Evangelical Theology by Michael F. Bird – An Analysis and Book Review

Michael F. Bird, Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction, 2nd edition (Grand Rapids, Mich., 2020).

The heart of theology is the Gospel. It is the Good News about Jesus Christ. Michael F. Bird takes the Gospel as the organising principle of his systematic theology with the unusual result that eschatology is placed somewhere in the middle of his dogmatics. For Bird, theology is about the Good News. It teaches of a God who loves us and chose us from before the foundation of the world, a Saviour who came to rescue us from the dark paths of sin, and a loving Holy Spirit who came to apply the great work of redemption to our hearts and lives. Bird is an academic dean and lecturer in theology at Ridley College in Melbourne, Australia. He comes from an eclectic theological or ecclesiastical background – first as a Baptist, then a presbyterian, and finally an Anglican. His thought is unified however by being evangelical, Reformed, and catholic. 

Prolegomena

Bird defines theology as talk about God within the context of the church and evangelical tradition. He begins with a discussion of prolegomena or pretheology which he considers to be a way of discussing issues of method, sources, and the meaning and purpose of theology. In terms of method, Bird adopts an eclectic approach, bringing together multiple insights from the Christian tradition, but ultimately adopting the Gospel as the chief organising principle of dogmatics. With respect to sources, he views Scripture as the ultimate norm for theology in accordance with the Reformed tradition of Sola Scriptura, but he also sees a significant place for tradition in shaping dogmatics. By tradition, he means the ecumenical creeds and teachings of the church fathers, the insights of medieval divines such as Thomas Aquinas, the confessions and catechisms of the Reformers, as well as the developments within modern theology. Bird is somewhat suspicious of natural theology, though he does see a cautious place for nature as a ‘theatre of revelation’. He sees culture as the contemporary context in which theology is developed. Bird suggests that theology should be a complex interaction between Scripture, the Christian tradition, natural theology, and culture.

Theology

Bird sees the Gospel as supremely being a revelation of God. He defines the Trinity in the light of the ecumenical creeds and Barth’s revival of Trinitarian doctrine in the 20th century. He takes issue with Calvin’s understanding of Christ and the Spirit as autotheos, preferring to stick to a patristic doctrine of the Trinity. According to Bird, there is only one God who exists in three co-equal, co-eternal persons who are nonetheless identified by a certain particular order: the Father eternal and unbegotten, the Son eternally begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeding eternally from the Father and the Son. He is suspicious of both social Trinitarianism and arguments for eternal functional subordination, particularly as it applies to the issue of gender and authority in marriage. Bird divides discussion of God’s attributes into the traditional Reformed distinction between incommunicable and communicable attributes and holds to a classical theistic position. He raises concerns regarding attempts by feminist theologians to assign a feminine gender to God or to adopt the gender-neutral nouns such as Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. While he argues that God transcends human concepts of gender and so is neither male or female as such, he nonetheless maintains that in Scripture God is normally referred to by masculine nouns and pronouns. God is described in Scripture as a Father. And Jesus, of course, was a male human being. He does note some passages which attribute feminine characteristics to God.

The background to God’s work in redemption is his work of creation. Bird considers several defective accounts of God as creator. Deistic versions of creation see God as transcendent but uninvolved in his creation, a distant God, much unlike the God of Christianity who is involved by way of providence, miracle, and redemption. Pantheism is the view that God is literally identical with the universe; whereas panentheism views God as being greater than the universe, but nonetheless including it within his own being. Christian theism, however, maintains a Creator-creature distinction, ruling out philosophies which say God is to be identified with everything. Henotheism (the belief in a supreme God among a pantheon of lesser gods) and polytheism (the belief in multiple gods) are both obviously incompatible with a Christian worldview which insists that there is only one God who exists in three coequal persons. Gnosticism is the belief that a demiurge created this universe and entrapped souls in matter which is understood to be evil. Jesus Christ came to liberate souls from the material universe and this is achieved through secret knowledge or gnosis. Christian theology, however, does not differentiate the God of creation from the God of redemption; they are one and the same God, Lord, and Saviour. Salvation is freely offered to all publicly in Gospel, rather than through any rites of secret knowledge.

Bird’s doctrine of creation is thoroughly Trinitarian in nature. The Son and the Spirit were the two hands that the Father used in the formation of the universe and to create life. Though God originally created everything good, sin has left its mark on the world. This anticipates God’s plan to renew the heavens and the earth according to his righteousness. This plan was inaugurated with Jesus’ resurrection and the giving of the Spirit at Pentecost and will be brought to consummation at Jesus’ return in glory. Bird also maintains the classical doctrine of creatio ex nihilo and identifies several implications of a creation out of nothing: 1) God existed before the universe was made; 2) God and matter do not coexist and were not coeternal; 3) God did not use pre-existent materials to create the universe; 4) God was not limited by pre-existent materials; and 5) the universe had a definite beginning as taught by Scripture and confirmed by science in terms of big bang cosmology. Bird offers no assessment of human evolution at this point, but will take up this theme in his discussion of the historicity of Adam and Eve in his section on anthropology.

Bird also considers the subject of divine revelation which he defines as ‘God’s free action whereby he communicates saving truth about himself and the very presence of himself to humanity, especially through Jesus Christ, who is the incarnate Word of God, as testified by the apostles and attested by the Holy Scriptures and received by the community of believers’ (p. 292). There are three aspects to divine revelation: natural, special, and Christological. God reveals himself in nature, particularly in terms of his eternal power and divine nature as Paul teaches in Romans 1:20. However, this form of revelation is obscured by sin. Bird thinks that Karl Barth overreacted to the problem of natural theology by denying it altogether. He feels that there is a place for natural theology, but one should not overestimate its capabilities. He considers arguments for and against the traditional theistic proofs (the ontological, teleological, cosmological, and moral arguments for God’s existence). Like Barth, Cornelius Van Til firmly rejected these proofs as having any meaningful value for apologetics, relying instead upon a transcendental argument for the existence of God which Bird sees as being hopelessly circular. Bird is more sympathetic to the arguments of Reformed epistemologists like Alvin Plantinga who argue, on the basis of Calvin’s doctrine of the sensus divinitatis, that belief in God is properly basic. It is similar in other words, to our belief in the past, or that other minds exist, or in the existence of the material universe. However, Bird worries that Reformed epistemology may be nothing more than a sophisticated form of fideism.  

Bird defines special revelation as ‘God’s unique communication of himself through history, proclamation, Scripture, and illumination’ (p. 292). God has revealed himself in the mighty acts of redemption history such as in the Exodus or in the cross and resurrection of Christ. He revealed himself through the inspiration of prophets, apostles, and messengers who proclaim the Good News about Jesus Christ. And He reveals Himself by the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture. The ultimate revelation of God is found in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the God-man. Bird also considers what God’s purpose or plan is for the universe. He argues that God had one purpose and one plan: to glorify himself in redemption and to reconcile lost men and women to himself. He observes that there have been three major schools of thought on God’s plan and purpose as revealed in Scripture: dispensational, covenantal, and Reformed Baptist theologies. Bird opts for a covenantal approach that emphasises the covenant of grace and a plan which takes lost sinners from being ‘in Adam’ to being ‘in Christ’ as Paul teaches in Romans 5.

Eschatology

Bird’s Gospel centred approach leads him to place eschatology in the middle of his dogmatics. This is because he believes eschatology has a central place for understanding the Gospel message. He argues that all theology is driven by eschatology – meaning that eschatology is the plan or end to which all things are ultimately leading. He argues that Biblical eschatology is inaugurated eschatology. In other words, the kingdom of God has ‘already’ and ‘not yet’ dimensions. It is already present in Christ and his church; it is not yet consummated into the new heaven and new earth wherein righteousness dwells. One day Jesus will return to earth and establish his kingdom forever. His return will be physical and bodily – and so unmistakeable to all. The same Jesus who lived and died outside the city walls of Jerusalem will return to unveil the glory of his kingdom. He will be accompanied by the angels of heaven and the departed saints. Paul argues that God will redeem all Israel which some take to be those of physical Jewish descent; while others consider it to be an expression for the church or spiritual Israel made up of Jews and Gentiles.

