name=\"_ftnref23\">[23]<\/a> then Christians should stand against the Big Bang <em>cosmology because we have the more reasonable argument<\/em>.\u00a0 Science wouldn\u2019t be possible if God did not exist, and the God that necessarily exists for the possibility of science is necessarily infallible.\u00a0 If He says it was six literal days, then it was six literal days.<\/p>\n<p>The famous philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn\u00a0observed:\u00a0 \u201c[N]o theory ever solves all the puzzles with which it is confronted at a given time, nor are the solutions already achieved often perfect. . . .\u00a0 If any and every failure to fit [data to theory] were ground for theory rejection, all theories ought to be rejected at all times.\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn24\" name=\"_ftnref24\"><sup>[24]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 Every major theory about our world has problems \u2013 gaps in the evidence and known evidence that could be understood as contradicting the theory.\u00a0 That is true regarding both biological evolution and special creation, both the Big Bang and recent creation of the cosmos, both Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and post-Babylonian-captivity authorship of the Pentateuch.\u00a0\u00a0 The evidence for the traditional Christian views on these matters is much better than the secularists would have the public believe, and the secularists downplay evidence that presents problems for their views, but there will never be a time when everything is understood about the Bible and the ancient world so that every question about the Bible can be answered.\u00a0 Whether atheist, Christian, or Hindu, humans are finite; therefore mystery is inescapable for any worldview.\u00a0 What is a rational, scientifically-minded person to do?\u00a0 They need to choose the view, first of all, that allows for the possibility of rationality and science.\u00a0 And that is the biblical worldview.\u00a0 \u00a0The naturalistic worldview entails the view that humans are mindless bags of molecules.\u00a0 It should be laughed out of court, but since it is the view held by all the \u201csmart\u201d people in our day, we have to address it.<\/p>\n<p>The presuppositional method proves an absolute God, a comprehensive God.\u00a0 Rather than negating the positive aspects of this world in order to arrive at a god who is an empty abstraction as with the Thomistic view, Van Til\u2019s proof of God depends on God\u2019s fullness.\u00a0 His limitations are negated, not His attributes:\u00a0 \u201cwe begin our thought about the infinity of God by insisting that the fulness of the being of God is back of the active fulness and variety in the spatio-temporal world.\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn25\" name=\"_ftnref25\">[25]<\/a> \u00a0This kind of God is the source of all knowledge.\u00a0 This kind of God can know the future infallibly because He decrees the future completely.\u00a0 The traditional method does not involve that kind of God, which forces it to adopt a piecemeal view of proving the Bible\u2019s infallibility, which is not possible.\u00a0 Pastor Stanley doesn\u2019t mention the issue of Calvinism versus Arminianism in his book, but in other places, like his interview with anti-Calvinist Leighton Flowers,<a href=\"#_ftn26\" name=\"_ftnref26\">[26]<\/a> he clearly rejects the Calvinist view that God foreordains all things.\u00a0 Of course, Arminians think that Calvinism causes trouble apologetically.\u00a0 They think that the view makes God responsible for evil.\u00a0 But the apologetic problem with Arminianism is that it entails a finite God.\u00a0 Calvinists believe that God is sovereign <em>and<\/em> that humans are morally responsible for their choices, but Arminians believe that God must limit His sovereignty in order to allow for human responsibility.\u00a0 A limited God cannot have infallible knowledge.\u00a0 He can\u2019t know beforehand what choice a person will make if that choice is really undetermined.\u00a0 The infallibility of Scripture depends upon, not only God\u2019s determination of what his prophets would write, but also that particular events in history and the whole course of history would go a certain way.\u00a0 The absolute God of Van Til\u2019s argument, which is the kind of God taught in Scripture, is able to foreordain all the details of history; and of course, a finite god cannot.<\/p>\n<p>William Lane Craig argues for a view called Molinism that attempts to account for the Bible\u2019s teaching that God controls what happens in history while also allowing for libertarian free will (that human choices are not determined by God).