Save Ourselves?

As those who desire to follow Christ, we must constantly wrestle against our tendency to try to save ourselves. Our natural inclination is to try to overcome sin in our own strength. But note that the things we might try to do to save ourselves are the very things from which we need to be saved! Seeking to overcome our sin through good works, trying harder, or in any way through our own strength is what Christ came to save us from.

Praise be to God that we are, through the gospel, being delivered from slavery to our sinful and ineffectual attempts to save ourselves!

Amazing Love: GOD Is Our Portion.

Whom have I in heaven but you?
And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you.
My flesh and my heart may fail,
But God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.

Psalm 73:25-26

Will God Judge Christians for Their Words and Actions?

I have heard a number of Christians indicate that certain other Christians will be held accountable before God on Judgment Day for the things they have said or done. I’ve heard other Christians say that they should exercise care in the way they live because they will one day have to give an account to God. Yet Romans 8:1 indicates that "there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus," and concerning His people, God says, “Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more” (Heb 10:17). If we trust in Christ, our sins—past, present, and future—are forgiven because of Christ’s death. Christ’s sinless life, then, is credited to our account.

Now, while we are not saved by works, our works do testify to the fact that we have truly trusted in Christ. If we are saved, we will have works and if we do not have works then we are not saved. Before we come to Christ we are in bondage to sin. We were slaves of sin (Rom 6:17), we were hard-hearted and darkened in our understanding (Eph 4:18), we were spiritually dead (Eph 2:1-3) and we were enemies of God (Rom 5:10). Before we came to Christ, then, there was nothing within us that would have inclined us toward God or the Gospel. We naturally hated God and wanted nothing to do with Him. We would rather have kept our life of sin. But God came to us mercifully and opened our eyes to the truth and gave us a new heart that inclined us to respond to him in saving faith (Ezek 36:26-27). Indeed, no one will come to God apart from this supernatural work in their lives (John 6:44). Christ is truly the author of our faith (Heb 12:2). This is why Paul can say, “It is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works so that no one can boast” (Eph 2:8-9). If we accepted Christ because we had the good sense to recognize the truth or because we had the inherent goodness to do what was right or because we had the freedom to make the choice apart from God’s work in our lives, then we would have grounds to boast. But it wasn’t because of any goodness or merit within us. Rather, it was because God granted sight to the blind and faith to the faithless and a new heart to those who had hearts of stone. This supernatural work of God within our hearts, then, changes us so that we begin to desire the things that God desires. The result this produces in our lives is that we begin to live in accordance with those new desires. Our first act as people who have been changed is to trust in Christ. Afterward (or perhaps simultaneously) we also respond in obedience and joy to that to which God calls us. We may, for example, see that God calls us to speak the truth (Eph 4). Since we have been changed so that we love God’s law, we will then respond by striving to be truthful in our speech. Of course, we don’t do it perfectly on this side of the new creation (Rev 21), but we do begin to walk in ways that are pleasing to God. And as the Spirit works in our lives to sanctify us (by continuing to transform our hearts/desires), we become increasingly like Christ in the way we live our lives. But again, the point I really want to drive home here is that the internal change that takes place within our hearts changes us so that we naturally begin to do good works because we begin to desire to live for God more than we desire our life of sin. Therefore, if we are saved, we must do good works. They don’t serve as the grounds for our salvation, but rather our salvation serves as the grounds for our works.

Now, I think the reason people sometimes think that we, as Christians, will give an account to God for every sin we commit after coming to Christ is because of things like Matthew 12:36 where Jesus says, “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak.” But note that the context of this passage is one in which Jesus is making a point about the condition of a person’s heart. The condition of a person’s heart, He says, is revealed by the fruit it produces. And then note in v. 36, that the Greek word which is translated “careless” actually doesn’t connote sinful words, but rather words that might otherwise be considered insignificant. So the point Jesus is making is that even our seemingly insignificant words communicate something about the condition of our hearts. The implication, then, in this context is that if seemingly insignificant words communicate something about a person’s heart, how much more do the words of the Pharisees regarding the Lord Jesus in v. 24 indicate that they are evil and in danger of the coming judgment of God?

