The Legitimacy of Christian Apologetics
For many Christians in America, the journey to faith in Jesus Christ began as a small child. Born into a Christian home to parents who took great interest in passing their faith on to their children, believing in Jesus Christ and in the Scriptures that reveal Him to us, is as natural as the physical progression that takes them from childhood to a mature adult.
Many others, however, are not as blessed. Born into a home that is either neutral to the Christian faith, hostile to any faith at all, or committed a false god or religion, the journey to faith for these people filled with questions and searching for answers. It is this search for understanding that gives cause to the apologist. At the same time, there are also critics of the Christian faith that must be answered. Therefore, this, in essence, is the dual need for apologetics, to perform the necessary work of pre-evangelism to those seeking reasonable answers and to provide a strong defense to critics of the Christian faith.
As believers, God has given us the incredible privilege of being a witness for our Lord Jesus Christ. In addition to being ready with the gospel message, however, we are also commanded to “be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Peter 3:15).
Apologetics is defined as:
the discipline that deals with a rational defense of Christian faith. It comes from the Greek word apologia which means to give a reason or defense.[1]
C. Stephen Evans provides a scope and nature of apologetics:
Historically, apologetic arguments of various types have been given: philosophical arguments for the existence of God; arguments that the existence of God is compatible with suffering and evil; historical arguments, such as arguments from miracles and fulfilled prophecies; and arguments from religious experience, including mystical experience. Some distinguish positive apologetics, which attempts to argue for the truth of Christianity, from negative apologetics, which merely attempts to remove barriers to faith by responding to critical attacks.[2]
Norman L. Geisler, in the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, provides three reasons why apologetics is important:
1. God Commands It. Several New Testament Scriptures instruct the believer to be ready with a solid defense of the Christian Faith. These include 1 Peter 3:15, 2 Corinthians 10:5, Philippians 1:7; 16, Jude 3, Titus 1:9, and 2 Timothy 2:24-25. These verses, written by the Apostles to the first century church, can be summarized as follows: be ready and contend for the faith.
2. Reason Demands It. “God created humans to reason as part of his image (Gen. 1:27; cf. Col. 3:10). God calls upon his people to use reason (Isa. 1:18) to discern truth from error (1 John 4:6) and right from wrong (Heb. 5:14).”[3]
3. The World Needs It. “People rightly refuse to believe without evidence. Since God created humans as rational beings, he expects them to live rationally, to look before they leap. This does not mean there is no room for faith. But God wants us to take a step of faith in the light of evidence, rather than to leap in the dark.”[4]
Some argue, however, that apologetics are not necessary. Geisler gives 12 general objections, and then answers each charge:
1. The Bible does not need to be defended. No Christian would accept a Muslim’s statement that “the Qur’an is alive and powerful and sharper than a two-edged sword.” We would demand evidence….[W]ithout evidence to establish one’s claim to authority, there is no good reason to accept that authority.[5]
2. God can’t be known by human reason. [E]ven though humankind knows clearly through human reason that God exists, he “suppresses” or “holds down” this truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18). It is not because mankind cannot know God by reason, rather, it is human depravity and foolish rejection of the message of the cross.[6]
3. Natural humanity can’t understand. “Paul insisted that “the man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 2:14). What use, then, is apologetics? In response to this argument against apologetics, it should be observed that Paul does not say that natural persons cannot perceive truth about God, but that they do not receive (Gk. δεκομαι, “welcome”) it.”[7]
4. Without faith one cannot please God. “God does call upon us to use our reason (1 Peter 3:15). Indeed, he has given “clear” (Rom. 1:20) and “infallible proofs” (Acts 1:3 NKJV). Second, this text in Hebrews does not exclude “evidence” but actually implies it. Faith is said to be “the evidence” of things we do not see (Heb. 11:1NKJV).”[8]
5. Jesus refused to give signs for evil men. “This does not mean that Jesus did not desire people to look at the evidence before they believed. Even in this passage Jesus went on to offer the miracle of his resurrection as a sign of who he was, saying no signs would be given, “except the sign of the prophet Jonah” (Matt. 12:39–40; cf. Luke 16:31).”[9]
6. Do not answer a fool according to his folly. “Don’t just argue with someone who will not listen to reason, or you will be just as foolish as he is. But if you are able to show a person the error of his thinking in a way that he can understand, perhaps he will seek God’s wisdom rather than relying on his own.”[10]