There will be a literal and physical resurrection of believers into their glorified estate and Jesus will judge and subjugate all our and his enemies. Bird identifies three major views on the millennial reign of Christ: amillennial, postmillennial, and premillennial. Bizarrely Bird dismisses postmillennialism without much argument even though it would fit his missional and Gospel centred purpose perfectly. He argues that amillennialism is a close second to premillennialism. He is critical of dispensational premillennialism arguing that it is clearly unbiblical in the sharp separation it posits between Israel and the church. He opts in the end for a variation of historical premillennialism or chiliasm. He argues that the intermediate state means going to be with Christ in paradise, but the final state for believers will be a new heaven and a new earth in glorified bodily existence. Far from being a place of holy boredom, the new creation will be a place of ‘peace and joy, activity, art and action’ (p. 392). Unrepentant sinners will suffer eternally in the outer darkness of hell where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Christology

Bird argues that Jesus is essential to our understanding of Christian dogmatics. He should be the very centre and sum of our theology and Gospel message. There can be no Christianity without Christ. With respect to method in Christology, Bird considers the opposing approaches of Christology ‘from above’ and Christology ‘from below’. He concludes that we should try and approach Christology from multiple perspectives:

Christology is not top down or bottom up. Rather, we do Christology from behind, below, above, and before. We look at Jesus from behind (the Old Testament), from below (the historical Jesus and the Jesus professed in the historical development of the Church’s faith), from above (the Jesus of divine discourse in Scripture), from the margins (the Jesus of the poor and disempowered) and before us (the Jesus of creedal and confessional testimonies) (p. 407).

This perspectival approach to Christology transcends debates about the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith by embracing aspects of all approaches. Bird follows the ecumenical creeds in affirming the life, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. He also considers the Old Testament background in terms of prophecy, typology, Christophany, and allegory. Bird considers the Virgin birth to be an essential doctrine of the Christian faith and affirms Mary’s role as the mother of God (Theotokos). Her role is likened to that of a new Eve, ‘Without Mary as a new Eve, we could not have Jesus as a new Adam’ (p. 420). Bird devotes a chapter to the life and ministry of Jesus, something which is often overlooked by systematic theologians. Bird believes that Jesus’ public teaching and miracles are essential to understanding the person and work of Christ.

In his chapter on the death of Jesus, Bird considers several theories or models of the atonement including recapitulation, ransom, Christus Victor, satisfaction, moral influence, exemplary, government, and penal substitution. Bird also considers the argument of Stephen Chalke and Alan Mann that penal substitution is ‘divine child abuse’. Bird considers this to be a defective argument since the Father never stopped loving the Son throughout all his sufferings and the Son as the second person of the Trinity voluntarily took upon himself humiliation and death for the salvation of the world. Bird argues that the most central theory of the atonement is the Christus Victor model which sees Christ as triumphing over the devil and the forces of darkness. This model is combined with the doctrine of penal substitution in which Christ voluntarily assumes the penalty for sin in his own body. Bird observes that there are merits to all the various models of the atonement. The problem is not so much what they affirm, but what they leave out. On the question of the extent of the atonement, Bird argues that the death of Christ is sufficient for the whole world, but efficient only for the elect. Bird is closer to affirming an Amyraldian view of the atonement than he is to affirming the traditional Reformed doctrine of particular redemption or limited atonement. He also affirms a literal descent of Christ into hell as the Apostles’ Creed suggests and argues that hell should be translated as hades in this context. He seems to reject Calvin’s suggestion that Christ suffered hell for us upon the cross.

Bird argues that the resurrection of Jesus is ‘indelibly connected to the cross and marks the beginning of the new age bursting into our current world’ (p. 547). His neologism ‘anastasity’, from the Greek word anastasis, refers to the doctrine that believers are to live their Christian lives in the light of the resurrection of Christ with hope and joy. Bird laments that the ascension is a neglected doctrine in the Christian church and argues that it is crucial to understanding Jesus’ heavenly reign and work of intercession. Bird reminds us that Jesus is fully God, equal to the Father in authority, majesty, and substance. Jesus existed as the second person of the Holy Trinity prior to his incarnation. He shares eternity with the Father. Jesus assumed a human body in order to carry out the work of redemption. As the Church Fathers would say, ‘What has not been assumed has not been healed’. In order to heal us completely, Jesus had to assume our essential human identity and become a man of reasonable body and soul. According to Bird, the doctrine of the hypostatic union teaches that Jesus is fully God and fully man in one person. He has two natures: divine and human. These natures are not mixed or confused together. Jesus is not a hybrid or demigod. He is the God-man. These two natures are united in one remarkable person – Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour.

Soteriology

Bird views the Gospel as central to any exposition of soteriology. God’s plan of salvation is revealed supremely in Jesus Christ and is received by faith and repentance. Salvation should not be expounded as mere hell-fire insurance; rather, it should be viewed holistically as redeeming the whole person, body and soul, from sin and death. According to Bird, ‘salvation in the Bible … includes deliverance from many things, including enemies, physical danger, death, disability, demonic powers, illness, poverty, injustice, social exclusion, false accusation, shame, and of course from sin and its consequences at the final judgement’ (p. 662).  The outworking of God’s plan of salvation is known as redemptive history (sometimes referred to as heilsgeschichte or historia salutis in the scholarly literature). Bird sees this as unfolding in several acts: Act 1: creation and the fall; Act 2: the history of Israel and the stories of the Patriarchs; Act 3: the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ; Act 4: The giving of the Spirit and the emergence and growth of the Church; Act 5: The final consummation and return of Christ to establish his kingdom. Bird adopts a Pauline or Calvinistic conception of the order of salvation (ordo salutis): predestination, calling, regeneration, faith and repentance, justification, transformation or sanctification, and glorification.

Bird is hesitant to adopt a particular view on the order of the divine decrees on the basis that the mind of God is not disclosed to us in these matters which must remain a mystery. He does however argue that the incarnation of Christ was not afterthought. Bird proposes the following order of eternal decrees: God from all eternity decreed the incarnation of the Son, then to create the world, then to permit the fall, then to offer salvation in Christ, and then to redeem the elect. He also explores the various ways in which Scripture speaks of salvation including forgiveness of sin, redemption, rescue, reconciliation, justification, peace, adoption, eternal life, theosis, and nearness to God and access to his throne. He argues that the primary image for salvation in the Scriptures is that of communion with God, union with Christ, and life in the Spirit. Bird disagrees with those who posit various forms of universalism (the belief that everyone will eventually be saved) and argues instead for a version of exclusivism. He contends that there will be a final judgement in which the elect will be justified, and the reprobate condemned for all eternity. He rejects notions of universal salvation or annihilation for the non-elect. Bird argues that true believers will be finally and fully kept by God and will persevere in faith and holiness to the end. Those who fail to persevere in the faith were never truly saved in the first place; but the warnings in Scripture regarding apostasy should be taken seriously by those who belong outwardly to the covenant of grace lest they fall away and make a shipwreck of their faith.

Pneumatology

Bird argues that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit is essential for a correct understanding of the Gospel. The gift of the Holy Spirit is both ‘a part of the promise of the Gospel and also the power for Gospel proclamation’ (p. 726). Pneumatology intersects with many other loci in dogmatics such as the doctrine of the Trinity and the inspiration of Scripture. According to Bird, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit must always be viewed in the light of the Trinity: ‘The Holy Spirit is the person within the Godhead who applies the work of Christ to us and enables us to personally encounter the triune God’ (p. 669). God works through the Holy Spirit enabling our prayers, worship, and ministry. The Spirit empowers and equips the Church for evangelism, mission, service, and proclamation. The twentieth century witnessed a great surge of interest in the doctrine of the Holy Spirit (particularly with respect to spiritual gifts and Spirit Baptism) with the emergence of Pentecostal and Charismatic churches, especially in the Global South. Bird argues that Western Christianity has tended towards patriarchy and an exclusive focus on the person of Christ. The result has been a decidedly cerebral theology. For Bird, ‘[A] responsible incorporation of the Holy Spirit will yield a theology that is more egalitarian, Trinitarian, and experiential’ (p. 669).

Bird stresses the personal nature of the Holy Spirit as a much-needed corrective to those who see the Holy Spirit as a kind of spiritual force or ecstatic vibe. In fact, Bird argues that the Holy Spirit is a person equal in power, glory, and dignity with the Father and Son. He laments the divisions caused by the Filioque controversy and suggests that evangelicals should consider dropping the phrase ‘and the Son’ altogether in order to foster greater unity with Eastern Orthodoxy. However, he also sees the importance of the phase for preserving the equal dignity and deity of the Son in relation to the Father as a corrective against Arianism. This is a tricky issue. The Eastern Orthodox Church rightly insists that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father and that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Whereas the Western Church rightly sees that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. I would suggest that evangelicals consider adopting the formulation which says that the Holy Spirit proceeds ‘from the Father, through the Son’ as a compromise between both views.

