Theology and Christian Apologetics Archives - Cross Examined: Recent Episodes

View Details

How should Christians understand the Old Testament? Since the birth of Christianity, this has been a topic of hot debate, and to this day many Christians don’t really understand how their faith in Jesus interacts with what they read in the Old Testament. It can be tempting to ignore it—or throw it out altogether.

Many Christians have no idea how to read the Old Testament and are under the impression they are supposed to obey every command God gave to Israel. While it’s true that we, as Christians, no longer need to sacrifice animals, engage in purity rituals, and stone people for certain sins, God’s moral law revealed in the Old Testament is based on His nature and character, which is unchanging—and still applicable today.

In Acts 15, New Testament church leaders met to decide whether or not Gentile believers needed to be circumcised according to the Law of Moses. The dispute in Acts 15 did not concern the ethical or moral components of the law, rather it was about how circumcision would bring the full weight of the ceremonial law down on the new gentile believers. But rather than being a departure from the entirety of the Old Testament, the guidelines this council applied to the gentiles actually came from the moral components of the Old Testament law. (Lev.7-8)

As early as the 2nd century, a heretic known only as Marcion taught that the God of the Old Testament could not be the same as the God of the New and that Jesus came to abolish the Old Testament. This two-god theology caused Marcion to create his own canon of scripture, cutting out the entire Old Testament—something the early church quickly rejected. You might say Marcion was the first to “unhitch” the New from the Old.

It can still be tempting today to diminish or disregard the Old Testament. Here are three reasons why you shouldn’t unhitch your Christianity from the Old Testament:

1. Jesus didn’t unhitch Christianity from the Old Testament.The Old Testament served as the bedrock upon which Jesus founded his ministry and even his identity—quoting it directly or in general dozens of times. In fact, the Old Testament is cited over 200 times in the Gospels alone.

During his famous Sermon on the Mount, Jesus specifically said he had NOT come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). More importantly, he followed that statement with high praise for the law and for those who teach others to obey it (5:19).

Jesus once told a story about a rich man who lived in luxury and a poor man who lived in suffering (Luke 16:19-31). The rich man died apart from God and went into eternal torment, while the poor man died righteous and went to the “bosom of Abraham.” Distressed that his brothers would receive the same fate, the rich man begged Abraham to send Lazarus to warn them. Abraham’s response was telling: “They have Moses and the prophets,” suggesting that this man’s relatives might find salvation in the Old Testament. The rich man argued that what they really need to see is Lazarus come back from the dead, but Abraham responded, “If they do not respond to Moses and the prophets, they will not be convinced, even if someone rises from the dead.” “Moses and the prophets” is parallel to the phrase “law and prophets” used by Jesus in Matthew, and it was a common idiom for what we now call the Old Testament.

Jesus once rebuked the Pharisees for challenging his authority, and he even made the bold claim that they had never even heard from God (John 5:37). This accusation may seem strange, as the Pharisees were known for their understanding of the Law. But Jesus went on to say, “You study the scriptures thoroughly, because you think in them you possess eternal life, and it is these same scriptures that testify about me” (John 5:39).

Yet again, the message from Jesus to those who studied the Old Testament was not that the Old Testament would no longer apply, but that through it his work would be made known. To argue otherwise is to attempt to remove the Messiah from his Jewish context and to import a Christ that is foreign to the New Testament.

2. The Apostles didn’t unhitch Christianity from the Old Testament.We can get a good idea of how the earliest Christians understood their faith in light of the Old Testament by looking at the very first sermon ever delivered by a Christian. In Acts 2, the apostle Peter centers the entirety of his gospel presentation on the writings of the Old Testament. According to Peter, the coming of Christ is the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:16-21), and the words of David (2:25-36) have verified who he is. Rather than telling the crowd the Old Testament has no application to their lives, Peter preached Jesus directly from it.

As Paul witnessed to Jews in synagogues across the Roman Empire, we read that the Bereans were “more notable” than the Thessalonians because “they examined the scriptures daily to see if (what he said) was true” (Acts 17:11). Again, the Scriptures available to them—and the very ones Paul would have used—were the Old Testament.

Paul defended himself to the Roman government by saying all he had done was to preach what “the prophets and Moses said” (Acts 26:22-23). Paul also wrote, “Everything that was written from former times was written for our instruction” (Romans 15:4). The “our” in question is not the Jews, but Christians. In the same epistle, he stated that the gospel itself was foretold in the Old Testament and that the doctrines and teaching were the same (Romans 1:2-3; 16:26).

Paul almost never divorced his preaching and teaching from the Old Testament Scriptures. In fact, shortly before his execution, Paul sent a letter from his Roman prison asking that a few things be brought to him, including “the scrolls” and “the parchments” (2 Timothy 4:13). While the identity of the parchments is debated, it is virtually unanimous that the scrolls in question were Paul’s copies of the Old Testament. A New Testament Christian, awaiting death, desired nothing more strongly than to read his Bible.

3. The earliest Christian creed didn’t unhitch Christianity from the Old Testament.Creeds were a way for Christians to learn and recite important doctrines and to pass that information on to others. Arguably, the earliest Christian creed is found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-6, dating back to approximately three to seven years after Jesus’ resurrection. This is a perfect example of what the earliest Christians believed:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve….

Notice the primary beliefs in this early Christian creed—that Jesus died for our sins, was buried and rose from the dead—are inextricably tied to the Old Testament Scriptures.

The God of the Old Testament is the God of the New. The totality of God’s revealed Word is found in the union of both. It might be tempting for 21st century Christians to conclude that the Old Testament is of no use to us, but this is not the example left to us by the apostles, nor is it the example given to us by the church. To do violence to one Testament necessarily damages the other, because it does violence to the revealed Word of God.

Recommended Resources: Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers👉📱https://bit.ly/3Ig6KDc

How Can Jesus Be the Only Way? Mp4👉📱https://bit.ly/3AbN2X1, Mp3👉📱https://bit.ly/3c9lvgV, and DVD👉📱https://bit.ly/3wfyLHx by Frank Turek

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek: INSTRUCTOR Study Guide👉📱 https://cutt.ly/eIyeiKG, STUDENT Study Guide👉📱https://cutt.ly/OIyegwW, and DVD👉📱https://cutt.ly/aIyelh6

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (DVD👉📱 https://cutt.ly/pPdbUzq, Mp3👉📱 https://cutt.ly/nPdbDRv, and Mp4👉📱https://cutt.ly/gPdbCCr)

Alisa Childers is an American singer and songwriter, best known for being in the all-female Christian music group ZOEgirl. She has had a string of top ten radio singles, four studio releases, and received the Dove Award during her time with ZOEgirl. In later years, Alisa found her life-long faith deeply challenged when she started attending what would later identify as a Progressive Christian church. This challenge pushed Alisa toward Christian Apologetics. Today you can read, listen and watch Alisa’s work online as well as purchase her recently published book on Progressive Christianity titled Another Gospel.

Originally posted 5/14/2018 at: https://bit.ly/4es5Ao5

The post Dear Christian: Please Don’t Unhitch Your Faith From the Old Testament appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

Sean McDowell, professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University, on his blog, lists the top ten apologetic books for beginners with short descriptions of each.

He includes:

1. Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis
2. More Than a Carpenter, by Sean and Josh McDowell
3. The Reason for God, by Tim Keller
4. The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel
5. Cold-Case Christianity, by J. Warner Wallace
6. Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions, by Greg Koukl
7. Love Thy Body: Answering Hard Questions about Life and Sexuality, by Nancy Pearcey
8. On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision, by William Lane Craig
9. Confronting Christianity: 12 Hard Questions for the World’s Largest Religion, by Rebecca McLaughlin
10. Evidence that Demands a Verdict, by Sean and Josh McDowell

I would add the following books to the list:

1. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist byNorman Geisler and Frank Turek – One of the best complete introductions to apologetics that covers truth, God’s existence, reliability of the Bible, miracles, and the resurrection.
2. Can We Trust the Gospels? by Peter J. Williams – A focused, but accessible small book on the trustworthiness of the Gospels.

Plus a Series of Books by Paul Copan

1. True For You, But Not For Me: Deflating the Slogans That Leave Christians Speechless by Paul Copan
2. That’s Just Your Interpretation: Responding to Skeptics Who Challenge Your Faith by Paul Copan
3. How Do You Know You’re Not Wrong? Responding to Objections That Leave Christians Speechless, Paul Copan
4. When God Goes to Starbucks: A Guide to Everyday Apologetics by Paul Copan

And of course, let’s not forget Sean McDowell co-authored work with Jonathan Morrow:

1. Is God Just a Human Invention? And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists by Sean McDowell (Author), Jonathan Morrow

[Editor’s note: Another Bestselling apologetics book, that’s been introducing people to apologetics (and I can vouch for it myself, JDF) is . . .

1. Mama Bear Apologetics: Empowering Your Kids to Challenge Cultural Lies by Hillary Ferrer

Recommended Resources: I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl (Book)

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)

J. Steve Lee has taught Apologetics for over two and a half decades at Prestonwood Christian Academy. He also has taught World Religions and Philosophy at Mountain View College in Dallas and Collin College in Plano. With a degree in history and education from the University of North Texas, Steve continued his formal studies at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary with a M.A. in philosophy of religion and has pursued doctoral studies at the University of Texas at Dallas and is finishing his dissertation at South African Theological Seminary. He has published several articles for the Apologetics Study Bible for Students as well as articles and book reviews in various periodicals including Philosophia Christi, Hope’s Reason: A Journal of Apologetics, and the Areopagus Journal. Having an abiding love for fantasy fiction, Steve has contributed chapters to two books on literary criticism of Harry Potter: Harry Potter for Nerds and Teaching with Harry Potter. He even appeared as a guest on the podcast MuggleNet Academia (“Lesson 23: There and Back Again-Chiasmus, Alchemy, and Ring Composition in Harry Potter”). He is married to his lovely wife, Angela, and has two grown boys, Ethan and Josh.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3UwH3ag

The post Top Apologetics Books for Beginners appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

Several weeks ago, I was listening to the podcast “Wise Disciple” with Nate Salah ( “Is Voddie Wrong about Churches?”). He was discussing the need for pastors to focus on finding FAT Christians in their congregations. (Don’t worry. FAT is an acrostic.) This is to say, pastors need to prioritize their time and efforts upon Christians who are Faithful, Available and Teachable. There are multiple reasons why this principle ought to be followed by pastors. But before addressing those reasons, we need to understand what exactly a FAT Christian is.[i]

What are F.A.T. Christians?FAT Christians are not just interested in Jesus but are committed to him as true disciples. Specifically, these are believers who are faithful in many things in the local church, such as attendance to Sunday worship, small group studies, and Sunday school. They are available to serve in the local church whether as elders, deacons, teachers, or just servants who are consistently available to do the work of ministry. Such believers are also teachable: they can be further trained and discipled in the ways of Jesus. They have an attitude of openness to instruction, realizing they lack in knowledge and wisdom. I would add that FAT Christians also have a passion to spread the Gospel and shine the light of Jesus wherever they go. FAT Christians, in short, are true disciple of Jesus, attempting to live out the faith in every corner of their life. They have Jesus as their priority, not their jobs, trips, vacations, or celebratory events (although these can be important endeavors).

Pastors, however, need to realize that not every person who proclaims the name of Christ is FAT. If you serve as a pastor or leader in a local church, you know this too well. Faithfulness, availability, and a teachable spirit are often like apocalyptic blood moons: rare. One person is faithful but lacks availability and a teachable spirit, and another may be teachable but is not faithful or available. Some may not be any of these. As numerous studies have shown, Millennials and Gen Z are especially challenged in the areas of faithfulness (commitment) and availability.

It should be no surprise that FAT Christians are rare. Jesus stated that “the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it . . . and the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Matt 7:13-14; NASB). If the path to destruction is wide and the way of Christ is so narrow, it should be expected for true discipleship to be just as difficult to find. Perhaps even more difficult than finding the narrow way of life. It is unfortunate that so many in the local church who proclaim the name of Jesus remain so lean (the opposite of FAT). And some often remain lean with no intention of becoming FAT.

Pastors, Find the FAT SheepAs difficult as it may be to hear or accept, shepherds of a local flock ought to let the lean sheep graze in the farther corners of the pasture and prioritize focusing upon the FAT sheep. One reason pastors ought to adopt this principle is because the lean ones often detract from the divine work of the church: evangelism and discipleship. Those who continually reject [and waste] the meals offered to them by pastors often take away precious time and food from those who are hungry. As a result, evangelism and discipleship suffer. Don’t allow the sheep who spit out the food, or turn about-face with just one whiff of a meal, to detract from the mission of the church, thereby starving the hungry ones. Consider, too, that God himself does not continually attempt to force feed acceptance of his Son or his will. He gave humans the freedom to accept or reject him (of course, this assumes that freedom of the will is truly real). Sure, God continues to call out to the same sinners, working on them perpetually. He desires all to be saved. Pastors should do the same but not to the detriment of the church’s mission.

Another reason to focus upon FAT Christians is because they desire to be fed with food that truly fills. They want to focus upon God, the Scriptures, and other valuable studies, like theology and apologetics. Those who do not distract others from the feasts of learning. Like a child who consistently is distracted by the birds outside the window, so-called lean Christians continually draw attention to things that have no relevance or importance to true discipleship—the color of the carpet, style of worship music, whether the pastor called every sick person in the congregation, what specific word was used in a prayer or sermon, or how a person dresses. All these things are distractions, and if a pastor gives any attention to these, the FAT Christians will starve.

One other reason pastors ought to focus upon FAT Christians is because the lean ones mostly discourage pastors (and the other sheep for that matter). Because they spend an inordinate amount of time majoring in the minors by focusing upon airing their pedantic opinions, the lean sheep become a source of major discouragement. All the complaining and nitpicking drains pastors mentally, emotionally, spiritually, and often physically. But remember, they are not there to be fed anyway, so pastors might as well focus their attention upon those who want to eat. Feed the ones who are truly hungry for Jesus.

Isn’t This Cruel Advice?It may be tempting to see this principle of focusing upon FAT Christians as cruel advice or even a dereliction of one’s pastoral duties. Isn’t it promoting the neglect of some of the sheep? And if so, doesn’t this directly contradict all we know about the teachings of Jesus concerning love, patience, endurance, and other virtues and fruit of the Spirit?

Not necessarily. For one, it is not just impractical but impossible for one pastor to focus upon the entire flock equally anyway. This is one reason why Christ gave the local church a plurality of elders and deacons and the numerous commands for the entire church to be involved with ministry: so that the entire flock could be cared for. Jesus himself could not even focus upon every person in the crowd who followed him. For sure, he taught the entire crowd, but he also had just twelve upon whom he primarily focused. Even within the twelve, Jesus focused more attention upon Peter, James, and John.

Second, to focus upon FAT Christians in not neglectful of the lean Christians. Neglect implies little to no care whatsoever. But this is not the case. The principle does not say to neglect the lean sheep; it says not to prioritize them. They are still on the sheep list, so to speak, but they are not at the top of the list. The reason why is because mostly what they do is distract, detract, and discourage as stated above. Note, too, that they are always welcome to discontinue being this way and be transformed by the Holy Spirit. Then, they can become one of the FAT Christians. In fact, pastors should continually pray for and encourage the lean sheep to become FAT.

Moreover, an argument can be made that it is unloving toward the FAT sheep to focus equally upon the lean ones. What is more unloving than starving the sheep who want to be fed because pastors are distracted by the ones who do not want to eat? Additionally, prioritizing the FAT is more loving, patient, and longsuffering for the lean sheep themselves. What is more loving and patient than allowing people to complain, nitpick, and attempt to distract while still teaching them and not entirely ignoring them? This may very well be the definition of patience. So, prioritizing the FAT is ultimately the more loving thing to do for both the lean and the FAT.

The PointJesus once sent out his disciples to preach the Kingdom of God, heal, and cast out demons (Mark 6:7-13). He specifically instructed them to enter into a person’s house and stay there. They were to remain in that house and town as long as their teaching was accepted. If that town were to reject them and their teaching, they were to “go out from there, shake the dust off the soles of their feet for a testimony against them” and move on.

Certainly, these words of Jesus were circumstantial to a degree. There is, however, an underlying thought here that supports this principle of prioritizing FAT Christians: some people are not going to accept (or will fight against) the biblical teaching pastors offer and focus on distracting, detracting, and discouraging. As such, pastors ought to “shake the dust off the soles of their feet” and move on to those who desire it. The harvest is plentiful, as Jesus commented elsewhere, and so pastors need to work at finding and feeding those who desire it. Do not neglect the lean sheep, but nevertheless, find the FAT ones and feed them. There are many who are hungry for Christ, so make the FAT the priority.

References:[i] Editor’s Note: At Crossexamined, we usually focus on apologetics, but always with a view for the Great Commission; that is, go and make disciples (Matt. 28:18-20). This blog by Pastor Paul Rasor focuses on that discipleship component. And since apologetics works great in any well-rounded discipleship program, then this advice about discipleship is solid advice for apologetics training. Pastors should invest apologetics training in Christians who are faithful, available, and teachable.

Recommended Resources: Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)

How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

Peter J. Rasor II is presently the Senior Pastor of Lilburn Christian Church in Lilburn, GA and is an adjunct professor of philosophy at Grand Canyon University (GCU). He previously served as Assistant Professor of Philosophy at GCU (2015-2023). He is co-author of Controversy of the Ages (2017), author of the fantasy novel The Plague of Kosmon: Rise of the Seer, and has a multiple-authored forthcoming book An Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Guide to the Things that Really Matter (Zondervan; 2025). He holds a ThM in theology and PhD in philosophy from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, KY) and a MA and MDiv from Cincinnati Christian University.

Original Blog Posted Here: https://bit.ly/3XVFcfU

The post Prioritizing FAT Christians: A Practical Theology for Pastors appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

Surviving political landscapes as a Christian has always been challenging (ancient Rome was harsh, y’all!). However, this U.S. presidential election cycle feels like the most difficult in recent history, and the American political landscape seems to grow more contentious every year. So, how do we navigate this minefield with truth, love, and joy? It’s not easy, but it can be simple.

[If you know how to coopt this “click-to-tweet” function so it redirects to the CE article go ahead, otherwise, let’s Block Quote these] So, how do we navigate this minefield with truth, love, and joy? It’s not easy, but it can be simple. Let’s talk about how. Click To Tweet

Should we get Political at all?First, let’s address the elephant (and donkey) in the room. Should Christians even get political? I mean, doesn’t Romans 13:1-7 basically tell us to obey the government God has allowed to rule over us? Yes, and no. Yes, we are absolutely to obey the government authorities unless they are asking us to violate God’s laws. However, we have a totally different form of government than the Roman Empire during the first century. The early church had no say in their government. They were under authoritarian control and could do little more than choose their attitude of servitude. However, the U.S. was founded as a democratic republic and expects participation as part of our civic responsibilities. We should voice our thoughts in various ways, including contacting our legislature and voting for the candidates we wish to represent us.

Everyone promotes their values and beliefs in the public sphere, whether those values and beliefs flow from truth, feelings, or faith. Our values are shaped by what we believe is true about the world and everything in it. If we believe the Bible is objectively true about God, the universe, and everything, we would be terrible citizens (much less Christians) if we didn’t use it to inform our values on laws and policies. Remember, there is no neutral. Every citizen uses their strongly held beliefs to determine how to interact in our political sphere. Christians have every right to do so as well, and even a mandate to do so as salt and light! (See Matthew 5:13-16.) Ask “How is the way I’m voting preventing decay in our society?” Political discourse is a good opportunity to demonstrate for your children how our faith is active in all parts of our lives, not something we put into a compartment and take out only on Sundays.

We do not have to hold our values quietly just because we believe they were instituted by God. While our primary citizenship is in God’s kingdom (and this earth for sure ain’t it!) we can strive to promote the best values possible while we reside in the here and now. In fact, everywhere biblical Christian values have been used as the foundation, society has flourished.1 They are verifiably good values to promote. (Note: Some books for further reading include Faithfully Different by Natasha Crain and We Will Not be Silenced by Erwin Lutzer.)

Yes, Get Political. But how?So yes, we can get political, but how do we do so in ways that reflect Christ and spread the benefits of His morality?

Step 1 – Be loving and reasonable. Jesus told us that people should recognize Christians by our love (John 13:35), so first, as Mama Bear Lindsey Medenwaldt puts it plainly in her book Bridge-Building Apologetics, “Don’t be a jerk for Jesus.” Secondly, as much as it is up to us, we are to be at peace with all people (Romans 12:18). While we are called to defend our faith in 1 Peter 3:15, we should do so with gentleness and respect. Our tone should always be loving, kind, and reasonable, even when we need to be bold and unapologetic.

Philippians 4:5 reminds us that our reasonableness should be evident to everyone and that we should not be anxious for anything. We are on the side of truth, and the truth is on your side. We do not need to get frustrated or angry when people don’t agree with us, but rather should seek to be persuasive in how we communicate that truth. One of the best ways to do that is by using questions. Ask people what they believe, why they believe it, and how they came to that conclusion. And then be willing to amend your conclusions if someone presents evidence that you hadn’t considered before! Sometimes asking questions can gently reveal that a person’s beliefs are not built on solid foundations like logic or factual arguments. We also get the added benefit of building a relationship by listening to each other instead of just seeking to make our own point.

Step 2 – Don’t be silent. Once, I was chaperoning a field trip and had several unknown students assigned to my bus. While calling roll, I could not imagine how to pronounce the name L-a. When I cautiously asked for La, I was corrected, “It’s Ladasha. The dash don’t be silent, Miss.” While this was a humorous lesson for me in creative spelling, I couldn’t let go of the idea that the dash shouldn’t be silent. One of the most powerful speakers at the Reality Student Apologetics Conference this spring, La Nej Garrison, spoke about the dash between our birth date and death dates representing our lives. And that our lives should not be silent. God has given each of us a voice and a sphere of influence that includes your children, your friends, maybe even a public audience. Are you using your dash to glorify God and make Him known?

Your primary commission from Jesus is to go into the world and make disciples. While it’s tempting to create a small circle echo chamber of like-minded friends, that does nothing to spread the gospel message. Be willing to get uncomfortable and make friends with people who might disagree with you. Share the gospel. Love them loudly. Don’t be silent in the face of evil. Be the first to stand for what is true and good. Let your life speak volumes. People are listening and your children will learn how to live from your example.

[If you know how to coopt this “click-to-tweet” function so it redirects to the CE article go ahead, otherwise, let’s Block Quote these] Share the gospel. Love people loudly. Don’t be silent in the face of evil. Be the first to stand for what is true and good. Click To Tweet

Step 3 – Do your own research. If we want to have reasonable, powerful conversations with our friends and family, we need to know what we’re talking about. While we live in the information age and anything we want to know is at our fingertips in a moment, there is too much information of varying quality, and everyone has a platform. It’s very important that you know who is worth listening to.

Start tracking reliable sources. Look for people who do not use outrage as clickbait. Reporters should stick to the facts and leave editorializing to the editorial page. Most of mainstream media tends to be biased, so make sure you are doing things like reading articles from both sides of the spectrum and watching C-Span instead of CNN. Try to find neutral outlets as much as possible.

Also, read the original documents when possible, like the Constitution or the text of a proposed bill. Don’t settle for some talking head telling you what a law says or what a candidate endorses. Read the law, platform, or speech for yourself. The media tends to name things in pithy ways that influence most people who never take the time to read them for themselves. People allow their opinions to be decided by the commentators’ name for a bill or the title of an article rather than individual research. (See our post about the 2022 Florida “Don’t say gay” bill. What people sensationally claimed was is in the bill didn’t show up anywhere in it.) Know what you’re promoting and voting for.

Step 4 – Consider the platform, policies, and personnel over the person. This year especially, our choice of presidential candidates leaves something (okay, a lot!) to be desired. Neither one seems to be appropriately moral (at least not in their pasts), and both are prone to exaggeration, misdirection, and straight up deceitfulness. Frankly, trying to listen to either of them talk is often unpleasant, but we’re voting for more than the person. (See John Ferrer’s article here on how we are voting for policies, platform, and personnel (like 4000 of them…). Which of these candidates has ideas that you want to duplicate in all spheres of government, like 4000 times?

[If you know how to coopt this “click-to-tweet” function so it redirects to the CE article go ahead, otherwise, let’s Block Quote these]Which of these candidates has ideas that you want to duplicate in all spheres of government, like 4000 times? Click To Tweet

It would be LOVELY if we had a candidate that reflected Christ, didn’t have a messy past, was bold and confident while also being kind and reasonable. But as a nation, we didn’t vote to put those people on the ballot. SIGH. We have the choices we have.

Remember, Jesus Christ is King.

We do not serve a fallen god or a dead king. We serve the risen Jesus who is seated on His throne at the right hand of the Father right now. Nothing happens on this Earth that is not under His sovereignty. The same God who allowed Nebuchadnezzar to conquer His people rules over our elections, too. Sometimes, God needs to show His people how far we’ve fallen in order to call us to repentance. (And if there is one thing our nation needs, it’s a call to repentance!) Do not despair. You were born for such a time as this. Raise up your dragon slayers to slay the dragons of this world that oppose our God. Be bold. A wonderfully wise speaker, Laura Zifer Powell, at the Women in Apologetics conference this month made a statement that really inspired me. I’m paraphrasing here, but she said “why are you sitting on the couch watching superheroes battle the forces of darkness. You get to do that! Get off your couch and do spiritual warfare!”

[If you know how to coopt this “click-to-tweet” function so it redirects to the CE article go ahead, otherwise, let’s Block Quote these] Get into the fray, Mama Bears. No matter how the election results roll in we can influence those around us and strive to improve our country and win souls to Jesus. Click To Tweet

Get into the fray, Mama Bears. No matter how the election results roll in we can influence those around us and strive to improve our country and win souls to Jesus. In fact, we often do best at winning souls when it looks like our side isn’t winning at all. Remember ancient Rome? When people saw the Christians facing their deaths singing worship to God, Christianity began to spread like a wildfire. I’d rather see that wildfire than win at the polls. If we could have both, that would be nice, but Jesus wins in the end. And we want to be Team Jesus most of all.

Recommended Resources:Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3

Reflecting Jesus into a Dark World by Dr. Frank Turek – DVD Complete Series, Video mp4 DOWNLOAD Complete Series, and mp3 audio DOWNLOAD Complete Series

Jennifer DeFrates is a former English and Social Studies teacher turned homeschool mom and Christian blogger at Heavennotharvard.com and theMamapologist.com. Jennifer is a 2x CIA graduate (the Cross-Examined Instructors Academy) and volunteers with Mama Bear Apologetics. She has a passion for discipleship through apologetics. Her action figure would come with coffee and a stack of books. She is also the reluctant ringleader of a small menagerie in rural Alabama.

Originally posted at:https://bit.ly/4drDKYA

The post Navigating the American Political Landscape appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

Some skepticism is warranted. None of us want to live within a paradigm of naivety. No one wants to blindly accept every foolish notion that comes down the pipeline. A quick glance at social media along with the acknowledgment of the tweaks and twists that artificial intelligence can bring to videos and audio files only intensifies our need for discernment.

Even still, as believers, we must differentiate between discernment and all-out skepticism. Discernment evaluates data to see whether the information is valid and trustworthy. In contrast, skepticism doubts or denies claims that seem to be grandiose or beyond the status quo. Even more to the point, skepticism can deny propositional claims. When left unrestrained, skepticism could lead to doubt, which in turn can lead to the denial of propositions (i.e., truth claims). At worst, unrestrained skepticism can lead to cynicism.

The Infiltration of Skepticism in Conservative ApologeticsI have been troubled by the extreme form of skepticism that has entered the apologetic and theological world, especially within what has been considered conservative evangelical Christianity. When I first entered the apologetic world in 2007 and formally in 2012, apologists and conservative theologians alike were fairly settled on certain issues regarding miracles, biblical fidelity, and creationism. The pillars of the apologetic world, however, seem to be crumbling, instead adopting extreme forms of skepticism that deny veritable biblical truth claims.

At the same time, modern Christianity has adopted a celebrity culture. So, these icons of the time often go unquestioned by their fanbase. We would be well advised, however, to remember that truth is truth and error is error regardless of who speaks it. With that in mind, let us consider three avenues where we should be skeptical of modern skepticism.

Becoming Skeptical of Modern Human Skepticism (Miraculous Skepticism) [i]David Hume was an English skeptic of the 16th century. Hume maintained that miracles could not be proven as historical events. While a full explanation of his view is beyond the scope of this article, Hume defined a miracle as “a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent.”[ii] Part of the problem in Hume’s analysis is that a Deity and/or invisible agent may work through the laws of nature to bring about certain ends. Gary Habermas offers a better definition, claiming that miraculous interventions should be understood as “the manifestation or presence of divine actions that temporarily or momentarily overrule or supersede nature’s normally observed, lawful pattern of events, or that appear to do so.”[iii]

Hume’s Circular ReasoningA bigger problem with Hume’s assessment is that his argument is largely circular. Hume does not believe miracles can be proven because he does not believe miracles occur. And, like a self-fulfilling prophecy, if you do not believe that miracles occur, then you will deny any claim that purports to be miraculous.

Modern Hume in the Apologetic World?While nearly all Bible-believing Christians will accept that God does perform miracles, the level of scrutiny that some biblical events have received by Bible-believing scholars is somewhat suspect. With modern scholars, the idea of a talking serpent seems absurd, even though the Bible is riddled with numerous miraculous events. Furthermore, for some, the idea that God could raise numerous saints from the dead around the time of Christ’s crucifixion appears beyond rational belief, all the while the same scholars defend Jesus’s own resurrection and His resurrection of others from the dead. So then, why is it that some stories appear absurd, and others don’t?

At the end of the day, we must ask ourselves whether we actually believe that God can do anything within God’s moral limitations. Sure, even the Bible says that God cannot sin because of His moral holiness, and God cannot do something that goes against God’s character (e.g., Titus 1:2). But do we believe that God can part the Red Sea? Do we really believe that God can raise the dead? If so, why do we place limitations on what God can do?

Becoming Skeptical of Modern Bultmannian Skepticism (Biblical Skepticism) [iv]Rudolf Bultmann was a German theologian of the 19th century who was highly skeptical of the biblical texts. Bultmann promoted the demythologization of the Bible. That is, Bultmann believed that the Bible must be stripped of all its mythological elements to make it more palatable for modern scientific minds. As such, Bultmann held an informal uncontrolled mindset when it came to the oral traditions undergirding the life of Jesus. The informal uncontrolled model means that, according to Bultmann, no one was concerned about preserving accurate information about Jesus, and no one was selected to authenticate the material. Thus, the Gospels tell us next to nothing about the historical Jesus and more about the church’s belief about Jesus. Therefore, no one can know anything about the life of Jesus.

Oral TraditionsIn my dissertation work, not only did I discover that Bultmann’s theory on oral traditions was wrong, but the Gospels texts also indicate that something more controlled was at hand when it came to the preservation of Jesus traditions.[v] As such, the data suggests that the Gospels are based on eyewitness testimony. We have good reasons to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, as well as other events in Scripture.[vi] If the data suggests that we have reasons for believing in the fidelity of Scripture and the stories it contains, then why do we find it necessary to cast doubt on the authenticity of the traditions of Jesus?

Is Harmonization a Sin?Why is it such a sin to harmonize the Gospels as Michael Licona suggests if the Gospels indeed contain eyewitness testimonies? It seems to me that attempts to diffuse the mystical and miraculous elements of Scripture are falling back into the unjustified skepticism of Bultmann and his desire to demythologize the pages of the Bible. But the greater question is, what are we left with if we remove the divine power of God from the testimonies of Scripture? We’ll discuss that in the conclusion.

Becoming Skeptical of Modern Darwinian Skepticism (Creationary Skepticism)Lastly, it seems as if theistic evolution has become the fad of the day. Since William Lane Craig published his book In Quest of the Historical Adam, I have observed many young apologists and would-be scholars falling in line with endorsing theistic evolution, even though evolutionary theory still suffers from the same methodological flaws that it ever has.

What happened to the apologists’s endorsement of the work of Stephen Meyer and the Discovery Institute? Through the years, Meyer has given ample reason to question Darwinianism. His book Darwin’s Doubt is one such example. Do we now cast aside Darwin’s Doubt just because it is popular to now follow the idea that much of Genesis 1–11 is mythological? Do we now openly reject classic creationist concepts by scientists like Hugh Ross, the staff at Reasons to Believe, and Answers in Genesis just because a well-known philosopher says to do otherwise?

ConclusionMost assuredly, I am not trying to lambast Craig, Licona, or any of their followers. I have been blessed by many of their works in time’s past and have many friends who follow along with the concepts presented by the two men. And it should be noted that many other scholars could be included in the three aforementioned categories. But I am troubled by the following question: At what point should we become skeptical of our own skepticism?

As I had the pleasure of editing the book Why Creationism Still Matters with my good friends and colleagues Dr. T. J. Gentry and Dr. Michelle Johnson, it struck me how strong the case can be made for creationism. And it further troubled me why others feel the need to reject such a defense when in fact numerous scientists are questioning evolutionary theory as well.[vii]

Additionally, consider that we have spent thousands of years trying to understand what it only took seconds for God to create. God spoke, and the universe came into existence with all its laws, physics, and numerical values. Thus, if God is God, and the Bible is God’s Word, wouldn’t it behoove us to believe what God said?

Final AnalysisAs an apologist, I most assuredly believe that the resurrection and events of the Bible stand on their own merit. Thus, I am not a fideist. Have we, however, encountered God and known the power He holds? If so, at what point should we begin asking if our latent skepticism reflects our own doubt more than it does the evidence within the text?

So, to summarize, why should we become skeptical of our skepticism? When our skepticism begins to offer more reasons not to believe in God’s power and His revelation, that’s when our skepticism exposes latent doubt more than our faith. We must then ask ourselves if we really believe in what we are leading others to believe. If we don’t, then why encourage others to believe at all? But if we do believe, then what good is it when we continuously downgrade what God has given us in His Word? And if we do believe, then at some point, we must become skeptical of why we are so skeptical.

Furthermore, we must also question if our skepticism has caused an even greater naivety, wherein we blindly follow whatever our favored philosophers or scholars say without considering the validity of their claims. In a sense, our unrestrained skepticism could lead to greater gullibility. Just some things to consider from a fellow disciple as we journey this life together.

References: [i] Humean refers to the teachings of David Hume.

[ii] David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, in the Essential Works of David Hume, Ralph Cohen, ed (New York: Bantham, 1965), 1:129n3.

[iii] Gary Habermas, On the Resurrection: Evidences, vol. 1 (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2024), 242.

[iv] Bultmannian refers to the teachings of Rudolph Bultmann.

[v] Brian G. Chilton, “Semitic Residue: Semitic Traits that Indicate Early Source Material Behind the Gospel of Matthew” (2022), Doctoral Dissertations and Projects, 3874, https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/3874.

[vi] See my contribution for an extensive defense of the resurrection in the upcoming book Thomas J. Gentry, ed., Strong Faith (West Frankfort, IL: IHP Practica, 2024).

[vii] For example, read “Scientists Dissent from Darwinian Theory,” Discovery.org (Feb. 12, 2019), https://www.discovery.org/v/darwin-dissenters-speak/. Also consider the mathematical problems related to Darwinianism, David Berlinski, Stephen C. Meyer, David H. Gelernter, “Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, With David Berlinksi, Stephen C. Meyer, and David Gelernter,” Interview, Hoover Institution, Hoover.org (July 22, 2019), https://www.hoover.org/research/mathematical-challenges-darwins-theory-evolution-david-berlinski-stephen-meyer-and-david.

Recommended Resources:Debate: What Best Explains Reality: Atheism or Theism? by Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, and Mp3

Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Does Science Disprove God? by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek

Brian G. Chilton earned his Ph.D. in the Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University (with high distinction). He is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast and the founder of Bellator Christi. Brian received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); earned a Certificate in Christian Apologetics from Biola University, and plans to purse philosophical studies in the near future. He is also enrolled in Clinical Pastoral Education to better learn how to empower those around him. Brian is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has served in ministry for over 20 years and currently serves as a clinical hospice chaplain as well as a pastor.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4e4KBrE

The post Becoming Skeptical of Modern Skepticism appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

All Christians should study apologetics. Christians should study apologetics may sound like a bold claim if you’ve barely even heard of apologetics, but I promise you apologetics has been the most important thing I’ve done for my faith besides reading my Bible regularly.

What is Apologetics?Apologetics is a rational, organized defense of the Christian faith. It is the why behind the what we believe.

Apologetics has many different aspects. Some people study the timelines of events in the Bible. Astrophysicists study the universe and God’s hand in creation. Some apologists are philosophers who consider the rational reasoning behind having faith. Some are archaeologists who examine artifacts and geographical evidence that supports the Bible.

Apologetics has many different branches, but they all stem from the same tree of demonstrating the reasonableness of the Christian faith.

Reason 1 why all Christians should study apologetics – Because the Bible tells us to.Most Christians know what we believe, but if someone were to ask why do you believe it, would you have an answer? Did you know the Bible tells us we should have an answer? “But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.” (1 Peter 3:15, ESV)

Christians have a hope within us that the rest of the world does not. We should be prepared to explain why we have this hope to anyone who asks. Studying apologetics helps us prepare this answer before we need to answer it.

Why should ALL Christians study apologetics? Because the world has never needed Jesus more than today. We need to be prepared to give an answer for the hope we have within us. #Apologetics CLICK TO TWEET

Reason 2 why all Christians should study apologetics is to shore up our own faith.If we’re honest, most Christians have doubts occasionally. From time to time, we wonder is any of this real? Am I just hoping in something fictional? Like the father in Mark 9, I have cried out in the night for God to help my unbelief. “Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, “I believe; help my unbelief!” (Mark 9:24)

Most recently, when I was just feeling broken and despondent from the current cultural darkness, I begged God for help. I instantly felt I should call a friend I hadn’t talked to in almost a year. I kept pushing back that feeling, but that day she called me! She said she felt God telling her to call me.

Ok, God, I hear you! You see even those moments that I just need encouragement to keep fighting the darkness! But aren’t Christians supposed to have blind faith? Some Christians believe that our faith should be absolute and require no proof or it isn’t faith. Have you heard this argument before? I certainly had.

But “just believe!” rang horribly false when I heard atheist objections to the Bible’s accuracy or challenges to creation. I needed better answers than just blind faith!

I was so grateful to know that this isn’t the kind of faith God ever expected us to have. Faith was trusting in what we have reason to believe is true. If we look through the entirety of scriptures, we can see that God and Jesus used miracles at specific times to demonstrate their power and authority.

[below is a “click-to-tweet” link. If you can get it to work on the CE website then great – folks will be able to click it and directly tweet that quote from their own twitter account. If you can’t get it to work, then just convert it back into a blockquote]

Are Christians really supposed to have a Blind Faith? Read here to see what Jesus expected of those who followed Him. #Apologetics #ChristianApologetics #WomeninApologetics CLICK TO TWEET

In Luke 7, while John the Baptist is in jail awaiting his fate, he sends two of his followers to ask Jesus if He is the Messiah. John the Baptist was the first to recognize Jesus as the Messiah, and yet, he doubted. Does Jesus rebuke John? Tell him to just have faith? No. “In that hour he healed many people of diseases and plagues and evil spirits, and on many who were blind he bestowed sight.” (Luke 7:21)

He spends the next hour performing the exact types of miracles that the Old Testament prophets predicted the Messiah would do. And then commends John in front of the crowd, “I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John.”

In John 10, some of the Jews listening to Jesus teach grow restless wanting to know if He is the Messiah. Jesus’s answer gives us hope today. Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me” (John 10:25).

Jesus didn’t expect people to blindly hope in Him without cause. He expected His followers then and now to trust the signs and teachings that demonstrated His divine nature.

Reason 3 why all Christians should study Apologetics is to gain critical thinking skills.We live in an internet age in which anyone can say anything. People make emotionally powerful statements or videos and the mobs cheer assent, often without thinking deeply about what they are cheering.

From studying apologetics, I have learned to think deeply about the meaning of words.

Challenging conversations have to start with some ground rules, like clear definitions of terms. If we are using the same words, but mean different things, conversations can go south quickly. For example, love is love sounds pithy and noble, but what is the definition of love here?

“Love is not affectionate feeling, but a steady wish for the loved person’s ultimate good as far as it can be obtained” ― C.S. Lewis

I doubt this is the kind of love meant by Love is Love. Studying apologetics made me more aware of linguistic theft (changing definitions of words to mean something new and often contradictory). Apologetics also taught me to think logically about the statements people make.

Listening to thousands of hours of apologetics podcasts, I’ve learned to see through logical fallacies and be able to make sound arguments for why I believe God exists and the Bible is truth.

Reason 4 why all Christians should study Apologetics is to learn sound doctrine.While some aspects of apologetics strive to harmonize science with our faith or study the accuracy of the Bible, some apologists spend most of their time studying the doctrine of what we believe by studying the Bible.

I’ve learned to never read A Bible verse, but instead to study the context of a verse, look at the intended audience, consider the historical context, etc.

I’ve learned how to formulate answers for tough questions, like why do we believe Jesus had to die on the cross for our sins? Is it cosmic child abuse?

Through apologetics (and reading my Bible), I’ve learned to see how the thread of God’s redemptive promise flows through the entire Bible from the fall and the covenants with Abraham and Moses all the way to the End Times and Revelation. The requirements of the first passover in Egypt foreshadow Christ’s blood redeeming us from death. Christ’s death occurring on Passover during the ritual slaughter of lambs for the Jewish Passover meal was not an accident. It was God’s divine plan in His divine timing. I’ve learned to read my Bible better.

How do we know the will of God on an issue? We can study God’s response in similar situations, look for what He values, look at God’s definitions of love, justice, righteousness, etc.

If we find a verse that isn’t totally clear, how do we determine what it means? We look at other verses on the same topic that are clear. Always use the clearest verses to shore up our theology.

Learning to study the Bible for all it’s worth is one of the biggest joys I’ve gained from apologetics. One theologian/apologist/pastor, Mike Winger, has really taught me how to take an issue like marriage and research it through the entirety of scripture, not just the designated marriage passages.

I love feeling like I better understand the will and character of God. Living out my faith has become so much easier with sound theology.

[below is a “click-to-tweet” link. If you can get it to work on the CE website then great – folks will be able to click it and directly tweet that quote from their own twitter account. If you can’t get it to work, then just convert it back into a blockquote]

If you could share ideas or facts that help remove people’s objections to God and open their minds to belief, wouldn’t you want to??? Learn why and how here. #Evangelism #Apologetics #Christianity CLICK TO TWEET

Reason 5 why all Christians should study Apologetics is to share our faith.Learning how to talk to people about God is the most important reason of all. If Jesus is the only way to salvation from sin and those who die in their sin will spend eternity separated from every grace of God, we need to be sharing our faith regularly.

Too many people in our lives are not living as saved children of God. We need to do our best to invite as many people as possible into a real saving relationship with God.

Some people will respond to the Gospel message alone, but most people will have questions. Apologetics will help you answer tough questions from friends and family.

• Is there any evidence for God?
• Why should I believe the Bible is accurate?
• Was Jesus even real?
• Why should I believe in the Resurrection?
• How can you believe there is only one way to God?
• Are other faiths true? What about Mormonism? Islam?

Having answers helps remove objections that prevent people from seeking Jesus. It can open their hearts and minds to faith in God. All of which goes back to the first reason, Christians should study apologetics to be prepared to give an answer for the hope we have in Christ.

Recommended Resources:Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist’ [FOUR unique curriculum levels for 2nd grade through to adult] by Frank Turek

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)

Jennifer DeFrates is a former English and Social Studies teacher turned homeschool mom and Christian blogger at Heavennotharvard.com and theMamapologist.com. Jennifer is a 2x CIA graduate (the Cross-Examined Instructors Academy) and volunteers with Mama Bear Apologetics. She has a passion for discipleship through apologetics. Her action figure would come with coffee and a stack of books. She is also the reluctant ringleader of a small menagerie in rural Alabama.

Originally Posted at: https://bit.ly/4cmcoTi

The post 5 Important Reasons Christians Should Study Apologetics appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

Life presents numerous trials and challenges, many of which result not from our own actions but from the behavior and transgressions of others. Betrayal, injustice, or rejection can inflict profound emotional pain and distress. The overwhelming nature of the suffering, particularly when caused by another individual, prompts natural questioning of how an omnibenevolent God could permit such affliction during the darkest moments.