Lastly, look at v. 37. Jesus here provides the logical grounds for v. 36. The reason God will judge people based on the seemingly insignificant things they have uttered (v. 36) is because people are either “justified” or “condemned” by their words. Our words “justify” us in that they bear witness to the condition of our heart. If our hearts have truly been changed by the gospel, then it will be reflected even in the seemingly insignificant words we speak. Likewise, if our hearts have not truly been changed and if we remain at enmity with God, then that will also be evidenced by the things we say (just as it was evidenced by the words of the Pharisees in v. 24).

Our standing before God is based on Christ’s redemptive work—His life, death, and resurrection. If we have been reconciled to God, our hearts have been changed. Our changed hearts lead us to speak in God-honoring ways and our speech, then, serves as an indicator of our standing before God. In this sense, we will give an account for every insignificant word on the Day of Judgment. It’s not that God will reprimand us for every sinful word we speak, but that our seemingly insignificant words will be an indication of whether we will be either acquitted or condemned on Judgment Day on the basis of Christ’s redemptive work in our lives.

Did God Inspire Prophecy After The Fact? An Examination of John Goldingay's Late Dating of the Book of Daniel

There has been much debate surrounding the date of the book of Daniel. Critical scholars tend to think that the book was written sometime during the second century b.c.[1] Conservative scholars have generally maintained that the book was written during the sixth century b.c.[2] But during more recent times, some conservative scholars have attempted to take the infamous middle road. However, is it possible to hold to such a position without experiencing the pitfalls suffered by liberal scholars? Can confessing evangelical scholars hold to a late date of Daniel and maintain the integrity of their faith? At the center of this problem is the question of whether God could have inspired ex eventu prophecy, prophecy after the fact. Would this conflict with the doctrine of inerrancy? In this paper I will provide an overview of the development of the debate. I will look at the work of critical scholars and the responses made by conservatives. I will pay particular attention to the work of John Goldingay. Goldingay is an evangelical scholar who has opted for a late dating of Daniel. I will evaluate Goldingay’s position and attempt to determine its logical tenability. I will then conclude with a synopsis in which I will attempt to evaluate the appropriateness of Goldingay’s approach for the confessional Christian.

The Development of a Late Date for Daniel
The view of the book of Daniel commonly held by critical scholars was actually forecasted by Porphyry, a third century Syrian philosopher. Porphyry’s view of Daniel is seen in the commentary on Daniel by Jerome. In his commentary, Jerome wrote against Porphyry. In the process, Jerome describes Porphyry’s position. According to Jerome, Porphyry argued that the book of Daniel was actually written during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes.[3] But if this is the case, then Daniel was obviously written in such a way as to give the appearance that it had been written earlier. The purpose of this, Porphyry proposed, was to give credibility to the prophetic material in the book.[4] Porphyry reasoned that the events which are described in Daniel’s prophecies and which corresponded to actual historical events were actually written after those events had taken place.[5] But, he says, the author of Daniel wrote them as though they had not yet happened in order to give the appearance that the prophecies in Daniel were reliable. Porphyry believed that the author of Daniel wanted his readers to think that certain historical events described in Daniel had been predicted with great accuracy. He believed that the author’s motivation for this was to convince those who read the book that they should heed his message regarding events which had not yet come to pass. The readers would reason that if in the past the book had demonstrated a supernatural ability to accurately predict future events, then chances were good that the book’s predictions about the future would also come to pass. But, Porphyry believed, the prophecies relating to events that were yet future at that time were not fulfilled in the way that the author had suggested they would be.[6] Nevertheless, Porphyry was refuted by Jerome and it seemed that the traditional view—the view that Daniel was written during the time of the Babylonian captivity—would win the day.

Nevertheless, with some modifications, Porphyry’s hypothesis was revived during the eighteenth century. During this time, Anthony Collins, an English deist, promoted a view very close to that of Porphyry in his 1727 book, The Scheme of Literal Prophecy.[7] However, Collins argued this case much more carefully and offered some significant arguments with which those who have held to a more traditional understanding of the authorship of Daniel have had to contend.[8] This view then became refined and popularized by the German commentators Bertholdt and von Lengerke.[9] Brevard Childs, who provides an overview of the scholarly work that developed this idea of a late Daniel, indicates that “these scholars argued on the basis of language, history, theology, and logic that the book was a pseudepigraphical tractate written in the Maccabean age to encourage the Jews in their resistance against the persecution of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The prophecies of Daniel were vaticinia ex eventu, prophecies-after-the-event, and were used as a device by which to ensure authority for an apocalyptic message.”[10] This position was then further popularized in England by the commentaries of Farrar and Driver.[11]

