My wife always asks me why I watch these biblical history shows on the History Channel. It is refreshing to know that you know a lot more than the so-called experts on an issue and fun to be able to spot the presuppositions made by the History Channel that are demonstrably false. When there is a scholarly consensus on an issue, they ignore the consensus and trot out an expert that espouses views that no reputable scholar would ever defend. No doubt this is because strange theories make for better television, as far as they are concerned, and for more controversy which might increase ratings. Even when they convince reputable scholars to participate, they usually have them articulate the truth and then go about making it look wrong or at least trying to introduce "reasonable doubt."

Having seen a number of these shows, here are some rants about one Biblical Disasters that are representative of the approach of the History Channel:

1. There are a few stated objectives: The first is to find evidence that supports the biblical account. This sounds innocuous enough at first. Another is to "help us cope with catastrophe now." Very interesting. So the History Channel does not simply want to chronicle the past and tell us the brute facts (as if there were such a thing) proving or disproving the Scriptural account, but they actually want to provide answers for dealing with disaster today (the question of relevance). They have moved very quickly into philosophy and quasi-religion. In other words, they are setting forward a world-view that is not the biblical world-view and attempting to make sense of the past and make prescription for the present. They assume this worldview...it is there presupposition with god as chance. Picture a world-view as a circle and the point at the top is the god "chance." At this point we are just two minutes into the program...so let's see if my interpretation of their project holds up (I had earlier watched several minutes, so I do know what is coming).

2. To answer the first objective they examine archeology, the texts of ancient civilizations and Scripture itself. They are asking whether the biblical disaster accounts can be shown to be actual historical events. This skeptical approach is not working with brute facts however. Instead, all facts are created and correctly interpreted by God. So what the history channel will do is to interpret archaeological finds, interpret the texts of ancient civilizations and interpret the Scriptures. And these interpretations are not bound to think God's thoughts after Him. These interpretations are not to describe what God was doing in accord with how He interpreted to His people what He was doing. Instead, they will interpret these three sources from their own worldview. They say that the accounts in the Bible are inseparable from the agenda of Scripture (Christians believe Scripture to be fully the Word of God, so it is God's agenda). Here is the problem - all historical writing does the same. Their project is capable of the same critique that they make of Scripture but they pretend to be objective and have no justification for doing so. To be objective it must be the correct interpretation (which only God can give) so they are setting themselves up as gods and saying that god is chance. They say that the authors of Scripture are consumed with God's role in disasters...the history channel is likewise consumed with the role of chance in disasters. They say that the focus on God as the one who made disasters "may have distracted them from another possibility" - most disasters are the result of people (where they choose to live, for example). Moreover, the problem the History Channel has with the Christian faith is that it is not their faith - they believe and trust in chance (as if chance were trustworthy).

4. Ancient peoples did not have the assistance available during the aftermath of a disaster that we have today. Therefore, the History Channel says, "Only the lucky or the self-reliant survive, left to search for meaning." Hmmm...their god is chance and their philosophy is Darwinian (survival of the fittest). This interpretation of survival is very revealing of the History Channel's theological and philosophical presuppositions. Moreover, the History Channel is on a quest for meaning - they are trying to articulate why things happen and what our purpose is - apart from God's revelation.

5. Looking at the plagues of Exodus: They fail to see the miraculous in the timing of the plagues and in the discrimination of the plagues between Egyptians and the Hebrews. They acknowledge that the tenth plague could only be explained supernaturally (well, actually they put it less strongly than this: "seems to arise from the realm of the supernatural"). Then they go about explaining the first six plagues as a bacteria in the water - anthrax on algae. This makes the water look red (red algae), the anthrax kills the fish, no predator for the frogs (the fish are dead) so they multiply and exhaust the food supply and die in vast numbers, this leads to gnats and flies appearing because of the dead animals, the cattle perish because they have been bitten by anthrax infected insects that cause boils on the skin. Such explanations are nothing new...others have tried to do similar things before. I will not add to the volumes of commentary on this line of reasoning.