I can tell you from my own personal pain that it’s tough to be at peace in life after being wounded and betrayed by someone you trusted. The emotional pain can leave you feeling as though you cannot trust God and forgive others. However, it’s essential to recognize that this pain does not reflect the absence of God’s love or presence in our lives. Instead, it offers a profound opportunity for spiritual growth and deepening our faith.

The Scriptures remind believers that God intimately understands human grief. The writer of Hebrews reminds us that “we do not have a High Priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses” (Hebrews 4:15). The prophet Isaiah’s description of Jesus as “a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief” (Isaiah 53:3) serves as a powerful testament to the compassion of the Lord, who willingly bore the depths of human pain. This understanding of human suffering underlines Jesus’s invitation for individuals to seek comfort in Him.

“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” Matthew 11:28-30

When facing emotional pain, it’s understandable to grapple with anger and thoughts of retaliation. However, it’s important to address our circumstances with a spiritual perspective. As Ephesians 6:12 reminds us, our challenges encompass not only the physical and emotional but also the spiritual.

Furthermore, it may seem easier to suppress our hurt and tell ourselves to “move on,” but this approach often leads to deeper emotional and spiritual issues. It’s crucial to acknowledge and confront the pain inflicted by others. One effective way to do this is by seeking solace in the presence of God. As David expressed in a poignant song, being in God’s presence brings a sense of completeness and joy, offering a path toward healing and restoration (see Psalm 16).

So, I say to you, dear friend, share your pain with God. Don’t ignore it or feel embarrassed. You need to accept that feeling angry about being hurt and betrayed is perfectly normal.

The next step may seem even more impossible and the most challenging: the need to forgive. A big part of finding healing and peace is to rely on God’s forgiveness. Just as God forgave us through the sacrifice of Jesus, we are called to forgive others (Ephesians 4:32, Matthew 6:14-15). Forgiveness requires the conscious choice to release the offender to God and liberate ourselves from anger and resentment rather than condoning the wrongdoing or overlooking the pain.

Trusting in God’s forgiveness can be challenging when we are hurting and struggling to understand, but it is vital for our healing process. Have faith that He can turn our pain into purpose, bring beauty from ashes, and use our suffering to shape us into the likeness of Jesus Christ himself.

In her book, You Can Trust God When Life Hurts, Amber Albee Swenson shares this promising truth,

“God is not oblivious to our situations, and he’s not unconcerned. Sometimes, he gives us a chance to remedy the situation, like the disciples in the storm. Sometimes he’s watching to monitor our reaction, like he did with Job in the Old Testament. And sometimes, like the apostle Paul on that ship, he’s sustaining us until the exact minute he chooses to end our storm.”

Acknowledging our pain, relying on God’s strength, and choosing forgiveness are all necessary for finding healing amid the hurt and can help mend a broken relationship in many cases. Those who don’t learn to deal with hurt are more likely to be consumed by it, causing them to hurt others in return. However, the more you learn to lean on God for healing, the greater strength and comfort you will gain the next time you experience hurt. It’s important to remember that healing takes time; it’s not just a process, it’s a journey. No matter how long it takes to deal with the hurt, Jesus is always beside you, ready to hold and carry you through the darkness of pain.

Recommended Resources:Why Doesn’t God Intervene More? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

Why does God allow Bad Things to Happen to Good People? (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek

Relief From the Worst Pain You’ll Ever Experience (DVD) (MP3) (Mp4 Download) by Gary Habermas

If God, Why Evil? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

Jason Jimenez is President of STAND STRONG Ministries and author of Challenging Conversations: A Practical Guide to Discuss Controversial Topics in the church. For more info, check out www.standstrongministries.org.

Originally published here: https://bit.ly/4du4NCX

The post Dealing with Hurt and Trusting God: Biblical Tips for Overcoming Pain appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

I was in a Global Studies conference a few months ago when a retired minister asked me an interesting question. He told me, “I like to take Christian young men to the local mosques so they can learn about Islamic beliefs; however, I’m wondering what would be a good question to ask our Muslim friends in order to get to know them and let them know about Jesus.” I believe this is a very important question I would like to answer here.

Talk about Jesus Christ from A Christian PerspectiveOne of the sharp differences between Islam and Christianity is the nature of Jesus. Who he is and what he did. Christians can approach their Muslim neighbors and tell them about Jesus in two ways: 1) What do the Gospels say about Jesus? 2) What do the Qur’an and Hadiths say about Jesus? One of the stories that is not mentioned in the Qur’an and Hadiths about Jesus is how he dealt with nature. These stories might resonate well with Muslims and explain Jesus’s authority over nature and creation. The stories of Jesus calming the storm and resurrecting the widow’s son show the uniqueness of Christ and his supremacy over nature.

The texts that can be used for Jesus calming the storm are Matt 8:23-27; Mark 4:35-41; Luke 8:22-25 (ESV). The text that can be used for Jesus raising a widow’s son from the dead is Luke 7:11-15. After reading the Bible, a Christian can ask, “In your opinion, what is the significance of Jesus calming the storm?” or “What is the significance of Jesus raising the dead? The story of Jesus calming the storm is not mentioned in the Qur’an and asking this question will help Muslims think deeper about Jesus. However, the Qur’an mentions that Jesus raised dead people without mentioning who they are. Christians should emphasize that Jesus did these miracles in public, in front of many witnesses, and it was written down within the same generation of people who saw them. It was not collected hundreds of years later (like in the case of the miracles of Mohammad). These stories are more historically reliable because they are better witnessed, attested to, and written within a short period of time. There is no reason for Christians not to believe it and there are many reasons to think about their significance.

It is a good idea for Christians to read to their Muslim friends from the Bible these stories and not just recite a verse from memory or explain the story using their own words. In this way, Muslims will be able to differentiate between the words of the Bible and the words of the Christians. It also assures the Muslims that these stories are written in the Bible and no one is tricking them by creating imaginative stories about Jesus.

Talk about Jesus Christ from an Islamic PerspectiveChristians need to learn what Islamic literature says about Jesus. According to the Qur’an, Jesus has a sinless nature, was of a virgin birth, was a creator, and will return to judge the world. Due to the limited space, I will write about the virgin birth of Jesus and if the reader would like to learn more about the other points, they can read my article “Does Islamic Literature Suggest Jesus is God?” In this paper, I discuss major themes about what Islamic literature says about Jesus and I compare these themes to other prophets to show the superiority of Christ.

Muslims believe that Jesus was born of a virgin. The Islamic narrative is mentioned in the Qur’an. Allah says,

“We sent to her Our Ruh [angel Jibril (Gabriel)], and he appeared before her in the form of a man in all respects … (the angel) said: ‘I am only a messenger from your Lord, (to announce) to you the gift of a righteous son.’ She said: ‘How can I have a son, when no man has touched me, nor am I unchaste?’ He said: ‘So (it will be), your Lord said: “That is easy for Me (Allah), and it is a matter (already) decreed, (by Allah)”’” (Surah 19:17-20 Al-Hilali and Khan).[i]

These verses record what Allah said and did with Mary. He sent his spirit to Mary, which appeared to her like a man. Islamic scholars added to the Qur’anic text that “Our Spirit” is the angel Gabriel, but the Qur’anic story does not say that the Spirit of God appeared in the resemblance of angel Gabriel.

Jesus’s virgin birth narrative is also mentioned in Surah 3:42-47 with a salient change. Notice verses 42 and 45. They mention a group of angels appearing to Mary to deliver the message to her. “When the angels said: ‘O Marium! surely Allah has chosen you, purified you… When the angels said: O Marium, surely Allah gives you good news with a Word from Him (of one) whose name is the Messiah…” (Shakir). It is unclear how Islamic scholars conclude that Gabriel is the one who told Mary the good news about Jesus; thus, this could serve as a good question to ask to help Muslims think deeply about the details of the Qur’anic story of Jesus’s birth.

Muslim scholars believe that the virgin birth of Jesus does not point to his deity. Here, Christians can ask the question, “What is the reason or the purpose that made God choose the virgin birth as a method to bring Jesus to earth?” The fact that Jesus came to this earth through a miracle (virgin birth) and left it through another miracle (ascending to God) raises a major question mark about his nature. These two events never happened to any other prophet, not even to Muhammad himself.

Usually, Muslims quote the Qur’an to show their Christian friends that there is nothing special about Jesus coming from a virgin. Mohammad states in Surah 3:59 “Verily, the likeness of ‘Isa (Jesus) before Allah is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: ‘Be!’—and he was.” So, “God created Adam from dirt, then said to him: be, and there He became, through no mediation of a father or a mother. God created Adam in a more glorious way than He created Jesus from a mother with no mediation of a father.”[ii] Creating Adam from dirt is indeed a very special act that only God can do; however, according to the Qur’an, Jesus did the same miracle when he created a bird from the dirt without the need for a mother and a father of birds (Surah 3: 49). In other words, if this act is extremely unique because it belongs to Allah only, then Jesus did what is extremely unique when he created the bird—how can a mere man do what only God can do?

In fact, according to Islamic logic, creating a person by using a virgin woman, without the need of a father, should be seen as more unique than creating a person from dirt because it has never occurred in human history, and no one else has done it except God himself. Allah solely used the virgin birth, but Allah and Jesus both created a lively being from dirt. Creating through virgin birth points to a greater and higher act of creation because it belongs to God only.

To reply to the idea of the likeness of Jesus and Adam from a Christian perspective, Christians can bring Paul’s argument in Romans 5:18 to the attention of the Muslims. Paul states, “Just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people” (Rom. 5:18). This is the way that the likeness of Adam and Jesus should be regarded. Jesus should be considered more important than Adam or any other prophet, not only because of his virgin birth but because of the many additional attributes, events, and actions that Adam did not enjoy, have, or do. Their likeness is related to their roles regarding the human condition and salvation. There are, however, many additional aspects that Jesus enjoyed, and Adam did not (such as the virgin birth, performing miracles, and being pure/holy because he wasn’t touched by Satan …etc.). These actions help Christians think that Jesus’s nature is superior to the nature of Adam.

Asking questions helps Muslim brothers and sisters to think deeply about the stories that their Qur’an mentions. Therefore, Christians need to educate themselves on these stories by learning the differences between the Islamic and Christian versions and asking good questions that help others think critically and respectfully.

References:[i] All the information and names that are between brackets and square brackets are added by Al-Hilali and Khan to help the readers understand the literal meaning of the verse.

[ii] Abdu Al-Rahman Al-Baghdadi, Al-Fariq bain Al-Khaliq wa Al-Makhlouq fi Dahid Aqidet and Tathleeth wa Ithbat Aqidet Al-Tawheed (Beirut, Lebanon: Dar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiya, 1987), 49.

Recommended Resources:Answering Islam by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD Set, Mp4 and Mp3)

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

Sherene Khouri was born into a religiously diverse family in Damascus, Syria. She became a believer when she was 11 years old. Sherene and her husband were missionaries in Saudi Arabia. Their house was open for meetings, and they were involved with the locals until the government knew about their ministry and gave them three days’ notice to leave the country. In 2006, they went back to Syria and started serving the Lord with RZIM International ministry. They traveled around the Middle Eastern region—Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and United Arab Emirates. Sherene was also involved in her local church among the youth, young adults, and women’s ministry. In 2013, the civil war broke out in Syria. Sherene and her husband’s car was vandalized 3 times and they had to immigrate to the United States of America. In 2019, Sherene became an American citizen. Sherene is an assistant professor at Liberty University. She teaches Arabic, Religion, and Research classes. Sherene holds a Ph.D. in Theology and Apologetics, M.A. in Christian Apologetics from Liberty University, and B.S. in Biblical Studies from Moody Bible Institute. She is also working on a Master of Theology in Global Studies at Liberty University and a M.A in Arabic and Linguistics from PennWest University.

Originally published here: https://bit.ly/3yBR1PP

The post How To Help Muslims Think Deeply and Differently About the Deity of Christ appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

Progressive Christian blogger and author John Pavlovitz wrote, “We believe that social justice is the heart of the Gospel…” Is he right? And what exactly is social justice?

I recently posted an article in which I described Progressive Christian churches as swapping out the gospel for social justice. I got a lot of pushback on this point, but I believe that most of this pushback comes down to a misunderstanding of words.

Some are quick to say, “Social justice is good!” or “Social justice is bad!” without giving any nuanced thought to what the phrase actually means. Recently, I listened to a Mortification of Spin podcast episode called “Hijacking Social Justice,” that brilliantly dove into the history and meaning of the phrase and how it interacts with the gospel. It inspired this article, and I highly recommend listening to it.

What is Social Justice? Justice is a strong and consistent theme throughout Scripture, both in the Old and New Testaments. It’s clear that God loves justice, and we ought to care about it too. But what is social justice? American philosopher and novelist Michael Novak wrote:

Social justice is one of the terms most often used in ethical and political discourse. It is also a term used with the least care. I have searched in vain for definitions of it. In its fuzziness and warmth, everyone wants to cuddle it. But virtually no one will give you a forthright definition of it.

A little history….. In ancient Greece, Aristotle defined “justice” simply as giving each person his due. In times of crisis, war, and political upheaval, this concept became more complicated. A more general type of justice had to be thought through when it just wasn’t possible to give each individual person their due. Echoing Aristotle, St. Augustine described the task of justice “to see that to each is given what belongs to each.”(1)

​Today, the term is more vague than it was historically and leans toward being associated with more liberal values, rather than justice in general. For example, “social justice” tends to be applied to issues like women’s rights, immigration, and gay rights, while generally not being applied to the millions of babies killed by abortion each year, or the plight of the most persecuted group in the world—Christians.

It would seem that there is an extraordinarily selective use of the term in our current culture.

Social Justice: a meaningful phrase—or just a cliche? “Social Justice” has, in some ways, become a cliche—a catch-all phrase that can mean anything from a call for government action to simply being a good neighbor. Because of this, it’s very difficult to figure out how the term applies to the mission of the Church. In her classic essay, Augustine on Justice, Philosopher Mary T. Clark described St. Augustine’s view like this:

Rightly related to God, man is properly related within himself and to the external world of people and things.

Augustine believed that it was impossible for people to be “just” in their relation with each other unless their relationship with God was first rightly ordered within themselves.

Justice begins in the hearts of people, not in government programs. Westminster Seminary Church History professor Dr. Carl Trueman said,

Justice, traditionally and historically, is a function of a virtuous citizenry. You cannot ultimately legislate justice in the truest sense of the word. You have to produce a citizenry, a society of people, who are virtuously just. You can riot on as many streets as you want. You join as many lobby groups as you want. You can sign as many petitions as you want. But the problem of justice is much deeper than the symptomatic issue of racism (or something like that,) that people are addressing head-on. What we’re really seeing in the vacuous way social justice is being used as a term now, is the vacuous nature of moral society…..There is no agreed moral content that allows us to give any meaningful content to the term “social justice” whatsoever.

Without a commonly agreed-upon definition of morality, “social justice” becomes an entirely subjective term. What’s the best way to promote a virtuous citizenry with a common morality? By the transformation of the hearts of people by the gospel.

What did Jesus say about social justice?​Jesus said that the most important command is to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. After that, to love our neighbor as ourselves. (Matthew 22:36-40) In a sense, this is a call for a meaningful definition of social justice, not a twitter hashtag version. In fact, Jesus commanded that we help the needy and do our giving in secret (Matthew 6:3-4).

When defined Jesus’ way, the “loving our neighbor as ourselves” part of our faith is an outworking of our faith, not the saving part—and other people don’t always know about it.

What is the gospel? When defined biblically, there is no contradiction between social justice and the gospel, but it’s very important to understand both terms and how they interact with each other. Now that we’ve defined social justice, let’s define the gospel. In his book, The Story of Reality, Greg Koukl lays out the gospel in four parts: Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Restoration.

To put it very simply, God created the world and everything in it and called it good. Humans fell from God’s grace by rebelling against Him (in other words, we messed it all up, and became separated from God.) God stepped into His creation to redeem the people He created, lived a sinless life, and paid for our rebellion (sin) with His death. He defeated death by resurrecting Himself from the dead and has made a way for us to be in His presence forever if we accept His free gift of salvation and put our trust in Him.

Of course, there is a lot of stuff in between all of that, but this is the basic outline. (For an excellent 5-minute presentation of the gospel, watch this video from James White…. seriously—watch it!)

With this definition of the gospel, Jesus sent His followers out to “make disciples of all nations” in Matthew 28. This is exactly the gospel Peter preached on the day of Pentecost, converting 3,000 people in Acts chapter 2.

Is Social Justice Hijacking the gospel? As citizens in a free society, it’s perfectly appropriate for Christians to speak to public officials and to utilize their right to vote. There’s a place for a pastor to speak against injustice and oppression in a sermon from the Word of God. But we need the core gospel as our foundation for going out into the world to be salt and light.

We don’t always get to see true social justice on this side of heaven, but this is why the gospel is so beautiful and freeing. Through our mission to bring the gospel into the whole world, freedom is birthed into the hearts of men and women, and often, true social justice will follow. (For example, the work of abolitionists such as William Wilberforce and John Wesley was an outworking of their deep faith in Christ… and a fruitful one!)

When social justice is divorced from its biblical context, it can become, at best, a distraction from the heart of the gospel, and at worst, an unbiblical agenda covered with a Christian veneer.

In some circles, social justice is hijacking the gospel. But as long as we are clear on what the true definitions of “gospel” and “social justice” are, we won’t be in danger of confusing the two.

Recommended Resources: Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3

Does Jesus Trump Your Politics by Dr. Frank Turek (mp4 download and DVD)

Alisa Childers is a wife, a mom, an author, a blogger, a speaker, and a worship leader. She was a member of the award-winning CCM recording group ZOEgirl. Author of Another Gospel (2020), Live Your Truth, and Other Lies (2022), and most recently coauthored The Deconstruction of Christianity (2024), Alisa has become a popular speaker at apologetics and Christian worldview conferences, including ReThink, Unshaken, and Fearless Faith. She has also published at The Gospel Coalition, Crosswalk, the Stream, For Every Mom, Decision magazine, and The Christian Post. You can find out more about her writing and recording ministry at alisachilders.com.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3VNNMxy

The post Is Social Justice Hijacking the Gospel? appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

Do we have a genuine promise of immortality? This is a question that impacts all of us. When I was growing up as a kid, I wanted to be taken seriously. Therefore, I could not wait to grow up to have a seat at the intellectual table. It seemed like it took forever to get out of grade school and high school. My wise grandmother told me, “Don’t rush your life away. The older you get; the faster time passes.” She was absolutely right! Because it seems like life is passing by at light speed, especially the closer I get to 50.

As we age, we begin to contemplate our own mortality, and rightfully so. The older we get, the closer we get to the time of our death. Our mortality leads us to philosophical contemplation as we ask the big questions of life. Is there an afterlife? What happens when we die?

Nearly everyone asks these kinds of questions, even scientists and futurists. With the advent of artificial intelligence (AI), many pundits claim that AI could lengthen life, and potentially bring a sense of immortality. Michio Kaku notes that “immortality does not violate the law of physics. There is nothing in the Second Law that forbids a life-form from living forever, as long as energy flows in from the outside. In our case that energy is sunlight.”[i] Proponents of quantum computers and its integration with ChatGPT hold great hope for the advent of quantum computing. It seems to me, however, that there is a deeply flawed philosophical underpinning to this concept.

*Promise of Genuine Immortality: Can Genuine Immortality Come to this World?*Let’s suppose for a moment that Kaku and physicist futurists are right in their assessments in that quantum computing, with its theoretical computational power, can bring scientific advancements that would greatly extend life on earth. Let’s go a step further and say that life could be extended to a near immortal status. Could a human exist forever in that state? The answer is simply no for at least a couple of reasons.

*Eternal Life in the Present World is Not Sustainable.*Life in the present state is not eternally sustainable. Suppose for a moment that a human being could become immortal in the present state. The present state does not eliminate the reality that the world and the universe will eventually end. Granted, Kaku and others hold great hope that if enough information can be ascertained, then problems with the world’s ecosystem could be corrected. Nonetheless, that does not override the reality that the Sun will not last forever. Eventually, the Sun will run out of energy and will either explode as a supernova or implode to create a dwarf star or a black hole. Simply put, the Sun cannot burn for more than 100 billion years.[ii]

Astronomers estimate that the Sun only has about 5 billion years remaining.[iii] While 5 billion years is still a long time off, human life on the planet will come to an undeniable end by that time. But what if space travel is available by that time? Could we not travel to another planet? Granted, that is possible. However, even the universe’s timeline is limited. As the universe continues to expand at an increased rate, the production of proteins – essential for life – will cease. Ross declares that “all physical life must come to an end—not just on Earth but everywhere in the cosmos.”[iv] In other words, the extenuation of life induced by AI only delays the inevitable. Furthermore, what kind of existence would be found by an AI-induced eternal state?

*The Present World Cannot Sustain a Population of Immortal, Reproductive Beings.*The present physical world cannot sustain immortal physical beings with continued population growth. Another problem needs to be considered. Earlier in his book, Kaku explained that cancer comes when a cell forgets how to die. In essence, it becomes immortal. The cancer cell’s immortality leads to the death of its host as the cells continue to reproduce but refuse to sacrifice themselves to permit the development of other cells.[v]

In a sense, Kaku’s description of cancer looms eerily reminiscent of his depiction of human immortality on earth. I get it. We love our lives. We love our planet. But we were never intended to live here forever. Our planet simply cannot sustain immortal physical humans who require food and drink for the continuity of life along with new life coming from reproduction. This will lead to overpopulation the likes of which has never been seen. Food supplies will deplete, leading to wars, crime, and hostile takeovers. While fanciful and fun to consider, AI and quantum computing cannot override the logic of Earthbound space, unless a way can be found to safely travel to another planet. Even then, there are no guarantees that life could be sustained in that state forever.

*The Promise of Genuine Immortality: Where is Genuine Immortality Found?*In a panel discussion on AI, the panelists noted that at the root of the discussion behind AI and technological advancements is a deeply-rooted philosophy.

*Materialistic Philosophy*On the one hand, the philosophy of materialism fervently desires to hang onto the present world with all its devices. Because for the materialist, the present world is all that exists and all that can be known for sure. This mindset, while not necessarily materialistic, can even be found in some of the contemplations of modern writers and theologians.[vi]

*Heavenly Philosophy*Yet, on the other hand, believers throughout the ages have held that a better, more perfect realm, exists beyond the scope of the material world. That is not to say that the present world is not good, and it does not demean any effort to make the world a better place. Even still, the promised hope is not found in this world. It is not found in our possessions, accolades, or hobbies. Rather, our promised hope is found in the relationship we have with God and the eternity that only God can offer.

In my book Conversations about Heaven, I speak of the new body that we will receive at the return of Christ. Paul calls this body a pneumatikos soma—a spiritual body.[vii] Yes, the body will have some of the traits found in the present body. But it would be a mistake to think that the spiritual body is exactly like the physical one. Just like it would be a massive mistake to think that the new creation will be identical to the present locale. No, the glorified state will be far better and superior! All that being said, the genuine promised hope of immortality is not found in our gadgetry or human ingenuity. Rather, the promised hope of immortality is found in God, the Author of life.

*ConclusionKaku said something profound about this in Quantum Supremacy*. He asserted that it is possible for immortality to exist “as long as energy flows in from the outside.”[viii] The energy that currently keeps life flowing in the naturalistic state is sunlight.[ix] However, what if the energy flowing through the person came from the Eternal God rather than a mid-sized star? Then, in that case, immortality is a piece of cake. The writer of Hebrews is correct in that it is appointed once for all people to die in this present state (Heb. 9:27).

*Hope Not Found in This World*Christian philosophy has always held that the promised hope is not of this world. As Paul teaches, “If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people to be pitied” (1 Cor. 15:19, ESV). Paul also acknowledges that:

“[we] do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day. For this light momentary affliction is preparing us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal” (2 Cor. 4:16-18, ESV).

Assuredly, incorporating quantum computing into AI will bring a great deal of benefits to humanity as it could offer solutions to many medical problems afflicting us, cancer and other medical afflictions being at the top of the list. On that, I wholeheartedly agree with Kaku and other contemporary pundits. Nonetheless, we cannot place our hope in technological advances to overcome what God has already accomplished through Christ. Death is scary. Even still, if near-death experiences are genuine – which I hold them to be – then, an eternity with God is greater than the present world.

*Consider the Butterfly*The butterfly is much more advanced than the caterpillar from which it came. It is highly doubtful that the butterfly ever wishes that he could go back to his earlier state—a time when he could not fly, could not move very quickly, and was easy prey for predators. Likewise, I greatly doubt that any of us will wish for our current bodies once we are empowered by the resurrected, glorified bodies promised to us by God. Our hope is found in God, and God alone. Nothing and no one could ever assure us of immortality other than the One Who is Immortal and Eternal.

Footnotes:[i] Michio Kaku, Quantum Supremacy: How the Quantum Computer Revolution Will Change Everything (New York: Doubleday, 2023), 203.

[ii] Hugh Ross, Why the Universe Is the Way It Is (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2008), 99.

[iii] JoAnna Wendel, “When will the sun die?,” Space.com (March 6, 2024), https://www.space.com/14732-sun-burns-star-death.html, accessed on May 4, 2024.

[iv] Ross, Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, 102.

[v] Kaku, Quantum Supremacy, 162.

[vi] While an excellent book, author Karen Swallow Prior unfortunately adopts the anti-dispensational thinking of the present age in her book Evangelical Imagination. She conjectures that “being caught up” in 1 Thess. 4:16–17 suggests an immediate transformation of people on Earth instead of being carried away with Christ. Space does not permit us to consider the evidence for the term parousia and its indication that believers would be called away with Christ. Nonetheless, it is quite clear from the vernacular of Peter and John in Revelation that God will replace this world with a “New Heaven and a New Earth” (2 Pet. 3:10–13; Rev. 21:1–2; 22:1–21). Revelation guarantees that there would be a “new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more” (Rev. 21:1, CSB). See Karen Swallow Prior, The Evangelical Imagination: How Stories, Images & Metaphors Created a Culture in Crisis (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2023), 256; N. T. Wright, “Farewell to the Rapture,” Bible Review (August 2011), https://ntwrightpage.com/2016/07/12/farewell-to-the-rapture, accessed May 4, 2024. In all fairness, Wright later acknowledges that the NT envisions a recreation of heaven and earth. Nonetheless, the idea that the present world will continue ad infinitum is foreign to the pages of Scripture.

[vii] Brian G. Chilton, Conversations about Heaven: Difficult Questions about Our Eternal Home (Eugene, OR: Resource, 2023), 38–43.

[viii] Kaku, Quantum Supremacy, 203.

[ix] Ibid.

Recommended resources related to the topic:Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Does Science Disprove God? by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

The Great Book of Romans by Dr. Frank Turek (Mp4, Mp3, DVD Complete series, STUDENT & INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, COMPLETE Instructor Set)

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)

Macro Evolution? I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be a Darwinist (DVD Set), (MP3 Set) and (mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek

Brian G. Chilton earned his Ph.D. in the Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University (with high distinction). He is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast and the founder of Bellator Christi. Brian received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); earned a Certificate in Christian Apologetics from Biola University, and plans to purse philosophical studies in the near future. He is also enrolled in Clinical Pastoral Education to better learn how to empower those around him. Brian is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has served in ministry for over 20 years and currently serves as a clinical hospice chaplain as well as a pastor.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/46gNx1y

The post Promise of Genuine Immortality: AI or the Divine appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

“The more I make my life, my well-being, my enlightenment, and my success primary, the farther I step from reality. Thus the hell-bound do not travel downward; they travel inward, cocooning themselves behind a mass of vanity, personal rights, religiosity, and defensiveness. Obsession with self is the defining mark of a disintegrating soul (italics mine)”

Jeff cook.[1]

There’s this moment, you know, when suddenly it hits you that your kids are actually “growing up.” It’s like someone flipped a switch and bam! Your once adorable little munchkin, blissfully oblivious to the craziness and danger in the world, gives you a sneak peek of “maturity.” It’s a mix of thrilling and terrifying.

As for me, picture this: a Christian homeschooling dad, doing his best to raise two little girls into future women of God, embracing a biblical worldview. Well, the day arrived not long ago when my eldest waltzed in for our homeschool session with her mom’s old smartphone snug in her back pocket. Oh, the joys of parenthood!

• Who is this?
• When did my little girl start acting like a “grownup?”
• Where did this come from?
• How did this happen?

These were questions racing through my mind as I stared at the phone hanging out of her little pocket. The next thought that surfaced was, I don’t like this!

Some of these feelings were no doubt the result of reading Jonathan Haidt’s recent book, The Anxious Generation, in which he contends a great “rewiring” of childhood that began in 2010 is the primary culprit for the rise in mental illness amongst children.

Who is Jonathan Haidt?
I’ve made it a habit of recent to always do some research on the authors I’m reading. I find it helps me better understand their perspective, bias, beliefs, etc. In his own words, Jonathan Haidt is “a social psychologist at New York University’s Stern School of Business. [His] mission is to use research on moral psychology to help people understand each other and to help important social institutions work better.“[ii] I also discovered in reading his book that he’s an atheist and believes in evolution. He is married to Jayne and has two children, a son and a daughter.

Haidt’s thesis is that “two trends – overprotection in the real world and underprotection in the virtual world – are the major reasons why children born after 1995 became the anxious generation.“[iii] This essay is a one-part summary of the book and one part about how Christian parents might use that data to be proactive in raising little ones who want to become grownups living out a biblical worldview.[iv] I begin with a detailed summary of the book, followed by what critics have said regarding Haidt’s research. I then finish with what I’ve learned and my advice for Christian parents raising children in the 21st century.

“The task of the Christian is not to whine about the moment in which he or she lives but to understand its problems and respond appropriately to them”
Carl Trueman.[v]

Also, note that my essay is quite detailed, with graphs, charts, and illustrations from the book. The text is nearly 400 pages, including over 60 pages of notes and references (not counting additional data available online). I’m presenting my highlights, notes, and comments here so that you don’t have to read the book, but nonetheless, I still highly recommend getting the book for yourself.

One of the initial aspects I appreciate about this book is Haidt’s approach of revealing essential pieces of advice early on, as opposed to withholding them until the conclusion, as some authors tend to do. In the opening pages, he presents four recommendations derived from his research. These recommendations encompass:

1. No smartphones before high school.
2. No social media before 16.
3. Phone free schools.
4. Far more unsupervised play and childhood independence.

The valuable aspect of these recommendations, as indicated by Haidt, is their minimal cost, and their effectiveness regardless of the support from elected officials. As a parent, particularly if you are a homeschool parent, you can implement all four of these suggestions with minimal effort. Even if your children attend government or privately operated schools, 1, 2, and 4 are still “free,” although they may not be as straightforward to execute.

Kids Just Want to Fit In

Think about what nearly all K-12 children desire, especially those attending school outside of the home. As someone who went to both private and public schools growing up in the 70s and 80s all I desired was to “fit in.” Like most kids still to this day, I wanted to “blend in” with the crowd. The desire to fit in shouldn’t be surprising since most forms of education seek to create conformity to a specified standard (i.e., fit in).

Alexis Spence supports this belief as she explained to Haidt why she was so eager to get an Instagram account in sixth grade despite her parents being against the idea.

“What made it so addictive was that I just wanted to fit in with my peers. I didn’t want to miss anything, because if I missed anything, then I was out of the loop, and if I was out of the loop, then kids would laugh at me or make fun of me for not understanding what was going on, and I didn’t want to be left out (bold mine).”
Alex Spence in interview with Jonathan Haidt.[vi]

The excerpt also highlights another challenge faced by parents of the Internet generation. It’s notable how often Alexis refers to herself (e.g., use of “I”). Social media is arguably contributing to the creation of a more narcissistic global population with an obsession with self.

Furthermore, John Taylor Gatto provides some additional insights into the challenges of education in his book, Dumbing us Down. Gatto, a prestigious 26-year public school teacher in New York (honored as the New York City Teacher of the Year in 1989, 1990, and 1991, and New York State Teacher of the Year in 1991), resigned abruptly in 1991 via an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. Gatto succinctly articulates a related challenge stating, “Schools are intended to produce, through the application of formulas, formulaic human beings whose behavior can be predicted and controlled.“[vii] One could argue that most teachers aspire to cultivate classrooms of well-behaved children whose conduct aligns with a predictable standard. Who doesn’t want to teach in a classroom full of obedient children?

I mention this at the onset of my summary because children are being trained to conform – to look like one another – to meet an expectation that isn’t only academic but also social. The training is both deliberate and formal (e.g., in the classroom) and informal and social (e.g., relationships and observation of other children outside the classroom).

Imagine a child, better yet, your child, at school where everyone else has a smartphone and is on social media except her. How would this make your child feel? Words that come to mind are isolated, excluded, segregated, removed, and detached (i.e., just like Alex Spence described). I would argue the “solutions” Haidt lobbies for with (non-homeschooled) children creates a far greater challenge.

In a way I’m suggesting homeschool is a better approach, but that’s not the point of this essay. I want simply to suggest if your children are not homeschooled expect the smartphone war to be a series of battles with your children as they grow older and are surrounded by other kids staring at a screen.

Book Contents

The table of contents below illustrates the layout of the text. The author describes the contents as an explanation for the mental health trends in adolescents since 2010 (part 1); the nature of childhood and how we messed it up (part 2); the harms that result from the smartphone-based childhood (part 3); and what needs to be done to reverse the damage in families, schools, and society (part 4).

Note: Haidt provides all the documents (table of contents, figures, illustrations, etc.), data, helpful guides, chapter supplements, etc. here: https://www.anxiousgeneration.com/research

Part 1 | A Tidal Wave of DespairHaidt begins by making a case for the connection between the decline in the mental well-being of teenagers coming of age in the 2000s, emphasizing a noticeable change in the data from 2010 onwards. Figure 1.1 demonstrates the increase in cases of major depression among adolescents. A significant shift began in 2010.

The above data, however, are “self-reported,” which can be less accurate since teens are assessing themselves. Nevertheless, a similar increase in self-harm by teens, something not as easily misreported or faked, also started to rise in 2009, as shown in Figure 1.4.

Moreover, suicide rates also rose sharply starting in 2007 (see Figure 1.5). I find the data for 10-14 year old children extremely disturbing. These are kids in 4th to 8th grade – middle schoolers. It’s mind blowing to think that a 10-year-old child could be in such a state of despair that they believe the only thing they can do is end their life.

Despair begins as a battle in the mind. The struggle can often lead a person to be unable to see beyond the present situation. I would argue that many children today lack hope. Hope is the opposite of despair. Hope is about expectation of what is yet to come. How you experience the present is dictated by your belief about the future.

This is often where a deep contrast between a secular and biblical worldview becomes quite evident as it relates to hope about the future. For the atheist (i.e., secular worldview) there is no hope. Life on earth is as good as it gets.

Alternatively, for the follower of Christ, this earthly life is the worst it will be. Everything in the future will be better than it is today. Hope is at the center of a Christian’s life, whereas for the atheist, hope lies in the present and a twofold “purpose” (I put this word in quotes because if life ends at death it has no purpose beyond the atheist’s imagination) to minimize personal pain and maximize personal pleasure. This is not, “Your best life now.”[viii]

“He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”
Revelation 21:4

So, what happened around 2010? Why the sharp increases? Haidt argues, it was the introduction of the smartphone in 2007 that changed the lives of many people, especially for Generation Z (those born 1997-2012).

The Internet had been around for over a decade by 2010, and even social media (Facebook started in 2004), but what really changed was not that teens were online, but that now with a smartphone in their pocket they could be online all the time. Haidt reports that by 2016 79% of teens owned a smartphone and 28% of children 8-12 years old also had one.

Furthermore, Haidt cites Pew Research that found one of every four teens in 2015 were online “almost constantly,” and by 2022 the number had increased to 46%.[ix] Also worth noting in 2010 Apple’s iPhone 4 introduced us to the self-facing camera, the ultimate self-promoting technology of the 21st century.

Haidt concludes,

“. . . I refer to the period from 2010 to 2015 as the Great Rewiring of Childhood. Social patterns, role models, emotions, physical activity, and even sleep patterns were fundamentally reset, for adolescents, over the course of just five years. The daily life, consciousness, and social relationships of 13-year-olds with iPhones in 2013 (who were born in 2000) were profoundly different from those of 13-year-olds with flip phones in 2007 (who were born in 1994).“[x]

In summary, a significant rewiring began, and we are now reaping the consequences.

Part 2 | The End of Free Play & Discover ModeChildhood in the 21st century has definitely changed, and as Haidt argues in part two, it has changed for the worse. One of the most significant changes is illustrated in Figure 2.1. Kids are spending less time with other kids. In 1991, around half of children hung out with their friends every day. Nearly 30 years later, however, the number is down to a third meeting each day. In a sense, kids are getting less social despite the rise in social media use.

Moreover, when looking at the data in minutes per day (see Figure 5.1), a similar trend occurred, with a dramatic downward shift beginning in 2010. Nearly twenty years ago, 15 – 24-year-olds were spending almost two hours hanging out with friends every day, but in 2019, that time was less than half of what it was in 2003.

Haidt argues that kids are missing out on “free play,” a play that is freely chosen and directed by children with no specific goal. I can remember this type of play being central to my childhood—getting on my bike with no destination in mind, picking up a football and heading to the park, etc. The author suggests that today, parents, teachers, and coaches are too involved in kids’ playing. They can’t stop themselves from taking control and directing the kids.

I’m guilty of this, and you probably are as well if you’ve ever told your children, “Be careful,” “Don’t do that,” “Put that down,” etc. As Haidt suggests, “Experience, not information, is the key to emotional development. It is unsupervised, child-led play where children best learn to tolerate bruises, handle their emotions, read other children’s emotions, take turns, resolve conflicts, and play fair.“[xi] A simple way to apply this advice is to tell your children to “work it out” the next time they get into a disagreement.

Chronic social comparison is also something Haidt highlights that is adding to the rewiring of childhood. This is even a problem for children who don’t post anything on social media. They are still prone to comparing themselves to other children. Moreover, this plays a part in “social learning,” by copying others whom children follow online.

Again, this is the natural yearning for most children: they just want to conform (i.e., fit in) to the crowd. When I was growing up, we would refer to this as “peer pressure.” Once more, this furthers the argument that children educated in government or privately run schools could face more significant pressure to conform. As a homeschool dad, this perhaps is one of the greatest arguments for teaching at home – you are the greatest “influencer” in their life simply because you spend more time with them than anyone else.

“A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher.” Luke 6:40

Moreover, as Haidt writes,

“Social media platforms are, therefore, the most efficient conformity engines ever invented. They can shape an adolescent’s mental models of acceptable behavior in a matter of hours, whereas parents can struggle unsuccessfully for years to get their children to sit up straight or stop whining. Parents don’t get to use the power of conformity bias, so they are often no match for the socializing power of social media.“[xii]

This, however, assumes that all or most social media influences are negative, which is obviously not always true. It does, however, point out that positive social media influencers could be a good thing for older children (e.g., 16+ years old) who are ready to responsibly handle social media.

Central to Haidt’s argument for not allowing younger children to have smartphones or partake in social media is that their brains are developing. Therefore, “Healthy brain development depends on getting the right experiences at the right age and in the right order.“[xiii] He cites research that suggests the worst years for using social media is 11 to 13 for girls, and 14 to 15 for boys, thus suggesting 13 (the legal age in the US) is too young for creating a social media account.

I resonate with Haidt’s two mindsets to which children have access based on how they are parented and treated by leaders in school. The mindset that is prevalent today, according to the author, is the “defend mode” mindset. Figure 3.1 outlines this mindset, something consistent with “helicopter parenting” (i.e., never letting your children do anything on their own).

Haidt argues, and this is one of his four leading suggestions, is that parents and educators need to take a step back and let kids live in “discover mode” more often. This is a possible reason why Gen Z often struggles when facing a difficult situation. Haidt writes, “Children who are routinely exposed to small risks grow up to become adults who can handle much larger risks without panicking. . . small mistakes promote growth and learning.“[xiv] When parents coddle their children too much it can have a negative effect on them in adulthood. This could be one of the reasons why so many college freshman saw an increase in psych disorders since 2010 as illustrated in Figure 3.2.

Section two closes with the author pushing for less “safetyism,” which he argues is an experience blocker. When parents and school leaders are focused on keeping kids safe from every little harm, they could be blocking them from learning experiences. Too many rules (e.g., illustrated by “tag rules” in Figure 3.10 from a public school in Berkley, CA) can lead to less experiences where children have to learn to deal with stress and anxiety. They can also strip away the creative abilities children should be developing. A few guardrails are a good idea, but too many lead to children who become coddled adults unable to handle even the smallest of challenges they will face in the grown-up world.

Haid finishes the section by arguing, “Smartphones are a second kind of experience blocker [safetyism is the first]. Once they enter a child’s life, they push out or reduce all other forms of non-phone-based experience, which is the kind that their experience-expectant brains most need.“[xv] Between 2010 and 2015, a significant rewiring occurred, and much of it was due to a shift from a discover mode to a defender mode mindset. Haidt argues that the coddling of the American mind had begun, and this was not the children’s fault, but of their parents.

Part 3 | The Rise of a Phone-Based Childhood

Part three centers on evidence of harm from the significant rewiring. Haidt argues there are four foundational harms that have been birthed out of the phone-based childhood. These harms include:

1. Social deprivation
2. Sleep deprivation
3. Attention fragmentation
4. Addiction

Most people, whether parents or not, can see the truth in these four problems. People, whether children or adults, who spend too much time on social media are going to be deprived socially, sleep less, be less attentive, and in extreme cases, become addicted (this is especially true regarding porn).

Anecdotes can be helpful, but data is still king, and Haidt brings the receipts in this section of the book with plenty of evidence to back up what most of us already know.

“In God we trust, all others must bring data.”
Source unknown, but often attributed to W. Edwards Deming

In this part of the book, Haidt lays out a series of characteristics that I found helpful in defining social media. They include user profiles, user-generated content, networking (e.g., becoming “friends” with others), and interactivity (e.g., likes, shares, and comments). These descriptors fit platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, Snapchat, TikTok, Reddit, and LinkedIn. He also includes YouTube; however, YouTube is seen more as a video library site and less for its social features.

Haidt suggests something changed around 2010 when Facebook introduced the “like” button, and Twitter allowed users to “retweet” posts. He argues, “These innovations quantified the success of every post and incentivized users to craft each post for maximum spread.” The author goes on to write, “At the same time, Facebook began using algorithmically curated news feeds. . .[to] curate content that would most successfully hook users.“[xvi]

For example, this is why you’re never likely to see anything positive about President Biden if you like Trump positive posts and vice versa. The algorithm furthers your belief and bias toward what you like and believe to be true. You never get “fed” alternative opinions so yours remains the same. One could argue this is one reason we are such a polarized nation.

“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
Proverbs 18:2

Suggestion: What Facebook and other social media sites that “feed” your bias need is a “balanced view” feature users can turn on to get alternative opinions on topics, especially controversial topics such as politics, abortion, LGBTQ issuses, religion, etc.

I’m often quick to point out that the most valuable thing God has blessed each of us with is not money or even family. The most valuable thing is time. We all have 24 hours each day, regardless of whether we have wealth and/or family. Time equates to opportunity, and opportunity can be lost if we don’t use it well. Haidt points this out in staggering terms as it relates to social media.

For example, preteens spend around 40 hours a week looking at screens for leisure activities (i.e., non-educational). Teens spend nearly 50 hours. Pew Research reports that a third of teens say they’re on one of the major social media sites “almost constantly.” Doing the math that equates to 16 hours a day – 112 hours per week. That’s what I’d call a major lost opportunity!

“The cost of a thing is the amount of . . . life which is required to be exchanged for it, immediately or in the long run” Henry David Thoreau.[xvii]

Two words that describe this phenomenon are “social labor.” Haidt discusses why so much time is spent online. It’s FOMO, “fear of missing out.” He writes, “The work is often joyless, yet many feel compelled to do it, lest they ‘miss out’ on something or be excluded. Eventually, for many, it becomes a mindless habit, something they turn to dozens of times each day.“[xviii] A mindless habit. This is so true. Children and adults with smartphones are too often caught in a mindless habit – a habit that requires no thinking and frequently leads to little learning.

Additionally, Haidt cites research that states the numbers vary by social class and race, which I found surprising. Lower-income families spend more time online, and Black and Latinos are online more than Asians and White families. This is also true of LGBTQ youth, which could be a reason why over 20% of Gen Z identify as LGBTQ, especially those who identify as transgender – something one prominent author describes as a “social contagion.”