\u00a0 The claim is that God considers all the possible ways that events could go in history, to include what choices people would make in particular circumstances, and then out of all of those possible \u201cworlds,\u201d God actualizes the world that is the best out of all the possibilities. \u00a0\u00a0Of course, we can often predict what choices someone will make in certain circumstances if we know that person well, based on choices that the person has made in the past.\u00a0 But God\u2019s prediction of human choices before any choices are made can\u2019t rely on a past knowledge of choices.\u00a0 Furthermore, <em>usually<\/em> predicting choices that others will make is far short of an <em>infallible<\/em> knowledge of the future choices people will freely make.\u00a0 While asserting that God can infallibly know what people would choose in certain circumstances without determining those choices, Craig admits that Molinism does not explain how God could do that:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>If someone insists, <em>But how is God omniscient?<\/em> I am not even sure what that kind of question means. . . . God just is essentially that way. He has just essentially the properties omnipotence, omniscience, moral perfection, eternity, and so forth. So I don\u2019t see any reason to think that it is logically impossible for God to have an innate knowledge of these counterfactuals of creaturely freedom which would give him knowledge of how anyone would freely choose in any set of circumstances.<a href=\"#_ftn27\" name=\"_ftnref27\">[27]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The Calvinist has the answer to the question of how God knows the future, including people\u2019s choices:\u00a0 He foreordains it.\u00a0 The Molinist denies that answer as the basis for God\u2019s knowledge of people\u2019s future choices, leaving the Molinist without the <em>biblical<\/em> answer.\u00a0 The Molinist will probably respond by saying that the Calvinist view still leaves us with the mystery of how God is able to foreordain human choices in a way that allows humans to be morally responsible.\u00a0 And the Molinist would be right.\u00a0\u00a0 But that puts the mystery and the knowledge where the Bible puts it, rather putting us in the position of the Molinist view that creates a mystery where the Bible gives us knowledge (Ps. 139:16; Acts 2:23, 4:28; Rom. 8:29-30; Eph. 1:4-5, 11).\u00a0 There is no clearer passage giving us the knowledge that God foreordains our moral choices than Romans 9.\u00a0 Paul says, \u201cSo then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills\u201d (v. 18).\u00a0 Paul then anticipates the objection that this statement will bring from many people:\u00a0 \u201cYou will say to me then, \u2018Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?\u2019\u201d (v. 19).\u00a0 Does Paul respond to the hypothetical question with \u201cYou misunderstood what I meant\u201d?\u00a0 No.\u00a0 He doubles down on predestination:\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cBut who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, \u2018Why have you made me like this?\u2019 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?\u201d\u00a0 (vv. 20-21).<\/p>\n<p>God&#8217;s guidance of men to commit evil acts to fulfill His purposes is often done in a way that is indirect, like giving Joseph a dream that would make his brothers jealous, resulting in their decision to sell Joseph into slavery, so that eventually Joseph could save his family from famine (Gen. 50:20).\u00a0 But however God did it, the results were in no way left up to chance so that events could have occurred other than how God planned them.\u00a0 God &#8220;works all things according to the counsel of his will&#8221; (Eph. 1:11).\u00a0\u00a0And as God says through Solomon:\u00a0 &#8220;The king\u2019s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will&#8221; (Prov. 21:1).\u00a0 And as God says through Isaiah:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><span class=\"block-indent\"><span class=\"indent\">I am God, and there is none like me,<\/span><span class=\"reftext\"><b> <\/b>d<\/span><span class=\"ln-group\">eclaring the end from the beginning\u00a0<\/span><span class=\"indent\">and from ancient times things not yet done,\u00a0<\/span><span class=\"ln-group\">saying, \u2018My counsel shall stand,\u00a0<\/span><span class=\"indent\">and I will accomplish all my purpose,\u2019\u00a0<\/span><span class=\"ln-group\">calling a bird of prey from the east,\u00a0<\/span><span class=\"indent\">the man of my counsel from a far country.\u00a0<\/span><span class=\"ln-group\">I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass;\u00a0<\/span><span class=\"indent\">I have purposed, and I will do it.\u00a0 (Isa. 46:9-11)<\/span><\/span><span class=\"p\"><br \/>\n<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>The True Source of \u201cIrresistible\u201d Christianity<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Ever since the Protestant Reformation, Reformed theologians have been emphasizing the Bible\u2019s teaching on what makes Christianity \u201cirresistible.