Burden of proof?

Why do Atheists like to claim it is only Theists with the "burden of proof"?

Burden of proof is not really any kind of formal logic or anything, it is more convention, which says that when somebody walks up to you and says "X is so", THEY need to prove it to you. If someone walks up to you and says "X is so", it is not automatically true, and then the OTHER person must prove it false or true. So basically, the burden of proof lies with a person making a claim.

How this is used, however, is tricky. When entering a formal debate, it is the duty of BOTH sides, to prove their position, so that the audience can see whose position has greater support. The purpose of a debate is to educate people, because they sit in front of two people with opposite positions, and hope these two people present THEIR case, and whoever's case is made stronger, "wins". Basically, I feel that in ANY debate, burden of proof is almost a non-issue. Neither side are "making a claim" to try and prove to the other side. Instead, both sides HAVE a position, regarding the subject, and are meant to support their position, as well as find logical errors and problems in their opponent's case. Trying to enter a formal debate while demanding you have no burden to prove your position, is cowardice and shows either that you CAN'T prove your position (i.e. your position doesn't have much support), or that you are aren't really interested in educating people at all. Again, the purpose of a debate is to see the case made for two opposing positions.
Whatever the debate topic happens to be, one of the debaters will be debating the "affirmative", that is, the topic statement is TRUE. And the other debates the negation, the topic statement is FALSE. There is no rule that I'm aware of, which states that in a debate, the negater never has to prove his position, but he's only their to keep the seat warm and try to dismantle their opponents arguments only, while never trying to prove their own. There is no "default" position in a debate, there is simply a perfectly valid question or statement, and each debater aught to be able to show proofs for their position, as well as be able to defend their position.
When a debater claims their position is "default", they are merely assuming themselves true, which is begging the question, and is also cowardice.
I do grant that one could concoct a story that shows a debater DOES have a default position; for example, debating whether the sun is hot or not. It seems it could be said that the default position is that the sun is hot, it is what 99.999% of the world believe and have experienced. But on the other hand, nobody debates whether the sun is hot. In fact, I don't believe "default" positions are ever debated on seriously. And even if they were, if I grant that, then it is quite obvious, since most of the world is theist/deist, it is THEM with the default position, and the Atheist with the radical claim. Thus the Theist is the one with no burden of proof. But this is not so. It is just an appeal to popularity.
In sum, a formal debate does NOT have default positions, NOR does either side get a free ticket out of proving their position. To claim either is cowardice and shows their unwillingness to defend their ideas, or educate the audience.

Another way to look at burden of proof, is that it is very subjective and personal. In other words, if a Theist walks up to an Atheist and says "God exists", then TO THE ATHEIST, the Theist has just made a claim and has the burden of proof to prove it. But likewise, if an Atheist walks up to a Theist and says "there is no God", then TO THE THEIST, has just made a claim which requires proving. BOTH are positive claims to knowledge, knowing God exists/knowing God doesn't exist. When discourse is had, both parties are making a claim to knowledge, so neither has burden of proof, they both need to prove their positions if they want to convince the other.
This burden duality, as I'll call it, does not exist ONLY when one party does NOT hold a position of knowledge. In other words, he can't negate, nor uphold, he simply doesn't know. A person who has no position of positive knowledge, simply cannot have a burden of proof, because they are making no claims. You don't have to "prove" that "I don't know" is the "truth". So picture this, both an Atheist AND a Theist walk up to an agnostic and one says "God doesn't exist", the other says "God does exist": the agnostic says "I don't know if either is true or false". In this case it is still the Theist and Atheist who have the burden of proof, because they are making a positive claim to knowledge. The agnostic is not required to "prove" that he doesn't know. Nor is he required to convince other people to "not know". You can't convince people to have no knowledge on a thing.
It is really hard NOT to have this situation, because nobody ever walks up to you to convince you they "don't know" if something is true or false. Just what are they trying to make you believe? However, if they claim that a certain knowledge (that something is true or false) is UNknowable, then they too are making a positive claim to knowledge, in that such knowledge is impossible to obtain. Which means they also have burden to prove that knowledge of the thing is impossible to gain. So basically, you can positively claim "God exists", you can claim "God doesn't exist", you can claim "we can't ever know if God exists"; but nobody will ever come up to say, "we don't know if God exists or not". That is not a position making any claims at all, which is why people don't go around trying to convince others of it, it is really just a personal journey. Soon enough they WILL hold a positive position, and when they find that position, it must, after all, be based on some kind of real data and reasoning, and thus they now have burden of proof as well. Plus you can't claim "we" don't know, because of course lots of people DO claim to know. The only thing you can say is "I" don't know.

I might also say that you can NOT argue for a person to BECOME an agnostic. Agnostic is where you are when you don't have the facts and can't choose, but once the facts are on the table, you make a choice. Later on if you find the facts not convincing any more, you swap to another position if the data lends that way instead. But you cannot "go back" to a position of having "not enough facts" and thus agnostic once more. Somebody might ask a child "what temperature does water freeze at?" They will be agnostic, they just don't know, they don't have the facts, they can't make a positive claim that it is zero or one hundred fifty. But once they get the facts, and learn that it freezes at 32F, they can never go back to just "not knowing". The facts are in, they have made a choice. They believe what their teacher said. Someday maybe another teacher will say it freezes at 0, hmm, conflict. This doesn't mean he goes to a position of "I don't know". Once the facts are down, he can only make a positive claim, either the facts say 32, or the facts better say 0, but the facts only show those. You cannot just return to "I don't know".
So I say all that to say this, you cannot argue a person to return to ignorance. They already have the data to choose one position or another, you can only pretend to be ignorant again, with all the facts on the table, by declaring no facts as sufficient for a position. But this is just playing intellectual games. A fact is a fact, and if a fact points to one thing, then chances are that one thing is true. If facts seem to point to two things, with more facts disproving them, chances are very good, for you personally, you will lean toward one position or another, based on those facts. It is very hard to maintain a state of "I don't know because the facts don't say". And if you ARE maintaining such a position, then frankly you have no place in a debate! Debates are for people who have made decisions based on the facts, and they are debating to show those facts and defend their position. Debates aren't for wishy-washy half-agnostics who can't make up their mind. You don't enter debate to convince a public to make themselves ignorant of the facts and declare a non-position for themselves on the issue.

In conclusion, people entering a debate simply cannot, and should not, declare themselves exempt from proving their positions. They have NO RIGHT to declare themselves "default", nor that only their opponent has the burden to prove their position. Debates are also not a place for agnostics and people undecided on the debate topic. A debate topic is usually in the form of a question with a true/false or yes/no answer. Debaters are people affirming the yes/true, affirming the no/false, but not for people who can't make up their mind. Debates aren't for people to show up and declare the evidence isn't good enough for THEM. They need to go home, read some more, make up their mind, and then come back and explain to the world why they made the choice. Half-agnostics, agnostics, people who refuse to say they really hold a position, declare themselves exempt from burden, or say they have the "default" position, are not worth debating and are instead practicing cowardice.


Burden of proof does not belong in debates, it belongs amongst friends and street conversations and informal chit-chats. Somebody strikes up a conversation by making a claim which goes against what the other personal already believes, so the person who made the claim has the burden to at least give some support for it. In debate, both parties have a position, and they are basically telling each OTHER their position is true. So to one debater, the other is making the claim, and to the other debater, he is making the claim.
Sometimes you see an example given that goes something like this:

Bob: "Hi, did you know God really exists!"
Joe: "No he doesn't."
Bob: "Oh ya, prove it then!"
Joe: "No, you made the claim, you have to prove it."

