I had the good sense to clip it from the magazine and file it, and just recently found it again. It deals with three specific legends that have circulated in the scholarly world and washed over into popular culture:

• Did Martin Luther base the hymn “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” on drinking songs? (which is a topic I’ve dealt with before)
• Did medieval Christians debate how many angels could dance on the head of a pin?
• Did those medieval Christians actually believe the Earth was flat?

According to the article, the answer to these questions is no, no, and no.

The last one is, of course, the consummate example often cited in support of ancient Christian superstition and ignorance. But, alas, it is baloney. Literature and art all the way back to Greek times represent the earth as round. And in the case of Columbus, the question was not whether he would sail off the edge of the world, but whether his ship could make it all the way to the other side. (Curiously, Columbus succeeded because he was wrong. No one in Europe dreamed that on the other side was a whole new world.)

It says something about the quality of critical scholarship when such nonsense continues to be peddled as fact, even today.

Without a doubt, thought leaders of the past have been wrong about many things in science and theology. But in many cases they were limited by technology and easy access to information. Today we do not have those excuses to anywhere near the same degree — and so our mangling of history is all the more shameful. It is high time we ditch these and other “scholarly legends,” or at least cease to pay attention to those who perpetuate them.

Discipleship Journal named C. S. Lewis one of the most important Christian authors of the 1900s. Some credit him as being the single most popular Christian author of that century.

My first exposure to Lewis was reading his Chronicles of Narnia series when I was around age 11 or 12. I read every book of the series except A Horse and His Boy, and enjoyed them. I was very captivated by fantasy literature, and it was an intriguing, well-written collection. The stories uphold moral values (self-sacrifice, honor, integrity, courage, etc.), and there is a clear line drawn between good and evil. Of course, they also contain many magical and mythological elements.

Because of Lewis’ connection to this set of popular fiction, many conservative Christians shy away from reading his works. In my opinion, this is unfortunate.

Lewis’ other books include Mere Christianity (reviewed here), The Abolition of Man (why schools need to teach objective truth), The Problem of Pain (why pain exists in a universe created by a God of love), The Four Loves (examines four types of love: storge — affection, philia — friendship, eros — sexual or romantic love, and agape — selfless love), and many more.

Of these, so far I have read only Mere Christianity. Over the years I had read so many inspiring and challenging statements penned or spoken by Lewis’ that I really wanted to explore his writings. However, I initially had reservations about where the book might lead. I thought he might go off into wild philosophical speculations or branch into humanism or New Age-type beliefs — not because I had known him to do that elsewhere, but just because of the subject matter and what I know of his fictitious works. But in the end I fell in love with this book as a very practical and beautifully worded treatise on Christian faith.

Overview

This book is written in four sections, which Lewis calls “books.” These sections are as follows: “Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe,” five chapters; “What Christians Believe,” five chapters; “Christian Behaviour,” twelve chapters; and “Beyond Personality: or First Steps in the Doctrine of the Trinity,” eleven chapters.

The first two sections are written to introduce atheists, agnostics, and people of other religions to Christianity (a class of writing known as apologetics). These chapters are intended to show that, even apart from belief in the Bible, Christianity is rational and in harmony with reality as we know it. If you do not care much about the reasons why Christianity makes sense at this level, you may want to skip these two sections. However, the last chapter of the second section, “The Practical Conclusion,” is well worth your time.

The last two sections were unquestionably my favorites. The chapters “The Great Sin” (pride), “Charity” (Christian love), the second of two chapters called “Faith” (dealing with the old faith-and-works issue), and all of the chapters in the last section are profound, beautiful, and very practical. Lewis handles many important topics with clarity and grace, including perfection, humility, what it means to be in Christ, Christian marriage, forgiveness, free will, being born again, and much more.

Content

There are a few things some Christians will dislike within this book: the author’s belief that moderate drinking is acceptable, that Christians need not be noncombatants, that full character perfection is merely an aim in this life (although a very important aim), the theory of evolution that is assumed true in the last chapter, and perhaps a few other odd items here and there. However, none of these are major points of the book, only side issues that can be easily “winked at” when one can see through to the valid points being made. Ironically, the chapter that began with talk of evolution actually proved to be one of the most inspiring and profound for me, once he got past that part.

