One reason why i'm reformed

"All that the Father has given me will come to me. And the one who comes to me I will certainly not cast out." (John 6:37)

The other day I was having a conversation with a friend about witnessing to cult members, such as Jehovah's Witnesses. I was asking what his experiences have been like with them and to see what advice he would give me if I ever encountered one. To sum up his advice, "Don't bother. They don't want the truth. Your time would be much more well spent doing something else." During our conversation, I didn't disagree with him because I thought to myself, "He's right! These people are so hardened and blind that there is no point in even bothering."

Later on as I went through my day, I began thinking through this. So often i've been asked the question, "If Calvinism is true, why bother witnessing? Isn't God going to save them anyways?" In fact, a friend of mine just the other day asked me this question. Its a very legitimate question. But its an inconsistent one. Let me explain.

Why would someone give me the advice to not bother witnessing to Jehovah's Witnesses? The obvious answer from their non-Calvinistic perspective would be because they have hardened their own hearts to the point that they are so brainwashed that there is nothing you could possibly say that could persuade them. But what about God? Couldn't He reveal Himself to them? Well, from an arminian perspective, God has already done all He could do. He's died for their sins and He's persuaded them with His Holy Spirit. Now its up to them to respond!

So when people ask me, "If Calvinism is true, why bother witnessing?" I simply ask in return, "If Calvinism isn't true, why bother witnessing?" If God has done all He could do, and if cultists have hardened themselves to the point of us giving up, then what more could we possibly do? In fact, why should we even pray for them? After all, its all up to them now!

But as I got to thinking through this, I was reminded of John 6:37, where the Father decrees the giving of of His chosen people to the Son; all that the Father gives to the Son will come to the Son. Is it possible that it could happen any other way? Could there be disunity in the Godhead? Could the Father command something of the Son that couldn't be accomplished because of the "almighty" will of man? Of course not! So how could I even think of believing that there are people out there that are too "hard" for God to save? My God can save anyone He wills to save! And yes, this includes even the most hardened Jehovah's Witness.

"But Mike! You are being inconsistent! If these people aren't God's 'chosen ones,' then you are wasting your time!" This could only be true if all of God's elect had glowing halos over their head so that I could distinguish them from the non-elect. But because I don't know who the elect are, I can truthfully and boldly proclaim the Gospel to all men and trusting God to do the rest. After all, Salvation is completely and totally of God and is not in any way dependent upon the will of man. This is called Monergism: God alone saves apart from the cooperation of man's "will."

One good point my friend did bring up that I agreed with is casting pearls before swine. If someone does not want to hear what I have to say, i'm not going to sneak into his bedroom at night, tie him up and scream through a megaphone, "accept Christ!" I think there needs to be a balance here. But if you know a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness who seems set in his beliefs, it is in no way a waste of time to share with him, even if it takes years. It would be absolutely wrong to conclude that this person is just like any cultist who refuses to even listen to what you have to say. And furthermore, this person may possibly have never heard the Gospel! Just because they proclaim Christ and his love, this doesn't mean that they know the true Gospel. We can never assume anything. Proclaim the truth, because God is always glorified when His truth is proclaimed. This is just one of many reasons why i'm a Calvinist.

The Jesus Family Tomb: CASE CLOSED

I just finished reading "The Jesus Family Tomb," and I can say with confidence: THE CASE IS CLOSED. There is absolutely no substantial evidence to support Jacobovici's claims. The book is a historical, scientific, and statistical nightmare. Bold claims are made without any substantiation; facts are left out; scholars are quoted out of context. This was just another poorly researched book that might end up making millions but will soon meet its misery when people take 15 minutes to look up the facts for themselves. I don't want to write a full critique right now for two reasons:

1) I don't have time

2) James White has written a soon-to-be-released book refuting The Jesus Family Tomb.

