Why So Many Denominations?
by Charles Draper
If you look in the telephone directory, you will find a huge diversity of churches. Even within individual denominations there often exists great variation. Jesus once prayed that His followers would be one (Jn 17). But what we see today is anything but unity. What are we to make of this disunity? Does this not demonstrate that Christianity is hopelessly divided? Perhaps. Then again, there may be another way of looking at it.
It is important to ask whether denominations are a good thing. Denominations generally developed out of churches seeking fellowship with one another and joint ministry. That is certainly a biblical idea (Ac 11:27-30).
Often denominations began as renewal movements. So the Reformed movements of the sixteenth century arose to restore teachings about justification by faith and God's sovereignty in salvation—teachings that had been eclipsed in the church for a long time. Later, some Presbyterians caved in to the pressures of liberalism and newer conservative Presbyterian groups emerged to preserve the traditions. Other denominations had similar experiences. Baptists came along within the Reformed tradition, contending that the Reformation principles of justification by faith ought to be applied to the church. In the twentieth century Pentecostals and charismatics formed new unions based on their view of the Spirit and spiritual gifts.
So is this diversity among the churches a good thing or a bad thing? It is always vital to avoid false teaching in the church. Often in the NT false teachers were either disciplined or left churches of their own accord (1 Tm 1:19-20; 1 Jn 2:19). In other cases the early church leaders predicted a future time of apostasy when false teachers would gain great influence (2 Tm 3:1-9). In such cases, it might be necessary for genuine Christians to separate themselves from the false church.
That is not to say that all denominational separations have been for the right reasons. The most important thing to do is to examine a church's teaching and practice to see if it is consistent with Scripture. And finally we have to realize that in this life Christians will not agree on everything.
How Does the Holy Spirit Relate to Evidence for Christianity?
by Gary R. Habermas
It is often assumed that the Holy Spirit's witness to a believer is not very helpful in a study of apologetics. After all, this testimony is given only to Christians and it is not verified or falsified by evidences. So does it follow that this witness is no more than a subjective conviction?
In the few NT passages that address this subject, we are told that, at a minimum, the witness of the Holy Spirit is a personal word to believers that they are children of God (Rm 8:15-17). The Holy Spirit testifies to believers as family members (Gl 4:6-7). So the believer will experience the presence of the Holy Spirit (Jn 14:16-17). This is one way to know that we are truly believers (1 Jn 3:24; 4:13).
Since the unbeliever cannot understand things pertaining to salvation (Jn 14:17; 1 Co 2:14), one might question the value of the Holy Spirit's witness in an apologetic context. But this seems to assume that dealing with unbelievers is the only purpose for defending the faith. Apologetics may have even more value in strengthening the faith of believers through a variety of avenues.
Since the chief purpose of the Holy Spirit's witness is to provide personal assurance of the believer's salvation, the resulting confidence can play a valuable role in convincing believers of their own relationship with the Lord. This might provide assistance, for example, in dealing with religious doubt.
Moreover, the witness of the Holy Spirit provides indirect confirmation of the truth of the Christian gospel. After all, if we are the children of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ as we suffer and are glorified with Him (Rm 8:17), then it would follow that God's gospel path—the basis of this assurance—is likewise true.
So when people become Christians and experience the Holy Spirit's presence, it ought not surprise them, since this is precisely what Scripture teaches! It should be normal fare for the believer. Briefly stated, the study of apologetics indicates that Christianity is true; the witness of the Holy Spirit performs the related function of identifying those who are members of the faith.
What Does the Bible Teach About Homosexuality?
by Scott B. Rae
In the OT, homosexuality is unequivocally condemned. Homosexual sex is prohibited in the law (Lv 18:22; 20:13) and called an abomination. However, of all the illicit sexual relations listed in Leviticus 18, homosexuality is not singled out as being any different or any more worthy of condemnation than any other sexual sin. God's attitude toward homosexuality is portrayed in the judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah (Gn 19). Ezekiel includes among the sins of Sodom "immoral acts," using the same term as in Leviticus 18 to describe homosexual acts (Ezk 16:43; cp. Jd 7). The law condemns all homosexual sex and does not distinguish between perverted and wholesome homosexual relationships.