The Response of Conservatives
As might have been expected, many scholars of a more conservative stripe sought to defend the early date of the book of Daniel. These included such scholars as Hengstenberg, Havernick, Keil, Pusey, and R. D. Wilson.[12] The debate, it seems, was highly polemical and it seemed that little love was lost between the two camps. The words of E. B. Pusey summarize the conservative position well. Pusey wrote:

The book of Daniel is especially fitted to be a battle-ground between faith and unbelief. It admits of no half-way measures. It is either Divine or an imposture. To write any book under the name of another, and to give it out to be his, is in any case forgery, dishonest in itself, and destructive of all trustworthiness. But the case as to the book of Daniel, if it were not his, would go far beyond even this. The writer, were he not Daniel, must have lied, on a most frightful scale, ascribing to God prophecies which were never uttered, and miracles which are assumed never to have been wrought. In a word, the whole book would be one lie in the Name of God.[13]

A New Conservative Response
While the vast majority of critical scholars continue to maintain that Daniel was written during the second century b.c., the majority of confessional scholars hold to the traditional early dating of the book of Daniel.[14] For this reason it is significant that several recent evangelical commentators have also posited a second century date for the book.[15] This new evangelical position is represented by its main proponent, John Goldingay. He writes:

Critical scholarship has sometimes overtly, sometimes covertly approached the visions with the a priori conviction that they cannot be actual prophecies of events to take place long after the seer’s day, because prophecy of that kind is impossible Conversely, conservative scholarship has sometimes overtly, sometimes covertly approached these visions with the a priori conviction that they must be actual prophecies because quasi-prophecies issued pseudonymously could not have been inspired by God; it has also approached the stories with the a priori conviction that they must be pure history, because fiction or a mixture of fact and fiction could not have been inspired by God.[16]

Here Goldingay attempts to take a mediating position between the traditional approach of conservative scholars and the approach of critical scholars. While he wants to distance himself from the anti-supernatural bias which, he says, leads some critical scholars to reject the notion of predictive prophecy, he also wants to leave open the option that these prophecies may have been recorded after the events themselves. Goldingay suggests that to discount the possibility that these prophecies may be ex eventu is to impose an expectation of historical accuracy that is extrinsic to the text.

However, it does seem that Goldingay has overstated his case on several levels. The reason, Goldingay says, some conservative scholars hold this expectation is because they believe that “fiction or a mixture of fact and fiction could not have been inspired by God.”[17] However, this is clearly overstated. Conservative scholars have long recognized the use of both fiction and a mixture of fact and fiction within biblical texts. Few if any would suggest, for example, that the content of Jesus’ parables corresponds to actual historical events. Scholars recognize that parables are generally fictitious stories given to illustrate a particular point. But although it seems that Goldingay has overstated this case, his point remains well-taken. However, it is not so much a matter of whether conservative scholars have discounted the possibility that biblical authors could write fiction or a mixture of fact and fiction, rather, it is a question of genre. Is the genre of Daniel one in which the readers would have anticipated a correspondence to historical events regarding the seemingly historical descriptions of these elements in the book? If so, then, to what degree?

Ultimately, it is Goldingay’s position that there is no intent on the part of the author of Daniel to deceive those to whom he is writing.[18] He says that there was no expectation of truthfulness on the part of the writer’s audience regarding the statements which describe these quasi-prophecies as prophetic. In support of this, Goldingay argues that “ancient Near Eastern parallels to visions such as these…are all pseudonymous quasi-prophecies, not actual prophecies of known authorship. This suggests that there is no reason to assume that the authors would necessarily have intended—or hoped—to deceive their hearers regarding the visions’ origin; the latter would have known how to hear them.”[19] But it may be that Goldingay is again overstating his case. It seems that there is very good reason to believe that ancient authors who used ex eventu prophecy may have intended to deceive their audiences. This is what critical scholars have understood about the nature of ex eventu prophecy for the last two centuries. It is believed that ex eventu was used so that the authors’ audiences might be more inclined to heed their messages. If the author was perceived to have predicted events accurately, then the audience would have reason to take prophecies about events which had not yet come to pass more seriously.

