Why I am a Baptist

I've been reading/ dipping into several books recently looking at the subject of baptism. I was mainly looking for what people have to say about the significance of baptism, but everyone seems far more preoccupied with defending their stance on baptism, whether paedo- (infant) or credo- (believers') baptism. Earlier today, whilst reading an essay by John Stott I found myself almost agreeing with the paedobaptists, not because they'd convinced me, but just because I'd read the same things in so many authors (since baptists aren't exactly prominent among Reformed theologians) - it was a prime example of convincing someone simply by saying it often enough!

So here is a brief account of why I am a baptist. It's certainly not going to add anything new to the debate, but is simply a reminder to myself of why I hold baptistic convictions.

1. Scripture is silent on the subject of infant baptism. For something as important as an ordinance of Christ's Church, an argument from silence is not a strong starting point for paedobaptism. Most paedobaptist writers (to my knowledge) accept that there is no clear account of infant baptism in the NT. The hermeneutic depended upon by paedobaptists is what the Westminster Confession calls 'good and necessary consequence' from other teachings of Scripture. 'Good and necessary consequence' is certainly a legitimate aspect of biblical interpretation, but to rely entirely upon it to build a doctrine is dubious at best because it depends upon each link in the chain of logical inferences to be correct. If the first link is faulty then you end up with an entire doctrine that is unscriptural. I feel sufficiently strongly on this point that I could easily stop here. This is my biggest problem with paedobaptism: it's just too clever for its own good.

2. From a starting point of paedobaptist convictions there arise a whole series of hoops that become difficult to jump through. I'm thinking in particular of the close association between baptism and salvation in the NT. So you find that ideas such as baptism transfering an infant from the adamic covenant of works to the covenant of grace, but in a non-saving way, but in such a way as makes them more likely to be saved (or more able). Just where is the scriptural backing for that?! I don't recall Paul having a category something like 'under grace but not saved'! Probably the most extreme of these positions is Doug Wilson who seems to argue that if a baptized infant is not saved it is due to a fault in the parents! Salvation by (parents') works?

3. Much is made of the link between circumcision and baptism. Clearly there is similarity - both act as the outward initiation into the covenant - but it is assumed that they are equivalent, and so that as circumcision was the sign and seal of the Abrahamic covenant (Rom. 4:11), so baptism is the sign and seal of the New Covenant. But baptism is never called the seal of the New Covenant - that is the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13). It is the Holy Spirit who acts as guarantee of full salvation to come. So the Holy Spirit (bringing true heart circumcision = regeneration) is the antitype of the type of circumcision, and therefore I understand Colossians 2:11-12 to teach that baptism is the outward sign of that regeneration. As the close identity between circumcision and baptism is weakened, so is the case for infant baptism.

4. The assumption that children of believers are automatically in the New Covenant assumes continuity between the covenants on this point, but it seems to me that the NT suggests discontinuity at this particular point. The call is for all to repent and believe - that is how we enter the covenant. Yes, this promise holds to 'you, and your children' (Acts 2:38), but also to those who are 'afar off'! Much store is put on Acts 2:38 to support paedobaptism, and I think the reason is that I can't think of another text that does anything like including children of believers in the New Covenant by virtue of their parent's faith.

5. I have a historical question to which I guess the answer, but I don't know. What was the theology of baptism when infant baptism arose? (For the sake of my paedobaptist brethren maybe I should edit that question to be, what was the theology of baptism at the time where we find the first indisputable evidence of infant baptism!) From the relevant statements of the Church Fathers that I have read it seems that something like baptismal regeneration was the norm. Not a great start for a doctrine. When did the reformed doctrine of paedobaptism arise? I don't know, but I suspect it was sought for (with the best of motives) rather than arising naturally out of Scripture. It is very difficult to break out of the boxes in which we are brought up (yes... I was brought up a baptist!). Although the Reformers did so in many glorious ways, I can't help wondering whether they failed in the doctrine of baptism. I'm also sure that they weren't at all encouraged to consider it seriously given the radical nature of some of the Anabaptists (apparently that was what put Zwingli off becoming a baptist)!