And so on. The problem here is just semantics. The burden of proof lies with Bob only in that Bob started the conversation and made the initial claim. But if you notice, Joe also made a claim to knowledge by saying the opposite, he said "NO, he doesn't". At this point, regardless of who started the conversation, BOTH parties actually have a positive claim. To Joe, Bob is making a claim which goes against what he believes, and so Bob needs to prove it. But to Bob, Joe is also making a claim that goes against what HE believes, and so he needs to prove it. Now this being casual chit-chat, Bob has the burden, or else he needs to not open his big mouth. But debates don't happen this way. In a debate, a question is posed, and two people of opposing ideas step up to the mat to answer it. There is no casual "you started it". If Bob and Joe were to enter debate, Joe has NO right and no ground to state that Bob is making the claim. Bob is not making any claim, he is just there to answer the debate question, same as Joe. After all the shoe fits both ways, Bob could easily say it is Joe who is showing up with the radical claim that God doesn't exist, and so HE has the burden. There is no difference, because as I said, the person who holds the affirmative in a debate doesn't automatically have the burden of proof. That is silly because it is just semantics again, for example, a debate statement could be:
"The Christian God exists" (Affirmative belongs to the Christian)
"The Christian God does not exist" (Affirmative belongs to the Atheist)

Depending on how you word a question or statement, does not change who has the burden of proof. So again, question of default positions and burdens of proof do not belong in formal debate. To bring them up shows cowardice and unwillingness to educate and even debate in the first place. Entering a debate is like entering into marriage, one side can't simply say "well I'm exempt from doing anything, it's your job to do it all." No it is equal give and take.


Another issue often brought up is that is proving a negative. People generally just say "It's impossible to prove a negative, therefore a person holding that position doesn't HAVE to prove it."
Well this is just wrong. It may be true that it is impossible to "PROVE" a negative without a shadow of a doubt, that doesn't mean there is no evidence. Somebody might tell me there is a skunk in my room, and I'll say no there isn't. Now are we really going to say it's "impossible" for me to prove a negative that no skunk is in my room? I DO have evidence, I've looked high and low, and do not see one. So there is really no question about burden of proof. What is the proof that there IS a skunk? What is the proof that there ISN'T one? My proof is that I've looked high and low and don't see it. What is theres? Now is a good time to enter debate, provide the proofs and evidences for both our positions, and see whose is strongest.
Also I am really just unsure why "proving a negative" really has any relation to burden of proof anyway. They are not connected with any rule I know about. Secondly, I really don't think proving a negative IS impossible, I think that is a generalization. Proving a negative is quite easy when it is bound in such a way as it becomes doable for us to check. Such as a skunk in my room, or cheese on the moon. You can always prove there are "none" of something when that something in bound to a verifiable existence.
Let's cut to the chase, they say proving a negative is impossible when the negative is NOT bound to a verifiable existence. Namely, God. Since God as defined, is spirit, basically living in another dimension we as humans can't access, being "outside" our universe, it can't be verified. However, that doesn't mean you have NO evidence, and that certainly doesn't mean you are somehow relieved of burden to prove or that you have the default position.
Seriously, I can't disprove there is cheese on another planet in another galaxy. I can't disprove that negative, though I'd be highly interested in the positive claim of it. But whether it does or doesn't exist, is of no consequence to me, I don't NEED to believe it's out there. Nobody debates such things. This is why I find arguments involving tea cups, pink unicorns, fairies, and spaghetti monsters useless. I really don't care if somebody wants to believe such things are out there, their existence is of no consequence to me. And nobody on earth IS debating such things. We are talking about GOD. His existence is of EXTREME consequence, and people DO debate such things. So it is very important to have proves for both. If you declare that you have no evidence to prove this negative, then state as much. The absence of evidence to disprove something does not automatically mean that something is true, nobody would suggest so. If Atheists would just be clear on this point, instead of being tricky and playing semantic games in debates, things would be better off. Why don't they simply say they have NO proof that God DOESN'T exist, but they certainly can disprove statements made that He DOES exist. Since this is the tactic of most Atheists, they simply need to say so, and stop playing games with burden of proof and default positions.
However, I have also talked to Atheists who say they DO have positive evidence to disprove this negative, and good for them, they should enter some debates. And enter them WITHOUT playing these games, and just provide their proofs, such as they are.

Let me put it this way, for any given question or statement, it is not absolutely true that proving the negative is somehow harder or more impossible then proving the positive. Just because someone claims there is cheese on Orion's Belt, doesn't mean it is easier to prove then disprove. In fact I think it's equally impossible to prove either. What possible evidence does the affirmative have accept to say, "well, it's possible there is cheese, therefore to some degree it's probable". However, no philosopher is going to say that if something is possible, that makes it true by default in absence of proof to the negation. So you say it's possible cheese exists on the Belt, I say I can't disprove it; this does not mean you win and cheese must exist. It means nothing, and both sides are still equally valid. Possibilities do not equal truth, and if possibilities are your strongest evidence, then surely nobody needs to believe your claim, and we can go back to our lives. The main reason possabilities do not equal truth is that in absence of other evidence, it is just as equally possible that X does NOT exist. You say it's possible cheese exists, I say I can't exactly disprove it, BUT, it is just as equally possible cheese does NOT exist, and they cancel each other out in absence of other evidence. In fact, for ANY claim, in absence of other evidence, claims of possibilities cancel each other out.

So back to disproving a negative, while it is certainly harder to do in some cases, I'm afraid this doesn't give you special treatment.
Theist/Atheist debates don't always revolve around "proving a negative", they are not always just "Does God exist". Debates are often of other natures, such as "Is the Christian faith tenable", "Is it reasonable", "Is it internally consistent", "Does the supernatural exist", "Can miracles happen", etc... Often debating about God is entirely about logic and reason, justification, consistency, coherency, and objective truths regarding the evidence that, say, the Bible is true. These do not require proving a negative, but showing that it is not "consistent", or not "coherent", and so on.
For the simple question, "Does God exist", there can be only a few positions:

Yes - You have become convinced by the evidence and/or experiences.
No - You have decided God does NOT exist, by some other evidence/experience
Dunno - You have not seen enough data to point one way or another.
Strong agnostic - You decide, on such a question, we can never know the answer.

Yes, No, and strong agnostic, are positions making a positive claim of knowledge. You can only obtain knowledge through facts and reason and logic, therefore there must exist SOME kind of evidence to prove that position, which made you believe in it. These are the facts and proofs and reasons which you are expected to give in a debate. For if you have no facts, evidences, reasons, or logic for you position, then why do you hold it?
For the "Dunno" guy, he should never be in the debate, or even talk about it. He belongs in the audience listening to a debate between the others, or reading books at home. It is not a strong or useful debate to try and convince somebody to return to ignorance and change their position to "I don't know because I don't have the facts". You can't return to not having the facts. Though you can certainly switch positions based on the facts.