Except for the character perfection issue mentioned above, Lewis comes out very strongly in defense of character perfection as something God wants from us. Christian morality is a very important theme in this book, and Lewis goes to great lengths to show it is not mere “niceness” or relative goodness that God is expecting from us, but the complete Christ-life in us, and death to self.

Those who are looking for theological or doctrinal support material will find some good stuff here: Lewis shows how free will is compatible with God’s omniscience, why evil exists, why God gave us free choice, what practical conclusions we can draw about the Three-Personal Godhead, and more.

Conclusion

One thing you will like about this book is that the chapters are short and easy to read. You could easily slip one chapter in right next to your regular devotional or other book reading with little effort. The thoughts are profound, though, and you may want to devote more time just to reflect on the vastness of what the author is saying.

All in all, I highly recommend this book. I give it five stars.

[Note: This review was written on January 27, 2001.]

• Joshua 24:15: “And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” This verse is a plain example of a call to make a choice.
• Proverbs 1:28, 29: “Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me: For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD.” In this verse, God describes His response (not answering, not being found) as the result of the people’s past choices (they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of God). God’s response was conditional; human choice was the condition.
• Revelation 3:20: “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.” This is a conditional promise: Anyone who hears and opens the door to Christ will sup with Him. Again, the human choice is the condition.

There are many more verses that could be quoted (such as Deuteronomy 30:19; Proverbs 1:24–25; Acts 5:4; Ezekiel 33:11; Acts 17:27–30; John 3:16; Revelation 22:17); but these three are sufficient for the purpose of this article.

A careful reading of the Bible would lead one to believe that we are all given opportunity to serve God to the best of our knowledge, and by faith (as we have knowledge) to trust in His grace for salvation. The Bible also indicates that, despite this equal opportunity, most will choose the wrong path, while only a few will walk with God. Our decisions will result in either eternal death or eternal life.

In addition to this Biblical evidence, we also have our own experiences: times when we struggle over questions, and knowing what we can do and should do, nevertheless for selfish or fearful reasons choose to do something else. Knowing that we could have done differently is what causes us guilt.

All of this suggests that choice — free will — is very real.

Foreknowledge in the equation

The Bible presents God as one who is able to see the future. The many prophecies of the Old and New Testaments are examples of this, as are stories such as 1 Kings 22:8–38, and verses such as Isaiah 41:21–29 and 46:9–10 which describe God’s foreknowledge in contrast with false gods and false prophets. The term used to describe this ability is foreknowledge.

One argument made against free will is that it conflicts with the doctrine of God’s foreknowledge. The argument goes like this: “If God can see the end from the beginning, then the end is already determined. My destiny is fixed. Therefore I have no real choice.”

Two common reactions to this argument are: (1) Humans cannot really have free will. (2) God’s foreknowledge is not actual knowledge, it is more like plans or expectations. Allegedly, God can, with His vast intellect and knowledge of the past and present, guess what will happen, or can bend situations to make certain outcomes occur. But, some say, He cannot really see the future.

When I first heard this argument, I was momentarily stunned — it seemed logical. But for me that confusion was only momentary. The logic is not as solid as it first seemed.

As humans we are not accustomed to thinking outside the stream of time. For that reason I think we are prone to errors when thinking about time, and about cause and effect relationships  — especially at the more theoretical or hypothetical level. Seeing the error in the logic of the above two conclusions may not come easy for some. If in doubt, it is safe to believe the Bible even if we can’t work out the science.

Some counter logic

Since the above arguments are based on logic, rather than scripture per se, I am going to respond with counter logic.

First, I offer two important assertions:

• God’s foreknowledge does not exert any force or pressure on the will.
• God’s foreknowledge is not an influence.

Imagine a man is deciding whether or not to shoplift. Suppose he can choose freely to do it, or not. He will choose one way or the other. Now imagine that God can foresee the outcome of the choice. Even though God can see the outcome, God does nothing in the man’s mind to make him choose one way or the other. The man is just as free as if God knew nothing about it. As such, he has completely free will, despite God’s foreknowledge. If you can wrap your head around that one thought, you are well on your way to reconciling foreknowledge and free will.