7. Apologetics is not used in the Bible. “But apologetics is used in the Bible. Even those familiar with it don’t recognize it, since they don’t realize that what they are looking at is really apologetics.” From Moses to Jesus to Paul, “apologetics was done in the Bible whenever the truth claims of Judaism or Christianity came in conflict with unbelief.”[11] Perhaps the best illustration of this is found in the Gospel of John. In defining his purpose for his Gospel, John declares: “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name” (20:31). “John selected the signs he used with the apologetic purpose of creating intellectual (“that you may believe”) and spiritual (“that believing you may have life”) conviction about the Son of God.”[12]
8. Logic can’t tell us anything about God. “This objection is self-defeating. It says that logic doesn’t apply to this issue. But the statement itself is a statement claiming logical thinking about God. It appeals to logic because it claims to be true while its opposite is false. That claim, called the law of noncontradiction.”[13]
9. Logic cannot “prove” the existence of anything. “While mere logic cannot prove the existence of anything, we have undeniable knowledge that something exists. And once we know that something exists, then logic can help us determine whether it is finite or infinite. And if it is finite, logic can help us determine whether there is also an infinite being.”[14]
10. Reason is useless in religious matters. “[I] n Scripture God calls on us to use reason (Isa. 1:18; Matt. 22:36–37; 1 Peter 3:15). God is a rational being, and he created us to be rational beings. God would not insult the reason he gave us by asking us to ignore it in such important matters as our beliefs about him.”[15]
11. You can’t prove God by reason. This is, perhaps, the most difficult objection. As Geisler observes, “If ‘prove’ means to demonstrate with mathematical certainty, then most theists would agree that God’s existence cannot be proven. This is because mathematical certainty deals only with the abstract, and the existence of God (or anything else) is a matter of the concrete.” [16] Geisler continues, “The reason one cannot prove God by logical necessity is that formal logic, like mathematics, deals with the abstract. Unless one begins with something that exists, he can never get out of the purely theoretical realm….Unless we know something exists, then logic cannot help us to know whether God exists. And logic by itself cannot tell us whether anything exists.”[17]
12. No one is converted through apologetics. “If this implies that the Holy Spirit never uses apologetic evidence to bring people to Christ, this is clearly false. God has used evidence and reason in some way to reach virtually all adults who come to Christ.”[18]
My personal position on this issue.
Clearly, while the objections to apologetics outnumber the reasons for, the balance tips in favor of the reasons and need for apologetics. As a believer, one reason alone justifies our need to be a defender of the faith: the Lord whom we worship commands it! It is true that belief in Jesus Christ requires a simple faith, and that many spiritual concepts are nothing but foolishness to the unbeliever and skeptic. The Bible is clear, however, that God created us to reason and question, and that He has given us a solid body of evidence to answer these questions. As a Christian, I want to be ready to give a solid defense for my faith in the sincere hope that my response will ultimate lead another to follow Christ and believe in Him.
[1]Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker reference library (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1999), 37.
[2]C. Stephen Evans, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 12.
[3]Geisler, 38.
[4]Ibid.
[5]Ibid.
[6]Ibid.
[7]Ibid.
[8]Ibid., 39.
[9]Ibid.
[10]Ibid.
[11]Ibid.
[12]Bruce Wilkinson and Kenneth Boa, Talk Thru the Bible (Nashville: T. Nelson, 1983), 337.
[13]Ibid., 40.
[14]Ibid.
[15]Ibid.
[16]Ibid.
[17]Ibid., 41.
[18]Ibid.
A Response to David Hume’s Arguments Against Miracles
For most Americans, the word “miracle” has become synonymous with everyday happenings. Indeed, listen in on the conversation between two people and you will hear about “miracle drugs,” and the fact that it was “a miracle they made it to work” that morning, or if they get a big project finished on time, “it will be a miracle.” Miracles seem to be everywhere!
As one old preaching once said it, “if miracles happened every day, guess what, they wouldn’t be called miracles, they would be called ordinaries!”
Of greater concern, however, is that by casually tossing out the term we actually add credence to the arguments of skeptics to Christianity. As atheist philosopher J. L. Mackie has said,
If miracles are to serve their traditional function of giving spectacular support to religious claims—whether general theistic claims, or the authority of some specific religion or some particular sect or individual teacher—the concept [of miracle] must not be so weakened that anything at all unusual or remarkable counts as a miracle.[1]
By definition, a miracle is a divine intervention into, or interruption of, the regular course of the world that produces a purposeful but unusual event that could not have occurred otherwise.[2] Norman Geisler, in his book, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidence, adds three basic elements to biblical miracles:
- Power–miracles come from a God who is beyond the universe
- Wonders–by their nature, miracles inspire awe in those who see them because they are astonishing.
