Unbelievably Good Show
January 21st, 2009 by Sean
As a year end special he pulled together a show where he deviated from his normal format in order to bring together some of the best interviews from 2008. Here is the description:
Bits & Bobs end of year special: A treat for the end of the year as Justin plays some exclusive content accumulated in the past year. NT Wright is among contributors to a feature answering common ojections to the resurrection of Jesus; New York Pastor Tim Keller on his book “The Reason for God”; and David Robertson author of “The Dawkins Letters”. Happy new year!
The show roughly divides into three sections. The first is a very nice piece on why we can have confidence that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. The middle part of the show contains an excellent interview with Timothy Keller regarding his new book The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. The last third of the show features an interview with David Robertson who has spent a massive amount of time arguing with atheists on Richard Dawkins’ website. All in all, it was a great show, and well worth the time to listen to it.
click here to download the show or you can subscribe to the podcast here.
Thanks for posting this, Sean. I’ve listened to a few of these and they are enlightening. I have a comment on one particular show.
In the debate on the “problem of evil” (Jan. 10, ’09) Richard Swinburne referred to the good that can come as a result of the suffering of some people. If it weren’t for the availability of suffering of starving children or the Jews in the Holocaust, for example, many others would not have had the opportunity to make the choice of being a better person by helping to relieve suffering.
In response, Bart Ehrman felt it was “not a very satisfying solution that God sacrificed six million people so that we could be more noble.”
While Swinburne’s explanation of how good can come out of horrific circumstances does show how God can deal with suffering, it does not adequately explain why God allows those things to happen in the first place.
Ironically it was Ehrman, a self-described agnostic, who, in explaining why he lost his faith, brought up the point that one of the explanations in the Bible was that there were forces who worked against God, and that His ultimate goal was to “resolve suffering at the end of time when He overcomes the forces of evil and sets up a good kingdom on earth.” Unfortunately, he believes this is one of several contradicting views presented by the writers of the Bible.
He also says he once believed that God intervened in the world through Christ, but doesn’t see any evidence that God’s interaction accomplished anything to make our world a better one.
While Swinburne focused on the theological implications of Jesus’ life and death, and how it can affect our lives, and “eventually” make for a better world, Ehrman pointed out that many of the New Testament authors shared the view that the end of suffering was in fact coming soon, and that the Kingdom of God was soon to arrive, in which there would be no more sin and suffering.
Sadly, he said that while Jesus and the disciples believed in this coming Kingdom, it never arrived. He even specifically said that if he had seen evidence that things were made different in the world he might have been inclined to accept the Christian message.
It is certainly true that God can bring good from the most dire suffering, but the “big question” of why the world is the way it is in the first place needs to be addressed as the foundation of any other explanations. The fact that the earth is cursed and death entered by man’s sin, the fact that the devil is the “god of this world” but will be defeated in the end, and the good news that God is going to restore the world to paradise in the age to come, all make up the “satisfying answer” that most everyone seeks. And what the Bible tells us about the current delay in the Kingdom can be comforting when we remember that the restoration of the world is indeed coming one day. The Gospel of the Kingdom is the answer people are looking for.
As with Ehrman’s debate against N.T. Wright, I again found myself agreeing with him more than the other guy in this Swinburne debate. The POE (problem of evil) needs to be taken seriously and reckoned with, not merely philosophized away. Ehrman has done an astounding amount of damage to the faith of many with his recent books, so I certainly don’t support him. Even so, at the end of the day what does an agnostic like Ehrman say to a bereaved mother whose four year old child just died because of leukemia? “Sorry, this is just how the world is…survival of the fittest.” We may not have a complete accounting for why God allows all sorts of evil (especially natural disasters and genetic problems) but we sure do, in light of the resurrection of Jesus, have a much more satisfying solution–the kingdom of God.
Sean,
I noticed the only debate about the trinity was with a Muslim. Have you thought about asking them if they wanted a debate with a Unitarian Christian?
Yes, I have thought about that a number of times. I have never gotten around to writing him an email thought. It would be great exposure.
Mark mentioned a debate about the trinity.
Have any of you seen a debate between a Christian who promotes
the trinity doctrine and one who believes people can enter the kingdom of heaven without it?
I suppose the case might be made that although the Bible does
not use the term, the idea of it is made known and therefore it is
relevent to the Christian life in Christ, but isn’t that a matter of
interpretation?
Some will say that the idea of the trinity doctrine is well established
by scripture and some will say that it is not.
Can one who says that it is not established by scripture be saved?
