Critiquing: #064 — Questions on the Acts of the Apostles

May 7, 2021 | Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier

Prescriptive Church Life — Baptism Guidance — Signs and Wonders — Jerusalem Council — Gentile Christians

---

Episode Assessment:

		Commentary
Degree of Accuracy	B	The content is largely accurate, with detailed references to historical and scriptural context. However, some interpretations could benefit from additional corroboration from external historical sources and contemporary scholarly perspectives.
Degree of Coherence	B+	The arguments and explanations are logically structured, maintaining a clear narrative throughout. Each point builds on the previous one, ensuring a seamless flow of ideas. However, occasional jumps between topics might slightly disrupt the coherence for some listeners.
Absence of Fallacies	B	No significant logical fallacies were detected; the reasoning is sound. The podcast avoids common pitfalls such as straw man arguments and appeals to emotion. However, some generalizations about early church practices could be seen as hasty without more nuanced exploration.
Degree of Evidence	B	Claims are substantiated with references to scriptural and historical examples, though additional external evidence, including archaeological findings and non-biblical historical texts, could strengthen the arguments. More citations from contemporary theological research would enhance the credibility.
Degree of Testability	C+	While the content is based on historical and scriptural analysis, some theological interpretations are less empirically testable. The subjective nature of interpreting signs and wonders limits the ability to verify claims independently.
Rational Confidence	B	Confidence in the presented arguments aligns well with the degree of evidence provided. The speaker’s expertise lends authority, though the lack of extensive empirical evidence in some areas suggests a moderate rather than high confidence level.

---

Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:

1. Degree of Testability:

Some claims, especially those regarding the interpretation of signs and wonders, lack empirical testability. For example, the explanation of miracles and their continuity is more theological than empirically verifiable.

“God can do and often does do extraordinary things in terms of healing, in terms of special guidance, in terms of people having a vivid dream, which they then realize means they’ve got to go and do something about something right now, or whatever it is.”

This perspective emphasizes theological belief over empirical investigation, making it difficult to substantiate the claims through objective means. The subjective experiences described are inherently personal and not easily reproducible or observable by others, limiting their testability.

2. Degree of Evidence:

While the podcast provides scriptural references to support its claims, it would benefit from incorporating a broader range of evidence, including archaeological data and historical writings from outside the biblical canon. For instance, discussions on early church practices could reference contemporary accounts or findings that corroborate the biblical narrative.

“There are many questions that have been raised, not least in the Western Church over the last three or four hundred years, as to how precisely you should baptize and who you should baptize.”

By including more diverse sources of evidence, the arguments presented could be bolstered, offering a more comprehensive and convincing case. Theological arguments, while valuable, gain additional credibility when supported by historical and empirical data.

---

Formulations of Major Arguments

Argument #1: Prescriptive vs. Descriptive Nature of Acts

Premises:

1. Acts contains historical accounts of early church events.
2. Some events in Acts are culturally specific and not intended as mandatory for modern practices.
3. Principles from Acts, such as the lordship of Jesus and the foundation of the church, are timeless.
4. It requires wisdom to discern which parts of Acts are prescriptive for modern church life.

Conclusion:

Acts is both descriptive of historical events and prescriptive in its principles, but applying it to modern contexts requires discernment.

Counter-Argument:

The differentiation between prescriptive and descriptive elements in Acts can be subjective, leading to varied interpretations. What one denomination sees as non-mandatory cultural specifics, another might view as timeless directives. This subjectivity can result in fragmented practices within the Christian community, complicating the establishment of a unified approach to scripture. Furthermore, relying heavily on individual discernment can lead to inconsistent applications of biblical principles, weakening the overall cohesion of the faith community.

---

Argument #2: Guidance on Baptism

Premises:

1. Baptism in the New Testament carries deep theological significance, linking back to John the Baptist and the story of Exodus.
2. Acts depicts baptism as a significant ritual but does not strictly define its practice.
3. The early church practiced baptism in various contexts, sometimes informally.

Conclusion:

Baptism is crucial in defining Christian identity, but its practice allows for flexibility.

