C.J. Anderson is a former Christian turned atheist. His book, No Kingdom Come, is offered in digital format through Amazon.com. I first encountered C.J. in a theology/apologetics forum I frequent on Goodreads.com. Anderson’s claims are twofold. First, because God has never provided him with personal knowledge of His existence (like Christ had once provided the Doubter, Thomas) it must follow that He doesn’t exist. Also, Anderson claims that because God has allowed him to suffer in his personal life, it is evident that He doesn’t exist. Anderson challenged us all to read his book for a better perspective on his arguments.
I read his book and wasn’t necessarily impressed by his logic or his arguments. There is nothing really new about his position. Essentially, Anderson has succumbed to the age-old problem of evil. If evil and suffering exists, how could the Christian concept of God exist? However, in Anderson’s case, it is personal. The problems that caused him to recant his faith are personal problems. He blamed God for some very real pain he has experience. As I read his book, I thought briefly of offering an extended response; however, when I read his mission statement, I knew a response must be offered:
“My mission is clear to me: Write a book to destroy the book that destroyed my life. Write a book to destroy The Bible”
Anderson’s mission statement is quite clear. He desires nothing less than to destroy the Bible. By extension, his goal would seem to be to destroy Christianity. He wants to destroy the faith my fellow Christians have in Christ. It’s not enough for him to disbelieve – he wants to destroy our faith. Anderson’s tactics are to raise huge accusations against God and then portray Him as incapable of providing any real answers. It is my assertion that the God of the bible does offer real answers. It is my assertion that God did not fail C.J. Anderson. Rather, Anderson’s lack of understanding and lack of faith failed him.
My mission in writing a response is clear. I want to offer a different perspective than Anderson. I want people who are suffering to have an alternative to Anderson’s voice. I want to encourage and exhort others to place their faith in Jesus Christ. Ultimately, I want to offer a defense of the hope I have placed in Jesus Christ.
“… always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence” – 1 Peter 3:15.
Responding to Anderson’s book will involve a rather long series of posts. I will attempt to respond to each chapter, however, I reserve the right to skip around a bit as a couple of his chapters deviate a bit from his main arguments.
I hope you will follow along.
 Anderson’s book is digital and is not formatted to provide page numbers.
Author C.J Anderson has suffered a crisis of faith. Essentially, this book poses the age-old question concerning God and suffering. Anderson answers the question by concluding a there is so room for God in a world that includes suffering.
Is it possible that Anderson is right? Is it possible that his fourteen years of following Christ was for nothing? I believe this is an important book because it is genuine. Anderson’s struggle with God is a real struggle with God. His questions are ones we all may find ourselves asking from time to time. Christians need to be aware that they may struggle with pain, loss, and suffering. Readers will find themselves empathizing with the author. My own heart broke as I read it.
The reader will discover that Anderson seems angry and bitter toward the God he professes doesn’t exist. He occasionally deviates from his main theme to rail against the notion of tithing (which detracts from his main argument some). My hope, however, is that this book will serve as a warning for Christians everywhere to learn more about the God of the Bible. We need to dismiss our presuppositions and study the Word of God if there is any chance for us to weather the storm of suffering in our own life. Anderson creates a false notion of God and suffering and then finds himself surprised at its failure to offer him any comfort in the midst of pain.
However, I am grateful for this book. I am grateful for the author’s honesty. I am grateful for the stark reminder that suffering does exist in this fallen world.
This book has struck a chord in me and I have plans to blog through it chapter by chapter after the first of the yea
This book is a functional one that provides the history, timelines, and basic beliefs of all the world’s major religions. It serves to be quite helpful for a person who needs quick statistics or a quick summary of a religion.
Its name, however, reveals the books biggest weakness. It attempts to make world religions “simple” and fails to provide an in depth study of any of them. This is perhaps an unfair critique, however, as the book is obviously not intended to provide an in depth study at all.
I do intend to hold on to this book and use it as a reference and recommend it to others for the same purpose. However, if your goal is to really dig into a particular religion, I recommend you look elsewhere.