"But Mike! I thought you said the case was closed! Why wait?" Yes, the case most definitely is closed. In fact, I feel confident that I could write a deathblow critique of the theory. But if it weren't for the sake of integrity, I would do it. You see, The Jesus Family Tomb theory wasn't properly researched. Very few, if any, peer reviewed journal articles have been written on the subject. Therefore, we are left with very little to work with in writing scholarly refutations of the work. But I will go ahead and make this prediction; in less than one year, enough scholarly material will have been published on this issue to completely destroy Jacobovici's (and possibly James Cameron's) credibility.

This is why i'm waiting on James White's book. He has actually corresponded with the scholar's and scientists that Jacobovici has referenced in his book and the film. These correspondences are not essential, but very valuable.

But just for the sake of integrity, I feel that I am very well equipped to handle any defense of the Jesus Tomb. So if you have objections to anything i've said, or feel that you can actually defend Jacobovici's theory, then I challenge you to support your claims.

In the meantime, I thought i'd post a summary of the errors (Found on James White's blog) so that you'd have something to chew on until I write a full refutation:

- The book and film were not subjected to serious scholarly examination prior to release to the public.

· Many scholars cited in the film and book have affirmed that they were not told the full story, and that their statements have been used out of context.

· The theory uses double standards in its tremendously inconsistent use of the New Testament, at times accepting its accuracy on one point, then rejecting it on the next, without following any logical standards.

· The film and book demonstrate a consistent willingness to document only particular facts related to its conclusions, ignoring those facts that are contrary to its conclusions.

· The central argument of the film (that Mariamne is the original name of Mary Magdalene) is subject to numerous counter-arguments and explanations.

· The inscription on the Mariamne ossuary can be read at least three ways, and the first two, which leave the entire theory without any ground, are more likely than the third, upon which the theory depends.

· Even taking the inscription as the theory does, there is no reason whatsoever to believe a fourth century work of fiction, The Acts of Philip, is relevant to first century Jerusalem.

· The Acts of Philip nowhere refers to, or identifies Mariamne as, Mary Magdalene. The name Mary Magdalene never appears in The Acts of Philip.

· The Acts of Philip say Mariamne could turn into an ark of glass and a pillar of fire. Do the theorists think Mary Magdalene could do this?

· The film misrepresents Francois Bovon of Harvard who has confirmed that he is only referring to the Mariamne/Magdalene connection in the realm of literary parallels, not history.

· Bovon refers to the theorys claims that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a child as "science fiction."

· The film misrepresents even the existing text of The Acts of Philip by saying the book says Mary Magdalene (which it never mentions) would be buried in Jerusalem. It actually says Mariamne would die in the Jordan River (which does not flow through Jerusalem).

· The theory's willingness to abandon first century documents directly related to Jesus and his original followers (the New Testament) in favor of a work of fiction from the Encratite community of Asia Minor three hundred years later is a clear indication of its bias.

· The film and book misrepresent the nature and capacities of forensic mitochondrial DNA testing.

· Simcha Jacobovici claims Carney Matheson concluded that the genetic testing shows Yeshua bar Yosef and Mariamne were married. Matheson denies this conclusion forcefully.

· Mitochondrial DNA testing can only address maternal relationships, not paternal ones. Hence, the two genotypes tested could have included a father/daughter relationship, a fact inexplicably left out of the discussion by the film and book.

· The names of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, etc., have been found in other burial sites in Jerusalem in the past, including Dominus Flevit.

· All of the names in the Talpiot tomb are found amongst the top ten most popular names for men and women in the time period of the first century in Jerusalem.

· The argument that there is at least a 600:1 chance that this is the Jesus family tomb is based upon the assumption that 1) there is a Jesus family tomb in Jerusalem, and 2) it has been found. That is, the statistical argument assumes its own conclusion so as to have validity!

· There is no reason whatsoever to believe Jesus would own a multi-generational tomb in Jerusalem. He was from Nazareth, 120 miles to the north, in Galilee, and only visited Jerusalem.