6. Looking at the Exodus event the History Channel accurately conveys that though traditionally translated the Red Sea, it is more accurate to translate the Hebrew as "Sea of Reeds." Again they interpret this event as requiring nothing supernatural. The objective is to make the god of chance a plausible alternative to the God of Scripture. It takes a great deal of faith in the god of chance to believe that these conditions they describe would be timed so perfectly for the Hebrew people to escape. As they say, "A moderate wind blowing constantly for ten hours could have caused the sea to recede about a mile and the water level to drop ten feet, this would temporarily create dry land in the sea bed until the winds died down and the water suddenly came flooding back."

7. Sodom and Gomorrah: they ask two questions-"Did it actually occur?" and "If so, what fiery force of nature is responsible?" Again, the worldview of the History Channel does not permit the God of the Scriptures to operate supernaturally. They find two places that might be these towns - both destroyed by fire and dated to the right time frame. The first theory is that an earthquake might have ignited the tar present that would have made a storm of fire. Then they tell us an even more controversial theory - a comet exploded. A third proposal is that perhaps it was a volcano. And a fourth is that it was lightening. The theories are less important than the goal - to make the god of chance plausible. A Christian might do such reflection on Scripture, but they do so from a different worldview where the supernatural is possible, where God is in control, and where the interpretation of the events in Scripture is the right interpretation of what took place. When someone who worships chance does such reflection on Scripture they assume that only the natural is possible, everything happens by chance, and the interpretation of Scripture might not be right (perhaps it was not God punishing Sodom and Gomorrah for its sin (that God does not exist) but simply a natural event).

8. The Flood: Here they note that peoples all over the world have "eerily similar" stories about a universal flood. This account shows the limitations of archeology - trying to interpret very little that survives and wondering if local floods might be the universal flood mentioned in these stories. They do not know enough to make any conclusions whatsoever.

9. They try to explain the plague on the Philistines for taking the ark as the bubonic plague.

10. And etc.

Archaeology and history try to describe what has happened. Science tries to describe what happens. None of these fields of study can avoid interpretation - by definition they are interpreting what God has done. You may have read some of the History Channel's theories and it might have introduced "reasonable doubt" in your mind. But this doubt they are trying to raise is not reasonable. The interpretation of the events is crucial, and here I am not talking about whether it was lightening or tar ignited by an earthquake or something else because these theories cannot prove what they assert, but whether it was a foreshadowing of the death and resurrection of Christ (for pre-Christ disasters) and the final judgment for everyone else or it is just something that happened by chance and there will be no final judgment and therefore all that matters is here and now. The lesson that the History Channel would have us to learn from disasters of biblical proportions is that humans are responsible for their own fate - you should not live in certain places and should heed the warnings of earthquakes. Also they say that you should learn to lean on one another from disasters. Certainly Christians should keep these things in mind, but this pales in comparison with the weightier questions.

The lesson that Scripture would have us to learn from disasters of biblical proportions is that the end is coming and we need to be ready at any time. For example, Jesus says, "And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are but the beginning of the birth pains. 9 Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake. 10 And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. 12 And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But the one who endures to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come" (Matt 24:6-14, ESV). The destruction of Jerusalem was coming in AD 70 and points forward to the final judgment. Likewise, we should be reminded of the end when any catastrophe comes. The one who endures to the end will be saved. The key is faith in Jesus Christ. Faith in chance does not save.

These are just a few thoughts...suggestions for improvement are welcome.

Labels: archaeology, biblical history, exodus, philosophy of history

Apparently there has been a debate lately on the question of whether the Reformation is over. I heard Carl Trueman speak eloquently about how it most certainly is not. Let me add the following observations to the debate (though I suspect I am saying nothing especially new and this should complement my earlier post about what it means to be "Reformed"):

1. The Reformation was a recovery of the centrality of Christ. This recovery can never be complete in this life because we constantly have to remind ourselves that Jesus Christ is our Savior and not we ourselves. I recently heard someone make the preposterous claim to be "really Reformed" because they held that God could save those whom He chose to save no matter what religion they professed. This is in desperate need of reformation according to Scripture - Christ alone is the way, the truth, and the life and not just because one verse says so but because the entire Bible says so. This missing emphasis on Christ alone is also what sets us apart from most monotheists - mosques and synagogues do not proclaim the divinity of Christ or that He is the way. Grace cannot be separated from Christ.

