The Last Temptation

of Christians
mistranslation for "grape juice,"
ever. This seems to me ahaving-it-both:.
ways that is an unattractive an(! uncon-
vincing style of argument
I am afraid we are at total deadlock in A Defense of the Faith
Partll
1---------' our two conceptions of the nature of
Dear Dr. Gentry,
Thank: you for your gracious letter of
the 7th (which I did in fact find a more
mannered penning than your original to
the newspaper!).
Indeed we do "disagree over the facts
3Jld the philosophy of the facts," but
such disagreement only attests, I think,
to the Creator's sense of style: that He
gave individuality to the mind very
much as to the 'body.
If you will re-read my letter (also
quite severely edited by the newspaper
fold), I contend that the Gospels were
first mmm in Aramaic, and likely writ-
ten down in Hebrew or a Hebraic dialect
(perhaps Aram;dc). Why so? The evi-
dence suggests that the apostles were
not well educated men (even if Luke as
tradition suggests was a phySician, it is
not specially likely that physicians of
the time were men of letters) and while
they may (or may not) have had Greek
as a second language, it seems
to me doubtful that they had the ability
to lYii1l: Greek. (Why are the so-called
Dead Sea Scrolls, from the same era, all
in Hebrew, if Greek was a common
written language in Palestine at that
time?) Indeed, if the apostles were as
unlettered as some traditions have it
("simple fisher fold" as the hymn says),
it seems to me legitimate to doubt that
they were the authors, and, more
likely, the Gospel stories were passed
round until at some point more literate
Ken Gemry Ia pastor of the Reedy River
Presbyterian Church (PCA) In GtemVIlle, SC
and lle author ol many flne books, booklets and
articles. Ho has two new books due out soon, one Is
The Beast of ReVfation, a 240 page paperback
retaH!ng for $7.95, due ou1 May 1st. The other Is a
hardback entlled BeloTB Justdsm Fsll: The
Daling of Relelalion. This 475 page boolc, which Is
Dr. Gentry's unabridged doctoral dissertation
presented to Whnelletd Seminary, w1ll r8ta1l for
$24.95 and Is due out August 1st (Both books are
preaentry being olfered for half-price by G(881
Christian Books In Delaware.)
Dr. Gentry and Or. Greg L. Bahnsen are preparing a
book.lllng!h tho recant book,
Dominion Theology: Bklssing or Cutw, by Wayne
House and Tommy Ice. Il ls due out V9f'/ soon.
by Kenneth J,.. Gentry, Jr.
people got them onto paper.
1 can't accept that the entire Anchor
Bible series is "liberal and anti-super-
(though as you correctly
point ou4 Dr. Massyngberde Ford' is
certainly an ultra-liberal commentator);
some volumes may fall into that cate-
gory, and some assuredly don't. Ray-
mond Brown, while not precisely a theo-
logical conservative, is a careful scholar
and in no way a raving (I con-
fess to great curiosity, especially as it
sets so much of the tone In the current
political campaign, as to how and why
the word "liberal" acquired a negative
connotation: it is simply the opposite
of "conservative" and I do not think you
will contend that the conservative mind
has produced much that is startling in
intellectual history.)
It seems to me that one cannot even
have Christianity if one is simply go-
ing to treat the New Testament in
exactly the way the Jews treated the OT
(which is the way of the Law, a way
roundly condetnned. by Christ). The
source of truth for Christians is the
Truth Himself, not "words"; the Bible
is only part of the tradition of the
Church, which was based on her ex-
perience of the Risen Cbrist, not on
somebody's selective biography of
Jesus of Even the experience
of Jesu$' own life itself was not enough
to convince . and convert all of the
apostles (remember Thomas?).
In any number of places the literal
New Testament is in error. It is in error
when it accepts and promotes slavery,
when it encolirages an inferior role for
women, when it divides eucharist from
agape, when it despises the body, etc.
I suppose the most literalist, fimd-
mentalist readers of the Bible are our
Baptist brethren -- many of them, in
theit negativity toward alcohol, in-
sisting that "wine," both at Cana and at
the Last Supper, simply has to be a

sin: if you contend that sin is rwt a
volitional act, can happen without un-
derstanding and full consent of the Will,
then it seems to me you are saying that
it is possible for man to sin automatica-
ly, mechanically, with no human voli-
tion. I can't buy that: were it the case,
there would be utterly no need for hn-
mans to have a conscience. (There is ob-
jective sin and subjective sin, of course,
but that's another argument)
I honestly appreciate your concern for
me, but. respectfully suggest that it
might be misplaced. Christianity has
many dimensions ("In my father's
house are many mansions . :"); and
even if I entertain severe doubt that the
Bible is, chapter and verse. reliable
history, this hardly means that I have
concluded that all four Gospel writers
and all of the epistolary authors were
frauds. I have not a scintilla of doubt
that Jesus existed; I do maintain that we
have a quite inexact record of what he
did and said.