\u201d\u00a0 It is the \u201cI\u201d in acronym TULIP &#8211; irresistible grace.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Apart from the Holy Spirit, \u201cno one seeks for God\u201d (Rom. 3:11).\u00a0 Apart from the Holy Spirit, no one would come to Christ and be saved by their own free will:\u00a0 \u201cNo one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him\u201d (John 6:44); \u201cThis is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father\u201d (John\u00a0 6:65).\u00a0 But if God chooses to save someone, God\u2019s grace is irresistible.\u00a0 Such a person will unfailingly choose to accept Jesus:\u00a0 \u201cAll that the Father gives me will come to me\u201d (John 6:37).\u00a0 What Jesus describes as being \u201cborn again\u201d or \u201cborn from above\u201d in John 3 is described as a heart transplant or circumcision of the heart in the Old Testament.\u00a0 (Jesus tells Nicodemus that His teaching on being born again is an Old Testament teaching: \u201cAre you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?\u201d \u2013 John 3:10.)\u00a0 For example, \u201cI will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in my statutes and keep my rules and obey them\u201d (Ezek. 11:19; also Deut. 30:6; Jer. 24:7, 32:39-40; Ezek. 36:26-27).\u00a0 God has to perform a heart transplant in order for a sinner to be changed so that he desires to follow God.\u00a0 A person can\u2019t perform a heart transplant on himself, any more than a person can choose to be born, the first or second time.<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, the Bible says that God has chosen the preaching of God\u2019s word to be the occasion of changing people\u2019s hearts.\u00a0 The Holy Spirit opens people\u2019s ability to understand the truth of God\u2019s word and accept it as true.\u00a0 As Luke describes when Jesus appeared to the disciples after the resurrection, &#8220;<span id=\"en-ESV-26026\" class=\"text Luke-24-45\">Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures&#8221; <\/span><span id=\"en-ESV-26028\" class=\"text Luke-24-47\"><span class=\"woj\">(Luke 24:45; cf. Eph. 1:17-18).\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span>By separating evangelism from the Scriptures, Pastor Stanley undermines the key to evangelism, the only thing that can make Christianity \u201cirresistible.\u201d\u00a0 He undermines the Holy Spirit.\u00a0 Of course, the Holy Spirit can enlighten anyone in whatever circumstances He wants.\u00a0 But the normal way that God has ordained that sinners become born of the Spirit is through the preaching of the Word of God.\u00a0 Remember, it is the Holy Spirit who produced the Bible:\u00a0 \u201cmen spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit\u201d (2 Peter 1:21); \u201cAll Scripture is breathed out by God\u201d (2 Tim. 3:16).\u00a0 We can\u2019t make salvation more desirable to sinners by changing God\u2019s word, because a \u201cconversion\u201d that is repelled by God\u2019s word is a false conversion:\u00a0 \u201cEveryone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.\u00a0 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. \u00a0For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments\u201d (1 John 5:1-3).\u00a0 Paul charges Timothy to \u201cpreach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching\u201d (2 Tim. 4:2-4).\u00a0 And what is this \u201cword\u201d that contains \u201csound teaching\u201d?\u00a0 Paul had just defined that:\u00a0 \u201cAll Scripture\u201d (2 Tim. 3:16).\u00a0 Pastor Stanley turns people <em>away<\/em> from the Bible because he thinks that the Bible is keeping people away from Christ.\u00a0 He never mentions in his book the problem of sin as a reason for unbelievers resisting salvation.\u00a0 But the Bible teaches that man\u2019s sinful nature is the primary reason people resist God \u2013 not Christians acting badly and definitely not because God acts badly in the Old Testament.<\/p>\n<p>Van Til also points out that special revelation has always been part of God\u2019s gift to humanity.\u00a0 Even in the garden in the state of innocence, God decided that He should give special revelation to Adam to give him moral guidance.<a href=\"#_ftn28\" name=\"_ftnref28\">[28]<\/a>\u00a0 God told Adam to be fruitful and multiply, rule over the creation, work and guard the garden, and eat of any tree in the garden, except for one.\u00a0 After the Fall, special revelation became all the more important because 1) natural revelation does not give information about redemption (Rom. 10:14), and 2) sinful men suppress natural revelation (Rom. 1:18-23), requiring a clearer revelation to give a light to the path (Psalm 119:105) of sinful humanity.