The central NT passage that addresses homosexuality is Romans 1:24-27 (cp.
1 Co 6:9; 1 Tm 1:10). It is set in the context of the condemnation of those who reject God as revealed in creation, or through natural law. It is part of Paul's broader argument for the universality of sin and judgment, setting the need for the believer to be justified by faith in Christ's atoning death on the cross, outlined in Romans 4–5. Those who rejected the available knowledge of God and chose instead to worship the Greek and Roman idols faced lifestyle consequences. One of these consequences was homosexual behavior. Paul appealed to the natural order of creation to condemn homosexual behavior (Rm 1:27).
What's natural is objective and based on creation, not dependent upon an individual's sexual orientation. Male and female were created with an innate tendency toward opposite-sex attraction, but because of sin the human race developed the potential for homosexuality. This potential is often realized when certain developmental factors are present. Because of the reality of sin, every person has the potential for homosexuality, in the same way that we have the potential for any other kind of sin Scripture describes.
Some have suggested that Paul intended to condemn only certain types of homosexuality. For example, given the context of idolatry, some have argued that Paul was only condemning homosexuality in the context of idolatrous worship. Others have suggested that Paul intended to condemn perverse homosexuality, such as having multiple partners and engaging in nonconsensual homosexual sex. Still others argue that Paul was objecting to persons' reversing their natural sexual orientation and acting sexually in ways that violate a person's orientation.
There is little evidence in the text that Paul intended to limit his teaching to certain kinds of homosexual activity. Rather, Paul's appeal to a universal truth about sexual relations linked to the order of creation (cp. Jesus' teaching in Mt 19:4-6) should prevent us from seeing this passage as limited to certain kinds of homosexual behavior and from seeing Paul as culturally outdated in his teaching. His teaching provides an appropriate context for a judgment on all same-gender sexual relationships
In applying these passages that forbid homosexuality, some suggest that it is important to make a distinction between homosexual attraction and homosexual sexual relations. And indeed there is a difference between being attracted to a person of the same sex and acting sexually on that attraction. For a straight, married person to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex other than his or her spouse is not sin per se. It becomes sin when that attraction is acted upon, either in lust (the process of mentally having sex with a person) or in sexual overtures. Likewise, it may be that the homosexual attraction is not sin per se, though at variance with the order of creation. But when that attraction gives way to lust and ultimately to sexual activity, it is sin.
Some argue that what the Bible condemns in homosexual relationships is what it also condemns in heterosexual relationships—that is, lust and sexual involvement outside marriage. Thus the options for the Christian homosexual would be the same as for the Christian single person: either abstinence or heterosexual sex in marriage. Some Christians who struggle with their sexual identity have grasped this distinction and have rejected the gay lifestyle while attempting to work out issues related to their sexual identity.
It may be that failure to recognize a distinction between feeling a homosexual attraction and acting homosexually has kept the church from being a more accepting place for those struggling with their sexual orientation.
How Should a Christian Relate to Culture?
by Charles Colson
One writer in a psychological journal pondered what makes humans distinct from beasts. After discarding several possibilities—tool usage, language, ability to think—the author concluded that humans seem to be the only creatures who care about what makes them distinct.
On the surface, the outstanding trait of humanity is culture. Not everyone agrees. Some claim beasts have cultures: chimpanzees "harvest" termites with a "tool"—a stripped tree branch wrought by their own hands; termites cultivate mushrooms for consumption; birds create species-specific nests; whales sing. But such simple, largely instinctive practices (which neither change nor improve over time) hardly compare with humankind's achievements. Beasts haven't any arts or technologies, scientific institutes or historical archives, philosophers or physicians. Apparently culture is a distinguishing mark of humankind.