So there's a few of my musings on the subject. It seems to me that infant baptism has caused much damage in the history of the Church - not least in our own land where everyone who was 'done' by the vicar as a baby considers themselves Christian, although I must certainly concede that this is very different to the Reformed position. It has also created a great deal of confusion with some claiming that baptized children should not be evangelised but should be presumed regenerate. Often the language used is confusing - I came across Luther using the language of baptismal regeneration in his Tabletalk this evening. Just how are we saved?! I believe that credobaptism avoids these confusions and reflects the simplicity of the NT. I also believe that many baptists are very over-simplistic in their theology of baptism... but that's for another post!

What is fellowship anyway?

All Christians enjoy having fellowship together, they would claim. I'm not so sure that most of us are very clear on what this fellowship malarky is all about though. In general it would seem fair to say that 'fellowship' has become a Christianized term for 'socialising' and not much more. Is that really all it is?

The Greek word used in the NT is koinonia which is related to the word koinos, which means 'common'. So this suggests that fellowship is about having certain central things in common that have the effect of binding us together. To keep the verbal link that highlights this facet of fellowship, perhaps we should consider replacing 'fellowship' with the word 'community'. The idea of community is much stronger than mere socialising. When we socialise we meet up, have a good time together and then go home. Community, however, speaks of a network of lives that are interwoven in all kinds of ways. So fellowship is about living life together rather than going it alone.

Looking at the uses of koinonia in the NT (when it is used of our fellowship with one another rather than with God) three facets stand out:

1. Fellowship is based on truth. 1 John 1:3 - '...that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us...' John is writing to explain all that Jesus said and did in order that his readers may be able to have fellowship with him. So John clearly believes that is necessary to have common belief in the truth for fellowship to be possible. We are not one in Christ because we want to be, but because the truth has changed us and made us one. Anything else will be superficial and wishful thinking. Truth brings unity, not vice versa - whatever the Archbishop of Canterbury believes! Ultimately this is not about mental assent to a system of doctrine - truth is a person. We know the One who claimed, 'I am the truth' (John 14:6). The sense of fellowship that we experience, even with believers we've only just met flows from our shared knowledge of the Truth - Jesus Christ.

2. Fellowship is about supporting one another in common gospel aims. Philippians 1:3-5 - 'I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, always in every prayer of mine for you all making my prayer with joy, because of your partnership (koinonia) in the gospel from the first day until now.' The Christians at Philippi had supported the apostle Paul in his ministry, and even while he was in prison because of the gospel. They were able to provide for certain of his needs that made his minsitry possible, becoming his partners in ministry to enable to spread of the gospel. It seems that this primarily meant financial support (4:15-16), but other means of support would fit well under this heading in other situations: prayer, co-workers, counsel, working together as different local churches etc. Do we support one another as churches like this? Do we support one another individually in gospel aims, as we seek to be salt and light in our daily lives?

3. Fellowship is about providing for the needs of others. 2 Corinthians 8:3-4 - Speaking of the Christians in Macedonia Paul writes, 'For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own accord, begging us earnestly for the favour of taking part (koinonia) in the relief of the saints'. These poor Christians considered themselves to be of one community with the famine-stricken Christians in Jerusalem to such an extent that they considered it a joy and privilege to sacrificially contribute to the relief of their needs. What could motivate such sacrificial giving to people they'd never met, nor were they ever likely to meet? We are told that in this situation 'they gave themselves first to the Lord' (v5) - it was because of the God that they had, taking us back to the first point. Do we take such an interest in the lives of others who belong to our God that we would both find out when they were in need and be willing to sacrificially do something about it? Or does conversation over the cup of tea after church never get that deep?

