eChurch Christian Blog

John Piper

1. Jesus Christ, as he is presented to us in the New Testament, and as he stands forth from all its writings, is too single and too great to have been invented so uniformly by all these writers.

The force of Jesus Christ unleashed these writings; the writings did not create the force. Jesus is far bigger and more compelling than any of his witnesses. His reality stands behind these writings as a great, global event stands behind a thousand newscasters. Something stupendous unleashed these diverse witnesses to tell these stunning and varied, yet unified, stories of Jesus Christ.

2. Nobody has ever explained the empty tomb of Jesus in the hostile environment of Jerusalem where the enemies of Jesus would have given anything to produce the corpse, but could not.

The earliest attempts to cover the scandal of resurrection were manifestly contradictory to all human experience—disciples do not steal a body (Matthew 28:13) and then sacrifice their lives to preach a glorious gospel of grace on the basis of the deception. Modern theories that Jesus didn’t die but swooned, and then awoke in the tomb and moved the stone and tricked his skeptical disciples into believing he was risen as the Lord of the universe don’t persuade.

3. Cynical opponents of Christianity abounded where claims were made that many eyewitnesses were available to consult concerning the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

“After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep” (1 Corinthians 15:6). Such claims would be exposed as immediate falsehood if they could. But we know of no exposure. Eyewitnesses of the risen Lord abounded when the crucial claims were being made.

4. The early church was an indomitable force of faith and love and sacrifice on the basis of the reality of Jesus Christ.

The character of this church, and the nature of the gospel of grace and forgiveness, and the undaunted courage of men and women—even unto death—do not fit the hypothesis of mass hysteria. They simply were not like that. Something utterly real and magnificent had happened in the world and they were close enough to know it, and be assured of it, and be gripped by its power. That something was Jesus Christ, as all of them testified, even as they died singing.

5. The prophesies of the Old Testament find stunning fulfillment in the history of Jesus Christ.

The witness to these fulfillments are too many, too diverse, too subtle and too interwoven into the history of the New Testament church and its many writings to be fabricated by some great conspiracy. Down to the details, Jesus Christ fulfilled dozens of Old Testament prophecies that vindicate his truth.

6. The witnesses to Jesus Christ who wrote the New Testament gospels and letters are not gullible or deceitful or demented.

This is manifest from the writings themselves. The books bear the marks of intelligence and clear-headedness and maturity and a moral vision that is compelling. They win our trust as witnesses, especially when all taken together with one great unifying, but distinctively told, message about Jesus Christ.

7. The worldview that emerges from the writings of the New Testament makes more sense out of more reality than any other worldview.

It not only fits the human heart, but also the cosmos and history and God as he reveals himself in nature and conscience. Some may come to this conclusion after much reflection, others may arrive at this conviction by a pre-reflective, intuitive sense of the deep suitability of Christ and his message to the world that they know.

8. When one sees Christ as he is portrayed truly in the gospel, there shines forth a spiritual light that is a self-authenticating.

This is “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God” (2 Corinthians 4:6), and it is as immediately perceived by the Spirit-awakened heart as light is perceived by the open eye. The eye does not argue that there is light. It sees light.

9. When we see and believe the glory of God in the gospel, the Holy Spirit is given to us so that the love of God might be “poured out in our hearts” (Romans 5:5).

This experience of the love of God known in the heart through the gospel of Him who died for us while we were yet ungodly assures us that the hope awakened by all the evidences we have seen will not disappoint us.

Some interesting information and analysis on the relationship between science and religion out today, from the Pew Forum:-

An Overview of Religion and Science in the United States

Public Opinion on Religion and Science in the United States

Religion and Science: A Timeline

Scientists and Belief

Christian Today – Jenny Lyle

David Cameron has admitted his Christian faith may not always be the rock it should be, but is nonetheless a good guide to get through life.

In an intimate interview with the Evening Standard, the Tory leader spoke openly about his fluctuating faith.

When asked if his faith was important to him, he said: “If you are asking, do I drop to my knees and pray for guidance, no. But do I have faith and is it important? Yes. My own faith is there, it’s not always the rock that perhaps it should be.

“I’ve a sort of fairly classic Church of England faith, a faith that grows hotter and colder by moments but … I suppose I sort of started life believing that one’s individual faith was important, but actually the institutions of the church were less important.

“I do think that organised religion can get things wrong but the Church of England and the other churches do play a very important role in society.”

Mr Cameron, who was confirmed at 18, admitted to being in his younger years a “good, sceptical, questioning” Christian who liked to think his faith through.

“I think that it’s perfectly possible to live a good life without having faith, by which I mean a positive and altruistic life, but I think the teachings of Jesus, just as the teachings of other religions are, a good guide to help us through,” he continued.