This little book by Thabiti Anyabwile should be required reading for anyone who attends church. Unfortunately, many of us do not understand the importance of being involved in the local church and see it as an optional (and even sometimes offensive) aspect of our faith. Those of us who do attend often refrain from getting too involved and leave all the work of the church in the hands of a small minority.
Anyabwile, however, has provided readers with a wonder tool to benefit an individual who wants to get the most out of their church life and has identified ten marks of a healthy church member. According to Anyabwile, a healthy church member is:
1. An expositional lister
2. A Biblical theologian
3. Saturated in the gospel
4. Genuinely converted
5. A Biblical evangelist
6. A committed member
7. A seeker of discipline
8. A growing disciple
9. A humble follower
10. Is a prayer warrior
Each of these marks of a healthy church member represents a chapter in this little book. For each chapter, Anyabwile explores the concept and provides study questions the reader can use to conduct a self-examination.
If every Christian would read this little book and commit to the principles Anyabwile recommends, the Church would benefit greatly. I highly recommend this book.
Five-Point Strategy for Sharing the Gospel With a Cultist
Got Questions Ministries defines a cult as “a religious groups that denies one or more of the fundamentals of Biblical truth” (Got Questions). John Thomas Rogers adds that a cult “… is a religion that as not yet achieved respectability or has not grown up yet – a baby religion” (Rogers xxiv). An estimated seven million Americans have been involved in cults (Cult Hotline) with new members being recruited everyday. With such growing participation in the cults, it is in the Church’s interest to identify the theological issues cults have in common, refute them with sound Biblical doctrine, and to create strategies to share the gospel with those unfortunate people who have been led astray. There is a two-fold purpose behind the need of such a proactive stance by the Church. First, such a strategy would serve to ‘inoculate’ church members who may be in danger of being attracted to cults. In addition, the issue is a matter of salvation for those lost amid the cults. Christ charged the Church with the mission of spreading His gospel to the world and creating disciples; refusing to formulate a strategy to refute the cults is akin to ignoring the soteriological needs of those who are lost. This paper will serve as a preliminary attempt to address these issues. Theological issues common to the cults will be addressed with an eye towards how these issues impact the individual cult member. These issues will then be refuted Biblically and a five-point strategy for sharing the gospel with a cultist will be presented.
Of the theological issues common to the cults identified by John Thomas Rogers (Rogers xxiv), three will be addressed in this paper. First, cults do not see the Bible as the final authority on theological issues and, as such, include outside authorities. Rogers writes, “One of the most common reasons cults give for their existence is that the Bible has errors, or at least that it cannot be understood without help … In other words, cults exist on authority outside the Bible” (Rogers 65). This view of the Bible’s authority (or lack thereof) stands in stark contrast to Biblical Christianity, which teaches that the Bible alone is authoritative on matters concerning God. One of the foundations of the Protestant Reformation is the principle of sola Scriptura (or by Scripture alone), which means, “only the Bible has the authority to bind the consciences of believers” (Sproul 42). The Bible is seen by Biblical Christianity to be the ultimate form of authority, inerrant, and infallible. Furthermore, Biblical Christianity teaches that the Bible is complete. Rogers writes, “Once the task of completing the Bible was done, the apostles would be replaced by the Bible” (Rogers 129).
Once the sole authority (and inerrancy) of the Bible is denied, cults are then free to deny the deity of Christ. Rogers writes, “… most cults doctrinally lower Christ to the level of an angel or claim that He is only an angel …” (Rogers 108). This is in direct contrast to Biblical Christianity’s teaching that Christ is God the Son and the Second Person of the Trinity. John Walvoord writes, “Christianity has always honored Jesus Christ as its historical and theological center [and] one’s faith in and understanding of Jesus Christ involve the most important theological issues anyone can face” (Walvoord 11). One of the wondrous aspects of Christianity is the hypostatic union; the weaving of Christ’s complete deity with His complete humanity. A concise vision of Biblical Christianity is expressed by the Nicene Creed of the 4th Century; Christ is eternally begotten of God the Father, assumed humanity by incarnation through a virgin birth, and secured salvation for a sinful mankind through His death on the cross and resurrection. Furthermore, Biblical Christianity teaches that Christ will come again to judge the living and the dead and will reign over an eternal kingdom.