With that, I hope I have shown that the silly claims of skeptics and Atheists about default positions and burden of proof arguments do not belong in debate. To try and give yourself such pleasures is cowardice and shows your lack of wanting to participate. It may even expose that you hold your beliefs on even less evidence (thus more faith) then your opponent, which we know you just can't have!
So the next time you want to debate a person, don't start out by saying you don't have to prove anything, and only THEY have to prove THEIR position, because somehow you have elevated status. Debates don't work that way. And I see this as why so many Atheists and skeptics do not want fair and balanced and formal debates, because they know they do not have as much evidence. But it would be nice if they at least admitted as much, and make known what they really want to do is sit there on the defense, trying to disprove every evidence the other side gives.
Remember that next time you want to enter debate with someone, if they start complaining about these things, they aren't worth debating. Do not debate people who want elevated status, do not debate agnostics, it is a waste of time. Do not get sucked into a debate where your opponent tries to tell you that YOU are the one making a claim. Sometimes an Atheistic radio show, for example, will invite a Christian guest on their show, basically demanding them to prove their God, and telling him HE is the one "making the claim". This is trickery. It is THEIR show, THEY invited the guest one, so what do THEY have to say? You don't invite a guest to your show to tell them THEY are making a claim. These games by skeptics are silly and show a lack of desire to actually debate. I've heard time and again, so many times, on Atheist shows, where the host simply flat out refuses to prove their own position, or even prove their claims, even as they sit their demanding that their guest is the one making the claim, and so THEY have the burden of proof. It is dishonest and cowardly. BOTH sides, are required to back up their statements and claims, simple as that.



Peace

Problem of Pain and A Grief Observed

Grief is not all that special. I don't want to downplay the emotional struggle Lewis went through, as a philosopher, he did just what we expect him to do. Which is dig into his mind over this thing. Frankly, if you have a grief of your own, this isn't really going to make anything easier. It doesn't seem meant to make you feel better. It does have some good insights into what it means to "remember" those who've past, and so on.
And if you have not had a grief, this isn't really going to prepare you for one. Frankly, the book doesn't have much "use" as far as grief is concerned. But what it does is simply give you some interesting thought exercises about what it means to loose someone, and what it does to you, AND them, with some ideas about them. It is an interesting book, but not a requirement of any kind. It is small, read it in one sitting just if you feel like digging into Lewis' mind.

Pain was a nice read, it really delves deep into the ideas behind pain, including animal pain. Talks about what it all might mean, and how it works in the grand scheme of things, and even what it leads us to think about pain in the after-life. I recommend it. It doesn't just sit there and try to justify pain with an "all loving God". He talks about it as if we aught not expect anything else. Get it.


Peace

Miracles & The Great Divorce

I'll start with The Great Divorce.
I just don't have much to say, it is a parable of sorts, a "dream" of what it might be like to die and what happens after. It is a picture of a type of Heaven and Hell and how they interact, how souls make their choice for either. I actually found the ideas about Hell rather interesting, such as, even though there are billions of people there, and each person secludes themselves from all others so far that he says some people in Hell could never be reached because they are so far away. And yet at the same time, ALL of Hell is so tiny it could fit in a grain of sand on earth. The explaining of this was pretty cool.
I liked it, it's a pretty quick read, keeps your attention, and gives a unique idea of after-life that gets you thinking a bit. It is not meant to be a picture of what the after-life is, but just an interesting little fictional story-telling which Lewis is so good at.

Miracles was really good I think. Unlike Mere, I think this one accomplishes some cool things. The first 4 chapters or so explain in detail, problems with Naturalism, for example. It wasn't what I was expecting. This wasn't just a big apologetic to show miracles can happen. Instead it goes into depth about world-views and presuppositions and so forth. I liked it, though it had a couple strange chapters and some odd comparisons and explanations. On the one hand, you applaud Lewis for trying to teach biblical truths while NOT resting on biblical authority, but on the other hand, you also just want to know what the bible says, and he rarely invokes scripture. I suppose there is a place for that. His philosophy is where he shines, not as any kind of theologian or biblical scholar.
I do recommend reading Miracles, I think it has more good stuff then not, it brought out some real "AHHHH" moments.


Yes, these aren't any kind of in-depth reviews, just my over-all opinion after reading the books, for what it's worth. I do think it's worth reading these too, they are interesting, if anything, but Miracles does have some good stuff to walk away with.


Peace

Cool video

This video is just beautiful. Almost had me in tears, and it's a shame how our troops are thought of these days.





Peace

What is the Bible?

What is the Bible really for? What does it say about itself? How important is it? What can we learn from it? Who is it for? What religion is it about?

These are some questions I will attempt to address, though I am no theologian, you’ll have to take my words with a grain of salt. This is by no means completely exhaustive or comprehensive or even that "deep". I just hope to share some scripture and piece together just what the Bible is.

The best way to figure something out is to just let that something tell us all about itself. You best learn about dogs by studying dogs, not cats and birds. And so I basically plan to give an outline consisting of scriptures which explain as directly as possible what the Bible is all about. More importantly what it says it is all about.

The “Bible” that I speak of is your standard 66 book Old Testament plus New Testament Bible you find in most stores. What version of English it is doesn’t matter at this point, I'm not really covering that issue. Though I will say it is better to use as literal a translation as possible, and not paraphrase bibles translated via a method called “dynamic equivalence”, such as the NIV for example. “Meaning” comes from the Holy Spirit, and is not the job of committees.

All scripture quotations in this document come from the ESV version, which says about itself:

“The ESV is an “essentially literal” translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer. As such, its emphasis is on “word-for-word” correspondence, at the same time taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages. Thus it seeks to be transparent to the original text, letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original.”

That being said, we’ll turn to our first question. Who wrote it? Is it just men’s words, or God’s words? The answer is yes! We now turn to scripture to clarify:

Jeremiah 1:9 says: ‘Then the LORD put out his hand and touched my mouth. And the LORD said to me, 'Behold, I have put my words in your mouth.’ “

Notice the all-caps “LORD”, this is God’s name, like saying 'Nancy' or 'Donald'. When you read the name with a single cap like “Lord”, it is actually speaking of God positionally, like “Mr. President” or “my wife”. You could substitute “Lord” for “king” or “ruler”. But “LORD” is His actual name, thus Jeremiah is saying that God himself, the person, is doing this. Not just as king or ruler, as if it was a decree of some kind.

We see in 1 Thess 2:13: “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.”

In fact, we find the word “Word” used 671 times in ESV. We find the phrase “Word of the Lord” 256 times in ESV. Most of them are in the OT, only 13 occurrences are in the NT. Of those in the NT, they speak of the Word of the Lord as a written, or verbal communication, and even direct from the HS. In the OT, we often find the Word of the Lord (now WotL), as coming directly to a person. Such as Gen 15:4: “And behold, the word of the Lord came to him: ‘This man shall not be your heir; your very own son shall be your heir.’” Notice the internal quotes ‘ ‘, referring to actual words spoken, though they don’t say exactly how. Likely direct audible communication, since there wasn’t written scripture yet, or any writings, obviously. Perhaps even a dream, since those were common at the time for communications from God.

This happens a lot, but another random example is 1Kings 21:17: “Then the word of the Lord came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying…”

Also a direct quote of precise words spoken to him. Notice the odd paradox, we see that ALL scripture is inspired by God, but when we read this, we seem to see two different kinds, one is just the author speaking, the he directly quotes the WotL using quotation marks. As if what the author was saying was NOT the WotL already. So we are already distinguishing between man’s words and God’s words by these authors quoting out God’s exact words from their “own” words. And yet at the same time their “own” words are also the WotL. This is sort of an example of how God tells them what to say, or is “lead by the Holy Spirit”, and yet they put it in their own words, their own style. Notice that I mean their own “style”, not their own interpretation or meaning. I could say to you, repeat after me, “I am going to the store at half past one pm”. You could easily repeat it in your own words, “At 1:30pm I’m going to the store.” Neither the interpretation nor the meaning were changed, but it is just a different style and flow.