Where people become confused is when they wonder, If God sees this outcome, then doesn’t that prove I cannot choose the other outcome? But this inquiry simply calls into question the accuracy of God’s foreknowledge. It’s not that you cannot choose other options, but that you will not. There is a big difference there. If you were to take another course, God would have seen that instead. In a sense, your destiny is fixed, but only by your own future choices. Thus predestination and free will are compatible.

Confronting fixed outcomes

For those who are logicians, it is easy to imagine all sorts of complicated scenarios. Suppose God were to show you your future. Would that mean that future is inevitable? that you have no option to avert your destiny? Perhaps this is why God does not show us our future. He couldn’t tell us we would do something if He knew that after He told us, we would decide to do something else. That would make Him dishonest; so, since God does not lie (Titus 1:2), He cannot offer us those revelations.

Nevertheless, there are times when God has revealed the future, but in such general terms that no one could really see it coming, or else the future was so overruled by Him that no one could do anything to stop it, or else it was expressed in terms of promises or threatenings that were based on conditions that could change. Some examples:

• General prophecies: some of the time prophecies of Daniel and Revelation.
• Inevitable outcomes: Jesus’ death during the feast — the very men who were plotting to kill Jesus determined not to do it during the Passover feast, yet that’s how it happened anyway, in fulfillment of Jesus’ own prophecies (see Matthew 26:4–5; Luke 18:31–33).
• Conditional promises/threats: the story of Jonah, and many other prophecies from the latter Old Testament.

Summary

The Bible gives us abundant support for belief in free will and personal responsibility; it also presents God’s perfect foreknowledge through various stories and prophecies. Correctly understood, there is no reason to see conflict between the two.

[Note: This is not meant to be a study on free will versus predestination, or free will versus bondage of the will, or Calvinism versus Arminianism. That would require a more in-depth study than I have attempted to do here.]

Individual titles include:

• What to Say to a Skeptic
• Answering the Skeptic
• Does God Really Exist?
• Choosin’ My Religion
• The Case For a Creator
• Who or What Caused God?
• If I Had Faked the Resurrection
• True Tolerance: Faithfully Serving the God of Truth
• Defend the Faith Like C.S. Lewis, Part 1
• Defend the Faith Like C.S. Lewis, Part 2

These articles are well written, and for their shortness do a good job of addressing each of these topics.

There is such a stream of atheistic and anti-religion materials coming out these days, I am happy to see The Enzyme tackling this subject. The sad part is that much of the attack on religion is deserved. There have been major abuses of religion over the centuries. But I won’t dwell on that. For their own part, atheism and naturalistic materialism are sorely lacking. I was recently reading a review of the book Letter to a Christian Nation [edit: this is a book written by an atheist, attacking Christianity; it made the New York Times best-seller list], as well as comments by people defending the book, and so much of the argument is made of straw. But all this reminds me again of several Biblical principles: (1) Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. (2) No one can obtain truth unless they receive (are given) it. (3) Do not cast your pearls before swine. (I say that with humility, but it is an important principle.)

Since many of my friends reading this blog are following the same study guide, I won’t go into all the points here. But here is a basic outline of our discussion:

What is science? Science is the systematic study of the world we live in, our universe, and ourselves, to determine cause and effect relationships and to acquire useful knowledge. Ideally, rigorous methods are used to safeguard the validity of scientific research. By nature of its methods, science is limited to that which is consistent in human experience and that which can be objectively tested.

Is science good? Yes. Virtually everyone in our group indicated personal enjoyment of one or more branches of science, including astronomy (probably the most popular field of science in our group), physics, anatomy, and biology. We have also benefited greatly from science in such fields as medicine and technology. Many in our church work at a worldwide television and radio network, which is highly dependent on advanced technology for many aspects of its day-to-day operations. Psalm 8:3, 4 encourages us to study the world we live in. Daniel 1:4 indicates that science was a field of study for the prophet Daniel and his friends. Mark 2:27 (the Sabbath being related to creation itself), Isaiah 45:18, Psalm 8:6, and other passages indicate this world was made of us — not merely to be lived in, but to be studied and understood.

