Is the Bible Good History? Reverend Anthony R. Locke
June 27th, 2010 at the First Presbyterian Church of Tucker
Luke 1:1-4 1 2 3 4
Apostle’s Creed Series 10 English Standard Version Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.1
When the early church pieced together the Apostle’s Creed, they were using the baptismal formulas previously in use by the actual Apostles. We don’t know which Apostle coined each phrase of the Apostle’s Creed, but one of the twelve was baptizing converts in the name of Jesus Christ who suffered under Pontius Pilate. Which begs the question, “why are we confessing anything about a secular Roman governor?” This morning I am going to explain why Pilate's name is in the creed, and I am going to suggest that it is necessary for a sound faith. During this time period in Rome there were mystical religions that taught a variety of strange ideas. These false religions didn’t claim their teachings were real in a historic or scientific sense, but their teachings were spiritually real. Lots of Christians understand their own faith within this context. My sermon will try to convince you otherwise. Let me illustrate this with a true experience of mine. I visited a seminary in the late 1990's where I considered enrolling. Before I enrolled I wanted to discern what kind of an education I would receive so I asked a professor this question. “Do you think the virgin birth really happened historically or is it just spiritually real?” The teacher knew what I was asking. I wasn't being a smart-aleck. I was trying to size up the orthodoxy of the school. Here was his dilemma. If he said the virgin birth was true historically then he could be ridiculed by the science department. If he said the virgin birth was not true then he might be black balled by the religion department. I wanted the guy to shoot straight with me. He didn’t. He danced a little side step. He spoke politician. He spoke double talk and Baloney was on the menu. This is what I remember him saying. He said, “well, I think the virgin birth is necessary to believe if you want to believe the Bible. Truly the doctrines of redemption hang on the vicarious life and death of the Second Adam, the Son of God who becomes the Son of Man to die for the sins of His people. The Messiah must be virgin born if He is to be holy and take the place of us who are not holy. A virgin birth is the only way to not receive Adam's fallen nature, so yes, the virgin birth is necessary if you want to believe the claims in the biblical record. But, there are 1 The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. 2001. Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.