Review of “The Apologetics Study Bible”

The Apologetics Study Bible, Ted Cabal, General Editor, Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishing, Hbk, 2007.

At the risk of showing my age, I can remember a time when considering which Study Bible to purchase was an easy affair. One had only a few to choose from: Scofield, Thompson, Nave, and a few more. Well, those days are well and truly gone. What is one to make of the current situation? Options fill out the pages of Bible catalogs. Within the long lists of contemporary Study Bibles there are good and not so good choices. I’ve even come across ones with metal covers (who dreams up these things?) But in our consumer-culture there’s always room for one more, right? How, then does the new Apologetics Study Bible rate?

It would be helpful in a review of a work like this to first provide a general overview of what one will encounter in The Apologetics Study Bible (hereafter TASB).

First, the translation is the Holman Christian Standard Bible, a fairly formal correspondence version done by the Southern Baptists, usually accurate and quite vivid (especially in the Prophets). The study notes and book introductions are provided by recognized Bible scholars, many of whom were contributors to the New American Commentary series. This feature of TASB does not appear to be geared towards the subject of apologetics, but the material is good, reflecting a wise decision to expound the text itself instead of affixing clipped apologetic digressions to a biblical passage.

Review of New Dictionary of Christian Apologetics

New Dictionary of Christian Apologetics, edited by W. C. Campbell-Jack & Gavin McGrath, consulting editor, C. Stephen Evans, Downers Grove, Ill: IVP, 2006, cloth, $45.00.

When in 1999 Norman Geisler published his Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics he provided the Christian community with a useful, if slanted reference book on the defense of the Faith. Like the Catholic Handbook by Kreeft and Tacelli, it reflected a heavily Thomistic approach. Now we have this offering from the UK, produced by IVP and including articles by many contributors.

The choice of articles is on the whole excellent. It appears that a lot of thought has gone into the selection. We find fine articles on such pertinent topics as “Advertising,” “Authority,” “Critical Realism,” “Foundationalism,” “Globalization,” and “Islam.” Included also are many cameos of important thinkers (e.g. Augustine, Barth, Dooyeweerd, Henry, Lewis, Wittgenstein) that support the formal entries.

The dictionary is divided into two parts; the first fifty pages being given over to six essays on the history, role and relevance of the discipline. I confess to being quite disappointed with this part of the work, since on the whole the essays suffer from a lack of depth and balance, with Evans’s article, “Approaches to Christian Apologetics” being a prime example of the latter. But perhaps this would have been remedied if more space had been set aside for them.

Faith and Reason in Christian Perspective - Pt. 2

A Case Study: Harold Netland and the Demand for Neutrality

 

As we further consider whether reason should be categorized separately to faith as properly functioning independent of it, I cite the example of an article by Harold Netland entitled, “Apologetics, Worldviews, and the Problem of Neutral Criteria.”[1] In Netland’s 1991 article we see an able but, I believe, misguided critique of presuppositionalist John M. Frame’s epistemology as set forth in his book The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. The overall burden of Netland’s complaint is clear, there must be some mutually shared neutral criteria that all people, whether Theist, Atheist, Hindu, Buddhist, Humanist, or whatever, can use to judge each other’s positions.[2] It is the possibility of this neutral ground that Frame, in common with other biblical presuppositionalists (including the present writer) denies.

Faith and Reason in Christian Perspective - Pt. 1

It appears to me that one of the first things a faithful theologian needs to do is to straighten out the confusion about brought about by the world’s separation of faith and reason. This relationship is so vital to a biblically fastened worldview that to neglect it will involve the believer in a host of conflicting beliefs and practices. For it is just here that the negligent Christian theologue will be attacked.[1] To the average man in the street, “faith” is that “I really hope so” attitude that many people employ when their circumstances get tough. It is that blind trust that things will turn out all right in the end. Faith thus defined is the opposite of reason. “Reason” deals with the cold hard facts, so it goes, and is what we have to use in the “real world” – in business, in science, in education.