Bird argues that the gifts of the Holy Spirit (including tongues, prophecy, and healing) continue today. He agrees with Pentecostals and Charismatics on the importance of spiritual gifts but denies that the gift of tongues is the distinguishing mark of baptism with the Holy Spirit. He argues that Spirit Baptism happens at conversion and is essentially the same thing as regeneration. However, he argues that subsequent fillings with the Holy Spirit are possible post-conversion. With respect to the inspiration of Scripture by the Holy Spirit, Bird argues for a dynamic view of the relation between the divine and human authors and suggests that evangelicals should consider ‘veracity’ or ‘truthfulness’ as offering the best model for understanding the infallibility of Scripture. He argues that the Bible is authoritative for Christian doctrine and practice precisely because the Holy Spirit speaks to us in and through the Scriptures. This remains true even in the light of higher criticism. He does not appear to consider the Barthian view that the human words of Scripture become the Word of God, by the work of the Holy Spirit, whom we encounter as we read the Scriptures.

Anthropology

Bird argues that God created humanity to share in his glory. The Christian doctrine of anthropology provides an antidote to secular materialistic accounts of humanity. Human life is meaningful and has purpose because it stands in relation to God as creator. Bird accepts a theistic evolutionary account of the origins of mankind especially in the light of modern scientific evidence. The creation stories are mythical accounts that contain theological truths. They remind us that God is the Creator and man is a creature made after the image and likeness of a holy God. After considering several approaches to the doctrine of the imago dei (including the image as a rational ability, a relational capacity, or a human dominion), Bird argues that the image of God in man is largely a regal or royal status. Humankind is charged with the care and rule over creation as God’s royal vice regents. Bird contends that the litmus test for a theology of the divine image is how it relates to and portrays those who suffer with physical or mental disabilities. ‘If a definition of the imago diminishes or denies the divine image for disabled persons, then it is problematic and does not cohere with the arc of Scripture that affirms the humanity of the disabled and demonstrates God’s kindness and concern for the disabled’ (p. 752). Bird makes the case for anthropological dichotomism or the belief that humans consist of body and soul. Bird argues that this takes the form of a psychosomatic unity and that the soul is designed to exist with the body – hence the resurrection and glorification of the dead at the Parousia. One of the most challenging issues facing Christians today is that of personal identity. Many argue that identity is fluid and determined by the individual. For Bird, Christian identity is determined by our relationship with Christ and the Christian story. ‘This theological conception of Christian identity, determined by God’s story and by God-centred relationships, is that we are known by God, baptised into Christ, and made alive in the Spirit’ (p. 765).

Bird also considers the fundamental problem with humanity – sin. Humanity, since the Fall, is condemned, alienated from God, trapped in darkness, contaminated by moral impurity, enslaved to sin, and dead to God. The doctrine of sin is known as hamartiology and is a subbranch of anthropology in dogmatics. ‘The root of sin is the worship of the self in the place of the worship of God’ (p. 769). Bird suggests that the word sin causes difficulties in terms of explaining what has gone wrong with humanity. Sin is often seen by society as something naughty, a guilty pleasure. Bird suggests that we should speak of evil rather than sin since this is closer to the meaning of Scripture on the matter. People can understand the meaning of the word evil especially in the light of two world wars, the horror of Auschwitz, and the suffering caused by 9/11. Genesis 6:5 captures the essence of what it means to belong to a fallen world: ‘The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time’. Bird clearly affirms the Reformed doctrine of total depravity, though he reminds us that this does not mean that we are all as bad as we can possibly be in the light of God’s common grace; rather, it means that sin ‘totally permeates our intellect, wills, and hearts’ (p. 774). Bird believes that we have all inherited the guilt and corruption of Adam who is best seen as our federal head in the light of Romans 5 which presents Adam and Christ as contrasting federal heads. ‘Either one belongs to Adam and is under the sentence of death because of his disobedience, or else one belongs to Christ and is assured of eternal life because of his faithfulness and obedience’ (p. 785). Bird argues that the best theodicy or vindication of divine goodness is the Biblical story of God’s triumph over sin, death, and hell in the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Ecclesiology

Evangelical churches have the Gospel at their heart. In the words of Wolfhart Pannenberg, ‘The gospel thus takes precedent over the church. Over and against the church it represents the authority of Jesus Christ, the church’s Lord and Head. Though the gospel is proclaimed in the church and by its office bearers, it is not a product of the church; rather, the gospel is the source of the church’s existence’ (cited on p. 803). The Bible uses many words and images for the Church including the people of God, the elect, the flock, a priesthood, a remnant, the body of Christ, a temple of God, and a new creation. The traditional marks of the church are its oneness or unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity. ‘The church is one because it shares a single body, the body of Christ, the risen Lord. It is holy because it is called by God and sanctified by Christ through the Spirit. It is catholic because it is spread throughout the world and traverses geographic and ethnic boundaries. It is apostolic because it holds to the apostles’ teachings and is sent out by Christ into the world’ (p. 833). The apostolic church is signified by the faithful preaching of the Word and the correct administration of the sacraments (Baptism and Holy Eucharist). Bird argues that the main forms of church government are the episcopal, presbyterian, and congregational systems – as an Anglican, he naturally favours the episcopal system of Church government. He also considers multisite churches (a more recent ecclesiastical phenomenon) of church networks and parachurch organisations. Covid 19 has raised interesting questions about the presence of Church online and what this means for the future of the Church. As Bird points out, ‘It is now possible to livestream worship, attend Bible studies by video chat, watch sermons online, download podcasts by theologians, and get communion elements delivered to your home’ (p. 857). Of course, none of these things should be a substitute for actual fellowship with believing Christians, but their presence supplements ecclesiastical practice and service in interesting ways especially in terms of reaching the unchurched with the message of the Gospel.

Bird identifies several key purposes for the Church including evangelism or mission, discipleship, the administration of the sacraments, kingdom work, and evangelical worship. The sacraments include baptism and the Lord’s supper or Holy Eucharist. The three main views of baptism discussed by Bird are credobaptism or believer’s baptism, paedobaptism or infant baptism, and dual-practice baptism. Bird argues that baptism plays ‘a key part in the salvific drama and is integral to our faith, union with Christ, and reception of the Spirit’ (p. 910). He takes the Reformed view on Holy Eucharist which stresses the spiritual presence of Christ by the work of the Holy Spirit. Other views mentioned are the Roman Catholic view of transubstantiation, the Lutheran view of consubstantiation, and the Zwinglian memorial view of the Lord’s supper. He argues that the most Biblical model for Holy Eucharist is an open table – a table open to sinners who believe in Christ for their salvation. This would include children of an appropriate age who have been instructed concerning the significance of the meal by their parents and who profess faith in Christ.

Conclusion

Bird offers an excellent introduction to systematic theology in just over 900 pages. This book goes hand in hand with his video lectures available on DVD which offer brief twenty-minute videos on the various subjects of systematic theology. Bird writes with considerable wit and humour while also maintaining a deep seriousness and reverence for God throughout. The placement of eschatology in the middle of his dogmatics is somewhat unusual, perhaps owing to his use of the Gospel as an organising principle. One gets the feeling that Bird just wanted to do something differently to other systematic theologians. Bird’s theology seems inconsistent with his eschatology. He argues for a premillennial view where a postmillennial view would better suit the overall emphasis on the success and centrality of the Gospel. Bird engages many contemporary questions while also giving plenty of room to historical theology. Despite being a Biblical theologian, Bird is actually at his strongest when discussing matters of historical theology and church history. Bird could have said more on the subject of theistic evolution as this is a matter of considerable debate within evangelical circles. The same could be said for his discussion of gender identity and human sexuality. Nonetheless, Bird’s systematic theology remained gripping throughout and was usually thorough in its treatment of every doctrine. Bird should be commended for his focus on the Gospel as revealed in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is clear that Bird has a deep love for the Triune God of the Gospel. The emphasis throughout his dogmatics is on the Father electing and sending his one and only Son, the Son redeeming a people for himself by his death and resurrection from the dead, and the Holy Spirit regenerating, sanctifying, and applying salvation to the elect as history unfolds.

‘Of making many books there is no end’: A Select Bibliography of Christian Literature

The books listed in this collection represent some of the most helpful Christian books I have encountered in my reading. These books are mostly drawn from the domain of Church history and historical theology. I hope you enjoy collecting and reading some of the literature recommended below. I consider these to be the best books on their respective subjects. I have graded the books according to difficulty. One * represents the easiest material, two ** the intermediate, and three *** the most difficult. 