- Sign–the purpose of miracles: to confirm God’s message and His messenger.
The significance of miracles can be found in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. In his opening sermon in Acts 2, Peter drove home the point:
Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know. (Acts 2:22)
As John MacArthur observes,
Peter describes the means by which God attested Jesus as miracles and wonders and signs. The many miracles performed by our Lord provide overwhelming evidence that He is who He claimed to be. From His miraculous birth to His miraculous resurrection, to all the miracles He performed during His earthly ministry, the miraculous element was central in our Lord’s life.[3]
Because miracles are so central to the very authority and message of Scripture, it comes as no surprise that critics have attempted to rationalize the existence of miracles or disprove them all together based on the lack of empirical experience.
One such critic was David Hume (1711-1776), a Scottish philosopher and historian, rejected the possibility of miracles. According to Hume “miracles are extraordinary events which infringe the laws of nature and are contrary to daily empirical experience. Belief in miracles means to consider them more probable than the laws of nature.”[4] Hume limited knowledge to what the five senses could perceive.
As Robert A. Morey observed, however, “this position is self-refuting in that it itself is not perceived through the senses. It is a metaphysical view.”[5] Yet, in spite of such a simple answer to Hume’s arguments, Morey points out that Hume’s arguments are still read in most introductory courses on philosophy.[6] Hume’s skepticism has taken root in Western psyche, and as Geisler observes, “His [Hume’s] clear and powerful presentation of skepticism and antisupernaturalism was a significant factor in molding the modern secularistic mind.[7]
For this very reason, Christians must have a credible answer to skeptics who deny the possibility of miracles and, in many cases, the existence of God, based on Hume’s arguments. Geisler identifies several areas of criticism:
- It is self-defeating–this is the circular reasoning referred to by Morey above. How can we experience a metaphysical statement? Therefore, the statement is false.
- Atomism is contrary to experience–Hume believed that one event follows another, but we can never observe a tie between them. Yet, we do not experience events as separate events. Instead, the world is a continuous flow. [8]
- Causality can be experienced internally–Hume rejected intuition, dismissing causal connections we experience in our own consciousness that are not based on external events.[9]
- Hume could not live his theory–skepticism leads to an impossible life. A complete skeptic could not eat, walk, or talk.[10]
- Hume never denied causality–He never denied that things have a cause for their existence. Hume even indicated this would be absurd.[11]
In the end, Hume leaves open a door that will ultimately lead to circular reasoning. C.S. Lewis rightly observes,
Now of course we must agree with Hume that if there is absolutely “uniform experience” against miracles, if in other words they have never happened, why then they never have. Unfortunately we know the experience against them to be uniform only if we know that all the reports of them are false. And we can know all the reports to be false only if we know already that miracles have never occurred. In fact, we are arguing in a circle.[12]
Moreover, Hume begins his argument with the assumption that miracles never existed and begins to add evidence.
He presumes to know that all experience is uniformly against miracles before he looks at the evidence. How can he know that all possible past and future experience will support his naturalism? The only way to be sure is to know in advance that miracles do not occur.[13]
Ultimately, this leads to one of the great conundrums for non-Christians: not believing in the God of the Bible requires more faith than believing the evidence for God in the Bible. The evidence that supports the biblical account of miracles is solid. Yet, Hume is not alone, obviously, in his predetermination against Christianity. Many today are looking for reasons not to believe in Christianity and are ready and willing to believe arguments that are less credible than the Bible. As Geisler and Brooks observe,
We find that Christianity has better evidence and more witnesses writing closer to the time of the events than any other religion. Besides this, no religion offers the kind of miracles that Christianity can claim. No other religion has the record of specific prophecy or divine deliverance that the Bible gives. And no other religion has any miracle that can be compared to the resurrection of Jesus Christ in its grandeur or its testimony.[14]
And yet, in the opening paragraph to the next chapter, they quote Thomas Paine who said, “There is no history written at the time Jesus Christ is said to have lived that speaks of the existence of such person, even such a man.”[15]
This, after all, is the mystery of the Gospel Paul spoke of in 2 Corinthians 2. As Paul wrote, “a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” (2 Corinthians 2:14).
[1] Norman L. Geisler and Paul K. Hoffman, Why I Am a Christian : Leading Thinkers Explain Why They Believe (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2001), 104.