The fact that pseudonymous quasi-prophecies existed elsewhere in the ancient Near East simply does not provide a basis for believing that they were recognized as such or that the authors intended them to be recognized as such. Ultimately, one must ask why these kinds of texts were written and decide whether or not the intent of the author was to deceive his audience. It is very frustrating that Goldingay has not offered an alternative explanation as to why these authors may have implemented these kinds of quasi-prophecies. He says that the ancient audience would have “known how to hear” them, but he does not explain how they could have heard them or what significance they would have ascribed to them. On one level, he admits this, saying “we have no hard information, only guesses, as to the motivation or psychology that lay behind intertestamental pseudonymous apocalyptic.”[20] But he does not seem to recognize that this sword cuts both ways. If a lack of understanding regarding the nature of pseudepigraphic quasi-prophecies should cause one not to assume an entailment of deception, as Goldingay argues, then the same lack of understanding should also cause one not to assume that the ancient audiences would have recognized quasi-prophecies for what they were.

It should also be noted that Goldingay’s hypothesis does not seem to be able to stand given Tremper Longman’s conclusions regarding fictional Akkadian autobiographies. Longman indicates that fictional Akkadian autobiographies were patterned after nonfiction Akkadian autobiographies which, he says, “intended their audiences to regard their compositions as nonfictional.”[21] And so it is unfortunate that Goldingay does not provide an alternative explanation by which these texts might be understood in a way that does not entail an expectation of truth regarding these prophetic components on the part of those for whom they were written.

Goldingay also suggests a second argument for his position which more is theological in nature. He notes that God generally speaks into historical contexts in a way that is relevant to those who are living at that time. He says that God “reveals key truths about the End that are relevant to people’s present lives. He declines to give information about the future of a concrete or dated kind, insisting that people live by faith.”[22] He states further that “it is difficult to see how the God of the Bible would reveal detailed events of the second century to people living in the sixth, even though he could do so.”[23] But while it may be true that God often provides a prophetic word concerning the immediate future, there are a number of important examples in which God speaks in explicit detail about events that are in the distant future.[24] This is evident, for example, in many of Isaiah’s prophecies concerning the Messiah.[25] Furthermore, it seems that Goldingay is begging the question. If it is assumed that he is right about the fact that a sixth century Daniel would conflict with this view of divine revelation (and this itself is merely a concession), then one of two options remains. Either it should be understood that the book was written at a later date or the idea that God only provides a prophetic word for the immediate future must change. Goldingay says that the book was written late. Why? Because, he says, this is how God works. But if Daniel is early, then these prophecies in Daniel clearly show that this is not how God works. Ultimately then, whether he takes the book to have been written at a late date or whether he adopts a different understanding of divine revelation, he will have to look to some other way to arbitrate between these two views. It simply will not do to say that God does not work in this way. This simply begs the question.

Conclusion
Goldingay has proposed two primary arguments for a late dating of Daniel. First, he has suggested that ex eventu prophecy was common in the ancient Near East and was, therefore, not necessarily an attempt by authors to deceive their audiences. These audiences, he indicates, would have had familiarity with this genre and would have consequently recognized it for what it was. Second, Goldingay suggests that God only speaks with such detail into the historical contexts in which the biblical authors live. Therefore, he says, an early date for Daniel would be out of character for God. He simply is not the kind of God who would give detailed information about events that remained four hundred years in the future. However, neither of these two arguments seems to have much strength. The conclusion in the first argument simply does not follow from the premise. The fact that ex eventu prophecy was relatively common does not mean that those who read it would have recognized it as such. And the question remains, if it was not meant to deceive, what was its purpose? Goldingay has not provided an answer to this question. With respect to Goldingay’s second argument, it is a case of question begging. If one assumes that God would not speak in detail about events that remained four hundred years in the future, then of course Daniel must have been written later. However, if judgment regarding the possibility that God might speak this way is postponed, then an early date would provide evidence that God does, at times, speak in detail about events which are in the relatively distant future.

These things having been said, it should also be noted that initial reactions by conservative scholars regarding the late date of Daniel may have been something of an over-reaction. While Goldingay’s hypothesis does not seem to be well supported by his arguments, it does seem to be a legitimate attempt by a confessing evangelical scholar to account for the material found in the book of Daniel. If Daniel contained prophecies that were pseudepigraphic ex eventu prophecies, and if these components did not carry with them an expectation of historicity by modern standards, then it seems that the confessional scholar could recognize this without compromising the doctrine of inerrancy.[26] Nevertheless, it does seem that the unanswered questions left by Goldingay would indicate that more work needs to be done.

