Introduction Historically this is an interesting question because it helps to establish both the historicity and accuracy of the biblical text. That is, that in making the claim it helps to center the text into a specific time frame where, should the character in question be in a place or period where the statement would be meaningless or uncalled for it sets the statement up as suspect. Many of the accusations against the authority and accuracy of the text of Scripture has been allegations of falsehood (things are just made up) or that it engages in instances of anachronism (getting things out of their place in time). However, as we have learned more about the text—as a historical phenomenon—and about ancient texts in general, we have discovered that where there are anachronisms (say with place names), there is usually—either in the same text or another—that the name was changed at some point for some reason.  Furthermore, we have learned that ancient scribes would often update t...

Introduction Those who deny the authority and reliability of Scripture often appeal to discrepancies between the works that comprise the volume that is colloquially referred to as the Bible. One of the most well known critics of Scripture is the apostate known as Bart Ehrman. What is interesting is that Ehrman has all of the bona fides of a believing scholar having begun at fundamentalist and conservative institutions like Moody Bible Institute, before moving on to Wheaton College, before attending Princeton Theological under the tutelage of the immanent conservative biblical scholar Bruce Metzger. In his apostasy, which he attaches to the problem of evil, he has spent a great deal of time digging into discrepancies and difficulties between the gospels, producing a number of popular-level books severly criticizing believing Christians. In his very popular 2009 book Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them), Bart Ehrman ...

Of Binary Mindsets Spectrums seems to be ideologocial flavor-of-the-month in language today as binaries are on the outs. And it’s clear that Randal doesn’t like binaries, complaining that such thinking, “ is characteristic of conservative evangelicalism and fundamentalism. According to that mindset, the world is divided into stark categories of good and evil, right and wrong, light and darkness, truth and error .”[ 1 ] This statement should be kept in mind since Rauser is himself engaged in binary thinking: his position is what is right , Childers is that which is wrong . If this was not the case, why the need to write the book? For Part 1 , Part 2 That’s not to say that I entirely agree with Childers, nor is it to say that I entirely disagree with Rauser. However it does assume that there are certain clear “rights and wrongs” and that both can be participating in them. However, I would like to suggest that rather than asking, what is the historically orthodox position, one tha...

Finding Ones Footing  As was noted in the introduction , Randal Rauser, in his book Progressive Christians Love Jesus Too , intends to argue that conservative believers—like Alisa Childers, to whom his book is directly responding—has a “ errant notion that Christianity is anchored in doctrine .”[ 1 ] He insists that Christianity is “ anchored in Christ rather than our doctrines about Christ ”.[ 2 ] However, Randal, in his hurried attempt to respond to Childers’ critiques misses the all important question that Jesus himself asked at the pinnacle of his own ministry, "But who do you say that I am?"[3] Jesus’ question isn’t one of self-focused existential inquiry but a question of genuine belief about his identity.  Indeed the question, as it was originally posed, presumes some level of relationship (teacher to disciples), a relationship that was built upon certain beliefs about the nature of such a relationship. If Christianity is truly “ anchored in Christ ” as Randal...

What does it mean to be “orthodox”? The definition provided by Merriam-Webster defines the adjective form of “orthodox” as, “ conforming to established doctrine especially in religion ”.[ 1 ]  This means that when we apply it to say, Christianity, as in (small-“o”) “orthodox” Christianity, we are describing something that has a connection to what has been believed in the past. Meaning that someone who is “orthodox” in their beliefs would agree and affirm that which has been believed by the church (speaking collectively in the historical sense) and what we find representative in the various historical creeds, say the Apostle’s or Nicene creeds, as well as a few others that can be mentioned but won’t here. “Orthodox” further means that we would find some agreement with the believers of old, such as the author of 1 Clement, who writes, Let us fix our thoughts on the Blood of Christ; and reflect how precious that Blood is in God’s eyes, inasmuch as its outpouring for our salvatio...