So there's a bare outline of what real fellowship looks like. How important is it? It's not like it's vital like evangelism or expository preaching, is it? Hebrews 13:16 - 'Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have (koinonia), for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.'

Last things first

If I tell you that this is a book about the doctrine of the last things you may have one of two responses. You may already be salivating at the thought of getting embroiled in a good debate about the identity of the antichrist, the details of the millennium and the timing of the rapture – you will be disappointed to discover that these issues are relegated to a brief appendix, but you should read on. Or you may be thinking all that end-times stuff is a bit irrelevant and so this book isn’t for you. But you should read on.

This is a readable, sensible, warm-hearted and highly relevant introduction to what the Bible teaches about the future. The great strength of this book is that it straight-forwardly expounds what Scripture has to say about the future and then applies it to us in the here-and-now in such a way that it is virtually impossible to put it down and ask, “So what?”

Beynon introduces us to that great OT concept, the Day of the Lord, before moving on to the Day of Judgement. He shows us the wonders of the new creation and the horrors of hell. He explains difficult doctrines with simplicity, such as the idea of rewards in heaven, or how talk of judgement according to works fits with salvation by grace, and even a tricky passage like Mark 13 – all the while sticking close to what the Bible actually says. The later chapters focus on passages of Scripture that teach us how we live as we wait for these great realities. If you’ve never thought much about what the Bible has to say about the future, this is the place to start. But it isn’t just for beginners – I don’t think anyone could read this book without being challenged and stirred.

Worthy of Worship?

Why does God demand our worship? Isn't that supremely egotistical of him?

The challenge sounds reasonable enough at first - after all, we simply can't conceive of anyone making such demands and being anything other than a supremely self-centred egomaniac. Surely only the worst kinds of tyrannical dictators make such demands. But here lies the first problem with the question - it assumes that God is made in the image of man. We cannot legitimately extrapolate from sinful man to the God revealed in the Bible.

For an accurate answer to the question we need to start with God himself, as revealed in the Bible. Let me use the Westminster Confession of Faith as a handy way of summarising some of the biblical teaching about God. You can read it online here where you can check out the proof texts for yourself. The first two sections of chapter 2 read thus:

I. There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.

II. God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.

Now that's quite a statement! Reading right through those paragraphs of the Confession I emerge at the other end feeling quite simply overwhelmed by the sheer majesty and unparalleled brilliance of God's character. In reading statements such as, God is 'most holy, most free' etc etc, don't forget the context set by the opening lines - that God is 'infinite in being and perfection'.



All this has an undeniable 'wow' factor. But how do we experience all of this? Is it like looking at a mighty mountain range and having your breath taken away? No - God is personal, and has from all eternity expressed these characteristics within the perfectly loving community of the Trinity. Ponder long and hard on that! An eternal, perfectly loving community. Can you grasp what that must be like, to have nothing in a relationship that is not saturated with 100% love??? We, in his creation also experience so many of God's perfect, infinite characteristics.



All in all, it is undeniable that God has what it takes to be worthy of worship - a greater, more magnificent, more beautiful being is not possible. But does he mar all that by demanding that we all pay him all our attention like a spoilt child? You may have already spotted the answer. If God is the most beautiful being possible, what else could he love most of all but himself? To love anything else would make God an idolater! Here is the great failure when we imagine God to be in our image - put any human in that position and it is undeniable egotism - because no person is that wonderful. But God is just being honest - would you prefer that he lied about what he was really like?



We must also factor in the Trinity - when we see God glorifying God in Scripture, what I find so wonderful is how each person of the Godhead doesn't seem primarily concerned with themselves, but is totally taken up with the others. (What else could you expect from a perfect community of love?) We see this pattern at work in John 17:1-5 - the Son has glorified the Father, and now the Father will also glorify the Son.