I’m not suggesting that God told them exact words, and they reworded them, but rather that they were lead to write just as they did, directly, and it was approved. When an author has an experience and records it down, it is not necessary to be told the exact words to say. They are quite capable of talking about their own experience. But by the leadership and guiding of the HS, the author knows how it all works together, who is to credit, where the theology comes in, and it all works in together to point to God and teach us something.

Other times when the WotL is spoken of, it is not a direct quote, but rather some external source, likely written document which was already being treated as scripture, or the very words of a prophet. We see this when you have themes of people obeying the WotL, but not giving direct quotations, as if it wasn’t coming to THEM, but they were receiving it from another source. Such as when obeying the law, “it is written” sort of thing, or they obeyed “the word” in some action they took. In 2Kings 9:26 it says: “Now therefore take him up and throw him on the plot of ground, in accordance with the word of the Lord”. This is obviously not a direct communication given at the time, but they are acting as if the Word was recorded already and had authority. Most scripture of these types deal with obeying laws, as written. It may have even been verbal, and was likely everything to do with Moses’ law. 1Ch 15:15 alludes to this when it says: “And the Levites carried the ark of God on their shoulders with the poles, as Moses had commanded according to the word of the Lord.”

This is 2^nd hand data at this point, not direct communication. BOTH types referred to as the WotL and have equal weight and authority.

Sometimes the WotL “came upon me” as in the first person, came upon the author himself. Other times from the 3^rd person when they say the WotL “came upon him”, speaking of another from a narrator position.

By the time we reach the Psalms, the WotL is spoken about in terms of being armor and truth, a “shield”, etc.. Describing it with various terms like “upright” and “faithful”. The WotL is spoken of as having all power, such as Ps 33:6: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host.” Here referring to the WotL as “his”. I think it’s clear that the WotL and Jesus are one and the same. This is clear based on the timing and power and seeming direction and will of the WotL. Coming and going and speaking to whom it will for various situations. In fact, replace WotL with Jesus or God and it doesn't change really. The WotL seems to be almost its own character, interacting with people at just the right time, coming and going when it needs to, having power and authority and giving strength and courage. It is clear that the WotL is the LORD’s words, and even indeed is the LORD himself. John 1:1 makes this all to clear when it says “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The WotL did not exist apart from God or need to be created by God, it IS God, He does not change, He didn’t have to make up these words, they are always his words. He doesn’t change his mind. Creation was by speaking, so to us, one of God’s greatest power is via “words”, His creative power.
So basically nowhere does the WotL seem to be a creation of man. It is clear that the WotL is God.

There is now something to be said about how the WotL works. Hebrews 4:12 says the word of God is “living and active”. But who does it “act” on? And why?

In 1Sam 3:1-15:10, the WotL was “rare in those days; there was no frequent vision.” This WotL, this “active” person, seems to have left for a while. But then, once again in all-caps, the “LORD called Samuel” but Samuel thought it was Eli calling him. Samuel was confused because he “did not yet know the LORD, and the word of the LORD had not yet been revealed to him.”

So not only is the WotL God, but it is also God who reveals that it is God, and gives the words meaning. With ONLY the words, and no revealing from the LORD, we cannot know the WotL or recognize it.

Eli told Samuel to ask the LORD to speak to him. So the first thing needed was a willingness to let God speak. If you harden your heart against God, you are not willing to let him speak, God isn’t going to force you to listen and obey.

When Samuel obeyed and asked God to speak, God just simply started speaking!

It says later in verse 21 that the “LORD appeared again at Shiloh, for the LORD revealed himself to Samuel at Shiloh by the word of the LORD.”

That is interesting, that the LORD revealed himself by the word of the LORD. But it is alluding again to the idea that the WotL IS the LORD himself, and he reveals himself using his word. This is like me coming up to you and telling you something, yet you don’t know the words are really mine, I could be repeating somebody else’s words. So I tell you my own words are my own, they are not anybody else’s. And so God also speaks, and reveals his own words to us so that we not only KNOW they are his, but understand what they mean.

OK, so by the time we reach the NT, the WotL is a thing of itself, which is spoken and taught and read, and “spreading through the land”. In Acts 15:35 and elsewhere, the WotL is no longer coming upon people, but seems to already be there and is taught, “But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the LORD, with many others also.”

And Acts 13:49 “And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region.”

The point is, and I wasn’t careful enough to note it specifically, but there seems to be a natural flow about the WotL, starting almost entirely by “coming upon” people personally, and moving to something that is in reference to or 3rd person, then to something written and published and spoken, to being taught and preached. There is a point when the WotL went from being a “law” thing, to be a “God’s inspired words” thing. The WotL isn’t coming upon people when Jesus is walking and talking with them. There is a natural flow in the Word, part of its unity. How the OT has a lot of WotL from people, and not so much in reference, and the NT, where there is a lot of reference, or is left out because Jesus himself is there, who IS the “Word”.

So we see that the WotL came to people who would be considered prophets. When they spoke the WotL, the people just seem to “know” that it really was the WotL and not just the prophet’s own ramblings. As in Samuel, “And all Israel from Dan to Beersheba knew that Samuel was established as a prophet of the LORD.”

How can they know this? Not because Samuel told them so, or just said his words were from God, but that BY the WotL, the LORD revealed himself. It seems to me that it should be plain as day if somebody is speaking the words of the LORD. Such words will be revealed by same, and we’ll know it. Otherwise, we can reject it. As they did in the days of the prophets, when true prophets were all to clearly singled out from false prophets whose words were not revealed to be the LORD’s. Amos 3:7 says: “For the Lord GOD does nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets.”

2 Peter 1:20-21 says: “knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

So that, I think, covers not just what the WotL is, but actually WHO it is, it is God. This also covers where it comes from, from direct communique, vocal from prophets, and later written and accepted scripture.

Next we turn to other scriptures to see what else the Bible considers itself to be.

It considers itself to be preserved, in Isaiah 40:8: “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.” This doesn’t say specifically that some words are meant for all people at all times, but simply that his words last forever. They will not be forgot, they don’t get destroyed or die out. Sometimes God had very specific words that applied even only to one person in one event. And yet those words are still around for us to read and learn from.

The Bible says it is reality. In 2 Peter 1:16 we read: “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” 1 John 1:1 says: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life”

They are obviously claiming that this stuff isn’t made-up; they name 3 of their senses being used to validate it! They talk of personal experience and first-hand knowledge. One of the most popular attacks against scripture now is that it is all “myth”. But clearly the authors of scripture KNEW what myths were, knew they were “cleverly devised”, and instead based their writings on experience of the senses and eye-witness testimony. Luke declares right away he is writing history.

We find that the Bible is needed. It claims to be a “lamp to my feet and a light to my path.” (Psalm 119:105). Without it we will go astray, “Before I was afflicted I went astray, but now I keep your word.” (Psalm 119:67). Also Psalm 119:107, “I am severely afflicted; give me life, O LORD, according to your word!”

The word brings clarity and direction when followed, it seems necessary to have a decent life. The well known 2 Tim 3:16 is clear enough: “All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness”.

In John 14:6, Jesus says “I am the way, and the truth, and the life”. In Him we find the right “way”, the “path” to follow, and if obeyed, the “life” he speaks of.

