Category Archives: Theology

Is Christianity Absurd?

Posted on by

In 1 Corinthians 1:22–23, Paul wrote, “For indeed Jews ask for signs, and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness.”

Let’s face it. The heart of Christianity really does sound rather absurd to well-educated minds. When a person steeped in the world’s wisdom steps back and takes an objective look at what we believe about Jesus Christ, Christianity comes out looking pretty foolish. Think about it. The eternal God becoming a human being? That makes as much sense as a man becoming a gnat . . . or a blade of grass . . . or a popsicle stick. Or what reasonable person would believe that the divine Source of all creation—of life itself—could die? And what modern person would ever believe that a dead man could come to life after three days?

The absurdity mounts to such a degree that one marvels that anybody believes at all . . . yet you and I stake our whole existence on such seemingly ridiculous claims! Why?

If you think the incarnation of the Son of God sounds absurd in 2006, try to imagine what it would have sounded like nearly 2000 years ago. Believe it or not, the situation was far worse in the early days of the faith. Imagine how you’d feel about your own flesh if we had access to only herbal remedies to treat diseases. Think about how you’d feel about your body if you had no deodorant, poor dental care, no eye glasses, no corrective surgery, and no way to treat mental illness or depression. Consider how you might view your body if you had no running water, no sewage system, and no toilet paper. If a loved one came down with a debilitating disease, you personally cared for him or her as that frail body and mind wasted away before your eyes. And when people died of accidents, injuries, or illnesses, you dealt with it up front and personal.

Today, we sanitize and sterilize almost all aspects of life . . . and death. But for most people living two thousand years ago, flesh was not their friend. That’s the same world in which the early Christians tried to convince everyday Jews and Gentiles that the holy and pure God took on grubby humanity—flesh, bones, blood, sweat, bodily functions, odors, accidents, and illnesses. You can almost hear the response: “You’re telling us God did what?”

It’s no wonder that over the centuries embarrassed “Christians” have tried to make the incarnational core of Christianity sound less offensive and more reasonable. Some early deviations from the norm sought to down-play Christ’s humanity or deny it altogether. Others rejected His true divinity to prevent God from mixing too intimately with the imperfect creation. Others separated the human Jesus from the heavenly Christ—two separate persons sharing space, like a spirit might possess a man.

More recently in historical critical studies, some have said Jesus didn’t literally rise from the dead on the third day, but “lived on” in the religious experience of the believing community—that the New Testament stories of the resurrection are just myths. In this way the “truth” of Christianity supposedly becomes more acceptable to modern minds. In response, we try to present the truth of the incarnation in language that makes more sense—adapting the message to human notions about what’s reasonable and what’s absurd. We sometimes believe that if we just make the gospel sound more reasonable, reasonable people will believe.

But perhaps we need to come to terms with the fact that the gospel message is absurd by the standard of the world’s wisdom.

Let me turn the tables on this. Unlike the ancient and modern skeptics who find Christianity too absurd to accept, couldn’t we just as easily believe the truth of Christianity not in spite of its absurdity, but because of it? If Jesus Christ was not God incarnate, and if He did not really rise from dead, this would mean the early disciples made up all these stories about Jesus. But why would anybody make up stories that would be difficult for both Jews and Greeks to accept? Why not fabricate more “user friendly” and less “kooky” tales? Tertullian, a Christian of the early third century, put it this way: “The Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd. And He was buried and rose again; the fact is certain, because it is impossible” (Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ 5.4).

Is the incarnation absurd? Yes! Is it impossible? Yes! But only a fool would fabricate philosophically-incorrect doctrines like the incarnation and the resurrection if the goal was to convert the world. Yet Paul said, “The foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom” (1 Corinthians 1:25, NIV).

Tertullian was right. Nobody would make this stuff up.

Therefore, I believe.

Left Behind Computer Game

Posted on by


From the Game Description at the official site.

· Lead the Tribulation Force from the book series , including Rayford, Chloe, Buck and Bruce against Nicolae Carpathia – the AntiChrist.

[NOTE: Of course, the Bible says in Revelation 13 that no one is able to make war against the Beast, and that he will be given authority to overpower the saints.]

· Conduct physical & spiritual warfare : using the power of prayer to strengthen your troops in combat and wield modern military weaponry throughout the game world.