One last thought on the supposed egotism of God in calling for our worship: if God is the most beautiful being that could possibly exist, where else is the greatest joy found except in delighting in God? So is it a hardship or the supreme privilege to join with God in delighting in God? Yes, it most certainly is our duty, but there are many duties that are given to us for our own good - like going to school when we were young. What greater duty could there be than this? If you arrived in adulthood and discovered that your parents knew full well it would have been by far the best thing to send you to school, but they never bothered I think you would be justified in feeling incredibly let down. They knew their actions would lead to your leading a massively disadvantaged life, but they didn't bother to do what was good for you (even though you may have complained at the time!). So for us and God - if God really is the God of the Bible wouldn't he be failing to love us as much as he claims if he didn't insist that the greatest thing we could and should do is to delight in the most beautiful thing conceivable - that which we were created to know and enjoy? So perhaps he isn't so egotistical after all.

Transforming sight

The very beholding of Christ is a transforming sight. The Spirit that makes us new creatures, and stirs us up to behold this servant [see Matt. 12:18], it is a transforming beholding. If we look upon him with the eye of faith, it will make us like Christ; for the gospel is a mirror, and such a mirror, that when we look into it, and see ourselves interested in it, we are changed from glory to glory, 2 Cor. iii.18. A man cannot look upon the love of God and of Christ in the gospel, but it will change him to be like God and Christ. For how can we see Christ, and God in Christ, but we shall see how God hates sin, and this will transform us to hate it as God doth, who hated it so that it could not be expiated but with the blood of Christ, God-man. So, seeing the holiness of God in it, it will transform us to be holy. When we see the love of God in the gospel, and the love of Christ giving himself for us, this will transform us to love God. When we see the humility and obedience of Christ, when we look on Christ as God's chosen servant in all this, and as our surety and head, it transforms us to the like humility and obedience. Those that find not their dispositions in some comfortable measure wrought to this blessed transformation, they have not yet those eyes that the Holy Ghost requireth here. 'Behold my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved in whom my soul delighteth.'

Richard Sibbes (1577-1635), A Description of Christ

That's all very well - but does it really work? Listen to Sibbes' younger contemporary, Thomas Fuller, as he gives an assessment both of Sibbes' character and - most interestingly - the reason for it.

He was most eminent for that grace which is most worth, yet costs the least to keep it, viz., Christian humility. Of all points of divinity, he most frequently pressed that of Christ's incarnation; and if the angels desired to pry into that mystery, no wonder if this angelical man had a longing to look therein. A learned divine imputed this good doctor's humility to his much meditating on that point of Christ's humiliation when he took our flesh upon him... [This shows us] that men's souls improve most in those graces whereon they have most constant meditation, whereof this worthy doctor was an eminent instance.

This works both positively and negatively. For a contemporary slant on this issue Greg Beale's recent book 'We become what we worship' looks excellent. I haven't read it yet - but I recently heard Beale speaking on the subject, and I came home and promptly ordered the book!

Speaking with authority

Yesterday I began preaching through the 5 'solas' of the Reformation, beginning with Sola Scriptura, and it'll be no great surprise to learn that I took 2 Timothy 3:1-4:5 as the passage to expound. It was really exciting to grasp afresh the authority of God's word - this message of 'breathed out by God' therefore I will do everything I can to study carefully and comprehend it because the truth changes things. What I believe will change the way I act. (Therefore, for example, if I believe I'm just an advanced animal I'll act as though I'm just an advanced animal.)

It seems very obvious to me that we have a major crisis of authority in modern, Western culture - we don't want anyone to tell me what I ought to do in any absolute moral sense. But what struck me in the middle of preaching(!) was that not only does our culture hate the idea of such authority, but it also reverses things completely. In the absence of any abiding authority we seek to give ourselves direction and purpose instead by deciding on what goals we would like to reach and then work out what is 'right' and 'wrong' according to what will help or hinder the achievement of those goals! The example that springs to mind is the government's modern obsession with targets. You decide on your target, then tailor absolutely everything to help achieve it. How different this is to listening to unchanging truth and allowing it to change my life!