 

One Christian writer has put the matter in the form of a question: “Is it rational for us to believe in God? Is it rational for us to place our confidence in Him and his revelation to man? Can a person believe in God without performing a sacrifice of his intellect? ”[2]

 

According to many people, faith and reason are polar opposites. Faith deals with hopes and aspirations and dreams and ‘religious stuff’, while reason concerns itself with the facts of day to day experience, the world in which we live and do science learn about what is and what is not so. As the late Harvard paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould stated it, in what has become a mantra among secular scientists, “religion tells us how to go to heaven; science tells us how the heavens go.” To put it in less deceptive terms, “religion deals with gods and heaven and pixies and UFO’s; while science (which knows these things are non-existent) concerns itself with what is so.” Gould even thought up a nice anagram for his concept: NOMA, or “non over-lapping magisteriums”.[3] Secular science gets all the facts; faith gets all the pink elephants. Or as one astute critic observed,

 

The power to define “factual reality” is the power to govern the mind, and thus to confine “religion” within a naturalistic box. For example, a supposed command of God can hardly provide a basis for morality unless God really exists. The commands of an imaginary deity are merely human commands dressed up as divine law…[N]aturalistic metaphysics relegates both morality and God to the realm outside of scientific knowledge, where only subjective belief is to be found.[4]

 

It is because of misconceptions such as these that the matter deserves more attention than it gets. We must begin by defining our terms. Gould and his followers are so impressed by their formulation of the issue because they have defined faith away while reconstituting reason so that it mirrors their own opinion of themselves and what they think they are doing. The first thing that any person should do, therefore, is to know what he means when employing specific terminology.

I will define reason along with theologian-philosopher John Frame as, “the human ability or capacity for forming judgments and inferences.”[5] This is employing the word in a descriptive sense. Frame goes on to narrow the definition down to a normative sense “to denote correct judgments and inferences.”[6] The important thing to notice about Frame’s definition is that it houses no built-in biases against supernaturalism. While being itself a perfectly good description it does not contain anything in it with which the secularist can control the debate.

The Divine Logos - Pt. 3

D. Jesus as the Word

Even though the teaching of the “Word” or “Logos” appears prominently and explicitly in the prologue to John’s Gospel, the theme runs through the whole of the Gospel.[1]

John stresses the words of Jesus as having special significance as words:

Rhemata is used nine times for His words (5:47; 6:63, 68; 8:20;10:21; 12:47, 48; 14:10; 15:7), and three times for the words of God spoken by Jesus (3:34; 8:47; 17:8).

John employs logos three times in the plural for Jesus words (7:40; 10:19; 14:24).

But it is used eighteen times in the singular (2;22; 4:41, 50; 5:24; 6:60; 7:36; 8:31, 37, 43, 51,52; 12:48; 14:23; 15:3, 20; 18:9, 32). Six times for God’s word and twice for the word of God which Jesus speaks (14:24; 17:14).

According to Gundry[2], John goes out of his way to “multiply references to Jesus” words qua words”, using more than twice as many of these terms as all the synoptics put together (nearly three times if one considers that many of the synoptic instances are repetitions). To these words one should also consider the usage of entole in 14:15, 21; 15:10, 12 with the use of logos as a synonym in 8:51, 52; 14:23, 24; 15:20; 17:6.

 

Then also we should look at martureo and maturia which occur sixteen times for the witness of Jesus (3:11, 32, 33; 4:44; 5:31; 7:7; 8:13, 14, 18; 13:21; 18:37. See also Rev. 19:13 and Rev. 1:2, 9; 20:4). Again John “calls attention to the voice (phone) of Jesus 9 times” (3:29; 5:25, 28; 10:3, 4, 16, 27; 11:43; 18:37). John records Jesus as saying “Amen, Amen” twenty-five times before important assertions. Fifty out of the sixty-one occurrences of laleo; lalo; and lalia (speak) have to do with Jesus speaking, compared with only nine occurrences in the synoptics (see esp. 8:43).

 

John refers to believing Jesus’ word or words (2:22; 4:50; 5:47; cf. 3:12; 10:25; 12:38), and abiding in His word (or it abiding in us) in 5:38 and 15:7. In 8:51, 52; 14:15, 21, 23, 24; 15:10, 20 John refers to keeping Jesus’ commands, word or words in a way not duplicated in the synoptics. Finally, (in this study) see 4:26 (cf. 4:10) and Jesus’ emphasis upon Jesus own words.

The Divine Logos - Pt. 1

It may sound somewhat unseemly for any theologian to refer to the Lord Jesus Christ as “the Logos of God,” but to conceive of Him (momentarily) in this abstract way opens up new lines of inquiry that are harder to see under His personal name. And, after all, the Apostle John was the first to do it.