Finally, having denied the deity of Christ, cults are free to replace the salvation offered by His sacrifice on the cross with a salvation secured by works. Rogers writes that this salvation by works is accompanied by an absolute obedience to the group (Rogers xxiv). This teaching is opposed to the Biblical teaching of salvation by grace, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9 NASB). Rogers writes “To comprehend that salvation truly is the work of God apart from my insignificant efforts caused me to realize that even my response to God as He drew me to Himself could be a source of personal pride. Jesus paid it all; all to Him I owe!” (Rogers 113).
It doesn’t take much imagination to see how these theological issues could work together to impact a member of a cult. Without the authority of the Bible to guide their beliefs, cult members are subject to the ever-evolving theology of cult leaders. Rogers writes, “The doctrines of cults change as needed. If a doctrine has positive results, it can be developed. If it has negative results, it can be changed and then later forgotten” (Rogers xxvii-xxviii). As a result, cult members are left on unstable ground theologically speaking. Their core beliefs are subject to the whims of their leaders. When this is coupled with an inadequate understanding of Christ’s deity and a salvation that is guaranteed only by works, cult members are eventually forced into a situation that requires blind allegiance to their group. Ultimately, and more importantly, these issues work together to become a matter of salvation. Cult members are lost and prevented from seeing a clear picture of the salvation offered by Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. It is for this reason that Christians should take great care in sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ with cult members. What follows is a simple five-point for Christians to adopt when sharing the gospel with cult members.
Know Your Own Doctrine: Rogers writes, “To know the doctrine of every cult or religion is impossible” (Rogers 55). There are simply to many cults out there that employ evolving doctrines to be an expert in all of them. It is best to be grounded in a good knowledge of Biblical doctrine when sharing the gospel with cult members.
Keep the Discussion Friendly: Refuse to engage in an argument with cult members regardless of whether or not they attempt to argue with you. Their salvation is of utmost importance and we do not want out behavior to serve as a stumbling block in their acceptance of Christ (see 1 Peter 2:12).
Establish the Authority of the Bible: As a Christian, do not sacrifice the authority of Scripture. Politely explain to the cult member in question that if they want to prove a position, they must do so using the Bible only. Rogers writes that by insisting the discussion revolve around the Bible alone “… you are not being unfair; you are being honest. You are asking the [cult member] to do with you what you would have to do with a Jewish individual who rejected the New Testament and accepted only the Old” (Rogers 70).
Continually Point the Discussion to Christ: Remember, it is common to all cults that works be required for salvation. By continually returning the conversation to the Person of Christ you are offering the cult member something they simply don’t have – salvation by grace alone.
End Well: Rogers writes, “How one closes a conversation with religious people or cultists is just as important as how one opens it” (Rogers 114). If you sense tension developing in the conversation or can tell feelings are being hurt, don’t be afraid to recommend a break in the conversation. Your task is to share the gospel with the cult member and then allow the Holy Spirit to convict them. Time away from the conversation might be just what the Spirit requires.
It is been demonstrated that the prominence of cults in the United States requires the Church to formulate a strategy to share the gospel with cult members. It should be recognized that there are theological issues that separate the cults from Biblical Christianity. Three such issues are of immense importance; the authority of Scripture, the deity of Christ, and a salvation of works as opposed to grace. Ultimately, these issues boil down to matter of salvation. Christians who hope to share the gospel with cult members should keep these issues in mind and employ a five-point strategy; know Biblical doctrine, keep the discussion friendly, establish the authority of the Bible, continually turn the discussion to Christ, and ensure the discussion ends well. By employing such a strategy, Christians may successfully lead a cult member to Christ and proactively protect their own church members from being attracted to the cults.
Cult Hotline & Clinic. The Jewish Board of Family and Children’s Services, 2010. Web. 30 October 2012.
Rogers, John Thomas. Communicating Christ in a Religious World. Xulon Press, 2009.
Sproul, R.C. What is Reformed Theology? Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997.
Walvoord, John. Jesus Christ Our Lord. Chicago: The Moody Bible Institute, 1969.