[2] Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1990), 79.
[3] John MacArthur, Acts (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994, c1996), 59.
[4] David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1996, c1992), 5:1040.
[5] Robert A. Morey, Battle of the Gods : The Gathering Storm in Modern Evangelicalism, 1st ed. (Southbridge, Mass.: Crown Publications, 1989), 69.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker reference library (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1999), 344.
[8] Ibid, 342.
[9] Ibid, 342.
[10] Ibid, 342.
[11] Ibid, 342.
[12] C. S. Lewis, Miracles (New York: Macmillan, 1972), 105
[13] Geisler and Brooks, 79.
[14] Ibid., 98.
[15] Ibid., 98.
The Archaeological Discovery of the Lost Epistle to the Laodiceans
There has been much debate through the centuries of church history over Paul's "lost epistle to the Laodiceans." The biblical reference for the "lost epistle" comes from Colossians 4:16: "And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea. " There are two ways to interpret this verse: either Paul is referring to a letter written by the Laodicean church to the Colossian church, or he is referring to a letter he personally wrote while in Laodicea.
The most obvious interpretation, however, supported by both the context and grammatical considerations, is that Paul wrote a letter to the church at Laodicea at the same time that he wrote the one to the church at Colossae. The problem is that no letter addressed to the Laodiceans has been preserved in the Pauline corpus.[1]
At various times in history, the church has attempted to resolve the mystery of the Laodicean epistle. One approach was to recreate the epistle. A "pseudepigraphical" Epistle to the Laodiceans has survived in a Latin translation and had some acceptance in the Western Church into the Middle Ages.[2] Another approach has been to identify the epistle with one of Paul's New Testament epistles. Both Ephesians and Philemon have been identified as the missing epistle by church historians, although neither argument has gained wide acceptance.[3]
Regarding the hypothetical premise posed by this discussion question, what if the missing letter was discovered and authenticated by archaeologists today? Should it be included in our New Testament Canon?
The first test of canonicity lies with the writer. Is the writer a true prophet--or spokesman--of God? Obviously, if the letter was authenticated as being written by the Apostle Paul, it would meet this requirement, many books in our New Testament testify. Even by his own contemporaries, Paul was recognized as an apostle and a spokesman for God (cf. 2 Peter 3:15-16). However, not every word Paul wrote was inspired Scripture, and his authorship by itself would not qualify the supposed document as Scripture.
Another factor to be considered is the church's acceptance or recognition of the document in history. Throughout church history, there has been near unanimous agreement regarding the canonicity of the 27 books of the New Testament. Unlike the Old Testament Books of the Apocrypha , which has been a source of controversy and serious debate, the Pseudepigraphal writings of the New Testament have been universally rejected by all traditions of the church.[4] This is important because it is the church that must discover and authenticate a writing as inspired Scripture, not archaeologists.[5]
In summarizing his argument why a letter like "the epistle to the Laodicians" should be rejected, Geisler states:
None of the New Testament Apocrypha have experienced more than a local or temporary acceptance. Most have enjoyed at best a quasi-canonical status, merely appended to various manuscripts or listed in tables of contents. No major canon or church council accepted them as part of the inspired Word of God. Where they were accepted into the canon by groups of Christians it was because they were believed wrongly to have been written by an apostle or referred to by an inspired book (for example, Col. 4:16). Once this was known to be false they were rejected as canonical.[6]
Therefore, a discovery of this letter should be rejected due to the historic determination of the church considering this supposed letter.
[1] Geoffrey W. Bromiley, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1988; 2002), 3:74.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker reference library (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1999), 36.
[5] Ibid., 35.
[6] Ibid., 36.
Science & The Bible
It is common in many popular evangelical settings to disparage science. Based on your reading of Geisler's text so far, how would you defend Christianity on Scientific terms? Would you personally disparage science as anti-God? What about historical scientific figures that were first and foremost scientists but also evangelical in their Christian beliefs, how would they have dealt with questions about science and faith? Is there common ground, little ground, or no ground for a serious dialog between scientists and theologians?