Systematic Theology

Barth, Karl, Church Dogmatics (1932–1967), 13 vols.***

Barth, Karl, Dogmatics in Outline (London, 1960).*

Bavinck, Herman, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. John Bolt. Trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids, MI, 2003 – 2008), 4 vols.***

Berkhof, Louis, Systematic Theology (Edinburgh, 1958).**

Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. by John T. McNeill. Trans. by Ford Lewis Battles  (London, 1960), 2 vols.**  

Horton, Michael, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (Grand Rapids, MI, 2011).**

Letham, Robert, Systematic Theology (Wheaton, Ill., 2019).**

Muller, Richard A., Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520–1725 (Grand Rapids, Mich., 2003), 4 vols.***

Shedd, William G. T., Dogmatic Theology, 3rd ed. (New York, 1891).**

Thiselton, Anthony, Systematic Theology (London, 2015).**

Turretin, Francis, Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ, 1992 – 97), 3 vols.***

Watson, Thomas, A Body of Divinity (Glasgow, 1686).*

Webster, John, Kathryn Tanner, and Iain Torrance (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology (Oxford, 2007).** 

Church History & Historical Theology

Atherstone, Andrew and David Ceri Jones, Engaging with Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Life and Legacy of the ‘Doctor’ (Nottingham, 2011).**

Bainton, Roland, Here I Stand: Martin Luther (New York, 1950).*

Bebbington, David, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (London and Boston, 1989).**

Beeke, Joel and Mark Jones, A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (Grand Rapids, Mich., 2012).**

Brown, Peter, Augustine of Hippo: A Biography (London, 1969).**

Dallimore, Arnold, George Whitefield: The Life and Times of the Great Evangelist of the 18th Century Revival (Edinburgh, 1970, 1980), 2 vols.**

Edwards, Jonathan, The Works of Jonathan Edwards Online (http://edwards.yale.edu/), 73 vols. [Accessed 06/12/2021].*** 

Evans, Eifion, Bread of Heaven: The Life and Work of William Williams, Pantycelyn (Bryntirion, 2010).*

Evans, Eifion, Daniel Rowland and the Great Evangelical Awakening in Wales (Edinburgh, 1985).*

Gordon, Bruce, Calvin (London and Yale, 2009).*

Hindmarsh, D. Bruce, The Spirit of Early Evangelicalism: True Religion in a Modern World (Oxford and New York, 2017).***

Jones, David Ceri, ‘A Glorious Work in the World’: Welsh Methodism and the International Evangelical Revival: 1735–1750 (Cardiff, 2004).***

Jones, Paul Dafydd and Paul T. Nimmo (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Karl Barth (Oxford, 2019).***

Kidd, Thomas S., The Great Awakening: The Roots of Evangelical Christianity in Colonial America (Yale, 2009).**

MacCulloch, Diarmaid, A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years (London, 2010).**

MacCulloch, Diarmaid, Reformation: Europe’s House Divided (London, 2004).**

Maddox, Responsible Grace: John Wesley’s Practical Theology (Nashville, Tenn., 1994).**

Marsden, George, Jonathan Edwards: A Life (New Haven, 2003).**

Marsh, Charles, Strange Glory: A Life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (New York, 2014).**

McClymond, Michael J., and Gerald R. McDermott, The Theology of Jonathan Edwards (Oxford, 2011).***

Morgan, Densil, The SPCK Introduction to Karl Barth (London, 2010).**  

Morgan, Derec Llwyd, The Great Awakening in Wales (London, 1988).**

Muller, Richard, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (Oxford and New York, 2003).***

Muller, Richard, The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition (Oxford and New York, 2000).***

Murray Iain, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Fight of Faith 1939–1981 (Edinburgh, 1990).**

Murray, Iain, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The First Forty Years 1899–1939 (Edinburgh, 1982).**

Murray, Iain, The Puritan Hope: A Study in Revival and the Interpretation of Prophecy (London, 1971).*

Packer, J. I., Among God’s Giants: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life (Eastbourne, 1991).**

Pelikan, Jaroslav, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (London and Chicago, 1971–1989), 5 vols.***

Rack, Henry D., Reasonable Enthusiast: John Wesley and the Rise of Methodism (London, 1992).**

Reeves, Michael, Introducing Major Theologians: From the Apostolic Fathers to the Twentieth Century (Nottingham, 2015).*

Reeves, Michael, The Unquenchable Flame: Introducing the Reformation (Nottingham, 2009).*

Ryken, Leland, Worldly Saints: The Puritans as they really were (Grand Rapids, 2010).*

Ryrie, Alec, Protestants: The Radicals who made the Modern World (London, 2017).**

Stout, Harry, The Divine Dramatist: George Whitefield and the Rise of Modern Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids, Mich. 1991).**

Sweeney, Douglas A., and Jan Stievermann (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Jonathan Edwards (Oxford, 2021).***

Tudur, Geraint, Howell Harris: From Conversion to Separation 1735–1750 (Cardiff, 2000).** 

Wright, Tom, Paul: A Biography (London, 2018).**

Zaspel, Fred G., The Theology of B. B. Warfield: A Systematic Survey (Nottingham, 2010).**  

Apologetics and Philosophy

Collins, Francis S., The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (New York, 2006).*

Craig, William Lane, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (Wheaton, Ill., 1994).**

Keller, Timothy, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Scepticism (London, 2009).*

Lewis, C. S., Mere Christianity (1952).*

Lewis, C. S., Miracles (1947, 1960).*

Moreland, J. P. Scaling the Secular City: A Defence of Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI., 1987).**

Plantinga, Alvin, Knowledge and Christian Belief (Grand Rapids, Mich., 2015).* 

Plantinga, Alvin, Warranted Christian Belief (Oxford, 2004).***

Schaeffer, Francis, Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy: The God Who is There, Escape From Reason, He is There, and He is Not Silent (Nottingham, 2018).**   

Schaeffer, Francis, How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture (London, 1976).**

Swinburne, Richard, Are we Bodies or Souls? (Oxford, 2019).**

Swinburne, Richard, Is there a God? (Oxford, 2010).**

Swinburne, Richard, The Existence of God (Oxford, 2004).***

Swinburne, Richard, The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Oxford, 2004).** 

Miscellaneous Topics

Athanasius, On the Incarnation (c. 318).*

Augustine of Hippo, Confessions (c.397–400).**

Barth, Karl, Evangelical Theology: An Introduction (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1979).**

Barth, Karl, The Epistle to the Romans, 6th ed. (Oxford, 1928).***

Boston, Thomas, Human Nature in its Fourfold State (Edinburgh, 1720).**

Bunyan, John, Pilgrim’s Progress (1678).*

Kuyper Abraham, Common Grace (Bellingham, WA, 2016–2020), 3 vols.***

Kuyper, Abraham, Lectures on Calvinism (Peabody, Mass, 2008).**

Letham, Robert, The Holy Trinity in Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship (Phillipsburg, NJ, 2004).**

Machen, J. Gresham, Christianity and Liberalism (Grand Rapids, Mich., 2009).**

Macleod, Donald, A Faith to Live By: Understanding Christian Doctrine (Fearn, 2010).*

McGrath, Alister E., Iustita Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (Cambridge, 1998).***

Milton, John, Paradise Lost (1667).***

Murray, John, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids, 1955).**

Murray, John, The Collected Writings of John Murray (Edinburgh, 1982), 4 vols.***

Packer, J. I., Knowing God (London, 2011).*

Stott, John, The Cross of Christ, centennial ed. (London, 2021).*

Williams, Rowan, Christ: The Heart of Creation (London, 2018).***

Wright, N. T., Jesus and the Victory of God (London, 1996).***

Wright, N. T., Paul and the Faithfulness of God (London, 2013), 2 vols.***

Wright, N. T., The New Testament and the People of God (London, 1992).***

Wright, N. T., The Resurrection of the Son of God (London, 2003).***

Wright, Tom. Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church (London, 2007).**

An Analysis of William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith

William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed. (Wheaton, Ill., 2008)

William Lane Craig is an analytic philosopher, Christian apologist, and theologian. He is an advocate of the kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God and argues for the historical plausibility of the resurrection of Jesus. Reasonable Faith seeks both to educate Christians concerning various aspects of apologetics and natural theology and persuade non-believers of the truth of Christian theism. Craig believes that Christian apologetics can be influential in shaping culture, strengthening believers, and challenging non-believers to accept the claims of Christianity. This article will explore in some detail the argument and apologetic of Reasonable Faith with the hope that it will persuade sceptics that God exists and that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead.   

How do I know Christianity is true?

Craig considers the perspectives of several Christian philosophers and theologians on this subject of the truth of Christianity. Augustine (354–430), he argues, adopted the position of faith seeking understanding (fides quaerens intelectum), while also giving considerable weight to the authority and existence of the Catholic Church. The witness of the Church to the Apostolic testimony concerning Christ was considered to be a reasonable argument for believing in the existence of God and the historical plausibility of the resurrection. Modern critics would not find such an appeal to authority as persuasive as medieval Christians, for whom the authority of the Church was paramount. Nonetheless, Augustine believed that the faith itself gave good reasons for believing.

This is not to say that medieval Christians had no arguments for the existence of God and person of Christ. St Thomas Aquinas (1225–74), for example, is widely considered to be one of the most important Western philosophers. He is well-known for his Quinque Viae or Five Ways. These are logical arguments for the existence of God based on the idea of a prime mover, causation, contingency, degree, and final causes or ends. He is equally well known for his distinction between faith and reason. The Church believes certain doctrines such as the Trinity and the incarnation on the basis of faith; whereas other doctrines such as the existence of God may be deduced from reason. Doctrines such as the Trinity and the incarnation are not contrary to reason, but they are mysterious and require a commitment of faith based on divine revelation in Scripture.