But what makes humans creatures of culture? Why has every recorded human society—however primitive—indulged a level of culture beyond anything beasts might produce? Whence this penchant for culture?
Scripture teaches that humanity's attachment to culture derives from two sources. First is the image of God. Humans aren't like beasts; we've been created in the image and likeness of God (Gn 1:26-28). We have a spiritual essence, being made for conscious communion with our Creator. God Himself is a being of culture. He communes within Himself in His triune being (Gn 1:26; Jn 17:5); He fashioned a universe of great wonder and diversity (Gn 1:1; Jn 1:1-3); and He continues to sustain that universe in exhaustive detail (Col 1:17; Heb 1:3). It shouldn't surprise us that a creature made in the likeness of such a God would be drawn toward cultural activities as well.
Second, humans have a mandate for culture, which, along with other works of God's law, is written on every human heart (Rm 2:14-15). God has created people to exercise dominion over other creatures (Gn 1:26-30)—the "cultural mandate." Rather than giving a license to tyranny and plunder, God intends that humans exercise the kind of responsible stewardship that allows for creatures to realize full potential and for God's goodness, beauty, and truth to flourish. In the process of carrying out this mandate, people create culture—language for communication; families for love and nurture; agriculture for sustenance; resource development for tools and pleasures; governments for social order; procedures, protocols, and practices; things useful and things beautiful—all part of our in-built, God-given drive to order our world and develop the beauty and potential of our environment.
Humans are made to employ hearts, minds, and hands in the creation, maintenance, and propagation of those artifacts, institutions, and conventions by which we define, sustain, and enrich our lives. Culture can be a rich means of bringing honor and glory to God, as God Himself knew in providing a specific and glorious design for His tabernacle and temple; as the psalmists showed in their skillful use of poetry and song; as Solomon demonstrated in government and public works to the astonishment of the world; and as Jesus showed through His powerful use of storytelling.
No human can be indifferent to culture. The key question for the disciple isn't whether to be involved in culture but how. Since Christ has been exalted as Lord, all culture must be put to use in a way that serves His interests and promotes His glory. Even down to the mundane details of table manners—"eating and drinking," we might say (1 Co 10:31)—all of culture is to be engaged and used for God's glory. The Christian church's heritage includes a vast repository of cultural firsts (hospitals, universities, musical notation); signal achievements (the music of Bach, the paintings of Rembrandt, the poetry of Hopkins); and everyday delights (hymns, books, inspiring stories). Such artifacts, institutions, and conventions—the stuff of culture—are the fruit of patient, deliberate labors of faithful believers who, understanding their duty as image bearers of God, and submitting to their Lord's cultural mandate, point the way for the rest of us to follow obediently in the path of culture to God's glory.
Does Scripture call us to engage culture? It certainly does. How can we ignore Scripture—the most significant cultural artifact in all of human history? And as God's image bearers, how can we ignore the calling to take every thought captive and offer all that we are and have to God's service and glory (2 Co 10:3-5;
Rm 12:1-2)?
Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?
by William Lane Craig
To answer our question from a historical standpoint, we must first determine what facts concerning the fate of Jesus of Nazareth can be credibly established on the basis of the evidence and second consider what the best explanation of those facts is. At least four facts about the fate of the historical Jesus are widely accepted by NT historians today.
Fact 1: After His crucifixion, Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb. This fact is highly significant because it means that the location of Jesus' tomb was known in Jerusalem to Jews and Christians alike. New Testament scholars have established the fact of Jesus' entombment on the basis of evidence such as the following:
1. Jesus' burial is attested in the information (from before a.d. 36) that was handed on by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5.
2. The burial story is independently attested in the source material that was used by Mark in writing his Gospel.
3. Given the understandable hostility in the early Christian movement toward the Jewish national leaders, Joseph of Arimathea, as a member of the Jewish high court that condemned Jesus, is unlikely to have been a Christian invention.