On a sort of side note, the Bible is also in unity. When we look at the fact that we’ve got 66 books written over 1500 years by at least 35 different authors, we find harmony and flow and direction and unity of thoughts and ideas. We consider it was written through educated people and non-educated, kings, fishermen, public officials, farmers, teachers, physicians, and even with each personal literary styling, the truths they speak of are not in disarray. I personally find this rather convincing. Now I’m sure some authors read what others have wrote, some may have been influenced, but 1500 years and 35 people, a lot of whom never met each other, and I suppose many who did NOT read each other’s writings, produced a pretty darn unified piece of text!

If we were to take, say, one American, one Chinese, one German, one Australian, and one Irishman, and ask them to write a book about God based on their experience; and then slap all those books in a row and call it the Bible, would we find unity? Would the picture of God be clear and not confused or contradictory? Would it flow logically? Would it have a unified message of salvation? I think not. And that is only 5 people who all live in the same age. Consider the bible, one and a half thousand years apart and 35 authors, and yet it does have a unified message and seeming purposeful flow from beginning to climax, touching past, present and future from front to back. And that is something to think about!

Next we see that the Bible claims to actually have special power! Hebrews 4:12 again, “living and active”. It has power to separate man from sin, Ps 119:11: “I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you.” It will bless you in your “doing” of acts. James 1:22-25 says: “be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves…..” If you are a hearer AND a doer, you will be blessed in your doing.

It sanctifies us, Eph 5:26: “That he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word”.

And of course saving power, 1Pet 1:23: “since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God;”

It has power to “grow us up to salvation” (1Pet 2:2).

Of course the power is only because the "word" and God are one and the same. It is not some words that have power, but the authority of the one who spoke them.

Let’s note also where scripture is endorsed. Jesus endorsed the OT in Luke 24:44. The NT was anticipated to be in John 16:13-14, showing that new revelations were coming, and new truths. Peter also endorsed Paul in 2 Pet 3:14-16. There are more which I’ll touch on later.

We also come across the problem of interpreting scripture after the fact. Because at the time these truths were given, they had 100% understanding of their meaning. But now, thousands of years later, we have to figure out how they apply to us today. God’s words are eternal and always useful for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness (2Tim 3:16).

We find out that the unsaved cannot find this meaning, in 1Cor 2:14: “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” Like before, God reveals his own words to us if he chooses. And the meaning of them to our lives is “spiritually discerned”. We don’t just say, “oh, these words were for Joshua, has nothing to do with me!” But that is wrong, ALL scripture is good for something, and even from Joshua’s situation, God’s words can be applied to us in some way.

Also do not come to the bible with ideas first and search for support, let the bible speak to you. Do not be blown about by “every wind of doctrine” (Eph 4:14-15).

So far we’ve spoke mostly about the “word”, and the WotL. Note also that there are 43 occurrences of the slightly different phrase, “the word of God”, only 4 of which are in the OT, in 1^st and 2^nd Samuel, 1Kings, and Proverbs. In the NT, we see it used in the same ways as WotL, such as coming upon, in Lu 3:2 when the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness. The two types don’t appear to have special different meanings.

We can also search for where “scripture” is mentioned, some 53 times. And interestingly enough, ONLY in the NT! The first occurrence being Matthew 21:42, “Have you never read in the scriptures…” And this is Jesus talking, saying a little later in Mat 22:29: “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.” I also notice that “Scripture(s)” is always capitalized. At least by this time we can assume the whole of the OT canon was published. Or most of it anyway. Spoken of as unit with a capitol ‘S’.

Jesus speaks of himself fulfilling the Scriptures of the prophets, meaning he obviously endorsed the writings of the prophets. In Luke 24:27 Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” This is another endorsement, but also alludes to the fact that “some” scripture does not directly talk about Him, which is an endorsement for some non-prophetic or Mosaic writing.

Jesus also wanted to make clear that even though He is the WotL, it is not THAT which saves. The purpose of the WotL is to point to Jesus. We don’t read scripture to be saved, we read scripture to find Jesus. In John 5:39 Jesus says: “you search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me”.

We are not advised to trust in the devices of mankind, but in the Lord.

Psalm 40:4: “Blessed is the man who makes the LORD his trust, who does not turn to the proud, to those who go astray after a lie!”

Psalm 52:7: “See the man who would not make God his refuge, but trusted in the abundance of his riches and sought refuge in his own destruction!”

Psalm 118:8 “It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in man.”

Psalm 146:3: “Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation.”

Proverbs 29:25: “The fear of man lays a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is safe.”

Jeremiah 17:5: “Thus says the LORD: ‘Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, whose heart turns away from the LORD.’”

Jeremiah 17:7: “Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD, whose trust is the LORD.”

Proverbs 14:6: “A scoffer seeks wisdom in vain, but knowledge is easy for a man of understanding.”

Jeremiah 8:9: “The wise men shall be put to shame; they shall be dismayed and taken; behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?”

1Cor 2:5: “that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.”

There is much to be said about what good comes out of man without God. These scriptures speak for themselves.

We must be careful how we argue the faith, lest we depend more on our clever devices and less on the word of God. If the best wisdom of men leads us away from God, what good is it? Our walk with God and our eternal destiny is far more important then any clever doctrine of man.

I think that pretty much covers most issues. Coming back to my original questions:

What is the Bible really for? Correction, reproof, etc… To be pointed to Jesus, to guide our lives, to bring wisdom and understanding.

What does it say about itself? That it is the words of the LORD, trustworthy, based on reality, “profitable”, salvific (faith comes by hearing, Rom10:17). And many others.

How important is it? Uh, VERY! Without the words of God, we fall into wickedness and folly.

What can we learn from it? Who Jesus is, who God is, what the plan of salvation is. The history of our predicament, how to live our lives, what to expect, and what is coming.

Who is it for? All of mankind! It’s message is for all humans, faith comes by hearing it, Christ is found through it, and our lives can be guided by it. The LORD is revealed through it.

What religion is it about? Taking all 66 books as God-inspired, God-breathed, it is no religion, but the faith of Christianity. It is a message, it is an invitation. The Bible contains guidelines and laws for life, not in order to be saved, but in order to live a righteous life. What is necessary to be saved is not rules of religion, but rather a faith decision to put your trust in Christ as savior. That his death paid the price for your sin, that his perfection is credited to “your account”, that his blood washed you clean, that you were born again with “new life” of the spirit (Rom 7:6). It is not about laws, in fact, speaking of Rom 7:6, it says “we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.”

It is a faith position. Not a “sign the dotted line” religious creed of “do this and do that”. The invitation is open to everybody from child to old man on his death bed. There are no requirements save your whole-hearted faith decision. You cannot flippantly put faith in somebody and love them. You cannot just accept Christ before you die as insurance “just in case”. You cannot grasp for the grace of God so you can continue to live in sin (Rom6:1). To put your faith in Christ is to obey him, to love him, to strive to be like him. James 2:14 says: “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?” And verse 17: “So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” And verse 24: “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

Faith and works are like peas and carrots. You cannot join the ranks at Wal-Mart, but sit in a corner and never do anything. Nobody would count you as a Wal-Mart employee, no matter how vehemently you declare you are an employee. Likewise you cannot put your faith in Christ, and never do a thing. Jesus says in John 14:15: “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” Not, “keep my commandments to become saved,” but rather, after placing faith and trust in Christ, basically falling in love, THEN if that love is real, you will naturally keep his commandments. Notice the big “IF” you love me. If there is not keeping commandments, there is likely not love.

