Certainty isn’t Unrealistic or even Optional

My response to a postmodern Christian who doubts that we can have certainty:

Well, if you are certain that we can’t have certainty, allow me to be certain about various aspects of our faith. For instance, it is historically certain that Jesus died on the cross. Lee Strobel wrote, “Both Gerd Ludemann, who is an atheistic NT critic, and Bart Ehrman, who is an agnostic, call the crucifixion an indisputable fact.” And for good reason! There are just too many incontestable historical accounts verifying this fact.

In fact, so much of the Bible narrative depends on certainty. Moses doubted that Israel would believe that God had sent him back to Egypt to get them out. Therefore, God equipped him with miraculous signs – a staff transformed into a snake, a healthy hand transformed into a leprous hand, water into blood – so that Israel could be certain that God was with them (Exodus 4:1-9). He didn’t tell Moses, “Just tell them to believe!”

In contrast to this, Daniel Taylor, The Myth of Certainty, writes,

“They are also wrong, however, who claim that reason and evidence prove the existence of God. God is not reducible to proof and only our weakness makes us wish it were so.” (70)

Clearly, this is not a Biblical position. It was the “evidence” of Jesus resurrection that turned the Apostles back to faith (Acts 1:3; 2:22), that restored Thomas’ faith (John 20:27-28), and reassured the wavering John the Baptist (Matthew 11). Nor is this assertion even logical. Taylor reasons that reason can’t be used to prove God. How can he prove that “God is not reducible to proof?” Is he saying that God can’t prove His own existence?

We desperately need certainty. We need assurance to come boldly before our God (Hebrews 10:22). For many of my 34 years of following Christ, I had been psychologically shriveling up without the certainty of Christ’s love for me! Without this certainty, I was overwhelmed by my sins and failures. I lacked the strength to take my eyes off myself and my failures and to place them on my only source of hope – God! Certainty didn’t come quickly or easily, but it did slowly come, granted by the God who had mercy on me.

Even logically, we can’t doubt that we can have certainty. When someone says, “You can’t be certain about these things!” I merely reply, “Are you certain that I can’t be certain?” If he claims that he is certain about uncertainty, then he contradicts himself. If instead he is not certain about his claim, then he has to be more tentative about his dismissal of certainty.

Some preach against the possibility of certainty or assurance because if we don’t believe that it is possible, then we won’t grieve too much if we lack it. Although their intentions might be good, they oppose God, who wants us to strive for certainty and assurance:

“Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble; 11for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you.” (2 Peter 1:10-11)

How do we “make certain” these things? First of all, we need to recognize that it’s a gift (1 John 4:13; Psalm 84:11; Eph. 2:10), but He grants this gift synergistically, in conjunction with our obedience. Peter mentions diligence, but diligence in regards to what? Prior to this, he mentioned “self-control,” “perseverance” and “godliness.” John makes it clear. We can be assured of our salvation in several ways – “by keeping His commandments” (1 John 2:3; 4:16-18), most specifically by loving the brethren. While our good deeds don’t save us, they can certainly reassure us. But ultimately, it’s our faith that provides the victory (1 John 5:4). If we truly trust in Him, we’ll endeavor to do what He tells us to do.

We also have to learn how to Biblically reassure our hearts, because our unredeemed feelings can preach a message of condemnation to us (1 John 3:18-20). Some of us have over-sensitive consciences. Although we struggle to walk in a way pleasing to our Lord, we always seem to fail. We need to reassure ourselves that He not only forgives and cleanses us when we confess our sins (1 John 1:9), but that He is able to make the weakest of us “stand” (Romans 14:4).