“How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible? Sean Parker, first president of Facebook in 2017 interview.[xix]

What’s the harm? The first harm Haidt points out is something I’ve already discussed above – social deprivation. Kids are spending far less time with other kids. Social media, argues Haidt, is creating more social distance between children. He points to research done by Jean Twenge, which shows that teens who spend time in person with other teens (e.g., playing sports or in religious communities) have better mental health than those spending lots of time on social media.

The second harm is that kids are getting less sleep than they did before smartphones came into existence. Figure 5.2 shows a sharp uptick in teens with less than 7 hours of sleep. This lack of sleep, combined with critical brain development, is a toxic mix that can lead to several problems.

Furthermore, research shows that children (and adults) need adequate sleep to maintain good attention, which leads to the third harm created by social media: attention fragmentation. Haidt writes, “Smartphones are kryptonite for attention.“[xx]

Finally, addiction is the fourth and most serious harm caused by smartphones and social media. Research on animals is conclusive that rewarding them based on a “variable-ratio schedule” (i.e., providing rewards on a schedule that is not predictable) leads to the strongest and most persistent behavior. This behavior can be seen by anyone who posts to social media and constantly checks for “likes” and “shares.” We, children and adults, similar to animals, like (no pun intended) rewards, and will keep checking for them when they’re not automatically coming our way.

Girls, Boys, and Social Media
As the father of two girls, I found chapter six of particular interest. The title of this chapter is, Why Social Media Harms Girls More Than Boys.Haidt writes, “There is a clear, consistent, and sizable link between heavy social media use and mental illness for girls, but that relationship gets buried or minimized in studies and literature reviews that look at all digital activities for all teens.“[xxi] Later I’ll share what the critics say about Haidt’s claim, but for now look at Figure 6.2 that followed 19,000 children born in 2000 as they matured into adolescence.

There is a more significant relationship between time spent on social media and the likelihood of depression for girls. Those girls who spend five plus hours on social media are three times as likely to be depressed than those who reported they spend no time on social media.

Furthermore, girls are more likely to become social media “super-users.” Haidt reports that by 2015, one in seven girls had reached this level of social media usage.

For adolescent girls social standing is often tied to their beauty and sex appeal. As you can see in Figure 6.4, what you see online is not a true representation of reality.

The problems with spending massive amounts of time on social media negatively affect not only girls but also boys. Neither are as satisfied with themselves as they were before the great rewiring in 2010, as illustrated in Figure 6.5.

Furthermore, both boys and girls feel lonely more than they ever have, as shown in Figure 6.7.

This leads to a not-so-surprising conclusion that neither boys nor girls feel they have a chance for a successful life, as displayed in Figure 7.1.

Finally, nearly one in five girls and boys feel that life is meaningless. I’ll discuss this more in the final section of this essay, but in essence it would appear many children see no meaning in life, hence it is meaningless. I will later argue this has much to do with the worldview of most children.

Finally, before I end this section, I want to share my thoughts on the chapter I was most looking forward to reading. This chapter Haidt titled, Spiritual Elevation and Degradation. The author begins by writing, “The phone-based life produces spiritual degradation, not just in adolescents, but in all of us.“[xxii] This leads to the question – what does “spiritual” mean?

Spiritual is a word that’s been redefined recently, and Haidt suggests spiritual means to live a life of morality. He suggests that Christians should ask, “What would Jesus do?” Secular people should create their own “moral” example. This is where he also points out that he’s an atheist. He writes, “I am an atheist, but I find that I sometimes need words and concepts from religion to understand the experience of life as a human being.“[xxiii] I find this statement so telling about the weakness of atheism. What atheists such as Haidt are actually saying is they cannot make sense of the world (this is what a worldview does) without “stealing” words and concepts from other worldviews (e.g., Christianity).

In other words, atheism has nothing to offer in making sense of the world. If atheism is true, then there’s no point in attempting to make sense of the world because life has no meaning, value, or purpose. We’re born, we die and are quickly forgotten. If you don’t believe this take a second to think about your great great great grandfather. What was his name? Where did he live? What did he do for a living? If you’re like most people, myself included, you can’t even answer the first question. In just a few generations we will all mostly be forgotten. All that we do will have little to no impact on those who follow us. As philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig points out, life is just a purposeless rush toward oblivion, if God does not exist.

Moreover, the data suggesting life often feels meaningless (Figure 7.6) didn’t surprise me because more young people are identifying as atheist, and if atheism is true, life IS meaningless.

Barna describes Gen Z as, “The first truly ‘post-Christian’ generation.“[xxiv] They report the percentage of Gen Z’ers who identify as atheists is double the US adult population (13% vs. 6%).

Summarizing this chapter, Haidt “draws on wisdom from ancient traditions and modern psychology to try to make sense of how the phone-based life affects people spiritually by blocking or counteracting . . . spiritual practices.”[xxv] His argument points to research suggesting that certain spiritual practices improve well-being and that smartphones and social media interfere with these benefits.

Part 4 | Now what?The final section of the book is where rubber meets the road with practical ideas to address the problem defined in the first three sections. I noted the four recommendations at the beginning of this essay, but as a reminder here they are once again.

1. No smartphones before high school.
2. No social media before 16.
3. Phone free schools.
4. Far more unsupervised play and childhood independence.

Before he dives into the recommendations he makes a valid point, especially if your children are educated in government or privately run institutions. Haidt argues for “collective action” as a premise to implementing the four recommendations.

Parents need to work with other parents to reduce the problem with fitting in previously discussed. The only way your child will not feel left out is if the children around them are holding to the recommendations Haidt provides. This, I would argue, will be incredibly difficult, especially in larger schools. If you’ve ever tried to organize anything that involves parents and children doing the same thing you’ll know just how challenging this could be.

Furthermore, Haidt suggests government intervention to raise the age (it’s now 13) to create a social media account. More robust validation systems are also needed to determine whether the person signing up for the account is truly of age. As of now, anyone can say they are old enough, and no real validation is done. Haidt argues the minimum age of “Internet adulthood” should be 16.

Next, he lobbies for phone-free schools, where children lock their phones away during the school day to prevent them from distracting them in the classroom. This, again, would require major intervention by school officials and even overprotective parents who say they want to be in constant contact with their children.

Finally, he recommends kids be given more free play to do as they want (within reason) with minimal supervision. Earlier in the book he suggests this is one of the reasons why we’re facing such a big problem with smartphones and social media. Parents need to take two steps back and allow their children to learn, make mistakes, get a boo-boo or two, and work things out amongst themselves when conflict arises.

The Critics | Correlation is NOT CausationThe more popular you are, the more likely critics will emerge and take aim at your work, and Haidt’s writing is no exception. A recent WSJ article summarizes some of the pushback Haidt has received. Much of the criticism is related to the research Haidt uses to come to his conclusion that smartphones and social media are to blame for the problems. In short, the critics point out that correlation does not mean causation. For you non-statistic types, this simply means just because two or more things go up or down together (e.g., social media use and depression) doesn’t mean one is caused by the other (for example).

In a recent podcast discussion, Haidt emphasized the importance of distinguishing between studies that show correlation and those that show causation. Aaron Brown, a former Wall Street trader who currently teaches statistics and math at several universities, disagreed with Haidt during a debate on “The Reason” podcast. Brown pointed out that out of the 476 studies in Haidt’s book, only 22 include data on significant social media use or adolescent mental health issues, and none of them cover both aspects.

Candice L. Odgers, a psychology professor and associate dean for research at the University of California, Irvine, provided a critique of “The Anxious Generation” in the academic journal, Nature. Odgers expressed that the book’s emphasis on digital technologies rewiring children’s brains and causing mental illness is not supported by science. She suggested that the focus on social media as the cause of the mental-health crisis in young people might divert attention from the real underlying factors, such as genetic and environmental influences like gun violence and economic hardship.

I’m an expert in statistical analysis, but not having access to the raw data, it’s hard for me to determine the validity of these claims. However, regardless of the r-squared values, p-values, and correlation coefficients, one can hardly deny that looking at Facebook posts and TikTok videos on a smartphone for 40 – 100 hours a week is not helpful to developing minds.

Parting Thoughts | The Only Influencer to FollowI conclude this essay with my final thoughts on the book and the problems our children face growing up in the 21st century. It’s been said that, “A problem well stated is half solved.“[xxvi] I’ll work to first define what I will argue is the problem before moving on to the causes and solutions; however, first, I need to ask you a question:

What should be the number one goal for parents, especially Christian parents?
Some might say, “Raising good children.” At first glance, I would agree that I want to have “good” children. However, I’d rather have children who become “great” adults. Parents need to start with the end in mind. Children won’t be children forever, so fathers and mothers need to focus on what they can do in the brief time of childhood that will have a lasting impact on adulthood.

“Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it” Proverbs 22:6.

However, a few shocking numbers need to be reviewed before we dive into how to do this. Barna research reports less than 1% of 13 – 14 year olds have a biblical worldview (see Footnote 1 for definition of biblical worldview), and by the age of 13 a person’s worldview is mainly set. This statistic leads to another from the Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University that reports two out of every three adults under the age of 40 (67%) say they are still trying to figure out the meaning and purpose in their lives. Children who struggle with life’s meaning (see Figure 7.6 above) become adults who also struggle.

Haidt writes about this struggle.[xxvii] He references French philosopher Blaise Pascal who wrote (loosely paraphrased), “There is a God-shaped hole in every human heart.“[xxviii] This is another way of saying many people yearn for something beyond themselves; we have a natural desire to seek God, and when we don’t, something in our lives is missing.

Atheist turned Christian apologist C.S. Lewis summarizes this desire quite well: “If we find ourselves with a desire that nothing in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that we were made for another world.“[xxix]

Furthermore, I would argue that the older one gets, the more this “hole” becomes apparent if it’s not correctly filled. Haidt writes, “There is a hole, an emptiness in us all, that we strive to fill. If it doesn’t get filled with something noble and elevated, modern society will quickly pump it full of garbage.“[xxx] This truism is ever so true regarding our children. They are going to “follow” and be “influenced” by someone. You, as a parent, play a key role in who these people will be.

So, the question is, are you, parent, ready to take action in helping determine who your children are influenced by and whom they follow? This seems like an obvious and easy “yes,” but I would argue many parents are struggling with the same problem as their children – a selfish nature driven by our own desires to put what we want in life ahead of all others.

One of the greatest lessons I’ve learned as a parent is how selfish I am. This selfishness becomes apparent early on when your child, especially the first child, can do nothing for themselves. They have to come first or they won’t survive! However, as they get older and can do things for themselves it’s easy to move back into a selfish mode of life.

Don’t get me wrong—some good can come from this in that children begin to learn how to be increasingly self-sufficient. However, it’s all too easy to shove a screen in your child’s face when you want to do what you want to do. I’ve been there and done that.

As Haidt suggests, “Social media keeps the focus on the self, self-presentation, branding, and social standing. It is almost perfectly designed to prevent self-transcendence [rising above the self and relating to that which is greater than self].”[xxxi] This phenomena is why social media is such a perfect match for who we naturally are – selfish, ego-driven, conceited beings.

The good news is that once we come to terms with who we truly are, we can take action to change. Furthermore, we can also help our children do the same. Now, going back to my initial question to you regarding our goal as Christian parents, a more complete and accurate answer is that we are to become disciples and make disciples.

“Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” Ephesians 6:4.

Christ Jesus may not have been clear on all that he said (e.g., Jesus rarely gave a “yes” or “no” answer to any question—one, if not the only, Christ-like characteristic contemporary politicians possess). But one thing he clearly described for us is what makes one a disciple of his. Each of the synoptic gospels records Christ’s description of a disciple.

“Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” Matthew 16:24 (see also, Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23)

Do you see the three criteria to become a disciple in Scripture? If Jesus were giving a PowerPoint presentation on becoming a disciple he could sum it up in three bullet points:

• Deny yourself
• Take up your cross
• Follow me

I’ll finish this essay with a quick look at each of these disciple traits and how you can live them out and help your children to do the same. In doing so you will be taking the first step in helping your children move from “me-ology” to “theology.” This is the answer to transforming the Anxious Generation into the Christ-Centered Generation.

“Theology is the study of God. It is the examination of his attributes and abilities, his goodness and faithfulness, who he is and what he has done. Theology is substantial, true, and life-giving. Feasting here will allow us to grow stronger and more into the image of him who made us. Me-ology is frail, precarious, and dependent on you and me who grow tired and weary and make mistakes. Meology is only as good as we are. And we never feel quite smart enough, or disciplined enough, or pretty enough, or energetic enough, or whatever enough. Me-ology prizes you and me. Theology prizes the God of the universe who holds everything together” Jen Oshman.[xxxii]

1. Deny Yourself
   To deny yourself means you don’t take top priority in your life, Christ does. This is what it means to make Jesus Christ Lord of your life. We naturally want to rule our own lives; do what we want to do; and make our own decisions. The great news is God has given us free will to do all of these. The bad news is we often make mistakes because our sinful natures often want the opposite of what God wants for us until we make a decision to follow Christ and pledge our allegiance toward him and become a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17). To deny yourself means you identify Christ Jesus your first and foremost “Influencer.“
2. Take up Your Cross
   When you deny yourself and commit your allegiance to Christ, he knows it will lead to persecution; this is what is meant by taking up your cross. The cross was a torture device, and those who heard Jesus speak about it knew he was telling them they should expect to be persecuted. We have good evidence that many of the apostles died excruciating deaths for taking up their cross. Praise God, we are blessed today in the USA that no crosses are being setup (not yet anyway) to hang Christians from.

However, I can say with near certainty if you take a stand against any of the social ills (e.g., abortion, same-sex “marriage”, LGBTQ topics, etc.) plaguing society and the Church today and bring the name of Christ into the conversation you can expect to be persecuted, if not physically most certainly verbally.

1. Follow Me
   There is only one person you need to be “following,” the man Christ Jesus. And if you follow Christ and live out his commands in your daily life, your children will take notice. They will be following you, and this is where the “creating disciples” process begins. As the popular adage goes, “More is caught than taught.“

If you’re looking for a Scripture to remind you of what you need to do in following Christ, consider 1 John 2:4-6,

“Whoever says ‘I know him’ but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.”

Walk daily with and like Christ and there is a good chance your children will too.

One final thought. First, I highly recommend Haidt’s book. His writing is insightful, balanced, and thought provoking. Below I’ve also included some links to helpful documents he’s provided to help parents raising children during these anxious times.

Additionally, I’d suggest reading George Barna’s book, Raising Spiritual Champions that makes for an excellent Christian complementary text to Haidt’s book. I’ll leave you with Barna’s challenging, yet truthful advice for Christian parents in the 21st century.

“Backbone required. . .The solution is for you [parents] to step up and take control of the media [social media, TV, etc.] that gets exposure in your house. If you fail to do so, three decades-worth of data persuasively argue that you will fail in your hope of raising a spiritual champion [disciple of Christ]. You will be inviting the reigning culture to raise your child for you” George Barna.[xxxiii]

In other words, if you don’t do it, someone else will.

Some helpful links to additional information from the author.

• Reader’s guide with questions.
• Research from the book.

References:

[1] Jeff V. Cook, Seven: The Deadly Sins and the Beatitudes (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 34.

[ii] https://jonathanhaidt.com/bio/

[iii] Jonathan Haidt, The Anxious Generation (New York: Example Press, 2023), 9.

[iv] I use George Barna’s definition of a biblical worldview as consisting of believing 1) there is one God. He created the world, 2) All of us have sinned and we need to repent, 3) Jesus’ death pays for our sins, 4) The Bible is true, 5) God defines what is true, 6) LIfe’s purpose is to know, love, and serve God, and 7) Success in life is consistent obedience to God.

[v] Carl Trueman, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020), 30.

[vi] Ibid., 222

[vii] John Taylor Gatto, Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling, 25th Anniversary ed. (Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers, 2017), 22.

[viii] Joel Osteen, Your Best Life Now (Nashville: Faithwords, 2015).

[ix] https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/08/10/teens-social-media-and-technology-2022/

[x] Ibid., 35-36.

[xi] Ibid., 53.

[xii] Ibid., 59.

[xiii] Ibid., 62.

[xiv] Ibid., 81-82.

[xv] Ibid., 109.

[xvi] Ibid., 117.

[xvii] Henry David Thoreau, Walden; or, Life in the Woods (Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1854), 39.

[xviii] Ibid., 58.

[xix] https://www.axios.com/2017/12/15/sean-parker-facebook-was-designed-to-exploit-human-vulnerability-1513306782

[xx] Ibid., 140.

[xxi] Ibid., 146.

[xxii] Ibid., 199.

[xxiii] Ibid., 201.

[xxiv] https://www.barna.com/research/atheism-doubles-among-generation-z/

[xxv] Ibid., 202.

[xxvi] This quote is often attributed to Charles Kettering, who was head of research at General Motors from 1920 to 1947.

[xxvii] Although Haidt writes about a “God-shaped hole,” he wrongly attributes the hole to evolution, suggesting that “Natural selection might have carved out [the] hole.” However, he suggests that his “religious” friends attribute the hole to a longing for a Creator. While I disagree with his evolutionary/atheist assessment I do applaud him on his balanced approach to writing on the topic.

[xxviii] Blaise Pascal, Pensées, trans. A. J. Krailsheimer (London: Penguin Books, 1995), 75.

[xxix] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: HarperOne, 2001), 136.

[xxx] Ibid., 216.

[xxxi] Ibid., 217.

[xxxii] https://www.crossway.org/articles/make-a-change-from-me-ology-to-theology/

[xxxiii] George Barna, Raising Spiritual Giants: Parenting Kids with Purpose, Passion, and Power (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 2003), 180.

Recommended Resources:

Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)

If God, Why Evil? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

Your Most Important Thinking Skill by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, (mp4) download

Scott Thor is a disciple of Christ, a dedicated husband, and a homeschooling father of two daughters. He is passionate about educating Christians to defend their faith with gentleness and respect, as encouraged in 1 Peter 3:15. Currently, Scott is pursuing a master’s degree in Christian Apologetics at Biola University. Prior to becoming a full-time homeschool dad, he spent 20 years in various roles as an engineer, manager, and executive vice president, consulting for several Fortune 500 clients, including Boeing, Chevron, and Harley Davidson. Despite initially struggling academically—having flunked the 7th grade—Scott discovered the value and purpose in learning, ultimately earning a doctoral degree in management from George Fox University, an MBA from the University of Sioux Falls, and a BS from the University of Nebraska.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/46lWVBk

The post “The Anxious Generation”: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

Over the last several years, I’ve spoken on the subject of apologetics to many groups of parents at churches and conferences. Although none of my talks deal with the topic of sexuality, I can hardly think of a time when I wasn’t asked a question about it either in the Q & A or in private conversation afterward with an individual parent. In particular, parents always want to know what they should say to their kids about homosexuality and transgender questions. These are undoubtedly the most top of mind questions parents have today.

*Not the Sex Question Again!*While I can appreciate that these specific questions are front and center in culture, I always feel a bit disappointed when I get them. Frankly, I feel like we’ve really missed the boat if this is the “big” question people have after a much broader talk on apologetics. I say that for two reasons.

First, kids won’t care what the Bible says about homosexuality and transgender questions if they don’t view the Bible as authoritative. That’s why my answer to parents always begins the same: “Can you tell me first what your child believes about the Bible? Does he/she believe it’s the authoritative Word of God?” I’d say that out of 10 people who ask the question, a solid 7 of them will say, “I’m not sure.” It’s deeply problematic that many Christian parents have come to believe that our biggest conversation challenge in today’s culture is how to answer controversial questions about sexuality . . . even though they often aren’t sure what their kids believe about the Bible itself! If we spent as much time teaching kids why there’s good reason to believe the Bible is true as we did addressing subjects that today’s culture happens to bring to the forefront, we would be in a much more natural position to address difficult topics.

Second, there is so much more than homosexuality and transgender questions that our kids need to understand about a biblical view of sexuality. That’s why I’m thrilled about Sean McDowell’s new book, Chasing Love: Sex, Love, and Relationships in a Confused Culture. It’s a book for teens that provides a comprehensive biblical look at sex, love, and relationships–the best resource I’ve seen on the subject!

Sean took the time to answer several questions I sent him on how to talk with teens about sex and love. Enjoy the following interview, and if you have kids in this age range, you must get this book.

*An Interview with Sean McDowellNatasha: Sean, when Christian parents think about conversations they need to have with their kids about sex, they’re often thinking about two basic things: 1) How do I teach my kids (and convince them!) that it’s biblically right and best to wait for marriage? and 2) How do I talk about the hot cultural topics of homosexuality and gender identity from a biblical perspective? But, as your book shows, these questions only scratch the surface of a whole framework* kids need to have for thinking about love and sex from a biblical worldview. Can you explain why this approach is so important, and give some examples of subjects you cover outside of what parents typically think about?

Sean: After working with thousands of young people for a couple decades, I am convinced that the vast majority of Christian kids are far more secular in their thinking than we realize. Studies by the Barna Group support this observation. Thus, it’s not enough to simply teach biblical principles to our kids–we have to first deconstruct their secular ideas about love, freedom, and happiness, and then biblical teaching will make sense.

I was speaking at a conference in early 2020 and a teenager came up to me and said, “Thanks for your talk on pornography. I have been told my whole life why porn is wrong, but I never understood why.” Being told what to believe is not enough today. Kids need to know why the Bible gives the teaching that it gives. In my experience, when kids get the “why” behind the “what,” they are empowered to live out a Christian sexual ethic.

Once kids understand the positive reasons for the biblical teaching on sex, love and relationships, then they are in a much better position to discuss some of the “thornier” topics today including pornography, sex abuse, LGBTQ issues, and so on. That’s why I arranged the book in three main sections: (1) Clearing away faulty ideas from our culture, (2) explaining the biblical view of sex, love, and marriage, and then (3) “hot topics.”

Natasha: Christians are often known for what we’re “against” when it comes to topics of love and sex, and that perception easily gets passed on to teens. What are some things Christian parents do that inadvertently solidifies this view in their kids’ minds?

Sean: One trap Christian parents can fall into is being entirely critical of how non-Christians tend to approach sex and relationships. While there is undoubtedly a time and place to criticize how our world approaches sex, I try to help students find redeeming truths underneath the surface. Let’s lead with common ground, and then we can get to our differences.

For instance, consider the topic of cohabitation. As I document in Chasing Love, the research shows that living together before marriage puts a future marriage at a serious disadvantage. Students need to know why cohabitation is a bad idea. But we also need them to realize that many people live together first because they actually think it will help them in their future marriage. Many have seen their parents go through a divorce and they don’t want to make the same mistake. So, underneath the bad idea of living together is often a good desire to have healthy relationships.

Rather than leading with criticism, let’s lead with what we have in common with others. In this case, it’s the desire for lasting relationships. Then we can get to our differences. In my view, this approach is biblical, charitable, and often more effective (see Proverbs 24:3).

Natasha: What are some of the big things you want teens to understand Christians are “for” in the areas of love and sex?

Sean: One of the main takeaways I hope students get is that the commands of Jesus are for our good. In one of the early chapters, I ask students to imagine what the world would be like if everyone followed the sexual ethic of Jesus. There would be no sexually transmitted diseases, crude sexual humor, sex abuse, pornography, abortion, or deadbeat dads. My goal is for students to realize that the teachings of Jesus are for individual flourishing and for societal good. God’s commands are not to harm us, as our society proclaims, but are actually for our good.

In sum, God is for marriage. God is for love. God is for commitment. God is for meaningful relationships. God is for sex. But He has given us guidelines about how to experience these in a way that shows love to Him and to others.

Natasha: You speak to and teach a lot of kids in the age range this book is written for. In your experience, what do they most misunderstand about what the Bible teaches on these subjects?

Sean: In my experience, students are deeply confused about the nature of freedom. Many young Christians think that freedom is doing whatever they want without restraint. But this freedom from is only half the story. There is also freedom for. Think about it this way: Just like a car that has been designed by its creator to operate in a certain fashion, and is only “free” when used accordingly, humans have been created for a greater purpose and experience freedom when they discover and live that purpose. The free person not only has the capacity of choice (freedom from) but orients his or her life to God’s design (freedom for).

So, what have we been made for? Scripture says we are made to love God and love other people. In other words, we are only free when we are in healthy, intimate relationships with others. Here is how I put it in Chasing Love: “According to the Christian worldview, true freedom is not a matter of doing what you want without restraint, but cultivating the right wants and living in obedience to God’s will. In other words, freedom results when our wants align with the will of God.”

Students tend to believe that God’s commands limit their freedom. What we must help them see is that God’s commands actually set them free. That’s why David rejoiced in the law of the Lord (Psalm 119). And that’s why Moses said that God’s commands were for the good of the Israelites (Deuteronomy 10:13).

Natasha: Let’s be honest—a lot of parents are pretty uncomfortable talking about sex-related subjects with their kids. For some parents, it may even be hard to hand their kids a book like Chasing Love! Can you share some ideas for how to break the ice and not feel completely awkward handing your teen a book on these subjects? And what might a parent say to get their child interested in reading this if they don’t necessarily want to read another “Christian” book from mom and dad?

Sean: I told my 12-year-old daughter that if she read the book and was willing to simply talk with me about it, I would buy her some new shoes. This strategy may not work with all kids, but it did with her. She agreed to read it entirely and then go to the local coffee shop with me and simply discuss it (no lectures!). I asked her what she learned, what stories stood out to her, and if there was anything she disagreed with. And then we went together to buy the shoes (for the record, she talked me into buying two pairs at the outlet since they’re the price of one pair elsewhere!).

If you haven’t talked with your kids about sex, I would encourage you to take your son or daughter out for a meal or coffee and just share your story. Don’t lecture your son or daughter, but just share your experience with relationships and some lessons you’ve learned along the way. And then you can give the book as a follow up that expresses your heart for your son or daughter.

Natasha: If you could give parents one piece of advice on using your book effectively in their kids’ lives, what would it be?

Sean: Find a way to motivate your son or daughter to read it. And consider reading it alongside them. Students will benefit from reading it alone, but they will benefit immensely from discussing it with you. Studies show that worldviews are best passed through relationships. Simply discussing these issues with your kids, even if you don’t have all the answers, is a “win” for them. I realize these conversations can be awkward, but if we don’t talk with our kids, they will almost assuredly take their cues about sex, love, and relationships from the wider culture.

Recommended resources related to the topic:Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)

Was Jesus Intolerant? by Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4)

Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3

Natasha Crain is a blogger, author, and national speaker who is passionate about equipping Christian parents to raise their kids with an understanding of how to make a case for and defend their faith in an increasingly secular world. She is the author of two apologetics books for parents: Talking with Your Kids about God (2017) and Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (2016). Natasha has an MBA in marketing and statistics from UCLA and a certificate in Christian apologetics from Biola University. A former marketing executive and adjunct professor, she lives in Southern California with her husband and three children.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/45rXVDj

The post Here Comes the He Gets Us Campaign Again: Why Its Portrayal of Jesus is Still a Problem appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

By John D. Ferrer

The following question comes from one our Crossexamined Community members.

“Why did God allow the Bible to be written in a way that gives Christians an opportunity to misunderstand it?” – Vinnie B.

This question intrigues me because it’s a universal problem. Every human being who’s ever tried to dig into Scripture has found it difficult at times to understand what God is saying. And some passages are so difficult that theologians across Church history can’t agree on what they mean.

Of course we could all benefit from learning how to interpret the Bible correctly. Sometimes we struggle over a passage and it would easy to understand if we just knew a few basic principles for interpretation. But, even if you go to seminary, and you have years of practice interpreting and studying God’s word, if that’s you, then you know that there are still some passages that baffle you. No amount of classes and seminary courses will be enough. God’s word can still be difficult.

Moreover, this interpretive problem points to a theological problem. If God’s word is so easy to misinterpret and so hard to understand, then what does that say about God? Is God just playing games with us? Is this some big game of “keep-away” and He’s eluding us, refusing to let us understand what He’s saying? That sounds like a capricious, mischievous God. Not a good look.

*Not ALL the Bible is Hard to Understand* First, we should note that a lot of the Bible is straightforward, fairly easy to understand, and there’s no real challenge in figuring out how to rightly apply it. That’s important to remember, so we have a sense of balance between the easy and hard parts of the Bible. Jesus was able to translate the Gospel message so that an uneducated foreign woman – the woman at the well – was able to understand exactly what He meant (John 4). God can, and does, communicate in ways that anyone, with ears to hear, can understand Him.

But one chapter earlier, Jesus was confusing the well-educated Pharisee, Nicodemus (John 3). Pharisees were some of the most educated and biblically literate scholars in their day. To this day, we don’t know if Nicodemus ever grasped what Jesus meant by being “born again.” Sometimes, God communicates in ways that challenge and confound the most educated among us. Other times, God speaks clearly, His words cutting like a knife so that everyone understands what He’s saying.

*Sometimes We’re the Problem We also should admit that often the problem isn’t in the Bible. It can be straightforward, easy-to-understand, yet if we don’t like what God is saying to us, we might play dumb, thinking that we aren’t responsible to follow directions that we don’t understand. But, playing dumb is a dangerous game. If you keep acting dumb, eventually you won’t acting. We’ll just be* dumb. I call this “sin-stupid.” When people suppress God’s truth long enough, their conscience is seared (1 Timothy 4:2), their hearts become hard (Romans 2:5), their spiritual discernment numbed, till they can’t understand things that used to be obvious. Repeated unrepentant sin makes people stupid over time.

Or perhaps we aren’t rebelling against God, or suppressing His word. We might just be a little lazy, or distracted, and we aren’t paying close attention to see what God is saying to us. If God’s word were on billboard, we’d at least need to stop speeding, stop multitasking, and slow down enough to read what He’s telling us. God’s word might be easy enough to understand, but if we’re just sprinting past, paying little attention, then we’re liable to misinterpret Him. That’s not God’s fault. That’s ours .

*God Has Other Purposes Besides Clarity At the heart of this question is the assumption that God wants to be understood. And, yes, God relates with mankind in ways that invite us to know Him more, understanding who He is, how He works, and what He wants. But we cannot assume that God’s only* purpose in communication is clarity.

Sometimes God speaks in riddles, or indirectly, or in downright incomprehensible ways. If God was aiming primarily at being clear, then He’s failed. But, we have no good reason to think that clarity is the God’s one and only aim here. Indeed, we have reason to believe he’s trying to murky and confusing to some people.

*1. God Is Sorting Out the Followers from the Fans*Jesus famously explained his use of parables saying that they were not just to clarify kingdom principles among believers but also to confound non-believers (Matt 13:10-17).

“The disciples came to him and asked, ‘Why do you speak to the people in parables?’ 11He replied, ‘Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables: ‘Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.’” (Matthew 13:10-13; NIV)

Scripture has some passages for easy-reading and some for difficult-reading. And this is an intentional sifting method to bless those believers who have “ears to hear” without rewarding non-believers with kingdom insights that aren’t fit for them.

*2. God is Beautiful, Not Basic*Another one reason for these difficult passages is that God isn’t a “bread-and-water” God. He’s not basic. He could have made a world without tastes, and colors, and smells, and experiences. But He included all that stuff because He’s an artist, an aesthete. Likewise, God’s word isn’t reducible simply to information, any more than food is reducible entirely to fuel. It’s designed for an an aesthetic interaction. It’s a beauty to be enjoyed. It’s an encountered to be experienced. Just as food is more than calories, so God’s word is more than information. It has flavor, and texture, and ambience so that there’s more to imbibe raw information. If Scripture were just about information transfer, then we could hurry through it – get the info and leave. But Scripture is to be experienced, and that means ruminating on it sometimes. Let the flavors simmer a bit.

*3. God Promotes Wisdom* Sometimes the difficulty we face in God’s word is a matter of wisdom. By that I mean, there’s supposed to be a bit of a wrestling match with the language and ideas in Scripture, a struggle to pry wisdom from those obtuse words. The struggle is part of the path to wisdom. Without the struggle one might gain some head-knowledge, but they’re liable to miss the deeper application of wisdom. Plus, as Jesus explained, not everyone will understand the hard-language sometimes. So, the challenging parts of the Bible can be a filtering mechanism that way, separating the wise and foolish, the sheep from the goats.

*4. God Promotes Personal Growth* Besides wisdom, and aesthetics, there’s also personal growth to be found as we struggle through God’s word. If everything was laid out for us easy-peasy, then we might never face the kind of resistance-training needed to get strong, so we’d never grow strong enough to live out the tasks God has for us.

In sum, there is more to God’s purposes than just being clearly understood. Sometimes God speaks in ways that keep his Kingdom truths out-of-reach, out of the “wrong hands” so to speak. For disciples, the difficult passages in Scripture slow us down so we can relish experiencing God’s word, chewing and savoring what He’s saying. The same passages can also lend a sense of mystery, so that in searching for the answers we can find wisdom along the way. And they can present obstacles for us to press into, and struggle over it. There we can gain strength and grow through the experience.

Yes, we can still learn what God has said through Scripture. But beyond mere head knowledge, God imparts character, wisdom, and beauty through His written word.

Thanks for the great question, Vinnie B.

If you want to find out more about our Crossexamined Community you can sign up here for your own free trial.

Recommended resources related to the topic:Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)

The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)

Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Is the Bible Historically Reliable? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, Mp3 Download.

How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (MP3 Set), (mp4 Download Set), and (DVD Set)

Dr. John D. Ferrer is an educator, writer, and graduate of CrossExamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

The post When Your Opponent Cheats, What Should You do? appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

Gospel-centered churches are as important as ever, with powerful worldly forces at work actively competing with Christ for the souls of men.[1]

The world buys our attention and convinces us that purpose exists in tangibles, accolades, relationships, drugs, fame, and money. In the Bible, the book of Romans tells us that all of mankind has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23). There is no one exempt from this reality.

At the root, we have a soul problem. The world and all that is within it will never fill the deep void that every human being is born with. Romans goes on to say that the wages for sin is death, but the free gift is eternal life in Christ (Rom 6:23). The only way ultimately to escape the snare of death and darkness is to believe in Jesus as Lord.

*May God Increase Our Numbers*If we just focused on Increasing mere church attendance, that doesn’t amount to true revival or changed-lives. An isolated altar call at the end of every worship service is not enough. The Gospel still must be preached. And it’s important for pastors to create space for reflection and response to that message. But the church-body must be devoted to discipleship and spiritual counsel for those who do accept Jesus.

The church has both the opportunity and responsibility to proclaim the Gospel to those around us. As stated, Jesus alone offers abundant life, and he wishes that none should perish. Helping a person see their depravity before Christ is not done by shaming or condemning. Rather, we love someone in word and deed. As trust builds, the floor for gospel conversations greatly expands.

Rather than growing in comfortability, may we grow in boldness. There is nothing more energizing than seeing a person come to saving faith in Christ. Save a seat for your neighbor at church. Seek out your co-worker struggling with loss and pain. Get to know the waiter at your favorite restaurant. Pray that the Lord would give you opportunities to share his Gospel with the people near and far from you.

*May God Send More Laborers*Scripture says that the harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Laboring for the gospel means that we will meet persecution. In Matthew chapter ten, Jesus told his disciples that they are sent out as sheep among wolves (Matt 10:16). Satan loves to use the fear of man as a tactic to hold us back from proclaiming Jesus.

The Holy Spirit is our wonderful Helper and Advocate. He gives us wisdom and words to say in moments of sharing with others. Though we will be met with obstacles and even judgment along the way, our confidence rises as our dependence on the Lord deepens.

The Great Commission to share the Gospel is not assigned to a certain group of religious leaders, pastors, or apologists. All believers share in the responsibility to speak truth over a lost and broken world (Matt 28:18-20).

Many Christians say that they feel unprepared to share with someone. Oftentimes, the fear of rejection or unknown outcomes holds us back from simply beginning a conversation. Though it is rarely easy or comfortable, God is incredibly faithful to use our obedience for his glory.

Rather than feeling pressed to have all the answers, a beautiful starting point may be to share your story. Sharing what the Lord has done for you makes it personal and real. Scripture says that there is power in our testimony. The woman at the well is a wonderful example of this (John 4:1-42). She believed that Jesus was the true Messiah because he knew her story and loved her anyway. Shame could no longer hold her back, and her brokenness was being graciously turned to beauty. She immediately left to tell everyone the news!

We will be mocked and made fun of for our belief. Being a Christian is to be in the minority in today’s age. Second Timothy chapter one reminds us to be unashamed for Christ (2 Tim 1:8). The Lord knew we would be afraid at times, and he gave us many passages of scripture to hold onto. He promises to be with us and will never leave nor forsake his children.

*May God Make Us One Flock*Romans chapter twelve reminds us that we are many in Christ but one body. The passage goes on to say that we all have different gifts to use because of the grace we have received from God (Rom 12:3-8).

Lasting unity builds and thrives in Christ alone. God uses all different types of people with diverse backgrounds to reach the lost. The church on earth should resemble heaven. We must be unified in our goal to make the name of Jesus known.

Socioeconomic status, gender, occupation, titles, race, and prestige do not have an impact on how the Lord moves. Yet, these issues can lead to great areas of division if we are not careful. Too often, God’s sheep make more noise about their differences than the most important thing they have in common: Jesus.

We often hear stories about people leaving their faith behind because of a horrible incident that took place at church or involving Christian leaders. Though devastating, humans hurt humans, and church can become very messy at times. The moment our worship gatherings and ministry become about anything other than the Gospel of Jesus Christ, pride and sin grows exponentially.

As a body of believers, we see tremendous unity when we focus on Jesus alone. In service projects, ministry events, and worship gatherings, the family of God is enjoyed because of God himself. The moment our eyes and hearts drift, we become chaotic people with misaligned priorities. Being one flock means we focus on the Good Shepherd for wisdom, provision, clarity, and guidance.

There is no one holier than thou. May we serve the Lord in mutual humility and gratitude. Our differences pale in comparison to the tremendous joy of collective reverence to King Jesus. The essential matters of our faith can be the unifying factor for denominations and believers. Even in disagreements on these things, the message of Christ will always be love. Though we may not accept or condone certain belief systems, we must extend love.

Spiritual gifts are a beautiful marker of God’s grace in our lives. Though he does not need us, he chooses to use us in accomplishing his purposes. Unity among the church is experienced as members walk in their individual giftedness.

Acknowledging that where you are weak someone else is strong provides further opportunity for impact. Teamwork in the family of God is a remarkable sight. Prayerfully consider your spiritual gifts according to 1 Corinthians chapter twelve.

Ask the Lord to show you where he would like to use you within the church and within your community. Link arms with those who have similar passions and have gone before you. Seek wisdom from the leaders in your life and grow in amazement as you see God work. He is faithful to do immeasurably more than we could think or imagine as we seek to walk in humble submission to do his will (Eph 3:20). Stay lowly, passionate, and united, Christ followers.

References:[1] Editor’s note.

Recommended resources related to the topic:If God, Why Evil? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

Why Doesn’t God Intervene More? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

Why does God allow Bad Things to Happen to Good People? (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek

Relief From the Worst Pain You’ll Ever Experience (DVD) (MP3) (Mp4 Download) by Gary Habermas

Annie Brown has joined us as Content Coordinator working with the Truth That Matters team. In this role, Annie will be creating written content meant to edify and equip lay learners and scheduling content channels as needed. In addition to being a student at SES, Annie has a B.S. in Family & Child Development from Liberty University. “I am grateful for the opportunity to serve on the Truth That Matters Team at SES. Using my passion of writing to prayerfully bless others excites me, and I look forward to what the Lord has in store.”

Original posted at: https://bit.ly/3KdACU9

The post Hope Matters appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

The debate over abortion remains one of society’s most divisive issues. Pro-life advocates argue for the rights of the unborn, emphasizing the sanctity of life from conception and advocating for policies to protect fetal humans. On the other hand, pro-choice advocates defend the right of individuals to make autonomous decisions about their bodies and reproductive health. Amid these deeply held convictions are discussions about the moral status of the unborn, making it a debate that is both intimate and public, personal and political.

*Everyone Has An Equal Right to Life . . . Or NotIn his book, The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture*, pro-life apologist Scott Klusendorf writes, “The question of truth and of human value are driving our national debates on abortion, cloning, and embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).”[1] Klusendorf goes on to say, “The debates are contentious because they involve deep worldview commitments that get to the heart of who and what we are as people. But the debate itself is not complex. Either you believe that each and every human being has an equal right to life or you don’t.”[2]

Klusendorf’s point encapsulates the underlying significance of this pro-life and pro-choice debate. The issue at hand goes beyond mere personal preference or opinion. It delves into fundamental questions about truth, human worth, and the essence of our existence. The complexity arises from the contrasting worldview commitments that shape our perspectives.

*From Conception Onward*As Christians, we base our belief on the principle that every human being, starting from the moment of conception, has an equal and undeniable right to life. This belief aligns with the biblical truth that we are fearfully and wonderfully made by our Creator. Therefore, each individual deserves to be loved, protected, and respected from the moment of conception.

When we adopt the perspective from pro-life apologetics, we become active participants in the ongoing national conversations regarding the inherent worth and dignity of every unborn life. Given this moral issue’s sensitive and divisive nature, however, it is essential to approach pro-life apologetics with compassion and respect, striving to engage in constructive dialogue with those who may hold opposing views. By understanding and articulating the pro-life argument utilizing logic, science, and philosophy, you can effectively advocate for protecting innocent lives.[3]

*The Case for Life Argument*In his book, “The Case for Life,” Klusendorf lays out a clear argument supporting the pro-life position. The crux of his argument centers around the idea that unborn human life has dignity and intrinsic value, deserving protection from the moment of conception. Klusendorf’s argument is presented in a syllogism (a major premise, minor premise, and conclusion).

1. Major Premise: It is morally wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.
2. Minor Premise: Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.
3. Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

Klusendorf’s explains his first premise in terms of the inherent value of human life and the nearly universally acknowledged ethical standard that taking innocent life is wrong. To develop his secondary premise he introduces some biological and philosophical grounding, asserting that human life commences at conception, thus human embryos and fetuses as integral members of the human community. By merging these two premises, Klusendorf reaches the conclusion that abortion – which, by definition, kills and unborn human being – is ethically unjustifiable.

*Answering Objections*Klusendorf addresses common objections to this argument, such as claims that the unborn are not “persons” with rights or that women have a right to bodily autonomy that overrides the rights of the unborn. He critiques these objections by asserting that no morally relevant difference between the unborn and those already born would justify killing the former.

In short, Klusendorf’s pro-life argument presents a solid philosophical and moral framework that upholds the equal value of all human life from the moment of conception. Based on this premise, he convincingly concludes that abortion is inherently wrong.

*If You’re Pro-Life, You Need This Book*Incorporating Scott Klusendorf’s teachings into pro-life advocacy can help believers engage in meaningful conversations about the value of life from a Christian perspective. By standing up for the dignity of all human beings, including those yet to be born and advocating against abortion, we honor God’s gift of life and promote a culture that cherishes every individual as precious in His sight, thereby safeguarding the sanctity of human life.

References:[1] Scott Klusendorf, The Case for Life: Equipping Christians To Engage the Culture. 2d ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2023), 2.

[2] Klusendorf 2023, 2.

[3] Editor’s Note: “The pro-life argument” refers not to a single line of argument but rather to a broad category of arguments. Klusendorf’s prolife argument is one of the most popular and widely respected, but there are other ways to argue the prolife position. One could focus on debunking abortion-choice claims, or discrediting abortion-choice culture, or exposing problems in abortion-choice policy. Or one could argue that abortion-choice advocates carry the heavier burden of proof, since they are arguing for killing, and have so far failed to resolve that burden of proof. Or one could argue that reasonable doubt regarding the status of the unborn is sufficient cause for provisional protection. There are many ways to argue the pro-life position, even if Klusendorf’s line of argument is one of the best overall arguments to work with.

Recommended Resources On This TopicThe Case for Christian Activism (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

Legislating Morality (mp4 download), (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), (PowerPoint download), and (PowerPoint CD) by Frank Turek

If God, Why Evil? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD) by Frank Turek

Jason Jimenez is President of STAND STRONG Ministries and author of Challenging Conversations: A Practical Guide to Discuss Controversial Topics in the church. For more info, check out www.standstrongministries.org.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/44NUeaU

The post Critical Thinking: The Secret Weapon of Confident Christians appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

Human origin is a fascinating area of research today. With all the different models for the origins of humanity being proposed, I see an increase in the discussions, both scientific and theological. For everyone reading this post, this area of research should be of utmost interest for you as well. Two critical ideas about humanity are at stake depending on which model (or family of models) is true: intrinsic and equal human dignity and value, and the sinfulness of humanity.