[NOTE: Of course, believers will be martyred for their faith. They will not be fighting a holy war with physical weapons.]

· Recover ancient scriptures and witness spectacular Angelic and Demonic activity as a direct consequence of your choices.

[NOTE: Of course, there are no ancient scriptures to recover, and angelic and demonic activity is pretty much INVISIBLE.]

· Command your forces through intense battles across a breathtaking, authentic depiction of New York City .

[NOTE: See above.]

· Control more than 30 units types – from Prayer Warrior and Hellraiser to Spies, Special Forces and Battle Tanks!

[NOTE: This is ridiculous.]

· Enjoy a robust single player experience across dozens of New York City maps in Story Mode – fighting in China Town , SoHo , Uptown and more!

[NOTE: Ummm . . . where’s New York mentioned in the book of Revelation?]

· Play multiplayer games as Tribulation Force or the AntiChrist’s Global Community Peacekeepers with up to eight players via LAN or over the internet!

[NOTE: How Christian is it to actually pretend to control the Antichrist’s forces in a computer game?]

Comments, anyone?

Christian Zionism?

Posted on by

The other day I was asked about my views on Christian Zionism, which is, in a nutshell, the belief that the reestablishment of Israel as a nation is in accordance with God’s land promises to the Hebrew people and that Christian have a biblical responsibility to stand up for Israel’s right to live in the land as a sovereign state. Christian Zionists point to Old Testament promises of an end-time restoration (Isaiah 43:5–7). They argue that only nations that side with Israel will be blessed and those who do not support Israel will be cursed (Genesis 12:3; Obadiah 10–15). And they suggest that the nation of Israel must be established before the return of Christ can occur.

Now, to set the record straight, I am a premillennial dispensationalist who does not believe God has replaced Israel with the church. I believe God continues to maintain a remnant of Israel according to faith—Jews who believe in Jesus and are members of the Body of Christ (Romans 11:5). Also, I believe that a remnant of Hebrews will be preserved through the end times judgments—believers who are saved through Christ and will constitute the restoration of Israel (Isaiah 9:27–29; 11:25–27; Revelation 7:1–8; 14:1–5). As such, I also believe that when Jesus returns He will reestablish Israel as a kingdom, fulfilling God’s promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and reign from Jerusalem in a literal kingdom (Matthew 19:28; Acts 1:6–8; Revelation 20:4–6). Therefore, there is a future for Israel, and in the millennium God will once again show favor on a reborn nation under the kingship of their Messiah, Jesus Christ.

This is not, however, the normal view of modern Christian Zionism. Though they would likely agree with everything I’ve just said, there’s a twist. Zionism is an originally Jewish movement that sought to establish—for either political or religious reasons—a Jewish state in what was “Palestine.” As you research the complex and interesting history of the Zionist movement of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, you’ll discover that it’s flavored with Messianic fervor. Some believed the Messiah would come to a re-establish nation. Others believed that the establishment of the nation was the work of the Messiah, perhaps in a non-personal, corporate, or political sense. Either way, Zionists struggled to restore the nation of Israel in the land.

Today, Christian Zionists feel obligated to endorse the establishment and defense of Israel not only for political reasons, but for theological reasons. Many equate the establishment of Israel by the United Nations in 1948 as the first stage in the fulfillment of God’s promises to restore the remnant of Hebrews in their land. To stand against Israel is to stand against God and to fall under the anti-Zionist (read “anti-Semitic”) curse.

I believe Israel has a right to exist and to defend itself. And I believe it is right for the United Nations to follow through on its commitments to Israel both politically and militarily. However, this is a geopolitical matter, not a theological matter.

The modern state of Israel is not the fulfillment of God’s promise to restore Israel in the land. Why? Because modern Israel is apostate. The end-times restoration of Israel will consist of believing Hebrews under the personal headship of the true Messiah, Jesus.

Let me give one historical example of how ludicrous Christian Zionism can be. Rewind the reel of history back about 1900 years to the year AD 132 to 135. The place: Israel. Decades after Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed in AD 70, Judaea had been oppressed by the Romans and was being transformed into a typical Roman province. In fact, around AD 130, the Emperor Hadrian had changed the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina, planned to build a temple to Jupiter where the Hebrew temple had been, and then outlawed circumcision.