What are the limitations of science? We didn’t have time to fully explore this question. But we talked about how everything in science, and especially any point that delves into the distant past or deals with highly theoretical subjects, is subject to interpretation. Only in the light of divine truth can we interpret correctly (Proverbs 1:7). Not all conclusions of mainstream science are equally valid (1 Timothy 6:20). Although nature clearly points to a divine Author, it is possible for humans, because of their perversity, to be blind to the evidence (Romans 1:20-25).

Can science prove the Bible true? While practical proof, or evidence, is abundant, absolute proof is impossible. This is equally true for both doctrine and scientific theory. Ultimately what we believe will always be a matter of faith, whether it is Christianity, paganism, atheism, or something else. The best we can do is find a source of authority that is consistent and settled, and which gives us useful answers. For the most important questions of life, science offers little help, and moreover, popular science fallacies have caused widespread misery, depravity, and despair. On the other hand, Christianity has given many of us purpose and meaning in life, and rings true even today, having stood the test of time.

Do science and the Bible agree? Ideally, yes. Do scientists and theologians agree? Often, no. We discussed reasons for this disconnect. There are undoubtedly various causes. Some that we discussed include: (1) The abuse of science by the church, especially during the long centuries when the spiritually corrupted imperial church of Rome became dogmatic in matters of science. (2) Poor discipleship of young Christians, contributing to their lack of biblical knowledge and misunderstanding of Christian belief, predisposing them to be swayed by false science later in life. (3) Ignorance of science and the presence of superstition within branches of the church, which erode the credibility of the church in the eyes of educated persons.

Historically, science was not always at odds with faith. In the class, I mentioned a short list of important scientists, including many of the most famous and influential scientists, all people of faith. Not only did their faith not interfere with their science, in many cases they regarded faith and God as the motivation and purpose of their research. Here are some of the sources I pulled from:

• Famous Scientists Who Believed in God
• 100 Scientists Who Shaped History
• Quotes From Famous Scientists

* * *

There were some points in my notes that we did not cover due to lack of time:

Does modern science owe anything to Christianity? The Christian worldview contains a number of pro-science suppositions that were not widespread in the pre-Christian (pagan) world. I am indebted to David Asscherick and the Pan de Vida audio commentary series for the following points, elements of the Christian worldview: Nature is real, not imaginary; nature is not God; nature (the material world) is good and worth studying; nature is unified and orderly; the natural order is mathematically precise; human minds are in the image of the original mind (God’s), and thus can understand the natural order. These Christian beliefs provided a framework that allowed science to flourish in the Western world.

Do scientific findings support the Bible? It is important that nature and the Bible agree, since they have one Author. But science, understood as that which is commonly believed by those calling themselves scientists, may or may not agree with the Bible. Popular science is full of conjecture, bias, and wishful thinking — and therefore, error. The Bible has no need for this kind of scientific support. Indeed, the idea that the Bible needs scientific props shows a lack of faith. Popular science is itself a faith venture, and since it lacks the divine illumination we find in the Bible, there is no reason to accept popular science as trustworthy in any spiritual or moral context. Even when scientific findings seem to match divine revelation, we must be careful not to infuse science with any spiritual authority.

Nevertheless, certain branches of science do seem to undercut naturalistic materialism and point to a Creator. These include anthropic coincidences (ways the universe seems tuned to support life), astronomy, biology, and geology.

What is God’s role in relation to the natural world? See Genesis 1:1; Psalm 100:3; John 1:1-3; Acts 17:24-31; Colossians 1:16-17.

For those wishing to explore further, I recommend the books The Wedge of Truth by Phillip Johnson, and Evidence of Purpose, edited by John Marks Templeton.

The recent post, “Rick Warren on Engaging Culture Relevantly and Biblically,” is worth reading. I really like their posting style: bite-sized and “salty.” Definitely recommended reading.

Here are a few snippets I really liked:

• It is easy to be relevant if you are not biblical. It is easy to be biblical if you are not relevant. You need to be both relevant and biblical.
• It takes different types of churches to reach different types of people.
• If you can’t learn from other people, you have an ego problem.
• The problem with a lot of churches today is they would rather be creative than effective.

If you know of any internet sources that would help others be more relevant and biblical in their ministry, please share them with me.