Counter-Argument:

While flexibility in baptism practices might seem inclusive, it can also lead to inconsistencies that challenge doctrinal unity. Without clear guidelines, differing practices may dilute the perceived importance and sacredness of the rite, potentially weakening its theological impact. Additionally, the lack of standardization might confuse new believers about the essential aspects of baptism, thereby undermining the uniformity of teaching within the church. A more defined framework could help maintain the integrity and significance of this sacrament across diverse Christian communities.

---

Argument #3: Interpretation of Signs and Wonders

Premises:

1. The New Testament does not have a single term for “miracle,” and understanding God as always present is crucial.
2. Signs and wonders are not readily available on demand but grow out of the prayerful life of the church.
3. The occurrence of miracles is unpredictable and part of the mystery of God’s sovereignty.

Conclusion:

Miracles and signs should be understood within the context of God’s continuous presence and sovereignty, not as sporadic divine interventions.

Counter-Argument:

This view might lead to a dismissive attitude towards empirical investigation of miracles. While maintaining a theological perspective is important, it should not preclude efforts to understand and document miraculous events rigorously. Balancing faith with empirical scrutiny can provide a more comprehensive understanding of these phenomena. Ignoring empirical methods may also alienate those who seek rational explanations for miraculous occurrences, thereby limiting the church’s ability to engage with a scientifically-minded audience.

---

Argument #4: Relationship between Galatians and the Jerusalem Council

Premises:

1. Scholars have differing views on the relationship between Galatians 2:1-10 and Acts 15.
2. Some argue Galatians predates the Jerusalem Council, aligning with the famine visit in Acts 11.
3. The issues in Galatians and Acts 15, such as Gentile circumcision, were prevalent in early church discussions.

Conclusion:

Galatians 2:1-10 likely refers to an earlier visit, not the Jerusalem Council, reflecting ongoing debates about Gentile inclusion in the church.

Counter-Argument:

Aligning Galatians 2:1-10 with the Jerusalem Council can offer a more streamlined historical narrative. This alignment might resolve apparent discrepancies and provide a unified account of the early church’s resolution of Gentile inclusion, offering clarity for modern theological studies. A consistent historical framework can strengthen the credibility of scriptural accounts and facilitate a better understanding of early church history. Divergent interpretations, while academically stimulating, may confuse believers and scholars alike, making it harder to derive coherent teachings from the scriptures.

◉ Addressing Argument #3:

Miracles and Statistical Tractability

The discussion of miracles in theological contexts often emphasizes their unpredictability and the mystery of divine intervention. However, the fact that miracles are unpredictable does not inherently mean they are not statistically tractable. If the Christian faith has the power to influence physical realities significantly, this should be reflected in publicly available statistics. For instance, if Christians more frequently recover from diseases and live longer lives than non-Christians, this statistical trend should be evident and measurable.

Moreover, the biblical assertion that faith can “remove mountains” implies that Christians, by their faith, should be capable of performing acts so remarkable that they would be detectable by scientific methods. If such extraordinary events were happening, even on a smaller scale, they would be recorded in various scientific studies and public health records. However, a thorough examination of available data does not reveal such trends. Christians do not statistically recover from diseases at higher rates than non-Christians, nor do they live significantly longer lives as a result of their faith alone.

The argument extends to the realm of signs and wonders. The Bible describes numerous miraculous events intended to exhibit God’s might, particularly during times when documentation was not as rigorous as it is today. In the present age, with advanced technology and meticulous record-keeping, one would expect such miracles to be documented if they were occurring. The lack of contemporary, verifiable miracles challenges the credibility of biblical claims of past miracles.

The absence of statistical evidence supporting the occurrence of miracles in the lives of Christians suggests a need for reevaluation of these claims. If miracles are real and impactful, they should be observable and measurable in a manner consistent with other phenomena studied by science. The discrepancy between the alleged historical miracles and the lack of present-day evidence leads to a reasonable skepticism regarding the validity of these biblical narratives.

In conclusion, the argument that miracles are unpredictable does not preclude their statistical analysis. The absence of significant statistical support for the miraculous events described in the Bible raises serious questions about their authenticity. If these events were real and recurrent, modern science would detect and record them. The lack of such evidence provides a compelling reason to view biblical claims of miracles with caution and, potentially, dismiss them as nonsense.

---

Thank you for reading. We warmly welcome you to discuss this topic further in the comments section below!