Book Review

"Misquoting Jesus" (Bart Ehrman). I remembered Ehrman's name from the "Judas Gospel" event a year or two ago. He said, "The reappearance of the Gospel of Judas will rank among the greatest finds from Christian antiquity." This is probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard in my entire life. But I wasn't going to hold it against him as I read this book.

The title of this book is an excellent example of how titles are chosen for books. Often authors actually have little say, and the title is often chosen to be controversial (and increase sales). In this case, Ehrman never argues that anyone is misquoting Jesus.

The book is actually a layman's introduction to textual criticism (the art and science behind determining the original words of the Bible). In telling this story, Ehrman does an excellent job (although I'm no expert on the history). He makes what could be a very dry topic, lively and interesting. He also verified that the ideas I've had on the subject were covered three hundred years ago.

Ehrman also presents a laundry list of "intentional changes" and the possible motivations behind them. The tone is rather scandalous, and some might be shocked and dismayed. Only problem is, my pocket Bible is called, "New Believer's Bible" New Living Translation Tyndale HousePublishers 1996. Ehrman's book was published in 2005. My Bible has a star next to nearly every verse Ehrman cites. So Christianity has survived at least 9 years of Bibles published with the changes Ehrman recommends!

There is a sadder story behind this book. On page 3 (in the introduction), Ehrman gives his "conversion story". It reads like most of the stories on web sites like "Debunking Christianity". It is clear Ehrman is part of the reaping we are now seeing in response to the sowing of a "puny-fied" Gospel message. Well meaning people talking about love, and a "God-shaped hole in your heart", and not talking about sin and judgment. Seeds sown into rocky ground (Matthew 13:20), at first putting up impressive growth, only to come crashing down. And they will not turn back easily: 2 Peter 2:21 "For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known [it], to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them."

Please pray for Mr. Ehrman.

Know Your Heretics: Marcion

Why study heresy? Isn't heresy something better left unsaid? A dirty little secret of the church? Unnecessary conflict over minor details?

In truth, heresy has proved a great benefit to the church. By requiring an organized effort to combat it, heresy has helped to consolidate and codify orthodox beliefs.

Also, heresies return in slightly altered forms. Knowledge of their existance, and the proofs against them are of great use to all.

One of the oldest heresies is Marcionism (circa 140). Marcion created a canonical Bible without the Old Testament. He also severely edited the New Testament books to eliminate traces of Judaism. He claimed the loving God described in the New Testament was incompatible with the wrathful God of the Old Testament.

The response to Marcionism was the adoption of the canonical Bible as we know it today. This was not something made up to serve a political purpose, but simply the documenting and formal processing of books that had been held as special ever since they had been written.

Marcionism is still alive and well today. I started, but never finished, the book "Jesus Against Christianity" (Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, 2001). This book begins with nearly the same argument. Perhaps one day I will read it entirely and can comment more.

Arminianism vs. Calvinism

On a thread at the helives blog, I mentioned Arminianism vs. Calvinism in a discussion with David W. I am providing more detail here, since it is off topic for that thread.

The Arminianism / Calvinism debate stems from the tension between our self will and God's authority in salvation.

The hyper-Arminian (extreme case) believes that salvation is a choice entirely up to us. That God offers salvation to all, and some choose God, and some choose themselves. The choice of self leads to an enternity separated from God, which is described as Hell.

The hyper-Calvinist believes God chooses some for salvation and some for damnation. Our own choices play no part. Some could go as far as to say that evangelism is just a symbolic ritual, as those who would be saved, will be.

In reality, everyone falls somewhere in between. I spent a lot of time close to the hyper-Arminian position. It was only recently, upon deeper investigation of scripture, that I have adopted a fairly well-seated Calvinist position. This shows up some in my post, "Why the Gospel does not make sense".

The Myth of "Legal, But Rare"

Some of those who wish to find support among pro-life voters adopt the position that abortion should be "legal, but rare". Hillary Clinton's wikipedia entry has a quote saying (in part), "the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances". This position is logically indefensible, from a scientific standpoint. Either all human beings have rights, or only a privileged few do. The current law is that only people outside the womb have rights. The notion that murder should be "legal, but rare" is nonsense is obvious to everyone. But when the victim is microscopic or ugly, then the rules change.

Which brings me to another point. The president and Congress are engaged in a battle for power. This is not as unusual as people may think. Congress and the president are always jockeying to increase their respective powers. But some calls may be left to the Supreme Court. A stacked court may lead to the president winning more power than Congress would like. There is a way for Congress to side-step this issue.

An ammendment to the Constitution defining human life and guaranteeing the right to life for all human beings. This seems so obvious, who would be against this?

Then I wouldn't have to vote against all Democrats.

What is Faith?

Faith is the new buzz word for the presidential campaign in 2008. Politicians have recognized the impact of "faith based voters" in the Republican victory of 2004; and their disaffection, leading to the Democratic victory of 2006. Now everyone wants to talk about their faith.

(As a side note, my blog title refers to true, saving faith; as described in the Bible)

Recently (well, over two weeks ago :) the Democratic presidential candidates got together to talk about faith. Today, I focus on Hillary Clinton, from a transcript of this video or a similar one.

Clinton said, "I come from a tradition that is perhaps a little too suspicious of people who wear their faith on their sleeves". I assume she is speaking of Methodism (that's what wikipedia lists as her religion). That means she is Christian. So:

1. Either she believes the Bible, or she is a cultural Christian. It's ok for her to be a cultural Christian, lots of people are.
   
2. If she believes the Bible, then she believes in the final judgment and Heaven and Hell.
   
3. If she believes in final judgment, she must realize that many people are going to Hell.
4. If she believes the Bible, she holds the keys to Heaven and Hell. If she says nothing (keeping her "faith" private and personal), she doesn't care if people go to Hell.

Either she doesn't believe the Bible, or she has not followed the logical conclusion of her beliefs. Not following the logical conclusions of one's beliefs is a common problem for people, so I wouldn't hold that against her.

The problem is; if she one day does follow the logical conclusions, she may reject Christianity (Some people do. They refuse to believe in a God of justice, and create an "all loving and forgiving" god. This heresy is called "universalism").

So, Clinton is (giving her the benefit of the doubt) a "cultural Christian".

So what is her "faith"? It is certainly faith in herself. She says, "I am very grateful that I had a grounding in faith that gave me the courage and the strength to do what I thought was right, regardless of what the world thought".

Let me note here that true faith is doing what God thinks is right, regardless of what the world thinks.

Book Review

"In the Grip of Grace" (Max Lucado). This book was incredible! I laughed, I cried. Max has an enviable understanding of grace. He presents it clearly in what is actually a study of the first chapters of Romans. I heartily recommend this book for everyone.

Book Review

"The Purpose-driven Life" (Rick Warren). I told my boss, "The library's selection of Christian books is filled with heretics and apostates." Given what I've heard of "The Purpose-driven Church", I was with great trepidation that I picked this book. That said, I found PDL to be ok overall. Of course it is very much, "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life" and "No one is truly happy without Jesus". But it has some refreshing moments. The first sentence is, "It's not all about you."

I would not recommend PDL for non-Christians. But for those who are already Christian, it could serve as encouragement and motivation to become more active.