· The theories propounded in the book concerning the Knights Templar are presented without even the pretense of factual or historical foundation, and as such, have as much validity as The Da Vinci Code. They are pure fiction.

· The alleged cross symbol on the Jesus ossuary is far more likely the simple "this side forward" mark to indicate which way to slide the lid so that it would fit.

· The idea that the Judah, son of Jesus in the Talpiot tomb, is the author of the Gospel of Thomas, which was written in AD 165, a century after the Talpiot tomb was sealed, is emblematic of the kind of scholarship represented in The Family Tomb of Jesus.

· The film and book desperately seek to avoid honestly stating the only possible ramification of their theory: that Christianity's primary claim in the resurrection of Jesus Christ is false, and hence Christianity is a false religion.

Amazing...and funny

This will blow your mind:




And this is just hilarious. Be warned! If you are a Joel Olsteen fan, this will probably offend you. Actually, this might just offend everybody. But I laughed and I hope you will to :-)

Dawkins and the Jesus Family Tomb

So what does Richard Dawkins have in common with the Jesus Tomb discovery? I have no idea, but I found this video that is not only amazingly true, but pretty hilarious. If you are unfamiliar with who Richard Dawkins is, he is basically the "high priest" of Atheism and evolutionism. I only say "high priest" because he has come closer to making Atheism a religion than almost anyone i've ever seen. Oh, and just to fill you in, the video is basically using Richard Dawkins' arguments to prove that Richard Dawkins doesn't exist. Check it out:



Ok, and for the Jesus Tomb. I really don't want to get too detailed with my rebuttal because I still want to read the book, and new arguments are being put forth every day. But I will say this; the filmakers have completely lost credibility. Anyone who watched the "aftershow" part where the scholars got to debate can see what I mean. Scholars who were admittedly not religious were not buying it. It was crystal clear that the film quoted people out of context and delivered one of the most one-sided presentations i've ever seen.

But what I wanted to point out is something that Greg Koukl talked about here. It was very sad to me how Christians have reacted to the film. Now don't get me wrong, I was speaking of "rebuttals" before I ever saw the film. But the only reason I was doubting the film was because the authors were debating the issues in public. The arguments being made were so off that I could only expect "Da Vinci Code" level arguments. And that's exactly what happened in the film.

But why were Christians reacting in the way that they were? Why were Christians threatening the discovery channel for airing the program? And not only that, but these Christians dismissed the film before even watching it. Why not say "I don't know yet, I haven't watched the film. I'll let you know what I think when I examine the facts." An article on carm.org sums up what i'm trying to say:

Christians: don't make these mistakes

1. Don't make the mistake of saying that the evidence can't be true because a Hollywood movie director made the documentary. Just because an unbeliever makes a film claiming he has found the tomb of Jesus, doesn't mean what is in it is false. Unbelievers can discover truth. So, don't dismiss it outright.

2. Don't make the mistake of saying the evidence is false because it disagrees with your beliefs. Beliefs don't make something true -- for example, Mormons believe God came from another planet. Believing it doesn't make it so. Nevertheless, Christian beliefs are based on evidence, i.e., the eyewitness accounts in the gospels, the resurrection of Christ, etc. So, if we look at facts in one area, we should continue to do so in other areas.

3. Don't make the mistake of concluding that if the evidence is verified under cross examination, that it means Christianity isn't true. At best all it shows is that there is a family tomb with common biblical names inscribed on ossuaries. This isn't proof of anything contrary to the gospel accounts.

4. Don't blow a good witnessing opportunity. This topic will generate discussion. So, print up a few copies of this article, have them ready to give to people, and discuss the real issue of Christ's resurrection which demonstrates who he was and what he did. This way you can then have an opportunity to present the gospel. Again, don't just dismiss it outright. Use it.