During the Enlightenment, two prominent Christian scholars who made the case for Christianity were John Locke (1632–1704) and Henry Dodwell (1641–1711). Locke argued for the existence of God on the basis of a cosmological argument. He insisted that revealed truths in Scripture cannot contradict reason and made the case for the reasonableness of Christianity. He insisted that Christianity had to be rational. His ideas were largely followed and pressed to the extreme by Deists who argued for the existence of God but denied his personal involvement in the world through miracle or providence. Dodwell by way of contrasts protested against the rational presentation of Christianity and argued for its subjective basis in Christian experience of the Holy Spirit. Religion is primarily a matter of the heart. A similar case for the experiential nature of Christian religion was made by John Wesley (1703–91) and George Whitefield (1714–70) during the 18th century evangelical revival. Wesley famously described faith as a warm embrace of the heart.

Contemporary theologians such as Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann have been skeptical of natural theology and apologetics. Barth was committed to a transcendental conception of God as the ‘wholly other’.  Even so, he maintained that God has revealed himself in a person: Jesus Christ. True religion consists of a personal encounter with Jesus as revealed in Scripture. ‘He meets us as the One who is hidden, the One about whom we must admit that we do not know what we are saying when we try to say who He is’ (cited on p. 36). Like Barth, Bultmann conceives of God transcendentally and argues that faith is necessary to salvation. This faith must involve some risk and uncertainty. There are parallels with existentialist philosophy in this regard – you must choose, take a risk on Christ Jesus.  

Wolfhart Pannenberg (1928–2014), a German Lutheran theologian, ushered in a new phase in European theology with a rigorously evidential approach.  His concept of history as a form of revelation focused on the resurrection of Christ. Christianity must take seriously the findings of historical-critical research. In the words of William Lane Craig, ‘If the historical foundation for faith were removed, then Christianity should be abandoned’ (p. 39). By way of contrast to Pannenberg’s evidentialist approach, Alvin Plantinga (b. 1932) has argued that Christian belief is warranted without any evidential considerations. In other words, belief in God is properly basic. In this regard, he follows John Calvin’s idea of the sensus divinitatis or ‘sense of deity’ implanted in human beings by the divine being. This testimony to the existence of God in all human beings, though marred by the fall, is further strengthened in the Christian by the internal witness of the Holy Spirit. In response to these views, William Lane Craig rises to the defence of natural theology and apologetics. He maintains that there is a distinction between knowing that Christianity is true and showing that it is true. ‘We know Christianity is true primarily by the self-authenticating witness of God’s Spirit. We show Christianity is true by presenting good arguments’ (p. 58). These arguments are considered in the following chapters.

The Absurdity of Life without God

The second chapter considers what might be termed ‘cultural arguments’ for the truth of Christian theism. These aim to show the absurdity of life without God. Blaise Pascal was one of the first philosophers to make a cultural argument for the existence of God. This is his famous wager argument. When the odds that God exists are even, the wise man will gamble that God exists. ‘If one wagers that God exists and he does, one has gained eternal life and infinite happiness. If he does not exist, one has lost nothing’ (p. 68). Those who gain Christ, gain everything. Fyodor Dotoyevsky approaches a cultural argument from a more pessimistic viewpoint. He was deeply troubled by the problem of human suffering in the world and tries to comprehend it in his novels. Positively, God may use suffering to perfect character and bring the sufferer closer to God – witness the example of Job in the Old Testament for instance. Negatively, if the existence of God is denied, there is no basis for evaluating whether an action is moral or immoral. All that remains is moral relativism and indifference.

Soren Kierkegaard (1813–55), the Danish existentialist philosopher of the late 19th century, presents a negative apologetic for the truth of Christianity. He sees life as being lived on three different stages: the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious. In the aesthetic stage, life is pleasure – man lives for his pleasures (sex, art, music, etc.). But eventually he becomes dissatisfied with the pursuit of pleasure and it leads ultimately to unhappiness. What then? There is the ethical stage. The transition to this stage is motivated by dissatisfaction with the aesthetic – a kind of leap between stages. The ethical stage is concerned with right living and moral perfection. The problem with this is that moral perfection is unattainable. We will always fall short of God standard (cf. Romans 3:23). This leads to guilt and dissatisfaction and drives human beings towards the religious stage. Man seeks consolation with God – forgiveness for sin. This stage is reached by a leap of faith, not rational argument. It essentially is a leap into the dark in Kierkegaard’s view, but it is only by such a choice that man can authentic or realise himself and alleviate existential despair.

Arguably, Francis Schaeffer (1912–84) is the most well-known advocate of cultural apologetics. He argues that there is a ‘line of despair’ in the history of the development of the arts, humanities, literature and philosophy. The closer one approaches postmodernism the more fragmentation one discovers. He believes the problem began with Hegelian philosophy. Hegel is famous for the triad: thesis – antithesis – synthesis as the path to truth. The problem is that this process may be repeated endlessly, never allowing one to arrive at a place of cognitive rest, resulting in despair. The Theatre of the Absurd, abstract modern art, the music compositions of John Cage are all modern indications of despair and absurdity in this regard. Life without God ultimately leads towards meaninglessness and vanity. Building on Schaeffer’s approach, Craig makes the argument that life without God tends towards death. If death is the end of all being, both personal and cosmic, then what it is the ultimate point of existence? Christianity offers real hope in the resurrection of Christ. As Jesus said, ‘I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live’ (John 11:25).

Arguments for the Existence of God

In the third and fourth chapters of Reasonable Faith, Craig identifies four main arguments for the existence of God: the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and the moral argument.

The ontological argument aims to prove not only that God exists, but also that he is endowed with all his traditional attributes of perfection (e.g. omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence etc.). The medieval theologian Anslem of Canterbury argued that God is the greatest conceivable being there is. Since it is greater for something to exist in reality than in the mind, God necessarily exists. This argument was thought to be more of a curiosity of language than a real argument for the existence of God. People quipped that you could imagine the greatest possible island to exist or conjure up unicorns simply by imagining them. However, it has become a serious argument in contemporary philosophy through the work of Alvin Plantinga. In his version of the argument, Plantinga conceives of God as a being who is ‘maximally excellent’ in every possible world. The argument is formulated in the words of William Lane Craig as follows:

1.       It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

2.       If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

3.       If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4.       If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

5.       If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

6.       Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

The cosmological argument came about through Christian attempts to deal with Aristotle’s notion of the eternity of the universe. Christians, by way of contrast, argued that the universe had a beginning. The argument runs as follows:

1.       Everything that beings to exist has a cause.

2.       The universe began to exist.

3.       Therefore, it has a cause.

This argument has been surprising ratified by contemporary physics. Modern physics argues that the universe had a beginning. This is known as the standard model of the Big Bang theory. William Lane Craig delves into modern physics in ways that most people would consider mind boggling. The point of the Big Bang theory is that the universe is not eternal as Aristotelian philosophers had maintained. It had a beginning. In fact, in came into being out of nothing. This is just what we would expect to be the case if Christianity were true. Christians have maintained for over 2000 years that God created the universe out of nothing (ex nihilo). Robert Jastrow, an American astronomer and planetary physicist, makes the point with some considerable humour:

For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

Another form of this argument is the Leibnizian cosmological argument based on the principle of sufficient reason. The argument may be formulated as follows:

1.       Everything which comes into existence has a sufficient explanation of its existence.

2.       If the universe had an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

3.       The universe exists

4.       Therefore, the universe had an explanation of its existence.

5.       Therefore, God exists.

The cosmological argument answers one of the deepest questions posed by philosophers: why is there something rather than nothing? The answer is that reality (‘something’) has an explanation, namely the Creator who called ‘something’ into existence out of nothing.

One of the most popular arguments for the existence of God is the teleological argument or the argument from design. This argument considers the complexity of the cosmos to be evidence for an Intelligent Designer. Perhaps, the most famous advocate of the argument from design was William Paley (1743–1805). Paley argued that human objects such as a watch are products of intelligent design. Likewise, the universe shows evidence of design. Consider for example the complexity of a living organism or of the human cell. This would suggest that the universe itself is a product of intelligent design in the same way that a watch is the product of a designer. However, the universe is vastly more complex and infinitely larger than a watch. Therefore, there is probably a vastly powerfully and intelligent being who created the universe. And this is what we would expect to be the case if Christianity were true.