The age-old debate about God’s existence has great implications on this area of the debate about human origins. The Judeo-Christian claim that all humans are created in God’s Image and that humans possess a sin nature that will cause them to tend toward the immoral. These paradoxical doctrines together explain both the greatness and wretchedness of humanity that we see every day, throughout history, and expect in the future.

*The Image of God*If we are created in the image of God that means that all humans possess intrinsic and equal human dignity and value (Genesis 1:26-28).[i] If this is false, then humans are not valuable in virtue of their being human but in virtue of a myriad of other characteristics and statistics that change in fashion with the culture. One moment a human can be valuable and the next moment they are not. If humans do not have value at any point, that gives justification for their expendability (murder) at the hands of those who have power over them at that point. If humans are not created in the image of God, then there is nothing wrong with humans abusing their power against other humans. Any model of human origins that does not allow for the Image of God in humans places the very lives of every human at risk.

*Human Sinfulness*Genesis also records that Adam and Eve sinned against God and with that action brought the sin nature into all future humans (Genesis 3). Humans are not born good or even neutral. This means that the abuse of power described above is not just possible but inevitable. Any model of human origins that does not allow for the Fall or for the transfer of the sin nature (whether through the biological, spiritual, or some combination) denies this element of human psychology, sociology, and history (Genesis 5:1-3; 9:6; James 3:9).

*Denying Both?Any model that does not allow for one or the other already makes human lives less worthy of protection because either it is not worth protecting or there is nothing to necessarily protect against. But if a model denies both, then that is a recipe for disaster. This means that the debate about human origins is not just a scientific question but also a philosophical one, even for the atheist or naturalist. An interesting analysis of the implications of these two characteristics is provided in Os Guinness’ book The Magna Carta of Humanity* which I highly recommend, particularly for those involved in human origins discussions and debates. It provides a renewed urgency for the importance of the debate about human origins.

*Should Theology Judge Science?*I often hear the claim that many Christians allow their theology to determine their interpretation (and maybe even rejection) of the scientific data. The implication is that we should not allow any knowledge discipline (or at least, theology) other than science in developing our model or that we should at least give precedence to science.

It is important to recognize at this point the distinction between “science” and the “data of nature.” The discovered data is the raw information that must be accommodated in any model, whereas “science” is the interpretation of that data. That interpretation is fallible, but not necessarily false. There are many sources of truth about human nature, including philosophical, historical, and theological sources; and that information should be recognized and accommodated in any model of human origins if it’s to accurately reflect the natural history of human origins. That’s our best shot at identifying what really happened. Just as the data of nature can judge our interpretation of the data of history and Scripture, the data of history and of Scripture can judge our interpretation of the data of nature in virtue of their being true.

[Editor’s note: While many say science is the only way we can know anything about anything, they are endorsing scientism – which is not itself science, but philosophy. So, it’s self-defeating.] Therefore, we cannot responsibly allow scientism to prevent our discovery of the correct model of human origins. To do so, would be misinformed if not dangerous.

*Conclusion*With the work in the field of human origins being done at numerous Christian organizations, the number of possible models and level of detail may seem confusing to many yet exciting to others. But they are important for all of us. I encourage these organizations to continue (or begin) working together to gather all the data that each emphasize in their respective models and adjust those models to reflect the data from others. We need to be careful and respectful of any accusations of heresy, ensuring that our accusations are demonstrably reflective of the model not the Christian, and that we address such accusations with or adjust our models based on the biblical data and logic. It is important that even though we may disagree on details that we present a united front that is based on the data and sound reasoning from that data, not only for the future of humanity, but as a demonstration of the unity and love that Christ prayed for and told us that unbelievers will see. We need to not only demonstrate the truth of these important Christian doctrines (ones that are often under attack and used as excuses to reject Christ) but we need to emphasize our love, respect, cooperation, and dedication to truth that unbelievers often overlook.

References:[i] Editor’s note: There are at least four main theories in church history regarding the nature of the “imago dei” (Image of God). Some, follow the Socinian tradition, teaching that the Image of God refers to mankind’s dominion and authority over the rest of Creation. Others, including Thomas Aquinas, say it refers to human intellect in the sense of rationality, self-reflection, and reasoning abilities all of which set humanity apart from the rest of the animal world. Others follow Karl Barth’s theory that the imago dei refers to human relationships, where Adam and Eve, can have fellowship, friendship, marriage, family, and therein fulfull their cultural mandate to “be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth” (Gen. 1:26-28). Still others affirm the reformation view, represented by John Calvin, which treats any combination of God’s shareable attributes – authority, relationship, intellect, etc. – as the “image of God” in man. See, John Ferrer, “Chapter 3: Creation and the Image of God,” in Body Ethic [Dissertation] (Fort Worth, TX: Southwestern Theological Seminary, 2013), 91-110.

While Nix doesn’t go into all this detail in his blog post here, these four theories illustrate different ways Nix’s assertion could hold true. He says, “all humans possess intrinsic and equal human dignity and value” – whether in their nature as relational beings, as rational creatures, as representative authorities, or all of the above. Our equal dignity can trace back to our inherent nature – an unchanging and grounded fact about all human beings, since every human being is in God’s image (Gen 1:26-28; 5:1-3; 9:6; James 3:9).

Recommended resources related to the topic:Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)

Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Does Science Disprove God? by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Is Original Sin Unfair? by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/49DBeNf

The post In the Image of God: The Battle for Human Identity appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

*Hope in the Promise*Throughout Scripture, we acknowledge God as a promise-keeper. What he says will happen will always comes to pass in his perfect timing. Because of this truth about God’s heart, believers are drawn to extravagant hope in all circumstances.

Upon sin entering the world in Genesis chapter three, God initiated hope by clothing Adam and Eve immediately following humanity’s downfall. After leading Noah to navigate a worldwide flood, God provided a dove from heaven as hope for a brighter future ahead. In calling Moses to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, God promised the hope of a land flowing with milk and honey on the other side of their trivial journey. Through the prophet Isaiah, God foretold the coming of Christ who alone would provide eternal hope. Ultimate hope is experienced in recognition of the empty tomb. Christ accomplished all that he promised and rose three days after being crucified for all sin, everywhere. We worship a living Savior!

The hope for believers today is that Christ will one day return. John 14:3 says, “And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.” Christ has a place prepared for his children in eternity. Heaven with our Lord is where suffering and pain are no more. The trials of this life do not join us upon our departure from earth.

Until that day, we have been tremendously blessed with the gift of our Helper. Jesus goes on in John chapter fourteen with the promise of his Holy Spirit. He is there to teach us and allow us to remember all that we have been taught.

The reality is, while we wait for the promise of heaven, we are never waiting without both hope and help. The Spirit of God dwells within a believer’s very being. In moments of desperation, when hope seems lost, the Helper graciously brings truth to mind and restores our vision for brighter days ahead. Hope is a promise that Jesus keeps.

*Hope in the Suffering*The book of James is one of many places in Scripture that confirms trials in this life. Following Christ does not exempt us from suffering and hardship. For most, you have already dealt with tragedy. If this is not true for you today, there will be future experiences that test your faith.

Suffering is difficult, but it does not have to be without hope. In fact, James reminds us that perseverance builds in pain. Early into 2023, my sister and brother-in-law were given a heartbreaking diagnosis for their unborn son. At just twenty weeks gestation, an anatomy scan ultrasound indicated that my dear nephew had Spina Bifida. The future development and physical milestones for children with Spina Bifida are incredibly uncertain. As new parents, my sister and her husband could have easily lost all hope. They could have chosen to see their son for his diagnosis and not his beauty. Our family, however, watched in awe as they did just the opposite. With each passing procedure and appointment, they clung to the Lord of Hosts. They recalled the faithfulness of God in their lives and in the lives of those who had gone before them. Hope in Christ was their ultimate comfort. Hope speaks the better word. It illuminates all that is still good in a very hard situation. Fetal surgery, being born at full-term, incredible doctors, and groundbreaking research were just a few markers of hope in their journey. This hope has grown them into remarkable parents, and God wasted not even a second of their most difficult weeks.

A further example of suffering is felt through death and loss of loved ones. Though death is not the end for those who are in Christ, it does not happen without grief and hurt. When losing someone close to us, especially at a young age or through unanticipated tragedy, it can feel impossible to see God’s goodness. Yet, in the quiet moments of remembrance, God, through his Spirit, is faithful to restore our hope and re-fix our gaze towards heaven. Losing someone that knew and trusting Jesus as Lord means that their future is glory. It is an eternity of no more the pain or tears. We can celebrate in such circumstances because of this hope.

*Hope in the Waiting*Life is a journey. It is a process of being molded and sanctified to look more like Christ. There are seasons where we wait for God to work in a specific situation. Waiting is not an easy task and can seem to take years off our lives. The good news is that God never stops working. Our hope is that he is for us. The heart of God is not to abandon us in our waiting but to uphold us when we begin to sink. He is not far off when the answers seem to be. The Lord does not run away just because we do not understand. His promise is to never leave us or forsake us. The hope in the waiting is Jesus himself.

Waiting is not a wasted time. To further recall the gospel of John, Jesus says, in chapter fifteen, that as we abide in him, we will bear fruit. Abiding in Jesus means that we remain with him in every season. We are attached to him in both the valley and on the mountain top. Being close to Jesus allows us to enjoy a life of fruit even as we wait.

Worship and abiding are mutual expressions of faith. The Lord is glorified in our pursuit of him. As we seek to know him and walk closely with him, we are used as instruments for his purposes. The unfortunate reality is we are more prone to seek Christ out of our need for something in particular. Our prayer life increases when trials come knocking. Our expressions of worship and gratitude are best observed when provisions have been made and the wait is over.

As we make the decision to abide with Christ even in our waiting, the chemical makeup of our brain begins to shift. Our minds move past the complaints of our present because of the hope-filled promise of our future. In the conclusion of a waiting season, we will have grown in amazing ways by staying with Jesus. He is our hope, and He provides what no other temporary means of comfort ever could.

The ultimate wait for a believer is to be in heaven with Jesus. Heaven should invoke remarkable hope within us. The American dream says that milestones such as college graduation, marriage, and parenthood are what equates to success in this life. Therefore, the desire for all of these things to take place before meeting Jesus face to face can be substantial. Though these are good gifts from the Lord, the Lord himself is the best thing our hearts will ever know. There is a crown of glory that awaits the Christ-follower in heaven (James 1:12). He has set aside an inheritance for his children. The Lord himself calls us co-heirs with Christ the King (Romans 8:17). There is no accomplishment, prize, accolade or celebration that compares to experiencing eternal life because of the sacrifice Jesus made on our behalf.

Our hope is Jesus. He keeps his promises and walks with us through the suffering and waiting. We are never left or forgotten. Hope-filled living is achieved through a relationship with Christ that abides in every season.

Recommended resources related to the topic:If God, Why Evil? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

Why Doesn’t God Intervene More? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

Why does God allow Bad Things to Happen to Good People? (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek

Relief From the Worst Pain You’ll Ever Experience (DVD) (MP3) (Mp4 Download) by Gary Habermas

Annie Brown has joined us as Content Coordinator working with the Truth That Matters team. In this role, Annie will be creating written content meant to edify and equip lay learners and scheduling content channels as needed. In addition to being a student at SES, Annie has a B.S. in Family & Child Development from Liberty University. “I am grateful for the opportunity to serve on the Truth That Matters Team at SES. Using my passion of writing to prayerfully bless others excites me, and I look forward to what the Lord has in store.”

Original posted at: https://bit.ly/3WQP63V

The post Hope Matters appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

More than two years ago, I participated in a debate in Oxford, England, with atheist YouTuber Alex O’Connor (who goes by the online alias Cosmic Skeptic). The subject was “Why I Am / Am Not a Christian,” which was quite broad. Given the short time constraints of the debate and the breadth of the topic, we were regrettably unable to pursue an explication of our differences with the depth that I would prefer. Nonetheless, I very much appreciated my interaction that evening with O’Connor, including the dinner we enjoyed together before the event. I have long viewed O’Connor as one of the more philosophically nuanced atheist thinkers, and I have valued our ongoing private discussions subsequent to our initial public dialogue. My positive argument in the debate concerned the evidence for Jesus’s resurrection, while O’Connor focused on moral critiques of the Bible. In his portion of the cross-examination, O’Connor chose to focus on the issue of slavery in the Old Testament. The last of the texts we discussed was Numbers 31:15-18, which was interpreted by O’Connor to endorse sexual slavery. At the time, this was not an issue that I had researched with great depth, though I recognized it as a difficult text. My preparation for the debate had largely been on the evidences for New Testament reliability, and its epistemic relevance to developing a robust case for the resurrection. I therefore acknowledged it as a difficult text without offering any detailed response. Earlier this week, Alex O’Connor uploaded the clip from our debate, in which this text was discussed, to his Cosmic Clips spin-off channel. I therefore thought it an appropriate time to publish an article offering my current perspective on this difficult text.

*What Does the Text Actually Say?* Here is the passage under discussion:

“Have you allowed all the women to live?” he [Moses] asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man” (Numbers 31:15-18; NIV).

The first thing to note about this text is that it is not technically God who gives the instructions. Thus, on the worst case scenario, one may interpret this text as being descriptive of Moses’s command, rather than it being an act endorsed by God. Nonetheless, even supposing (as I think is more likely) that Moses’s instruction carries with it God’s approval, I do not believe it to be as problematic as it might appear on first impression. O’Connor believes that this text gives permission to the Hebrew soldiers to rape Midianite war captives. Such an interpretation, however, would fly in the face of every piece of clear moral legislation on sexual relations that we have in the Hebrew Bible. For example, in Deuteronomy 22:23-27:

“If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. 25 “But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, 27 because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her” (Deuteronomy 22:23-27; emphasis added).

According to this text, the crime of rape is so serious that it is punishable by death. If the woman failed to scream for help when she was in the city and could be heard, the Jewish law viewed the situation as consensual sex rather than rape, since the woman could have cried out for someone to rescue her but didn’t. Thus, both parties were guilty. If the sexual assault took place in a rural area, however, where the woman had no chance of being heard, the Jewish law gave the woman the benefit of the doubt and she was not to be considered culpable.

*What about P.O.W’s?*One might object here that women captured in war were not afforded the same rights as women belonging to the people of Israel, and thus this consideration offers little help with regards to the text of our study. However, the previous chapter in Deuteronomy concerns the rights of women who are captured in war (Deut 21:10-14):

“When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her”** (Deuteronomy 21:10-14; emphasis added).

Therefore, while the Hebrew soldiers were permitted to marry female war captives, they were not permitted to rape them or treat them as slaves. The woman was also to have a month to mourn the loss of her kin prior to getting married. Daniel Block notes, “This monthlong quarantine expresses respect for the woman’s ties to her family of origin and her own psychological and emotional health, providing a cushion from the shock of being torn from her own family.[i]

Indeed, as John Wenham comments, “In a world where there are wars, and therefore prisoners of war, such regulations in fact set a high standard of conduct.”[ii] Furthermore, by becoming part of the people of Israel (and possessing full status as a wife), the women would be delivered from pagan idolatry and exposed instead to Israelite religion concerning the true God, thereby having opportunity to attain salvation.

*War ContextThe historical context of the war against the Midianites is also important to bear in mind as we evaluate our text. Numbers 31:16 indicates that the Midianite women “were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people.” This is an allusion to Numbers 25:1-9, in which we read of an occasion where the Midianites devised a plot to entice Israel into pagan worship involving making sacrifices to Baal and ritual sex. According to Moses, the Midianite women were among those who “enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord” (Num 31:16). Thus, the women who were permitted to live and marry into Israel (that is, those who had not known man by lying with him) were presumably those who had not* been involved in enticing the men of Israel into sexual impurity.

*What the Text Doesn’t Say*Another consideration, often overlooked in discussions of our text, is that we are not informed what happened to young woman who were brought into the Israelite camp but who did not wish to marry the men who had just slaughtered their kin. We can hypothesize that they were forced into it anyway, but we can equally hypothesize that they were allowed to make themselves useful as virgins until such a time as someone more suitable presented himself. This is simply not stated or even intimated in the text. Thus, if there were women who were averse to being married to an interested Israelite soldier, we just do not know what happened. Moreover, even if on occasion something bad happened — and there is no reason to deny that sometimes it may have — it is not something we are told was done by command of God.

In conclusion, though Numbers 31:13-18 is undoubtedly a difficult text, especially from the vantage point of our twenty-first century western culture, the text becomes, upon closer inspection, significantly less problematic than it appears at first impression. The Pentateuch outlined the rights of female war captives, and they were not allowed to be treated as a slave or sex object. The Pentateuch also takes a very negative view of rape. Most likely, the women who were spared were not involved in enticing Israel into sexual impurity during the incident at Peor. Finally, we are not informed by the text what the arrangements were for women who did not wish to marry an interested Israelite soldier, and so any suggestion of what may have happened is mere conjecture.

*Footnotes:[i] Daniel I. Block, The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy*, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 496.

[ii] John W. Wenham, The Goodness of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1974), 96.

Recommended resources related to the topic:Why Is God Ignoring Me? (DVD), and (mp4 Download) by Gary Habermas

When Reason Isn’t the Reason for Unbelief by Dr. Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? The Hiddenness of God: Why Isn’t God More Obvious? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp3, and Mp4 Download

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek

Why Science Needs God by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.

Originally published at: https://bit.ly/3wutuzg

The post The Need for Cognitive Closure in Dealing with Doubts appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

You’ve been at your job for almost a year. You enjoy your work. You’re planting roots. Soon you’ll qualify for a pay raise and new benefits. Things are looking up. Except, at today’s business meeting, the boss announced a mandatory diversity training[i] for all employees. He made it sound harmless, perfunctory, just a hoop to jump through. No one asked questions. Everyone just nodded. Since you’re new here, you held your questions. You don’t want to cause a stir. Still, something smells fishy. Maybe you’ve heard stories about DEI, SEL, CRT, or Unconscious Bias training.[ii] Maybe you’ve been through this before, and you know what’s coming. But whatever is bothering you, there’s a decision to make. What will you do about this diversity training?

You’ve got options. But before picking one, you should know what you’re up against.

*Background Check*On the surface, “diversity training” seems like a great idea. We all agree that racism, sexism, phobia, and bullying are all bad. But everyone has their biases. So with a little coaching maybe we can get along better, become more productive, solve problems, and have a healthier workplace. Not to mention, we might avoid a harassment suit or messy discrimination case down the road.

Diversity training can be incorporated into “leadership training,” “career advancement,” or “onboarding programs.” But the big takeaway is that the workplace (school, or church) needs to get ready for more diversity, and all the challenging opportunity that presents.

Advocates like the US Chamber of Commerce claim diversity training is a “business imperative,” so companies can provide “opportunities for everyone . . . help[ing] lift communities and strengthen the health, prosperity, and competitiveness of our nation and our society.”[iii] In the past these programs were called “sensitivity training” reflecting a growing awareness of sexism and harassment in the workplace. But today they’re moreoften about racial and LGBTQ diversity, with a progressive political spin. Some critics have spoken out about the multi-billion dollar diversity training industry, claiming it’s a trojan-virus, packaged in slick and appealing buzzwords, but filled with corruption, extortion, and radical agendas.[iv] More gracious critics argue diversity training just doesn’t work, as anthropologists Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev explain:

“[D]iversity training is likely the most expensive, and least effective, diversity program around. But [corporate, church, and school representatives] persist, worried about the optics of getting rid of training, concerned about litigation, unwilling to take more difficult but consequential steps or [they’re] simply in the thrall of glossy training materials and their purveyors. That colleges and universities in the United States persist in offering training to faculty and students, and even mandate it (29% of all schools require faculty to undergo training), is particularly surprising given that the research on the poor performance of training comes out of academia.” [v]

*Compliance Warning*
The average employee won’t know all that, or know the latent problems with diversity training, or detect progressive political influence. Most employees won’t raise objections as long as it doesn’t cost them anything. The common practice is “go along, to get along.” In other words, compliance is commonplace.

Christians often behave the same way, thinking they’re being meek and mild just like Jesus. After all, Paul says, “as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Rom 12:8). We Christians should be peacemakers. While that’s not exactly compliance, it can look the same.

Even if you eventually decide to partake in the training, there is no option, for mature Christians to be lazy, passive, and compliant. Whether it’s a diversity seminar, critical race training, struggle sessions, LGBTQ sensitivity school, or whatever it is, you’ll be offered a veritable buffet of ideas, and they might even try to force-feed it to you. So, if you’re in the habit of ingesting whatever authorities feed you, then you’re likely to swallow something toxic. Passive compliance isn’t a responsible option.

*Is It Really* Mandatory?**

Fortunately, “mandatory training” isn’t always mandatory. If it’s just suggested, then you don’t have to go. Or it’s mandatory only if you’re at the office. Then you can dodge it by missing work on those days.

Even if the training is optional, however, you may still decide to attend, especially if you want to learn what they’re saying and how to respond to it. It probably won’t be 100% wrong but not 100% right either. You would need discernment, tact, and will-power. And most importantly, make sure to “live not by lies.”[vi] Measure your words. Guard your actions. Sign only what you agree with. Speak only truth. If you’re required to sign a position statement then politely decline unless you agree with it. Your Christian testimony is more valuable than any paper or screen they put in front of you. “Above all else,” Scripture warns, “guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it.” (Prov. 4:23; NIV)

Now, let’s suppose you can’t be “out of the office” on those days but you don’t want to attend. Further, let’s suppose this training will likely conflict with Christianity or your conscience. If a diversity seminar promotes divisiveness rather than diversity, or it stirs up more racism than reconciliation, then you may have valid grounds for a religious exemption. If you’re on good terms with your manager, or higher up, you could request that. They might write an “exception clause” for you. If this diversity training is meant to reduce the risk of discrimination lawsuits, then they might grant a religious exemption, not as a favor but for fear of a discrimination suit.

Your human resources department can probably help you to know your rights here. If not them, then call a lawyer friend, or in extreme cases, call Alliance Defending Freedom (www.ADFlegal.org), the American Center for Law and Justice (www.aclj.org), or the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (https://www.thefire.org/).

*It Is Mandatory. What Now?*
Avoidance, of course, isn’t always an option. Legally speaking, the company has a general right to decide what kind of expectations and values they want among their employees. And there are many creative ways they can obey the law while pressuring you to conform. At this point, your options are more limited. Two extremes are: Quit or Lawyer up.

Quitting your job will work, for avoiding training. But, besides losing the job, you may lose health insurance, friends, advancement opportunities, and ministry influence in the company. Plus, you can be replaced with someone more compliant, surrendering that territory to the same forces you were protesting. Christians need to count the cost. Following Jesus takes a toll. Maybe not your job, but it might cost some convenience, embarrassment, a pay cut, a reprimand, or suspension. “If anyone would come after me,” Jesus said, “let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” (Matt 16:24; ESV). Historically, the normal Christian life invites adversity from a world that cares little for Christ (John 1:10-11).

Another extreme option is to “lawyer up.” Christians should be forgiving and not litigious with other Christians (1 Cor 6:7). But that’s a general principle, and between church-members. In a corporate setting, there can be righteous lawsuits. Christians have a general duty beyond their own interests to seek justice for other people (Micah 6:8). And if your company is teaching people to “be less white,”[vii] or that “black people can’t be racist,”[viii] or “white people are sub-human demons”[ix] – as some diversity trainers have said – then legal action might be how a righteous defense rises to the level of egregious offense. But be warned. This option is expensive. And you might not have a case. The diversity training industry is big, with lots of lawyers, lots of money, and even a couple supreme court precedents on their side (Regents v. Bakke, 1978; and Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003). The upcoming Supreme Court case, Students v Harvard College, could roll back some of that. In the meantime, this legal landscape is dicey.

The moderate option is to attend the training. Rarely would mere attendance be sinful. If you have some discernment, take good notes, and act polite, you might be able to make it through the seminar without any trouble and even learn something. If you’re required to attend, and the seminar is somehow immoral, then the moral burden rests heavier on your supervisors than on you.

*Four Strategies For Mandatory Diversity Training*

If you’re in this boat, and your best option is to attend the seminar, then you still have the choice of how to carry yourself during the training. What will your attitude and strategy be? James Lindsay proposes four ways to conduct yourself here.[x]

1. Gray Rock: This is passive resistance, the safest option for most people. Present yourself as a boring gray rock, unengaged, uncommunicative, calm, offering only short answers, and limiting exposure. On social media this is called ghosting. As long as you don’t have to say or do something against your conscience, this strategy should work.
2. Spying/Whistle-blowing – a riskier option is to play along, engaging and cooperating as if you’re compliant but you’re really spying. You’re recording and gathering notes preparing to “blow the whistle.” Spying poses moral dilemmas as you may be acting against your conscience, or saying things that you don’t believe. That’s spiritually dangerous territory. Plus, whenever people do find out you’re the whistle-blower you’ll likely lose your job, or worse. This isn’t a great option unless the diversity training is very egregious, and you really know what you’re doing.
3. Outright resistance – another risky option is to openly resist. You could refuse to attend, or write a letter to the board, or stage a walk-out, or host a press conference, or things like that. Again, the risk of getting fired is high. Done right, however, it can be very effective, especially if most of the company is involved. Know that the bigger the protest, the harder it will be to pull off, and as tensions escalate you risk looking like the bad guy.
4. Trolling – This is an accelerationist strategy, where the “troll” gives false information – like jokes, sarcasm, or memes – to illicit responses that derail the event. Quick witted class clowns have been doing this at school for ages. Some people have just the personality, and skill set to pull this off. But it’s an advanced strategy. It can require you to know the material better than the trainer does, so you can exploit holes in their argument and gaps in their evidence. You risk coming off as adolescent, insincere, and rude. For Christians, this isn’t generally a safe strategy, especially if it turns into mocking people or picking fights. Expect to lose your job with this strategy too.

*The 5th Strategy: Christian Wisdom*

Building on Lindsay’s four strategies, we can add a fifth option. Scripture exhorts Christians to live at peace with everyone as far as we’re able, treating people with the respect and love they deserve as “image bearers” (Gen 1:26-28; Mark 12:31; Rom 12:8). While we won’t agree with evil or lies, we can listen graciously, affirm the good, speaking only when it’s helpful and only what’s true.[xi] Even if the diversity seminar is flooded with bad ideas, Christians can hold fast to the truth so the torrent of confusion doesn’t sweep us away.

At times, Christians may need the Gray Rock strategy (#1). And we should take good notes preparing to blow-the-whistle if it comes that (#2). If the training requires agreeing with lies, foolishness, or evil, then you’ll have to decline – in open resistance (#3). You may even need to point out bad logic, with an innocent question or joke (#4). You can be merciless towards bad ideas, just make sure to be merciful toward, never mocking them. The important thing here is to be a good example of Christ and exercise wisdom throughout. As you watch or listen to a mixture of good and bad ideas, you can chew what they feed you, swallow the good and spit out the bad, so to speak.[xii]

You might not have any great options available. But if you measure your words, guard your heart, and keep the faith, you can stand your ground. May God bless your effort!

REFERENCES:

[i] Besides diversity training, most of this article could apply to other training types that threaten freedom of religion/conscience.

[ii] DEI: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. SEL: Social Emotional learning. CRT: Critical Race Theory. Each of these acronyms is loaded with political and cultural connotations and should not be taken at face value.

[iii] U.S. Chamber of Commerce, “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” [Main page] USChamber.com, accessed 2 April 2023 at: https://www.uschamber.com/diversity

[iv] https://newdiscourses.com/2023/03/marxist-roots-dei-session-1-equity/, https://newdiscourses.com/2023/03/marxist-roots-dei-session-2-diversity/, and https://newdiscourses.com/2023/03/marxist-roots-dei-session-3-inclusion/

[v] Frank Dobbin, and Alexandra Kalev, “Why Doesn’t Diversity Training Work? The Challenge for Industry and Academia,” 10, no. 2 (2018), 48 at: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/dobbin/files/an2018.pdf

[vi] Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, “Live Not By Lies,” [Essay] (12 Feb 1974). See also, Rod Dreher, Live Not by Lies: A Manual for Christian Dissidents (NY: Sentinel, 2020).

[vii] https://nypost.com/2021/02/23/coca-cola-diversity-training-urged-workers-to-be-less-white/

[viii] https://www.foxnews.com/media/woke-department-defense-equity-chief-writes-anti-white-posts-exhausted-white-folx

[ix] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2tQathSxpg

[x] https://newdiscourses.com/2023/03/fighting-dei-training/

[xi] For example, Neil Shenvi, “DEI Done Right: Disentangling Christian Community From Critical Theory,” ShenviApologetics.com (San Dimas, CA: Life Pacific University, 7 April 2022) at: https://shenviapologetics.com/dei-done-right-disentangling-christian-community-from-critical-theory/

[xii] See, Hillary Ferrer, Mama Bear Apologetics: Empowering Your Kids to Challenge Cultural Lies (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2019), 47-62.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )

Legislating Morality (DVD Set), (PowerPoint download), (PowerPoint CD), (MP3 Set) and (DVD mp4 Download Set)

Does Jesus Trump Your Politics by Dr. Frank Turek (mp4 download and DVD)

Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3

Dr. John D. Ferrer (MDiv, Southern Evangelical Seminary; ThM & PhD Southwestern Baptist Seminary) is a teaching fellow with the Equal Rights Institute and ministers full-time with Crossexamined.org.

The post How To Keep Your Job Without Losing Your Soul: A Survival Guide For Diversity Training appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

Most atheists I have encountered demonstrate an amazing “faith” in the power of science. They will often accuse believers of wishful thinking – or outright foolishness – when believers conclude that an intelligent being is the only reasonable inference to draw from the evidence of design that surrounds us. They do this because they have come to believe that only through “science” can anything be known, and that science will someday answer all of life’s mysteries. That is what’s called “scientism.” There is no need for a God, they assure themselves, because “science” has not provided for one.

*Is Science the Only* Way to Know?**The flaw in this thinking is the assumption that science is the only way one can know something. This is flawed on many levels. Science, broadly speaking, is a method of examining and assessing the physical world around us, using instrumentation and methodology to achieve repeatable results so as to confirm or negate a hypothesis. It is, therefore, an endless process of knowledge acquisition, but only in the physical realm. We employ it because we are first convinced that reality is fixed, and that repeatability is possible. But that is a philosophical belief, not something that science has itself proven.[1] If we didn’t already “know” this there would be no point in attempting to conduct experiments in the first place.

*Can Science Handle Moral Values?*Moreover, science does not attempt to provide knowledge as to good and evil, for it is simply incapable of doing so. After all, Nazi scientists were making use of science, but we would hardly accept that what they were doing was good. Indeed, we would not look to the scientific method at all for answers to such questions.

*Can Science Address Anything Besides Physical Nature?*Finally, since science is limited to the physical realm, it cannot be used to assess the transcendent. What existed before “time” began can no more be measured by science than can the morality of a decision to use science to achieve a particular end.

*What Other Options Do we have?*There are other ways to obtain knowledge besides experimental science, especially in areas where testing and repeatability are not possible. We do this all the time in the study of history, or when we make use of abductive reasoning to arrive at the best explanation from the available evidence. One example often used in courtrooms involves rain: clothing gets wet when we walk in the rain, and we rightly infer that it is raining outside when someone walks into a building wearing a raincoat that is dripping wet. We use abductive reasoning intuitively and we take as a given that our sense of reasoning operates correctly to allow us to reach valid conclusions. This is so even though we cannot use reason (or science) to prove the validity of reason. Simply put, if I try to use reason to prove that reason is valid, I have to presuppose the validity of the very thing – reason – that I am trying to prove. No, reason is a starting point, a given that we must all utilize if we are to discuss – to think – at all.

Christians are not imagining a creator when they look at the evidence of the universe. Quite the contrary: modern science is unlocking more and more of the secrets of the universe and finding that it is incredibly fined tuned to support the existence of life. Mathematical formulae can model what is occurring in nature with remarkable precision, amounting to a “language” scientists use to understand reality. Medical science has peered into the complexity of life, and the billions of lines of a computer-like code – found in DNA – that directs the building of proteins and ultimately structures that allow the vast variety of life we see on Earth. Whenever we see signs of something that is designed and operating according to a finely tuned set of instructions, we quite properly infer that there is an intelligence behind it. For something as massive and breathtaking as this universe, populated as it is with intelligent life, that something must itself be immensely intelligent and immensely powerful. Science certainly addresses this physical domain; it seeks to answer the question how things occur? And science performs a valuable function. But science as a tool for discovering processes cannot explain what first set in motion the forces that it is examining; what the designer sought to accomplish with the laws of nature; and what the ultimate meaning and purpose of life really is. Science addresses the “how” of whatever already exists, but not the “why.”

*If Nature were a NoteConsider: imagine a scientist examining the mail he receives every day. Over time, he learns everything there is to know about the type of paper that is used, how the paper was formed, the type of ink, its place of manufacture and its ingredients. Imagine further that he determines how the letters are grouped to form words. Seeking knowledge of this type is laudable. But if the scientist concludes that since he knows all there is to know about ink and letters and envelopes, that there is no need for a letter-sender, then he has done something worse than making a blind leap of faith – he has closed his mind to the obvious reality of what he is examining. Indeed, the only way the scientist can learn the point of it all, the meaning of the message, is to read what was written, for in it is embedded information*, something that simply cannot arise through random or blind processes.

As Christians, we bear witness to a personal God, not because we are grasping at myths, but because we believe the evidence of Jesus’s life, death and resurrection are sufficient for us to know him in a personal way. In other words, we personalize the source of what physicists describe as the creation event not by myth or wishful thinking but by a combination of abductive reasoning – a creator is the best explanation – and specific revelation – he is the God described in the Bible.

In the end, science and the Christian worldview are not in conflict. It is the one who insists despite the evidence that there is no God – and ultimately no one to whom we will one day be called to answer – that is persisting in ignorance.

References: [1] Editors Note: The fixity, repeatability, and knowability of nature are preconditions for science. One can’t do science without them. That is, one must assume such a framework before one can use the scientific method to discover facts about the natural world. Since these sorts of things have to be assumed beforehand they are, properly speaking, the domain of philosophy, namely philosophy of science.

Recommended resources related to the topic:Why Science Needs God by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Does Science Disprove God? by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

The post Atheists’ Faith in Science is Misplaced appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

My family recently took the opportunity to attend a live theater production of The Book of Esther in Branson, Missouri. The Sight and Sound Theater production was riveting, and I was not prepared for how wonderful the set, the performers, and even the livestock (yes, livestock) brought the story of Esther to life.

One of the other reasons I loved the show was that I happened to have recently read a wonderful historical summary of the evidence that exists to give good reasons to believe this is more than a fairy tale. In his book, The Authenticity of the Book of Esther, the late British historian Dr. Bill Cooper brings out the evidence, including extra-Biblical writings, archaeology, and even Nazi executions that bring the story to life in a different but very compelling way.[i]

*The Book of Esther*As you may recall, the story is set in Persia and features the exiled Israelites Mordecai and his niece, Esther, as the primary characters. The Persian King Ahasuerus (likely Xerxes I, son of Darius) has his queen killed for disobeying him and seeks a new bride. He eventually finds his new queen in Esther and marries her. Mordecai defeats a plot to murder the king. However, the king’s second in command and villain of the story, Haman, seeks to destroy all the Israelites in the nation. He tricks the king into signing a mass death warrant for the exiled people of God in the land. Through the fasting and prayers of her people, Esther convinces the king not only to hang Hamon on the gallows he created for Mordecai but also to allow the Israelites to defend themselves in what was supposed to be a slaughter. Mordecai was elevated to Hamon’s status, and the Israelites have celebrated the Feast of Purim in remembrance of these events for hundreds of years. But did it happen, or is this historical fiction, as some scholars claim?

*Mordecai*One would assume that an individual who attained such a high rank as Mordecai (second in rank to the king, no less) would show up somewhere in archaeology or other ancient writings. As it turns out, the writings of Greek historian Ctasias,[ii] two Persian archival writings, and clay tablets from Babylon all mention an individual whose name is understood to be Mordecai in translation. Ctasias indicated in his writings that he obtained the records that included the transliteration of Mordecai’s name from the royal Persian parchments. The writings Ctasias cited in about 400 B.C. are even cited in the Book of Esther, 10:2 by name in verse where the author indicates that all the exploits of Mordecai were written in the “Book of Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia.”[iii]

The problem with Ctasias’s writing is that it is fragmented with age and incomplete. The Chronicles themselves have been lost to time altogether. Luckily, Persia also utilized clay tablets to document much of the governmental affairs. In 1933, archaeologists studying the ruined palaces of Kings Darius, Xerxes, and other Persian kings located tens of thousands of clay tablets from the time Esther would have occurred. Most of the tablets remain untranslated, but several mention a Marduku who is listed as a financial administrator of the government. In the Persepolis Treasury Archive, this Marduku is listed 13 times on a variety of financial transactions with his status being of more import in the latter mentions than in the first.

*Palace Attendants*In Esther 1:10, seven eunuchs who served the king are mentioned by name. One of those men is Carkas. Carkas’s name also appears in the archives of the Persepolis Treasury Tablets. This would be interesting enough, but also mentioned in the tablets are Mehuman, Bigthan, and Hatach, which are also listed by the author of Esther.

*Seven Princes of Persia*Also listed in the treasury tablets that have been translated (so far) are a number of the “wise men who knew the times” listed in Esther 1:13-14. The names of these “seven princes of Persia” located so far on tablets include Carshena, Shethar, Meres, and Memucan. These were four of the seven men who, according to the author of Esther, “saw the king’s face and sat first in the kingdom.”

*Haman’s Father and Sons*While Haman’s name has not yet been located in the records translated to date, it is notable that both his father’s name, as well as the names of his two sons are listed. The name provided by the author of Esther in chapter three for Haman’s father is Hammedatha. That name is listed in the tablets as performing royal duties. His sons’ names, Aridatha and Aridai (Esther 9:8-9.9) were also found in the treasury tablets in what is seen as descriptions of serving in an official government role.

*The Palace of Susa*The Palace of Susa is the location of the story of Esther. It was destroyed by fire in 435 B.C. Archaeologists, however, have examined the ruins and located an inscription from King Darius (Xerxes’ father) that describes the construction of the palace. The description of materials includes the use of lapis luzi (precious blue stone), turquoise, and carnelian (precious red stone), as well as marble columns. In the King James Version of Esther 1:6, the author describes the palace; “Where were white, green, and blue, hangings, fastened with cords of fine linen and purple to silver rings and pillars of marble: the beds were of gold and silver, upon a pavement of red, and blue, and white, and black marble.”[iv] While the tablets call the pillars rock, archaeologists studying the palace have identified the pillars as being made of marble.

The specific names of individuals serving the king and the extremely accurate description of the palace are remarkable evidence that the writer described true events. The Palace of Susa was destroyed within a generation of the events that are recorded in Esther. This would reasonably lead one to conclude that the information in Esther was written down very near the events themselves and by someone who truly had intimate knowledge of the palace and officials of the king.

Dr. Cooper’s book goes on to describe in much more detail how the Book of Esther can be trusted as historically accurate. It also summarizes some of the grammatical and numerical mysteries that surround the book and connects it with the Nazi trials at Nuremberg. I encourage you to more deeply explore this amazing story of God’s providence.

References:[i] William R. Cooper, The Authenticity of the Book of Esther [Kindle ed.] (self-published), 2013.

[ii] Also known as Ctesius, Persicus, or Cnidus

[iii] English Standard Bible (2001), Retrieved from BibleGateway

[iv] King James Bible (1611), retrieved from BibleGateway

Recommended resources related to the topic:What I Discovered Digging in Jerusalem by Eli Shukron (with Frank Turek) (DVD) (Mp4 Download)

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (mp4 Download)

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)

The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth mp3 by Frank Turek

Tony Williams is currently serving in his 20th year as a police officer in a city in Southern Illinois. He has been studying apologetics in his spare time for two decades, since a crisis of faith led him to the discovery of vast and ever-increasing evidence for his faith. Tony received a bachelor’s degree in University Studies from Southern Illinois University in 2019. His career in law enforcement has provided valuable insight into the concepts of truth, evidence, confession, testimony, cultural competency, morality, and most of all, the compelling need for Christ in the lives of the lost. Tony plans to pursue postgraduate studies in apologetics in the near future to sharpen his understanding of the various facets of Christian apologetics.

Original blog: https://bit.ly/3vYlMgy

The post Evidence for the Book of Esther appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

Most atheists I have encountered demonstrate an amazing “faith” in the power of science. They will often accuse believers of wishful thinking – or outright foolishness – when believers conclude that an intelligent being is the only reasonable inference to draw from the evidence of design that surrounds us. They do this because they have come to believe that only through “science” can anything be known, and that science will someday answer all of life’s mysteries. That is what’s called “scientism.” There is no need for a God, they assure themselves, because “science” has not provided for one.

*Is Science the Only* Way to Know?**The flaw in this thinking is the assumption that science is the only way one can know something. This is flawed on many levels. Science, broadly speaking, is a method of examining and assessing the physical world around us, using instrumentation and methodology to achieve repeatable results so as to confirm or negate a hypothesis. It is, therefore, an endless process of knowledge acquisition, but only in the physical realm. We employ it because we are first convinced that reality is fixed, and that repeatability is possible. But that is a philosophical belief, not something that science has itself proven.[1] If we didn’t already “know” this there would be no point in attempting to conduct experiments in the first place.

*Can Science Handle Moral Values?*Moreover, science does not attempt to provide knowledge as to good and evil, for it is simply incapable of doing so. After all, Nazi scientists were making use of science, but we would hardly accept that what they were doing was good. Indeed, we would not look to the scientific method at all for answers to such questions.

*Can Science Address Anything Besides Physical Nature?*Finally, since science is limited to the physical realm, it cannot be used to assess the transcendent. What existed before “time” began can no more be measured by science than can the morality of a decision to use science to achieve a particular end.

*What Other Options Do we have?*There are other ways to obtain knowledge besides experimental science, especially in areas where testing and repeatability are not possible. We do this all the time in the study of history, or when we make use of abductive reasoning to arrive at the best explanation from the available evidence. One example often used in courtrooms involves rain: clothing gets wet when we walk in the rain, and we rightly infer that it is raining outside when someone walks into a building wearing a raincoat that is dripping wet. We use abductive reasoning intuitively and we take as a given that our sense of reasoning operates correctly to allow us to reach valid conclusions. This is so even though we cannot use reason (or science) to prove the validity of reason. Simply put, if I try to use reason to prove that reason is valid, I have to presuppose the validity of the very thing – reason – that I am trying to prove. No, reason is a starting point, a given that we must all utilize if we are to discuss – to think – at all.

Christians are not imagining a creator when they look at the evidence of the universe. Quite the contrary: modern science is unlocking more and more of the secrets of the universe and finding that it is incredibly fined tuned to support the existence of life. Mathematical formulae can model what is occurring in nature with remarkable precision, amounting to a “language” scientists use to understand reality. Medical science has peered into the complexity of life, and the billions of lines of a computer-like code – found in DNA – that directs the building of proteins and ultimately structures that allow the vast variety of life we see on Earth. Whenever we see signs of something that is designed and operating according to a finely tuned set of instructions, we quite properly infer that there is an intelligence behind it. For something as massive and breathtaking as this universe, populated as it is with intelligent life, that something must itself be immensely intelligent and immensely powerful. Science certainly addresses this physical domain; it seeks to answer the question how things occur? And science performs a valuable function. But science as a tool for discovering processes cannot explain what first set in motion the forces that it is examining; what the designer sought to accomplish with the laws of nature; and what the ultimate meaning and purpose of life really is. Science addresses the “how” of whatever already exists, but not the “why.”

*If Nature were a NoteConsider: imagine a scientist examining the mail he receives every day. Over time, he learns everything there is to know about the type of paper that is used, how the paper was formed, the type of ink, its place of manufacture and its ingredients. Imagine further that he determines how the letters are grouped to form words. Seeking knowledge of this type is laudable. But if the scientist concludes that since he knows all there is to know about ink and letters and envelopes, that there is no need for a letter-sender, then he has done something worse than making a blind leap of faith – he has closed his mind to the obvious reality of what he is examining. Indeed, the only way the scientist can learn the point of it all, the meaning of the message, is to read what was written, for in it is embedded information*, something that simply cannot arise through random or blind processes.