\u00a0 Christians should not pretend that they come to the evidence of the resurrection without the \u201cbias\u201d of what the Bible teaches.\u00a0 A \u201cbias\u201d toward the truth is nothing to be ashamed of. \u00a0As Thom Notaro explains, a faithful Jew living at the time Jesus walked the earth would not examine the evidence for Jesus\u2019 Messianic claims from a standpoint of religious neutrality. \u00a0He would presuppose the existence of the God of the Bible and interpret the empirical evidence provided by Jesus in the light of God\u2019s previous revelation that predicted the Messiah.<a href=\"#_ftn29\" name=\"_ftnref29\">[29]<\/a> \u00a0Anyone who approaches the historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ, or anything else, with the bias of naturalistic empiricism should be ashamed because they are basing their reasoning on a failed, irrational, science-undermining theory of knowledge.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Putting Away Childish Apologetics<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Maybe the people that come to Pastor Stanley\u2019s Atlanta church are often persuaded to become Christians merely by showing them historical evidence of the resurrection.\u00a0\u00a0 That\u2019s great.\u00a0\u00a0 But many of the atheists that I interact with have been presented with the historical evidence, and they remain unpersuaded.\u00a0 Like Bart Ehrman, their main objection to Christianity is that belief in miracles is unscientific.\u00a0 They define science as a search for naturalistic evidence.\u00a0 Merely presenting empirical evidence does not overcome that objection.\u00a0 To address that objection, the Christian needs to be able to present a Christian view of science and show why the atheist view of science reduces to absurdity. \u00a0They still may not be persuaded to convert, but at least their objection will have been answered.\u00a0 The early church did not win tens of thousands of people to Christ just by presenting the empirical evidence that he rose from the dead, and neither should we.\u00a0 \u00a0At the very least, they presented the Bible\u2019s view of the world\u2019s history and the Bible\u2019s prophecies about the Messiah as support for their empirical claims about the resurrection of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>In fact, Pastor Stanley thinks that several of Christ\u2019s apostles were illiterate, so any theology deeper than what an illiterate person can understand is illegitimate:\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cHow would your version of faith hold up under the scrutiny of that mostly illiterate but oh-so-brave generation of Christians?\u201d (321)\u00a0 In an interview, he explains further, \u201cPeter and John were illiterate. . . .\u00a0 If \u2018deep\u2019 is information and \u2018deep\u2019 requires literacy, we\u2019re not talking about the dynamic we find in the New Testament.\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn30\" name=\"_ftnref30\">[30]<\/a>\u00a0 It\u2019s strange how Peter and John were able to write books and letters in Greek if they were illiterate.\u00a0 In Peter\u2019s speech in Acts 2, he quotes Joel 2:28-32, Psalm 16:8-11, and Psalm 110:1.\u00a0 In Acts 4 he quotes Psalm 118:22 and Isaiah 28:16.\u00a0 Even if Peter memorized these passages by listening to someone else read, that means that Peter spent a lot of time being taught by someone who could read.\u00a0 Pastor Stanley basis his claim on this verse:\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cNow when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated [\u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9], common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus\u201d (Acts 4:13).\u00a0 But the same claim was made against Jesus:\u00a0 \u201cThe Jews therefore marveled, saying, \u2018How is it that this man has learning [\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1], when he has never studied?\u2019\u201d (John 7:15)\u00a0 Yet Jesus was able to walk into a synagogue and read the scroll of Isaiah (Luke 4:17).<a href=\"#_ftn31\" name=\"_ftnref31\">[31]<\/a>\u00a0 Jesus often taunted the Pharisees with \u201cHave you not read?\u201d (Matt. 12:3, 5; Matt. 19:4; Matt. 22:31; Mark 12:10, 26).\u00a0\u00a0 And it\u2019s important to note that what the Jewish leaders heard Peter and John say in Acts 4 was <em>contrary<\/em> to Peter and John being unlearned.\u00a0 That\u2019s why they were \u201castonished.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Some scholars have estimated the literacy rate in Israel around the time of Jesus at 10-15%, although \u201cthe exact literacy rate amongst ancient Jews cannot be determined.\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn32\" name=\"_ftnref32\">[32]<\/a>\u00a0 A lot of speculation goes into those estimates.