It is often said that Charles Darwin put an end to the argument from design by showing that biological life had evolved and adapted to changing environments over time. It could however be argued that evolution simply adds to the complexity of the design process by which God created the world – this perspective is known as theistic evolution or evolutionary creationism. However, William Lane Craig does not take this approach in his book. Rather, he invites the reader to consider what is known in the scientific world as cosmic fine-tuning. There are several universal constants according to physics (the fine structure constant, gravitation, the weak force, the strong force) as well as the ratio between the mass of a proton and the mass of an electron. If these constants were changed even by a tiny amount, life and the universe as we know it would be impossible. This strongly suggests that the universe is a product of design rather than chance.

The final argument for the existence of God is the moral argument. This attempts to show from the objectivity of moral values and duties the existence of God considered as a divine lawgiver. William Lane Craig formulates the argument as follows:

1.       If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2.       Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3.       Therefore, God exists.

A common objection to the moral argument is the Euthyphro dilemma, named after a dialogue by Plato. Is something good because God wills it? Or does God will something because it is good? The first implies that moral commands are arbitrary. The latter implies that the is some standard to which even God is beholden. In response to this dilemma, William Lane Craig shows that God’s commands are an expression of his just and loving nature. God himself is our highest good and the standard of goodness itself. It is important to stress that this argument is not saying that atheists and agnostics are immoral. It is merely pointing out that they have no objective basis for evaluating moral values and duties. Humanists live on borrowed capital.

The Problem of Historical Knowledge

As Christianity is a religion revealed in history, it is important for Christian apologists to familiarise themselves with method in history. William Lane Craig takes aim at postmodern and relativistic views of history in this chapter. He argues that medieval theologians did not really consider the problem of history in relation to Christianity. They accepted truths on the authority of the Catholic church. St Augustine famously said, ‘I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic church did not bid me to do so’. Christianity was accepted on this basis of ecclesiastical witness to the Apostolic testimony. The emergence of an historical consciousness came with the Renaissance and progressed into the early modern period. Renaissance writers emphasised the importance of going back to the original sources of antiquity. Their slogan ad fontes (‘to the sources’) encapsulates this idea. This became an important feature of historical consciousness in modern society – going back to the original sources for evidence, rather than merely accepting something on the authority of the Church. The Protestant Reformers were deeply influenced by these ideas and emphasised going back to the Scriptures as the principal source for understanding the history of Israel, Jesus Christ, and the Apostolic Church. They summarised this approach in their slogan Sola Scriptura (‘scripture alone’).

The turn towards relativism emerged with modern commitments to historicism and postmodernism. The historian was seen as hopelessly biased by his own worldview and had no direct access to events of the past. There was simply no way of doing history without it being relativized by one’s own perspective and biases. The problem with postmodernism and relativism is that they are self-refuting. Postmodernism claims that there is no absolute truth and expresses incredulity towards metanarratives. The problem with this is that claiming ‘there is no absolute truth’ is itself an attempt to formulate an absolute truth. In other words, the claim refutes itself.  William Lane Craig suggests that it is possible to do history scientifically. This is not to say that historians can reach a neutral perspective of unbiased observation. This would be impossible. It is a more modest claim that historians can put forward hypothesis and test them against the evidences of history (written documents, coins, weapons, pottery, works of art etc.). This is similar to how scientists test hypothesis in evolutionary biology or geology. They have no direct access to the past as it has already happened (sometimes millions of years ago), but they are able to test their hypothesis against the residue evidence of the past in the fossil or geological record. Historians do the same with their sources.

William Lane Craig suggests six ways that the historian can mitigate a lack of neutrality:

1.       A proper historical method.

2.       Public acknowledgement of one’s horizon and methodology.

3.       Peer pressure and review by the community of historians.

4.       Submitting hypothesis to experts who disagree with you.

5.       The presence of certain minimal facts agreed on by all historians.

6.       A serious effort at detachment from one’s own biases.

It has sometimes been suggested that there are no facts in history, only interpretations. There is something sinister about this view of history. Imagine telling a Holocaust survivor that there are no facts about WWII, only interpretations. That would do serious injustices to her experiences of the Holocaust which she knows to be a fact from experience. While it is true that all facts must be interpreted, it does not stand to reason to say there are no facts at all. The historian actually needs data to interpret. He must work with facts all the time. And while he cannot avoid brining his own biases to the interpretation process, he is nonetheless able to mitigate against his own biases through the methods suggested above.

The Problem of Miracles

It is sometimes suggested by atheists that Christians are returning to a pre-critical view of the world by believing in the miracles of Christ and his Apostles. This they argue is no different to believing in fairies, ghosts, and unicorns. These arguments first emerged during the Enlightenment. On the basis of Newtonian physics, Deist philosophers argued that God had created the universe much like a clockmaker makes a clock. He fashioned all the various parts, wound up the clock, and left it ticking. He did not intervene through miracle or providence. Benedict Spinoza (1632–77) – a pantheist philosopher – argued that miracles violate the unchangeable order of nature and are insufficient to prove God’s existence.

David Hume (1711–76) made similar arguments against the miraculous. Even if we admit that a particular miracle amounts to full proof for the existence of God, we are under no obligation to identify the event as a miracle. Why? Because against this perspective is the evidence of the unchanging laws of nature which do not allow for miracles to occur. William Lane Craig suggests that Hume makes four points against the miraculous:

1.       No miracle in history had been attested to by a significant number of educated and honest men.

2.       People crave the miraculous and will believe the most absurd stories.

3.       Miracles occur only among barbarous people.

4.       Miracles occur in all religions and thereby cancel each other out, since they support contradictory doctrines.

Several philosophers and apologists responded the arguments of Spinoza and Hume. Against Spinoza, Jean Le Clerc, Samuel Clarke, Jacob Vernet, and Claude Francois made their voices heard. Against Hume, Thomas Sherlock, Gottfried Less, and William Paley put forward arguments in defence of Christian theism. Christians argued, given God’s omnipotence, that miracles are possible. If God created the world, does he not also have the power to give sight to the blind and life to the dead? God conserves the world in being and may freely act according to his sovereignty as he wills. The course of nature is simply the regular pattern of God will. It is subject to God’s freedom to alter it as he wills.  It may even ‘include within itself the capacity for miraculous events’ (p. 258). Miracles could be willed from eternity so that there is no change in God’s decrees or natural law since this is established by God in the first place. Contra Deism, miracles prove the action and involvement of God personally in the world. If the existence of God is presupposed, miracles are just as possible as any other event. Moreover, miracles are matters of sense perception just like any other event and are therefore capable of being supported by historical testimony.  John emphasises the empirical nature of the resurrected Christ in his first epistle. He refers to Jesus as ‘that which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched – this we proclaim concerning the Word of life’ (1 John 1:1).

Some argued that there was no way of knowing whether the miraculous was a product of divine or demonic intervention. Christian theologians responded by arguing that the doctrinal context in which the miracle was preformed allowed one to determine if the miracle was divine. The context of the Christian Gospels plainly shows Christ to be working miracles by the power of God the Holy Spirit. The same is true of His followers in the Acts of the Apostles. It was the Pharisees who argued that Christ preformed his miraculous exorcisms by the power of the devil. Jesus responded by arguing that if he were to cast out devils by demonic power, the kingdom of Satan would be divided against itself and therefore could not stand. He warned the pharisees that they were in danger of committing the unforgiveable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. This leads us to the question of who exactly Christ considered himself to be.

The Self-Understanding of Jesus

Craig explores the scholarly research that has been undertaken throughout the late 19th and 20th centuries. This has involved the so-called quest for the historical Jesus. There have been exactly three such quests – all coming to similar dead ends. The problem as Craig identifies it with the quest for the historical Jesus is the tendency of scholars to separate the Christ of faith from the Christ of history. It is taken for granted that the Christ who preforms miracles, heals the sick, and raises the dead cannot be an historical Christ. But why should this be the case? If you presuppose from the outset that miracles cannot happen, then you will find that miracles do not happen in your conclusions. What if the Christ of history is the Christ of miracles? This leads to the question of Christ’s identity. Who did Jesus consider himself to be? Craig explores several Christological titles and themes in the New Testament to answer this question.

As we read the Gospels, it becomes increasingly clear that Christ considered himself to be the Messiah. This is what the title Christos actually means. It is so familiar in the New Testament documents that it actually becomes something of a surname for Jesus. Famously, Jesus put the question to his disciples: who do you say that I am? And Peter answers, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God’ (Matthew 16:16). Jesus ratifies his statement by saying, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven’ (v.17). Jesus clearly understood himself to fulfil the necessary conditions for being called both ‘the Christ’ and ‘the Son of God’.