Notice that, for a true convert, indwelled with the Holy Spirit, these works will be a natural outpouring, it won’t always be like a forced act of the will, as if by duty. But instead the works will flow FROM love, with love. And when it DOES become a forced act of the will, you are still acting in love to do what is right even when you don’t feel like it.

How can you tell if a person is truly saved? Well for one thing, it is not up to us to judge hearts, so we aught not be doing this exercise anyway. However, it does say in Mat 7:16 and 7:20 that you “will recognize them by their fruits.”

“Fruits”, of course, are the products and end result of something growing. The “something” of a Christian is the presence of the Holy Spirit within and the growth of his spiritual life, which flows into his earthly life. The fruits of the Spirit are listed in Galatians, as are the fruits of the flesh. It says those led by the Spirit are not under the law. Here is Galatians 5:16-24 in full:

“But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.”

I suggest you spend some time meditating on this. It is a lot to swallow!

Let us note that by gaining the Spirit, we are not suddenly loosing will. By having the Spirit, we don’t automatically loose all fleshly desires, and gain all fruits of the Spirit. But what has happened is the bonds of sin have left us, and we are free to choose good, and to choose evil. We are still working out our life, we can still make bad choices, we still fall into sin and temptation. We will spend the rest of our lives fighting the temptations of the flesh and all our old passions. But now with the help of the Spirit, and those fruits growing in us, we can try to see, as Philippians says, to “live is Christ”. With the Spirit, God promises in 1Cor 10:13 that with every temptation, it will not be beyond our ability, but he will always provide escape. With new life, we have “died to sin” and no longer “live in it”. But that doesn’t mean it is not all around us still. We are simply not controlled by it, at its mercy.

Unbelievers may cry out that they don’t feel they are in bondage to sin, and they’ll be quick to point out that they do good things. The bible has a couple things to say on this. One is the idea of “common grace” that theologians talk about, based on passages such as Romans 2:4: “Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?”

It speaks of God acting in such a “kind” way as to help lead people to himself. He is always “knocking at the door”. Mankind cannot escape that still-small voice, that tiny bit of God they shut out, but which leads them to do good in response. Donald Grey Barnhouse says, "You are not a believer in Christ and yet you are still out of hell. That is the grace of God. You are not in hell, but you are on earth in good health and prosperity. That is the common grace of God.”

He is giving you chance after chance after chance after chance to harken to his voice and accept him. Every time you take a breath, see a child’s smile, laugh, stand in the rain, stair at the beauty of the heavens, you are receiving common grace, and not the damnation of your soul for your sins against God. By the good things God has granted around you, it rubs off into your own good works in response. And let’s not forget that most everybody in America is influenced by some form of Biblical morals and ideas. You may not be a Christian, but that doesn’t mean you weren’t brought up with a strong sense of right and wrong as per the good old 10 Cs or most popular Christian moral teachings. You obey the Bible yet despise it. You follow some biblical morals yet claim they are your own. And actually, crediting somebody else for God’s work is a definition of blasphemy!

Luther drew a distinction by pointing out a lower earthly sphere and a higher spiritual sphere, and maintained that fallen man is by nature capable of doing much that is good and praiseworthy in the lower or earthly sphere, though he is utterly incapable of doing any spiritual good.

This makes sense to me, unregenerate man can do nothing spiritually good. But certainly is able to do some good things in a earthly sense. But those things save no one, and have no Spiritual purpose. And we aught be careful lest such works be called “like a polluted garment.” Or my favorite translation, “dirty rags”. It is like the Wal-Mart employee going around tapping on the walls. Maybe it’s good that he checks the structural soundness of the walls, but it is really helping nobody, and is not what a Wal-Mart employee is all about.

As far as being a slave to sin, that is obvious. You are free to do anything you want, outside your own morals you force on yourself. If you want to do X, there is no reason not to do it, unless you feel strongly to follow your morals, or are scared of some other social consequence. But other than that, there is nothing stopping you. You do it if you want to, no fear, no care, you are a slave to your passions because there is no reason not to be!

When you are saved, and die to sin, you are freed from that bondage; you have something so much better to do, to look forward to, to work for. Being a slave to sin doesn’t mean being “forced” to do things, since we do have a will. But they are like chains, weighing you down and trying, always trying, to get you to do evil. It slowly teaches you that one little thing is OK, and next a little more, and a little more, and a little more. Pretty soon you’ve got unrestrained passion for your pet sin. But it doesn’t stop there, it grows until it becomes perversion, and then pandemonium, and finally promotion. You are so into this sin, you are promoting it to others as if it was good! Our society has reached the promotion stage with things like free sex, abortion, and homosexual behavior.

Passion – Rom 1:24: “God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves.”

Perversion – Rom 1:26-27: “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

Pandemonium – Rom 1:28-31: “And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.”

Promotion – Rom 1:32: “Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.”

It is no hard exercise to see where society has gone this far, or how it might be heading here again. That is slavery to sin. Not stopping before it’s to late, giving in to your own lusts and passions, promoting your sins and getting others to join. A person in such a state has no idea of how much a slave to their sin they really are.

To a Christian, especially one who started deep in sin, or later in life, has many hard sins to give up, many sins to fight, many addictions to loose, and it is hard. But now he is not a slave to them, and can beat them out. He is not “give up” to them, and there is additional power to help get free. But what does the unregenerate have? Will he ever see how far into sin he is, when he thinks it is good and is promoting it to others and encouraging it? He doesn’t even classify it as sin, since sin is defined as “against God”, but he doesn’t believe in God. Sin is meaningless to him, and thus it means nothing that he is a slave to it. He says he is not, not because he REALLY is not, but because he believes nothing of the sort exists. And thus, why we say he is a slave to it.

This is why most evangelists start with the law. You cannot just tell a person they are a slave to sin, they know nothing of it. You tell them God’s laws have been broken, and you need to repent, turn, and ask forgiveness. Such will be the biggest hit to their pride they will ever face. Only when they see the law, can they be convicted of sin. And only when they are convicted of sin, can they repent of it and turn. And only when they know what they are turning to, and why, can it be done. And only by hearing the word of the Lord, and the Lord of the word revealing it to them, can they be saved from it all.

Hopefully this has revealed something of the nature of the word, or has at least turned up some cool scriptures to think about! Thanks for reading all the way through!

Peace

Mere Christianity and Screwtape Letters

Just a quick review of the two books.

I recently bought Signature Classics of Lewis and finished the first two, Mere, and Screwtape. (Well, almost done with ST)

Note that I did not read them with the intent of writing any comprehensive review. This review is simply my after-thoughts, my impression, as it were.

To be Frank, I think Mere is overrated. I did not walk away from it with some awe-inspiring new love for Christ or my faith, I did not get some new, deep, theological truth.
The book has its place, to be sure. Lewis is an excellent and very clever writer, his philosophy and analogies are top notch. However, I find a problem with the book when I finish reading and it seems to me I could count the number of scripture verses he quoted on one hand. Perhaps he used more, I wasn't counting, but that is the impression I was left with. I'm sitting here thinking, did I ever here him say anything like "Matthew 5 says..." Not really, but I know he said things like "the Bible says" or "scripture says". But with no direct quotes that I remember off hand.