As Christians, we bear witness to a personal God, not because we are grasping at myths, but because we believe the evidence of Jesus’s life, death and resurrection are sufficient for us to know him in a personal way. In other words, we personalize the source of what physicists describe as the creation event not by myth or wishful thinking but by a combination of abductive reasoning – a creator is the best explanation – and specific revelation – he is the God described in the Bible.

In the end, science and the Christian worldview are not in conflict. It is the one who insists despite the evidence that there is no God – and ultimately no one to whom we will one day be called to answer – that is persisting in ignorance.

References:[1] Editors Note: The fixity, repeatability, and knowability of nature are preconditions for science. One can’t do science without them. That is, one must assume such a framework before one can use the scientific method to discover facts about the natural world. Since these sorts of things have to be assumed beforehand they are, properly speaking, the domain of philosophy, namely philosophy of science.

Recommended resources related to the topic:Debate: What Best Explains Reality: Atheism or Theism? by Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, and Mp3

Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

Why Science Needs God by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

The post Atheists’ Faith in Science is Misplaced appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

We live in a troubled world, plagued by sin which leads to pain and suffering. This state of the world is nothing new, it has gone on since the fall of man. The entirety of humankind from Adam to us have dealt with a variety of suffering as a result of this fall. However, though we do not live in a more sinful time, for every age has overflowed with sinfulness, we seem to be facing a different struggle. Our society is fighting a battle of the mind, and losing.

*We Just Can’t Even*We live in a world where many cannot seem to bear the slightest sorrow. This makes it all the more difficult to persevere through the most difficult situations anyone of us could face; such as the loss of a loved one, a severe medical diagnosis, the loss of a job, and other heavy burdens. This mental and emotional crisis has been the result of one of the Church’s failings — teaching how to properly handle suffering. This has spread outside of the church and into our society. To put it plainly, we have lost the ability to suffer well. In recent years, our minds have been flooded with messages telling us that we all need therapy, we need to talk about all of our emotions, we need to constantly think about and share whatever trauma we have over and over again

*Where can we actually* find help?**The problem is that this doesn’t seem to be helping. We are more depressed and more anxious than ever. But how should we deal with suffering? Where can we find comfort and help in our suffering? Our Lord has provided us three supports to comfort and strengthen us in this life: prayer, scripture, and the Church.

Prayer: The best guide to prayer that we have are the Psalms. If you need examples of prayers read through Psalms, and you will find a prayer for nearly every situation of life. But if you don’t know what to pray, or you can’t summon the strength to, remember Romans 8:26 “Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words.”

The Spirit Himself will pray for us and understands our groanings when we don’t know what to say. In prayer we lift up our lives, the blessings and the sufferings to God, for only God our savior has the strength to carry us through.

Scripture: Studying the Bible, like prayer, is an essential part of the Christian life, especially in times of pain and suffering. The Bible is filled with a multitude of books such as Lamentations and Psalms to help us. I encourage you to read through the Gospels and through the sufferings that Jesus experienced. Scripture reminds us that Christ is with us in our sufferings. He understands and has experienced sufferings greater, and similar to our own.

Moreover, the Apostle Paul lets us know that our affliction is ultimately making us stronger and preparing us for eternity in 2 Corinthians 4:17 saying, “For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison . . .”

The Church: Another major tool that God has given us, is the Church, the body of believers. We are not alone in our sufferings. If you are not a part of a local Bible-believing church, join one, and if you have a church, reach out to them. You don’t have to share with everyone all the gory details about the circumstances you might be facing, but you need the support of your brothers and sisters in Christ. The responsibility is not yours alone — God has commanded the Body of Christ [fellow Christians] to stand with you and share your sufferings. Paul writes, “Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal 6:2).

We are all one Church. We must be unified. So, if you know another believer is struggling with loss or pain, reach out and help them. This is how we are to love one another.

*How Should We Respond to Suffering?*These support structures will help you persevere when you are in the midst of affliction, but there is more that is needed for you to thrive in your suffering. On top of the practical help that we’ve been given, we must also have the proper attitude and emotional response to life’s hardships. To discover how we should respond, we must look at scripture. The most well-known example of suffering in the Bible is Job. In his story, God allowed Satan to take all of Job’s earthly possessions and to kill Job’s children. When this happened, Job’s first response was to worship the Lord and bless His name.

“Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshiped. 21 And he said, ‘Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.’ 22 In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong” (Job 1:20-22).

This by no means is an easy thing to do, but the Bible sets this up as the correct response to suffering. Our first act should be to worship and glorify the Lord. Our comfort should be in God. Paul writes in 2 Corinthians,

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, 4 who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. 5 For as we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too” (2 Cor 1:3-5)

Our Lord wants to comfort us. He is with us in our affliction. Cling to Christ and allow Him to carry your burdens; let Him bear the brunt of your suffering. If you are still in doubt of how to respond to suffering study the Bible, it is filled with examples of God’s servants and how their lives were filled with affliction, yet they sought God and found their comfort in Him.

Recommended Resources On This TopicIf God, Why Evil? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

Why does God allow Bad Things to Happen to Good People? (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek

Relief From the Worst Pain You’ll Ever Experience (DVD) (MP3) (Mp4 Download) by Gary Habermas

Why Doesn’t God Intervene More? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

Thomas Moller began studying astrophysics at the University of Nebraska-Kearney, specifically in Cosmology. Through the study of the universe and the laws that guide it, a passion understanding the Creator and Fine-Tuner of the universe provided the catalyst for Thomas diving deeply into theology. He then left the study of astrophysics to go pursue a theology degree. Through his studies at Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary, Thomas began to focus Christian Ethics. Through the lens of Christian Ethics Thomas tackles political, cultural, and literature topics. Though he no longer studies astrophysics at an academic institution, he still has a love for science and scientific arguments for God.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4b2tq8O

The post The Suffering Christian appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

Each Easter season, approximately 400,000 churches across the U.S. gather to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus: one story portraying the faith of over two billion people globally. But have we grown ignorant of a driving factor behind the eternally preordained plan? Might we have entirely missed what Jesus cited as making His public execution necessary? The cross has come to manifest the forgiveness of sins, and rightfully so. Notwithstanding, in the time preceding His trial, Jesus made it exceedingly clear the plan was multifaceted . . . and He had skeptics in mind.

*Just One Problem*

Modern recollections of resurrection Sunday tend to focus solely upon substitutionary atonement. Christians gather to reflect on this distinctive of their faith. The New Testament tells us Jesus, “though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” (Phil 2:6-8).

What good does this do, however, for those who reject the historicity of the New Testament accounts? How can a believer pique the interest of a skeptic with a story of the miraculous when the individual has spent his/her entire life saturated in a culture of naturalism and anti-religiosity? Far too often, well-intentioned believers hope to present the story of the cross in just the right way, at just the right time, with just the right fervor as to convince someone to commit their life to Jesus. There’s just one problem. No matter how beautiful the story, how ardent the presentation, and how well-meaning the speaker, simply explaining the meaning of a story typically won’t communicate that it actually happened. [1]

Was there a real man named Jesus who was the son of a middle eastern carpenter? Is there evidence of His trial under Roman prefect Pontius Pilate circa 30 C.E.? Why shouldn’t these accounts be dismissed alongside hundreds of other religious origin stories that Christians are so quick to label fiction? These are the questions seekers need answered. The effective evangelist must not forego the foundation of historical facts before delivering the story’s ramifications. Examine the words of Jesus leading up to the crucifixion. What were the intentions of the plan He devised from eternity past? He assuredly had to die to bear our sins, but was this His mission’s sole effort? Might there be an angle to the story that we have turned a blind eye to for far too long?

*Have We Overlooked Something here?*The public ministry of Jesus is thought to have been between 2-3 years in length. The first year included events that set the foundation for the ministry such as Jesus’s baptism, the calling of the disciples, and the Sermon on the Mount. From that point forward He was adamant about foretelling how His earthly ministry would conclude. Both Matthew and Luke record an occasion in which Jesus heals a man who was both blind and mute (Mt 12:22-42; Lk 11:14-32). Crowds of suspicious onlookers began to gather. Despite bearing witness to this healing, some began requesting additional miracles. How would you respond? Is Jesus obligated to show them another sign just minutes after putting the supernatural on display? He replies with a warning, but a bargain deal, nonetheless. He says,

“An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Mt 12:39-44; )[2].

He will not perform miracles for mere amusement. The greatest miracle of all, however, has just been foretold. Matthew 16:4 records another encounter of the same sort. Immediately after feeding the 4,000, the cynics demand another sign. Jesus does not waver in His response. If they are genuinely seeking the truth, the coming sign of Jonah will suffice.

Later, Jesus gives His disciples yet another sobering forewarning. All three of the synoptic gospel writers see fit to include this prognosis (Mt 16:21, Mk 8:31, Lk 9:22). Jesus clearly states that He must suffer under the elders, priests, and scribes and ultimately be killed, but He doesn’t stop there. He specifies that on the third day He will be raised back to life. A good rule of thumb in biblical interpretation is to pay special attention to repetition. Repetition is emphasis. Jesus has twice referenced the sign of Jonah, therefore communicating His resurrection to come. And now we are given a third instance in which He plainly explains He will be killed and raised on the third day. To the modern Christian’s surprise, these passages are not accompanied by lengthy discourses on substitutionary atonement. Commentary on the forgiveness of sins can be found across the New Testament, but they tend not to be directly partnered with these predictions of Jesus’ death and resurrection. It is as if these soon to be fulfilled prophecies have a message of their own . . .

Next, Matthew and Mark describe another form of this prediction. This time, while passing through Galilee, Jesus simply says, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him. And when he is killed, after three days he will rise” (Mt 17:22-23; Mk 9:31). Surely, by now He has sufficiently made the point, right?

Later, while traveling up to Jerusalem, each of the Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) corroborates yet another iteration of that prophecy. Jesus says, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished. For he will be delivered over to the Gentiles and will be mocked and shamefully treated and spit upon. And after flogging him, they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise” (Mt 20:18-19, Mk 10:33-34, Lk 18:31-33).

We have yet to mention John’s contribution. John 2:19-22 records Him saying, “‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ The Jews then said, ‘It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?’ But he was speaking about the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.” Subsequently, John 10:17-18 tells us Jesus has the authority to lay down His life and take it up again, and His Father has given Him charge to do just that.

*What’s the Point?*We have seen seven distinct instances of Jesus predicting His own death and resurrection, and there are more passages, not listed here, that do the same. Many of these examples are brief and lack any lengthy theological reflection. What does all this achieve? Why dedicate so much time to constant reiterations of the same foresight? Only one explanation seems fitting: Jesus had skeptics in mind.

Only one explanation seems fitting: Jesus had skeptics in mind.

Some religions (Hinduism, some Eastern beliefs, etc.) present their teachings in mythic stories that aren’t intended to be treated as historical realities. They aren’t supposed to be literal history, but allegories and symbols for deeper truths. These faiths may have their perks, but they are categorically different from beliefs rooted in history – convictions which must answer to the evidence. Other faiths (Islam, Mormonism) proclaim that their preferred holy book itself is the only evidence necessary to validate its claims. Founders of these religions did not claim to personally perform any public miracles to substantiate their claims. Rather, their respective holy books are the best they have to offer when it comes to validating a supernatural origin. For example, the 29th chapter of the Quran responds to an objection from Jews and Christians who doubt its divine inspiration. It says:

“And they say, ‘Why is it that no signs (miracles) have been sent down to him (Muhammad) from his Lord?’ Say, ‘Signs are only with Allah, and I am only a plain warner.’ Is it not sufficient for them that We have sent down to you the Book that is being recited to them? Surely in it there is mercy and advice for a people who believe.” (Surah 29:50-51, Translated by Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani, Quran.com)

Faiths such as this demand submission solely based on the testimony of the writing itself. There is no tangible demonstration of the supernatural. This is where the cross rises above the rest. The skeptic-turned-believer, Paul, confidently proclaims:

“if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith is in vain . . . And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile, and you are still in your sins . . . If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied” (1 Cor 15:13-19).

The Bible begs to be tested. Paul is begging people to test the claims of Christianity. He employs the same logic Jesus did as He repeatedly publicized the prediction of His death and resurrection. This was not simply retroactively ascribing significance to an otherwise unlikely event. This was just the opposite. Jesus had already demonstrated supernatural abilities over nature, sickness, and demons. The only further proof He could offer was to demonstrate His power over death itself.

*Brave the Questions* We owe it to ourselves to accept the challenge the Bible offers. One of two outcomes are to follow. If proven false, we can do away with the bore of manmade religion and traditions of old. If it’s true, however, life is injected with a new purpose – it’s all real. Whichever the outcome, we can rest assured that we were brave enough to pursue the evidence wherever it leads. The God of the Bible does not seek blind faith. He wants commitment to the truth. Christians should immerse themselves in the mission God has set before them while skeptics should eagerly invite the challenge the New Testament offers. If true, the stakes could not be higher. The cross was never intended to appeal to wishful thinkers. It was purposed with skeptics in mind.

*References:*[1] Caravaggio, “Reproduction of the Incredulity of St. Thomas” [oil on canvas] (1601), currently held at Potsdam, Germany. Public domain. Accessed 3 April 2024 at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incredulity_of_Saint_Thomas_(Caravaggio)#/media/File:Der_ungl%C3%A4ubige_Thomas_-_Michelangelo_Merisi,_named_Caravaggio.jpg

[2] All verse references are to the English Standard Version (ESV) unless otherwise noted.

Recommended Resources On This TopicJesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)

Cold Case Resurrection Set by J. Warner Wallace (books)

Person of Interest: Why Jesus Still Matters in a World that Rejects the Bible by J. Warner Wallace (Paperback), (Investigator’s Guide).

Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)

Shane Geisler is the Senior Digital Content Manager for CrossExamined.org. He holds three degrees from Liberty University which include a Bachelor’s degree in Global Studies, a Master of Arts in Theological Studies, and a Master of Arts in Christian Apologetics. He is a native of Germantown, Maryland and spent four years on the Liberty University NCAA Division 1 soccer team. He and his wife, Elise, reside in Nashville, Tennessee. Shane seeks to combine evidential apologetics and global missions to make the best evidence of the gospel accessible around the world.

The post Show Us A Sign: The Cross And The Death Of Blind Faith appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

As Christians, developing critical thinking skills and maintaining an informed understanding of our faith is crucial. The world is full of misinformation and uncertainty, making it difficult to distinguish truth from falsehood. It is not enough for Christians to blindly adhere to whatever traditions or practices they have inherited from the past. They should critically evaluate and discern the relevance and validity of these traditions in their present context.

With so many different worldviews competing for our attention, staying engaged and equipped with our beliefs is essential. Without the intellectual stamina to navigate these opposing views, we risk becoming uninformed and ill-prepared to face the challenges of contemporary society.

*The Age of Competing Ideas*In a recent interview with John Stonestreet, president of the Colson Center, I asked him why so many Christians lack the ability to think critically. His initial response was that many Christians lack the proper training in biblical doctrine and have not been catechized in the basic categories of reality. John added,

“We live in a world where we are bombarded with a lot of information, most of which is not objective or neutral. This makes it difficult to determine what to believe and whom to trust. Therefore, this era is better called ‘The Age of Competing Ideas,’ which leads to ‘The Age of Competing Authority.’”

I have seen firsthand how a lack of critical thinking about one’s faith can leave a Christian susceptible to false teachings or worldly philosophies. Paul warned in Colossians 2:8, “Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ” (NLT).

We are exhorted by the apostle Paul to “Test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Christianity is not about unquestioningly accepting things without using reasoning and intellect. Instead, it is about having faith while also engaging your mind.

*Not Just Belief, but Informed* Belief**Therefore, we must recognize the role of informed beliefs in Christianity and draw on the biblical foundations of critical thinking to equip ourselves with the knowledge necessary to distinguish truth from falsehood.

Critical thinking is a systematic skill that involves analyzing and assessing a particular belief, idea, argument, or issue in an unbiased manner. After thoroughly examining the subject matter, the individual arrives at a conclusion that makes the most sense of and aligns with reality. In Christianity, possessing a biblical worldview means approaching life matters with an understanding of the Word of God and proper discernment that aligns with biblical doctrine.

I like what David Dockery says about the quality of Christians possessing a robust worldview in his book What Does It Mean to Be a Thoughtful Christian?. Dockery writes,

“A Christian worldview is not escapism but an energizing motivation for godly and faithful thinking and living in the here-and-now. In the midst of life’s challenges and struggles, a Christian worldview provides confidence and hope for the future while helping to stabilize life, serving as an anchor to link us to God’s faithfulness and steadfastness.”

*Three Critical Thinking Skills*Applying these three foundational tips in your daily life is an excellent start for developing the art and skill of critical thinking.

1. Know and pursue truth wisely: Truth is an objective reality that corresponds with, rather than contradicts, the actual state of things. By analyzing, observing, and submitting to objective truth, you will become more aware of the facts that support your Christian beliefs. Proverbs 4:7 advises, “The beginning of wisdom is this: Get wisdom, and whatever you get, get insight.” Solomon emphasizes the importance of pursuing wisdom as you acquire knowledge and understanding to overcome life’s challenges as a Christian.
2. Stay grounded in God’s Word: Sadly, less than 20% of self-proclaimed Christians read the Bible daily. Of those who do, the majority only read one verse a day. Reading portions of the Bible daily will enhance your knowledge of Scripture, provide moral fortitude, give insight into wise decision-making, and help you resist temptations.
3. Embrace questions and objections: Christians should be the last to shy away from people who object to or challenge their faith. Peter directly speaks to this when he affirms, “But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15). Don’t be afraid when someone asks you tough questions about your beliefs. Be prepared to explain why you believe in what you do. If you don’t know the answer to a question, make an effort to research and understand the material. Studying and understanding the material thoroughly will enable you to communicate effectively with others. Lastly, remember always to be respectful towards others, even if their beliefs differ from yours.

I hope you have been challenged to continue developing your critical thinking skills. This will not only keep you informed and prevent you from being deceived, but it will also increase your passion for God’s truth and enable you to become a great defender of the Christian faith. We need more defenders of the faith, and I believe you have the potential to become one!

Recommended Resources On This TopicI Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

Jason Jimenez is President of STAND STRONG Ministries and author of Challenging Conversations: A Practical Guide to Discuss Controversial Topics in the church. For more info, check out www.standstrongministries.org.

Originally posted at: Critical Thinking: The Secret Weapon of Confident Christians — Stand Strong Ministries

The post Critical Thinking: The Secret Weapon of Confident Christians appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

There has been a new term floating around the Evangelisphere (if that’s a word, if it’s not, let’s coin it) in the last few years: “post-Christian.”

FreeThinking Ministries[i] recently changed some verbiage on the website to indicate that the mission of the ministry is to equip the church to engage with the post-Christian culture.

Some might say, “you (FTM) minister to all sorts of people all over the globe. You ought to relate to culture in general” not just the post-Christian parts of culture. Yes, this concern covers both pre- and post-Christian cultures and everything in between. But acknowledging that we live and operate within a largely post-Christian culture is still important if we are to equip the church in the West, and in America more particularly, with relevant strategies for preaching the gospel and discipling believers within it.

*Coopting Christian Values*There are many reasons this new dynamic is important, but chief among them is that post-Christian cultures seek to coopt Christian values, redefine them, and use them for their own purposes. This penchant is markedly different from a pre-Christian culture which might have hints of Christian ethics within their culture but without explanation.

“Post-Christian cultures seek to coopt Christian values, redefine them, and use them for their own purposes.” – Josh Klein

*Guideposts to the GospelIn a pre-Christian culture these features can be used as guideposts to the gospel. As former missionary Don Richardson points out in his book Eternity in Their Hearts:*

“It was the gospel of Jesus Christ which made the difference for Celts, Norsemen and Anglo-Saxons. And that is exactly what it will take for Asmat headhunter-cannibals (indigenous group in New Guinea)! All someone has to do is go to live among the Asmat and communicate the gospel as effectively as someone once communicated it to the Celts, Anglo-Saxons, and other tribes of Northern Europe!”[ii]

The communication of the gospel to pre-Christian nations is much simpler compared to the work of maintaining the gospel in a Christianized nation. It is simpler, but simple doesn’t mean easy. As someone that has multiple friends in the mission field of pre-Christian cultures I can certainly attest to the fact that it is extremely difficult. It can, however, be much simpler to introduce the gospel and connect the dots in their cultural context than it is to attempt to reestablish orthodoxy in cultures that have moved beyond Christianity.

*What is* a post-Christian culture?**A post-Christian culture is one that has been reached by the gospel, Christianized (to a large extent) and then sought to leave its Christian roots behind.

All the cultures Richardson mentioned in the above quote have followed this pattern. At one point, these cultures were pagan non-Christian nations only to have the gospel of Jesus Christ rock them and change them for hundreds of years. Then, after Christianity, in large part, brought peace and prosperity they chose to move beyond it and, often, back to their pagan roots, only with a twist. The paganism became more syncretistic or New-Age than it was in 600AD but the reversion back to it is palpable. Sound familiar?

The United States has been on this path for quite some time and so too, a reversion to certain forms of paganism. The hallmarks of post-Christian society are coming to fruition before our eyes and the Church in the west must learn how to respond.

Often, as Don Richardson argues, in non-Christian cultures one can find cultural hooks on which to contextualize the gospel in a way that makes sense and draws people in. In these cultures, there is a clarity on what C.S. Lewis called the Natural Law that even those who had never heard of God or Jesus would recognize.[iii] Even if some of the “Natural Laws” within the culture were twisted by sin, the reasoning behind these cultural expectations were based on objective morality, integrity, and honor.

For instance, in another book called Peace Child, Richardson outlines the way he was able to communicate the gospel with a head-hunting tribe in New Guinea called the Sawi.[iv] The Sawi had a rule of natural law called a “Peace Child” between warring tribes and it was this concept that opened their hearts to the gospel after previously believing that Judas was the hero of the gospel story.

*How Post-Christian Culture Differs*The story in a post-Christian culture is very different. The stories of the Bible have been popularized, modernized, colloquialized, and made into idioms. We see this assimilation in all sorts of discourse. When one sports team takes on another that is heavily favored the pundits will often use the phrase, “it’s a real David and Goliath match-up.” Decidedly Christian and biblical principles are popularized and culturized as well, such as the golden rule, which is taken from Matthew 7:12 whether people realize it or not, or “with great power comes great responsibility” which is borrowed and changed from Luke 12:48 and popularized by the Spiderman comic franchise. And that is only to name a select few.

Unbiblical phrases have been mixed with the spiritual cultural ethos as well. Sayings like, “God only helps those who help themselves,” or “don’t be so heavenly minded that you are no earthly good.”

It is not so much that people in this culture are ignorant about Jesus but that they think they knows Jesus too well already. Jesus as a figure is often popular within the post-Christian culture[v] but ultimately, upon further examination, it is not the same Jesus we find in the Bible.[vi] The exclusivity of Christ is an issue.

*Christianity’s Role in a Post-Christian Culture?*A post-Christian culture is aware of the claims of Christianity but finds them only utilitarian. Often, the question becomes not are these claims literally true but rather, are they efficacious? As one pastor, who led a breakout session recently on evangelism in a post-Christian culture that I attended, said:

“It is not that unbelievers in our post-Christian culture want to know if Christianity is true. It is that they want to know if it works. We need to show them that it works.”

– Bob Thune, Within Reach Conference, 19 January 2023.

His diagnosis is correct, but his prescription lacks the call to gospel exclusivity. A lot of different things “work” for a lot of different people. Buddhists would adamantly insist that the spirituality of Buddhism works for them. This same sentiment seems to be share among at least 60% of self-professed Christians who indicate that Jesus is not the only way to God.[vii]

Even in the atheistic sphere this utilitarian philosophy of religion, and Christianity in particular, seems to be making headway. One such view is espoused by Bret Weinstein, a former college professor and avowed atheist. Weinstein argues that metaphorical truths are necessary to order the world even if they are not literally true.

*Not True, but Useful*He goes on to indicate that while something may be literally false its usefulness as a heuristic for ordering the world around us should not be discarded. In a conversation with Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris, Weinstein puts it this way:

“If it were true that religious heuristics actually increase wellbeing by allowing people to, on average, operate in the world in a way that increases wellbeing, what would you say about them then?”[viii]

This is utilitarianism. So long as the theological position works for me (or society) it ought to be followed. Unfortunately, many Christians have fallen prey to this line of thinking. They see Bret Weinstein’s refusal to discard religion as a sort of intellectual victory.

If religious belief is simply a useful heuristic for ordering the world it removes the power of the gospel and offers a gospel of its own making. Anything then, can be the gospel, so long as it works for you or for a society. I find Sam Harris’s retort worth considering in this exchange:

“But [belief in God] wouldn’t make sense for the right reason. Useful fictions have to be retired at some point. Useful truths stay true . . . You can have a completely rational conversation, in terms of human psychology, sociology, and what you want society to look like – about moral truths like the corrosive nature of pornography . . . You don’t have to invoke mythology to do that.”[ix]

As much as I hate to admit it Harris is mostly right here. His position is more tenable to the human pursuit of truth than Weinstein’s. While it might sit better with religious pluralists, secularists, and even some Christians to hear that religious thought is still useful to order society insofar as we have no better option, it is less than helpful. Harris is correct, it is either true that God exists, or it is not true, and any opining for metaphorical truths to be embraced to have our cake and eat it too simply makes belief utilitarian rather than necessary.

It is not enough that a certain belief system works, and the Church must not fall into the trap of trying to prove that it does. Because the gospel only promises things yet to be seen and grasped, it does not prove that life will be ultimately understandable or easy. Buddhism might work inasmuch as one uses it to accomplish inner peace (whatever that means), or structure to the world. Whether it is truly useful or not, however, rests on its being objectively true.

*Competing Gospels*In a post-Christian culture, we are struck, not with opposing religious truth claims, but with opposing gospels that promise to bring about hope, satisfaction, and peace. These competing gospels can often invoke the name of Jesus. In fact, progressive Christianity has made its hay on becoming a heuristic style gospel and should serve as a warning to believers embracing Weinstein’s thoughts.

In a post-Christian culture, words like truth, love, hope, and affirmation have all been personalized and redefined to suit our utilitarian mindset. Progressive Christianity, for instance, does not so much ask what is true but offers that whatever feels most loving is true. This is something new to the Western church, and it is a competing gospel that is nefarious because of its ability to morph from person to person under the guise of usefulness.

A post-Christian culture seeks to use aspects of Christianity without maintaining the foundation of it. This idea is not new. In the 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant sought to square the circle of unbelief and the usefulness of Christianity as a moral framework for society.[x] Removing Christ from the center of morality places the individual as the arbiter of it. Kant reasoned that we only know Jesus as moral exemplar because we already have fashioned the highest ideal of what a moral man ought to look like, thus, we judged Christ before he was incarnate.

But this is, of course, exactly backwards to the Christian tradition. Christ is not simply a moral exemplar because we could not imagine a higher moral standard. He is the moral exemplar because He sets the highest moral standard in Himself as He reveals Himself in the scriptures. Objective moral values are discovered not invented.

*Revising ChristA post-Christian culture sheds the skin of orthodoxy, in a sense, and embraces the subjective nature of the moral good. That is to say that Christ is edited by the moral arbiters of the day. Did Jesus ever really* say that homosexuality was a sin or that he was divine? A post-Christian culture can construct a morality borrowing from Christianity, secularism, and other religions and superimpose it on itself. We see a rise in moral language, even invoking the name of Christ, at the same time as the normalization of historically immoral behaviors such as polyamory, pornography, and earth worship. It is this propensity of the culture to which I am referring when I say that evangelism and ministry in a post-Christian culture is more complex than within a non-Christian culture.

Often, the language barrier is an issue. When we speak of justice, love, truth, and fulfillment we are speaking cross-culturally, but because of the Christian past, ideas about Jesus have been erroneously imposed on these new definitions. To make headway we must first establish coherent agreement at the most basic levels, but this is made difficult because the culture, allegedly has progressed beyond the need for foundational truths. The truth of the gospel is inverted to focus mainly on self-actualization and feelings of being an authentic self. This inversion might not challenge missionaries and pastors in pre-Christian settings, but it’s a primary concern for those doing ministry within a post-Christian context.

Post-Christianity says, “we tried that already and now we are beyond it.” The challenge for the church is to expose this lie for what it is. How does one move beyond objective reality and truth? Incidentally, “moving beyond it” is more like reverting back to pagan roots. The worship of nature, self, sex, and hedonistic tendencies. These are not new developments, but they are experienced and promulgated anew in a post-Christian context, often maintaining the language of Christianity to bolster the regressive worship.

This shift is recent in the United States. As recent as 10 years ago political candidates from both parties affirmed the classical definition of marriage, the morality of certain sexual standards, and, even if pro-choice, the recognition that abortion was a tragedy and ought to be safe, legal, and rare.[xi]**

*What are we to do?*Once the culture flipped though, these supposedly self-evident truths were suddenly up for grabs. People that spent their lives arguing for reason and science to be the basis of morality in society suddenly found themselves arguing for forced vaccination[xii] and for transgenderism.[xiii] When you remove the foundation, everything becomes shaky. Then reintroducing that abandoned foundation seems antiquated. So, what are we to do?

The funny thing about a post-Christian culture is that it relies on the insular or adaptive nature of the Church. The post-Christian culture is more than happy to entertain Christians so long as they isolate themselves into their own groups and, all too often, Christians comply. This self-isolation has happened in Europe and England and it’s happening right now in Canada and the United States. As a pastor friend once said to me, “the Christian life is to be personal, but it is not private.”

On the other hand, the church might try to remain relevant by compromising historic truths for cultural cachet. We sacrifice the relevance of the gospel for the relevance of our popularity.

Neither strategy is tenable for discipling the nation. There is another option, but it is not comfortable. Engage with the post-Christian culture without compromise but with understanding (1 Chron. 12:32). There is an opportunity in a post-Christian culture if one is courageous enough to recognize it. But it comes with risk. Risk of denigration or loss of respect. At least for a time. The truth will set us free (John 8:31-32). God will not be mocked and his Church will remain victorious (Matt. 16:18).

*Footnotes:[i] The author, Josh Klein is a staff writer and speaker with Free-Thinking Ministries*

[ii] Richardson, Don. Eternity in Their Hearts: Revised, Regal Books, Ventura, CA, 1984, pp. 118–119.

[iii] Clive S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (London, UK: Geoffrey Bles, 1952; digitally republished as public domain, Canada: Samizdat, 2014), 13-22, accessed 25 March 2024 at: https://www.samizdat.qc.ca/vc/pdfs/MereChristianity_CSL.pdf

[iv] Don Richardson, Peace Child (Norwood, MA: Regal, 1985).

[v] https://www.barna.com/research/openness-to-jesus/

[vi] https://www.christianpost.com/news/60-of-young-adults-say-jesus-isnt-the-only-way-to-salvation.html

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] Originally in Jordan Peterson v. Sam Harris debate, moderated by Bret Weinstein. Vancouver BC, Canada: Pangburn Philosophy, 23 June 2018), 01:15:36-01:16:14, accessed 25 March 2024 at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1oaSt60b0om, quoted in https://epiphanyaweek.com/2019/10/20/theism-atheism-and-antitheism-sam-harris-is-wrong-part-3/.

[ix] Ibid., 01:59:03-02:00:11.

[x] https://philarchive.org/archive/PALCKJ

[xi] https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2006/03/toward-making-abortion-rare-shifting-battleground-over-means-end

[xii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMaHKykfdcQ

[xiii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBl9qwVDvIY

Recommended resources related to the topic:Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)

Was Jesus Intolerant? by Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )

Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3

Reflecting Jesus into a Dark World by Dr. Frank Turek – DVD Complete Series, Video mp4 DOWNLOAD Complete Series, and mp3 audio DOWNLOAD Complete Series

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Josh Klein is a Pastor from Omaha, Nebraska with over a decade of ministry experience. He graduated with an MDiv from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his spare time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married for 12 years to Sharalee Klein and they have three young children.

Originally posted at: Post-Christianity… What’s That? | Free Thinking Ministries

The post Post-Christianity… What’s That? appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

Have you ever heard the tale of the elderly woman who wanted to restore an old painting and… well, didn’t?

Meet Potato Jesus. The woman’s intentions were noble. I certainly respect her heart. But that doesn’t change the fact that she is not an artist and did not restore Martinez’s work. Just because she intended to do something and thought she was able, that didn’t turn her into an artist. Desire and good intentions aren’t enough.

[1]

Nowadays, anyone can set up a page and identify as whatever they want. But taking a name for ourselves doesn’t make us that thing. We still have to be it or become it.

*Two Ways to Identify*We can identify ourselves in two ways: “I’m x, and by that, I mean this,” and “I’m x, and I think this word accurately fits or describes x.” Too often, people identify as something because they think that’s how they are supposed to identify, and then they try to describe it. I think a better way would be to figure out who and what we are, then figure out what best names or describes that. This will prevent us from accidentally using words that don’t really fit.

I’m a human. I am a member of the human species, so human is an accurate word to describe me. But I’m also a hobbit. I’m kind of short, round, a little hairy, and I love food and books. I’m also part Scottish but don’t identify as Scottish: I am not a Scotsman. I have some lineage through some ancestor, but I’m not from Scotland, I don’t speak Scottish or Gaelic (or any other dialect/language from there), I don’t wear kilts, I’ve never been there, neither of my parents have ever been there (I think?). So, it would be true to say I have a Scottish history, but not that I am Scottish. Calling me Scottish would give more incorrect information about me than correct information.

Let’s move from regular descriptions to something more controversial: religion.

*Religious Identity*The word “Muslim” means “submission” or “submission to God.” I don’t, however, follow Muhammad or Allah of the Qur’an. So even though the definition, “submission to God,” is technically a fitting description of me, “Muslim” would not be a good description of me, nor do I feel it would be respectful to Muslims for me to use that term.

But Christian is a good description of me. Why? What’s different? That requires a little history:

The word Christian comes from the Greek word christos, or maschiach in Hebrew, meaning the “Messiah” or “the anointed one.” The Messiah refers to the character foretold by the prophecies given by Israelite poets and prophets found in the Jewish Tanakh, or Old Testament. As a Christian, I believe Jesus fulfilled those prophecies and is the Anointed One, the Jewish Messiah. That’s why I call myself a Christian, a follower of Jesus the Christ who fulfilled those prophecies.

That’s why I believe using the word Christian to describe me is appropriate.

*Why do you identify as a Christian?*If you identify as a Christian, why? What about your beliefs or life makes you think, “Christian is a good description of what I believe and do”? Let’s take a few example answers to see why this is important:

• I read my Bible. As a Christian, I’m glad you do! But I already read Harry Potter, and that doesn’t make me a wizard. While some things would be so much easier with a little accio, that’s not quite how this works.
• I go to church on Sundays. Okay, but what about that is different from a social club? Is there any other difference in your life? If we took out that one hour and just looked at the rest of your life, would “Christian” still describe you?
• I raised my hand and prayed a prayer. A marathon is 26.2 miles long, named in honor of a messenger’s run after the battle of Marathon. To qualify as having run a marathon, someone has to do two things: 1) stay within the race course and 2) finish the race. Are you still running?

Let’s try some harder questions:

• I believe in Jesus’ teachings about love. Okay, but so do Muslims. And so do some Hindus; Gandhi is famously quoted with, “I like your Jesus but not your Christians.” Even many atheists like Jesus’s teachings about love.
• I welcome everyone just like Jesus. So do Buddhists. So do telemarketers.
• I give to the poor. So do Muslims. And so do atheists.

What about those (and so many similar answers) is best, or accurately, described by the word Christian? Any?

Let’s try something different: I trust Jesus with my life. Okay, now we’re getting somewhere.

So, if those answers won’t work, what will? Let’s see what the earliest historical records about Jesus talked about:

• Jesus’ identity: which Jesus are you following? The Jewish Messiah as prophesied by the God of the Old Testament? Or just a good man who said some nice things?
• Jesus’ activity: the first Christian creed recorded specifies not Jesus’ charity but His crucifixion. We don’t identify as followers of Bill Gates or Gandhi for giving to the poor; what did Jesus do that merits His name?
• Jesus’ exclusivity: Jesus very clearly taught one path, one way to the Father; either you’re on that path, or you aren’t on the path of Jesus.

So, Why do you identify as a Christian?

Editor’s Note: If you have read this far, and now you’re not sure what it means to be a Christian or if you’re a Christian, then there’s no time like the present to make it right. You can trust in the Biblical Jesus to forgive you, to save you, and lead you. “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). You can also go here to find out more: “A Simple Explanation of How to Be Saved”. Trusting your life in Jesus’s hands is like a gateway into a whole new world, complete with a new outlook on life, a new way to live, and a new hope for the future. Please make sure, today, that you are right with God

Footnotes: [1] Image Source: ABCNews

Recommended resources related to the topic:Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)

How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

How Can Jesus be the Only Way? Mp4, Mp3, and DVD by Frank Turek

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

As a Christian apologist, David Wolcott has contributed research to Mama Bear Apologetics, Alisa Childers, Natasha Crain, Crossexamined, and more. Focusing on primary-source research of Progressive Christianity and understanding the Bible in the original cultural contexts, he is on a four-year plan to learn how to read eight languages, including biblical Hebrew and koine Greek. David is an avid reader of all kinds of books, and is passionate about helping Christians learn to apply the wisdom shared through many excellent books via his Academy at thedavidwolcott.com.

The post Why Do You Call Yourself a Christian? appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

Last year, I wrote an article called “7 Problems with the He Gets Us Campaign,” in which I critically responded to the $100 million advertising campaign featuring a website, billboards in major cities, a book, and ads that have been viewed more than 300 million times. Perhaps most visibly, the campaign’s ads were featured in last year’s Super Bowl. When thousands of people went searching for more information on it, my article came up, and it went viral—actually pulling down my site at one point! Clearly, a lot of people are interested in knowing more about the nature of these ads.

Fast forward to 2024. Super Bowl Sunday was on February 11. And He Gets Us once again ran ads generating widespread curiosity. Given the reach of the campaign and high interest level, I wanted to do an updated evaluation of what He Gets Us is doing today. To that end, I’m going to answer four questions:

1. Does the He Gets Us Campaign get skeptics interested in Jesus?
2. Does the He Gets Us Campaign get skeptics interested in the rightJesus?
3. Do the He Gets Us campaign reading plans take people to the next level of understanding Jesus (beyond the slick website and TV ads)?
4. Does the He Gets Us campaign direct people to theologically solid churches for continuing their search for truth?

There are three things that will inform my answers. First is my professional background in marketing (I have an MBA in marketing and am a former adjunct marketing professor). Since this is a campaign aimed at “marketing” Jesus, that background is particularly relevant. Second is my evaluation of the publicly available He Gets Us content (the website and YouVersion reading plans). I have not read the He Gets Us book, so that isn’t part of what I’m responding to. Third is a recent interview campaign consultant Ed Stetzer did with Biola professors Scott Rae and Sean McDowell on Biola’s “Think Biblically” podcast (Stetzer is the Dean of Biola’s Talbot School of Theology). While Stetzer says he is not a spokesman for the campaign, he has been closely involved, so his comments are helpful for an insider view of the goals and strategies.

1. Does the He Gets Us Campaign get skeptics interested in Jesus?

Stetzer says that the people who eventually started the campaign had become concerned “that the perception of Christianity had suffered and people weren’t necessarily considering who Jesus was. And they would like for people to consider who he was, who he is.” They then brought in market researchers who found that skeptics were open to considering who Jesus was (I’d love to know more about that, but no further information was noted). Stetzer emphasized repeatedly in the interview that the very narrow goal of the campaign is to reach those skeptics. Ultimately, He Gets Us wants to build a bridge from people seeing the ads to learning more by going to the website and ultimately signing up for a Bible reading plan and/or asking to be connected to a church.

So, in short, the goal is very specifically to get skeptics interested in Jesus. That’s a very worthy goal, especially if you have millions of dollars to do it with. My first question is, does the campaign successfully meet that objective?

While I don’t know the statistics on how many people have visited the He Gets Us website as a result of the ads, Stetzer says over 600,000 people have signed up for the reading plans and “hundreds of thousands” have been referred to churches. So, as a surface-level answer to the question, it certainly seems reasonable to say that yes, the campaign has generated interest. If the goal was to get people to one of those two action points—signing up for the Bible reading plan and/or asking for a church referral—then marketers have achieved at least some success. (Whether the numbers justify the money spent is a different question that I’m not evaluating here.)

*2. Does the He Gets Us Campaign get skeptics interested in the right* Jesus?From a marketing perspective, there is a predictable funnel that people go through before taking action (e.g., making a purchase). It starts with becoming awareof something, which then sometimes converts to interest, which then sometimes converts to desire for action, which then sometimes converts to action. Marketers know that if you want people to take action—to get to the bottom of the funnel—you have to first take them through those stages, and those stages have to be tailored toward the action you want.

In this case, if you are marketing in order to generate interest in Jesus, you want to be sure you’re generating interest in the right Jesus (a correct portrayal) if you want that to lead to the action you desire. This is where I believe the campaign fails in a serious way.

As I said in last year’s article, the Jesus of this campaign is nothing more than an inspiring human who relates to our problems and cares a whole lot about a culturally palatable version of social justice (the exception to this is in parts of the reading plan, which I’ll address in the next point). This has not changed since I last wrote. My points then remain true now: The fact that Jesus “gets us,” stripped from the context of His identity, is meaningless; Jesus is presented as an example, not a Savior; The campaign reinforces the problematic idea that Jesus’s followers have Jesus all wrong; And the campaign reinforces what culture wants to believe about Jesus while leaving out what culture doesn’t want to believe. I won’t expand on these points here since you can read my prior article for that analysis.

But I do want to say more this time about who the campaign is clearly targeting. Stetzer mentioned that it’s “skeptics,” but a close evaluation (or even not so close evaluation) of the campaign makes it clear it’s not all skeptics they have in mind. This is crucial to understand. It’s a very specific segment of skeptics—it’s progressives who primarily view the world through a lens of social justice (and specifically the critical theory model of social justice, which places everyone in oppressor/oppressed buckets).

*5 Signs Your Church Might Be Heading Toward Progressive ChristianityIf you’ve never immersed yourself in the world of this viewpoint, you might not recognize how laden the content is with language and framing designed to appeal very specifically to this group. If they were targeting just any* skeptic, you wouldn’t see such a specific framing of Jesus in progressive terminology; there are plenty of skeptics who aren’t beholden to progressive social justice thinking.

For example, they use hashtags with words that have a specific connotation to a progressive audience, even if the campaign isn’t necessarily using them in the same way (on the home page, you see #inclusive #activist #struggle #refugee #justice #outrage #bias #judgment). They also frame their content in terms that are commonly used in progressive social critiques. For example, the words “religious leaders” or “religious people” are often used with a negative connotation, which serves to reinforce the notion that it’s bad to be “religious.” That was never Jesus’s claim (see my podcast with Alisa Childers). There are recurring references to concepts like lived experience, power dynamics, oppression, racial conflict, toxic systems, corruption, and political conflict—all progressive focal points. That’s not to say that none of these things are actually problems, but rather that it’s clear they’re focusing on progressives given their obvious focus on progressive concerns.

So why is this a concern? I have no concern at all with choosing progressives as your target audience. But I have a lot of concern with the nature of the campaign given this target and what they are likely to take from it. Here are three key reasons why.

First, the campaign will likely lead many progressives to conclude that they (still) like Jesus and (still) hate Christians. To be honest, I’m not very convinced that we even have a problem with Jesus’s reputation in culture. People tend to like Jesus because they don’t understand all that He taught. As far as the average person is concerned, Jesus was a loving guy who hated “the system” and can serve as a good moral example—and that’s exactly how the He Gets Us website portrays Him. People, however, tend to have disdain for Christians when we present the fullness of what the Bible teaches, particularly on moral subjects. So, if a progressive sees this content and never gets to a Bible reading plan or church connection, they’ve taken away that Jesus was the great guy they thought He was and that all those Christians today who talk about things they don’t like are still the problem.

Second, the campaign will solidify the idea in progressives’s minds that their social justice lens of the world is the lens through which Jesus sees it, too. It would be one thing if marketers used progressive language to present a full picture of Jesus. But when you just use progressive language without presenting the full picture, it leaves the impression that their language—representing a whole underlying worldview structure built on critical theory—is correct. Those who don’t get to the desired Bible or church action points will simply come away thinking that Jesus was a social justice warrior just like they are (with all that implies to them).

It would be one thing if marketers used progressive language to present a full picture of Jesus. But when you just use progressive language without presenting the full picture, it leaves the impression that [Progressive Christianity] is correct.