Critics: don't make these mistakes

1. Don't assume that what is presented in a documentary is automatically fact.
Wait until it is cross examined before making assertions. In other words, get both sides of the argument before making judgments.

2. Make sure your conclusions are logical, not merely inferential. If the evidence is factual, what does it mean? Does it prove that it was Jesus in the ossuary? Not at all. Does it prove Christianity is false? Hardly. If you are eager to find contradictory evidence, don't let your eagerness blind your objectivity.

3. Don't jump on the band-wagon and start condemning Christianity because the findings can be interpreted against it. There are important issues and questions to be raised. Those questions and others like them are relevant to the discussion on what the evidence means and need to be addressed before drawing "absolute" conclusions.

4. Don't make the mistake of concluding that if the evidence is verified under cross examination it means Christianity is false. It doesn't. It only means that a family tomb with ossuaries containing biblical names has been discovered. This is evidence, but it can be legitimately interpreted in different ways.

More on the Jesus Family Tomb--the DNA evidence

Ok, I can't resist. I know I said that I wasn't going to jump to conclusions and launch a full rebuttal of this unless i've seen the film (remember, this sunday at 9 on the Discovery Channel) and read the book. And i'm still going to hold to this. But this information is going to come very much in handy when watching the film on Sunday. If you are going to be watching the film, print this out and see how the media will portray the facts. Alright, so here's what I couldn't resist: bible scholar James White has managed to contact Dr. Carney Matheson, the DNA expert that you will see in the film and the book. Just read this:

I am very thankful that Dr. Matheson, the paleo-DNA expert who is featured in The Jesus Family Tomb and in the film to be seen on Discovery this weekend replied to my e-mail today. He must be deluged right now! I feel sorry for him. In any case, I had asked the following:

On page 172 of The Jesus Family Tomb you are quoted as follows:

"That this man and woman do not share the same mother," Matheson said quickly and conclusively. "They cannot be mother and child. They cannot, maternally, be brother and sister. And so, for these particular samples, because they come from the same tomb--and we suspect it to be a familial tomb--these two individuals, if they were unrelated, would most likely have been husband and wife."

Given that mitochondrial DNA analysis can only address maternal relationships, leaving open the possibility that 80-503 was, in fact, the father of 80-500, and the mitochondrial DNA analysis could not address this, is the preceding quotation accurate to your recollection? Did you inform Simcha Jacobovici of the possible paternal relationship? He replied in less than three hours (despite the book indicating he "rarely checks e-mails"):

This work was done as a service. We did not know who they suspected these individuals to be from. On the report it concludes that these two profiles from two different individuals were not maternally related. That is all the report states. When they did the filming and on the documentary they asked every question under the sun with permutations and manipulations. I provided the investigators with all the possibilities. They were not brother and sister, mother and child, maternal cousins, maternal grandparent and child etc. I also mentioned all of the possibilities, which I should not have done in hindsight. These included, father and daughter, paternal cousins, half brother and sister (sharing the same father) or simply unrelated individuals. The media does what they want.

Please note the last portion of what is said here: "I also mentioned all of the possibilities, which I should not have done in hindsight. These included, father and daughter, paternal cousins, half brother and sister (sharing the same father) or simply unrelated individuals." There is not a whisper of this in the book. Not a word. You tell me why these possibilities were simply left out when Dr. Matheson reported them?

What I have quoted here can be found on the March 2, 2007 section of James White's website. This definitely changes things a bit, don't ya think? Oh, and if you think that maybe i'm being a little unreasonable or unfair for even mentioning things like "rebuttals," take the archaeologist's word for it.