This is a complex question that is full of emotion on both sides of the debate. Moreover, both sides view the other as a very real and present threat to their worldview. Nowhere is this issue more hotly debated than in America’s public school classrooms. The scientific evolutionists of today have nearly 100 years of legal battles and public relations victories under their belt. They have successfully fended off attempts by those who desire to teach Creationism by claiming it is teaching religion, and, therefore, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[1]
In the last two decades, however, the introduction of “intelligent design” has refueled the debate. The scientific community has resisted on all fronts. As this Wikipedia article suggests:
The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. The National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience. Others have concurred, and some have called it junk science.[2]
Unfortunately, too many in the Christian community allow challenges from the scientific community to go unanswered, or worse, provide emotional dribble to serious challenges. As Geisler states, “Let it first be said that we need not argue on religious grounds. We do not need to simply stand firm crying, ‘The Bible said it; I believe it; that settles it!’ That attitude can be good, but there are good scientific grounds to reject evolution and believe in Creation.”[3]
Based on your reading of Geisler's text so far, how would you defend Christianity on Scientific terms?
As we discovered during Chapter 2, “Questions About God,” proving the existence of God is not unlike defending Christianity, for without the existence of God, there is not much to defend as far as Christianity is concerned.
The first two arguments in proving the existence of God cited by Geiser rely on scientific evidence: cosmological and teleological. The argument from creation states that “since there is a universe, it must have been caused by something beyond itself. It is based on the law of causality, which says that every limited thing is caused by something other than itself.” [4] The teleological argument states:
1. All designs imply a designer.
2. There is great design in the universe.
3. Therefore, there must be a Great Designer of the universe.[5]
As Geisler later points out, “By seeing God as the Creator in complete control, science could make the assumption that the universe made sense. Most of the scientists who formulated the studies of modern science were creationists. Without this basis, modern science would probably never have gotten started.”[6]
Would you personally disparage science as anti-God?
Dennis Lindsey states, “The Christian has nothing to fear when investigating the laws of biology, physics, astronomy, hydrology, meteorology, or any other discipline. God’s Word harmonizes perfectly with science—or should we say science harmonizes perfectly with God’s Word.[7]
Personally, I would not disparage science as anti-God. Instead, I would see science as one of the key indicators that God does indeed exist, and that the God of the Bible is the Creator of the universe.
What about historical scientific figures that were first and foremost scientists but also evangelical in their Christian beliefs, how would they have dealt with questions about science and faith?
Many of the fathers of modern science were also Creationists. These included:
- Kepler—Astronomy
- Pascal—Hydrostatics
- Boyle—Chemistry
- Newton—Physics
- Steno—Stratigraphy
- Faraday—Magnetic theory
- Babbage—Computers
- Agassiz—Ichthyology
- Simpson—Gynecology
- Mendel—Genetics
- Pasteur—Bacteriology
- Kelvin—Thermodynamics
- Lister—Antiseptic surgery
- Maxwell—Electrodynamics
- Ramsay—Isotopic chemistry[8]
As Geisler defines science, it is “based on causality; every event has a cause … All science is based on finding causes using these two principles: causality and uniformity.”[9] As we investigate the world and search for causality and uniformity, it, again, points us back to a Creator.
Is there common ground, little ground, or no ground for a serious dialog between scientists and theologians?
Both scientists and theologians have common interests in the origins of the universe. Geisler lists several examples where science and the Bible converge:
Origins
- Universe had a beginning.
- Order of events. Genesis 1 indicates a progressive creation, universe, followed by formless earth, followed by what happened to give form to the earth.
- No new matter is being created. The Bible declared from the beginning that creation is complete. God rested from his work (Gen. 2:2) and is still at rest (Heb. 4:4f.). In short, no new matter (energy) is coming into existence. This is precisely what the First Law of Thermodynamics declares, namely, that the amount of actual energy in the universe remains constant.
- Universe is running down. According to the second law of thermodynamics, the universe is running out of useable energy. It is literally growing old. This is precisely what the Psalmist said: “In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded” (Ps. 102:25–27).
- Life produces after its kind.
- Humans made from the earth.
Earth Sciences
- Water returns to its source.
- The earth is round.
- The earth hangs in space.[10]
[1] The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard that to require the teaching of "creation science" alongside evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause, which prohibits state aid to religion. In the Edwards case, the Supreme Court had also held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."
[2] "Intelligent design." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 23 Aug 2007, 20:18 UTC. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 19 Aug 2007 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intelligent_design&oldid=153212619>.
[3]Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1990), 213.
[4]Ibid, 14.
[5]Ibid, 20.
[6]Ibid, 212.
[7]Dennis Gordon Lindsay, Harmony of Science and Scripture (Dallas: Christ for the Nations, 1998, c1990).
[8] Geisler and Brooks, 214.
[9]Ibid, 213.
[10]Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker reference library (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1999), 692.