Again, please be sure th.at I write
with no hostility and certainly no in-
tention or desire to "change your mind,"
respecting as I do your intellectual inte-
grity (while, of course, maintaining self-
respect for my own!), and should we
continue to communicate I hope you
will eschew such as "based on [my]
philosophy of life. [I] know that
[my] Redeemer liveth"; I am. after all,
nat a pagan, I am a bona fide Cluistian
who happens to respectfully -
- disagree with you.
Assuring you of prayer for your work
and family and asking the same for
mine.
Faithfully,
Mr. Gr!lY
Dear Mr. Gray:
It seelll$ that we are becoming. "pen
pals"! Thank you for your response to
my last letter. I hope you will bear
with me once again as I attempt to
show you my genuine concern for you
The CoUDSel of Chalcedon, April, 1989
and your position. My concern is not
out of conceit or arrogance, but is borne
out of convictions resulting from my
adherence to the orthodox Christian
faith, the faith expressed in the historic
creeds of Christendom (the Apostles'
Creed, Nicene Creed, the Council of
Chalcedon, the Westminster Standards,
etc.), a faith ultimately in the self-
attesting Christ of Scripture. Please
understand that though I write with deep
conviction as to your error, I do not
mean to write without appreciation for
the seriousness of your consideration of
the issues or your willingness to en-
gage in discussion. Given my view of
Scripture I am duty bound to express
my concern for you, not haughtily but
humbly. And, contrary to your con-
cluding remarks, it would be my earnest
desire to "change your mind." Of
course, in all of this I know you deem
me to be in error.
Returning to the matter of the pos-
sible Aramaic originals of the New
Testament: I am not at all convinced
that the rationale you have stated for
postulating the original hearing and
writing of Jesus' words must have been
Aramaic and nothing else. True, the
probability is that the original disciples
were not "well educated men." This
does not mean, however, that they
could not write in Kaine Greek. Please
kindly consider these responses to your
second paragraph:
(1) The disciples were from a land
that, geographically, lay as the great
crossroads of ancient culture. The Jews
were then and are still today known for
their commercial dealings -- which
dealings require communication. And
Koine Greek was the lingua franca of
the Mediterranean Basin since the times
of the conquests of Alexander the Great
a few centuries before Christ. It has
even been said that though Rome
conquered the Mediterranean Basin poli-
tically and militarily, wresting it from
Alexander's divided empire, in essence
Alexander conquered the Roman Empire
culturally, for Greek remained the "uni-
versal" language of even the early
Roman Empire. (2) The presence and
influence of hellenic culture and lan-
guage greatly alarmed such religious
The Counsel of Chalcedon, Aprll, 1989
groups as the Pharisees (the enemies of
Christ, if you believe the New Testa-
ment at this point). Nevertheless, the
language was a very real presence, even
among the Jews. The sacred Hebrew
Old Testament Scriptures were of neces-
sity translated into Septuagintal Greek
in the third century before Christ,
precisely because the common people
were losing their native tongue! (3)
Contrary to your employment of the
evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls,
these scrolls provide evidence for the
position to which I adhere. They were
written by a separatist fringe group
revolting against the hellenizing of
Hebrew culture! Christ's disciples were
reaching out in evangelistic zeal to their
culture. (4) You are "doubtful" that the
disciples would have had the ability to
write Greek. Yet in your first letter (the
one to the newspaper) you spoke
almost contemptuously of the Greek of
the Gospels as a non-literary Greek.
Which way do you want to go with
this? On the one hand, the Greek of the
New Testament is of such a conunon,
street-variety that (in your opinion) it
cannot be very accurate or compare to
Classical Greek. On the other hand, you
assert that the disciples could not have
written Greek (despite its being a
second language) as if it were of the
"higher" variety of Greek.
Regarding your statements about con-
servative versus liberal: As an orthodox
Christian I am vitally interested in the
"conserving" of" the faith once delivered
to the saints" (Jude 3). Indeed, as a min-
ister of the Gospel this is among my
highest convictions and desires (2 Tim.
2:1-2; 4:1-5). The desirability of being
a "conservative" depends upon its con-
text. I am not interested in being a
"conservative" in the Soviet Politburo:
they want to conserve the wrong thing.
I cannot discern exactly what you
mean by your statement that the conser-
vative mind has not "produced much
that is startling in intellectual history."