It is good that our Lord doesn’t make it easy for us. The comfort of certainty isn’t a good thing if we are living carelessly or slothfully. While in the hospital recuperating from a chain saw injury that severed my wrist, the surgeon warned me that I would have to quickly exercise my hand lest it become frozen in position. However, after the glorious encounter that I experienced with this sovereign God in the midst of this debacle, I was certain that I wouldn’t have to do anything. I was convinced – not according to Scripture – that He would take care of it all! Consequently, today I cannot close my hand into a fist. Perhaps, we may not be ready to handle the degree of certainty that we so much desire and require a prod in our back.

Hate Crimes

LifeSiteNews.com reported (2/22/10) that on Valentine's day, “Police refused to interrupt a gay demonstration outside of Chicago's Holy Name Cathedral, despite laws that prohibit protesting near places of worship while services are ongoing."

Holy Name had invited married couples “to celebrate their spousal fidelity by renewing their vows to each other during Mass. Yet in order to do so, couples had to pass through an angry crowd of 'gay rights' protesters who marched by the steps of the cathedral, accusing Church hierarchy of hatred toward gays and telling parishioners to ‘stop funding the bigots!’"

What makes this particularly egregious is that fact that “Chicago rigorously enforces protection of its abortion mills with the "bubble zone" ordinance, which prohibits pro-life counselors within 50 feet of an abortion facility from approaching within 8 feet of an individual entering the facility, without that individual’s explicit consent.”

Why do certain groups receive protection while others don’t? There seems to be a consistent pattern of intimidation by the Gay community against the church, and the power centers of our society seem to be supporting this intimidation. What should Christians do? Should we endure? Speak up? How?

Theology is Married to History

Christian evolutionists claim that the Bible isn’t a science textbook. Indeed! However, what they really mean is that the Bible doesn’t teach authoritatively about the physical/historical world, just the spiritual, and the fact that the Bible contains physical errors shouldn’t affect its spiritual truths.

For a number of reasons, this position isn’t reasonable. After we discover that someone has spoken falsely, we will justifiably be suspicious of their other claims. Using this reasoning in reverse, NT scholar F.F.BRUCE concludes, regarding the Gospel of Luke:

“A man whose accuracy can be demonstrated in matters where we are able to test it is likely to be accurate even where means of testing aren’t available. Accuracy is a habit of mind…Luke’s record entitles him to be regarded as a writer of habitual accuracy.”

This is also how juries assess the reliability of a witness – by their demonstrable truth-telling track record. If a witness has a poor record regarding statements of truth, it’s wise to be skeptical about their other claims.

Christian evolutionists are pushing a “Christianity” that will not be able to stand the test of time or truth. If we can’t trust what the Bible teaches about the physical/historical, what reason do we have to trust it regarding spiritual matters?

Certainly, this kind of formulation will not impress thoughtful unbelievers. I, for one, had been unwilling to consider the veracity of the Bible. As long as I was convinced that Darwin was right, I concluded that Genesis was wrong. Nor will the Christian find this physical/historical-spiritual distinction believable for long. The spiritual message of the Cross cannot stand without the historical event of the Cross. Theologically, the spiritual can no sooner be separated from the physical than the head from the body. To try to do so kills both!

We usually discard a theory, when we find that it contains errors, and we loose respect for its promoters – even more so if the promoters knew this beforehand.

Were the Gospels Written by Eyewitnesses?

It is often alleged that the Apostles of Jesus couldn’t have written the Gospels because they were illiterate. Bart Ehrman, Truth and Fiction in the DaVinci Code, writes:

“The only explicit reference to their literacy comes in the book of Acts, which indicates that two of the chief disciples, Peter and John, were in fact illiterate (Acts 4:13). What about the others? There’s little reason to think the story was different for them.” (p. 107)

When people make such claims, we always need to examine their supporting evidence. In this case, Ehrman offers only one piece of evidence:

• Acts 4:13 – When they [the Sanhedrin] saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled (“agrammatos” = “illiterate?”), ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.

By itself, it’s hard to gauge what “agrammatos” means. It is only used one time in the NT. Therefore, we are restricted to deducing its meaning from the context, which I think argues decisively for “unschooled.”