4. The burial story is simple and lacks any signs of being developed into a legend.
5. No other competing burial story exists.
For these and other reasons, the majority of NT critics concur that Jesus was in fact buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb.
Fact 2: On the Sunday after the crucifixion, Jesus' tomb was found empty by a group of His women followers. Among the reasons that have led most scholars to this conclusion are the following:
1. In stating that Jesus "was buried, that He was raised on the third day," the old information transmitted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 implies the empty tomb.
2. The empty tomb story also has multiple and independent attestation in Mark, Matthew, and John's source material, some of which is very early.
3. The empty tomb story as related in Mark, our earliest account, is simple and lacks signs of having been embellished as a legend.
4. Given that in Jewish patriarchal culture the testimony of women was regarded as unreliable, the fact that women, rather than men, were the chief witnesses to the empty tomb is best explained by the narrative's being true.
5. The earliest known Jewish response to the proclamation of Jesus' resurrection, namely, the "disciples came during the night and stole Him while we were sleeping" (Mt 28:12-15), was itself an attempt to explain why the body was missing and thus presupposes the empty tomb.
For these and other reasons, a majority of scholars hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical testimony to Jesus' empty tomb.
Fact 3: On multiple occasions, and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups saw Jesus alive after His death. This fact is almost universally acknowledged among NT scholars for the following reasons:
1. Given its early date as well as Paul's personal acquaintance with the people involved, the list of eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection appearances that is quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:5-8 guarantees that such appearances occurred.
2. The appearance narratives in the Gospels provide multiple, independent attestations of the appearances.
Even the most skeptical critics acknowledge that the disciples had seen Jesus alive after His death.
Finally, fact 4: The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe Jesus was risen from the dead, despite having every predisposition to the contrary. Consider the situation the disciples faced following Jesus' crucifixion:
1. Their leader was dead and Jewish messianic expectations did not expect a Messiah who, instead of triumphing over Israel's enemies, would be shamefully executed by them as a criminal.
2. According to OT law, Jesus' execution exposed Him as a heretic, a man accursed by God.
3. Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone's rising from the dead to glory and immortality before the general resurrection of the dead at the end of the world.
Nevertheless, the original disciples suddenly came to believe so strongly that God had raised Jesus from the dead that they were willing to die for that belief.
We come now to our second concern: What is the best explanation of these four facts? In his book Justifying Historical Descriptions, historian C. B. McCullagh lists six tests historians use to determine the best explanation for a given body of historical facts. The hypothesis given by the eyewitnesses—"God raised Jesus from the dead"—passes all these tests:
1. It has great explanatory scope. It explains why the tomb was found empty, why the disciples saw postmortem appearances of Jesus, and why the Christian faith came into being.
2. It has great explanatory power. It explains why the body of Jesus was gone, why people repeatedly saw Jesus alive despite His earlier public execution, and so forth.
3. It is plausible. Given the historical context of Jesus' unparalleled life and claims, the resurrection makes sense as the divine confirmation of those radical claims.
4. It is not ad hoc or contrived. It requires only one additional hypothesis: that God exists.
5. It is in accord with accepted beliefs. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" does not in any way conflict with the accepted belief that people do not rise naturally from the dead. The Christian accepts that belief as wholeheartedly as he accepts the hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead.
6. It far outstrips any of its rival theories in meeting conditions 1 through 5.
Down through history, various alternative explanations of the facts have been offered—the conspiracy theory, the apparent death theory, the hallucination theory, and so forth. Such hypotheses have been almost universally rejected by contemporary scholarship. No naturalistic hypothesis has, in fact, attracted a great number of scholars.
Therefore, the best explanation of the established facts seems to be that God raised Jesus from the dead.
We have firm historical grounds for answering our question in the affirmative. The historical route is not, however, the only avenue to a knowledge of Jesus' resurrection. The majority of Christians, who have had neither the resources, training, nor leisure to conduct a historical inquiry into this event, have come to a knowledge of Jesus' resurrection through a personal encounter with the living Lord
(Rm 8:9-17).