I do admit that much of the liberal con-
tributions to intellectual thought has
been "startling," take Marquis de Sade,
Nietzsche, Camus, and Sartre, for in-
stance. Marx had a religion of revolu-
tion that has produced a "startling" anti-
conservative and pro-liberal assault
upon culture and ethical norms, and has
greatly and adversely affected world
culture. Being startled is not one of the
highest goals of intellectual endeavor,
however. Or if by that reference you
mean that the conservative mind has
not produced much in the way of
inteJlectual contribution to theology or
to culture, I would wholeheartedly dis-
agree. The conservative mind tends not
to be revolutionary, but it does not tend
not to be engaged in inquiry and
analysis.
Speaking of being startled, I confess
that I was somewhat talcen aback by
your bold and, I believe, unfounded as-
sertion that Christ "roundly condemned"
the Jews for their use of the Old Testa-
ment. Now I do understand that you do
not necessarily believe what the Gospel
record states. But I cannot imagine
where you get the idea that Christ
disavowed devout reliance upon the writ-
ten Old Testament. As I read the New
Testament (which I believe to be the
inerrant, authoritative revelation of the
God of Creation, Jn. 10:35; 17:17; 2
Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20,21) I find a
wholly different Christ (which is why I
have asked before about the particular
Redeemer that you profess faith in).
Consider Christ's great Sermon on the
Mount. He dogmatically claimed that
not one jot or tittle of the Law shall
fail; He used the ingressive aorist in
this disclaimer: "Do not begin to think
that I have come to destroy the law or
the prophets" (Matt. 5: 17). He "roundly
condemned" the Pharisees in that con-
text for their oral ap-
proach to God's law: He repeatedly
rebuked them for their merely having
that it was (i.e., oral tradi-
tion, Matt. 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43).
He then reaffmned what was the actual
meaning of the Old Testament case
laws that had been so overlaid with
rabbinic tradition (Matt 5:21ff). He
was committed to the principle of
living by every word that proceeds out
of the mouth of God (Matt. 4:4, cp.
Deut. 8:3). He told His followers that
they should do what the Pharisees say
from Moses' seat (i.e., when actually
promoting Moses' law), but not do
------------------------------------------------------PageB
what the Pharisees dO, "for they say
things, and do not do them" (Mat_t.
23:3). When Jesus appeals to authority
He appeals to the written word (which
view 1 hold, following after my Shep-
herd). In the New Testament His au-
thority insists gegraptai (perfect indica-
tive passive of grapho): "It has been and
still stands written" (cf. Matt. 4:4,7,10;
11:10; 21:13; 26:2A,3l: etc.)
I agree that the source of truth is
Truth Himself. The reason I do so is
because Scripture tells me sol
"In Him are hidden all the treasures of
wisdom and knowledge'' (Col. 2:3).
Hence, I seek His voice speaking to me
in Scripture, which is His apokalupsis
('revelation, uncovering"). And truth
Himself has told me in the Scriptures
that I am to believe that which "stands
written," for even the pre-eminent Chris-
tian virtue of Jove (I Cor. 13:13) is
characterized by obedience to the words
of the Law and the Prophets (Matt.
7:12; 22:40; cp. Gal. s:t4; Rom. 13:8;
Jms. 2:8; I Jn. 5:3). do not
express Biblical love to their children
when they feed their neighbors to their
children -- precisely because they are at
variance with the written revelation of
God, even though "in their hearts" they
might feel it right to do. Christ has told
me that if I do not build my entire life
on His words that I will be on sinking
sand (Matt. 7:24ff). I greatly fear a
subjectivistic (existential or charis-
matic) Christianity divorced from the
objective revelation of God's proposi-
tional truth; I do not want to confuse
heartburn for an experience of Christ, or
the imaginations of my heart for the
revelation of God's Truth.
Again I must register my profound
s111prise at such statements as "it seems
to me that one cannot even have
Christianity" if we hold dear the very
words of the New Testament revelation!
The resounding, clarion call in the New
Testament is to "search the Scriptures
to see whether these things be so" (Acts
17:11); it is to receive the words of the
Apostles (and, of course, Christ) as "the
very word of God, which also peiforms
its work in you that believe" (I Thess.
2:13); it is the conviction that the word
of God endures forever (I Pet. 1:23).
The earliest Christians had the very
victions that you are vehemently op-
posed to: They revered the revelation of
God through His apostles and prophetS
(Eph. 2:19 ..: 3:7). The New Testament
must not be merely "a part of the tradi-
tion of the Church" but the actual
source of that tradition, the determiner
of what is good tradition and what is
bad, as an the historic creeds assert. Or
else we will end up as the Pharisees and
Romanists who silence the voice of
God in deference to the voice of man
(Matt. 15:1-8). We will be bloWn about
by every wind of doctrine (Eph. 4:14).