Notice that this had been the assessment of the educated Sanhedrin, the ruling spiritual body of Israel. This body formed their opinion about Peter and John based upon what they “saw” and “realized” about them! They couldn’t see or gauge whether or not they were illiterate – they would have needed a written test to assess this – but they could see that the two were simple, “unschooled and ordinary men.” Clearly, these disciples weren’t graduates of the “University of Jerusalem.”

I am not aware of even one Bible translation that translates “agrammatos” as does Ehrman. Given the context, this is entirely unsurprising. Why then does Ehrman promote such a counter-evidential conclusion?

Even if the Apostles were illiterate, what was there to prevent them from dictating their Gospels to a scribe? Only the presuppositions of our present-day scholars!

The Gospels’ Portraits of the Genuine Jesus

When I debated Rabbi Mizrachi two years ago, he charged that we Christians weren’t following the Mosaic Law as Jesus commanded, implying that Jesus never taught that His New Covenant would replace the Old. The Rabbi cited the Sermon on the Mount:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:17-19).

Instead, I’d like to argue that this teaching, along with all of the other things that Jesus taught, argues persuasively that Jesus was cryptically preparing His people, planting seeds that would later bloom, “fulfilling” the Mosaic Covenant, for the New Covenant. In fact, what we find in the Gospel accounts also argues that Jesus’ teaching couldn’t have been the invention of the early church (70-100 AD), but instead represents accurate snapshots of His teachings.

For one thing, Matthew 5 couldn’t have been an invention of the early church. They would have been more explicit about the New Covenant replacing the Old and probably would have attempted to bring Jesus’ words into harmony with the epistles. Instead, Jesus taught that not a single Mosaic Law could be broken. However, He did hint that there might be an expiration date for the Mosaic Covenant. It would last “until everything is accomplished.” However, He is not explicit about this fulfillment – when or how it will occur, and what will be the result when it does occur.

To perceive the profundity of this teaching, we have to see it in the light of His other teachings, namely those regarding His Messiah-ship and Divinity. Rather than going into the specifics about these teachings, I hope it will be enough to state that He was seldom explicit about His identity. Instead, He used cryptic terminology, like “the son of man” (Daniel 7:13-14), especially when in public. Nevertheless, He did acknowledge that He was the Messiah to the Samaritan woman (John 4), His disciples (Matthew 16) and even within the context of His trial, as the Sanhedrin scrambled unsuccessfully produce testimony against Him.

In retrospect, this is exactly what we’d expect to encounter in Jesus’ teachings. His own followers, let alone the populace, were unable to receive or even understand what He was saying. They could only stand little morsels of His light. This is especially true when it came to the Mosaic Covenant, the flagship of Judaism.

The Torah warned that anyone who taught against Mosaic Law had to be executed (Deut. 13). Granted, Jesus wasn’t actually teaching against Mosaic Law, but it certainly would have appeared this way had He stated in his Sermon on the Mount that He was going to do away with the Old Covenant by fulfilling it all through His death. Consistently, He remained cryptic – He had to – in teaching that He would initiate a New Covenant to replace the Old, at least until the very end.

In John 2:19, Jesus states, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." John explains that He was referring to His own body. This interpretation is radical! Jesus associated His body with the place that the Israelites would meet with God and find mercy. Although He didn’t explicitly say that He was replacing the Temple, He was suggesting that it was now becoming redundant.

In the Gospel of Matthew (12:6), He goes even further: “Yet I say to you that in this place there is One greater than the temple.” Again, although He wasn’t explicit, He was proclaiming that He was greater than the Temple and what it represented – the Mosaic Covenant!

In other places, He cryptically disqualified the Mosaic Covenant:

"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") (Mark 7:18-19, NIV).

Jesus never explicitly contradicted any of the teachings of the Old Testament, but He was clearly laying down the foundational teachings for its removal. Instead, it was Mark who had been inspired to give his parenthetical interpretation that Jesus was cryptically declaring all foods clean. Israel wasn’t ready to hear this message yet.

