William Lane Craig discusses an argument by the Jesus Seminar^[1] for the early dating of the Gospel of Thomas,^[2] (hereafter, “Thomas”) and therefore, its alleged claim as an appropriate authority on the life of Jesus to rival the accounts given in the canonical gospels (i.e. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). I have summarized Craig’s critique of their reasoning in flowchart form.

Dr. Craig continues:

And so around and around it goes. New Testament scholar Thomas Wright says, ‘It’s like Winnie the Pooh following his own tracks in the snow around a clump of trees and every time he comes around and sees more tracks he takes this as evidence that his query is even more numerous and more real then he thought before.’ It’s no wonder that the fellows of the Jesus Seminar haven’t been able to persuade very many of their colleagues on the basis of arguments like this.

Now, I am superficially aware of other reasons that are promoted to try and validate the early dating of Thomas and I am willing to consider them in greater detail. But upon reflection, I think there is an inherent problem in any reasoning that attempts to elevate the relevance of Thomas (or any account of Jesus’ life written after the first century) and similarly play down the four canonical gospels. It’s the same kind of problem that would exist if someone from the 20th century were to write an account of the life of, say, Charles Darwin. While it may be quite appropriate to place a certain amount of trust in an account of Darwin written in the 20th century, we would be quite justified in placing more confidence in those writings from the 19th century. Especially those written by Darwin himself or by those close to him, or those who were his contemporaries. Indeed, we might even use the 19th century writings as a check against the 20th century account.

Similarly then, if Thomas is an early primary source as the Jesus Seminar claim, then how much more do the four canonical gospels qualify for such an honour, which are contemporaneous accounts. And this is sometimes the problem with insisting on extra-biblical sources for the life of Jesus. As Gary Habermas has pointed out, the four canonical gospels are the only ones written around the time of Christ. I should think that counts for something in one’s assessment of the facts. “There certainly were more than four [gospels] but you have to go to the second, third and fourth centuries for most of them. It’s not our fault that there were only four gospels by 100AD and we took all four of them.”^[3]

In other words, if you are going to insist – in discussing the life of Jesus – on leaving the canonical stuff off the table, you are basically tossing out the best sources we have before the discussion even begins.^[4] You are welcome to do so of course, but you should not expect reasonable people to think that any conclusions you draw from later sources provide more certainty than can be gained from the canonical sources.

References & Notes:

1. A freely downloadable audio version of Dr. Craig’s talk can be found here
2. The Gospel of Thomas is one of many early writings discovered in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in 1945. By “discovered” I do not mean that knowledge of it is new. For example, Eusebius, a third century historian and one of the early church fathers, knew of the work and wrote against it. Hippolytus and Origen also comment on the gospel in their third century writings.
3. http://www.garyhabermas.com/audio/habeemas_res_QandA_2006-04-08_pt1.wav
4. I think this argument holds even if you want to push Thomas into the first century alongside the canonical gospels (as some have tried to do), because of the greater detail and textual reliability provided by the four canonical gospels when compared with Thomas (or any other ancient historical work).

No, I am not speaking of the modern ecumenical movement. A movement that caused the very division it tried to eliminate, exchanging the necessary unity in Christ for a mere unity of values and ignoring the importance of sound doctrine. Nor am I speaking of the inter-faith movement that the Roman Catholic Church seem so keen on promoting, where people of different “faiths” unite under one umbrella, setting aside major differences – like the deity of Christ – in exchange for warm fuzzies.

No. The context of this quote is an interview on the Stand to Reason radio show by Jim Wallace, with James Emery White, about his new book ‘Christ Among the Dragons: Finding Our Way Through Cultural Challenges’. The discussion was as much about ecumenism as it was about ecclesiology (and more), so I don’t want to lose that context. But the kind of ecumenism James has in mind is one where Christ remains at the centre. We unite around Him, rather than around commonly shared values. In any case, there were some things that he said that stayed with me afterwards. So I wanted to share it here for you to ponder also.

“… if a typical non-Christian were to get on the internet and read through the blogs of half a dozen Christians who disagree with each other on a peripheral issue – the rancour and the hatred and the demonization that is going on; I think that if an average non-Christian read half a dozen Christian blogs like that – they would decide at the end that they would not ever want to be become a Christian. It is awful. It is horrific. The lack of love, the lack of charity, the lack of grace, the lack of civility, that exists between Christians who disagree – and often … on very peripheral issues that have divided Christianity for  2000 years. … It is ruining our witness and it is making it extremely difficult for there to be any kind of unity where we as Christians can address the larger issues with a single voice. … As important as truth is, for truth to usurp love would be the most horrific and hellish of ironies.”