2. The Reformation was a recovery of the gospel of grace. This recovery can never be complete in this life because we constantly have to remind ourselves that we cannot earn our salvation but that it is a free gift from God. All too often I hear people say that Christianity is all about rules, the people who say this are often conservative Christians themselves and they see this as a good thing. The problem is that we must keep things in their proper place - grace and then thanksgiving. Jesus Christ has done everything necessary for our salvation and if that salvation has been applied to us by the Holy Spirit we should respond with thanksgiving in everything we do. The problem is especially acute when it comes to how the church treats children outside of the covenant community. We assume they should be able to be good, which they can formally, and we demand that kind of obedience instead of sharing the gospel and leading them to obedience from the heart. It is one thing to know this intellectually and another thing altogether to actually do. And part of the problem is the necessity for some formal obedience so that they can even hear the gospel in the first place.

3. The Reformation was a recovery of the doctrine of justification by faith alone. This again can never be complete in this life because we too often find ourselves telling others that they must do what we did in order to be saved rather than presenting the gospel of justification by faith alone. Some want to add to faith some of these things: cultural trappings (regulations on clothing, hair, make-up, no automobiles, no electronics, etc. - all depending on what culture they are trying to preserve), speaking in tongues, good works, responding to an altar call, etc. In other words, you have to do something in addition to faith alone by grace alone in Christ alone for salvation - you cannot be a Christian until you do these things. One of our youth recently said she has not been saved. I asked if she trusted in Christ for her salvation, she said yes. Why the discrepancy? Because too many people in our area believe you must have some kind of religious experience during a hymn that drives you forward for the "altar call." She may well already be a Christian but has been told something else is necessary for her to be a Christian. This is typical.

4. The Reformation was a recovery of the importance of Scripture. This again can never be complete in this life because if it were up to us Scripture would have disappeared long ago. We often believe the latest fads in psychology or other fields to be more important than Scripture in helping others (and I am talking here about even those who hold to the sufficiency of Scripture). We are more likely to read books about Scripture than to read the actual text of Scripture (and skim or skip the quotes included in them). And many conservatives hold to notions about Scripture that come more from their personal biases and from modernism than from Scripture itself. A helpful book in this regard is Inspiration and Incarnation by Peter Enns. If conservatives were to embrace the incarnational analogy this would go a long ways in helping moderates on Scripture. When I tell theological liberals that I believe that Scripture is fully the Word of God and fully the words of its human authors (the incarnational analogy), they have to stop and think because they have always thought it must be one or the other. Many of the moderates are also confused - they believe the Bible is the Word of God (the Spirit even is testifying in them that this is the case) they just see things they would not expect and that shakes their confidence on Scripture being the only rule of life and faith. The problem is that too often conservatives, moderates, and liberals all have the same presuppositions as they approach Scripture - such as, that it be precise like a science textbook, that it be fair and balanced like a history textbook (in theory, but never in reality) rather than ideological, etc. The point is they expect that an ancient book be a modern book rather than going to Scripture alone to discover what it is doing or even hide behind the motto 'Scripture alone' to avoid seeing it in the context of the ancient world and its human authors.

The point is that the solas are always in need of recovery and no church can go without continual Reformation according to Scripture alone and its message of Christ Alone, Grace Alone, and Faith Alone.

Labels: christ, faith, grace, justification, reformation, reformed theology, scripture

What follows are some reflections on the implications of the doctrine of the Trinity - that God is one and God is three (thus I prefer Triunity of God). I may add to this list from time to time, please comment with your suggestions and reflections.

The Doctrine: The Triunity of God. The Application:

1. Everything. Our ultimate presupposition in life, as Christians, is that the God of the Scriptures is God. We do not serve a generic god, we worship a specific God who has revealed His name in Scripture. The Gospel of Matthew tells us that the name (singular) of God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (the three-fold name). Our God is a personal God, one in essence and three in persons. This is our starting point for everything.