Endnotes
[1] For example, see James L. Crenshaw, Story and Faith: A Guide to the Old Testament, (New York: Macmillan, 1986), 365; John J. Collins, The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, (Boston: Brill, 2002).
[2] See Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 19; Charles Boutflower, In and Around the Book of Daniel, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1963), 1-2; Tremper Longman III, Daniel, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 21-24; Stephen Miller, Daniel, (NAC 18: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 22-43.
[3] John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 25.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Collins, 25; Brevard Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 611.
[8] Childs, 611.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid., 612.
[12] Ibid., 612.
[13] E. B. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet: Nine Lectures Delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Oxford, with Copious Notes, (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1885; repr., Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1978), 75.
[14] Collins, 26. Collins indicates that the most notable work by conservatives who hold to the traditional view as of late includes the work of Young, Baldwin, Boutflower, Wiseman, Kitchen, Hasel, and Shea.
[15] Most notably, Lucas and Goldingay. See Ernst C. Lucas, Daniel, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002); and John E. Goldingay, Daniel, (WBC 30: Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1989).
[16] Goldingay, Daniel, xxxix.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid., 321.
[19] Ibid.
[20] John E. Goldingay, “The Book of Daniel: Three Issues,” Them 2 (1977), 49.
[21] Tremper Longman III, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography: A Generic and Comparative Study, (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1991), 203.
[22] Goldingay, Daniel, 321.
[23] Ibid., 321.
[24] This has been observed by Wenham. See Gordon J. Wenham, “Daniel: The Basic Issues,” Them 2 (1977), 51.
[25] Ibid.
[26] This is very similar to the situation of Gundry’s position that Matthew contained non-historical elements. Mark Noll’s account of this seems wise and applicable to the situation of Goldingay. See Mark A. Noll, Between Faith and Criticism: Evangelicals, Scholarship, and the Bible in America, (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986), 167-69.

A Christian Response to Atheism

First of all, Mr. Atheist, I want to explain the nature of the issue we are discussing. You and I both have ways of looking at the world. You say that for you "seeing is believing," that you believe only what you can verify using your five senses. I will refer to this position as the "empirical view of knowledge." This is a basic assumption about the nature of knowledge that you are making as you seek to make sense of the world.

You also believe that the nature of reality is ultimately matter—the material universe is all that exists. You do not believe there is a spiritual component to reality. I will refer to this position as materialism.

Ultimately, Mr. Atheist, we all have lenses through which we understand the world. Since you are a materialist, your explanations for miraculous claims is that they are lies, illusions, myths, or otherwise non-miraculous phenomenon. For this reason you would likely regard a miraculous event which you yourself witnessed as having some alternative materialistic explanation. Similarly, you would be inclined to evaluate a given truth claim based on your empirical view of knowledge. This is what you are doing regarding Jesus about whom the Scriptures make certain claims. But this just goes to show that you have a system of thinking through which you view the world. Of course, I too have a system of thinking through which I view the world. I will refer to these kinds of systems as "worldviews."

Everything I have said up until now, I have said to make this point: the nature of the issue we are discussing is a matter of worldviews. You hold to an empirical view of knowledge and a materialistic view of ultimate reality. I, on the other hand, hold to a revelatory view of knowledge and a theistic view of ultimate reality. I believe that knowledge is based on divine revelation and that all that exists has its being because it is generated by God who exists necessarily and eternally. This is the nature of the debate.

Now, I would imagine that you would like to have me demonstrate my worldview based on your worldview. Perhaps you would have me argue for the truth of the Bible based on empirical data. This, however, is impossible. Our worldviews are antithetical to one another. They are contradictory. I believe that divine revelation serves as the foundation for knowledge while you believe in an empirical foundation for knowledge. If I were to argue for the truth of the Bible based on empirical data, then I would have to assume your foundation for knowledge as ultimate and reject my own foundation for knowledge as ultimate.

So the question becomes, where do we go from here? You assert that knowledge is obtained empirically and I assert that it is based on revelation. Can we move forward? I believe we can.