If one comes to the term “Logos” with the mindset of the ancient Greek philosophers, the best thing that could be extracted from the prologue to John’s Gospel would be a personification but not a Person. But clearly John is not content with a personification. He has something extremely profound in mind; something that I believe provides a helpful fillip for a fully Christo-doxological motif.

Before we can expound a motif we must clear away the mound of misunderstandings that has been built up over the meaning of John’s Logos.

A. Meaning of the Term

The basic meaning of the word logo“ in Greek may be summarized as, “the expression of thought - not the mere name of an object - (a) as embodying a conception or idea, (b) a saying or statement, (c) discourse, speech, of instruction etc.”^[i] Thus, the idea of rationality, of a reasoned message of some sort, is central to the term.^[ii] Yet, at first glance it seems far from clear why the Apostle chose this designation.

It is clear that the concept of the Divine Logos that one encounters in the opening verses of John’s Gospel is of great importance to his doctrine of Christ. The main verses are given below:

 

In the beginning was the Word [Logos], and the Word [Logos] was with God, and the Word [Logos] was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were created by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not. (John 1:1-5)

 

He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. (John 1:10).

 

And the Word [Logos] was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld Him… (John 1:14a).

 

No man hath seen God [the Father] at any time; the only begotten Son,[iii] which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him. (John 1:18).

 

 

We have isolated these verses, not because the other verses in the Prologue (vv. 1-1 are unimportant, but solely for the purpose of definition. These are the essential verses for the Logos teaching. We see a connection between the Word and God, the created order, and man.[iv] Clearly, in these passages John is very deliberately linking the Logos who became Christ in the flesh with the Creator God. We know that the Christ was named “Jesus” at the time of His birth (Lk. 2:21). But John is reaching far back before the creation to the relationship of the Logos/Son with God the Father from everlasting (Jn. 1:1-2, 18; cf. 17:5). Therefore, John is facing us with the implication that He who was to be known as Jesus of Nazareth in “the days of His flesh,” is the eternal Logos or Word of God. It is made clear that three great pillars of the Christian world and life view, Creation (1:1, 3), Revelation (1:4, 9, 14, 17-18), and Redemption (1:12-13), are bound to His Person. But we must turn to the question of ancient parallels before exploring these things further.

Letter from a Christian Citizen - A Review

As many of you are well aware, the past year or so has been a period of rejuvenation for atheism. Four big selling books, by Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and Harris have made a splash, and, I think, caught some evangelicals napping. Not so Douglas Wilson, who among other things is Head of a Christian college that focuses on “the lost tools of learning,” and the editor of the respected Credenda/Agenda magazine. His new book, Letter from a Christian Citizen responds to the similarly titled atheist tirade of Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation.

Wilson’s book, like all his work, is interesting, fun to read, and incisive. He is one of the very best writers out there today, and Letter from a Christian Citizen is one of the year’s most worthwhile books. It begins with a valuable “Foreword” from Gary DeMar about the pretensions of “new” atheism and the latest assault it has launched upon truly free-thinking people (meaning anyone who may want to disagree with it).

When Wilson enters the fray he does so cordially, thanking Harris for “setting your thoughts down so plainly.” (3). He explains that the acerbic attacks Harris has received from some Christians is not a sign of a general ill-will among believers (4-5), but then skillfully uses Harris’s characterizations of these church-goers to cut through the atheist’s unreasoned assumptions. “I am genuinely curious as what you can possibly offer as a basis for these judgments” he quips (6). After all, if the atheist version of the world corresponds with reality, what is Harris doing making moral judgments of other biochemically-driven systems? The ethics of the thing isn’t even on the table! As Wilson points out, “In order to demolish something intellectually, you have to have a standard for thought and reason” (8), and this standard extends (if one is to have any hope of a coherent worldview) into the realm of morality also (9, 40, 99). Hectoring believers with epithets and speaking patronizingly at them when one is standing on the equivalent of epistemological Balsawood is stock-in-trade for atheism. But when anyone dares ask for the fulcrum upon which the high-sounding appeals to “science” and “reason” turn all one hears is the crickets chirping outside.

Natural Theology: An Evangelical Faux Pas?