90 Minutes in Heaven: A Look at Death & Afterlife
Among works offered in Christian bookstores and on-line sellers there are books written by so-called evangelicals advocating their experience of dying and coming back to life and telling us what they experienced either in heaven or about hell. What is wrong with these ideas? How would you counsel a friend that has been influenced greatly by such a view?
In his book, 90 Minutes in Heaven, Baptist pastor Don Piper claims to have experienced heaven. As the publisher describes the book:
90 Minutes in Heaven is the runaway bestseller about one man’s experience with death and life. As Baptist minister Don Piper drove home from a conference, his car collided with a semi-truck that had crossed into his lane. Piper was pronounced dead at the scene. For the next 90 minutes, he experienced the glories of heaven, where he was greeted by those who had influenced him spiritually, and he experienced true peace. Back on earth, a passing minister who had also been at the conference felt led to pray for the accident victim even though he was told Piper was dead. Miraculously, Piper came back to life, and the pleasure of heaven was replaced by a long and painful recovery. For years Don Piper kept his heavenly experience to himself. Finally, friends and family convinced him to share his remarkable story. An inspiring and encouraging account, 90 Minutes in Heaven continues to touch and comfort millions of people around the world as it offers a glimpse of inexpressible heavenly bliss.[1]
There is hardly a person alive who does not think of death from time-to-time. After all, it is one of the few things that all living beings have in common. Just as intriguing is the thought of afterlife. What is waiting for us beyond the moment of death? Even many Christians are caught up on the pop cultural belief in “near death experiences” and even various forms of communicating with the dead. A clear, biblical understanding of death is the only way to fully answer these questions.
Moody’s Handbook of Theology provides a simple overview of the biblical view of death:
Death is a reality for every member of the human race (Heb. 9:27). When the Bible speaks of death, it refers to the physical death of the body, not the soul. The body may die, but the soul, the life-principle of man, lives on (Matt. 10:28; Luke 12:4–5).
Because the body was made from the elements of the dust, at death the body returns to the dust (Gen. 3:19). Physical death results because of sin. Through the sin of Adam in the garden, death spread to the entire human race; no one is exempted (Rom. 5:12). Death is the “wages” of sin (Rom. 6:23; 1 Cor. 15:56).
Death, however, should not be understood as annihilation. Life continues on for believer and unbeliever alike after the death of the body.[2]
What about near-death experiences, like the one described at the start of this paper? Is this possible? There are really two issues in question when considering near-death experiences: did the person really die, as the author of the book above claims, and did they really see heaven?
As stated above, death is a reality for everyone. Yet, the Bible also teaches that it is something we will only experience once (Heb. 9:47). (Note: Without getting sidetracked by a discussion on those raised from the dead in Scripture, let it be known that I do believe in miracles, but that for the purpose of this question, I am addressing something that is too common to be considered a miracle.) There are perhaps many possible explanations regarding the physical condition of the body during near-death experiences, but from a biblical perspective, it is clear that man will experience death once, and then face judgment.
The second issue involves claims of seeing heaven or hell and living to tell about it. Ironically, a common thread in so many of these scenarios is a description of the place. For example, Piper says “he experienced the glories of heaven, where he was greeted by those who had influenced him spiritually, and he experienced true peace.” Christian or not, we often hear about the gates of the city and the sense of great joy and peace. Yet, consider the description Stephen gives us from the book of Acts: “Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” (Acts 7:56). As a student of the Bible, is this not what you would expect to hear from a description of heaven…to see Jesus standing at the right hand of God the Father!
If a friend went to Washington D.C. and personally met the President of the United States, do you think he would come home and tell you he saw the Lincoln Memorial? No! He would tell you that he met the President of the United States! If someone really saw heaven, the place where God is, don’t you think they would mention that over the streets and gates!
What would I tell a friend who was impacted by a book like 90 Minutes in Heaven? This is one man’s story of what may or may not have really happened to him. My understanding of the biblical teaching of death and the afterlife tells me it didn’t happen exactly as he describes it, but more importantly, consider your own destiny. These are the real facts: heaven and hell are a real place; death is coming to all of us and then the judgment; when you are judged, there is only one payment for the penalty of sin, and that is faith in Jesus Christ. How you answer that question determines where you will spend eternity. You can be certain today that you will spend eternity with Him if only you will believe in Him and trust in Jesus for your salvation.
[1] Don Piper and Cecil Muphy, 90 Minutes in Heaven (Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell, 2007), back cover description.
[2] Paul P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1997, c1989), 371.