That's all very well, but how do you know you've got the target right without any transcendant authority? Yesterday evening I heard of a hospital that is aiming for foundation status. How are they going to achieve that? Well, according to my informant it's all about patients' opinions of the hospital, and therefore the hospital will never do anything that might give patients a negative opinion of the hosptial. But where does medical expertise get a look in? It sounds like another case of an expert authority being required to play second fiddle to subjective opinions in order to achieve the goal they've set their hearts on.

How desperate it is that we who possess knowledge of THE ultimate authority speak it plainly and without apology into such a culture! We cannot go on as we are, because our current goal-focused, authorityless ways are terribly unstable, and cannot give us what we seek. It leaves us perpetually in the situation of 2 Timothy 3:7 - those who are "always learning and never able to come to knowledge of the truth." We have the rock to replace the shifting sand on which our society is building. How shall they hear? Christians need to hear the challenge of Taylor Mali's poem that Rosemary has linked to here. Mali may not be thinking in these biblical categories, but the force of what he says is an urgent note to be sounded for gospel proclamation. The ultimate truth of God's word changes things in the most beautiful way because it is given to us that we may be 'complete' (2 Tim. 3:17), and to be complete as a human being is to reflect the image of the beautiful God. Goal-setting without the truth is just guessing and hoping for the best.

Who has faith?

This post began life as a talk for a meeting at church yesterday under the title 'Is God a Delusion?'

A new phenomenon has arisen within the last few years that has gained the label ‘the new atheism’. This new flavour of atheism is far more aggressive than its predecessors in its attack on religion, and especially (given its cultural context of the UK and USA) Christianity. The big splash made by the new atheists in this country came with Richard Dawkins’ 2006 book ‘The God Delusion’. It very quickly became a bestseller and has become very influential in many people’s thinking. The other most publicised happening that is related to this (though I’m not sure directly) was the advertising campaign on London buses by the British Humanist Association – ‘There’s probably no God so stop worrying and enjoy your life’ which was enthusiastically supported by Dawkins. They believed it would be ‘a breath of fresh air’ that would get people thinking – and as Dawkins commented, ‘thinking is anathema to religion’.

This directs us to a critical starting point – the new atheists want you to believe that any religious idea is simply so absurd that you needn’t bother listening. Please take that fact on board, because in my experience they’ve been very successful in that regard - I’ve found it very hard to get those who share their ideas to listen to me in debate. Why? Because they already “know” that I’m basing my life on blind faith (incorporating their own special definition of faith) whereas they are basing theirs on the facts. I don’t doubt that you could find religious groups out there for whom that could be true, but that is far from being universally true (Dawkins also wants you to believe that all religion can be treated as though it is the same which is manifestly not the case – as modern anthropologists will tell you). I can’t defend some homogenous definition of ‘religion’ that bears no relation to reality; I can only defend the faith I know and teach, which isn’t even representative of all that calls itself ‘Christian’. The reason I am an evangelical (a much misunderstood word!) is because I believe it best fits reality. I’m not going to claim anything silly, like ‘and I’ll now prove it’ or ‘you’ll give up your atheism by the end of this meeting’! In this very short time I can only hope to raise some vital questions in your minds, and begin to see if the claims of Dawkins and his comrades can stand up to scrutiny.

Deciding just what to tackle in this brief time has been quite a struggle since The God Delusion covers so many areas, and makes so many assertions that we can’t even begin to tackle them all. I just want to raise two issues this afternoon that raise serious questions – first of all I want to question whether Christian faith really is the infantile, irrational thing Dawkins wants us to believe it is. Secondly, to begin to demonstrate this, we should ask how reliable Dawkins’ sources are when it comes to his (brief) critique of the reliability of the Bible?