I believe that unless we adopt the Christian worldview, we can't make sense of anything. This, I believe, can be seen as we examine your own worldview. You say, for example, that you believe knowledge is gained empirically. Yet you also believe that matter is all that exists. And so the question is, is knowledge a material thing? This question really falls under more comprehensive question, namely, how do you account for the mind? Do all of our thoughts, perceptions, and feelings consist of matter? Perhaps you would say that as our brains operate in accordance with the natural laws which govern the matter of which our brains are composed, that this gives rise to our thoughts and perceptions. But this just shows that your theory of knowledge is flawed because this hasn’t been demonstrated empirically. You say that “seeing is believing,” but you haven’t seen the impersonal matter of our brains producing our thoughts, perceptions, and knowledge. No scientist in the world can tell me what I'm thinking by empirically observing my brain. Perhaps some day scientists will be able to do this, you might say. But you shouldn't believe it until that day comes if you are going to be consistent with your theory of knowledge.

But again, the real problem with saying that thoughts and knowledge are produced by the material matter of our brains is that by acknowledging the existence of thoughts and knowledge in the first place you are acknowledging the existence of something that is immaterial. Yet at the same time you say that everything that exists is material. Either knowledge does not exist, or not all things which exist are material. Your contention that thoughts are produced by matter does not have any bearing on this.

Another problem with your position is that the impersonal matter of which you assert our brains are comprised would not seem to have any interest in producing thoughts and perceptions that necessarily corresponded to reality. Take your memories, for example. If your memory is merely produced by matter operating according to natural law, then how do you know that your memories are reliable? Does impersonal matter have any interest in providing you with a reliable memory? In order to answer, you must use your memory. But if your memories are unreliable, then your answer to the question is likewise unreliable. How do you get around this?

Now, up until this point you have not explicitly stated your view of morality. Yet several things can be understood from what you have said. It is clear that you do hold to some level of morality since you seem to agree that there are some rules we ought to follow as we engage in dialog about the issues we’re discussing (you don't think that a person ought to believe something unless it has been empirically demonstrated, for example). This kind of thing is really a moral position. Anytime you believe anyone ought to do anything, you are making a moral judgment. But how can you account for this? If we were merely composed of matter operating according to natural law, then it would seem that you would have no basis to tell me that your way of settling this question of worldviews is any better than mine.

While your worldview has some inherent flaws, the Christian worldview provides a firm foundation for the existence of knowledge, the reliability of memory, the existence of universal laws, and the correspondence of our perceptions to reality—all of the things for which you cannot account given your own worldview. From a biblical perspective, these things are a part of the world God has created and they have their basis in His nature and character. Within the Christian worldview there is both a material and an immaterial aspect to reality. This framework avoids the problems of a purely materialistic universe. Likewise, the omniscient God who speaks and does not lie serves as the foundation for human knowledge. Our knowing is based on God's knowing. The laws which govern the universe also make sense given that the Scriptures teach that God created the universe to operate with a uniformity of cause and effect.

The truth is, Mr. Atheist, if we reject God, we have to adopt some other point of view that will lead to irrationality. The Apostle Paul describes this in Romans 1. Paul writes, "For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles." When we deny God, we embrace ways of thinking that are out of alignment with the way God has designed things to operate. The problems with empiricism and the problems with materialism exist because these viewpoints are at odds with the way things really are—they are out of alignment with God's nature and character. And when we embrace sinful ways of thinking we reap the consequences of irrationality that come with it.

Yet God sent his Son into to save us from both the penalty of sin and the reign of sin in our lives. The Christian faith must serve as the basis for understanding the world. It is only when we turn to God and embrace Christ by faith, that we can begin to make sense of the world in which we find ourselves. When we deny God, we become futile in our thinking and cannot live consistently with what we believe or even make sense of the things we take for granted. If you’d like to know more about embracing Christ, see this short presentation.

Grace, Grace, Grace

Consider this account from Charles Spurgeon:

One week-night when I was sitting in the house of God, I was not thinking much about the preacher's sermon, for I did not believe it. The thought struck me, “how did you come to be a Christian?” I sought the Lord. “But how did you come to seek the Lord?” The truth flashed across my mind in a moment—I should not have sought Him unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek Him. I prayed, thought I, but then I asked myself, “How came I to pray?” I was induced to pray by reading the Scriptures. “I did read them; but what led me to do so?” Then, in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the Author of my faith; and as the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me, and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make it my constant confession. "I ascribe my change wholly to God."