Is that really a big problem? Yes, yes it is. It is this model of oppressed/oppressor thinking that leads progressives to claim the gender binary is oppressive, that white people are inherently racist, that abortion is a form of justice for women, that heterosexuality is an oppressive norm, and that we need to abolish the nuclear family. If this campaign even inadvertently suggests through a social justice veneer that this is the lens through which Jesus would have seen the world, that is a disastrous consequence.

It is this model of oppressed/oppressor thinking that leads progressives to claim the gender binary is oppressive, that white people are inherently racist, that abortion is a form of justice for women, that heterosexuality is an oppressive norm, and that we need to abolish the nuclear family

Third, the campaign can easily be construed to affirm theologically progressive Christianity. In my last two points, I was speaking specifically of progressives who don’t identify as Christians. There are, however, many who hold to the same social justice ideology and do identify as Christians. They are typically focused on a human Jesus who merely cares about a social gospel, and they reject the authority of the Bible. These Christians would heartily affirm everything on the He Gets Us site. Given that the site portrays a fully human Jesus and at the same time claims to be presented by “Christians,” there’s no reason to think someone wouldn’t come away thinking they can be a Christian and not believe all the “baggage” about things like the Bible being God’s Word.

It’s worth noting this statement on the site: “He Gets Us is a diverse group of Jesus followers with a wide variety of faith journeys and lived experiences. Our work represents the input from Christians who believe that Jesus is the son of God.” All of this looks good so far. But they continue saying, “as well as many others who, though not Christians, share a deep admiration for the man that Jesus was, and we are deeply inspired and curious to explore his story.” It’s pretty clear theologically progressive Christians, who deny the deity of Christ, have been part of the team.

So, my answer to the question, “Does the He Gets Us Campaign get skeptics interested in the right Jesus?” is a resounding no. It’s not just an incomplete picture of Jesus. It’s an inaccurate one. And because it will just confirm what the target audience already thinks, many if not most will jump out of the marketing funnel before they get to the desire to learn more. If you don’t challenge people’s thinking, what would they need to learn more about?

*3. Do the He Gets Us campaign reading plans take people to the next level of understanding Jesus (beyond the slick website and TV ads)?While I clearly have significant concerns about the people who imbibe ideas about Jesus and Christians from the He Gets Us web and TV content alone—never getting to the Bible or a church from this campaign—what about those who do* actually get to the Bible reading plans? Are they designed well to take people to the next level of understanding—to an accurate one?

There are 7 plans on YouVersion, ranging from 4 to 9 days of content. I read all 43 days of the plans. If you’re interested in the details, I’ve documented below. If not, you can jump to the bottom line after I list the plans.

Plan 1: “He Gets Us” (7 days)
This plan continues the model of using progressive language and framing. The devotionals make comments like these:

• “[Jesus’s enemies] feared him because he challenged the norm.” In progressive contexts, norms are typically seen as bad and need to be overturned.
• “The way Jesus called out the toxic religious and political systems turned history upside down.” In progressive contexts, religion—especially Christianity—is toxic, as are political systems, so this makes Jesus appear to favor that view.
• “[Jesus] made friends with people just as they are and let himself be known just as he was, too. Authentic. Trust-worthy. The kind of friend we all long for.” It’s true that Jesus made friends with people as they are, but most progressives are likely to read this as, “Jesus accepts you for whoever you want to be, so be your authentic self.” That’s not what it says, but if you have cultural awareness of the claims and debates today, it’s fairly obvious that’s something progressives would take from it without realizing the distinction between being friends with someone and approving of their identity/behavior.
• “The Samaritan stopped and cared for the Jew, at his own expense just like he would a neighbor—unlike the racist, religious men who stepped over the beat-up guy on their way to worship, of all things.” Again, this plays into the progressive hatred for the “religious”; yes, the men were religious, but that wasn’t the problem. Jesus never scolded people for being too religious; He scolded them for being self-righteous and hypocritical.
• “Yes, it’s true. The one who stood bravely against the strongest, most corrupt system of the day, was on his face in fear.” And yet again, this plays into the progressive view of systems being inherently corrupt.

In short, plan 1 is more of the same from the ad/web campaign and, far from redeeming the nature of that content, simply doubles down on the equivocation and misunderstandings.

Plan 2: “Diving Deeper” (7 days)
I thought that, given the title, this is where we would get deeper into a theologically accurate portrayal and reading of Jesus, but that’s not what I found. This one had fewer problematic statements than plan 1, but the content overall gets no closer to teaching people about the true Jesus (while continuing with occasional progressive framing along the way, such as casting Jesus’s infant trip to Egypt as a “refugee” situation).

On day 1, it says, “The best way to discover his actual purpose, regardless of the centuries between us, is to look at his life. Sure, plenty of books have been written about what he taught, but let’s look at his private side, the side you see when you walk with someone side by side down a new road.” The subsequent days go on to have subjects like “He grieves with us,” “He understands us,” “He’s vulnerable like us,” “He loves us,” “He faced hardship like us,” and “He is for us.” Do the actions leading to these statements really reveal Jesus’s “actual purpose” as indicated on day 1? Jesus’s purpose was to give His life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). But to understand that would require an understanding of the nature of God, the nature of man, the divine nature of Jesus, and the problem of sin—none of which He Gets Us had addressed by this point. Instead, they offer people yet again more confirmation that Jesus simply gets us.

Plan 3: “Questions Jesus Asked” (7 days)
This plan seems disconnected from the other plans, rather than being on some kind of trajectory like “digging even deeper.” It features a set of questions Jesus asked people, with answers showing His character (no, still not his divine nature). There’s again a dig at “religious leaders” saying, “The cancel campaign began in Jerusalem where the jealous, paranoid religious leaders set a plot in motion to kill Jesus and they wouldn’t quit until he hung dead on a cross.”

Notably, this is the first plan where the verses themselves start referring to Jesus as something more than a human (John 6:66-69). It’s also the first time the devotional content casually references Jesus doing something supernatural (day 5 talks about Him walking on water). There is, however, zero explanatory transition from human Jesus to Jesus as God here. Someone who didn’t know that the Bible teaches Jesus is God could be forgiven for scratching their heads at how this human was now walking on water!

Despite this strange jump, I thought they were going to bring home the good news when they said, “But Jesus offers love, not because we measure up, but because of who he is. On that day, She chose to believe Jesus was who he said he was.” And, somewhat inexplicably, they don’t go on to say who Jesus said He was. Not only that, but they don’t get to it until the plan after the next one.

Plan 4: “Who Did Jesus Love?” (9 days)Plans 4 and 5 are so different from everything else in the He Gets Us campaign that it seems like they hired a committed Christian to insert this content to make the well-meaning funders (who want people to know about the true Jesus) happy. I realize that sounds cynical, but it’s a jarring difference.

In plan 4, we read verses where Jesus is proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease—a clearly supernatural Jesus. Day 2 says, “The person we despise, he loved. And not for anything they did to deserve it but because of who he was,” and that comes with verses about salvation and how the Son of Man came to seek and save the lost. We read that Mary knew Jesus’s birth was far from “natural.” We see a doubting Thomas who wanted to personally experience the fact that Jesus was raised from the dead. And we read the gospel in John 3:16.

So, if people see an ad, go to the site, sign up for a Bible reading plan and make it to plan 4, they will find a supernatural Savior. (Granted, you could theoretically start with plan 4, but I’m guessing most people start with plan 1.)

Plan 5: “Who Did Jesus Say He Was?” (9 days)
This is the plan that really brings home what they should have been bringing home all along. Day 1 says, “Not only does he get us. He wants us to get him.” Yes! At long last, they make this connection. They go on to teach the full Jesus in this plan. Again, it’s so different in nature and even in language, that it really feels like they brought in someone to insert the “theological” content after the progressive Christians on staff developed everything else. Day 7 in particular brings the whole message home, laying out the Gospel and exclusivity of Jesus, and encourages people to pray.

Plan 6: “Jesus & Joy” (4 days)
This is a short plan focused on the subject of joy. There’s little here of interest other than another passing criticism of religious leaders (“Religious guys seemed to love following Jesus around town. Could you imagine being the popular guy in a town that stirred up the kind of noise that very religious people hated? That was Jesus”).

Plan 7: “What Jesus Gave Up” (6 days)
This one focuses on how Jesus was “after a different way of living.” Unfortunately, the plan reverts to a primarily human Jesus. For example, it lists four ways Jesus spent His life on earth and changed history: Jesus taught another way, He served, He forgave (the description of this only includes his human forgiveness of others, not His divine forgiveness), and He loved. It leaves out the most important reason why He changed history—He was God incarnate. On the final day, titled, “He Gave Up Vengeance,” it says, “The reality of what was happening was not lost on him. And nothing about it surprised him. Jesus was determined to accomplish what he came to do. And he did.” That’s the end, with no explanation about what He accomplished. (To be clear, they explained that in plan 5, but the plans seem to be written independently of one another, so a reader wouldn’t necessarily have been through plan 5 to know what they’re talking about.)

So, the bottom line is that the plans range from problematic (more social justice framing) to some basic Bible content (e.g., on joy) to some actual theological meat on what was left out of everything else on who Jesus is (plans 4 and 5). If someone actually makes it to plans 4 and 5, they’ll hear the gospel.

*4. Does the He Gets Us campaign direct people to theologically solid churches for continuing their search for truth?*When people become interested in learning more about Jesus, they’re directed to a “Connect” page. One of my most significant concerns with the campaign last year was that there was no clear theological vetting of churches to which people were being sent. I do not see any updates or information on the current site as to the criteria they’re using to select church prospects.

[Editor’s Note] On the “Connect Locally” page, people are invited to join a local Alpha Course Small Group where they can discuss their questions in a church-based small-group setting.

As I explain in Faithfully Different, 65% of Americans identify as Christian while only about 6% have a worldview consistent with what the Bible teaches, and a dismal percent of pastors have a biblical worldview. If you have no theological criteria for where you’re sending people, you’re actually more likely than not—based on statistics—to be sending them to a church whose teachings don’t line up with those of the Bible. In other words, you’re sending unsuspecting truth seekers to places where they won’t hear truth.

Perhaps they have tightened up their criteria but aren’t explicitly saying that on the site. I’ll be happy to update my comments here if someone from the campaign wants to reach out and contact me.

*Closing ThoughtsIn conclusion, I want to say I’m sure there is good that will come from the campaign. I hope there is much good that comes from it. And I know God can make good come from anything He chooses. But those aren’t reasons to not critique something and offer discernment. I find it highly discouraging that when there is so much money being poured into a campaign, it’s being used to further the perception that Jesus is the same Jesus people already believe in rather than the one they need to believe in. Promoting a social justice Jesus can actually make talking about the real Jesus more difficult, because He Gets Us* has placed one more data point in people’s minds that it’s His followers who talk about all that “unpopular stuff” who don’t get it. They’ll come away knowing Jesus gets them, but they won’t get Him.

Let’s hope a lot of people get to Bible reading plans 4 and 5.

Recommended resources related to the topic:Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)

Was Jesus Intolerant? by Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4)

Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Natasha Crain is a blogger, author, and national speaker who is passionate about equipping Christian parents to raise their kids with an understanding of how to make a case for and defend their faith in an increasingly secular world. She is the author of two apologetics books for parents: Talking with Your Kids about God (2017) and Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (2016). Natasha has an MBA in marketing and statistics from UCLA and a certificate in Christian apologetics from Biola University. A former marketing executive and adjunct professor, she lives in Southern California with her husband and three children.

Original Blog Source: https://natashacrain.com/here-comes-the-he-gets-us-campaign-again-why-its-portrayal-of-jesus-is-still-a-problem/

The post Here Comes the He Gets Us Campaign Again: Why Its Portrayal of Jesus is Still a Problem appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

Over the years in my work as a public apologist, I have spoken with many dozens of ex-Christians who have renounced their faith and become atheists, as well as numerous individuals who still consider themselves believers but nonetheless are struggling seriously with intellectual doubts concerning the veracity of the Christian faith. In addition, I have watched literally hundreds of YouTube videos wherein a testimony is given of one’s journey out of the Christian faith towards atheism. Through listening to countless people in this situation, I have come to realize how difficult it is for believers to express to members of their church or Christian community that they are struggling with doubts (presumably because to express that one struggles with doubt carries a negative stigma in many churches today).

*Struggling with Doubt?*

God has therefore placed a burden on my heart for Christians who wrestle with doubts, and I have for several years offered a free service for Christians who wrestle with intellectual doubts. There is a form on my website people can fill out and I endeavor to set up a meeting (normally online) with them to discuss their doubts in confidence.

One of the things I try to do when counseling someone who is walking through doubt is to help them to develop a protocol for managing doubt in an intellectually responsible way and to make them aware of intellectual pitfalls that can ensnare the unwary. In this and future articles, I want to unpack some of those common pitfalls.

*Needing Closure?*There is a phenomenon in psychology, which can be an impediment to sound critical thinking. That is, the need for cognitive closure. Wikipedia defines it this way:

Closure or need for closure (NFC) (used interchangeably with need for cognitive closure (NFCC)) are social psychological terms that describe an individual’s desire for a firm answer to a question and an aversion toward ambiguity. The term “need” denotes a motivated tendency to seek out information.

Different people have varying levels of tolerance for mystery and ambiguity. Individuals with a high need for cognitive closure are more prone to walk away from the Christian faith than individuals with a lower need. For some people, in order to be content within one’s worldview, satisfactory answers must exist to all possible questions and objections that might be raised against it.

It is important, however, that we do not become too fixated on the objections to Christianity that we miss the forest for the trees, losing sight of the avalanche of positive confirmatory evidence that cumulatively demonstrates that Christianity is true. Because we have such robust reasons to think Christianity is true, we can justifiably say,

“I don’t know why God permits so much suffering in the world. But I have enough reasons to believe in the God of the Bible and that He is good that I am willing to trust that there is some morally sufficient explanation for why there is so much suffering, even if I do not yet know what that explanation is.”

*Does the problem of evil, by itself, discredit Christianity?* Indeed, the argument from evil, especially natural evil, has been wielded as a cumulative counter-case that competes with the case offered in confirmation of Christianity. An important point to bear in mind when dealing with this subject, however, is that successive pieces of evidence are dependent rather than independent. To see this, suppose that we were to make a long list of specific cases of human and animal suffering for which we do not see any obvious purpose. Let us call them E1, E2, …, En. If we were to take one of them (say, E1) and ask how it affects the probabilities of theism (T) and atheism (~T), then we might say P(E1|~T)/P(E1|T) = k, where k >>1. For the sake of argument, let us suppose that k = 100. That is to say, the probability of E1 is 100 times greater given the falsehood of theism than given its being true. In order to make the cumulative case, we need to bring in additional pieces of evidence. But do they have the same epistemic force as the first one did? This is not at all clear. After all, if God were to have, however unexpectedly, some morally sufficient reason for permitting E1, then it is quite reasonable to expect that God might well have a similar reason for permitting E2, and so forth. The pieces of evidence are all fundamentally similar, all being instances of the suffering of conscious beings. But if God has a morally sufficient reason for one, that same justification may well also explain a host of other similar cases. Now contrast this to the cumulative case for the truth of theism and indeed Christianity. Not only is it extensive, but it is also varied in kind. It is therefore much more difficult to conceive of there being a single alternative explanation for a widely varied evidence that would all be expected if the hypothesis in question were true. It is for this reason that I submit that counter-evidence such as the problem of evil be considered not in isolation but within the broader context of the overall evidence taken as a whole.

*What about Evidence Doesn’t Seem to Fit?* Scientific theories often have evidence both supporting and conflicting with it. But anomalous data should not automatically overhaul a well-supported theory, even if a satisfactory explanation of the anomalous data has not yet been proposed. Likewise, I would argue, the strength and varied nature of the positive evidence for Christianity should cause us to expect that explanations of the anomalous data, for which we do not yet have a satisfactory account within the framework of the Christian worldview, in fact exists — even though we do not yet know what that explanation is.

The English rhetorician, logician, economist, academic, and theologian Richard Whately (1787-1863) put it this way:

“Similar to this case is that which may be called the Fallacy of objections; i.e. showing that there are objections against some plan, theory, or system, and thence inferring that it should be rejected; when that which ought to have been proved is, that there are more, or stronger objections, against the receiving than the rejecting of it. This is the main, and almost universal Fallacy of anti-christians; and is that of which a young Christian should be first and principally warned. They find numerous ‘objections’ against various parts of Scripture; to some of which no satisfactory answer can be given; and the incautious hearer is apt, while his attention is fixed on these, to forget that there are infinitely more, and stronger objections against the supposition, that the Christian Religion is of human origin; and that where we cannot answer all objections, we are bound, in reason and in candour, to adopt the hypothesis which labours under the least.

That the case is as I have stated, I am authorized to assume, from this circumstance,—that no complete and consistent account has ever been given of the manner in which the Christian Religion, supposing it a human contrivance, could have arisen and prevailed as it did. And yet this may obviously be demanded with the utmost fairness of those who deny its divine origin. The Religion exists; that is the phenomenon. Those who will not allow it to have come from God, are bound to solve the phenomenon on some other hypothesis less open to objections. They are not, indeed, called on to prove that it actually did arise in this or that way; but to suggest (consistently with acknowledged facts) some probable way in which it may have arisen, reconcilable with all the circumstances of the case. That infidels have never done this, though they have had 1800 years to try, amounts to a confession, that no such hypothesis can be devised, which will not be open to greater objections than lie against Christianity.” [i]**

Indeed, there is no shame for a Christian in having unanswered questions. The question is not “are there questions about Christianity for which there are no satisfactory answers?” Rather, the question is, “are there more numerous and more substantive objections to believing the gospel or to disbelieving the gospel?” Every worldview has its share of unanswered questions. Rejecting Christianity because there are unanswered questions in favor of an alternative worldview that raises even more numerous and more substantive unanswered questions does not resolve the problem.

Every worldview has its share of unanswered questions.

*That’s a Good Question!*I recently received an email from someone who was struggling with doubt over the question of why God creates people whom He knows for sure will choose to reject Him and will therefore end up estranged from God’s favorable presence in the hereafter. This is a very good question, and I do not believe anyone really knows the answer since we lack complete information about the relationship between divine sovereignty, divine foreknowledge, and human free will, etc. If Christianity is true, however, we would not be expected to have answers to most questions like this. So, the fact that we do not, in fact, have answers to such questions does not, I would argue, really count as a serious blow against Christianity.

Note that saying we wouldn’t be expected to have answers is quite different from saying that the questions are unanswerable. That is why many Christians get drawn into a speculative response (i.e. “perhaps it is because…”). There is nothing wrong with such responses per se. But precisely because we do not know, we should not get too invested in such speculations. Nor should we treat their failure as signifying something grave.

*“Help My Kid is Deconstructing!” [CE Podcast]*Difficult questions about God’s sovereignty and salvation program must always be accompanied by a consideration of the plausibility that there is some answer to those questions that has not been disclosed to us, is beyond our finite ability to comprehend, or simply has not occurred to us. In other words, is it a problem that overhauls the vast confirmatory evidence for Christianity and thereby warrants rejection of the Christian faith, or is it a question with which we can live contentedly in the absence of an answer? An unanswered question is not the same thing as an epistemic warrant for rejection of Christianity.

The atheist so frequently assumes the high ground when it comes to epistemic humility. When pressed on where the Universe or life came from the atheist typically responds “I don’t know.” They are content with not knowing. Why, then, should the same luxury not be extended to the Christian when it comes to why God has done things this or that way? We need to be willing to accept an element of mystery when it comes to divine action. Unlike God, we do not have the box top, as it were, of the jig saw, which reveals how all of the pieces are meant to fit together.

Therefore, we just ought to trust God that he knows what He is doing. As the Proverb states, “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths” (Proverbs 3:5-6).

*Footnotes:[i] Richard Whately, Elements of Logic*, 9th ed. (London: Longmans, Green, Reader, & Dyer, 1870), pp. 144-45.

Recommended resources related to the topic:Why Is God Ignoring Me? (DVD), and (mp4 Download) by Gary Habermas

When Reason Isn’t the Reason for Unbelief by Dr. Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? The Hiddenness of God: Why Isn’t God More Obvious? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp3, and Mp4 Download

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek

Why Science Needs God by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.

Originally published at: https://jonathanmclatchie.com/the-need-for-cognitive-closure-in-dealing-with-doubts/

The post The Need for Cognitive Closure in Dealing with Doubts appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

“Avast yer jabberin, ya bunch a bilge rats!” The voice sounded strange as it reached into the hallway. The speaker was apparently trying to make a point. “Yer division a booty must be… “ he paused to consider his words, “more equitable if ye be wanting to sail with me.”

He had my attention. I was at a work conference in a hotel, wandering the halls during a break, when I happened across this conference room. I peeked inside. It could have been a scene from the latest Pirates movie. Men of various ages with lots of facial hair, many dressed in striped pants, with the occasional peg leg and hook hand. Yes, I had stumbled across a pirates’ convention, the 350th annual, it seemed, from the schedule which I found posted outside.

*Pirate Ethics*

The speaker’s topic was ethics. He went on to explain what an equitable share of booty amounted to, in his view, using a very modern looking PowerPoint presentation to punctuate his points.

I caught up with him at the break and asked if he had time for a few questions. He seemed a bit suspicious, what with my business casual attire, but nonetheless willing.

“Seriously,” I began. “Ethics for pirates? I mean, for centuries you guys have been boarding and capturing and enslaving people without much regard for ethics. You’ve been known to rape, pillage and plunder, and your personal hygiene is … not the best.” I quickly ended, seeing that I was crossing a line.

A hurt look crossed his face. “Yer words be stingin,” he began, but my words were nothing compared to his breath. I took a step back and tried not to stare at the parrot on his shoulder. “I don’t suppose ye know bout all the good that we do. Why ar ann’l ball raises thousands for the widows n’orphns fund, and we do lots of behind the scenes work ye never be aware of. Last year alone, we returned almost 30 percent of our captured booty to charitable organizations.”

“Is that a fact?” I asked. “I had no idea. But,” I persisted, “this is stuff that you’re stealing.”

*Who’re the REAL Thieves?*

“We make no excuses for that, m’lad. But we’ve been pretty transparent about that from the beginning, ain’t we? After all, ye had no trouble spotting us for who we are. If ye want the real thievin’ ones, it’s the bankers and lawyers ye want to be houndin…” He pointed down the hall to the lawyers’ convention I had been attending.

Yes, of course I’m making this up. But I think there is a valid point here to be made. Human beings have an amazing capacity to judge themselves on a curve. Pirates no doubt convince themselves that they are somehow justified in doing what they do. They may think of harm they suffered when younger, or may feel that life dealt them the hand that they play. And they no doubt have a set of ethics that they follow, however uncivilized it may seem to us. And many, if pressed, would seek to justify their behavior by reference to all the things they don’t do. “Sure, we kill on occasion. But only those who don’t surrender, or those who for whatever reason need killing.” This is the human condition, whether in a high school, at the office, on a pirate ship, or in a prison. We don’t seem to have the capacity to see ourselves for what we truly are.

*I’m Good Enough to Go to Heaven, right?*

What does any of this have to do with Christian apologetics? Just this: the number one response of nonbelievers as to why they don’t worry about the afterlife goes something like this. “I don’t know if there is a God, but if there is, he will see all the good that I do and accept me. So, I’m not worried. A good God will see that I am living a good life.”

But holding this view is not that different than the pirates in the analogy above. Compared to others of that ilk, an individual pirate might seem like a good guy. But that hardly would qualify him for life in a peaceful and civilized society. His problem isn’t how he compares to his fellows, but how he measures up to the place he’s trying to get to. He may think himself “good” when in an objective sense he is anything but. Similarly, many people today believe they have a proper sense of what “good” human behavior is, but how can they know for sure when they are mired in the corruption of their nature? And more importantly, have they given any thought to what “perfect” behavior requires? What a perfect being might use to measure admission to His realm?

*We’re Not As Good As We Think We Are*

It’s easy for us to pat ourselves on the back for our goodness. But perhaps we are a bit too smug. Our persistent feelings of guilt serve as a guide – a reminder – that all is not well. They serve to call us to account to the One who left us here, and who expects something of us if we are to be in relationship with Him. These feelings of guilt provide the backdrop of bad news, the kind of news from which we naturally shy away. The kind of bad news that sets the stage for the ultimate Good News of the gospel.

So, next time you encounter this response, you might suggest that the nonbeliever consider his frame of reference. Immersed in a sinful culture, inhabiting flesh and blood bodies whose weakness overcomes the willingness of the spirit, we may be as unable to see ourselves for what we truly are as the fictional pirates above would be. In short, we may not be in the best position to know if we are as “good” as we pretend.

*We Need a Savior*

Fortunately, there is a better answer, one that does not require us to earn our way back to God’s presence. But until we see our need for a Savior, we’re not likely to find the answer that is waiting to set us free.

The righteousness of God is through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe, since there is no distinction. 23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; 24 they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.
Romans 3:22-24 (HCSB)

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Frank Turek (Mp3/ Mp4)

Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3

Hell? The Truth about Eternity (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (Mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek

Old Testament vs. New Testament God: Anger vs. Love? (MP3 Set) (DVD Set) (mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

The post Why We Are Not Best Judges of What Is Good appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

If you’re going to contend that universalism is true, i.e., the belief that everyone will eventually end up in heaven, then you best beware of the consequences of doing so.

Evacuating a Dying PlanetTo illustrate. Imagine you live on a planet called Elpis (in Greek this means “hope” or “expectation”). You have been tasked with evacuating your entire civilization to another planet because of a life-threatening emergency. Due to an increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere, ELPIS has limited time before there’s not enough oxygen to sustain life. So, you are developing a plan to transfer your fellow residents, via spaceships, to a safer environment. You’ve chosen a planet called Earth as your destination and have already been in touch with the humans there. The earthlings are happy to accommodate the immigrants from Elpis.

The people of Earth, like the residents of Elpis, cannot exist without air. And experts on both planets have stressed to you that, in transit from Elpis to Earth, there is no air in outer space. So, you have naturally acquired a large supply of pressurized air tanks for use in the passage to Earth. Your preparations seem to be proceeding smoothly, and you think you’re just about able to breathe a sigh of relief.

The “Myth” of AirlessnessBut then a new emergency arises. Just days before your planetwide launch to remove your fellow citizens from Elpis, a new book comes out entitled Relax, There’s Room to Breathe: Deconstructing the Myth of an Airless Outer Space. The book skyrockets to the top of the planet’s bestsellers lists. By the thousands, Elpis residents toss away their air tanks as they prepare to leave for their new environment.

Lives are on the line. The deception is costly. You must respond. What will you do?

Would it not be unthinkable to say nothing?

Awake yet?Let’s wake up from our dream. This is not Elpis. This is worse. We face a life-threatening situation. We’re not running out of oxygen on Earth. In fact, the crisis is even more serious. Today we’ve got people inside and outside the church ready to hold out an offer of universal salvation. Not only are the consequences of doing so catastrophic, but there’s not a scintilla of biblical evidence to back this claim up. Any attempts to do so is to reject the broader overall context of Scripture. When it comes to heaven, everyone will not end up there and neither are there many pathways leading to its destination. No, the way is narrow. We need air to breath there. And Jesus is the Air we must all inhale to arrive in heaven someday. To promise any other way, besides the Jesus way is to hold out false hope. In the end, Jesus is our only Elpis.

“Salvation is found in no one else,
for there is no other name under heaven
given to mankind by which we must be saved.”
Acts 4:12 (NIV)

Recommended Resources Related to this TopicCounter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)
Hell? The Truth about Eternity (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (Mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek
Short Answers to Long Questions (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek
Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek
Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bobby serves as lead pastor of Image Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, and is well known for his YouTube ministry called, One Minute Apologist, which now goes by the name Christianity Still Makes Sense. He also serves as the Co-Host of Pastors’ Perspective, a nationally syndicated call-in radio show on KWVE in Southern California. Bobby earned his Master of Theology degree from Dallas Theological Seminary, his Doctor of Ministry in Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary, and his Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from the University of Birmingham (England) where he was supervised under David Cheetham and Yujin Nagasawa. Bobby’s also written several books including: The Fifth Gospel, Doubting Toward Faith, Does God Exist, and Fifty-One other Questions About God and the Bible and the forthcoming Christianity Still Makes Sense to be published by Tyndale in April 2024. He’s married to his lovely wife Heather and together they have two grown kids: Haley and Dawson.

The post The Danger of Promising Universal Salvation appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

The post Why God Can’t Be the Universe appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

The post Why We Praise God appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

The post A Crash Course in How to Study the Bible, Part 2 appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

The post A Crash Course in How to Study the Bible, Part 1 appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

The post Yes, There is a Difference Between New Age and New Thought appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

The post A Trendy New Breathing and Meditation Technique… and it’s Odd. appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

The post As Long as It Doesn’t Hurt Anyone Or does it? appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

The post Is Scientology Compatible with Christianity? appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

The post What Does it Mean That “God Won’t Let You Down?” appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

Many people reject the possibility of an eternal Hell because they feel that “the punishment doesn’t fit the crime.” Some atheists focus on this perceived inequality between the sins we commit here on Earth and the unending punishment we face in the life to come. One skeptic framed the challenge this way:

“God is perfectly just, and yet he sentences the imperfect humans he created to infinite suffering in hell for finite sins. Clearly, a limited offense does not warrant unlimited punishment. God’s sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is infinitely more unjust than this punishment. The absurd injustice of this infinite punishment is even greater when we consider that the ultimate source of human imperfection is the God who created them.” [1]

The challenger contends that a “limited” offense does not warrant unlimited – eternal – punishment. Such punishment, he concludes, would constitute a greater injustice than the “mere mortal lifetime of sin.” For many people, including perhaps a majority of believers, this argument is accepted uncritically. But upon closer examination, it is apparent that the conclusion the challenger draws is based upon a misunderstanding of what “just” punishment entails.

Who is the crime against?The first step in the analysis must be to consider the nature of the “sovereign” against whom the crime is committed. If I commit a crime in California, state authorities in Colorado could not impose punishment. Their laws have not been broken. To be just, the laws of the sovereign should be made known. Although ignorance of the law is not an excuse, a fair system makes known its laws, so that they can have the intended effect: to shape behavior by encouraging the good and discouraging the bad. State authorities are by nature limited and flawed, and the laws they enact reflect that they cannot, and therefore do not, expect perfection.

But who is the lawmaker that can sentence us to this “eternal” punishment? It is, of course, an eternal being, and more importantly, an eternal being who embodies and comprises perfection. That he would separate himself from a creation in rebellion is hardly unjust. And if separation from God is in fact the “hell” of which we speak – the agony of seeing but not being able to experience the joy of his presence – then those who reject his gift are in store for an eternity of this experience. This is not a sentencing choice that a capricious lawmaker has conjured up, but the necessary consequence of both living eternally and being eternally separated from the source of perfection.

Compounding offensesWhen a jurisdiction enacts “three strikes” legislation, the sovereign makes known that there are offenses which carry with them a punishment of life imprisonment – separation for the rest of one’s life from the society that has been victimized by the offender’s behavior. In some such jurisdictions, the third strike might be a relatively minor offense, one that on its own would not merit such a sentence, but coming as it does after a series of more serious violations, it tips the scales in such a way that this conclusion – that permanent separation from society is warranted – becomes just. It is the appropriate response to an offender who has established that he or she refuses to conform to the requirements of the law and has run out of chances.

One sin would have been enough?Re-examining the challenger’s conclusion in light of these reflections reveals what is at play: the challenger has ignored the fact that a single offense, committed against an eternal and perfect being, is sufficient to justify separation from him. But of course it is worse than that, for we humans in rebellion have racked up sin upon sin, offense upon offense. But, the challenger complains, is there no proportionality between the offense and the type of punishment? Can’t God come up with a lighter punishment?

But why not a lighter punishment?Again, this misunderstands the nature of the problem. God is not devising ever more wicked ways of inflicting punishment on us, hoping to make hell as torturous a place as possible. The punishment of hell is, simply, the natural consequence – the byproduct – of being separated from God. God does nothing more than that, but unfortunately for us, this is experienced as unending torment.

Finally, God embodies infinite perfection, so rather than sinning against another human being, who himself has flaws and needs forgiveness, these offenses are against a being who is infinitely holy. Considered this way, eternal separation from God starts to make a bit more sense. The good news, of course, is that God is also infinitely merciful. Knowing that we cannot solve this problem on our own, He solved it for us and made that salvation available to everyone. Perfect justice, perfect mercy, perfectly balanced, providing a truly just and elegant solution to our problem.

Did God make people sin?But what of the challenger’s further indictment of God for creating imperfect human beings and then punishing them for being imperfect? This conclusion also rests on faulty reasoning. God created beings with free will and each of us chooses to use our free will to defy him. As the creator, he has the right to respond to that rebellion, by separating himself from us. Consider how you might react if you built a robot to clean the bathroom and it eventually refused, claiming that it wished to be served rather than to serve. You could easily unplug or disassemble it, because as its creator you would have that prerogative. So too with God.

We get what we deserve – eternal separation from the source of life, goodness and joy – because we continually choose to focus on what we want rather than submit our will to him. Rather than condemning God for this, the smarter move is to thank him for also providing us the solution.

Endnotes[1] Edwina Monfort, “Is God Perfet and Just” Blogspot, 21 Dec 2011 at: https://edwinamonfort.blogspot.com/2011/12/is-god-perfect-and-just.html

Recommended Resources Related to this TopicHell? The Truth about Eternity (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (Mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek
Short Answers to Long Questions (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek
Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

The post How Much Punishment Is Enough? appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

There’s no shortage of accusations claiming the Bible depicts a vision of two Gods: the grumpy, moody, and often volatile, curmudgeon like God of the Old Testament, and the mushy, judge free, glorified sugar daddy God of the New Testament. Is this the case? Does the Bible present a clash of the God’s? The malevolent God of the Old Testament and the benevolent God of the New Testament? Or does God suffer from a bad case of bi-bolar disorder, is he the first mental health patient, exhibiting fits of schizophrenia, or some sort of split personality disorder? Not quite.

Progressive RevelationWhat the Bible presents is a God who reveals himself in both Testaments through progressive revelation. As the story unfolds, the revealed nature of God crystalizes, elucidating in greater detail who God is. While it is true that one may capture clearer glimpses of God’s grace in the New Testament due to his ultimate grace coming to fruition at the cross, this does not mean the Old Testament is bereft of God’s benevolence toward humanity. Throughout the Old Testament the Bible presents a God who tirelessly pursues his people even after countless rejections of his warnings of impending judgment.

Mercy in the Old TestamentYes, judgment comes, but it does so after they ignore his warnings to turn toward him. Even the prophets of the Old Testament as they rail against the nations, are in many ways messengers of mercy, by warning people and giving them a heads up, in advance, to make things right. When they don’t, sure judgment ensues. But so does the great hound of heaven, with another invitation to align to him once again.

Judgment in the New TestamentAs you come to the New Testament, it’s not like God is morally indifferent. Like some pushover deity wrapped around our finger whose only aim is to indulge our hedonistic impulses. Not in the least. One’s not hard pressed to find God’s judgment at work there either. A cursory read of Romans 1-3, or Jesus’s clearing of the temple (Mark 11:15-17), or the hardening of the Jewish nations heart as seen in Romans 11:11-24 are a few salient examples. Not to mention the book of Revelation, which unfolds God’s plan of justice in the eschaton (Rev. 20:11-15) or the fact that Jesus addressed the topic of hell more than heaven. In the end, the Bible does not portray of dual headed god, but the entire canon unveils for us the fuller picture of One God who is both just and loving and of course so much more.

Recommended Resources Related to This Topic If God, Why Evil? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek
Why Doesn’t God Intervene More? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek
Why does God allow Bad Things to Happen to Good People? (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek
Is Original Sin Unfair? (DVD Set), (mp4 Download Set), and (MP3 Set) by Dr. Frank Turek
How Can Jesus Be the Only Way? (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bobby serves as lead pastor of Image Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, and is well known for his YouTube ministry called, One Minute Apologist, which now goes by the name Christianity Still Makes Sense. He also serves as the Co-Host of Pastors’ Perspective, a nationally syndicated call-in radio show on KWVE in Southern California. Bobby earned his Master of Theology degree from Dallas Theological Seminary, his Doctor of Ministry in Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary, and his Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from the University of Birmingham (England) where he was supervised under David Cheetham and Yujin Nagasawa. Bobby’s also written several books including: The Fifth Gospel, Doubting Toward Faith, Does God Exist, and Fifty-One other Questions About God and the Bible and the forthcoming Christianity Still Makes Sense to be published by Tyndale in April 2024. He’s married to his lovely wife Heather and together they have two grown kids: Haley and Dawson.

The post Is the God of the OT the Same God of the NT? appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

Language is complex. Language provides the building blocks for communication in society. What certain words or phrases mean within a given context helps to shape the understanding of the culture at large. Words, and their definitions, are what organize society. Words that define a culture’s foundational institutions most of all. Concise language provides clarity and direction for communities, cultures, and countries.

Language matters. It is important to define what I mean by language here. By language, I simply mean the common words used in a culture and their natural meanings. I am not pitting a type of language (English, Spanish, German etc.) against another. It is within these types of language that we find the foundational elements of society.

What is a Woman?It is this fundamental organizing principle of language that is at the heart of the Daily Wire documentary What is a Woman.[1] In it, conservative commentator Matt Walsh seeks to hammer down a definition of the word woman. In one of the more interesting choices of the documentary he travels to Kenya to meet with a Mosai tribe to seek out their perspective on the topic. In this scene the point of how words are defined is poignantly made. The Mosai do not struggle with what a woman is because they have clearly defined the word within their culture, however, gender theory activists struggled to define the word beyond a mere tautology (a circular definition like: “Apple is defined as an apple”). The ambiguity in our culture concerning the definition of woman is the point and confusion is the natural product. This confusion leads to the dismantling of any cultural implications for the word. In fact, it seems to be erasing the concept entirely. When the definition of a word becomes tautological it is rendered useless. (i.e., if we don’t know what a woman is, then it’s no clearer if we define a woman as “someone who is a woman”).

We must now say “pregnant people”[2] or “birthing person” to not offend those that embrace the new non-definition of woman. As that definition erodes, the science follows. Ambiguity leads to confusion, confusion leads to pointlessness, pointlessness leads to identity crisis which ends in nihilism.

Ambiguity leads to confusion, confusion leads to pointlessness, pointlessness leads to identity crisis which ends in nihilism.

This is not a new problem for our progressive society. The redefinition of love[3] into tautology has eroded trust in truth[4], made sexual experience only about consent, and opened the doors for polyamory, bestiality, and even pedophilia. Most recently, our culture has chosen to do the same to the word marriage, and what is worse, many conservatives simply go along with it.

What is a Marriage?In 2015 the Supreme Court unilaterally decided to change the definition of marriage[5] and recently, Congress followed suit by ratifying the ironically named Respect for Marriage Act[6] in which the legality of gay marriage is codified into federal law. Leaving aside (what should be) the obvious religious liberty complications, the redefinition of marriage, while trivial to some, is a defining moment in the history of this nation.

Marriage is one of those words that has provided the foundation for society for hundreds of years, and not just western society. Much ink has been spilled about what it means for a secular society to redefine marriage.[7] The secular arguments are important because they rest at the heart of society. Marriage, in principle, is the union between two adult human beings, for life, based on the principle of procreation. Alan Keyes, in this debate with Barak Obama in 2004 puts it succinctly:

Where is Alan Keyes? We need you speaking to the nation again sir. pic.twitter.com/Pz3tBToAlN

— Kevin Ortiz (@kevinortiz) May 3, 2022

When the moderator presses the issue with exceptions (elderly couples, infertility, etc.) Keyes does not bat an eye. The idea of procreation being principally possible in marriage is not undermined by outliers and does not open the door for impossibilities. Surrogate procreation, which many homosexual couples have turned to,[8] helps to prove Keyes’ point. The impossibility of natural procreation, in principle, within the confines of homosexual partnership turns procreation into a consumeristic experience rather than a foundational building block for society.

But this redefinition of marriage goes deeper than procreation. It goes straight to the heart of parenthood. Statistics show that children growing up in a two parent (mother and father) household “do better.”[9] The foundational elements of western society are dependent on a majority of children growing up under the direction and nurture of a father and mother. Again, there are outliers within the data, but the principle here stands firm on the scientific evidence. Marriage, as defined throughout history, is foundational for a functioning and moral society.

That is not to say that there is no possibility of same-sex unions providing stable and loving environments where children will thrive and grow into functional members of society, but it is to say that without the foundation of marriage, as historically defined, this possibility becomes far more remote.

Secular History of Marriage?Those who study history know this full well. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels built a key tenant of their argument on the destruction of the nuclear family.[10] They understood that the keys to overturning the structures of society rested in redefining the foundational institutions of said society: “Theoretically, any sexual relationship between mutually consenting persons would be possible. What would not be possible would be the security of a life-long marriage. This sexual relationship could not be chosen.”[11]**

It is for this reason that the Black Lives Matter movement embraced the destruction of the nuclear family, “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.”[12] There is a deeper and more sinister work at play in dismantling the family system founded by the God.

I say founded by God because it is so, and again, Marx and Engels understood this well. If they could dismantle religion[13]and disrupt the institution of the family the revolution would naturally occur.

Scripture on MarriageBeyond the secular arguments there stands the argument based on the truths of scripture. How the church ought to define marriage, fight for marriage, and interact with culture on the topic of marriage is of the utmost import. The Respect for Marriage Act will force churches across the nation to choose a side and prepare for direct confrontation. First amendment protections are not clearly defined (this is a feature of the bill, not a bug) and thus, the tax-exempt status of conservative churches that embrace biblical values will come under scrutiny.

I am not going to argue for the tax-exempt status of the church, but I will argue that the American church will have to choose, possibly for the first time, whether to confront the government head on and deal with the consequences therein or toe the political line. There are, of course, issues that do not call for the church to be confrontational, but the abolition of traditional marriage is not one of them.

The biblical case for marriage is powerful and simple. Many progressive objectors point to the ubiquitous presence of polygamy within the Bible as a contradiction of the traditional marriage values orthodox Christians espouse. This dishonest trope fails (or refuses) to recognize the difference between prescriptive and descriptive text.

God establishes the marriage covenant at the outset of Creation: “For this reason, a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” (Gen. 2:24). Jesus affirms this definition in Matthew 19:5-6. Paul affirms it as a qualification for eldership in 1 Timothy 3:2, as a picture of Christ and the Church in Ephesians 5:21-33 and refers back to in clarifying the relationship of husband and wife in 1 Corinthians 7.

But what About All the Polygamy in the Old Testament?Good question. Polygamy is handled much like slavery in scripture, it is not endorsed by God, but it is regulated. The regulation comes with intention of future eradication. Exodus 21:7-11 and Deuteronomy 21:15-17 offer these regulations. However, many Jewish scholars believe Leviticus 18:18 might prohibit it directly.[14]

As David Wilbur says: “…We can understand the Torah’s polygamy legislation as representing not God’s perfect will but his response to the realities of a fallen world. In the beginning, polygamy, like divorce, “was not so.” Marriage in creation was a monogamous union.”[15]**

The first case of polygamy in scripture is noted as an aberration in Genesis 4:19. Lamech was the great-great-great grandson of Cain. It took five generations from the Fall for humanity to introduce the concept of polygamy and everywhere that polygamy and sexual deviancy followed so did turmoil. From Abraham and his concubine to Lot and his daughters, to Jacob and his wives, we find that sexual sin is the direct result of rebellion (Romans 1).

Why this foray into polygamy as we seek to defend the definition of traditional marriage? Simple. As the polygamy of the Old Testament affirms, the dismantling of the institution of marriage carries with it dire consequences. One of the themes of the Old Testament is that of humanity’s rebellion in all of God’s designs. Marriage is no exception. We find similar issues throughout Israel’s history; the multiple marriages and sexual sins of Israel’s monarchy are directly related to dysfunction in the Royal family and in the nations of Israel and Judah themselves.

This is why Jesus calls the church his Bride. There is a reestablishment of God’s purposes in the language of marriage. It is one of the only human institutions ordained by God prior to the fall that is carried over into the church age by Jesus Christ himself. The orthodox view of marriage ties us back to the original design of the garden. The redefinition of marriage in our culture carries with it a similar harbinger of things to come as Lamech’s choice to marry two women in Genesis 4. In Genesis 6 we find the world in wicked disarray. That is not necessarily because of Lamech’s choice to marry two women, but the dismantling of the institution was a symptom of a wider and more insidious problem. The wickedness of the heart.