It was only in the end of His ministry that Jesus was more explicit about His mission and the New Covenant: “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28; also Mk 14.24; Luke 22:20). Jesus would now substitute Himself for the lamb of the Passover!

Had Jesus been more transparent earlier, He might have been crucified before His appointed time. He had to keep this secret, and even after He revealed it, the impact of this thunderbolt could barely be perceived. As a result, the Apostles continued to worship in the Temple and to distance themselves from Gentiles.

Jesus’ post-resurrection teachings also reveal the same lack of a full-bodied theology of the Cross, something so uncharacteristic of the Epistles and therefore highly uncharacteristic of what the early church might have inserted into the Gospel accounts.

It is interesting to note that His “great commission” differs so notably among the four Gospels. Nevertheless, they all cryptically contain a setting aside of the Mosaic Covenant.

1. Matthew contains the most well known “great commission” teaching:

“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).

Blessing and life had been a matter of obeying Moses. Now it had become a matter of Jesus, who would always be with them, signifying that He had the ability to take care of His people.

2. In Mark’s “great commission,” Jesus simply instructed His disciples to “proclaim the Gospel,” promising salvation to those who believe (Mark 16:15-16). Once again, Moses isn’t in the picture, just Jesus. Also, there is no explicit mention of how this Gospel had been accomplished on the Cross.

3. In Luke’s “great commission,” the risen Messiah commands that “forgiveness should be proclaimed in His name” (Luke 24:46-47). However, once again, He doesn’t mention the Cross, but the Laws of Moses are nowhere to be seen. The blessedness that had always been conferred through the Mosaic Covenant would now come through Jesus.

4. John’s Gospel hardly contains Jesus’ “great commission,” but the same limited elements are nevertheless present – forgiveness of sins (20:23), the blessedness of believing in Him (20:29), and discipleship (21:19), but without any mention of the Mosaic Law.

The differences we find among the Gospel accounts shouldn’t concern us. After His resurrection, Jesus appeared to His disciples over a 40 day period, and so it would suspicious if the four Gospels each included the exact same speeches. It would smack of early-church collusion to iron out the rough edges and to bring them into a superficial harmony with the epistles. However, we find no such attempts. This make the Gospels appear to be genuine, eye-witness accounts of Jesus’ very words. We also find no attempts to place into Jesus’ mouth the more a detailed presentation of the Cross that we find in the Epistles.

We can also observe the same opaqueness in His teachings regarding His atonement. We find His most explicit teaching about His death for the sins of the world in the verse cited above. The other verses are as cloudy as His teachings regarding the New Covenant. Here are some of the most explicit:

1. “Just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28). (However, this says nothing about His death and taking the sins of the world upon Himself.)

2. “--and I lay down my life for the sheep…The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life--only to take it up again” (John 10:15-17). (Once again, there is no mention of how and what will be accomplished.)

I’d like to now draw some conclusions:

1. These teachings of Jesus couldn’t possibly represent teachings that the early church created and placed in Jesus’ mouth. They would have been more explicit about Jesus’ mission and would probably have lined Jesus’ words up with Paul’s. Paul had claimed that we are no longer under the Law and that the Law kills. On the surface, many of Jesus’ teachings seem to contradict the epistles, perhaps to the discomfort of the early church, who would have gone to great limits to reconcile these “contradictions” had they not been convinced that the Gospels contained the very teachings of Jesus. Besides this, His teachings reflect an intimate understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures.

2. If the Gospel teachings of Jesus do not represent the creative efforts of the early church, we are looking upon Our Lord’s authentic teachings, words that our Apostles preserved at the cost of their own blood.