“What is the Definition of a Cult?” gotquestions.org. Got Questions Ministries, n.d. Web. 1 November 2012.
 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19).
 1 Peter 1:23 describes the Word of God as being living, imperishable, and enduring.
 Unfortunately, it is beyond the scope of this paper to offer a complete treatment of Christology, however, the Nicene Creed sums traditional Biblical Christology up well.
John Mark Terry defines evangelism as “presenting Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit so that people will become His disciples” (Terry 1). Unfortunately, for many Christians today, sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ has become optional. Perhaps the Church has bought into the postmodern belief that faith and religion are personal pursuits. On the contrary, there is a clear Biblical mandate to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with others. It is a mandate that was exemplified and passed on to Christians by Jesus Christ Himself. This post will examine the Biblical mandate to share the gospel as it applies to all Christians.
Christ’s directions to His Church are found in the first chapter of Acts. Verse six depicts the disciples asking Christ if the time has come to restore His kingdom. In Christ’s response, we find a clear mandate for His followers, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority; but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:7-8 NASB). Christ’s instructions are clear. Though we may not completely understand the timing of God’s eschatological plans, in the mean time, we are to share the gospel of Christ with other people. These instructions are echoed in Christ’s Great Commission to the Church, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matthew 28:19-20). Surely, if Christ Himself thought it was important to instruct Christians to share His gospel, we should take His instructions seriously. Fortunately, Christ also provides a model of evangelism for us to emulate.
Richard D. Phillips writes that the John’s depiction of Christ as evangelist “… proves to us that the gospel is for everyone. Jesus came to save not a certain class of type of person, but all kinds of people, each of whom must receive him only in faith” (Phillips 108). Phillips asserts that the Gospel of John juxtaposes the stories of Nicodemus and the woman at the well to demonstrate that both people at the top of life (Nicodemus) and the bottom of life (the woman at the well) are in need of Christ’s gospel (Phillips 108). In fact, it is of Jesus’ encounter with the sinful woman at the well that Phillips writes, “… here the Lord Himself sets us an example of speaking the truth in love” (Phillips 109). In his encounter with the woman, Jesus acknowledged the woman’s sin and provides her with the truth of the gospel. It is this example that Christians are called to follow. However, can Christians truly be expected to follow Christ’s example? Certainly, some of us simply aren’t gifted with the ability to evangelize, right? Wrong, people of all personality types can follow Christ’s example.
Mike Bechtle writes that both extroverted and introverted personalities can follow Christ’s example of evangelism (Bechtle). For those introverts who find it difficult and intimidating to boldly evangelize, Bechtle recommends they mimic the pattern of Colossians 4:6, “Your speech should always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you should answer each person” (Bechtle). The point for Christians who hope to evangelize is that their words should always pave the way to make sharing the gospel possible. If we are continually generous and gracious with our speech, opportunities to share the gospel will eventually present themselves. These opportunities are sure to appear because “Evangelism isn’t our job – it’s God’s job” (Bechtle). God paves the way for Christians to participate in evangelism regardless of our personality type. As Christians, all we need to do is patiently await God to present us with an opportunity to share the gospel of Christ. Once God’s provides opportunities for evangelism, Christian’s can rest assured there are a variety of methods at their disposal.
One common method of sharing the gospel has been dubbed the Roman Road. Walking a person through salvation as it is presented in the Book of Romans “is a simple yet powerful method of explaining why we need salvation, how God provided salvation, how we can receive salvation, and what are the results of salvation” (gotquestions.org). Without leaving the Book of Romans it can be demonstrated that all of us are sinners (Romans 3:23), the wages of our sin is death (Romans 6:23), that Christ dies for our sins (Romans 10:9), and all we need to is confess Christ as Lord to receive salvation (Romans 10:9 and 10:13). There are other methods of evangelizing at the Christians disposal. For instance, Karl Bastian has created a system using different colored pages to represent different stages of salvation called the “Wordless Book” (Bastian). This particular means of sharing the gospel has proven to work particularly well for children. The wide variety of methods to evangelize makes it obvious that it is possible for any Christian to share the gospel with anyone.