The Jews revolted. After all, this land had been given to them by God. The Romans had no business there in the first place. The famous and influential Rabbi Akiva assisted the daring military leader, Simeon Bar-Kokhba, claiming that Simeon was the long-awaited Messiah who would restore the kingdom of Israel to the Jews. And the forces of Israel were successful for a few years. The Roman legion was defeated, Bar-Kokhba wrested control of many Judaean cities from Rome. He even minted his own coins. Because Jewish Christians refused to accept the Messianic claims of Bar-Kokhba and Rabbi Akiva, many were killed, driven out, and persecuted. And after a few years of Bar-Kokhba’s mini-Messianic reign, the Romans came in with overwhelming force and destroyed the kingdom. The results for the Jewish people were even more devastating than the revolt of AD 70, as Jews were then banished from entering Jerusalem and many Jews throughout the Roman Empire also suffered because of the revolt.

Now, if Christian Zionists really believe the Israelies today who reject Jesus as the Messiah have an unconditional claim to the land, then Christians in the second century should have supported the Bar-Kokhba revolt as well. They should have said, “No, he’s not the Messiah, but God gave them the land anyway.” Could Christian Zionists today support the Bar-Kokhba revolt to restore Israel in the land? The whole “theology” of Christian Zionism collapses under historical scrutiny. It doesn’t work when Israel is still hardened against the Messianic claims of Jesus of Nazareth. And guess what? They are still hardened today (Romans 11:25).

We need to realize that while the promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are unconditional and eternal, the old covenant with Moses was conditional and temporary—if they were faithful to God, they would be blessed in the land. If they were unfaithful, they would be driven from the land. If Jesus of Nazareth is the eternal Son of God who became the truly human Messiah who died and rose again, then faithfulness to God can not come apart from Jesus Christ.

For the most part, Israel today is in apostasy and rebellion against God. In fact, even by their own standards of Orthodox Judaism, Israelis are largely unfaithful to God and His laws. And according to the Bible, their rightful restoration will come only when they accept their Messiah, Jesus (Acts 3:19–32).

God has miraculously preserved the people of Israel throughout history because He promised to be faithful to them even when they are unfaithful to Him. And He will orchestrate future events to restore a believing remnant of Israel under the kingship of Jesus Christ. All the promises to Israel will be fulfilled—but not apart from Christ.

Christian Zionism is clearly Zionist. It is not, however, Christian if it asserts that God will bless Israel in the land apart from Jesus Christ.

Capturing and Caging Traditions

Posted on by

Many corners of the twenty-first century church are drawing on traditional modes of worship, including the use of incense, candles, sacraments, images, creeds, and liturgical prayers. In this respect they’ve sometimes been accused of a “return to Catholicism.” But for most, they have simply gotten fed up with the overly-intellectual worship of evangelicalism. To some believers of my generation, the rigid propositional truths and daunting dogmatism seem to have suppressed authentic spirituality, a vibrant relationship with God, and dynamic, loving relationships with other believers. So, they want a genuine Christian faith free from an oppressive Tradition, but incorporating a variety of “traditions.” This means drawing on non-propositional narratives and symbols that often have an ancient pedigree.

But this is extremely difficult to do well. And to date, I’ve not seen it rise above the level of mediocre.

I find the buffet-style traditionalism characteristic of many new churches to be a little, well, silly . . . or at least juvenile. I have nothing against incense and candles. But picking and choosing which “traditions” from two thousand years of church history to use in today’s worship seems a little ridiculous if we detach them from the history, culture, and theology in which they originally developed. Some things just don’t fit. If I bought a high-end piece of antique furniture from an estate sale and placed it in my living room, it would look silly. In the same way, I’ve seen evangelicals try to incorporate ancient rites and rituals into their worship in ways that make me cringe.

Labyrinths, prayers of the saints, stations of the cross, and other practices associated with Roman Catholicism or eastern catholic mysticism enjoy a new audience among some Christians seeking a different type of spiritual devotion—a deep, authentic, meaningful Christian experience. But I see very little sense of theological coherence, a clear notion of what is central, how these things fit together, the stories they try to tell. Let’s set aside the whole question of epistemology and propositional truth for a moment. When Christians try to weave together premodern practices like these, they often apply very modernistic anthropocentric criteria of individual preference. However, the new drive for community authenticity is not much different than the by-gone quest for personal certainty: in the end my personal reason or emotions reign.