When John the Baptist has some doubts from his condition in prison, he sends some of his followers to Jesus with the question, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?’ (Matthew 11:3). Jesus responds by saying, ‘Go back and report to John what you hear and see: the blind receive sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and good news is preached to the poor’ (Matthew 11:4). In other words, the signs of the Messiah that were predicted under the Old Covenant are now being fulfilled in the ministry of Christ. However, his kingdom is not political or revolutionary, but peaceful. Not only does Christ fulfil the role of the Messiah, he is also the Suffering Servant represented in the book of Isaiah. This is something Jesus tried to explain to his disciples before the events of the crucifixion: ‘The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day raised to life’ (Luke 9:22). This is something no-one expected of the Messiah, but it says much about Christ’s self-understanding as the sacrificial lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (cf. John 1:29).

Craig explores three texts in which Jesus presents himself as the Son of God. Firstly, he considers the parable of the wicked tenants (Mark 12:1–9) in which the owner (God) ultimately sends his son (Jesus) to the wicked tenants (Pharisees and Sadducees) who put him to death (crucifixion). Clearly Jesus sees himself as the climatic aspect of this parable in which the owner sends his own beloved son. It would be difficult to claim that this parable was tampered with by the early Church as without this aspect the parable would lack any climax and purpose. Jesus’ self-understanding becomes particularly clear in Matthew 11:27: ‘All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him’ (Matthew 11:27; cf. Luke 10:22). According to Craig, this text tells us that Jesus considered himself to be the Son of God and the one who reveals God the Father (p. 312). The final text Craig considers in which Jesus refers to himself as the Son of God is Mark 13:32: ‘But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father’. This text is interesting in that it refers to Jesus in relation to the Father as the Son of God, but it also ascribes ignorance to Christ which would have been potentially embarrassing to the early Church. The fact that it is retained in the Gospel of Mark is an indication of its authenticity.   

Jesus also understood himself to be the Son of Man which occurs over eighty times in the Gospels. It is important to note that Jesus did not consider himself to be ‘a son of man’, but ‘the Son of Man’ with the definite article (ho huios tou anthropou). In other words, Jesus considered himself to be the Son of Man as described in the book of Daniel:

I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom on that shall not be destroyed’ (Daniel 7:13–14).

Jesus considers himself to fulfil this passage of profound eschatological significance. Daniel describes one who is both human (‘a son of man’) and yet charged with a dominion and a glory that is God-like and divine. It anticipates the Church’s teaching of hypostatic union – that Jesus is both fully God and fully man in one remarkable person.

All three of the titles considered above come together at Jesus’ trial. In the words of Mark’s Gospel:

And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, ‘Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?’ But he was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ And Jesus said, ‘I am; and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven’. And the high priest tore his mantle and said, ‘Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard this blasphemy. What is your decision?’ And they all condemned him as deserving death (Mark 14:60–64).  

Here Jesus refers to himself as the Son of the Blessed (God), the Son of Man who will sit at God’s right hand, and the eschatological figure of Daniel who will come with the clouds of heaven. These claims were blasphemous to Jewish ears and demanded the death penalty. Jesus was claiming not only to be the Messiah, but also God himself in the flesh. Craig also argues that there is an implicit Christology in the ministry of Christ. His preaching of the Kingdom, his authority, his miracles, his prayer life, and his status as the arbiter of people’s eternal destiny all serve to authenticate his divinity and messianic claims. 

The Resurrection of Jesus

William Lane Craig begins with an assessment of the historical background to apologetics for Christ’s resurrection particularly as it found expression during the Deist controversy of the eighteenth century. Christians argued that the Gospels are authentic witnesses to Christ and his resurrection, that the Gospel texts are themselves pure, and that the Gospels are historically reliable. Craig suggests that this approach is flawed in the light of modern Biblical criticism and requires a more careful apologetic for the resurrection on the part of the Christian. This is not to say that their arguments are worthless, only that modern Biblical criticism has raised new questions that need to be answered. Here are the traditional arguments for the resurrection as argued against Deism:

The Gospels are Authentic – Internal Evidence

1.       The style of writing in the Gospels is what we would expect from the traditionally accepted authors – a simple and lively style pervades the synoptic Gospels, rather than anything fantastical or legendary.

2.       Luke was written before the Acts of the Apostles and must therefore have an early date of composition.

3.       The Gospels show an intimate knowledge of Jerusalem before its destruction in 70 AD. Jesus’ prophecies of this event must have been written prior to Jerusalem’s fall. This implies that the Gospels must have been written before 70AD as Jesus foretells the destruction of the temple and the fall of Jerusalem.

4.       The Gospels are full of proper names, dates, cultural details, historical events, and customs and opinions of that time.

5.       The stories of Jesus’ human weaknesses and of the disciples’ faults also reveal their authenticity.

6.       The Gospels do no try to supress apparent discrepancies which indicates that they are genuine accounts, rather than harmonised fabrications.

7.       The style of each particular Gospel is appropriate to what we know of their authorship. Luke for example reveals the meticulous method appropriate to his profession as a physician.

8.       The Gospels do not contain anachronisms.

9.       The Hebraic and Syriac idioms that mark the Gospels are appropriate to their authorship.

The Gospels are Authentic – External Evidence

1.       The Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament are themselves evidence for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

2.       The Gospels and Acts are cited by several authors beginning with those contemporary with the Apostles themselves and continuing with the early Church Fathers. William Paley, for instance, traces testimonies from the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle of Clement, and the Shepherd of Hermas up to Eusebius in 315 AD.

3.       The Gospels and Epistles were cited as being Scripture by the Church Fathers or as actually having canonical authority on a par with the Old Testament.

4.       These New Testament Scriptures were collected into a distinct volume of writings within the Patristic community.

5.       These writings were given titles of respect by the Church Fathers. They were referred to as the Scriptures and divine writings.

6.       Extensive commentaries and harmonies were written on the books of the New Testament showing that they – and they alone – were considered to be Scriptures by the early Church.

7.        The Scriptures were also accepted as canonical and authoritative by heretical groups and opponents of the Church Fathers.

8.       The opponents of Christianity regarded the Gospels as containing the authoritative accounts upon which the religion was founded.

9.       Catalogues of authentic Scriptures were published by the Church Fathers which always contained the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles.

10.   The so-called apocryphal books of the New Testament were never treated with the same kind of respect and authority as the canonical New Testament.

11.   Even if the names traditionally ascribed to the Gospels are mistaken, their accounts must nevertheless be regarded as genuine based on all the considerations given above.

The Text of the Gospels is Pure

1.       The text of the Gospels we have today is the same as the original autographs.

2.       The manuscripts of the New Testament were copied many times over which allowed for the original text to be preserved.

3.       As William Lane Craig points out, ‘no other ancient work is available in so many copies and languages, and yet all of these versions agree in content’ (p. 337).

4.       The differences that do exist are relatively minor and have no theological implications.

5.       The text of the New Testament is just as well preserved as the texts of classical antiquity, if not better.

6.       The quotations from the New Testament books and the early Church Fathers coincide – meaning there has been no textual corruption over time.  

The Gospels are Reliable

If the account of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection is false, then the Apostles must either have been deceived or were themselves deceivers. Since both of these alternatives are implausible, it follows that the Gospel accounts are historically reliable. The witnesses to the resurrection had ‘personal knowledge of the facts of an extended period of forty days’ (p. 337). It seems highly unlikely that so many witnesses could be deceived over such a length of time. It is therefore unreasonable to ascribe their experiences to imagination, dreaming, or hallucinations. In response to the claim that the experiences of Jesus’ resurrection were hallucinations or the product of religious enthusiasm, William Paley argues that more than one person saw Christ appear – in fact there were several hundred witnesses. Could they all be the subject of hallucinations? It seems unlikely to say the least. They saw him not as individuals but together – at the same time. They saw him appear on multiple occasions. They touched him, conversed with him, ate with him. The tomb was empty. It would have been impossible for Jesus’ disciples to have believed in his resurrection if someone could have produced a body or if the corpse was still in the tomb. The Jewish authorities who were opposed to Jesus would have produced a corpse with haste – but they could not. All they could do was to claim the disciples had stolen the body. If they had stolen the body, how did they get past the armed guard which was put in place by the Romans and Herodians? It seems unlikely therefore that the disciples had been able to overcome armed Roman soldiers and a sealed tomb.

Were the disciples deceivers? Again, this seems deeply unlikely. They were willing to give their lives and suffer martyrdom for the resurrected Jesus. Why would someone give his life for something he knows to be a lie? It is very clear that Christians gave their life for the miraculous account of Jesus’ resurrection. All the early Church Fathers refer to Christ’s miracles and resurrection. It is clear that those who suffered and died in the early Church because of their testimony as Christians were doing so because they believed Christ had risen from the dead. Why would they die for a lie? The disciples were not cunning men or Machiavellian masters of political intrigue. They were common men of unquestioned moral integrity. Why would they risk their lives and reputation for a hoax they had conceived? It would be a pretty stupid hoax that led to one’s own death. Their lives were dramatically changed by the resurrection. They went from a place of grief and utter despair to a place of hope and joyful certainty and bravely suffered for their witness. Would these uneducated disciples have been able to persuade the world of Jesus’ resurrection had not their story been true? How would one explain the origin of the Church if Christ had not risen from the dead?