In conclusion, it has been shown that there is a clear Biblical mandate for Christians to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with others. In fact, the mandate originates from Jesus Christ Himself. As such, Christ provides the inspiration and example of evangelizing for each of us. It has also been shown that the gospel is a message intended for everyone. It can be shared by people of all personality types – extroverted and introverted. Finally, there are a variety of methods at the disposal of a Christian who chooses to share the gospel. As such, Christians are left with no excuses for not accepting Christ’s mandate to share His gospel with the world.
Bastian, Karl. “Using the Wordless Book to Share the Gospel.” Kidology. n.d. Web. 26 October 2012.
Charles Ryrie has become one my favorite theologians to read due to his unique ability to present complicated, theological concepts in an accessible and Biblical manner. Ryrie writes from a dispensational vantage point in an incredibly balanced manner and should be required reading for those who enjoy poking fun at the expense of dispensational writers like Tim LeHaye and Jerry Jenkins. For that matter, he should be required reading for Tim LeHaye and Jerry Jenkins!
In Basic Theology: A Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth, Ryrie explores each branch of theology in a manner that’s consistent with a high view of Scripture. When reading this book, I was left with the impression that Ryrie is far more concerned with loyalty to the Word than in defending his own pet presuppositions.
While any book on systematic theology is going to be huge, this book weighs in at just 600+ pages which is a tribute to Ryrie’s ability to get to the point on all matters of importance.
This book is a great reference text and should be placed within easy reach on the desk of all pastors, teachers, and theologians.
In preparation for a paper on the Divinity of Christ this post examines Christology as presented in the Gospel of Matthew. I decided to specifically look into Matthew’s Gospel because it was recently charged in an online discussion forum I take part in that the writer of the Gospel of Matthew did not believe Christ was God. This post researches that question. What did the writer of Matthew’s gospel believe about Jesus Christ? This post represents just the beginning of my research and could turn into multiple posts.
I think the proper place to start is at the end of Matthew’s Gospel:
16 But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” (NASB)
The type of Christology presented in the above passage is intended to be the culmination of everything that comes before it in Matthew’s gospel. Here are my observations of the above passage:
Verse 16: All eleven disciples are present during these events. It is probably relevant if we consider that John’s gospel is much more explicit than Matthew’s. If the gospel of Matthew disagreed with the conclusions of John’s gospel (based on shared experiences), surely it would have argued that Christ wasn’t God just as explicitly. However, such explicit arguments against Christ’s deity are not found in Matthew’s gospel. In fact, I believe the culmination of Matthew’s gospel is in complete agreement with John’s.
Verse 17: The eleven disciples worshiped Christ. The Greek word translated as “worshiped” is “proskuneo.” Strong’s Dictionary defines this word as “to Fawn or crouch to, that is, (literally or figuratively) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore): – worship. This verse paints such a powerful image that Matthew Henry wrote, “They gave divine honor to Him, which was signified as by some outward expressions of adoration. Note, all that see the Lord Jesus with an eye of faith are obliged to worship Him” (Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible).
I think it is also noteworthy that Matthew’s gospel records that some were still doubtful at this point. I think this gives us all direction when we face doubts concerning the identity and person of Jesus Christ – in the face of doubts, we should worship Him.
Verse 18: Christ claims all authority in heaven and on earth. “Authority” or the Greek “Exousia” denotes not just the power of authority but the right of privilege to possess such authority (see Thayer’s Greek Definitions). Christ owns the right to claim such authority because He is divine. In his commentary on the Book of Matthew, Dr. Thomas Constable refers to this verse as “Jesus’ great claim.” I think it is a claim that is directly tied into His divinity.
Verse 19: In response to Christ’s universal authority, the disciples are to go out and make disciples of all nations. Christ’s authority is no longer seen as one localized to the Jewish nation as Messiah, rather, it transcends the Jewish nation and applies to all people everywhere. Jesus is portrayed as having sovereign control and authority over all things in heaven and earth. This is a divine sovereignty that is in accord with the attribute of sovereignty that is reserved for God Almighty.
