Victory Blog

That participants, contemporary observers, ancient scholars and historians believed the historical accounts recorded in the Bible are true does not, by itself, prove the whole Bible is true; the physical record must not contradict it. Does archaeology (the study of antiquity) prove the Bible is true? Not by itself, but the archaeological record can prove that the history recorded in the Bible is true.

Some archaeological ground rules: 1) all archaeological discoveries are not yet made, 2) lack of discovered evidence does not mean no evidence exists to discover, and 3) failure to uncover archaeological evidence does not disprove an historical account as long as there is no accepted contradictory evidence. It is impossible to excavate the entire Biblical region and some evidence may have been destroyed over time. That all of the sites of Biblical history haven’t been discovered (and some may never be excavated or studied) doesn’t invalidate Biblical history. Does the available evidence support Biblical accounts of history?

Read the rest of this post »

“And lo a voice from heaven saying, This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.”¹

John was indeed under the Old Testament economy.  Jesus lived under that economy too.  John was a prophetic forerunner of a new economy (a new way of God dealing with mankind).  Jesus announced that He was introducing that new economy.  Immersion by another had no similarity in practices of the old economy.  The immersion John introduced was designed to prepare for the changes God was about to introduce.

Read the rest of this post »

1. Matt 3 17 [↩]

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God.”¹

Copied:  During my years of teaching at Pillsbury Baptist Bible College (1978-1985), I was asked to teach several courses in the area of counseling.  I had never had a counseling course in college or seminary.  Where would I begin?  What resources were available to help construct meaningful courses in various aspects of counseling?  I had come out of seminary convinced of the doctrine of the sole authority of Scripture.  I knew that without such an authority, nothing was worth preaching.  I spent the first ten years of my ministry anchored to this important truth.  There was no doubt in my mind but that the Bible had all the answers for life and living.

Nevertheless, as I planned my courses, I began to question the degree to which the Bible actually spoke to this issue.  Distracted by the cacophony of voices coming from the psychological world, I found myself being drawn toward some of the more popular psychological systems— especially that of Maslow.  It seemed to me that there was at least some validity to what he and other secular psychologists were saying.  Given my earlier commitments, why was I so easily convinced that another resource would give better answers than the Bible?  Why have so many other pastors and theologians been so easily persuaded that the perspectives of psychology actually give true answers to the difficult questions of the soul of man?

Read the rest of this post »

1. 2 Tim 3:16 [↩]

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise:  Mary was with child of the Holy Spirit.”¹

Five pastors contributed devotionals to a local newspaper of ways to put Christ back into Christmas, which appeared in a special spread just prior to the holiday.  The first one at the top began, “Regardless of your view of the parentage of Jesus…”  What a strange way to begin, I thought.  What would such various “views” have to do with the observance of Christmas?  What different views might the writer have in mind?

I could come up with two views I have heard of in the past.  One surmises that Joseph was the father and the infant was conceived prior to their marriage.  The other guesses that someone may have raped Mary or in some way impregnated her.  These views would be in keeping with the charge suggested by the Jews that Jesus was “born of fornication” (John 8:41).  They went even further, “and said unto Him, Say we not well that You are a Samaritan and have a devil?” (John 8:48).  Before long, “they took up stones to cast at Him” (John 8:59).

Both of these views are clearly wrong Read the rest of this post »

1. Matt 1:18 [↩]

“Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and He was buried, and He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.”¹

It seems like a “new” idea to me, and has stirred my cogitations. I suppose it was in my past training but it just didn’t strike me as so significant in the past.  All other religious systems are developments of ideas or fables;  Judaism and Christianity are built on actual historical events, many of which were supernaturally predicted in advance.  Ideas cannot be proven.  They can be favored, advanced, criticized, or whatever, but they are always inner, subjective.  Recorded prophesies and historical happenings can be demonstrated to be factual.  They were not dreams and imaginations.  They were real.  They took place.   God tied His message to mankind into the warp and woof of ongoing history.

Read the rest of this post »

1. 1 Cor 15:3-4 [↩]

The most basic test for the reliability of ancient literature is bibliographical. How many copies of an ancient manuscript are known? How reliable are the copies we have and how much time has passed between writing the original and copying later surviving manuscripts?

The total count of all ancient New Testament manuscripts is over 24,970 partial or complete copies. By comparison, the next most copied text is the Iliad, of which there are only 643 ancient copies surviving. Further, over 400 years passed between the writing of the Iliad and the oldest surviving fragment, while roughly 50 years passed between writing the first known New Testament text and the oldest known fragment of it. The oldest complete Iliad dates from the 13th century, over 2000 years later while the oldest complete New Testament dates from A.D. 325, only 225 years later. What of other ancient texts? Read the rest of this post »