The Rise of Biblical Criticism

Craig considers the rise of Biblical criticism during the 19th century and the impact this had on traditional arguments for the resurrection. This criticism took the form of Rationalism – a sort of half-way house between Christianity and Deism. Critics charged that the disciples stole the body and invented the stories of a resurrection to turn Jesus into a spiritual Messiah. Others made distinctions between the Word of God and the Scriptures to allow Christianity in by the back door. The Scriptures were subject to doubt and criticism as fallible historical documents, but the Word of God was the domain of faith and holy practice. Jesus’ teachings were seen as the key to his ministry, not his death and resurrection. For the Rationalists, belief in a literal resurrection was not essential to being a Christian.

David Friedrich Strauss (1808–74) argued that the miracles of Christ and the resurrection were the work of religious imagination. The disciples simply could not bear to lose their master, therefore they revived him in myth and legend. The resurrection was simply an inner state of mind on the part of the disciple. The disciples did not deceive neither were they deceived. The fact that the resurrection was ahistorical did not rob it of religious significance. ‘A spiritual truth may be revealed within the husk of a delusion’ (p. 346). The disciples found the dying and glorified Christ in the Scriptures of the Old Testament. Hallucinations of the risen Christ appeared to them and confirmed what they had found in the Old Testament – Jesus must be alive. Jesus was neither liar, lunatic, nor Lord; he was legend.

During the 20th century, Karl Barth famously championed the theology of the resurrection, but denied that it was a literal event of history. In his commentary on the book of Romans he said, ‘The resurrection touches history as a tangent touches a circle – that is, without really touching it’. Bultmann argued that the miraculous elements of the Gospel must be demythologised if they are to have any meaning for modern readers. The true Christian message is the call to authentic existence in the light of the cross. However, a significant change occurred during the late 20th century towards views more accepting of the resurrection of Christ and testimony of an empty tomb. The most significant theologian in this regard is Wolfhart Pannenberg who establishes his entire theology on the historical ministry and resurrection of Christ.

Arguments for the Resurrection

N. T. Wright (b. 1948) in his landmark study The Resurrection of the Son of God (2003) argues that early Christians (the apostles and disciples of Christ) believed in a physical, bodily resurrection. The best explanation for this belief is the disciples’ discovery of an empty tomb and the subsequent appearances of the risen Christ to many witnesses. This hypothesis has the explanatory power to account for the belief in Jesus’ resurrection. Rival hypotheses such as dreams about Jesus, hallucinations, the body being stolen lack the explanatory power to account for that belief among early Christians. By way of conclusion, the best explanation for the empty tomb and the post-mortem appearances of Christ is that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead. Craig faults N. T. Wright for not taking the step of committing Christ’s resurrection to an act of history. This is presumably because miracles are off limits to the historian. But why should this be the case? Physicists, for example, work with entities to which they have no direct access such as stings, higher dimensional membranes, quarks, and even parallel universes. Why should the historian not be able to account for the resurrection on the basis of the historical evidence for an empty tomb and the post-mortem resurrection appearances of Christ?

According to William Lane Craig, the hypothesis ‘God raised Jesus from the dead’ is the best explanation of the historical data available. He puts forward three main arguments for the resurrection:

1)      The tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his women followers on the first day of the week following his crucifixion (and we might add that this was later confirmed by the Apostles themselves).

2)      Various individuals and groups thereafter experienced on different occasions and under varying circumstances appearances of Jesus alive.

3)      The first disciples came to sincerely believe in Jesus’ resurrection in the absence of sufficient antecedent historical influences from either Judaism or pagan religions.

The event of the resurrection is not merely a brute fact of history, it is a fact charged with meaning. ‘The significance of this event is then to be found in the religio-historical context in which it occurred, namely, as the vindication of Jesus’ own unparalleled claim to divine authority’ (p. 360). William Lane Craig points to these three facts as evidence of Jesus’ resurrection: the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances, and the origin of the Christian religion.

The location of Jesus’ tomb was public knowledge to both Christians and Jews. He was buried in the expensive tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, a leading member of the Jewish Sanhedrin. If Jesus had not really died and been buried, the Jewish authorities would have been able to procure the body as evidence against the Apostles’ claims. Moreover, the fact of the empty tomb is attested in early independent sources. Paul quotes from a very early tradition in 1 Corinthians 15: 3–5 that refers to Jesus’ burial and resurrection. When the tradition says that Christ was buried and then was raised from the dead, it implies that an empty tomb was left behind. According to William Lane Craig, there are some six independent sources which can be traced in the New Testament manuscripts for the empty tomb.

According to the Markan account, the empty tomb was discovered on ‘the first day of the week’ – another indication of its authenticity. The Markan story itself is simple and lacks legendary embellishments. The tomb was discovered by women. Interestingly, women were not regarded as credible witnesses in Jewish society and were considered to be second class citizens. This only adds to credibility for the modern reader. Anyone seeking to fabricate the account would have made sure that men were the first witnesses of the empty tomb. It stands to reason therefore that the account of the women finding the tomb empty is thoroughly genuine. The Jewish leaders charged the disciples with sneaking past the guards and stealing the body, but this line of argument simply presupposes that the body was missing. The early Christian community responded by saying that the chief priests had bribed the guards to say this.

Some take the argument that Jesus never really died on the cross. This seems an incredible point of view given that Christ had been beaten half to death, nailed to a cross, and stabbed in his side with a Roman spear, out of which the pericardial fluid was said to flow. On top of this, how could a man who was half-dead move the stone, fight away the Roman guards, and present himself as a glorious risen Saviour to his disciples? It seems too incredible to believe. Craig comments, ‘Roman executioners could be relied upon to ensure that their victims were dead’ (p. 373–74). That the mortally wounded Jesus could then have gone about proclaiming himself as the risen Lord is sheer fantasy.

One of the earliest testimonies to the resurrection of Christ is found in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me (1 Corinthians 15: 3–8).

Paul testifies that the risen Christ appeared to multiple witnesses at different times and in different places. He appeared to Peter, the Twelve, James (his half-brother), then to all the Apostles again, and last of all to Paul. The conversion testimony of Paul is highly significant. Paul was a Jewish Rabbi, highly educated and profoundly gifted. He fiercely opposed Christianity to the extent of persecuting Christians and arranging their executions. Then he met with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus and his life was changed forever. He became one of the most astute advocates of the Christian faith and the first Christian theologian. In the words of William Lane Craig:

He left his position as a respected Jewish leader and became a Christian missionary: he entered a life of poverty, labour, and suffering. He was whipped, beaten, stoned and left for dead, shipwrecked three times, in constant danger, deprivation and anxiety. Finally, he made the ultimate sacrifice and was martyred for his faith at Rome. And it was all because on that day outside Damascus, he saw ‘Jesus our Lord’ (1 Corinthians 9:1).

The final point William Lane Craig makes concerns the emergence of the Church. Scholars have searched in vain for a pagan origin of Christian mythology. There is simply no parallel between the resurrection of Christ and the myths of Greece and Rome. In terms of Judaism, there was an expectation of resurrection, but this was believed to come at the end of history. It was thoroughly eschatological in nature. Nobody expected Jesus to rise from the dead. C. F. D Moule puts it like this:

If the coming into existence of the Nazarenes, a phenomenon undeniably attested by the New Testament, rips a great hole in history, a hole the size and the shape of the Resurrection, what does the secular historian propose to stop it up with? … The birth and rapid rise of the Christian Church … remain an unsolved enigma for any historian who refuses to take seriously the only explanation offered by the Church itself.

In the final analysis, we must all seriously face this question: what are we going to do with Jesus Christ? The Christian Church affirms that he is risen from the dead, that his tomb is empty, and that he lives in the power of an endless life. He claims to be both Lord and Saviour. He calls for you to submit to him in repentance and faith. Those who gain Christ, gain everything – the resurrection of the body and the glorious life of the world to come.

Conclusion

William Lane Craig’s account of Christian apologetics is a stellar example of Christian scholarship at its finest. It makes the case for God and the resurrection of Christ in innovative ways that respond to the questions of contemporary scholarship. It also has an historical dimension which answers questions from some of the greatest philosophers and theologians. For Craig, Christians know Christ experientially through the internal witness of the Holy Spirit. The arguments for the existence of God and the resurrection of Christ are supplementary to the internal witness. For the non-believer, Reasonable Faith sparks the important question of how we respond to Jesus. He claims to be the Messiah, the Son of God, and the Saviour of the world. What are we going to do with him?