\u00a0 Literacy rates are difficult to determine because most ancient writings don\u2019t survive to modern times, especially given the war of Rome against Israel that destroyed Jerusalem in A.D. 70.\u00a0 But there is archeological evidence that even prior to Israel\u2019s exile to Babylon, literacy was common even in small settlements of Israel.<a href=\"#_ftn33\" name=\"_ftnref33\">[33]<\/a>\u00a0 The Jews were People of the Book like no other, so literacy was highly valued in that culture.\u00a0 The Jewish historian Josephus, writing in the latter half of the first century A.D., says that Jews took pride in teaching all of their children to read:<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Above all we pride ourselves on the education of our children, and regard as the most essential task in life the observance of our laws and of the pious practices, based thereupon, which we have inherited\u201d (Ag. Ap. 1.12 \u00a760)<\/p>\n<p>\u201c(The Law) orders that (children) shall be taught to read, and shall learn both the laws and the deeds of their forefathers . . .\u201d (Ag. Ap. 2.25 \u00a7204).<\/p>\n<p>So this whole claim about Peter and John being illiterate is baloney, and the conclusion drawn from it, that Christian theology should be no more sophisticated than what illiterates can understand, is baloney as well.\u00a0 The author of Hebrews directly contradicts Pastor Stanley\u2019s claim.\u00a0 He says that Christian maturity requires understanding more than just the basic doctrines of the Bible.\u00a0 He rebukes his audience for being like babes who need milk rather than solid food because \u201cyou need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God\u201d (Heb. 5:12).\u00a0 The goal is to be \u201cmature\u201d (Heb. 5:14) which means to \u201cleave the elementary doctrine of Christ\u201d (Heb. 6:1) \u2013 that is, to be able to understand more in-depth doctrines than just the basic ones like \u201crepentance from dead works and of faith toward God\u201d (Heb. 6:1).\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Similarly, in Ephesians 4 Paul says that the goal of teachers in the church is to have the members of Christ\u2019s church achieve \u201cmature manhood,\u201d which includes not being carried away by deceitful doctrine (Eph. 4:11-16).<\/p>\n<p>Maturity in doctrine is required for someone to be a leader in the church:\u00a0 \u201cHe must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.\u201d (Titus 1:9)\u00a0 Pastor Stanley fails this standard.\u00a0 He does not \u201chold firm to the trustworthy word.\u201d\u00a0 He\u2019s lost faith in the bible, but he\u2019s still preaching. \u00a0For Paul, sound doctrine is \u201call Scripture\u201d (2 Tim. 3:16), particularly the Old Testament, which Pastor Stanley rejects. Rather than rebuke those who contradict sound doctrine, he has folded under atheists\u2019 criticisms of the Bible.\u00a0 His exegesis of the Bible is downright irresponsible as I showed regarding his claim that Paul does not appeal to the Old Testament as a standard for morality.\u00a0\u00a0 Pastor Stanley does not qualify as \u201ca worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth\u201d (2 Tim. 3:15).\u00a0 I don\u2019t want Pastor Stanley to be dismissed from his church, if possible.\u00a0 At the least, though, he needs to take significant time off for the next year or more to study theological works outside his Arminian\/Traditional Apologetics comfort zone.<\/p>\n<p>The way that the first-century church expanded so quickly was not because they preached a dumbed-down theology suited for illiterates.\u00a0 Neither will the modern church challenge the secular culture by preaching a dumbed-down theology suited for illiterates.\u00a0 The church will challenge the modern secular culture only when it confronts the secular culture at all levels with the comprehensive claims of God\u2019s word.\u00a0 The modern culture needs to be confronted with the fact that they have nothing without Christ and His word, which includes the Old Testament \u2013 not science, not ethics, not reason, not this world or the next.<\/p>\n<p>__________________________________________________________<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref1\" name=\"_ftn1\">[1]<\/a>\u00a0 \u201cDr. Brown Interviews Pastor Andy Stanley,\u201d <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=C7Jcu03lJso\">https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=C7Jcu03lJso<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref2\" name=\"_ftn2\">[2]<\/a>\u00a0 \u201cWhat is Inerrancy,\u201d (12\/15\/08) <a href=\"https:\/\/www.reasonablefaith.org\/media\/reasonable-faith-podcast\/what-is-inerrancy\/\">https:\/\/www.reasonablefaith.org\/media\/reasonable-faith-podcast\/what-is-inerrancy\/<\/a>.\u00a0 In another lecture, Craig acknowledges that the doctrine of inerrancy is not arrived at inductively but rather deductively.