So it is with our own society. The redefinition of marriage into a mere commitment based on a tautology. Marriage has become a contract concerning two consenting individuals that love each other and want to spend their lives together (so long as it is convenient, annulment of the marriage is simple enough when things get hard). What is love? Well, love is love. Affection and desire. Emotive infatuation. A lifetime commitment based on absurdity, and we wonder why divorce is rampant.

But if love is love and consent is all that matters who is to say that man-beast[16] marriage is immoral? Or man-child marriage? Or polygamy? You might scoff, as many have, and glibly assure me that this slippery slope is only in my mind, but a New York judge recently ruled in favor of polyamory.[17] If a 5-year-old can choose his/her own gender and can consent to treatment what is to keep him/her from consenting to sex with a 30-year-old? Love is love. How can a child be wise enough to understand his own gender transition needs[18] but not wise enough to consent in a romantic relationship? The rebranding of pedophilia to Minor Attracted Persons (or MAP) indicates the movement is already gaining steam.[19]

As Christians we must allow scripture to define our terms. That includes marriage. As Christopher Watkin and Tim Keller explain:

“…language both expresses and forms a world. To use particular language is to live in a particular world. This is also a reason for Christians, wherever practicable, to use biblical language to describe the world. The Bible’s categories of creation, sin, grace, idolatry, and so on are not neutral and interchangeable with other sets of terms; they are particular figures that belong to and provide the rhythm for the Bible’s account of reality.”[20]**

We ought to fight for the civil respect of God honoring definitions.[21] If we want our society to thrive, we ought to implore our civil authorities to abide by God’s definitions. We cannot do as David French did and acquiesce to the gods of pluralist society.[22]

"He is not defending the faith in this. He's defending conservatism. Conservatism has become the thing that we are supposed to fight for. Not Jesus. Not the faith. Not the church." (2/3) pic.twitter.com/uPfKnXvYQD

— Woke Preacher Clips (@WokePreacherTV) December 14, 2022

The defense of marriage is the defense of a god-honoring society. It is not the only thing to defend but it is a foundational thing to defend. We must stand firm.

Endnotes[1] https://www.dailywire.com/videos/what-is-a-woman; https://freethinkingministries.com/movie-review-what-is-a-woman/

[2] https://www.nih.gov/nih-style-guide/inclusive-gender-neutral-language

[3] https://www.bustle.com/p/8-lgbtq-activists-share-what-love-is-love-means-to-them-in-donald-trumps-america-7278041

[4] https://freethinkingministries.com/cuties-the-natural-progression-of-love-is-love/

[5] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/14-556/

[6] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404

[7] https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/report/marriage-what-it-why-it-matters-and-the-consequences-redefining-it

[8] https://surrogate.com/about-surrogacy/types-of-surrogacy/can-lgbt-couples-pursue-surrogacy/

[9] https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/children-do-better-when-raised-in-intact-two-parent-homes/

[10] https://www.csustan.edu/sites/default/files/History/Faculty/Weikart/Marx-Engels-and-the-Abolition-of-the-Family.pdf

[11] Ibid., pg. 669

[12] https://uca.edu/training/files/2020/09/black-Lives-Matter-Handout.pdf

[13] https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2015/01/karl-marx-on-religion/comment-page-1/

[14] https://davidwilber.com/articles/does-the-torah-prohibit-polygamy

[15] https://davidwilber.com/articles/understanding-the-torahs-polygamy-regulations

[16] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1328310

[17] https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/10/new-york-judge-rules-favor-polyamorous-relationships/

[18] https://freethinkingministries.com/gender-identity-the-bible-and-the-christian/

[19] https://nypost.com/2021/11/15/allyn-walker-says-attraction-to-children-isnt-immoral/

[20] Christopher Watkin and Timothy Keller, “Humanity,” Biblical Critical Theory: How the Bible’s Unfolding Story Makes Sense of Modern Life and Culture (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2023), 100–101.

[21] https://freethinkingministries.com/the-right-christian-nationalism/

[22] https://newsletters.theatlantic.com/the-third-rail/6377fb0dce44df0038de4c62/respect-for-marriage-same-sex-religious-freedom/

Recommended Resources Related to this TopicLegislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)
Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Frank Turek (DVD/ Mp3/ Mp4)
Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek
Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3
Letters to a Young Progressive by Mike Adams (Book)
Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Josh Klein is a Pastor from Omaha, Nebraska with over a decade of ministry experience. He graduated with an MDiv from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his spare time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married for 12 years to Sharalee Klein and they have three young children.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/3Kuy6K2

The post In Defense of Marriage appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

By: Jonathan McLatchie

Any discussion of the evidence for the resurrection must first ascertain what the original apostolic witnesses claimed and whether those claims are best explained by the resurrection, or by some alternative hypothesis. The contemporary discussion of the case for the resurrection has largely focused around 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, a text believed by many scholars to represent an ancient creedal tradition that Paul had received from the Jerusalem apostles and which he passed on to the believers in Corinth.[i] Paul’s words in verse 11 (“Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed”) also suggest that the message Paul presented to the Corinthians is the same as that proclaimed by the Jerusalem apostles. A popular criticism of this line of argument is that Paul makes no qualitative distinction between his own experience of the risen Jesus and those of the other apostles, using the Greek word ὤφθη to describe both. [ii]Acts 9:1-9 indicates that Paul’s encounter with the risen Jesus, which took place after the ascension, did not involve the sort of physical interactions we read of the apostles having with Jesus following His death in the gospel accounts. On what basis, then, can we be confident that Paul understands the apostles to have had the sort of experiences with Jesus following His resurrection that we read of in the gospels? If we are not able to determine the nature of the claimed experiences of the risen Jesus, it is very difficult to evaluate the rationality of the disciples’ belief that Jesus had risen from the dead. I am not optimistic that this case can be robustly made from the Pauline corpus alone.

It is undeniable that Luke represents the post-resurrection encounters as involving multiple sensory modes. Jesus appears to multiple individuals at once, and those encounters are not merely visual but are also auditory. Jesus engages the disciples in group conversation. The encounters are close-up and involve physical contact. Moreover, Acts indicates that the appearances were spread out over a forty-day time period – thus, the resurrection encounters were not one brief and confusing episode. If, then, it can be shown that Luke was indeed a travelling companion of Paul, it would be quite surprising if his understanding of the apostolic claim concerning the resurrection differed essentially from that of Paul.

There is an additional reason why Luke’s being a travelling companion of Paul is significant in our investigation of the resurrection, and that is that Luke claims to have been present with Paul during Paul’s visit to the Jerusalem church in Acts 21 when “all the elders [including James] were present” (Acts 21:18). Luke was present with Paul during his imprisonment in Caesarea Maritima (for at least two years), during which time he would undoubtedly have had ample access to the many living witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection, since Caesarea is only approximately 120 kilometres from Jerusalem (where many of the witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection resided). Luke’s acquaintance with the Jerusalem apostles thus puts him in a position to know what was being proclaimed concerning the nature and variety of the post-resurrection encounters with Jesus. Luke’s demonstrated care and meticulousness as an historian also provides some reason (though, as we shall see, not our only reason) to think that Luke is sincerely representing what he believes the apostles experienced.

Was Luke a Travelling Companion of Paul?There are too many lines of evidence for Luke being a travelling companion of Paul to discuss in any detail in the present paper. However, I will list a few examples. First, there are the famous “we” passages, beginning in Acts 16, which are best understood as indicating the author’s presence in the scenes he narrates. Craig Keener observes that the “we” pronouns trail off when Paul travels through Philippi, only to reappear in Acts 20 when Paul passes once again through Philippi. This is suggestive that the author had remained behind in Philippi and subsequently re-joined Paul when Paul returned through Philippi. [iii]

Second, the reliability of the book of Acts is spectacularly well supported by extrabiblical secular sources, and its author demonstrates a knowledge of the world that is best explained by him being a travelling companion of Paul. Perhaps the most convincing category of this sort of evidence are those cases when the book of Acts is accidentally confirmed – that is, a natural question raised by Acts is illuminated in an incidental way by an extrabiblical secular account. To take one example, consider Acts 23:1-5, when Paul, having been apprehended and brought before the Jewish council, was struck on the mouth at the behest of Ananias the high priest. Paul responds by pointing out the hypocrisy of Ananias. To this, those who were standing by said, “Would you revile God’s high priest?” Paul’s response is somewhat odd: “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’” This raises a natural question – why is it that Paul did not realize who the high priest was? This Ananias was the son of Nebedinus (Antiquities 20.5.3), who occupied the office of high priest when Quadratus (Felix’s predecessor) was president of Syria. Josephus reports that he was sent bound to Rome by Quadratus in order to give an account of his actions to Claudius Caesar (Antiquities 20.6.2). As a result of the intercession on their behalf by Agrippa, they were dismissed and returned to Jerusalem. However, Ananias was not restored to his former office of high priest. Ananias was succeeded by Jonathan, as is indicated by the fact that Josephus refers to one called Jonathan occupying the office of high priest during the government of Felix, which would imply that Ananias’ high priesthood was interrupted (Antiquities 20.8.5). Jonathan himself was assassinated inside the temple (Antiquities 20.8.5).

Following Jonathan’s death, the office of the high priest was not occupied until Ismael, the son of Fabi, was appointed by King Agrippa (Antiquities 20.8.8). The events that are recorded in Acts 23 took place precisely in this interval. Ananias was in Jerusalem and the office of the high priesthood lay vacant. It seems, then, that Ananias acted, by his own authority, in the assumed capacity of the high priest. This, then, illuminates Paul’s words in Acts 23:5: “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest.” Luke doesn’t even take the time to explain the historical backstory in his account of this event. The sources interlock in a way that points to the truth of the narrative we find in Acts.

Another category of evidence, first discovered by William Paley [iv]and more recently developed by Lydia McGrew, [v]is the phenomenon of undesigned coincidences between Acts and the letters of Paul – that is, interlockings between the sources that are best explained by the truth of the narrative in Acts. Consider Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, which was written around 52-53 A.D from Ephesus in Asia Minor (modern day Turkey). We know Paul wrote 1 Corinthians from Ephesus because Paul sends greetings from Aquilla and Priscilla in 1 Corinthians 16:19, whom Paul had met in Corinth (Acts 18:1), and who travelled with Paul as far as Ephesus (Acts 18:26). Paul also makes an allusion to his intention to “stay in Ephesus until Pentecost” (1 Cor 16:8). Corinth, the capital city of Achaia, on the other hand, was across the Aegean sea from Ephesus. Now, consider the following two texts from 1 Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 4:17 we read: “That is why I sent you Timothy…” And in 1 Corinthians 16:10, we read, “When Timothy comes…” From those two incidental texts, it is evident that Timothy had already been dispatched by the time of Paul’s writing, but nonetheless that Paul expected his letter to arrive before Timothy got to Corinth. Given that Ephesus is directly across the Aegean Sea from Achaia (where Corinth is), presumably Paul would have sent his letter directly by boat from Ephesus to Corinth. We therefore can infer that Timothy must have taken some indirect route to Corinth, through Troas and Macedonia. When we turn over to Acts 19:21-22, which concerns Paul’s stay in Ephesus, we read that Timothy (accompanied by Erastus) did in fact take such an indirect overland route to Corinth from Ephesus. This artless dovetailing is best explained by the historical reliability of Acts on this detail. Even if, as I have suggested above, Luke was not present with Paul at this time, this sort of evidence indicates that Luke had reliable access to information concerning Paul’s travels, which suggests he was personally acquainted with Paul.

Of particular interest for our purposes here, a cluster of confirming evidences bear on Luke’s presence with Paul at the Jerusalem church in Acts 21. [vi] If it can be reliably shown that Luke accompanied Paul on his shipwrecked voyage from Caesarea Maritima to Rome in Acts 27, it follows that Luke was almost certainly present with Paul in Jerusalem (where he was arrested) in Acts 21. The report of that voyage notes that they “…sailed along Crete, close to the shore. But soon a tempestuous wind, called the northeaster, struck down from the land.” In confirmation of Luke’s report, there is indeed a well confirmed wind that rides over Crete from the Northeast and which is strongest at this exact time near Passover. [vii] Acts 27:16 describes how the ship was blown off course towards a small island called Cauda. What’s impressive is that the island of Cauda is more than 20 miles west-southwest of where the storm likely struck the travelers in the Bay of Messara. This is precisely where the trajectory of a northeaster should have carried them, and it is not the sort of information someone would have inferred without having been blown there. Ancients found it nearly impossible to properly locate islands this far out. Colin Hemer notes that “In the places where we can compare, Luke fares much better than the encyclopaedist Pliny, who might be regarded as the foremost first-century example of such a source. Pliny places Cauda (Gaudos) opposite Hierapytna, some ninety miles too far east (NH 4.12.61). Even Ptolemy, who offers a reckoning of latitude and longitude, makes a serious dislocation to the northwest, putting Cauda too near the western end of Crete, in a position which would not suit the unstudied narrative of our text (Ptol. Geog. 3.15.8).” [viii]

Given Luke’s presence with Paul in Jerusalem in Acts 21 (and thus his demonstrated interaction with the Jerusalem apostles), we can conclude that Luke was in a position to know what was being claimed by the Jerusalem apostles in regard to the nature of the encounters with the risen Jesus. The next question we must address in our investigation is whether Luke faithfully records what those Jerusalem apostles were teaching concerning the resurrection.

Does Luke Accurately Report the Claimed Experiences of the Apostles?I have previously noted that Luke’s demonstrated meticulousness and care as an historian already provide some reason to think that Luke has given an accurate report of what the Jerusalem apostles claimed concerning the resurrection of Jesus. Are there any other reasons? One relevant evidence here is the fact that Luke, like the other three gospels, reports that women were the chief discoverers of the empty tomb. Given that the testimony of women was not highly esteemed in the patriarchal society that was ancient Palestine, this fact is more probable on the hypothesis that Luke is reporting what he really believed happened than on the falsehood of that hypothesis. Josephus writes, “But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex,” (Antiquities 4.8.15). It therefore may be taken as evidence confirmatory of the hypothesis that Luke is telling us what he really believed happened. N.T. Wright concludes, “As historians we are obliged to comment that if these stories had been made up five years later, let alone thirty, forty, or fifty years later, they would never have had Mary Magdalene in this role. To put Mary there is, from the point of view of Christian apologists wanting to explain to a skeptical audience that Jesus really did rise from the dead, like shooting themselves in the foot. But to us as historians this kind of thing is gold dust. The early Christians would never, never have made this up.” [ix]

Caution, however, is warranted here, since there is a tendency among apologists to overstate the evidential significance of this fact. One can reasonably posit alternative explanations for why the gospels report the discovery of the empty tomb by women. Bart Ehrman, for example, points out that “women were particularly well represented in early Christian communities”, and it is therefore somewhat plausible that they invented the oral traditions involving the discovery of the empty tomb. [x]Furthermore, Ehrman notes, “Preparing bodies for burial was commonly the work of women, not men. And so why wouldn’t the stories tell of women who went to prepare the body? Moreover, if, in the stories, they are the ones who went to the tomb to anoint the body, naturally they would be the ones who found the tomb empty.” [xi] Furthermore, women could provide legal testimony under Jewish law if no male witnesses were available. In fact, Josephus appeals to women as his only witnesses of what took place inside Masada or at the battle at Gamala (Jewish War 7.389 and 4.81), though that may likewise be taken as an indication of Josephus reporting truthfully. Another important consideration is the fact that we are told of the woman whom Jesus spoke with at the well of Samaria that “Many Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, ‘He told me all that I ever did,’” (Jn 4:39).

Thus, the fact that the gospels have women as the primary witnesses to the empty tomb does not prove the tomb was empty and care should be taken not to overstate the case. Nevertheless, the reports of the women being the chief discoverers of the empty tomb is antecedently more likely on the assumption that what the gospels report is based in historical fact than on the assumption the authors made it up. Thus, while the testimony of the women may not be sufficient to demonstrate the veracity of the empty tomb reports, it does offer evidence to that effect.

An important point here, often overlooked, is that the accounts in the four gospels of the women discovering the empty tomb are in fact independent. Luke 24:10 says, “Now it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them who told these things to the apostles…” It is often suggested that John 20:1, which reports only Mary Magdalene’s discovery of the empty tomb, conflicts with Luke’s account. However, in John 20:2, we read, “So she [Mary] ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him” [emphasis added]. Mary’s word-choice, in particular the use of οὐκ οἴδαμεν (“we do not know”) indicates, quite incidentally, that there were in fact other women, and John’s report of these words reveals that he also is aware of this fact even though it is not mentioned explicitly. Thus, Luke’s and John’s account of the women discovering the empty tomb appear to be independent of each other.

Matthew and Mark also appear to be independent of Luke when it comes to the women’s discovery of the empty tomb. [xii] Luke indicates in Luke 8:1-3 that some women followed Jesus from Galilee, including Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s household manager. This detail is confirmed by an undesigned coincidence with Matthew 14:1, since it illuminates how the author of Matthew’s gospel might know what Herod had said to his servants, presumably in the privacy of his palace. The names given in Luke’s list are Mary, Joanna, and Susanna, as well as “many others,” (Lk 8:2-3). Mark, describing the women who were “looking on from a distance” at the crucifixion, lists “Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome,” (Mk 14:40). These names overlap only partially with those given in Luke 8. There is no mention in Mark of Joanna or Susanna, and Luke does not mention Mary the mother of James or Salome. It does not appear that Luke added the passage in chapter 8 in order to “put” the women in place earlier in Jesus’ ministry and thus fit his narrative together with Matthew and Mark concerning the women at the cross, because the names are only partially the same. Luke would have presumably included Mary the mother of James, and Salome, and probably left out Susanna if he had fictionalized the verses in chapter 8 on the basis of Mark’s mention of the women at the cross. Luke himself mentions the women who came from Galilee at the cross and burial (23:49, 55) but doesn’t even name any of them there. Both accounts, therefore, confirm apparently independently that there was a group of women who had begun following Jesus in Galilee and who continued to do so and who helped Jesus in concrete ways (“ministering” or “providing”). In Luke 24:6-10, the angels tell the women at the empty tomb, “Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee” (v. 6). This makes it clear that these women really were personally with Jesus in Galilee and heard what He said there. When Luke names various women who brought the disciples news of the empty tomb and the message of the angel (24:10), he names Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Joanna (and says there were other women as well). Once again, he doesn’t seem to be trying to reproduce his own list from chapter 8, for Mary the mother of James was not in that list, and Susanna isn’t mentioned in 24:10. Nor is he reproducing Mark’s list of women at the cross nor Mark’s list of women who came to the tomb (Mk 16:1), since Salome isn’t included in Luke’s list, and Joanna (who is unique to Luke) is not included in Mark’s list. Luke seems to be listing women whom he really knows were present for the events on Easter morning. Evidently, he is not sure about Susanna’s presence or just does not bother to mention her, and he knows that Mary the mother of James was there on Easter morning even though she is not listed in his chapter 8. Thus, this is also an undesigned coincidence internal to Luke, a way in which fairly distant parts of Luke’s own narrative fit together in an apparently casual and non-deliberate way: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and various other women were with Jesus in Galilee and heard there Jesus’ own prediction of his crucifixion and resurrection. They subsequently went with him to Jerusalem and were present at the cross, burial, and empty tomb.

Another category of evidence bearing on the case for the resurrection is the phenomenon of reconcilable variations, so-named by the nineteenth century Anglican scholar Thomas Rawson Birks. [xiii] A reconcilable variation refers to when there exist two accounts of the same event, or at least two accounts that appear to cross over the same territory at some point, and at first blush they seem so divergent that it is almost awkward; but then, on further thought, they turn out to be reconcilable in some natural fashion after all. When two accounts appear at first so divergent that one is not sure they can be reconciled, that is significant evidence for their independence. When they turn out, upon closer inspection or upon learning more information, to be reconcilable without forcing after all, one has almost certainly independent accounts that dovetail.

Multiple instances of reconcilable variation pertain to the resurrection accounts. For example, it is popularly observed that Luke 24:36-49 reports Jesus as having appeared to “the eleven” who were all present together at the time (see vs. 33). This, so the argument goes, does not allow for Thomas’ absence from the group at the time of the appearance (as in John), nor a subsequent appearance to the disciples with Thomas present. Furthermore, John tells us that the appearance to the eleven with Thomas present occurred eight days later, whereas Luke seems to indicate that the ascension took place immediately after the appearance to the eleven. Luke 24:50-51 tell us, “Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them. While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven.” One possible reply is that “the eleven” is being used as a figure of speech, much as “the twelve” is used in that way by Paul (see 1 Cor 15:5). I do not, however, find this approach to be the most convincing, since it seems to be rather ad hoc, and there is no independent evidence that Luke used the term “the eleven” in this way. It also would not explain the apparent immediacy of Jesus’ ascension following the appearance to the eleven, allowing apparently no time for a subsequent appearance to the disciples with Thomas present. In response to this objection, it may be pointed out that, at the end of Luke, there is clear haste and a lack of specificity about time. Indeed, Luke 24:29 states that the men on the road to Emmaus pressed Jesus to stay with them for dinner because it was already evening and the day was “far spent.” We do not know what that means exactly, but it hardly meant three in the afternoon. Jesus then goes in with them; dinner is prepared, however long that took, and they sit down to eat. They recognize him as he breaks bread, and he disappears. They then immediately go back to Jerusalem, a distance of 60 stadia (Lk 24:13), which looks like it was about 10-12 km – that is, about 6 to 7 miles. This walk would take well over an hour, perhaps as long as two hours. They then chat with the disciples for a while and tell their story (vs. 35). Then Jesus appears and shows himself. They give him some food (vs. 42). Only after this does Jesus begin talking to them about the Scriptures, giving them some sort of sermon about how his death was foretold in the Scriptures (vss. 45ff). How long did that take? Jesus then leads them out to Bethany, a mile or two walk (c.f. Jn 11:18). If one tries to put this all on the same evening, it really looks like it would already be dark by that time, making it difficult for them even to witness the ascension into heaven (vs. 51). So even in Luke 24 alone, it does not look like all of this happened in one day. Evidently, Luke is either running out of scroll or in a hurry at that point, and he doesn’t appear to have full knowledge yet of exactly how long Jesus was on earth. Thus, he simply leaves it non-specific and clarifies in Acts 1.

It is also popularly alleged that Matthew has Jesus appear to the disciples only in Galilee (not in Judea), and the gospel of Luke and Acts have Jesus appear to his disciples only in Judea (not in Galilee). I would argue, however, that it is entirely plausible that Jesus’ instruction to remain in Jerusalem (Acts 1:4) was said to the disciples after they had returned to the Jerusalem area from Galilee during the 40 days on which Jesus remained on the earth, perhaps shortly or even immediately prior to the ascension. By all accounts, the ascension occurred from the region of the Mount of Olives near Bethany, so evidently, they went to Galilee and then came back.

Yet a further line of evidence for Luke’s honest reporting of the apostles’ claims concerning the resurrection comes from the principle of restraint. Not one of the gospels provides any details concerning the appearance of Jesus individually to Peter or to his brother James, despite the fact that Paul mentions both in 1 Corinthians 15:5,7. Luke is certainly aware at least of the appearance individually to Peter because he alludes briefly to it in passing in Luke 24:33-34. Why, then, does he not include an account of this appearance? This can be explained if Peter and James had both made it known that they had had an encounter with the risen Lord following the resurrection, but, for whatever reason, neither had made an account of this private meeting available for publication. Indeed, “if the Gospel writers were trying truthfully to record only what they either knew directly or had reliable sources to tell them about, they would have very little to say about such meetings, exactly as we find. But if they felt free to invent dialogue and scenes in order to fill in where information was otherwise missing, why would they not have done so here? Their restraint points to the conclusion that they are truthful, reliable recorders.” [xiv]

Thus, from the aforementioned lines of evidence, taken cumulatively, we can be confident that not only was Luke in a position to know what was being claimed by the apostles concerning the resurrection of Jesus, but Luke accurately records what they reported. What, though, best explains the apostles’ claims to have had encounters with the risen Jesus? It is to this question that I now turn.

What Best Explains the Apostles’ Claim?When evaluating any claim, three broad categories of explanation must be considered. Those are, (1) the claimant is deliberately deceiving; (2) the claimant is sincerely mistaken; and (3) the claimant is accurately reporting what happened. Those broad explanatory categories are mutually exhaustive (though one can envision scenarios where they are applicable in combination). The various lines of evidence adduced in the previous section of this paper may be brought to bear not only in confirming Luke as a faithful reporter of what the apostles claimed concerning the resurrection, but also in eliminating the first of those hypotheses stated above. Additional lines of evidence may, however, be adduced to further strengthen our case against the first hypothesis. It is beyond doubt that the “apostles passed their lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief of those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of conduct.” [xv] The book of Acts itself speaks of the intense persecution endured by the early Christians, including the martyrdom of James the son of Zebedee (Acts 12:2), the imprisonment of Peter (Acts 12:3-5), the beating of Peter and John (Acts 5:40), and the many sufferings of the apostle Paul for the name of Christ. Since the apostles’ willingness to suffer persecution and even martyrdom is more probable given the sincerity of their belief than otherwise, this may be taken as evidence disconfirming the first hypothesis, that they were deliberately setting out to deceive.

A further line of evidence against the first hypothesis is no known sect of Judaism was expecting the Messiah to be raised from the dead. [xvi] The Sadducees had no belief in the resurrection of the dead and the Pharisees believed only in a general resurrection at the end of time, but had no concept of one man rising to glory and immortality in the middle of history. There was therefore no obvious apologetic motivation for positing that Jesus had been raised from the dead. The crucifixion of Jesus was seen by many Jews, in light of Deuteronomy 21:23, as indicating Jesus’ failure to be the awaited Messiah, and Jews were hardly given to glorifying failed Messiahs. After the failed rebellion of Simon Bar Kochba against Rome (132-135 A.D.), nobody proclaimed that he had risen from the dead.

Other factors that argue against any hypothesis of conspiracy include the speed at which a conspiracy would have needed to get off the ground, as well as the number and variety of individuals who would have needed, against their own interests, to be involved in such a conspiracy. [xvii] This included the eleven, the apostle Paul, at least five or six women, Cleopas and his companion, James the brother of Jesus, Matthias and Barsabbas called Justus (who are both named in Acts 1:23 as fulfilling the requirements of an apostle, i.e. having been witnesses to the resurrection). Being conservative, therefore, and including only those individuals who are specifically named, there would have needed to be at least 23 individuals involved in the conspiracy. It is extremely improbable that all of those individuals had something to gain by asserting that Jesus had risen from the dead and that none of them would have reneged.

What, then, of the second hypothesis, namely, that the apostles were sincerely mistaken? I have already discussed how the multisensory nature of the claimed resurrection experiences is not something about which one might plausibly be honestly mistaken. There exists yet another line of evidence against that hypothesis. Jesus’ resurrection is said in all of the earliest sources to have taken place on the Sunday morning following His death at Passover. This is indicated in all four gospels as well as Paul, who indicates that Christ “was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:4). The evidence from the early church writings as well as the Roman writer Pliny the Younger (10.96.7), the book of Revelation (1:10), the book of Acts (20:7) and Paul (1 Corinthians 16:2) all indicate that early Christian worship took place not on the Sabbath day but on Sunday instead. This almost certainly reflects the apostolic claim that Jesus rose again on the Sunday. But why does Paul indicate that the Christ “was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (this is also indicated in Lk 24:7). The point at which Paul, I would suggest, is driving is that Christ represents the first man to be raised to glory and immortality, similar to the first fruits of the harvest that guarantees that the remainder of the harvest will come (c.f. 1 Corinthians 15:20). Indeed, the feast of first fruits was to be celebrated the day following the first Sabbath following the Passover – that is, the Sunday following Passover (Lev 23:11). Although the Pharisees and Sadducees disagreed over whether the Sabbath in question was the Day of Passover itself or the Sabbath following the Passover, the Sadducees (who took the latter view) were in charge of the temple in the first century and thus that was the view that prevailed in first century Jewish practice. It is quite the coincidence then that the earliest sources consistently indicate that Jesus rose from the dead on the day of first fruits, given its theological import. This sort of coincidence points to design, and thus away from the hypothesis of the apostles being honestly mistaken.

ConclusionHaving argued strongly against the first two explanatory categories, this leaves as the best explanation of the evidence discussed in this paper the one the angels themselves gave the disciples in Luke 24:5-6: “Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen.”

Footnotes:[i] Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus – A New Historiographical Approach (Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2010), 318-343.

[ii] Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry (New York: Prometheus, 2004), 43-44.

[iii] Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Vol. 1 (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2012), 431.

[iv] William Paley, Horae Paulinae or, the Truth of the Scripture History of St. Paul Evinced (In The Works of William Paley, Vol. 2 [London; Oxford; Cambridge; Liverpool: Longman and Co., 1838].

[v] Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (Tampa, FL: Deward Publishing Company, Ltd, 2017).

[vi] James Smith, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul: With Dissertations on the Life and Writings of St. Luke, and the Ships and Navigation of the Ancients, Fourth Edition, Revised and Corrected (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1880). See also Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Vol. 4 (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2015), 3555-3660.

[vii] R.W. White. “A Meteorological Appraisal of Acts 27:5-26.” The Expository Times 113, no. 12 (September 2002), 403-407.

[viii] Colin Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 331.

[ix] Tom Wright, “Appendix B”, in Anthony Flew, There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (2007) with Roy Abraham Varghese (San Francisco: Harper One), 207.

[x] Bart D. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (New York: HarperOne, 2014), kindle.

[xi] Ibid.

[xii] Lydia McGrew, The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices (Tampa, FL: Deward Publishing Company, Ltd, 2019), 272-282.

[xiii] Thomas Rawson Birks, Horae Evangelicae, or The Internal Evidence of the Gospel History (London: Seeleys, 1852). See also Lydia McGrew, The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices (Tampa, FL: Deward Publishing Company, Ltd, 2019), 316–321.

[xiv] Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (Ohio: DeWard Publishing Company, 2017), chap. 4, Kindle.

[xv] William Paley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity: Volume 1, Reissue Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 15.

[xvi] Tom Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis, Augsburg Fortress, 2003).

[xvii] Lydia McGrew, “Independence, conspiracy, and the resurrection”, Extra Thoughts, August 24th, 2020. http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/08/independence-conspiracy-and-resurrection.html

Recommended Resources Related to the TopicThe Resurrection of Jesus: The Tomb is Empty, Our Hope Is Not by Gary Habermas and Michael atton (Self-Paced Course)
Examining Historical Evidence for the Resurrection with Mike Licona (Podcast)
Doubting towards Faith by Bobby Conway (Self-Paced Course)

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)

The Footsteps of the Apostle Paul (mp4 Download), (DVD) by Dr. Frank Turek

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3LXLOpW

The post The Resurrection of Jesus: The Evidential Contribution of Luke-Acts appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

By Bobby Conway

Following Easter Sunday, it didn’t take long for skeptics to fabricate fictitious claims to debunk Christ’s resurrection. It’s easy to understand why. These critics knew that if they could dispel the resurrection, Christianity would crumble. And they weren’t wrong about that. Even Paul indicated, “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile, and you are still in your sins” (1 Corinthians 15:17). The problem is none of the objections raised by skeptics have been able to explain the resurrection away. That’s because they’re flimsy. For a mere sampling, here are three such theories.

First, Some Skeptics claimed, “Jesus’s body was stolen” This was the first theory to emerge which attempted to deny Christ’s resurrection. But think about it, if Jesus’ body was stolen, don’t you think the thieves would have brought the body to bear once the disciples claimed he’s alive? No doubt, their bluff would’ve been called. And if the disciples stole the body, what motivation would they have to die for a hoax which they created? As we’ve all heard before, “Many will die for what they think to be true, but who will die for what they know to be false?”

“Many will die for what they think to be true, but who will die for what they know to be false?”

Second, some skeptics claimed, “The People Were Hallucinating” Now we’re getting desperate. Perhaps one could argue in this fashion if there were only a few random encounters. But that’s not the case. In fact, Jesus appeared to his disciples on several different occasions, and one time, even appearing to 500 people at once. To think that a crowd that large collectively believed they set their eyes on the resurrected Christ is seemingly absurd. Adding to this, it’s hard to interpret the radical life change experienced by disciples such as Saul following his encounter with Christ on the Damascus Road, or the transformation of James, the half-brother of Jesus, or Thomas, or even Peter apart from an actual resurrection.

“Hallucination theory doesn’t explain the radical life-change of some Jesus’s harshest critics like Saul the Pharisee and James brother of Jesus?”

Third, some skeptics claimed, “Jesus Merely Passed Out.” This is known as the “swoon theory.” A view popularized in the 18th century, which suggested that Jesus never died on the cross, but merely passed out. To cast aspersion on the resurrection, adherents to the swoon theory contend that after Jesus was placed in the tomb and mistaken for dead, he was restored to consciousness at which point he then rolled away the tomb stone and announced, “Check it out, folks, I’m alive.” Are we so naïve as to think after being severely scourged, having his hands and feet nailed to a cross, his head punctured by a crown of thorns, his side stabbed, and his body wrapped in 75 pounds of burial cloth following his death, that Jesus somehow mustered the strength after regaining consciousness to unwrap himself, move a two-ton stone out of the way, bi-pass the guards only to then convince his disciples that he’s alive? I don’t think so. If that did happen, the only place he would’ve been discovered is at the nearest hospital.

The fact is, these desperate attempts to explain away the resurrection show that it’s easier and frankly, even more rational to simply believe the truth than to ascribe to one of these far-fetched fictional theories.

Happy Easter!

Recommended Resources Related to the TopicThe Resurrection of Jesus: The Tomb is Empty, Our Hope Is Not by Gary Habermas and Michael atton (Self-Paced Course)
Examining Historical Evidence for the Resurrection with Mike Licona (Podcast)
Doubting towards Faith by Bobby Conway (Self-Paced Course)

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)

The Footsteps of the Apostle Paul (mp4 Download), (DVD) by Dr. Frank Turek

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bobby serves as lead pastor of Image Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, and is well known for his YouTube ministry called, One Minute Apologist, which now goes by the name Christianity Still Makes Sense. He also serves as the Co-Host of Pastors’ Perspective, a nationally syndicated call-in radio show on KWVE in Southern California. Bobby earned his Master of Theology degree from Dallas Theological Seminary, his Doctor of Ministry in Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary, and his Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from the University of Birmingham (England) where he was supervised under David Cheetham and Yujin Nagasawa. Bobby’s also written several books including: The Fifth Gospel, Doubting Toward Faith, Does God Exist, and Fifty-One other Questions About God and the Bible and the forthcoming Christianity Still Makes Sense to be published by Tyndale in April 2024. He’s married to his lovely wife Heather and together they have two grown kids: Haley and Dawson.

The post Resurrection: Fact or Fiction – An Easter Sermon appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

By Ryan Leasure

Is it hateful or arrogant to claim that Jesus is the only way of salvation? Charles Templeton thought so. He argued:

“Christians are a small minority in the world. Approximately four out of every five people on the face of the earth believe in gods other than the Christian God. The more than five billion people who live on earth revere or worship more than three hundred gods. If one includes the animist or tribal religions, the number rises to more than three thousand. Are we to believe that only Christians are right?”[1]

What are we to make of Templeton’s claims? Is it presumptuous to say that Jesus is the one true way of salvation? Or even worse, are Christians guilty of committing “absurd religious chauvinism” as some put it?[2] These common refrains are the fundamental tenets of religious pluralism — the belief that all religions are essentially the same and lead to God.

In a culture that abhors dogmatic truth claims, should Christians heed the warnings of the religious pluralists and stop teaching that Jesus is the only way of salvation? I don’t think so for a couple of reasons. First, religious pluralism is a self-defeating proposition. It crumbles in the face of logical scrutiny. And second, pluralism ignores scientific and historical finding. Let’s explore both in turn.

Religious Pluralism is Self-DefeatingTo support their claim, religious pluralists share the parable of the blind men and the elephant. The parable goes something like this:

There were five blind men who all encountered an elephant in a field. The first man grabbed the tail and said, “oh it’s a rope.” The second blind man touched a leg and asserted, “no, it’s a tree.” The third blind man grabbed the trunk and declared, “no, it’s a snake.” The fourth blind man grabbed a tusk and cried, “no, it’s a spear.” The fifth blind man touched its side and exclaimed, “no, it’s a wall.”

The pluralist argues that the blind men are like the different world religions. Each belief system naively thinks their view of reality is the correct one, but, in the end, they’re all misguided. Rather, all the religions are fundamentally the same and will ultimately lead to the same place. No single “right way” exists according to the pluralist.

The Religions Contradict Each OtherWhile pluralists like to mention that all religions teach essentially the same thing, nothing could be further from the truth. Let’s take, for example, the nature of God in each major religion. Hinduism acknowledges multitudes of gods that are one with creation. Buddhism, while extremely spiritual, does not worship a god. New Age spirituality teaches that each person should see themselves as god. Islam believes in one God, named Allah, who is transcendent above creation. Judaism believes in a transcendent God named Jehovah. Christianity teaches that God is triune in nature, and is both transcendent and immanent in his creation.

Let’s look at one more example — how each religion views Jesus of Nazareth. Hinduism, Buddhism, and New Age all say he was a wise, moral teacher. Islam teaches that he was a prophet, though not divine, and that he didn’t die on a cross. Judaism teaches that he was a false prophet who led many astray and was crucified for blasphemy. Christianity teaches that Jesus was divine, he died on a cross, and he rose again from the dead.

If space permitted me, I could also explain how each of these religions differ on creation, scripture, the nature of humanity, sin, salvation, and eternal life. In other words, these religions have almost nothing in common.

Pluralism Defies LogicTo say all religions teach the same thing commits all kinds of logical fallacies. For example, Christianity teaches that God is a Trinity. God, however, cannot be both a Trinity (Christianity) and not a Trinity (Hinduism, Buddhism, New Age, Islam, and Judaism) at the same time and in the same way.

This would violate the Law of Noncontradiction which teaches that a thing cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same respect. To suggest, therefore, that all religions can be true about the nature of God violates one of the most fundamental laws of logic.

Or consider the nature of Jesus. It cannot be true that Jesus is God (Christianity) and not God (Hinduism, Buddhism, New Age, Islam, and Judaism) at the same time and in the same way. Again, this would violate the Law of Noncontradiction.

Pluralism Makes Exclusive Claims TooIronically, pluralists make exclusive claims themselves. In effect, they’re saying that pluralism is true, while all contrary religious claims are false. That is to say, pluralists are guilty of doing the very same thing that they chastise the other religions for doing.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, should we say the pluralists are hateful for saying their view of reality is the right one while all of us naive religious folk are wrong?

Pluralism Ignores Scientific and Historical FactsNow it’s one thing to say that all the different religions can’t be right. It’s another to claim that one of them is the truth. Strong evidence, though, points in the direction of Christianity.

Scientific EvidenceConsider the origin of the universe. All the scientific data suggests that space, time, and matter, all came into existence simultaneously a finite time ago. Meaning the cause of the universe must be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial.

This fits nicely with the Christian belief that God created the world out of nothing, but it contradicts pantheistic religions such as Hinduism which teach that god is one with the universe — bound by space, time, and material. Additionally, the scientific data that the universe came into existence a finite time ago contradicts Buddhism’s belief in an eternal/cyclical universe.

The scientific evidence leaves the theistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Deism) as possibilities. Yet when we turn our attention to Jesus of Nazareth, Christianity quickly rises to the top.

Historical EvidenceFor example, ancient historians are unanimous that Jesus of Nazareth died by crucifixion in the first century. Islam, however, denies that Jesus — a prophet from God — was crucified. Since dozens of independent historical sources confirm Jesus’ death by crucifixion, we can be confident that Islam doesn’t pass the historical test as the one true religion. In fact, Jesus’ crucifixion is so certain that prominent skeptic scholar John Dominic Crossan admits, “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”[3]

With only three viable options remaining, we turn our focus to the resurrection. Did Jesus rise again from the dead? If he did, Christianity is true, while Judaism and Deism are not. And we have lots of reasons to believe Jesus did, in fact, rise again. Let me give you two quick examples.

First, Christians claim that women were the first eye-witnesses to this incredible event. In a culture where nobody took a woman’s word seriously, it’s hard to imagine that Christians would have made up this detail. Since the early Christians would have had no motivation to make up this embarrassing fact, we have good reason to believe that this detail accurately portrays what really happened.

Additionally, Jesus’ closest followers were all willing to die for their belief that he rose again. Don’t you think, at some point, at least one of them would have caved under the threat of crucifixion or beheading and said the entire thing was a hoax? Yet not one of them did. This is telling, especially since those same disciples acted like cowards during Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion.

If Jesus rose again from the dead, that means what he claimed about himself has been vindicated — namely that he is God, and that he is the one true way of salvation.

Is it Hateful to Say Jesus Is the Only Way?I don’t know anyone who would say that Jesus of Nazareth was hateful. Most actually affirm the exact opposite, he was incredibly moral and loving. Yet it’s this same Jesus who makes the claim that he is “the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

As we ponder the question at hand, consider the following statement by outspoken atheist and famed illusionist Penn Jillette:

“I’ve always said that I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there’s a heaven and a hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life, and you think that it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward—and atheists who think people shouldn’t proselytize and who say just leave me alone and keep your religion to yourself—how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that? I mean, if I believed, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that a truck was coming at you, and you didn’t believe that truck was bearing down on you, there is a certain point where I tackle you. And this is more important than that.”[4]

So is it hateful to tell people Jesus is the only way? I submit to you that it’s the loving thing to do.

Footnotes[1] Charles Templeton, Farewell to God (Toronto, Ontario: McClelland & Stewart), 27
[2] John Hick and Paul Knitter, eds., The Myth of Christian Uniqueness, (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock), 141
[3] John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991), 145.
[4] Quoted in, Justin Taylor, “How Much Do You Have to Hate Someone to Not Proselytize?” TheGospelCoalition.org, 18 Nov 2009, accessed 20 March 2023 at: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/how-much-do-you-have-to-hate-somebody-to-not-proselytize/

Recommended Resources Related to This TopicIs Original Sin Unfair? (DVD Set), (mp4 Download Set), and (MP3 Set) by Dr. Frank Turek
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
Is Original Sin Unfair? by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)
How Can Jesus Be the Only Way? (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ryan Leasure holds a Master of Arts from Furman University and a Masters of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Currently, he’s a Doctor of Ministry candidate at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He also serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/3JF54Wf

The post Is it Hateful to Say Jesus is the Only Way? appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

By Al Serrato

Making sense of the existence of a place like Hell is a common struggle for the Christian apologist. Almost immediately, we are placed on the defensive, being asked to justify how a “loving” God could condemn any of his creation to a place of constant, and eternal, torment. I’ve often heard the challenge brought like this: “Isn’t God’s love for us like that of a parent? Can you imagine any loving parent ever wishing, or wanting, such extreme punishment for their own child?”

The answer, of course, is no. No parent would delight in tormenting his children. And neither does God. But just as human parents must sometimes resort to court orders to keep their children away, so too does God employ the equivalent of an eternal “restraining order.” Though not intended this way by the atheist, the analogy to parental love actually works against the challenger’s case, because it makes clear the need for enforced separation to be imposed even in the context of what was originally intended as a loving relationship.

Sometimes Children Victimize Their ParentsEveryday throughout this country, there are parents who are being victimized by their children. In many cases, the children want something that the parent is not able, or willing, to give. Often, the abuse consists of verbal or physical assaults or of some form of theft, and many times the problem is fueled by an underlying drug or alcohol addiction. In many such cases, the abused parents seek assistance from the police and the courts to have their offspring restrained from contacting them. For most, this final step is heartbreaking, but it is often the last resort, the only means by which the parent can safeguard his or her wellbeing. In some, more extreme, cases, the parent’s testimony in court might contribute to a criminal conviction which will land the son or daughter in prison, sometimes for life. The point is simple enough: love has its limits, and there comes a time when separation from an abuser is the only path that is left.

“The point is simple enough: love has its limits, and there comes a time when separation from an abuser is the only path that is left.”

If this causes the offspring pain, that pain is not “intended” by the parent; it is, instead, an unavoidable consequence of the path set in motion by the offender.