Regardless what James White thinks these peripheral issues are – indeed, regardless what you think they are – I think the point is well made as far as it goes. There are things worth dividing over and there are things that are not. But when we disagree in public forums such as this one, the way we treat each other – the way we love one another – is on display for all to see.

Now, I certainly do not hasten to take White up on his challenge to locate such examples among Christian blogs for the benefit of our readers, thereby increasing our footprint of shame all the more. But personally, I am ashamed to say that there have been times that I think I have been on the giving end of this equation. And when on the receiving end, I have found it gives rise to feelings not too dissimilar to the kind evoked by the claptrap presented by PZ Meyers and his “godless horde”. Is that how we would like to be perceived?

This is not a plea for unity through agreement, of course. That certainly does not seem to be White’s implication. But it is a plea that in our treatment of each other on areas where we disagree, we remember that we are brothers and sisters united in Christ and ambassadors for Christ. I should think that counts for something during those moments?

”As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.” – Eph 4:3

Christian Faith: Calvinism is back. “In America’s Christian faith, a surprising comeback of rock-ribbed Calvinism is challenging the Jesus-is-your-buddy gospel of modern evangelism.” Josh Burek, Christian Science Monitor (27/Mar/2010)

“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”

Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”

Matthew 16:15-23

The Roman Catholic Church claims that its authority structure is founded in Matthew 16 where Jesus makes Peter the first Pope. And that every subsequent Pope has had the same authority and power as were given to Peter. Peter was able to speak for God, as evidenced by his letters 1 and 2 Peter. And since this passage gives the authority to Peter and all of his successors then every Pope since Peter can speak for God with the same authority.

So, did Jesus really set up this authority structure here in Matthew 16?

Read the rest of this entry

Over at his blog, Dr. James Anderson recently announced a 50% discount being offered for a very limited time by P&R Publishing on the festschrift in honour of John Frame, Speaking the Truth in Love: The Theology of John M. Frame (2009), with expository and analytical essays from 36 contributors on Frame’s own work in the fields of theology, apologetics, ethics, etc. (including Wayne Grudem, Paul Helm, Vern Poythress, James Anderson and more). The discount expires 31 March 2010, so get your copy soon. See the Table of Contents and a sample chapter (PDF).

(HT: Chris Bolt at Choosing Hats.)

It is almost impossible to respond to this:

Once honored for voicing substantive theology in the Reformed tradition, Union Theological Seminary’s 2010 Sprunt Lectures will feature a feminist speaker who favors replacing the cross with a lactating breast.

I couldn’t make that up if I tried. The feminist speaker in question is Margaret Miles, who said that despite the claim by theologians “that crucifixion scenes exhibited the extremity of God’s love for humans, it was scenes of the child sucking at the breast that spoke to people on the basis of their earliest experience.” She suggests that the cross is inappropriate as a symbol of God’s love because “it presents a violent act as salvific.”

The article tells that Union Theological Seminary is one of eleven seminaries that are officially related to the PCUSA. That actually explains a lot.

You can read the whole article here.

(Thanks to Mathew for pointing out the incorrect URL.)

Last year as part of our Sydney Anglican Church “Connect Groups”^[1] we met to study the doctrinal framework of the Australian Fellowship of Evangelical Students (AFES), whose intention it is to make clear what it means to be a Bible-believing Christian. Although I have previously considered the authority claims of the Bible, this study really made me think more about this issue than I had previously. Phillip Jensen and Tony Payne provide commentary on all nine of the doctrinal statements made by the AFES in the Matthias Media publication The Blueprint^[2]. This article is concerned only with the first of those statements:

The divine inspiration and infallibility of Holy Scripture, as originally given, and its supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct.^[3] [emphasis mine]

Infallibility has to do with the trustworthiness of Scripture. So by implication the AFES seem to be affirming that the Bible is completely reliable when it comes to religious or spiritual issues, but not necessarily when it comes to other issues like science or history. Or as Jensen and Payne put it more explicitly, “… Scripture is limited to matters of faith and conduct. The Scriptures do not claim to be an authority in calculus, nuclear physics, poetry or chess”^[4] [emphasis mine]. For textual support they cite 2 Tim 3:16-17; possibly the most popular proof text used to refute anyone who thinks that the Bible doesn’t make any restrictions on the kinds of subjects on which it speaks truthfully.

But then only two pages later… “The Scripture has authority over all matters on which it speaks. It is not exhaustive – it does not cover all matters – but because of its authorship its authority extends over everything it covers“^[5] [emphasis mine]. What then do Jensen and Payne mean when they talk of Scripture being limited to matters of faith and conduct? To avoid the confusion, I can only assume that what they mean is this:

Read the rest of this entry