The book is mostly philosophical, building the case for Christianity from THAT perspective, instead of directly from the bible.
And I've got nothing wrong with that, save this: If you are going to write a book that is supposed to teach the basic, or "mere" simplicity, foundation of what Christianity is all about, I would think it needs to be rooted in scripture, in Christ, since those are the foundation for the faith. And not rooted in strange comparisons of evolution, and clever analogies. You do not teach a faith on analogies, you just expound on scripture.
Now I grant that Lewis IS expounding on scripture, but without telling us. I'm left with the question, "hey that was a great analogy or thought process, but what scripture was it based on? Where did the idea come from directly?"

Regardless, Lewis is highly quotable, and leaves us with many excellent analogies and quotes and trinkets to reuse. I think the book is recommended reading not even because it supposes to teach the basic tenants of the faith, the "mere" of Christianity, but because it is so popular and clever and from a philosophical point of view, makes you go "ahhhhh" when certain truths are brought home and made real through his cleverness of thought.

Lewis is a humble writer, often saying when he doesn't fully understand things himself, but tries. He tells people to skip whole chapters IF the question he is raising is NOT currently a question on the readers mind. He makes you feel like he is learning this stuff WITH you as you go along.
At the same time, he can sometimes start running down a rabbit hole with some of his analogies that just go on and on, and you start to wonder, this is "basic"? In other words, THIS is what people need to know, to know the "basics" of Christianity? No, I think the basics are even more basic then Lewis tries to explain. Christianity can be explained in a sentence: "We sin against God and deserve punishment, but Christ lived a sinless life and died as a sacrifice to take our punishment for us, and if we accept His gift and turn to him in faith and obedience, we can share in eternal life with God in heaven." There is "Mere Christianity". There are verses which say just that, such as John 3:16.
I give Lewis props though :)


Next I read Lewis' Screwtape Letters. Nothing special here as far as learning anything about the Bible, about God, theology, Christianity, etc... This book is just a clever sort of allegory from the point of view of demons. Basically, each human has a demon "assigned" to them, to try to get them away from God and holiness. The book takes the form of a demon named "Screwtape" who is writting letters back and forth with a pupil named "Wormwood". We don't read Wormwood's letters, but only Screwtape's letters in response. Where this book really shines is that it gives you a perspective that Satan really is trying his best to distract you from holiness and Godliness. I find a lot of it clever, but boring, up until the point where Screwtape is explaining some strategy to Wormwood, in which I have found myself falling victim in my own life. And it brings a kind of shock to think that demons, or "the enemy" could be at the very root of this stumbling. To hear Screwtape tell Wormwood, try this, so your client goes this way or that. And then I think about a time in my life when that exact sort of thing happened. It makes the wiles of the Devil more real to me. To remember that spiritual warfare IS taking place right now for our souls, in that, if Satan can't have us, at least he'll try to make us the worst Christians we can be. It makes you more aware that he really DOES have "tactics" to try and tear you away from Christ, to mess up your relationships, your study, your meditation, your prayers, your perspective, your knowledge, your ideologies, and so forth.

What Screwtape does is make you aware of what the enemy's strategies might be. And if you know the enemy's strategies, you can be better prepared to fight them. I also recommend this book, if not just for its clever perspective on spiritual warfare.

I'll be giving my thoughts on each book I finish reading, but not with a mind on a super-concise review, but just my after-thoughts.


In Christ,

Vig

My recent book reading and Christian resources

Hi, just wanted to share about some books I've been reading. I'm really getting into apologetics, I think it's a very cool and required subject.

Here is a list of books I've recently read:

Reasonable Faith (William Lane Craig)
Great book to show that there is no reason WHY a person cannot be a Christian, has nothing to do with faith or science, there is just no reason. Our faith is perfectly reasonable with no objections. This is a very popular book amongst apologists, and comes highly recommended to people new to defending Christianity, or wanting to show that the faith is, well, reasonable.

In Defense of Miracles (Geivett & Habermas)
As the title says, this defends the possibility that miracles happen, can happen, and likely have happened. Especially defending the miracles which are the foundations of the Christian faith. Such as the resurrection. This book shows that there is no reason to hand-wave off miracles as impossible. So it is mainly geared toward naturalists of course.

What Have They Done With Jesus (Ben Witherington III)
A great book expounding all the myths regarding Jesus, defending the Biblical account of Jesus, and debunking popular opinion, for example, that Jesus never existed at all, as well as all the crazy skeptic objections to the resurrection. Such as why the "swoon" theory is no good, or theft of Jesus' body, etc...

The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Greg Bloomberg)
As it says, it is a defense of the gospels as accurate history. That they do not contain signs of plagiarism, or myth, but are are explained best as being accurate historical recordings. It talks about in what order they were written, who the authors likely were, their sources, years of completion, and deals with contradictions and other complaints.

Who Made God (Ravi Zacharias & Geisler)
This is your basic "questions answered" book. It's not very big, but it tackles the types of questions you might be asked while defending the faith. A good book for beginner apologetics or just as a primer. But advanced skeptics may be harder to deal with.

The Case for Christ and also The Case for Faith (Lee Strobel)
Both books are very popular for beginner apologetics and come highly recommended. Strobel acts as a reporter in these books, traveling the country and talking to the top minds when it comes to tough subjects like the reliability of the gospels, miracles, resurrection, age of NT books, and many other subjects. I like these books because you read the opinions of dozens of great writers and apologists who are all alive and defending the faith today. And of course are highly trained scholars in each related field of research.

Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Peter Kreeft & Ronald K. Tacelli)
I'm just finishing this one, it is another sort of primer on apologetics, seeking to answer a lot of questions and objections to the faith. It has a very straightforward outline format that makes it easy to read. They lay out a claim of Christianity, defend it and explain it, and then list objections to it, with refutations to those objections. This book could be used almost like a reference book. It was very good and Kreeft has a lot of good insights into the faith. It is more philosophical then Who Made God and it gets a bit deeper into the faith. This book spends more time on debunking objections then making positive claims, so it is a good book for defense but not as good for making positive claims. All in all it handles all the subject matter very well. I recommend it.


Beyond these, I've gone through in a few novels just for a reading break. So I've got this one called Ride to Glory which is an older novel that defends creationism while debunking evolution. I'm quite sure it is out of date on their scientific claims and language. For example saying "mega evolution" instead of "macro evolution". The book is based on a mock courtroom trial which is supposed to be a re-enactment of the 1925 Scopes "monkey trial". Warren LeRoi Johns does a decent job of pulling out some of the crazy claims of molecules-to-man evolution and its problems. But hardcore evolution apologists would not be impressed I imagine.

I also read The Fourth Reich which is an "end times" novel covering the apocalyptic events as per Revelation. Some people would have problems with timing of events, and exactly what the events "mean" and are. But regardless, it is a novel, and a very good one I think. This is the 2nd time I've read it.
I also re-read the Lord of the Rings books and Narnia.


So moving on, I've also picked up some reference books along the way. Such as The New Strongs Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Everybody knows what that is about. And The Baker Encyclopedia of Bible People. This is a book giving references and details about any person in the bible, what verses their in, who they are related to, major events and so forth.
I've got Thayers Greek/English Lexicon of the New Testament for those Greek word studies, it goes hand in hand with Strong's numbers.
Let's see, I've got a new Nave's Topical Bible, for doing those ever-so-important topic studies. And finally a six-volume Mathew Henry's Commentary using the KJV.

I only own one book by a classic writer, and that is Pink's The Nature of God. Well, I don't know if you'd consider that classic, but you know what I mean, a dead guy. All the other books are from living scholars across the US and elsewhere, and most are professors at various seminaries and colleges. Willaim Craig at Biola and and J.P. Moreland at Talbot, for example. I don't have any books by Moreland, but he has a bunch of lectures from sites I link to later on.


