Contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. Jude 3
Our next forum will be a kind of “debrief” of our previous forum and highlight some of the important things we learned together from Pr. Dare. Using that as our foundation, we will also discuss and analyze the following:
10 Reasons Socialism Fails (Audio podcast by Dr. Frank Turek)
The Three Fatal Flaws of Equity (An article by Jason Jimenez of Cross Examined)
From Amy Hall of Stand to Reason:
Here’s the resources for the Friday forum. We’ll discuss the first three articles.
John R. W. Stott was a theologian, pastor, author of more than 50 books, and one of the most influential evangelicals of the twentieth century. He was also a proponent of Christians loving God with their minds and a critic of anti-intellectualism in the church. Below, author Tim Chester summarizes Stott’s biblical case for the importance of the Christian mind.
Addressing evangelicals . . . in Your Mind Matters Stott identifies four reasons why Christians should use their minds based on the doctrines of creation, revelation, redemption, and judgment.
First, God created humanity with a capacity to think. This is one factor that distinguishes us from other animals. Indeed, unthinking people are rebuked in the Scriptures for behaving in a bestial way (Pss. 32:9; 73:22). “God expects man to co-operate with him, consciously and intelligently.” It is true that humanity’s reason is now corrupted by sin, but this does not allow us to retreat from reason, not least because our instincts and emotions are also corrupted by sin. In spite of our fallenness, God still commands people to think and to interpret the world around them (Isa. 1:18; Matt. 16:1–4; Luke 12:54–57).
Second, God’s self-revelation indicates the importance of the mind, for God’s revelation is rational revelation, both his general revelation in nature and his special revelation in Scripture. God himself is “a rational God, who made us in his own image rational beings, has given us in nature and in Scripture a double, rational revelation, and expects us to use our minds to explore what he has revealed.” “The assumed ability of man to read what God has written in the universe is extremely important,” says Stott. In The Contemporary Christian he explains, “All scientific research is based on the convictions that the universe is an intelligible, even meaningful, system; that there is a fundamental correspondence between the mind of the investigator and the data being investigated; and that this correspondence is rationality.” In other words, God has made a rational world with predictable patterns in nature, and God has made humanity with rational minds that can discern these patterns in nature.
So Stott refuses to view science as an enemy. He critiques the god-of-gaps approach, in which the notion of God is employed merely to explain whatever is otherwise inexplicable. The problem with this is that the space left for God has been increasingly squeezed as scientific understanding has advanced so that now there is no need for God in a modernist worldview. But it is wrong to conceive science and Scripture as parallel or competing approaches. The real parallels are between nature and Scripture (complementary sources of information), and science and theology (our complementary attempts to make sense of this information).
Third, Christians need to use their minds because salvation is applied through the proclamation of the gospel—words addressed to minds. Human rationality is key to redemption. “Communication in words presupposes a mind which can understand and interpret them.”
What about Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 1:21: “For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe”? The contrast here, says Stott, is not between a rational and irrational presentation. The limitation of human wisdom does not mean God has dispensed with rationality. Instead, the contrast is between human wisdom (which, blinded by human pride, is in fact ignorance) and divine revelation (rationally presented in gospel proclamation). Not only does the gospel address the mind; it also renews the mind (Eph. 4:23; Col. 3:10). Indeed, a spiritual person can be said to possess “the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:15–16). In The Living Church, Stott adds, “I do not hesitate to say that anti-intellectualism and the fullness of the Spirit are mutually incompatible.”
The fourth reason Christians should use their minds is that the doctrine of judgment assumes the importance of the mind. “For if one thing is clear about biblical teaching on the judgment of God, it is that God will judge us by our knowledge, by our response (or lack of response) to his revelation.” Stott cites Jeremiah’s warnings of judgment because the people had failed to listen to revelation (Jer. 7:25–26; 11:4, 7–8; 25:3–4; 32:33; 44:4–5) and Paul’s assertion that all people are guilty before God because everyone has received revelation in some form or other (Rom. 1–2). Jesus himself says, “The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day” (John 12:48).