Evangelism and your identity

Yes, I know I just posted a blog a few minutes ago. And yes, I know I should be working on the homework that is due in like...30 minutes. But I came across this blog by Centuri0n that really illustrates something that I have convicted about for a long time. My conviction is, in a nutshell, that the Gospel should not be compromised. I would recommend going to the link above and reading it yourself, but i'll paste it below just in case you don't feel like going elsewhere. Keep in mind that his blog was primarily written on an individual basis, but I want everyone who reads it to see it from an angle as to how our churches should be affectively witnessing to the world. I'd really like everyone's thoughts on this:

It’s a lemming mentality. It’s the idea – the impulse – to follow the outward appearance of some thing which is happening without actually pursuing the thing itself. If there’s any guy on the face of the earth which proves this doesn’t have to be this way, it’s John Piper.

Piper doesn’t show up at Passion dressed like, well, Louie Giglio – and I have a lot of respect for Giglio. But there’s Piper, speaking to thousands of college kids, dressed like he always dresses – like a 1980’s college professor. He’s 60 (more or less) and he doesn’t have to pretend he’s hip, or relevant, or cool, or informed. He opens up the Bible, and preaches exactly the same way he preaches at Bethlehem Baptist every single Sunday.

And I bring that up to say this: if that’s what was happening even 7 times out of 10 in so-called “emergent” and “missional” churches, I think there’d be almost no fight. There’d be some fight – but it would be far less anathemacious than what is happening right now.

Seriously: think about what is happening in SBC churches for the most part. Most of them have transitioned to some more-contemporary form of worship, or at least what is called a “blended” style. That’s more than half-way to a “missional” concession. Most pastors who have the facilities are using multimedia – Powerpoint, video, multiple sites receiving one pastor’s preaching via some kind of local media loop. Many, many pastors are streaming their Sunday message via church web sites.

Guys like me – and others who you would associate with me – aren’t wigged out about using the means at our disposal. We’re wigged out that some kid with a bible college degree, or maybe an M.Div., and about 2 years of understudy at some middle-sized church is going to go ahead and take on the trappings of a culture which neither you nor I would say is God-honoring and somehow, through his hair products and his skater layered look – and for the hard-core, a tat – teach people that Jesus commands repentance. You’ll excuse me for asking, but “with what?”

I have an anecdote which will be useful to demonstrate what I am talking about here. When I was working FT at the bookstore, one day this beater Pontiac pulled into the lot, and this biker guy climbed out – very ZZ Top after about 100 miles of dirt road. We greet everyone the same as they walk into the store: “How are you today?” I did exactly that, and he didn’t even look over at me.

He went straight back to the Bibles. I give everyone about a minute to get their bearings, and then I walked back and I asked him, “Anything I can help you with?”

He doesn’t say anything, but he’s looking intently at the Bibles. After about another minute, he asks me, “You work here?”

Well, yeah. “Can I help you with something?”

He commences to tell me that he was saved in prison, and that he just recently got out, and he’s now in prison ministry, and he needs “prison bibles”. I told him honestly (I was still a rookie) that I didn’t know what a prison Bible was, and he told me it was a Bible with a paper cover with big print. I had one by accident, and he swiped it up – and so I don’t forget this part, I gave it to him for free for teaching me what a prison Bible was.

Anyway, big, hairy guy, covered in tats, terrible teeth, hair like dirty rope – completely insane for Jesus. We spent an hour talking about his testimony and his ministry to prisoners and his approach to ministry. I didn’t count, but I remember thinking that he didn’t have any words bigger than 2 syllables, except “resurrection” – and he said it “res-RECK-shun”. He left with a free bible, and came back several time over the next year to get more Bibles, and to get equipment for the Lord’s table, and other books.

The question, as I think about this in the terms you have positioned, is whether this guy needed to get a haircut and a daily bath and shave to be an acceptable minister of Christ – and I think the answer turns out to be “no”. And that answer is really points at the question I asked above about the kid with the fashion statement. With what will this guy – the ex-con in prison ministry – preach the Gospel? With actual authenticity and not make-believe authenticity.

But if that is the right answer, should some middle-class kid who, after bible college and an internship at Respectible Community Church, grow out dreadlocks, stop shaving, stop bathing and “down size” to one set of clothes in order to follow a call into prison ministry because my anecdotal brother in leather is clearly OK that way?