\u00a0 However, Craig basis this on Jesus\u2019 attitude toward the Scriptures and doesn\u2019t mention how the nature of God plays a part in the issue of inerrancy.\u00a0 He says that he believes the Bible because of Christ, not believing Christ because of the Bible. \u201cDoctrine of Revelation Part 8: The Difficulties of Biblical Inerrancy,\u201d <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=k8c_imrGvMM\">https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=k8c_imrGvMM<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref3\" name=\"_ftn3\">[3]<\/a>\u00a0 \u201c#522 Should OT Difficulties Be an Obstacle to Christian Belief?\u201d\u00a0 4\/16\/17 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.reasonablefaith.org\/writings\/question-answer\/should-ot-difficulties-be-an-obstacle-to-christian-belief\">https:\/\/www.reasonablefaith.org\/writings\/question-answer\/should-ot-difficulties-be-an-obstacle-to-christian-belief<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref4\" name=\"_ftn4\">[4]<\/a>\u00a0 \u201cIs Inerrancy Necessary?,\u201d (6\/18\/12) <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=0tmlarRL1VE\">https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=0tmlarRL1VE<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref5\" name=\"_ftn5\">[5]<\/a>\u00a0 \u201cHBU&#8217;s Licona addresses Bible&#8217;s &#8216;contradictions&#8217;,\u201d <a href=\"http:\/\/www.bpnews.net\/39699\">http:\/\/www.bpnews.net\/39699<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref6\" name=\"_ftn6\">[6]<\/a>\u00a0 Ibid.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref7\" name=\"_ftn7\">[7]<\/a>\u00a0 For example, see <a href=\"https:\/\/normangeisler.com\/mike-licona-on-inerrancy-its-worse-than-we-originally-thought\/\">https:\/\/normangeisler.com\/mike-licona-on-inerrancy-its-worse-than-we-originally-thought\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref8\" name=\"_ftn8\">[8]<\/a>\u00a0 He means what can loosely be called traditional apologetics.\u00a0 \u201cClassical Apologetics\u201d technically means the traditional proofs for the existence of God like those advocated by Thomas Aquinas.\u00a0 This is distinguished from \u00a0Evidentialist Apologetics that Pastor Stanley is advocating in his book, although the latter is usually seen as complementing Classical Apologetics.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref9\" name=\"_ftn9\">[9]<\/a>\u00a0 \u201cDr. Brown Interviews Pastor Andy Stanley,\u201d <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=C7Jcu03lJso\">https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=C7Jcu03lJso<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref10\" name=\"_ftn10\">[10]<\/a>\u00a0 S.C. Meyer, \u201cIntelligent Design is not Creationism,\u201d <em>The Daily Telegraph<\/em>, London, 9 February 2006, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.discovery.org\/a\/3191\">www.discovery.org\/a\/3191<\/a>, accessed 5 July 2015.\u00a0 For more on this issue, see my essay, \u201cIntelligent Design Leaders Promote a Naturalistic Epistemology,\u201d <em>Journal Of Creation<\/em>, 29(3) 2015, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.christianciv.com\/IDnaturalism.pdf\">http:\/\/www.christianciv.com\/IDnaturalism.pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref11\" name=\"_ftn11\">[11]<\/a>\u00a0 George Marsden, \u201cScotland and Philadelphia: Common Sense Philosophy from Jefferson to Westminster,\u201d<\/p>\n<p><em>Reformed Journal <\/em>29\/3 (1979), 8.\u00a0 See also George Marsden. \u201cThe Collapse of American Evangelical Academia,\u201d in <em>Faith and Rationality <\/em>(ed. Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff; Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983), 219\u201364.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref12\" name=\"_ftn12\">[12]<\/a>\u00a0 Cornelius Van Til, <em>The Reformed Pastor and Modern Thought<\/em> (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980 [1971]), 92.\u00a0 For more on Van Til\u2019s critique of Aquinas, see my essay, \u201cThe Scope and Limits of Van TIl\u2019s Transcendental Argument: A Response to John Frame,\u201d <a href=\"http:\/\/www.christianciv.com\/The_Scope_and_Limits_of_VTAG.pdf\">http:\/\/www.christianciv.com\/The_Scope_and_Limits_of_VTAG.pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref13\" name=\"_ftn13\">[13]<\/a>\u00a0 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.risenjesus.com\/mike-licona-vs-bart-ehrman-2018\">https:\/\/www.risenjesus.com\/mike-licona-vs-bart-ehrman-2018<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref14\" name=\"_ftn14\">[14]<\/a>\u00a0 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=DgcHGnjN1PQ\">https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=DgcHGnjN1PQ<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref15\" name=\"_ftn15\">[15]<\/a>\u00a0 Van Til, <em>An Introduction to Systematic Theology<\/em>, 146.