These four reasons explain why the Scriptures exhort us to acquire knowledge and wisdom (Prov. 1:22; 3:13–15; Isa. 5:13; Jer. 4:22; Hos. 4:6; 1 Cor. 2:6; 3:1–2; Heb. 5:11–6:3; 2 Pet. 1:5). They explain, too, why so many of Paul’s prayers focus on growth in knowledge (Eph. 1:17–19; 3:14–19; Phil. 1:9–11; Col. 1:9–10). Stott concludes:
Perhaps the current mood (cultivated in some Christian groups) of anti-intellectualism begins now to be seen as the serious evil it is. It is not true piety at all but part of the fashion of the world and therefore a form of worldliness. To denigrate the mind is to undermine foundational Christian doctrines. Has God created us rational beings, and shall we deny our humanity which he has given us? Has God spoken to us, and shall we not listen to his words? Has God renewed our mind through Christ, and shall we not think with it? Is God going to judge us by his Word, and shall we not be wise and build our house upon this rock?
Content taken from Stott on the Christian Life by Tim Chester, ©2020. Used by permission of Crossway. Find Stott on the Christian Life at Amazon and other major booksellers.
Years after the completion of the four canonical gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John), dozens of noncanonical gospels and writings emerged across the empire. The authors of these texts hoped they would be taken seriously. In fact, religious groups of one kind or another used most of these noncanonical writings alongside the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. The authors liked Jesus and recognized his influence and power. But their desire to co-opt the power and authority of Jesus led them to contradict, falsely supplement, or alter the canonical narrative. Groups that embraced the teachings of these texts (many of whom were Gnostic) strayed so far from orthodoxy that they were not recognized or identified as Christians by the earliest church leaders. While the noncanonical authors certainly liked Jesus, these non-Christians sought to co-opt his story for their own purposes. . .
Despite the legendary distortions, these noncanonical documents presupposed and acknowledged the claims of the canonical gospels, just as the legendary distortions of Elvis assumed and affirmed the core truths related to Elvis’s life, accomplishments, and death.
Elvis’s life created a tidal wave of fiction, but Jesus’s life created much more. Just as the underlying truths related to Elvis can be reconstructed from later, legendary accounts, so too can the foundational truths related to Jesus be reconstructed from late noncanonical fictions. . .
The Gospel of Peter, for example (often described as a Gnostic or “Docetic” narrative), was written after the eyewitnesses of Jesus were dead (likely between 150 and 200 CE). Gnostics generally held a low view of the material universe and the human body, and this late gospel was written to reflect that view. Jesus is therefore described as a spirit whose body was only an illusion. But despite many distortions, the Gospel of Peter affirms many details of the Passion Week as described in Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. It also lists the names of the disciples and affirms critical features of the canonical gospels, such as the resurrection of Jesus.
Another late narrative, the Gospel of Philip (written between 180 and 250 CE), is similarly Gnostic in its representation of Jesus. The author of this text describes Jesus as the source of secret wisdom (a common feature of salvation in Gnostic groups). Despite this variation from the canonical gospels, the Gospel of Philip acknowledges Jesus as the Savior, Messiah, and “Son of Man” and repeats many verses from the New Testament and the gospels of Matthew and John.
The distorted narratives written by these non-Christians who liked Jesus repeat many common truths from the Gospels, even as they insert unique falsehoods. There are many other late, noncanonical narratives and legendary accounts, and from the common assumptions described in these accounts (the areas where the authors agree on the foundational claims of the canonical gospels), we can retrieve a detailed description of Jesus and his followers.
— J. Warner Wallace is a Dateline-featured homicide detective, popular national speaker, and best-selling author. He is a Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and Adjunct Professor of Apologetics at Talbot School of Theology (Biola University). Relying on over two decades of investigative experience, Wallace provides the tools needed to investigate the claims of Christianity and make a convincing case for the truth of the Christian worldview.