We will be building upon "sinking
sand" (Matt. 7:2Aft).
You make another assertion -- which,
again, I humbly deem much too bold
- that: "in any number of places the
literal New Testament is in error." It
appears to me that this pronouncement
comes clothed only with a "Thus saith
Mr. Gray" whom I barely know and
upon whose words I would not want to
venture my eternal destiny. I was quite
surprised. when you chose to illustrate
the matter by pointing out what
believe (on your own authority) to oo
ethical errors, rctther than what -you
inight deem to be errors of fact, history,
contradiction, etc. For this opens up the
whole question that I believe lies at the
foUndation of our friendly but serious
discussion: How do you know?
Unfortunately, I feel that you are read-
ing (and reading off!) my inquiries as to
how you know either as inconsequential
asides or as arrogant assumptions. But
actUally this is the heart issue: We are
in disagreement at the principia! level
of presuppositions as to our view of
reality. Two systemic worldviews are in
collision. I unashamedly point to the
Word of the Living God as that which
frames my world view and from which I
draw my ethic. And God's Word is also
that which gives epistemological
certainty to my view of reality. Given
the Creator God of Scripture, I have a
reason for conviction as to the objective
nature of reality, the certainty and re-
liability of knowledge, the obligatory
nature of normative ethics, meaning,
and value, etc.
As yet, however, I have no inkling
as to why you hold the positions you
do. I see no foundation for them; you
have mentioned none, other than your
assertion. Earlier the problem I hoped
that you would address was: How do
you know your Redeemer liveth? I
not asking, Why do you suspect your
Redeemer liveth. But: }{ow do you
know? You see, I believe that apart
from an orthodox Christian foundation
tooted in propositiomil, revelatory truth-
- which alone provides a coherent
philosophy for a' rational universe and
epistemic certainty .:.. you cannot know
anything with certainty. Your system
must exchange "Thus saith the Lord"
for "It seems to me." Alid particularly
is this problem aggravated in your
system, I believe. For you profess faith
m Christ while denying the integrity of
the earliest records of Christ, which
records claim to be written by those
who knew Him, those who were
inspired by the Spirit of Christ to write
them (John 16:13). How do you know
your Redeemer liveth? If the writers of
Scripture were wrong in certain areas,
why riot .in the area of whether or not
Christ lives (I rather suspect you have a
totally different content from me wheri
you say, "Ciuist liveth").
Likewise, r would ask: How do you
know what is right and wrong? From
whence do Y9U derive your ethiClJ}
norms? How do you know slavery iS
wrong, or that women are not to have
an inferior role, etc.? Please note: I am
not granting an answer on these issues
one way or another; I .am merely chal-
lengirig you to point to what proVides
you with certain convictions as to right
and Wrong regarding these ethical ques-
tions. In aU humility, I believe that
you can have no coherent, authoritative,
relevant, binding ethical system if you
reject the word of God. Please do not
misunderstand me, by this I am nOt
saying, "You, Mr. Gray, ate irrationally
ranting." I am saying that apart from
the Scriptures there can be no coherent
ethic, whether you adhere to the fonnM-
ist ethic of Plato, the naturalist . ap-
proach of Epicurus, the conscience ap-
proach of 1 oseph the ratiomilist
method of Kant, the intuitivism pf
G.E. Moore, the egoism of .John
Page16-------------------------------------------------------
The Counsel of Chalcedon, AprU, l989
Hospers, the utilitarianism of J.S.
Mill, the trait-deontologism of Roman
Catholicism, the existentialism of
Joseph Fletcher, etc. All of these ethi-
cal systems suffer from dialectical ten-
sion inherent within them.
Due to the amount of space taken
above, I will forego responding again to
your view of sin. I would just urge you
to read the Scripture references in my
earlier Jetter. Those are the foundation
for my view.
I have enjoyed our interchange of
ideas and would be willing for them to
continue, if you so desire. Do be as-
sured that I respect your willingness to
discuss these matters, though I have
strong and diametrically opposed con-
victions. I, too, respectfully (and I do
mean that) disagree with you.
May we bow together before the
Christ of Scripture.
Sincerely,
Ken Gentry
[To be continued]
"Lying Wonders"
Continued from
If the expiration code next
to your name is .8.204 (April,
'89) or lower, or if there is
no code indicated after your
name, we would appreciate
a check from you in the
amount of $25.00, or what-
ever amount you are able to
send in order to help this
ministry during this present
year of 1989.
The Counsel of Cbalcedon, April, 1989 -------------------- ------ Page 17