Furthermore, the second part of Verse 19 is one of the clearest expressions of the Trinity we find in Scripture, “… in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” So much so that it has been written:
“It is one thing for Jesus to speak about his relationship with God as Son with Father (notably 11:27; 24:36; 26:63- 64) and to draw attention to the close links between himself and the Holy Spirit (12:28, 31-32), but for ‘the Son’ to take his place as the middle member, between the Father and the Holy Spirit, in a threefold depiction of the object of the disciple’s allegiance is extraordinary.” R.T. France in his commentary on Matthew.
Surely, Christ is claiming divinity in this expression of the Holy Trinity!
Verse 20: From Edmond Heibert’s An Expository Study of Matthew 28:16-20, “This Gospel ends not with a command but with a promise, or rather a fact. Jesus will be with His disciples as they carry out His will. This is His great commitment. Immanuel is still God with us (1:23; cf. 18:20). The expression “to the end of the age” (Gr. pasas tes hemeras) literally means “the whole of every day.”1321 Jesus promised to be with us every day forever. It does not mean He will cease being with us when the present age ends and the messianic kingdom begins. Throughout the present age (Gr. sunteleias tou aiovos) Jesus’ disciples are to carry out His Great Commission.”
So is it true that the Gospel of Matthew fails to present Christ as God? I would suggest a belief in the deity of Christ is the very culmination of this gospel! Was it as developed as John’s Gospel or expressed in the same manner? Certainly not! But I think the Gospel of Matthew honestly depicts the evolution (if I may use this word) of thought concerning Christ. This final passage of this gospel expresses a culmination of thought that perhaps begins with Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:15-16 that Christ was the Son of the Living God. An expression that Thomas Constable writes, “He further defined Jesus as the Son of the living God. This is a more definite identification of Jesus as deity than “God’s Son” or “a son of God” (14:33). That title leaves a question open about the sense in which Jesus was God’s Son. The Jews often described their God as the living God, the contrast being with dead idols. By referring to God this way Peter left no doubt about the God who was the Father of Jesus. He was the true God. Since Jesus was the Son of God, He was the Messiah, the King over the long anticipated earthly kingdom (cf. 2 Sam. 7:14; Isa. 9:6; Jer. 23:5-6; Mic. 5:2). Peter expressed belief that Jesus was both Messiah and God.”
Traditionally, adherence to the Doctrine of Inerrancy has drawn the line between the conservative and liberal branches of Christianity. The debate concerning inerrancy has become more significant, however, as it now draws the boundary lines between separate streams of conservative, evangelical Christianity. Charles Ryrie writes, “… to deny [the Doctrine of Inerrancy] is to deny part of the truthfulness of the Bible” (Ryrie 87). This debate is of extreme importance, for it inevitably involves all other essential points of theology. For instance, if the notion that the Bible contains errors is entertained, eventually the truthfulness of the Bible in general will be called into question. Ryrie writes, “It would not be impossible that there might be an error about the crucial matter of [Christ’s] death and resurrection” (Ryrie 87). In fact, it can be correctly stated that a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture is foundational to all other doctrinal beliefs. Therefore, this paper will attempt to define and then defend the Doctrine of Inerrancy as it applies to the Bible.
The Doctrine of Inerrancy is one that a student of the Bible arrives at from an inductive study of Scripture. There are no explicit proof texts within the pages of Scripture that offer a definitive definition. For reasons that will be expanded on and defended in this paper, Charles Ryrie offers the following simple definition of inerrancy, “… the inerrancy of the Bible means simply that the Bible tells the truth” (Ryrie 93). Admittedly, Ryrie’s definition needs some clarification. First, it should be acknowledged that inerrancy, in the strictest of terms, should only be applied to the original manuscripts of Scripture. The Bible clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit guided its human authors, but it would certainly be a stretch to attach that inspiration to the countless numbers of scribes and scholars who have made copies of the originals. Secondly, students of Scripture must remember that its truth is conveyed using the language of its human authors. As such, it contains “approximations, free quotations, language of appearances, and different accounts of the same event as long as these do not contradict” (Ryrie 93). With these considerations, the following definition of the Doctrine of Inerrancy is offered: the Doctrine of Inerrancy states that the Bible, in its original manuscripts, speaks the truth of God conveyed in the language of human authors who were guided by the Holy Spirit.