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref16\" name=\"_ftn16\">[16]<\/a>\u00a0 Eugene\u00a0Wigner,\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.dartmouth.edu\/~matc\/MathDrama\/reading\/Wigner.html\">&#8220;The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences,&#8221;<\/a>\u00a0<em>Symmetries and Reflections:\u00a0\u00a0Scientific Essays<\/em>\u00a0(Cambridge and London:\u00a0\u00a0The MIT Press, 1970) p. 237.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref17\" name=\"_ftn17\">[17]<\/a>\u00a0 Albert Einstein, &#8220;Physics and Reality&#8221;(1936), in\u00a0<em>Ideas and Opinions<\/em>, trans. Sonja Bargmann (New York: Bonanza, 1954), p. 292.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref18\" name=\"_ftn18\">[18]<\/a>\u00a0 Stephen Hawking, <em>A Brief History of Time<\/em>, p. 232.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref19\" name=\"_ftn19\">[19]<\/a>\u00a0 Cornelius Van Til, <em>The Defense of the Faith<\/em> (1955), p. 125.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref20\" name=\"_ftn20\">[20]<\/a>\u00a0 Van Til, <em>An Introduction to Systematic Theology<\/em>, 128-29.\u00a0 Also see Van Til, <em>Psychology of Religion<\/em>, p.123.\u00a0 In many cases, the redeemed community existing at the time of the revelation would have the best vantage point to look at the evidence to judge whether the revelation was genuine, so that the redeemed community in later times must rely on the earlier judgments about revelation claims that passed the tests of canonicity.\u00a0 On the other hand, later revelation can also confirm earlier revelation, as when Jesus affirmed the inspiration of the Old Testament and performed miracles and fulfilled prophecy to confirm that His message was from God.\u00a0 Also, there is a harmony of teachings between the various revelations that compose the canon of Scripture that becomes more evident as more revelation is added.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref21\" name=\"_ftn21\">[21]<\/a>\u00a0 Van Til, <em>A Christian Theory of Knowledge<\/em>, p. 27-28.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref22\" name=\"_ftn22\">[22]<\/a>\u00a0 Liberal Old Testament scholar Richard E. Friedman makes this observation:\u00a0 \u201cBiblical religion involves a different conception of what this one God is. In pagan religion, the gods and goddesses were identified with forces in nature: the sun, the sky, the sea, death, fertility, the storm wind.\u00a0 Even in Akhenaten\u2019s religion, whether it was fully monotheistic or not, Aten was identified closely with the sun. In Israelite religion, no force in nature can tell you more about God than any other. Yahweh is above nature and beyond it. . . .\u00a0 We simply do not know of any people or any individual\u2014Midianites or Akhenaten\u2014who had such an idea of who and what God was.\u201d <em>The Exodus<\/em>, HarperOne. Kindle Edition), p. 142. See also Cornelius Van Til, <em>A Survey of Christian Epistemology<\/em> (Phillipsburg, NJ: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1969), p. 11.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref23\" name=\"_ftn23\">[23]<\/a>\u00a0 On the issue of the length of time stated or allowed by Genesis 1, I agree with one long-age advocate that young-earth creationists are mostly in agreement in their interpretation of Genesis; but old-earth Christians keep multiplying new interpretations of Genesis to justify their acceptance of Big Bang cosmology. (Benjamin D. Smith, Jr., <em>Genesis, Science, and the Beginning: Evaluating Interpretations of Genesis One on the Age of the Earth<\/em> (Carollton, GA: Theolosaurus Rex Publications, 2015), p. 17.\u00a0 See my review of his book here:\u00a0 <a href=\"https:\/\/christianciv.com\/blog\/index.php\/2017\/02\/27\/the-expanse-expanded\/\">https:\/\/christianciv.com\/blog\/index.php\/2017\/02\/27\/the-expanse-expanded\/<\/a>.) \u00a0He counts nine different old-earth interpretations of Genesis, including his own latest and greatest. (p.21)\u00a0 The most obvious reason for this difference is that young-earth creationists are willing to conform their thinking to what the text says, while old-earth creationists have come to a view of earth\u2019s history independently of the text.\u00a0 If people keep insisting on trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, every proposal to make the peg fit will have major problems, so new proposals will have to be invented without end.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref24\" name=\"_ftn24\">[24]<\/a>\u00a0 Thomas S. Kuhn, <em>The Structure of Scientific Revolutions<\/em> (Chicago:\u00a0 The University of Chicago Press, 1996), p. 146.