According to Dawkins, faith ‘means blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence.’ I believe he first gave this definition in The Selfish Gene in 1976. By the time the 2nd edition came out in 1989 this view had hardened to the extent that faith qualified ‘as a kind of mental illness’. For Dawkins this is a core belief that colours his whole attitude to religion. Indeed, there is psychological research that demonstrates that people ‘tend to seek out, recall, and interpret evidence in a manner that sustains beliefs’. In other words, religious people will tend to interpret evidence in such a way as supports their religious ideas, but also (and here’s something that’s usually ignored) atheists will tend to interpret evidence in such a way as supports their atheistic ideas. Challenging our worldview is actually quite difficult because it is so deeply engrained in us, but you must not believe that atheists do not have these engrained prejudices in their thinking because it is patently untrue (as we shall see from the evidence that Dawkins seeks out and the interpretation he gives it)! The intellectually responsible thing to do is to recognise your bias, and then try and take account of it when you consider evidence.

So how does Dawkins’ definition of faith fare? Alister McGrath:

‘Dawkins has his own views of what religious people believe, and proceeds to rubbish these ideas with enthusiasm… To put it bluntly, Dawkins’ engagement with theology is superficial and inaccurate, often amounting to little more than cheap point scoring… His tendency to misrepresent the views of his opponents is the least attractive aspect of his writings.’

His definition of faith might seem fine… until you discover that you can’t find a Christian theologian to back Dawkins up (the only exception I found was quoting Luther without engaging with his context). He offers no substantial evidence that his definition is representative of any religion, let alone Christianity. By contrast, here’s the definition of W.H. Griffith-Thomas (1861-1924) who was principal of Wycliffe Hall theological college (part of Oxford University):

‘[Faith] affects the whole of man’s nature. If commences with the conviction of the mind based on adequate evidence; it continues in the confidence of the heart or emotions based on conviction, and it is crowned in the consent of the will, by means of which the conviction and confidence are expressed in conduct.’

That is representative of what Christians teach about faith! That is why I’m always delighted when Christians look into things, question and wrestle with real issues. It’s no great surprise that, having set up his straw man, Dawkins easily knocks him down. But the idea that religious people could be thinking, logical people who apply rigorous intellects to their religion is anathema to Dawkins – for some reason he refuses to acknowledge the mountain of evidence to the contrary. So you could say that his definition of faith fits his own faith in his definition of faith, if not much else!

Atheism requires as much faith as any kind of theism. If we take a responsible definition of faith I see no reason why that should be a problem. The atheist must have faith that science will provide all the answers (since it hasn’t yet). The Christian must have faith that ultimate answers are given by revelation of God in the Bible. The question is whether or not such faith is reasonable. It would be a great benefit to this debate if the ridiculous rhetoric that ‘atheism is based on reason whilst faith relies blind trust and subjectivity’ was finally binned on the basis of being untrue on both sides!

If that is the case, then are there credible reasons for believing what the Bible has to say? Is my faith in the God shown to us in the pages of the Bible reasonable? Well, Christianity is nearly unique among world religions in that it is verifiable. By that I don’t mean that you can prove that it’s true, but that there are things you can check out that could show it up to be false. If the events of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection recorded in the Bible are not historical realities then Christianity is untrue and should be abandoned immediately. This whole area merits an entire meeting (at least) devoted to it, but I decided that since it will act as a good illustration of the reasonable nature of Christian faith, that I’d just offer a few brief points on the question of the Bible’s reliability.

Dawkins tells us,

‘Ever since the nineteenth century, scholarly theologians have made an overwhelming case that the gospels are not reliable accounts of what happened in the history of the real world… All were then copied and recopied, through many different ‘Chinese Whispers generations’ by fallible scribes who, in any case, had their own religious agendas.’