So that about sums up my reading these past months. New books that just arrived which are my next reading are:
The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics. This contains Mere Christianity, The Screwtape Letters, The Great Divorce, The Problem of Pain, Miracles, A grief Observed, and The Abolition of Man. I hear all these are excellent reads! Peter Kreeft recommends Mere as the very next thing to read after the gospels when learning about Christianity, or studying it. Not to mention, as a 50 year old book or so, it is still in the top 10 of best selling religious (or Christian?) books. All these books in one volume some 738 pages long. I'm looking forward to this, I haven't read Lewis in a long time, if at all, maybe when I was a kid. And Narnia.

After that I also picked up Pilgrim's Progress in modern English because I don't have it yet. I think I've read the the abridged version, and the classic language version, but I wanted the updated version this time. Though I've got nothing against "thee"s and "thou"s!
Um, next comes Josh McDowell's The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict which is updated versions of both his two part series in one volume some 687 pages long. It is also an apologetic book. McDowell is pretty popular, I think it's a good match to go along with Ravi and Geisler and Kreeft.
Lastly I've got a little book also by Ravi Zacharias called Cries of the Heart. I love Ravi as a speaker, he is the most passionate speaker I have ever heard. If you aren't a Christian, he could convince to become one simply with his sincerity and passion for it!
He doesn't have a whole lot of books, but this is highly recommended in that it covers some emotional issues with humans and the heart, guilt, comfort in loneliness and so forth. I expect it will be a great book.

----------------------------

With all that being said, I think it's safe to mention which Bible version I currently use. It is the ESV (English Standard Version). It is endorsed by the church I'm a part of (Harvest, http://www.harvestbible.org/), and it is also what my pastor uses. It is also endorsed by the likes of Dr. R. C. Sproul, Dr. Joseph F. (Skip) Ryan, John Piper, Joni Eareckson Tada, James MacDonald (from Harvest), Max Lucado, Dr. Ravi Zacharias, Dr. Erwin W. Lutzer, Dr. John F. Walvoord, and Steve Green. Plus many more. You can read their comments on the endoresments page here
You can read all about this version, their translation philosophies and so forth here.
They even call themselves the updated KJV, and really that is one of the markets of theirs, for KJV users to move in to (which I was). They state:

The English Standard Version (ESV) stands in the classic mainstream of English Bible translations over the past half-millennium. The fountainhead of that stream was William Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526; marking its course were the King James Version of 1611 (KJV), the English Revised Version of 1885 (RV), the American Standard Version of 1901 (ASV), and the Revised Standard Version of 1952 and 1971 (RSV). In that stream, faithfulness to the text and vigorous pursuit of accuracy were combined with simplicity, beauty, and dignity of expression. Our goal has been to carry forward this legacy for a new century.

To this end each word and phrase in the ESV has been carefully weighed against the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, to ensure the fullest accuracy and clarity and to avoid under-translating or overlooking any nuance of the original text. The words and phrases themselves grow out of the Tyndale-King James legacy, and most recently out of the RSV, with the 1971 RSV text providing the starting point for our work. Archaic language has been brought to current usage and significant corrections have been made in the translation of key texts. But throughout, our goal has been to retain the depth of meaning and enduring language that have made their indelible mark on the English-speaking world and have defined the life and doctrine of the church over the last four centuries.

Read the rest of the story here.

Now we've covered just about everything, it's time to move on to online resources!

This will be just a quick recap:
www.biblegateway.com (For looking up passages. You can also get the bible toolbar for Firefox which lets you search BibleGateway from your browser, get it here.)

www.studylight.org (This site has everything and the kitchen sink! Look up passages in many bibles and reference books, cross reference everything, look up Greek and Hebrew words with concordances and meanings. They have study resources, commentaries, study outlines, just everything. You can browse for hours!)

www.e-sword.net/bibles.html (A download site for tools you can install in Windows)

Now the fun stuff! I listen to a lot of audio, lectures and apologetics and so forth, here are some of my favorite sites:

http://www.oneplace.com/downloads/ (Sermons you can listen to for free from just about every radio and popular pastor and speaker) James White and John Piper highly recommended.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/main.asp (More audio from sermons and speakers)

http://www.rctr.org/ (Apologetics, debates, lectures) This one is nice, listen to Phil Fernandez, William Lane Craig, Ravi. I pretty much exhausted this resource.

http://jcsm.org/1on1/NTBibleonMP3.htm (Here is the NT in audio. For those times when you need to know how to pronounce a word!)
And http://www.audiotreasure.com/indexKJV.htm for the OT.

That is about it for audio. I haven't exhausted all the audio on all those! So I haven't really looked for much else. But there IS some more audio, in this next section.

Here are some blogs and personal web sites and ministries that I visit on occasion. Some I read for fun, some have pretty good stuff, some have audio. Check it out:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/
http://aomin.org/
http://www.bethinking.org/index.php
http://www.evidenceandanswers.org/index.html (He's a good radio personality)
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/
http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/ (Fun to watch the antics with Atheists)
http://www.desiringgod.org/ (John Piper's page, he is somewhat hard to listen to, you have to really pay attention, if you are distracted, his monotone speaking will get lost in your activities.)
http://www.walkintheword.com/broadcast.aspx (James McDonald from Harvest. Their format changes sometimes, but normally you can always hear the latest sermons. But stuff in the
archive you have to pay for, or be a member I think. Check regularly and get the audio)
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/articles.html (Some William Lane Craig
writings.
http://www.tectonics.org (This guy is a sharp and strait-forward apologist who takes no bull from skeptics. He has been criticized as being harsh to his opponents, but regardless, he debunks a lot of wacky theories and books and ideas floating around the skeptic community these days.
http://www.peterkreeft.com/home.htm (Last but not least, the guy I've been currently listening to a lot (and reading his book I talked about). He is actually Catholic too! But he is really good, I recommend listening to all his audio, and check out the writing as well. Especially his talks about C.S. Lewis (his favorite author), and his talks regarding Christianity in the Lord of the Rings, very interesting stuff. I plan on buying more of his books, especially the one he wrote on Heaven.

And finally, for discussing all things from faith to family, my current forum of choice is http://www.theologyweb.com where I troll around as "vigilante". I highly suggest anybody who wants to discuss your faith to go here. It is a pretty friendly environment, you've got people from most faiths there and most beliefs. They have Christian-only and Theist-only rooms for those times you just want to study with your brothers in Christ. But I like it there. If you are a creationist or YEC (Young Earth Creationist), you are in for some STIFF, and I mean STIFF opposition in trying to defend those views! You are most welcome to try.

You might notice I don't have any skeptic books yet, you know from the likes of Richard Dawkins, Dan Brown, or Sam Harris, etc... Normally when discussing the faith on this forum, I get enough skeptic input without having to read their books as well. But I suppose I will have to read them eventually, because they are so popular right now, such as A Letter to a Christian Nation. Or Dawkins The God Delusion. However I have read rebuttals of those books, so I have a decent idea of what's in them.

Maybe it's worth mentioning that I buy all my books off Amazon. I find their prices just great, shipping is often free, though sometimes the books are not altogether in perfect shape. You can also check out http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/home for resources.


So with that, ladies and gents, I hope these resources keep you busy for months, as they have myself. I hope you learn something new and exciting about our Lord Jesus Christ!