Biblical & Theological Issues

by Craig Branch –

The most significant and important area of Christian apologetics is defending the inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy of the Bible. This is because all of Christianity’s unique claims are ultimately based on God’s revealed truth to mankind. Even the central and foundational event of Christ’s resurrection is contingent upon the revelation of its meaning, purpose, and applications. For example, even if there are Roman and Jewish sources (and there are)supporting the Christian eyewitness claims of Christ’s resurrection, and other evidences like no body produced by the Roman and Jewish adversaries – that is still not enough. All this establishes, at most, is that God did something extremely unlikely and unusual some 2000 years ago. But the Bible provides us an exposition of the meaning and purpose of the event.

So the ultimate authority of Scripture is a cornerstone of our apologetic. This is why there have been so many multi-dimensional attacks on this claim. These attacks have been building since the Enlightenment and have taken a tremendous toll on the Church. The most prolific attacks began in the late 1800’s with the influence of Darwinism and Social Darwinism. As this “scientific,” rationalistic, antisupernatural approach to life became a norm, numerous religiously liberal schools began to develop. The umbrella term for these critics who attacked the authenticity and reliability of the Bible is known as “Higher Criticism.” These liberal schools conclude that the Bible is not supernaturally inspired, is a compilation of legends and myths, not written by the recognized authors, and edited for various purposes including political ones.

When these groups deny the authority of the Bible, then dies the gospel and absolute truth as it applies to morals and ethics, and the power and direction of the Holy Spirit to transform. This is why we have produced numerous issues of Areopagus Journal responding to the multi-dimensional attacks of Higher Criticism. This issue constitutes the 9th issue in what we call the “Bible Bundle.” (Go to our website (www.arcapologetics.org to obtain these issues of the Bible Bundle, and get prepared to “give a reasoned defense for the confident expectation within you to anyone who asks” (1Peter 3:15)).

One of the negative impacts of liberalism can be seen and measured both in culture and in loss of church membership. Liberal churches are often labeled “mainline denominations.” It is true that within some of these “mainline denominations” there is a mixture of liberal and conservative individuals and churches. But as the liberal churches make cultural decisions such as accepting same-sex marriages and ordaining homosexuals, the more conservative churches are leaving their traditional folds. This loss of membership is also due to a lack of evangelism and true spiritual life since the gospel and its call for salvation are nullified.

The Barna Research Group (www.barna.org) mirrored other polls which found that mainline denominations’ membership peaked in the 1950’s but have declined steadily in the last half century. From 1958-2008 membership dropped more than 25%. One denomination which has a mixture of mostly liberal and some good conservatives is the United Methodist Church. Their membership has dropped from 11 million in 1968, to 8 million in 2008. Also, the 2010 and 2011 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches published by the liberal National Council of Churches reported that the United Church of Christ dropped 5.76% in 2009-2010; the Episcopal Church dropped 5.29%; the United Methodist, over 7%; the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA), 5.89%; and the Evangelical Lutheran Church (ELCA), 3.86%.

Now those figures report actual membership losses. But some churches never drop people from their membership rolls even if they stop attending. A possibly better indicator is a study reported in the liberal Christian Century magazine of decline in church attendance. It reported a dramatic marked decline in four major mainline church attendances from 2001- 2008. The Episcopal Church had a 17.86% decline, the United Methodist had a 10.22% decline, the ELCA was at 15.41%, and the PCUSA was at 15.62%. The consistent reports of decline demonstrate that the younger generation, 18-34, is the largest group leaving churches.

Again, what are the major contributing factors? I believe the primary factor in this decline is a lack of commitment to evangelism, and the lack of actual spiritual regeneration and growth, due to a rejection of the infallibility of the Bible. A 2008 survey conducted by the PEW Research Center found that only 22% of the “mainline members” surveyed said that “the Bible is God’s word and to be interpreted as the truth.”

In this issue of Areopagus Journal, we respond to a longstanding attack on the inspiration, infallibility, and authority of the Bible that questions biblical claims regarding its authorship. Who wrote the books of the Bible? Christians have always believed that Moses wrote the Pentateuch (Genesis – Deuteronomy), that David wrote most of the Psalms, that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the Gospels that bear their names. But, liberal scholars question these traditional authorship claims.

Our first article, “Moses and the Pentateuch” is written by Wheaton College Old Testament professor, Daniel Block. He responds to the Weelhausen documentary Hypothesis theory held by most critical scholars. It holds that Moses could not have been the author of the first five books of the Old Testament due to style, content, and dating issues. Dr. Block takes a very complex and technical issue and presents an understandable response to each of the arguments held by liberal scholars. He shows not only that there are numerous variations in their theories, but also that new information and pushes the authorship dates back even closer to the time of Moses. He also presents a solid, positive case for Mosaic authorship of the first five books either directly or by his delegates.

The second article, “How Many Isaiah’s Were There?” is written by another Wheaton Old Testament Professor, Richard Schultz. Dr. Schultz responds to the claim of liberal
scholars that there were at least two, if not three or more, authors (not Isaiah) of the Book of Isaiah, compiled later into one book, and not given a specific prophetic authority. Schultz addresses the line of arguments offered by liberals and points out that as more time passes with new discoveries, that the growing evidence points to one book and Isaiah as its single prophetic author. Schultz also reveals the weaknesses of the driving presupposition of liberals that supernatural prophesy isn’t possible.

The third article is written by Matt Aernie, professor at Southeastern Bible College. In “Who Wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?” he addresses the wide-spread liberal position that the four traditional Evangelists could not have been the writes of the four Gospels. For example, Jeffrey Sheler, religion writer of U.S. News and World Report, wrote a book, Is the Bible True? wherein he repeated what he wrote in the December 10, 1990 story, “Who Wrote the Bible?” Sheler wrote,

Despite early and relatively strong traditions supporting apostolic connections, most biblical scholars
today—from liberal to conservative traditionalists—agree that there is little direct evidence to say with
certainty that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the gospels that bear their names. . . . The overwhelming
consensus among biblical scholars today is that the gospels must be judged as anonymous.”

Aernie responds with external and internal evidences to make an adequate positive case for the traditional authorship of the Gospels. The last article is by New Testament professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Terry Wilder. The article is titled “Are Forgeries Present in the New Testament?” The position of some critical scholars, including recent popular teacher and author, Bart Ehrman, is that some of the letters in the New Testament were pseudonymous—that is, forgeries falsely written in the names of various apostles. For example, it is claimed that Paul’s pastoral epistles (1, 2 Timothy and Titus) were not written by Paul, and that James, the brother of Jesus, did not write his epistle. The skeptics also remind us that everyone agrees that pseudonymous works did exist in the ancient world such as the Epistle to the Laodiceans, and the Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Judas, etc. Dr. Wilder adequately responds by demonstrating how the canonical letters pass the tests that the false epistles fail. He also demonstrates the internal evidence, integrity and historical acceptability of the New Testament epistles.

Craig Branch is the director of the Apologetics Resource Center, Birmingham, Alabama.

Notes
1Lovett Weems, Jr., “No Shows,” Christian Century
(Sept. 22, 2010).
2Jeffery Sheler, Is the Bible True? (Harper San Francisco, 1989), 31.

(First published in Areopagus Journal Vol. 12 No. 2 – Who Wrote the Bible?)