3. We are also looking at a staggering proof for the authenticity of the Gospels. May He be forever praised!

The Answer to Pain and Disappointment

Life drips pain and disappointment (2 Cor. 5:2). Understandably, we attempt to take refuge in God’s affirming embrace to experience His love. However, when we also pursue the “quick fix,” we become vulnerable to unbiblical techniques and mystical teachings like, “It’s far better to know God than to know more about God!” This saying suggests that we can find intimacy and comfort with God apart from what is Biblically prescribed – meditating on His Word day and night (Joshua 1:8; Psalm 1:1-3; Deut. 6:6-8).

Pain tends to narrow our focus, and we forget about the great blessedness promised through the knowledge of our Lord:

This is what the LORD says: "Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches, but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight," declares the LORD (Jeremiah 9:23-24; also 2 Peter 1:2-4; Romans 12:2).

How the knowledge of God translates into blessings can be demonstrated in a thousand ways. For instance, Martin Luther had regarded himself as an alien from the mercies of God. Consequently, he sacrificed all to become an Augustinian monk and priest. However, even afterwards, it was painfully obvious to him that he still had the same sinful struggles. He therefore regarded himself rejected by God until he became enlightened to the fact that these painful struggles accompany us throughout our Christian life (Gal. 5:17). This understanding comforted Him.

What comfort can we derive from trusting in mystical techniques to produce emotional experiences and intimacy? This pursuit is counter-productive. It places our experiences before His truth, unbiblical practice above Biblical prescription, and places our attention and hope upon our experiences and feelings above the glory of beholding our awesome God, according to His revealed truth (2 Cor. 3:18-4:6).

When we behold ourselves and experiences, we can find no basis for hope and edification. Yes, we are to examine ourselves to recognize our sins, but then to quickly offer up our dirt in confession to our Lord (1 John 1:8-9). I can think of nothing more depressing that meditating upon myself and my inner states. To see myself clearly is painful discouragement and self-absorption; to behold the God who loves me and has died for me is great joy. (If you don’t feel this way now, just persevere a little longer!)

God demands that we worship Him for who He in truth is (Romans 1:21), in spirit and truth (John 4:24). This is not only a joy; it’s also a necessity for any intimacy. If you are loved by your spouse because you remind him/her of a former lover, such a relationship is rotten at the core and will not stand. It is no wonder that God wants us to know Him as He truly is. No wonder He wants to be sought with an open and teachable mind.

Moses had been very discouraged in his ministry to rebellious Israel, but he knew what would make a difference – he needed to see the glory of God (Exodus 33:18). Instead of teaching Moses a new technique, He revealed the truth about Himself to Moses:

And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation" (Exodus 34:6-7).

Moses could only worship!

Darwin and Compromise

A Christian evolutionist argued that preparing Christians for college by first demonstrating that evolution and Christianity are compatible would better keep them in the faith: “When a house falls down in the wind, do we blame the wind or the shoddy foundation? In the case of YECs (young-earth creationists) who fall away in the face of a simple scientific theory, I would sooner blame the foundation [YEC] than the wind.”

You mentioned YECs, but instead, let’s take the worst case scenarios where the evidence might not seem to support the Christian claims:

1. Christ is supposed to change lives, but Christians seem morality worse than others.
2. Pain contradicts the concept of a loving God.
3. The exclusivity of the Christian faith produces arrogance and a lack of love.
4. Prayers aren’t answered.

What do we do when the “evidence” seems to contradict faith? Do we then compromise Scripture to accord with the evidence? Do we then conclude that God doesn’t answer prayer, that He doesn’t change lives, and that He isn’t just?

Probably not! If we have other compelling reasons to believe in Christ’s revelation through Scripture, we will probably decide to live with the tension until and if it is resolved. We will continue to believe that God is good even though it may not appear so. We don't compromise Scripture's teaching about the goodness of God!

If we are willing to live with some tension, why then do we run scared in the face of Darwinian claims and compromise the clear teachings of Scripture? The power of the university or media? Professional respectability? Group think?