The Doctrine of Inerrancy, as it is defined above, is a natural outgrowth of the Bible’s claim of inspiration. Scripture makes the claim that it is the inspired Word of God. Chafer writes, “… the intrabiblical evidence [of the inspiration of Scripture] is so extensive that to tabulate it would require a careful study of, and reference to, almost every page of the Scriptures” (Chafer 8). Certainly, a survey of the Bible reveals a belief of the writers that they were producing a work that reflected the inspiration of God Almighty. In fact, the Bible clearly asserts a claim of inspiration. 2 Timothy 3:16 couldn’t be clearer, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16, NASB). Peter even taught that no prophecy was ever revealed in accordance with the gospel that didn’t come from men being moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). Based on these two passages, one can only agree with Chafer when he writes that Scripture’s “distinctive characteristic [is] the fact that it originates in, and proceeds from, God” (Chafer 10-11).
It is because Scripture originates and proceeds from God that Paul Enns writes, “… there was human authorship but the Holy Spirit superintended the writer, ensuring an inerrant Word” (Enns 125). In other words, having established that Scripture is the inspired Word of God, written by men who were being guided by the Holy Spirit, it must surely follow that it is entirely truthful. 2 Samuel 7:28 ensures students of Scripture that God’s words are true. In fact, Proverbs 30:5 makes it clear every word of God proves to be true. Thus it is inconsistent to believe in the inspiration of Scripture without believing in its inerrancy. Denying that the inspiration of Scripture necessitates it is also inerrant will lead an interpreter into dangerous theological territory. In fact, an insufficient view of the Bible’s inerrancy will ultimately call into question the student’s very view of Christ Himself, which should be defined and shaped by the testimony of the Word of God and confirmed by the witness of the Holy Spirit.
One may wonder how the Doctrine of Inerrancy applies, if at all, when the original manuscripts of Scripture are no longer in existence. Due to the science of textual criticism, the believer who exercises reasonable scholarship can have great confidence in the most reliable of current translations. Textual criticism takes advantage of a variety of methods to deduce from the tens of thousands of copies what the original manuscripts of Scripture precisely said. The variety of manuscripts available for study is impressive. The process of textual criticism involves comparing these copies with one another and examining internal and external evidence to deduce the most-likely original text. The accuracy of the practice of textual criticism coupled with the sheer number of manuscripts available for study enabled Charles Fremont Sitterly to write, “The literary evidence to the text of the New Testament is vastly more abundant than that to any other series of writings of like compass in the entire range of ancient letters” (Sitterly). While this evidence alone doesn’t prove explicitly that manuscripts available today are identical to the originals, it does provide evidence that the early church fathers had confidence in them. It is quite telling that when variances do occur between the copies available today, no major doctrine of the Church is called into question because of them.
Finally, there is the notion of preservation. While there is no internal Biblical evidence to such preservation, it isn’t unlikely that the Holy Spirit, who attends to the ministry of illuminating Scripture in the hearts and minds of believers, has preserved the integrity of Biblical canon and that the Bible remains authoritative in that “its parts is the voice of God speaking to men” (Chafer 137). Chafer writes, “The problems related to the formation of the Canon are greatly simplified by a certain actuality, namely, that the Bible is present, and in evidence with its exhibition of divine perfection” (Chafer 137). The Bible itself attests to the accuracy of canon and its inerrant nature. The Christian Church has two millennia of historical and archeological evidence to attest to the preservation of Scripture. It would seem to be quite the contradiction to assert that the same God who inspired men to write His inerrant Word would allow that word to become so distorted and inaccurate as to allow two thousand years worth of Christians to be misled. Students of Scripture can take great confidence in the fact that countless numbers of like-minded Christians, all indwelled by the same Holy Spirit, have reached the conclusion that the Bible conveys a trustworthy and reliable copy of the original manuscripts.