Have ‘scholarly theologians’ all thrown the Bible out as a reliable witness? Certainly there was the ‘higher criticism’ movement of the nineteenth century – who found its figurehead (though not originator) in Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918). (If you were taught at school that the Pentateuch was made of 4 different sources – J,E,D and P – that’s what we’re talking about, although now rather out of fashion.) But how reliable is this ‘scholarly’ criticism that Dawkins refers to? As long ago as the 1920s Prof. Robert Wilson investigated these ideas. In fact, having learnt around 26 Semitic languages and dialects he set to work studying the primary evidence, to see if Wellhausen’s dismissal of the Bible’s accuracy stood up to scrutiny. Take for example a raid by a king – Chedorlaomer – and his subsequent defeat by Abraham (Gen. 14). Wellhausen said it was ‘simply impossible’ and critics supposed a Jewish archaeologist between 900-300 BC must have invented the story in honour of Abraham by using the names he’d just discovered! Wilson found in his researches that such critics rarely checked the primary sources. His conclusion on this event?

‘Against the historical character of this narrative we have the assertion of Wellhausen and other critics of our times (only about 4000 years after the supposed expedition!) that the expedition was “simply impossible”, and that it is probably that the account may have been fabricated (or forged) by some person unknown, at some time unknown, for reasons unknown. Not one item of evidence in the way of time, place, logic, psychology, language, or customs, has been produced against the trustworthiness of the document… But a German professor says it is “simply impossible”, English followers echo “simply impossible”, and the Americans echo again “simply impossible”. And this assertion of “simply impossible” is called an “assured result of scientific criticism”!’

Wilson's findings sound a clear warning to us to ask what starting assumptions such 'scholars' have. If they've already decided the Bible is hopelessly inaccurate, don't expect to find any other conclusion than just that! Sir William Ramsay was doing similar work in the NT around the same time. (He was awarded 3 honorary fellowships from Oxford colleges and 9 honorary doctorates for his work.) He focused on Luke-Acts, but began believing Wellhausen’s theories – that it was written 160-180 AD and was largely fictional (as Dawkins wants us to believe). His conclusion after a lifetime of research?

“Further study… showed that the book [Acts] could bear the most minute scrutiny as an authority for the facts of the Aegean world, and that it was written with such judgement, skill, art and perception of truth as to be a model of historical statement.”

Prof. F.F. Bruce (only person to be president of both SSOT and SSNT) also added:

“Research in the field which forms the historical and geographical background to Luke’s narrative has not stood still since Ramsay’s heyday, but our respect for Luke’s reliability continues to grow as our knowledge of this field increases.”

Certainly you can always find theologians who will deny the accuracy of the Bible, but the interesting thing is that it has largely been the theologians who have been reticent to accept the Bible’s accuracy (since they have adopted an agenda that adapting theology to modern trends is the way forward), and the historians have been far more positive. Reasons like this show why TIME magazine could conclude, in an article surveying the credibility of the Bible,

“After more than two centuries of facing the heaviest scientific guns that could be brought to bear, the Bible has survived – and is perhaps better for the siege. Even on the critics’ own terms – historical fact – the Scriptures seem more acceptable now than they did when the rationalists began the attack.”

Have I disproved atheism and proved that Christianity is true? By no means. But I hope that even this very brief survey of a few issues highlights that the truth about the Christian faith is not what Richard Dawkins would like you to believe. If you only have the Richard Dawkins Encyclopaedia of Religion as your guide let me plead with you to investigate much further before dismissing the Christian faith because you are being seriously misled. These issues are far too important to allow such misrepresentation to get in the way, because if the Bible is true then it demands a response of wholehearted faith, but if it is false it should be discarded instantly. The apostle Paul went so far as to say that if the Bible is not historically true ‘your faith is futile… we are of all men most pitiable’ (1 Cor. 15:17, 19)! Richard Dawkins believes the case is so obvious that after a mere 5 pages of discussion he can conclude, ‘I shall not consider the Bible further as evidence for any kind of deity.’ He then fires at will to demolish the kind of faith we’ve discovered Christians don’t have. So please ask yourself very carefully, who is really deluded here?