Any discussion of the doctrine of Divine revelation or of apologetic method has to incorporate the matter of natural theology. Is natural theology a legitimate exercise when its foundational tenets are viewed in the light of Scripture? In the opinion of the majority of Protestant theologians and apologists the question is answered in the affirmative. Many authoritative names, representing Arminian, Reformed, and Dispensational schools of thought have bought into some kind of natural theology.[1] Such luminaries as Charles Hodge, B. B. Warfield, Robert L. Dabney, Lewis Sperry Chafer, J. Oliver Buswell, and Henry C. Thiessen all found a place for a natural theology in their works. Among distinguished contemporaries the list would include Charles C. Ryrie, Robert L. Lightner, James Leo Garrett, Bruce Demarest, Gordon Lewis, Alister McGrath, Donald Bloesch, Wayne Grudem, John S. Feinberg, and R. C. Sproul Sr.

In the realm of Christian apologetics the list is almost endless. In addition to a few of the names above, one might name (among past and present), C. S. Lewis, John Warwick Montgomery, Norman L. Geisler, J. P. Moreland, Ronald Nash, William Lane Craig, Winfried Corduan, Douglas Groothuis, Ravi Zacharias, Paul Copan, Richard Swinburne, and Gary Habermas. The head-count is impressive. So why ask the question? What is the problem?

To answer these questions we must put to ourselves some more specific ones: First, what is natural theology? Second, what are its difficulties? Third, does the doctrine of general revelation lead us to recognize some form of natural theology?

Justifying One’s Assertions

Below is a short response to a rather vitriolic missive from a person who evidently did not appreciate my Thoughts on the Dawkins/Lennox debate.

Dear Kam,

 

I’m not sure how much of this reply you will get around to reading. Your response does not exactly fill me with assurance that you read the whole of my original article. In that post I already pre-empted most of what you wrote, minus the vitriol. However, I shall treat your remarks as if I had not written anything previously and shall try to deal with your note.

 

Allow me first to say that I was not born with a Bible in my hand. I was brought up and educated in England where I do not ever recall hearing any explanation of the world apart from evolution and the Big Bang. I have a college education and I assure you that I have heard the other side of the story over and over again. I am either “just stupid” as you seem to think, or I am duped, or I am actually in the right. I’ll let you decide that. Only please make sure your decision is made on the basis of having thought through what you read.

The Christian Mind: Sapientia and Scientia

In 1994 the evangelical historian Mark Noll published The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.[1] The book is not much more than a sustained lambast against two conservative subtraditions, Young Earth Creationism and Dispensational Premillennialism. Howbeit, Noll rightly laments “the generations-long failure of the evangelical community to nurture the life of the mind.”[2] In fact, he admonishes his peers because, “fidelity to Jesus Christ demands from evangelicals a more responsible intellectual existence than we have practiced throughout much of our history.”[3] This is because “the gospel properly belongs to the whole person”[4]

 

A. The Need for Wisdom and Knowledge

 

Noll’s prime example of a Christian intellect is the great American philosopher-theologian Jonathan Edwards. For Edwards, he writes, “True knowledge was rather ‘the consistency and agreement of our ideas with the ideas of God.’”[5] One is reminded of Edwards’ words in his great sermon entitled “Christian Knowledge,” where he states that,

 

The faculty of reason and understanding was given for our actual understanding and knowledge. If a man have no actual knowledge, the faculty or capacity of knowledge is of no use to him. And if he have actual knowledge, yet if he be destitute of the knowledge of those things which are the last end of his being, and for the sake of the knowledge of which he had more understanding given him than the beasts; then still his faculty of reason is in vain; he might as well have been a beast as a man. But divine subjects are the things, to know which we had the faculty of reason given us.[6] (Last italics mine).

This is crucial to recognize. Man is not put on earth to “do that which is right in his own eyes”; he is to think God’s thoughts after Him; to gather up, as it were, the wonders of creation in his mind and to reflect upon them, finally returning ever new praises back to the One who placed them there. Like D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones once reminded his hearers,

 

Do let us, therefore, examine ourselves very seriously about these things. It is very wonderful and enjoyable to have fellowship of kindred minds. What is more enjoyable than this? But it can lead to nothing – nothing at all – if we are not ever mindful of the fact that it is merely the means provided by God to bring us to a knowledge of Himself.[7]

 

How different is this to the way the world looks at human knowledge. For example, Jungian psychology has made the mind the servant of Self. Its preoccupation with self-actualization, self-enhancement and psychological wholeness has affected the thinking even of many who have been given “the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:16).[8]