The result of harvesting “traditions” from church history is not much more appealing to me than the old-style zoo that zoological societies have tried to replace over the last several decades. Remember when we used to rip God’s creatures from their natural habitats and cram them into rows and rows of jail cells for spectators to “enjoy.” In many ways today’s rip-off of ancient traditions is worse. Some have gone on a “Bring ’Em Back Alive” safari, snared a handful of appealing practices from the jungles of church history, killed them, and now display them in their two-year-old churches like disparate plush toys spread over a toddler’s bed.

I like tradition. I like it a lot.

But I don’t like watching people mishandle it.

Please stop.

Limited Atonement, 1 John 2:2, and Polycarp

Posted on by

There are a number of passages in the New Testament to which four-point Calvinists refer in debates against those who hold to the doctrine of “limited” or “particular” atonement (e.g., 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 2:2; 1 Timothy 2:4–6; 4:10; Hebrews 2:9; and Acts 17:30). Indeed, the arguments on either side of the exegesis are not air tight. One of the most difficult passages for those who hold to limited atonement is 1 John 2:2, which says, “He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also of the whole world.” The phrase “the whole world” later in 1 John 5:19 seems to refer to all people without exception—especially unbelievers. At the level of pure exegetical considerations—isolated and insulated from its historical and theological context—the passage seems, as Ryrie says, “to say rather clearly that the death of Christ was for the whole world” (Ryrie, Basic Theology, 321).

However, if we open our interpretation of 1 John 2:2 to the insights of the historical and theological context, the picture becomes, well, less clear than critics of limited atonement may think. The Martyrdom of Polycarp was written around AD 155 by Christians in Smyrna shortly after their bishop, Polycarp, was martyred in the stadium there. Polycarp, recall, was a personal disciple of the apostle John, and was—according to reliable tradition—one of many Asian pastors who had been ordained into pastoral ministry by John while he lived in Ephesus. In fact, if the “angels” of Revelation 2 and 3 refer to the pastors (or bishops) of those churches, as some commentators say, Polycarp may have been the “angel” of the church of Smyrna. Anyway, Polycarp is also one of the earliest witnesses we have of 1 John, as he seems to rely on 1 John 3:8 and 4:2–3 in his Letter to the Philippians 7. In short, Polycarp knew John’s writings and probably knew John himself.

With this historical background in mind, the statement of the Smyrnaeans in Martyrdom of Polycarp 17.2 is rather interesting as we consider the issue of 1 John 2:2 and debates between those who hold to limited atonement and those who do not. The Smyrnaeans wrote: “They [the pagans] did not know that we [Christians] will never be able either to abandon the Christ who suffered for the salvation of the whole world of those who are saved, the blameless on behalf of sinners, or to worship anyone else.”

So, the Smyrnaeans refer to the “whole world” with the exact language as the apostle John in reference not to all people everywhere, but to the world of the saved. That is to say, Christ is savior of the “catholic” church. He not only died for the sins of their own community in Asia Minor (as local deities or gods might be the “savior” of that particular community), but also for the sins of the whole world (as the universal savior of all believers throughout the world).

This passage in Martyrdom of Polycarp may amount to an indirect commentary or interpretation of 1 John 2:2. In fact, it could very well reflect the apostle John’s intended meaning of that passage. If the Smyrnaean authors of Martyrdom were reflecting Polycarp’s understanding of 1 John 2:2 (which to me is almost certain), Polycarp may have been relaying John’s original understanding of that phrase (which is possible), since Polycarp knew John.

A good friend of mine has pointed out that John Owen refers to this statement by the Smyrnaeans as patristic testimony for limited atonement in his Death of Death (Banner of Truth edition, page 310). Owen does not, however, elaborate on the implications of this statement by the Smyrnaeans with regard to their personal (and therefore theological) relationship to John through Polycarp.

Those who hold to limited atonement may feel that their own interpretation of 1 John 2:2 is strengthened by these historical considerations, since we might have a window (through Polycarp) into the apostle John’s own intention of the passage. However, those who reject limited atonement may still do so, even appealing to their own understanding of this and other passages. But to be fair, those who reject limited atonement can not claim that 1 John 2:2 is a clear proof text against that irritating third point of Calvinism.