2. How do we relate to other religions? Some Mosques, over the doorway, say Allah is not three. This means that they do not worship the God of Christianity. Modern Jewish synagogues do not accept the Triunity of God because they reject Jesus of Nazareth's claim to divinity. This means they do not worship the God of Christianity. Unitarians, who sometimes consider themselves Christians and sometimes do not, do not believe that God is three persons. This means they do not worship the God of Christianity. And Christians are not tri-theists - they do not worship three gods, as some heretical groups and Muslims claim. Christians worship one God - the Triune God, the God who is one and three. This surely has implications for interfaith dialogue.

3. The three persons of the eternal Triune God display perfect unity and communion/fellowship. Therefore, Christians are united and in communion with one another through Jesus Christ. As Jesus prayed to God the Father, "that they may be one, even as we are one" (John 17:11).

4. The eternal Triune God displays perfect unity and diversity in roles. It is as God is one (unity) and three (diversity in persons and roles) that we are to be united as the body of Christ and each different Christian (diversity in persons) has different gifts, service, and activities in the kingdom of God. So the doctrine of the Triunity of God should lead us to realize that we will do different things and have different gifts but be one people. For this application you might begin with 1 Corinthians 12:3-6 (and context) - Spirit, Lord, God is Trinitarian reflection.

5. Knowledge of the infinite, incomprehensible God is only possible because He has revealed Himself. Nature reveals God in truth, but not in completeness. We would never come to the doctrine of the Trinity from nature not only because of our total depravity but because there is simply no way we could know that God is one and God is three from nature - special revelation was necessary to tell us this. The Old Testament reveals God in truth, but not in completeness. There are hints of the divinity of Christ and the Spirit in the Old Testament, but we could not build this doctrine from the Old Testament without the New Testament. Much more is clear, including the full name of God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) in the New Testament. Still God is incomprehensible. He is only knowable because He has revealed Himself to us through faith. The basic application being that we can try to make the incomprehensible (like that for God 1=3) make sense to people (an impossible task - we cannot make the incomprehensible comprehensible), but only those to whom God grants faith will receive this revelation (God makes the incomprehensible knowable). It is worth noting that our knowledge is creaturely knowledge (Christians cannot know exhaustively but can know truly). Remember these things when asked to make a defense of your faith.

Also, from Herman Bavinck, three points on the significance of the doctrine:

A. God is in perfect fullness of life apart from the creation. God is distinct in essence from the creature and creation in general. These two points rule out deism and pantheism respectively. The basic point is to say that the doctrine makes clear to us how God, apart from the universe He created, can be perfect in love, knowledge, and the rest of His attributes. "Apart from the Trinity," Bavinck says, "these attributes are mere names, sounds without connotation, empty concepts" (quoting from the Hendricksen translation The Doctrine of God, 330-331). For example, to explain it in my own way, to say that God is love would be an empty statement before the creation of the universe for God, except that love is an attribute of God shared within the Trinity. Love existed between the persons of the Trinity from eternity because God is love. Therefore, God does not need us to be love.

B. Creation presupposes the Triune God. This is the only way to distinguish from deism and pantheism. God relates to His creation but is separate from creation.

C. Bavinck's third point is that the doctrine of the Trinity is important for practical religion. He says, "Whenever any one rejects God's tri-unity, he destroys the very foundation of Christian belief, and casts aside all of special revelation. The doctrine of the trinity is the sum and substance of Christian faith, the root of all dogmas, the essence of the new covenant" (333). The work of redemption is one divine act with a three-fold distinction: the love of the Father, the grace of the Son, and the communion of the Spirit.

These are just a few reflections on the implications and applications we can derive from the doctrine of God's Triunity. Please send me corrections, improvements, additions, comments, etc. I have posted elsewhere the implications of the doctrine of the trinity according to John Flavel.

Labels: bavinck, islam, judaism, reformed theology, trinity, unitarianism