“Do unto others as you would have them do to you; don’t walk on by. These are good and thoughtful ideas to bring to life.”

Mr Cameron went on to speak of his fear of failure and losing another child after the death of his eldest son Ivan earlier this year.

“Well, my biggest fear is something happening to my family. That’s fear Number One, particularly as it has happened already. It is a sort of permanent fear. The most natural thing in your life is to look after your little ones,” he said.

“There is also fear of failure: letting others down, or not doing your best. I’ve always thought that the fear of getting things wrong inspires me more than the wonder of getting things right.”

Mr Cameron added that he would sack George Osbourne if he did not feel he was up to the job of being chancellor.

He said: “I think he had a very, very tough time last year. He really did suffer quite a lot of slings and arrows. But I have faith in him as a talented politician and a talented shadow chancellor and someone who has a great feel and understanding of politics and the great issues.”

FURTHER INTERNET LINK:-

David Cameron ‘does God’ in fuzzy, sort-of-Anglican way

He will be criticised by the zealots on both sides of the divide: by the religious fundamentalists who demand an unequivocal exposition and adherence to a strict theology, and by the anti-religious fundamentalists for whom any expression of faith in the public realm is anathema.

David Cameron: Would I sack George Osborne? Yes absolutely if I have to…

David Cameron has outlined his religious beliefs in a remarkably personal interview, saying he is a “questioning Christian”. “If you are asking, ‘do I drop to my knees and pray for guidance?’, no,” he told the Evening Standard.

Good response from Justin Thacker to the recent educational developments that have hit the news recently:-

The EU has barred crucifixes in Italian state schools. Are Nativity plays next?

Classroom crucifix violates human rights, European court rules

Media Education Headlines: Sex and drug lessons from age 5 & Sex education opt out is reduced

Guardian

When is a right not a right? When it concerns the education of children. The respective (and entirely contradictory) decisions of the children’s secretary Ed Balls and the European Court of Human Rights this week would be laughable if they weren’t both so serious.

In the first place, Ed Balls tells us that parents no longer have the right to decide how their children are taught about sex. The opt out for children age 15 plus is to be removed. Now not only is this against the findings of the independent review (pdf) that the Department for Children Schools and Families (DCSF) commissioned, and which was published just a few months ago, but far more significant is the simple fact that this will affect a mere 0.04% of pupils. Now I do not personally agree with these parents. I certainly would not withdraw my own children. But why these parents make this decision is not relevant. The fact is they do, and one wonders why the minister feels he has to go hunting them down to ensure that their charges are given the statist education that Ed and his friends have devised. Is it the case that, unbeknown to the rest of us, these children are in fact causing a rash of teenage pregnancies across the country? Are they the ones that make teenage STDs such a severe health problem? I very much doubt it. Ed balls may not like the decision these parents make, but precisely because there are so few of them, why not let them opt out? What is the problem he thinks he is addressing by removing their right to take them out of class? Moreover, the very fact that Britain has one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the world hardly suggests that the state will do a better job than these parents.

What makes all of this ironic is that it comes in the same week that the European Court of Human Rights has decided that some atheist children would be so upset by seeing a crucifix in their classroom that their mother deserved damages to the tune of €5,000. This judgment is just bizarre. I take it the atheist commentators on this site will hang their heads in shame. The fact is the European convention was meant to protect our right to freedom of religion, belief and conscience, and in Article 2 of Protocol 1, the right to educate our children in conformity with those beliefs. (Note to children’s secretary – you may want to read that section.) Now, if the Italian schoolmasters were thrusting their Catholicism down the throats of these children, my sympathies would be entirely with the mother.

But that was not remotely the situation. Rather, the school simply wanted to put some crucifixes on some walls. Apparently, however, this was just too much for the atheist kids who obviously on merely seeing these symbols would be in danger of immediately giving up their tenets of faith. In order, then, to protect their ability to believe, it was imperative that these crucifixes be removed. Speaking as an evangelical, if only conversions were so easy – but they’re not. Yet, somehow, the court decided that the mere display of such crucifixes was “imposing beliefs” on these children.

All of this just makes me wonder why it is that the atheists and secularists are so scared? Is it really the case that their belief systems are so fragile that the mere sight of a religious symbol is enough to shake their faith? Surely not. Come on you secularists, be a bit more confident. I’ve no doubt that in the next 10 or 20 years you will lose significant numbers of adherents as they appreciate the vacuity of your arguments, but in the meantime don’t go overreaching yourselves by banning all religious imagery or by forcing parents to accept a statist education. Rather, in the words of one atheist: “Let a thousand flowers bloom”. Though perhaps in contrast to him, when they do, let’s tolerate the diversity rather than use every excuse to shut it down.

Hat-Tip – Gever – Rosh Pina Project