Can salvation be as simple as believing in Jesus as the Son of God,
and continuing by faith in him, trusting in him and the revelation
of scripture as it becomes known to them?
Isn’t it possible that the trinity doctrine has something of man in
it, and for that reason it is not accepted by all Christians?
Certainly there have been people saved by God through Jesus Christ who have not been known to use the term “trinity” when
they share the gospel of Christ. I believe the apostle Paul was one
of them.
So what then is the real motive of those who want to prove the trinity doctrine? It it the call of God for us to prove such a thing?
Will promoting it make us right before God? Are we saved thereby?
Has anyone seen a good defence on that matter, that the imposition of the doctrine may very well drive some people away
from the very saviour we should be working to bring people to?
If a man wants to perceive God in trinitarian terms so be it, but why
must he require others to see God in that way in order to get along
with them? Must they be according to their likes and dislikes?
Some may perceive God as the creator of all that is, who did so
through his Son Jesus Christ who was with him from all eternity,
who was dwelling in him since eternity as his Son, whom he made
heir of all things. Some may see Jesus as God himself is, but choose
to not use trinitarian formulas or terms to express their faith.
Should they be treated as unworthy to enter the kingdom of heaven? Why not let them be?
If everyone loved the doctrine of the trinity we would all get along
about it, but haven’t we seen proof that not all Christians embrace
it? Are they saying that there is then, no hope of salvation for them?
Are they right in so saying? I say they are not. I say that some
try to make men like themselves and it’s not the will of God for
them to do so.
I say that where the spirit of the Lord is there is liberty. I do not
say that liberty means we can believe whatever we want to without regard to what’s right. We must believe what is right to
be saved. We must seek that which is right to become right. We
must find salvation through the cross of Jesus, whether we teach
certain doctrines or not, and if we did, maybe we wouldn’t make
too much of our doctrines, or at least we would allow people to
perceive the truth and communicate it in the terms that they choose, and hold them accoutable when they are in error, and
offer to them the salvation that is offered by Jesus through repentance and the power of his life, his sacrifice, the message
of the gospel.
Ray,
To listen to a great defense that it is not necessary to believe in the Trinity to be saved, listen to J. Dan Gill’s presentation.
Thank you Sean. A network error occured so I was not able to hear
it yet, but I plan to return to it. May God take down all the fences
of man, that the church be made free and that all may come in for
salvation without oppression, for the purposes of Jesus Christ.
May everything be made plain by him.
I listened to J. Dan Gill’s presentation of the grace of God that leads
us to salvation without the preaching of the doctrine of the trinity.
Praise the Lord! I don’t feel so alone anymore. He and I have been
saying the same thing, howbeit in each our own manner. Jesus is
setting the captives free. God bless J. Dan Gill.
There is a guy that I listen to quite a bit named Steve Gregg (www.thenarrowpath.com) who, while a trinitarian, does not think that you must believe in the trinity to be saved. His reasons are basically that there is no evidence that anyone in the Bible believed it! He is pretty adamant that the apostles did not believe in the trinity (more accurately, they did not believe Jesus was God, at least before the resurrection). He appeals to the church councils as authoritative to some extent on ironing it out and that as one reaches maturity, “something like the trinity” will be found. I would be interested in hearing what he would have to say about representational deity.
Also – the Unbelievable program from this past weekend has a debate with a Christadelphian. I am in the middle of listening to it as I type this …
Tim,
Thanks for the heads up. Wow, I can’t believe he had a Christadelphian on. I can’t wait to listen to it.
I’m familiar with Steve Gregg to some degree. I listened to his lectures on Anabaptists. Maybe you could call in to his show and discuss the Trinity with him? I’m not sure he does call-ins though.
Gregg only does call-ins. He mentioned on one show that Michael Servetus was a Christian, so I called him and asked him about that. His response was something to the effect that he was not orthodox, but he clearly loved the Lord and that John Calvin had a “murderous heart.”
He has some really outstanding free lectures and respects and gives fair treatment to conditional immortality. I believe that he does not believe that the eternal sonship is found in scripture.
After hearing the whole Unbelievable show, I thought that the Christadelphian held his own. There were a couple of points in which he could have done better, but I think that his simple answers really caught the trinitarians by surprise.
The show with the Christadelphian is a rerun from a couple of years ago. I do think he did a pretty good job. The trinitarian had to keep going back to “it’s a mystery.” It is noteworthy that with the format of the show being a Christian and an unbeliever facing off, anyone not believing in the trinity will be put in the same category as an atheist or Muslim.