In conclusion, the Doctrine of Inerrancy can be defined to mean that the Bible, in its original form, conveys the truth of God using the language of men. The internal testimony of Scripture clearly teaches that it is the authoritative and inspired word of God. To conclude that the authoritative and inspired Word of God is somehow filled with errors contradicts these explicit doctrines. While it is true that the Doctrine of Inerrancy can only strictly be applied to the (now unavailable) original manuscripts, the science of textual criticism coupled with historical and archeological evidence, and the very testimony of the Bible itself as confirmed by the witness of Holy Spirit lends great confidence to modern students that the Bible is loyal and vastly similar to the original manuscripts.
 This definition is Ryrie’s merely rephrased. The conditions that it applies only to the original manuscripts and that it is conveyed in human language are added to help the reader understand they have been taken into account.
Title: The Power of the Prophetic Blessing: An Astonishing Revelation for a New Generation Author: John Hagee
When I agreed to read and review this book for the publisher, I will admit that I knew very little about author John Hagee. I recognized his name from his television ministry but, if I’m being honest, I spend very little time watching televangelists because television ministries lack a key component of ministry – relationship. I say this simply to convey that I have no idea where Mr. Hagee stands theologically. I do not know his denomination or his stances on the popular theological debates of our time.
I will, however, argue that his book, The Power of the Prophetic Blessing, reveals some theological miscues. To make a long story short, Mr. Hagee is asserting that God proclaimed certain blessings on the Israelites that are now offered to Christians (who have supplanted, or at least joined with, the Jewish people as God’s chosen ones) and all we must do is claim those blessings in the name of Jesus Christ. Hagee writes, “The priestly blessing was not just for Moses. Levi, and the elite members of the tribe of Levi; it was intended for every person on the face of the earth!”
According to Hagee, all you have to do to claim your blessings is say them out loud and claim them as your own. Or as my wife astutely put it – Name it and claim it.
For example, Hagee writes:
I want you, regardless of your circumstances or how hopeless you feel at this moment, to say aloud, “I was born to be blessed.”
Begin thinking of yourself as successful in everything you put your hand to. I encourage you to end all destructive speech about yourself, your spouse, your children, your current circumstances, and your future.
You have the power to turn your life around!
Hagee claims that when he began preaching on the power of the prophetic blessing in his local church that everyone’s lives suddenly took a turn for the better. He even shares a heartwarming, personal story of how his unborn baby was saved from birth defects simply because Hagee claimed blessings in his name.
I have several problems with Hagee’s theology.
First, I am a dispensationalist. I believe the the church and the Israelites are distinct groups. Both are saved by Jesus Christ, but a promise or blessing made to the Jewish people is not automatically conveyed upon the church. I believe God has separate programs in store for both. Hagee seems to believe the Jewish people and the Church are one in the same. He is certainly not alone in this belief, however, it is one that I do not agree with.
Secondly, while I do believe that God blesses believers (and unbelievers to a certain extent), I do not believe that I can claim the specific blessings I desire simply by proclaiming them. Hagee seems to take the power of blessing away from God Almighty and claim it for himself. As he shared the story of his unborn baby’s rescue from birth defects it seemed less about what God did and more about what Hagee himself did. This makes me very uncomfortable.
Finally, Hagee’s theology doesn’t jive with reality. Life is hard sometimes. Heck, when Siddhattha Gotama ventured from isolation to view the world for the first time his immediate observation was that life is hard. According to Hagee, these hardships can be wished away in the name of Christ. This is hogwash. The Bible I read tells me that life is difficult and that God will stand by us no matter how mad it gets. It tells me that I can experience the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and a taste of Heaven on earth provided I put my faith in Jesus Christ. And finally, it promises me that someday I will live in a literal Kingdom ruled by Christ Himself. It does not, however, promise me a perfect life in the here and now provided I simply claim it.
Hagee’s theology offers no hope to the believer who is truly suffering. What about the couple whose baby is born with a birth defect. In Hagee’s church, the couple could of avoided the trauma if they had just had a little more faith and proclaimed their blessings with just a little more boldness.
This is a twisted and perverted take on the gospel that is presented in the Bible. Personally, I do not recommend this book for anyone.I was, however, given a promotion copy of the book to use in a give away promotion on this blog. If you want it, let me know. First come, first serve!
Disclaimer: A review copy of this book was given to me by Handlebar Publishing in exchange for this review.