I know, my new Christian brother, it seems like you did something in order to come to Christ. It seems like you are the one who took the initiative by choosing to trust in Christ. However, my friend, please understand that this was not something which you previously had the ability to do. It was a work of God. Before coming to Christ, you were spiritually dead and enslaved to sin. The Scriptures teach that there is none who seeks God (Rom 3:11). However, you were born-again. When you were spiritually dead, God gave you new spiritual life which then created in you the desire to turn to Christ. While you were spiritually dead and desired only sin, God gave you the disposition and frame of mind to see the beauty of Christ and the truth of the gospel so that as you heard God calling you through the proclamation of the gospel, you came to faith in Christ. Ultimately, then, your salvation is not the result of your choice, rather your choice is the result of the fact that God elected you to be saved. This is why Paul can say, “it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not as a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Circular Reasoning and the Self-Authenticating Nature of Scripture

Some might object that one cannot appeal to Scripture in order to prove the authority of Scripture. If the authority of Scripture is in question, they would say, then the Scriptures cannot be used as evidence to prove their own authority.

Regarding this it should be noted that all arguments are either based on an unsubstantiated claim or circular reasoning. The claim that one cannot appeal to the Scriptures to prove the authority of the Scriptures is itself based upon the assumption that the Scriptures are not ultimately authoritative. But if Scripture is ultimately authoritative, then it is completely appropriate to appeal to Scripture to establish its own authority. If God is the absolute authority and if the Scriptures are God’s word, then there is simply no higher authority to which one might appeal to establish the authority of Scripture. To appeal to a higher authority would necessarily require that the Scriptures are not ultimately authoritative. Rather, the thing to which one appealed would be an authority above Scripture since it would be the authority upon which the Scripture’s authority was established.

As Christians, then, let us remember that our position is that the Scriptures are ultimately authoritative. It is for this reason that we hold the Scriptures to be self-authenticating.

Assurance of Salvation

One of the most common theological questions posed to pastors concerns assurance of salvation. Am I truly a Christian? How can I know I'm a child of God? Regarding this question, Wayne Grudem provides some incredibly helpful insights in his Systematic Theology.

Generally speaking, assurance is something we tend to have in degrees. On the one hand, I know I am a true follower of Christ. On the other hand, how certain am I? Personally, I don’t believe we can have 100% certainty on this issue. Our perseverance as Christians is the ultimate test of our faith (see Heb 3:14, noting especially the verb tenses). Thus, there are times when we may question our faith. This is absolutely appropriate. The Apostle Paul encourages those in Corinth saying, "Examine yourselves to see if you are in the faith" (2Cor 13:5).

Yet at the same time the Apostle John writes, “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life” (1 John 5:13). And so I believe we can know with some degree of certainty whether or not we have eternal life. In this regard, Wayne Grudem describes four helpful tests which can help us to discern whether we are truly God’s children. I have summarized them here.

1. Saving faith evidences itself in Christlikeness (1 John 2:4-6). If we see within ourselves the character of Christ in an increasing manner, it will provide us with a measure of assurance that we are truly God’s children.
2. Saving faith evidences itself by the subjective testimony of the Spirit (Rom 8:16). Paul indicates that the Spirit gives us an inner sense of peace about our standing before God. And while we must be careful that our hearts don’t deceive us, we should expect an inward testimony of the Spirit in conjunction with the other evidences of saving faith we experience.
3. Saving faith is evidenced by the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23). Every believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and should see the fruit of the Spirit as described in Galatians 5 produced in his or her life.
4. Saving faith is evidenced by sound doctrine (1 John 1:23-24; 4:6). If we find that we believe and affirm the central doctrines of the Christian faith, then that should also provide us with a basis for assurance that we are truly children of God.

So, if to the best of our ability to discern we believe we are showing signs of Christlikeness, we have experienced an inner sense from the Spirit that we are truly God's children, we have seen the fruit of the Spirit in our lives, and we believe the fundamental truths of the Christian faith, then we should take these things as evidence that we are truly God's children.

Lastly, I think, to the extent that we are not able to have 100% certainty, we must be content that our salvation is ultimately in God’s hands. If we have come to know God, this should encourage us all the more!