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref25\" name=\"_ftn25\">[25]<\/a>\u00a0 Cornelius Van Til, <em>An Introduction to Systematic Theology<\/em>. (Phillipsburg, NJ:\u00a0 The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1979), p. 212 .\u00a0 I should also mention that William Lane Craig\u2019s Kalam Cosmological Argument arrives at God\u2019s nature through negation. Because the universe is caused, temporal, spatial, and changing, the cause of the universe must be uncaused, atemporal, non-spatial, and unchanging.\u00a0 See <a href=\"http:\/\/www.leaderu.com\/offices\/billcraig\/docs\/cosmological_argument.html\">http:\/\/www.leaderu.com\/offices\/billcraig\/docs\/cosmological_argument.html<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref26\" name=\"_ftn26\">[26]<\/a>\u00a0 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=BWdoPMDD-pc\">https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=BWdoPMDD-pc<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref27\" name=\"_ftn27\">[27]<\/a>\u00a0 \u201cDoes God Really Know What I&#8217;ll Do in the Future?\u201d (4\/3\/16), https:\/\/www.reasonablefaith.org\/media\/reasonable-faith-podcast\/does-god-really-know-what-ill-do-in-the-future\/.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref28\" name=\"_ftn28\">[28]<\/a>\u00a0 Cornelius Van Til, <em>The Defense of the Faith<\/em> (1955), 123.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref29\" name=\"_ftn29\">[29]<\/a>\u00a0 Thom Notaro, <em>Van Til &amp; the Use of Evidence <\/em>(Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980), pp. 109-123.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref30\" name=\"_ftn30\">[30]<\/a>\u00a0 \u201cAndy Stanley on Calvinism&#8217;s Impact in the Local Church\u201d (Interview with Leighton Flowers, December 18, 2018), <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=BWdoPMDD-pc\">https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=BWdoPMDD-pc<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref31\" name=\"_ftn31\">[31]<\/a>\u00a0 The Greek word <em>agrammatos<\/em> that is translated \u201cunlearned\u201d in Acts 4:13 can have meaning that veers \u201cbetween the meanings \u2018unlearned\u2019 and \u2018incapable or reading and writing.\u2019\u201d William V. Harris, <em>Ancient Literacy<\/em> (Cambridge, MA:\u00a0 Harvard University Press, 1989), p. 5.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref32\" name=\"_ftn32\">[32]<\/a>\u00a0 Catherine Hezser, <em>Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine<\/em> (T\u00fcbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), p. 496. \u00a0\u00a0Bart Ehrman has mistakenly cited Hezser to say that the literacy rate was 3%.\u00a0 See <a href=\"http:\/\/www.strangenotions.com\/bart-ehrmans-botched-source\/\">http:\/\/www.strangenotions.com\/bart-ehrmans-botched-source\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref33\" name=\"_ftn33\">[33]<\/a>\u00a0 \u201cIn light of the evidence from all sources it appears that literacy reached beyond the palaces and temples of Israel and Judah to quite small settlements.\u201d Alan Millard, \u201cLiteracy [Israel],\u201d Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 4, p. 340, quoted in Richard Elliot Friedman, <em>The Exodus, <\/em>(HarperOne, Kindle Edition), p. 256 n.22, also see p. 94.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Pastor Andy Stanley wants to be rid of having to defend the Old Testament.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The thrust of his book is that he sees the Old Testament as an unnecessary drag on the New Testament gospel, so he wants to unhitch &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/christianciv.com\/blog\/index.php\/2019\/02\/16\/irresistible-part-1\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[3,6,5],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/christianciv.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/369"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/christianciv.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/christianciv.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christianciv.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christianciv.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=369"}],"version-history":[{"count":18,"href":"https:\/\/christianciv.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/369\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":404,"href":"https:\/\/christianciv.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/369\/revisions\/404"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/christianciv.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=369"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christianciv.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=369"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christianciv.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=369"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}