See: it turns out to be a question of authenticity. I know the missionals get all “Annie Armstrong” at this point, but there’s a massive difference between being an indigenous missionary to a completely foreign people and being a transplanted person inside one subculture who speaks a common language.

If the legitimate example is Tim Keller – and he’s a brilliant example, the one everyone else ought to be studying – then open the other eye and look at him. He’s not a stinky bohemian even though he is ministering to the stinky bohemians of NYC. If the missional prototype is Tim Keller, then it seems to me that “authentic” doesn’t mean “clothes by Aeropostale”, a paper cup of half-latte decafe glued to your left hand, and the Garth Brooks wire mike stuck in your ear. It means being personally authentic rather than branded. And to bring this parenthetical to a close, someone who dresses like a biker but has never really lived that life is kidding himself if he thinks people will accept him as a biker when he’s obviously a middle-class kid trying to prove something. He’d be better off by far to wear his usual clothes and demonstrate the love of God and declare the Gospel to dying men...

Does cultural relevance- even in an intentional counter culture- always mean compromise on the Biblical message?

That last question – does cultural relevance always mean compromise on the Biblical message – is such a double-edged sword. There’s no question that it drops an anvil on the Wile E. Coyote of SBC stoginess – but it also drops an equally-weighted anvil on people who are doing the exact same thing on the other side of the fence. Because the question is not “should we be ‘relevant’?” The question is: in what way is the Gospel relevant? That is: in the 1920’s, man was still sinful and Christ still died for sins, but what was the context in which people would receive that?

Do I need to dress like Chappell for people to listen to me? Or maybe like Brad Pitt? Or maybe like Justin Timberlake? Is it really true that there’s no way to communicate with people unless you dress like them and hang out in the same dives they hang out in? Do you really need a beer to break out the Gospel – is the Gospel like asking someone out for the first time?

See: I think I get the Tim Keller thing – because Keller is on about answering the questions people actually have, not the questions we wish they would ask. Keller is on about demonstrating the results of the Gospel today to these people here rather than as if you were doing a set piece from the 1840s. But If Keller is the missional guy, why are so many so-called missionals not like him? Why are they so phony in their authenticity? Why are they plainly dumb (and for the sake of peace, I’ll not list any blogs I think are in that category on either side of the missional divide)?

I think it’s a fine point that in many cases, as Michael Horton said on this week’s WHT, people are afraid of “otherness” – and some of what is happening right now in the SBC is a fear of “otherness”. But the reality is that the so-called “missional” side of the bridge is simply awash in theologically-questionable people with non-transparent motives.

And let me close this answer with this, from your last response: you say you want trust to be the watchword in cooperation. Paul says, “it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy”. When he says this to the Corinthians, he is chastising them for elevating themselves above the apostles when they are themselves unworthy to be called stewards – they can’t even discipline a guy who’s sleeping with his step-mom. But in that, trust cannot be taken for granted: trust has to be earned and it has to be serviced in some way – there has to be a way in which trust can be fortified over time. It is not a given.

More on "The Jesus Family Tomb"

Ben Witheringtom has posted a very detailed refutation of the Jesus Family Tomb theory that has recently become, in my opinion, the greatest attack against the Christian faith in our modern era. Because of this, I am probably going to be blogging a great deal on this subject. When I find new things, it will be posted. So, if you want to keep up with this issue I would recommend doing 2 things:

1) subscribe to my blog

2) visit the blog and website of bible scholar James White, who is on top of this thing more than anyone else i know of. In fact, he is probably going to be the first among many to release a book on this.

Thanks to all who are reading and keeping up with this! Our friends, family members, and everyone we know is going to be hearing about this stuff and asking questions. So if you care about the truth, you need to have answers! (1 Peter 3:15) After all, if you don't have answers to their questions, then who will?