How Does This Analogy Apply to God?Applying this analogy to an eternal setting has its drawbacks. God, of course, cannot be victimized. He has no fear of us, and no need to incarcerate us in order to protect himself. But does he not have the same right to association that we do? When a person uses his or her free will to rebel against God, God is not required to ignore that rebellion. Indeed, if God truly is a perfect being, embodying perfect justice, he could not simply ignore it and remain true to his nature. For God to maintain perfect justice, he must attach an appropriate consequence to violations of his law. On earth, that justice often involves incarcerating the wrongdoer, to both punish the offender and to minimize his ability to continue to use his free will to harm others. Similarly, God makes use of his power to separate those who refuse to accept the gift of life that he offers, an offer, it bears noting, he makes on his terms only

Consider EternityFor those who have died in rebellion, no further chance is offered them. Eternally “restrained” from fellowship with God, they experience eternity aware of all that they have lost. Consider for a moment what eternal separation from God must be like. Despite the effort by so many to pile up money and toys and success in this world, these things do not make life rich or fulfilling. All the riches and success in the world would mean nothing if a person were utterly alone. No, such things are simply means to an end, an end which always involves relationship with others. That is why solitary confinement is so destructive to the human mind and spirit. In the end, it is human companionship – rich and meaningful relationships – that brings joy in life. Conversely, the loss of such attachments often lead to depression, alcohol and drug use to blunt the pain, and in some cases suicide.

Every relationship on earth, however satisfying, necessarily involves a flawed human being that is not capable of bringing limitless joy. Additionally, while we still draw breath, the possibility of adding new relationships continues. What happens to us, however, at death? What do we encounter when we see more clearly, for the first time, the One who created us, the source of all life, the Being who embodies all perfections? Every person on earth is but a mere shadow of this ultimate Being. When we begin to consider the joy we feel when deeply in love, or conversely the agony brought on by the loss of a loved one, and multiply that experience not by millions or billions, but by infinity itself, we may begin to see why human writers, even divinely inspired ones, cannot quite grasp the horror of the thought. A lake of fire would seem tame by contrast.

But this place of suffering is internal, self-centered, self-focused. An eternity of caring only about oneself, apart and alone and without hope of reunification with the source of joy and love. It is not a place where God inflicts torture, but rather one in which infinite torment awaits on the far side of the abyss. God derives no pleasure when he acts to restrain an unrepentant sinner. Indeed, he provides an alternative – a means of salvation – to all.

For those who refuse His gift, they will have only themselves – literally, and eternally – to blame.

Recommended resources related to the topic:Hell? The Truth about Eternity (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (Mp4 Download Set) | Frank Turek

Short Answers to Long Questions (DVD) and (mp4 Download) | Frank Turek

Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) | Frank Turek

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

The post Is Hell An Eternal Restraining Order? appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

By Brian Chilton

The term omnipresence describes the all-presence of God. Omnipresence is a compound word comprised of the word “omni”, meaning “all,” and “presence” which defines a person or being’s location. Thus, “omnipresence” speaks of God’s all-present nature. This means that spatial locations do not limit God. Existing as a transcendent being, God is present in all places at all times. Let’s take a brief look at how omnipresence impacts our understanding of God.

Divine Omnipresence Implies God Is Not Limited by the Physical RealmFirst, God’s omnipresent nature implicates that the physical realm does not limit God’s presence. Contrary to popular opinion, God is not limited by the physical sphere. Thomas Aquinas argues that in addition to God’s omnipresent nature, God is the only Being in all existence that exists as pure act.[1] That means everything else, including the laws of nature, are potentialities. God is pure existence.

We will return to the distinction between God’s presence and the physical realm in a moment. But for now, one should understand as the psalmist extolled in his rhetorical question, inquiring, “Where can I go to escape your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence?” (Psa. 139:7, CSB). David continues by saying, “If I live at the eastern horizon or settle at the western limits, even there your hand will lead me; your right hand will hold on to me” (Psa. 139:10, CSB). David teaches that God’s presence is everywhere, at all times and places. Even though the universe is estimated to be some 250 times bigger than what is observed, God is not limited by even the incomprehensible expanse of the universe.

This even impacts dimensional thinking. Physicists claim that the physical universe contains at least 11 dimensions and could escalate to amazingly 28 dimensional realms. If true, this would mean that God would exist in all dimensions and even one beyond. Omnipresence also indicates omnidimensionality.[2] Hugh Ross explains,

“Whoever caused the universe, then, must possess at least one more time dimension (or some attribute, capacity, super-dimension, or supra-dimension that encompasses all the properties of time). To put it another way, God is able to interact with us in ways we interpret (through our time-bound experience of cause and effect) as the result of timelike capacities in the person or essence of God or the existence of other timelike dimensions or properties through which God operates.”[3]

Divine Omnipresence Implies God Is Not Limited by the Spiritual RealmSecond, divine omnipresence also indicates that God is not limited by the spiritual domain. Romans 8:35 says,

“Who can separate us from the love of Christ? Can affliction or distress or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? . . . No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:35, 37–39′; CSB).

Notice that the text states that no angelic or spiritual being could separate a believer from God’s love. Neither death nor life could separate a person from God’s incomparable love. But how is this possible? God’s love is inseparable when the tremendous ability of God to transcend the scope of time, space, and the spiritual domains of heaven and hell is understood. Not even the spiritual domain can separate us from the benevolent, loving presence of God Almighty.

Divine Omnipresence Implies The Special Nature of God’s EssenceThird, God’s omnipresent essence does not indicate that everything in nature is God. Thus, omnipresence does not teach a pantheistic notion of God—that is, the idea that all things are in some way divine. Aquinas contends that “God is in all things by His power” by his presence and essence. [4] In other words, all things are held together by the omnipresent power of God. However, Aquinas distinguishes between God’s essence and the essence of the thing itself.[5] Though the creation is held together by God’s presence and power, that does not indicate that the material thing becomes God. God’s presence is distinct from the physical and spiritual domain.

Divine Omnipresence Implies That God Alone Possesses OmnipresenceFourth, nothing and no one can possess the omnipresent attribute that God possesses. Aquinas asserts, “To be everywhere primarily and absolutely, is proper to God … But a thing is everywhere absolutely when it does not belong to it to be everywhere accidentally … It belongs therefore to a thing to be everywhere absolutely when, on any supposition, it must be everywhere; and this properly belongs to God alone.”[6] Aquinas goes on to eloquently state, “Therefore to be everywhere primarily and absolutely, belongs to God, and is proper to Him: because whatever number of places be supposed to exist, God must be in all of them, not as to a part of Him, but as to His very self.”[7] Therefore, the claim that people can be God is sheer insanity when considering that people are spatially confined to a singular spatial location. Only God could possess the attribute of omnipresence. No angel or demon, and not even Satan himself, could possess the awesome power of omnipresence. God and God alone is the Omnipresent Being.

Divine Omnipresence Implies That God Is The Perfect JudgeGod’s benevolent and just judgment serves as a powerful aspect of God’s omnipresent nature. Since God is always present in every place, that indicates that God sees all that happens in every place at every point in time. Just the sheer immensity of such a task overwhelms my feeble mind.

Understand that this is not just mere philosophical conjecture. The statement is found securely in the context of Scripture. For instance, Solomon conveys that the “eyes of the Lord are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good” (Prov. 15:3, NIV). Because of God’s omnipresent vision, God is able to issue just and fair judgment as God knows all the circumstances of an event while even understanding the internal thought processes of each person involved.

God’s omnipresent judgment should cause a believer to pause before judging their neighbor. Paul asks, “why do you judge your brother or sister? Or you, why do you despise your brother or sister? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God” (Rom. 14:10; CSB). James, agreeing with Paul, writes, “There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?” (James. 4:12, CSB).

ConclusionGod’s omnipresent nature is truly awe-inspiring. God’s omnipresent nature ensures that God can help us at any point in our lives and in any place. It assures that God can be with our friends and families even when we are physically separated from them by hundreds of miles. God’s omnipresent nature also guarantees that nothing can separate us from God’s loving presence, not even death. With a firm grasp of God’s omnipresent nature, we should be led to live our lives with courage and faith rather than fear and doubt. If we have a personal relationship with God, then we are never alone.

Footnotes[1] Aquinas, Summa Theologica 1.q8.a4.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica 1.q8.a3.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Hugh Ross, Beyond the Cosmos: What Recent Discoveries in Astrophysics Reveal about the Glory and Love of God (Colorado Springs, Colo.: NavPress, 1999), 33–34.

[6] “First, because it was shown above that there is some first being, whom we call God; and that this first being must be pure act, without the admixture of any potentiality, for the reason that, absolutely, potentiality is posterior to act. Now everything which is in any way changed, is in some way in potentiality. Hence it is evident that it is impossible for God to be in any way changeable.” Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I.q9.a1, in A Summa of the Summa: The Essential Philosophical Passages of St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, ed. Peter Kreeft (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990), 105.

[7] That is, God is not limited by any dimension.

Recommended resources related to the topic:What is God Really Like? A View from the Parables by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

What is God Like? Look to the Heavens by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)

Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics by Brian Chilton (Book)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Brian G. Chilton earned his Ph.D. in the Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University (with high distinction). He is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast and the founder of Bellator Christi. Brian received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); earned a Certificate in Christian Apologetics from Biola University, and plans to purse philosophical studies in the near future. He is also enrolled in Clinical Pastoral Education to better learn how to empower those around him. Brian is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has served in ministry for over 20 years and currently serves as a clinical hospice chaplain as well as a pastor.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3meSo0c

The post What is Divine Omnipresence? appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

By Bobby Conway

The feeling of moral guilt is a universal experience – that inward gnaw or inner ouch that we have done something wrong. It is that feeling a line has been crossed, a law has been broken, which leaves one wondering if we are genuinely guilty. But are these feelings just that—feelings? A mere subjective experience? A cognitive disrupt? A snafu?

Are Guilt Feelings only Guilt Feelings?Well, that depends. A person can feel guilty and not be guilty, i.e., pseudo guilt, while a person can also be guilty and not feel guilty. This may be the result of an anesthetized conscience, one’s moral ignorance, some level of psychopathy, or whatever the case may be. In the event we feel guilty, how can we know if our feelings are objective? The answer is surprisingly simple. We should look for a corresponding link between our feelings of guilt and our moral actions. For example, if Steve feels guilty for robbing a local bank that he never did, then he’s not experiencing objective guilt, but from a bad case of pseudo guilt. However, if Steve feels guilty for robbing a bank because he did, then his feelings of guilt are objective in that his feelings correspond to reality. In other words, there’s a corresponding link. An objective match. The reason Steve feels guilty is because he is guilty.

Unfortunately, some people wrongly relegate our feelings to the subjective department, while claiming only reason is objectively dependable. That’s not only wrong. It’s naïve, really naïve.

Just as our reason can provide logically informative thoughts that are either true or false, objective, or subjective, so to our feelings can provide emotionally informative thoughts that are also either true or false, objective, or subjective. Therefore, it’s patently false to assume all our feelings are subjective and can’t provide objective intel. Just as it’s patently false to assume that our reason provides only true thoughts and is always objective.

It’s patently false to assume all our feelings are subjective and can’t provide objective intel. Just as it’s patently false to assume that our reason provides only true thoughts and is always objective.

Feelings Aren’t All BadWhile our feelings certainly can mislead us, they also have the capacity to capture our attention and rightfully so. And this is especially true relating to feelings of guilt. From the Christian worldview perspective, our feelings of guilt are God’s way of grabbing our attention. Like a check engine light, these feelings are meant to alert us to the objective fact that we have failed to make good on our moral obligations. That we have offended our Moral Lawgiver. That we have fractured our relationship with him and need moral repair. But fortunately, God has not left us without a remedy. There’s a way to unload our guilt. And that way is through Christ. Via his atonement, believers can both acknowledge their moral trespass and ask for forgiveness and subsequently experience both forgiveness for their objectively morally guilty action, while also expecting to have their feelings of guilt soothed on account of Christ’s atoning love and grace.

Recommended Resources Related to This Topic Can Atheism Account for Objective Morality (crossexamined.org) by Ryan Leasure [Blogpost] | Ryan Leasure
Can Empathy Ground Morality (crossexamine.org) by Timothy Fox [Blogpost] | Timothy Fox
Does Our Morality Come From Our DNA? (crossexamined.org) by Neil Mammen [Blogpost] | Neil Mammen
Legislating Morality (Book), (mp4 download), (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), (PowerPoint download), and (PowerPoint CD) by Frank Turek

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bobby serves as lead pastor of Image Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, and is well known for his YouTube ministry called, One Minute Apologist, which now goes by the name Christianity Still Makes Sense. He also serves as the Co-Host of Pastors’ Perspective, a nationally syndicated call-in radio show on KWVE in Southern California. Bobby earned his Master of Theology degree from Dallas Theological Seminary, his Doctor of Ministry in Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary, and his Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from the University of Birmingham (England) where he was supervised under David Cheetham and Yujin Nagasawa. Bobby’s also written several books including: The Fifth Gospel, Doubting Toward Faith, Does God Exist, and Fifty-One other Questions About God and the Bible and the forthcoming Christianity Still Makes Sense to be published by Tyndale in April 2024. He’s married to his lovely wife Heather and together they have two grown kids: Haley and Dawson.

The post Can Moral Guilt Feelings Ever Be Objective? appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

By Jason Jimenez

As American culture grows increasingly more secular, churches are no longer carrying the kind of authority and influence they once had. Church is no longer a top priority for the bulk of young Americans, and a growing number of Christians don’t see the need to put down roots in a church.

However, it may surprise you that there’s still a dedicated population of young people who say church is a top priority, and that faith is the single-most important thing in their lives. This is promising—and is something we should get excited about.

So, instead of another report about the horrible and depressing findings about Millennials (Gen Y) and Plurals (Gen Z)—I thought it important to share with you five encouraging findings that explains why 30% of young Christians remain committed to church.

Reason Number One: They Have Personal Relationship with JesusMost young people who were raised in the church, either never made a genuine profession of faith, or were never discipled by adult Christians. However, this 30% of active Christians in the church have a bona fide relationship with Jesus. To this group, Christianity is a relationship, not a religion. They didn’t just go to church because their parents did. They keep going to church because they desire to grow in their faith with other like-minded Christians.

Reason Number Two: They Desire to Learn the Bible These young Christians have a big appetite to learn what they believe and to do what the Bible says to do. A great verse that speaks to this is James 1:22, which reads, “Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says” (NIV). This group of young people is not looking to be deceived, but rather perceive the will of the Lord for their lives. And they know the Bible has the answers they can trust.

Reason Number Three: They were Raised by Parents Who Value ChurchAs a pastor, and a father of four, my wife and I have seen firsthand the impact the church has had in our children’s lives. When parents make church a priority, it instills in their children to never give it up. For these young Christians, church has not just been a great resource, but a place they call home. For them, church is a place they have come to trust and rely on to speak truth into their lives, and help them develop their spiritual gifts. So, kudos to you, mom and dad, for teaching your kids the importance of church!

Reason Number Four: They Have Community In Their ChurchThe relational aspect of a young person’s faith is huge! Meaningful relationships are a vital part of the success and well-being of young people. Without community, young people are prone to stray from the faith, and get caught up in all sorts of things they will later regret. Thus, one thing we have found with this 30% of churchgoers is their loyalty and accountability to strong community.

Reason Number Five: They Love to ServeThe final contributing factor we’ve discovered that keeps this group engaged in the church is a sense of mission. Serving others at church gives purpose to young people and brings a sense of fulfillment in their lives. I remember one student telling me at one of our Summit sessions that serving others at church helps her draw closer to Christ. I couldn’t agree more!

So, parents, take heart in knowing that there is a remnant of young Christians serving faithfully in their churches; and may we join together in praying that God will use them to reach their generation with the gospel of Jesus Christ!

Recommended resources related to the topic:Letters to a Young Progressive by Mike Adams (Book)
Intellectual Predators: How Professors Prey on Christian Students (DVD) (mp3) (mp4 Download)
Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Jason Jimenez is President of STAND STRONG Ministries and author of Challenging Conversations: A Practical Guide to Discuss Controversial Topics in the church. For more info, check out www.standstrongministries.org.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3lQlgff

The post Five Reasons Why 30% of Students Aren’t Dropping Out of Church appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

By Melissa Doughterty

Many people see “unequally yoked” in a Bible verse or hear it in conversation and seem to have one of two thoughts come into their mind: (1) Make sure I’m equally yoked with my spouse, or (2) Why does Paul care about anyone’s egg yolks, much less them being equal?

As important as getting good protein matters, this verse definitely doesn’t have anything to do with poultry. And some are surprised to learn that it’s not limited to marriage. I want to help break this down more.

What is a Yoke Anyways?A yoke is a wooden beam that connects two large animals, like oxen, and helps them work equally and together. They carry the burden of work together. It would be attached to a plow or cart, and they’d pull it simultaneously as partners. Basically, they’re teamed up together. So with that in mind, let’s read the scripture:

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with the devil? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.”
2 Corinthians 6: 14-18 (ESV)

With the description of being “yoked” together, picture the image of the oxen yoked together, and imagine that they’re uneven, that one ox is yoked improperly, and it’s off balance. This causes the cart to go uneven, and the oxen cannot work together. This causes them to go around in circles or stop altogether. I also envision a three-legged race where people have their legs tied together, and they have to work together to get to the finish line, but one person either refuses to move, or they were tied incorrectly, and they can’t work together because of it. One person is just dragging the other like a bag of rocks, trying to progress but can’t.

What is the Context?As with any passage of Scripture, it’s helpful to know who’s writing, why he’s writing, and whom he’s writing to. Paul is writing this letter to the Corinthian church to defend his authority and denounce people who were twisting truth. There always seemed to be moral issues within the church, and in both letters to the Corinthians, Paul addresses this. In chapter 6, Paul just got done addressing the Corinthian’s belief that Paul “restricts” them.

Paul loved the Corinthians, and he wanted them to know that. In chapter 6 verses 11-13, He says that they feel hurt by him and restricted, but he’s saying, no, I’m not restricting you. He’s saying that they’re restricting themselves, ironically, through their affection to the world and pride within themselves.

This is so familiar, isn’t it? We see this today, too, where people think it’s “unloving” or “judgmental” to even talk about moral restrictions.

With that as a backdrop to the verses about being unequally yoked, we can better understand why Paul would use that as an example. Paul is speaking to the overly broad affections of the Corinthian Christians. They had joined themselves —yoked themselves— to unbelievers, preventing their reconciliation with Paul. Paul is saying not to yoke together in this way because it causes damage to their relationship with God and other believers. The idea of “do not be unequally yoked together” is based on Deuteronomy 22:9, which prohibits yoking together two different animals. It’s talking about joining two things that should not be joined. Like ketchup on ice cream. Or using turpenoid with acrylic paint.

Or like pineapple on pizza. (Fight me.)

Many people use this passage when talking about marrying an unbeliever, which is true, but Paul is talking about much more than just that. It really applies to any environment where we let the world influence our thinking to the point that we compromise our beliefs or syncretize with theirs. In other words, it’s “conforming to the world,” as it says in Romans 12:2.

“Unequally yoked” refers to any environment where we let the world influence our thinking to the point that we compromise our beliefs or syncretize with theirs.

On the other side, some people use this verse to say we should never even be around or have anything to do with people with different beliefs than we do, and that’s just demonstrably false. Jesus didn’t even do this. What Paul is not saying is that we should never associate with unbelievers. The idea is to be in the world but not of the world. We’re not meant to be theological hermits in our religious echo chambers, only associating with people that agree with us. This isn’t biblical and doesn’t follow the biblical command to make disciples in Matthew 28 or to know what we believe and why we believe it, as it says in 1 Peter 3:15. We hide our light under a bush, and Jesus says not to do that, we need to let it shine. This doesn’t mean that if we have a weak conscience or struggle with being impressionable or people pleasers, we need to put ourselves in spiritually dangerous positions. We each need to discern our sensitivities and be wise about them. But that doesn’t mean we need to treat unbelievers with contempt or develop a superiority complex within ourselves by using this verse as an excuse to never associate with people of a different viewpoint or beat Christians over the head if they’re kind or friendly with unbelievers.

That’s simply unbiblical and frankly pretty unhealthy, in my opinion.

I mean, here we are speaking about yokes… some people place an impossible yoke on others, placing a burden that Jesus came to relieve. They use this passage in an extreme way, as a weapon, almost against their fellow brethren. There is no pleasing them. They completely miss the point of the passage.

But isn’t it more loving to share their yoke?The difference here has a lot to do with boundaries. The Corinthian Christians thought, much like people do today, that it’s “loving” to accept people’s sin along with righteousness, darkness along with light, the devil along with Christ. When Paul says not to be unequally yoked, I’d like to think of it as the first-century version of the coexist or tolerance sticker. Don’t be a coexist sticker. You can’t just add the love of God without renouncing evil.

The best example of the context of what Paul is saying here is to look at the behavior of the Corinthians and see that he’s saying that they thought like worldly people, not like godly people. Because of their unhealthy ungodly associations, it caused them to stumble and sin. Paul is correcting this and trying to reconcile with them.

To be yoked together with someone means that you are in a compromising partnership with them, and you’re compromising your beliefs to do it. It’s a type of syncretism. This is mixing the Christian message with the more culturally accepted beliefs around you and making a hybrid sort of Christianity that seems to work for everyone. But really, it’s for the purpose of not offending those around you. Compare this with what’s called contextualization, which is what we want to do when sharing the gospel in a culturally appropriate way with unbelievers while not sacrificing the truth of the gospel to appease the people and culture.

Recommended resources related to the topic:Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4

Have you Thought About Marriage today by Bob Perry Blog

LifeGivers Apologetics: Women Designed and Equipped to Share Reasons for the Hope Within (Book/ Study Guide – Teacher’s Version and Student’s Version) by Tricia Scribner

Woman to Woman: Preparing Yourself to Mentor (Book) by Edna Ellison & Tricia Scribner

Does Love and Tolerance Equal Affirmation? (DVD) (Mp4) by Dr. Frank Turek

4 P’s & 4 Q’s: Quick Case FOR Natural Marriage & AGAINST Same-Sex Marriage (DVD) by Dr. Frank Turek

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Melissa Dougherty is a Christian Apologist best known for her YouTube channel as an ex-new ager. She has two associate’s degrees, one in Early Childhood Multicultural Education, and the other in Liberal Arts. She also has a bachelor’s degree in Religious Studies at Southern Evangelical Seminary.

The post What Does it Mean to be Unequally Yoked? appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

By Bob Perry

The church service at our suburban Cincinnati non-denominational church had barely ended when I started receiving text messages from friends. All of them shared some version of the same question my wife and I were asking each other about the sermon we had just heard from a visiting preacher: “What in the world was that?!” The simple answer was that we had unknowingly let a wolf in the sheep pen.

The sermon was delivered by a man who on the surface was someone we could trust. He was a professor from a reputable Christian university, with master’s degrees in both Divinity and New Testament Studies and a Ph.D. in Philosophy/New Testament Exegesis. He had preached at our church on several occasions over the years. His sermons had never been notably good or bad. But this Sunday morning was different. He had more than a message to deliver.

He had an agenda.

Scripture TwistingThe visiting preacher’s message was based on Ephesians 2:11-22, a text that starts with a “therefore” connecting it to the previous passage. That means it’s sandwiched between Paul’s explanation of Christ’s person and mission at the beginning of Chapter 2, and his clarification in Chapter 3 that the Gospel is also meant for the Gentiles.

The unmistakable point of this passage is that the Law, which had excluded non-Jews, had been superseded by the grace we receive through Christ’s sacrifice. It’s about Spirit-vs-Law, grace-vs-works. It’s a call to unity wherein Paul was exhorting his readers to recognize that the Gentiles were no longer “foreigners and aliens” but are fellow members of God’s household. He was clarifying a theological point about the unifying nature of salvation and the shared solution to our human rebellion and hostility toward God.

Changing the SubjectOur guest preacher acknowledged all this in passing. But four minutes into his message, things took an insidious turn. His focus subtly shifted from the solution for man’s hostility toward God to the reality of human beings’ hostility toward one another. Suddenly, we were hearing about diversity, inclusion, “minority status,” and the human inclination for conflict.

He had changed the subject. His goal had not been to exegete the passage in question; it had been to deliver a cultural message.

Once the subtle change of subject morphed into the central point, we were treated to a lecture about a lack of diversity in the demographics of typical suburban midwestern community churches like ours. We were warned about Evangelical Christianity’s bent toward a toxic “Christian Nationalism.” These topics were lead-ins to the message he really wanted to deliver. That came when he began reading us letters he had received from his diverse list of friends in response to a query he had offered them: “What do you want white American Christians to understand about Christians like you?

The specter of division is built right into his question. And it didn’t take long for it to bear fruit.

Critiquing People They’ve Never MetThough he later denied knowing much about Critical Race Theory (CRT) or having any intention of talking about it, the letters he read could have formed a bullet point summary of its tenets. They included the declaration that “it’s not enough for white Christians to be ‘”non-racist,” we need them to be ‘anti-racist,”’ and the demand that “we need white brothers and sisters to not only acknowledge their own racist tendencies, but to also confront and challenge the racism of family, friends, co-workers, and church folk.” We were called on to “reimagine and reinvent systems that make it more difficult for African Americans to realize the American dream.” And we were “comforted” in learning that a woman who had never met a single person in our congregation had assured us, “I do not hate you. I just pray that one day I will be able to wholeheartedly forgive you.”

It isn’t hard to imagine the damage this thirty-minute cultural hand grenade caused when it detonated inside our church. So, it pays to stop at this point and reflect on the claims and assumptions built into these serious accusations and ask how they are in any way related to the text in Ephesians 2:11-22.

They aren’t. And that’s the problem.

Eisegesis -vs- ExegesisOur visiting preacher wasn’t exegeting the meaning of the text or drawing an application from (ex in Greek) it. He was imposing his own predetermined view into (eis in Greek) the passage. That’s called eisegesis. It’s the opposite of exegesis.

No doubt, racism is a blight on society. We all need to talk about it. But making generalized assumptions about the actions and attitudes of entire groups of people we don’t know, and segregating “white Christians” from “Christians of color,” are not good alternatives for seeing every human as being made in the image of God.

Racism was his topic of choice that day. Unfortunately, the method he used to address it is a microcosm of a trend that is metastasizing inside the church. Our congregation saw it in real-time. But the more dangerous kind of eisegesis happens slowly and insidiously.

Creeping on the SheepThe tentacles of “wokeness” are slithering into our churches under the guise of social justice, inclusivity, tolerance, and love. But the head of the hydra is the same as it’s always been. It’s the human propensity to interpret God’s word through the lens of self.

One of the main features of our guest preacher’s sermon was the repeated exhortation to accept his point of view based on the experiences of others. Though the logical flaw in that practice is obvious – alternative experiences can make the opposite point – it turns up again and again inside the church.

Unlike the full-frontal assault our congregation faced, the more common approach is subtle. And that’s what makes it so dangerous. Alisa Childers recently exposed it stealthily baked into a wildly popular churchwide youth curriculum. It’s easier to access young minds in their formative stages when parents aren’t in the room.

When Your Guard is DownChristian colleges are no different. Astute students expect to confront the all-too-typical atheist professor at the State University. They arrive at school with their antennae up. But some choose to avoid that kind of opposition by attending a Christian college. It seems like a safer environment. Parents and students assume the faculty and staff at a Christian school will be the type to critique the culture from a biblical point of view instead of the other way around. So, they enter with their guard down.

But the fences around Christian colleges don’t keep out bad ideas. Remember, our visiting preacher had been a professor at one for many years. How many young minds had been influenced by his eisegetical methods during that time?

Maybe those who engage these issues in these ways are doing so with pure motives. Maybe they’re simply mistaken. We can be charitable and allow that possibility. But that doesn’t mean we have to be passive when it happens. Beware the wolves in sheep’s clothing. They’re not going away. And they’re finding new ways to sneak into the sheep pen.

Recommended resources related to the topic:Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4

When Reason Isn’t the Reason for Unbelief by Dr. Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and the culture at truehorizon.org. He is a Contributing Writer for the Christian Research Journal and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of military and commercial flying experience. He has a B.S., Aerospace Engineering from the U. S. Naval Academy, and an M.A., Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown sons.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/3kzw4hz
An earlier version can be found in Salvo Magazine at: https://salvomag.com/post/dances-with-wolves

The post A Wolf in the Sheep Pen appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

By Al Serrato

There has always been evil and suffering in the world, and how to make sense of it is a principal object of Christian apologetics. Often, the argument is made that God gave us free will, and as a result, people have the liberty to choose to do evil. But this answer does not satisfy the atheist; often, he will challenge God’s goodness, with comments such as the following:

You claim your God is omniscient. When he created the universe, he saw the sufferings which humans would endure as a result of the sin of those original humans. Surely he would have known that it would have been better for those humans to never have been born (in fact, the Bible says this very thing), and surely this all-compassionate deity would have foregone the creation of a universe destined to imperfection in which many of the humans were doomed to eternal suffering…or alternatively only create those humans who will freely choose God, and eliminate the possibility of their suffering.

This challenge has much intuitive appeal. We all rail against the suffering that each of us must face, to varying degrees, as our lives progress. We realize the fragility of our human condition, and how inhospitable this creation seems to be to flesh and blood mortals. It is frightening, indeed, to think of all the ways that our lives can be tragically altered, or ended. But does the harshness of this reality “prove” that God is not “good”?

What do you mean by “Good”?The first step in responding to this challenge is to get a better idea of what is meant by “good.” Generally speaking, “good” is a measure of quality; how a thing or an idea measures up to a standard of performance. A “good” knife is one that appropriately performs its function, or its intended use. A “good” person is one that lives up to a standard of behavior. But how can one determine what that standard should be? For example, any time two opposing things are in conflict, whether they are teams, or armies or ideas, the quality of the outcome will necessarily be decided from the unique perspective of each of the involved parties. For instance, the American victory in World War II was a “good” outcome for Western democracy, but a decidedly “bad” outcome for those who staked their future fortunes on the Nazis. A good outcome for my favorite baseball team is when the other side loses. In short, and at the risk of sounding flippant, when it comes to conflicting worldviews or ideas, a “win” is the outcome which is good for the winner and bad for the loser.

With this basic distinction in mind, it would seem that, at least preliminarily, answering whether it was “better” to have “foregone the creation of a universe destined to imperfection in which many of the humans were doomed to eternal suffering” would depend on the person being asked. For those spending eternity in heaven with a God of infinite power, who intends to allow us to live eternally and joyfully in his presence, He certainly did the right thing in creating us and in giving us this opportunity. Infinite and eternal joy and fulfillment versus, well, oblivion – that’s not a difficult choice. By contrast, for the person suffering torment in hell, realizing that he will spend eternity aware of, but separated from, this awesome being, it will probably seem “better” that man was never created.

Who decides what’s “better?”But let’s take it to a deeper level. How does one decide which of two sides is right in claiming that a successful conclusion according to their desires is an objectively “good” outcome. For example, the Nazis deemed victory in Europe a good outcome. Would their victory actually have made Nazi domination of Europe a “good” result? The Nazis would argue that in the period of a few short years they transformed Germany from a beleaguered nation experiencing great suffering because of the Versailles Peace Treaty to an economic powerhouse, a state marked by efficiency and great industry. They sought to expand that “efficiency” to the rest of Europe, what they would claim to be a good result. The Allies countered that their victory was not good simply because their side won. As the victors, they did not simply assert that they were right and then impose punishment on the vanquished. Instead, they tried the Nazi leaders in what is known to history as the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, the purpose of which was to establish that crimes against humanity had been committed. The underlying premise was that the “good” accomplished by the Allies was not a subjective good, i.e. we’re glad we won and you lost, but an objective good, i.e. Nazi officials were guilty of conduct that was objectively evil, and therefore justly punished. The premise of the trials was that such objective knowledge of good was available to us, and not that the might of the victor makes right. But how can this objective assessment be made, if each side can claim that “good” is what suits them? This, of course, is a frequent argument of the theist. While an atheist can be moral, he cannot ground his morality, because only the existence of a transcendent being provides the basis for judging objectively the “good” or “evil” of any conduct under consideration.

“While an atheist can be moral, he cannot ground his morality.”

Without such an objective and transcendent judge, the atheist’s conclusions are mere opinions, mere statements of likes or dislikes. By that standard, the challenger here is left saying that having people end up in hell displeases him. To conclude that allowing anyone to suffer in hell is worse than not creating at all, the atheist must appeal to a standard of good and evil, a standard of goodness. But what is that standard?

Christians can at least make sense of this standard: it is for the Creator to decide. As applied to my World War Two example, which side had objective good on its side is not difficult to determine. Granted, this does not mean that the Allies did no wrong, or where completely free of evil action. No, the law and rules applied to them as much as to the Axis powers and history shows that there were indeed transgressions by the western powers. But only an Allied victory could be deemed an objectively good outcome, one consistent with God’s desires. Contrary to Nazi philosophy, all human beings are made in God’s image and are therefore endowed with God-given rights that no government can justly take from them.

It’s for God to DecideReturning to the question raised by the challenger, the answer is the same: it is for the Creator to decide. Given his perfect knowledge, He is in a better position to judge which is a better outcome. Indeed, challenging God in this fashion seems rather presumptuous. The Creator of this universe is obviously immensely intelligent and powerful. That we should decide what He should do in creating – how He should go about assigning a value to competing options – makes about as much sense as my dog giving me advice on careers or on moral issues. Without the proper frame of reference, a proper sense of humility should prevent us from telling God how he should have approached His creative work.

In the end, foregoing creation would not have been a “good” solution for the many individuals who responded to God’s gift and are, or will be, experiencing eternity in His presence. When you combine this with the realization that people who are separated from God are separated by their own choice and not simply chosen at random, then it would not be fair to deprive so many of such joy when those who have refused God’s gift have done so of their own volition.

Recommended Resources:Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

The post Would It Have Been Better If God Had Not Created Us? appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

By Luke Nix

All scientific research, discussion, and education is affected by a series of underlying beliefs that include what one grants as sources of knowledge. It is quite common in today’s culture for people to accept “scientism,” which limits sources of knowledge entirely to the sciences to the exclusion of any other claimed knowledge source or places all other sources of knowledge under the authority of the sciences.

Both of these philosophies stifle scientific discovery, places knowledge of anything outside of the natural realm beyond reach and erects seemingly impenetrable barriers in discussions about ultimate reality (including morality, beauty, and theology). This has serious implications in the sciences, education, politics, and basic everyday life. In his book “Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology” Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland aims to demonstrate the dangers of scientism, how it is (unwittingly?) accepted and exercised in culture even by Christians, and provide an alternative philosophy of knowledge that will avoid the dangers, expand humanity’s knowledge of reality in general, and move forward Christians’ internal discussions of theology and the world and give them another tool in their evangelical toolbelts as they provide “…reasons for the hope that [they] have…” (1 Peter 3:15). In this review, I’ll provide some of the key points, several important quotes, and my recommendations.

Key Points:* Strong scientism is the idea that the sciences are the only legitimate sources of knowledge about reality. Other sources of knowledge are not even entertained. * Weak scientism “allows” for other sources of knowledge but holds that science is the ultimate arbiter of truth. Thus it has forced all other knowledge disciplines to reinterpret their findings according to the science of the day. Ultimately it is strong scientism by a “less-threatening” name. * Because there is no other (ultimate) source of knowledge outside the sciences, there is no moral knowledge, historical knowledge, philosophical knowledge, or theological knowledge. This has resulted in the relativism we see in the university and culture today. * Numerous examples of non-scientifically verifiable claims and knowledge do exist. * In fact, the very claim of scientism is one such example, making scientism a self-refuting claim. Thus it is necessarily false and is actually an enemy of science (and knowledge) in the long run. * Science judges philosophy, and philosophy judges science. Depending on which claim must be established before the other can be judged. * Proper order placement of knowledge disciplines has effects on claims about the beginning of the universe, origin of life, existence of mental states, and the existence of objective morality and beauty among many others. * Scientism has stunted the debates surrounding theistic evolution and intelligent design by precluding non-scientific knowledge disciplines from the debates. * There are at least five different models for how science and theology can move forward together in their discovery of what is real and true.

Some Important Quotes:

“In order for science and certain other intellectual disciplines to be possible, we humans must be able to use our reason to go beyond our sense, reach into the world’s deep structure, and grasp, formulate, and verify the theories we form about that deep structure.”

“To the extent that scientism is embraced in our culture, our moral and spiritual claims will be ‘de-cognitivized.’ In other words, our deepest beliefs about life, knowledge, history, and reality will seem to be utterly implausible–not just untrue, but unworthy of rational consideration.”

“These days, if an accepted scientific claim comes into conflict with an accepted nonscientific claim from another discipline (such as theology), which claim must be set aside? In our culture, the scientific claim always wins. Why? Simply because it is scientific. Scientism seems so obvious and pervasive to people that it can be stated without any need to defend it. Appealing to science to back one’s claim is a conversation stopper that settles the issue.”

“The first problem with weak (and strong) scientism is that it diminishes the intellectual authority of other important fields, especially biblical studies and theology.”

“Advocates of weak scientism are confused about the relative cognitive strength of an assumption and a claim that is based on that assumption. Weak scientism believes that a claim based on an assumption has greater warrant than the strength of the assumption itself. In reality, though, the claim is only as good as the assumption upon which it rests. And because the assumptions are not scientific assumptions, but rather philosophical assumptions, philosophy has a kind of primacy over science. Therefore, weak scientism’s claim that science always take precedence over other disciplines is false.”

“…a culture, which has a set of background assumptions–or, a plausibility structure–sets a framework for what people think, which affects how that they are willing to listen, evaluate, feel, and behave. The framework shapes what people consider plausible or implausible.”

“Often, in order to get people to hear the gospel, we have to address solely a person’s private, felt needs and promise that Jesus will change their lives and help them. There’s nothing wrong with this as long as it is rooted in the deeper claim that Christianity is true, is based on solid evidence, and can be known to be true. But scientism has forced the church to offer the gospel simply because it works rather than because it is true and can be known to be such.”

“Classically, freedom meant the power to do what one ought to do…Contemporary freedom has come to be understood as the right to do whatever one wants to do…By undermining moral knowledge, scientism has provided the context for the contemporary view of freedom and, consequently, it has led to moral chaos.”

“It is not enough just to know Scripture; as Christians, we must also understand the systems of thought, practice, and value in our culture that are worldly, and be able to make this clear to fellow Christians and explain how to refute those ungodly systems using both biblical and nonbiblical evidence (cf. 2 Cor. 10:3-5).”

“Christians must be taught not only what they believe but why they ought to believe it. This will especially involves exposing and undermining scientism, and dealing with issues relating to science and the Bible.”

“The very concept of ‘faith’ has been redefined and has now replaced reason. Today, faith is choosing to believe something in the absence of evidence or reasons for the choice. Faith used to mean a confidence or trust based on what one knows. Given the current definition, ubiquitous throughout the church, we Christians have unintentionally played right into the hands of advocates of scientism. By thinking of faith in this way, we are tacitly implying that we believe in the tenets of Christianity without any evidence or reasons at all.”

Recommendations The first recommendation I will give is for any Christian involved in scientific research, education, and/or discussions*(whether it is internal with other Christians or external in apologetic and evangelistic efforts). Moreland shows not only how we may be allowing some version of scientism to limit our own knowledge, but he also shows how we can identify that it may be limiting others and ways in which we may be able to make others aware so they overcome that foundational barrier and be able to move conversations (and discovery) forward. * My second recommendation is for Christians involved in discussions of morality and politics. Scientism has been a primary driving force for the moral relativism, thus the reliance in politics on who has the most power. As you learn more about scientism and how it came to be the dominant philosophy in culture, you will see how to address moral and political issues at a more foundational and wider reaching level. * My third recommendation is for a more focused audience of my first: those who are involved (either in research, education, or discussion) of origins from a Christian perspective. I often hear Christians claim that we cannot allow our philosophy or theology to interfere with our science. Unfortunately, that is a direct application of weak scientism that needs to be removed from our thinking. This book help you understand how even weak scientism fails and should be abandoned in our discussions of origins. * Finally, a general recommendation for all Christians. As we proclaim (and often defend) the truth of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, scientism (even the weak version) can get in the way of people accepting this historical fact- no matter the strength of the case for the resurrection of Jesus as the best possible explanation, a philosophy of scientism will preclude the person from accepting even the possibility of a supernatural miracle. It is important that we understand where these people are coming from and how to show the inadequacies of such a philosophy.

Recommended resources related to the topic:Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3xTWJZu

The post Scientism And Secularism appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

By Jonathan McLatchie

Rabbi Tovia Singer is an orthodox Jewish rabbi and the founder and director of Outreach Judaism. He is widely known for his counter-missionary polemics and his criticism of the New Testament presentation of Jesus as the Hebrew Messiah (see his two volume set, Let’s Get Biblical: Why doesn’t Judaism accept the Christian Messiah? [i]**). In a recent series of videos published on Rabbi Singer’s YouTube channel, he responds to remarks made by Professor R.L. Solberg following their recent debate in Nashville, Tennessee on whether Jesus is the promised Hebrew Messiah. In this and subsequent articles, I want to address some of the claims made by Rabbi Singer in this series of videos that I hold to be in error. In this article, I will address the most recent video in this series, which is provocatively titled, “Colossal contradictions in the Gospels!” In this video, Singer advances two supposed instances of contradiction between the gospel accounts, one relating to the timing of Jesus’ passion, and the other relating to the resurrection. Let us address both in turn.

On What Day Was Jesus Crucified?In the video, Tovia argues that John has Jesus crucified on the eve of Passover, contrary to the synoptic gospels that have Jesus crucified on the first day of Passover. The motivation for this redaction on John’s part supposedly is that John wanted to have Jesus crucified on the eve of Passover, when the Paschal lambs were being slaughtered, since Jesus is thought by John to be the fulfilment of the imagery associated with the Passover lamb.

Rabbi Singer reads John 19:14 as indicating that it was the day of preparation for Passover. However, this is not a necessary translation of the genitive word for Passover, πάσχα and in fact English translations usually render this expression “day of preparation of the Passover.” In fact, this term (‘day of preparation’) is also used by Mark (15:42), who defines it as the day before the Sabbath. This accords with John 19:31, which says, “Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away.” Verse 42 also indicates the hurriedness of the burial of Jesus in a tomb that was close at hand, since it was the Jewish day of Preparation. Therefore, John concurs with Mark that Jesus’ death took place the day prior to the Sabbath. This is what he means by “preparation.” Though he adds that this Sabbath was a high day, this most probably means that it wasn’t any ordinary Sabbath day, but rather a Sabbath during the feast of unleavened bread — that is to say, it was a particularly special feast day.

Singer also misreads John 18:28, where the Jewish leaders are concerned about entering Pilate’s dwelling, lest they be defiled and thereby become unable to eat the Passover. According to Singer, this undermines the contention that the Passover Seder had already been consumed. Singer apparently misses that, supposing them to be concerned about the Passover Seder, their worry would make no sense since their defilement would expire at sundown (and they could partake of the meal after washing). Therefore, their worry must concern some meal other than the Seder. And, in fact, the initial Seder, or supper, that commences the Passover celebration is not the only ritual meal that is eaten during Passover. There is even another ritual meal, the chagigah (“food offering”), that is consumed during the following day. This is supported by Numbers 28:18-23, in which we read,

18 On the first day there shall be a holy convocation. You shall not do any ordinary work, 19 but offer a food offering, a burnt offering to the LORD: two bulls from the herd, one ram, and seven male lambs a year old; see that they are without blemish; 20 also their grain offering of fine flour mixed with oil; three tenths of an ephah shall you offer for a bull, and two tenths for a ram; 21 a tenth shall you offer for each of the seven lambs; 22 also one male goat for a sin offering, to make atonement for you. 23 You shall offer these besides the burnt offering of the morning, which is for a regular burnt offering.**

Verse 18 indicates that the food offering was to be offered on the first day of unleavened bread (which would be the fifteenth of Nisan), the same day — as the Jews reckon days — that the Seder was consumed. Verse 23 indicates that these were to be offered in addition to the regular morning burnt offering, which implies that the Chagigah was eaten during the day time. The first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus indicates multiple times that the Jews used the term “Passover” to refer to the entirety of the feast of unleavened bread:

• “As this happened at the time when the feast of unleavened bread was celebrated, which we call the Passover…” Josephus, Antiquities 14.21
• “As the Jews were celebrating the feast of unleavened bread, which we call the Passover…” Josephus, Antiquities 18.29
• “And, indeed, at the feast of unleavened bread, which was now at hand, and is by the Jews called the Passover…” Josephus, Wars 2.10

Therefore, John’s account in fact dovetails perfectly with Mark’s. The concern of the chief priests could not have been about the initial Passover seder, since their defilement would have expired at sundown and, following washing, they would have been able to partake of the seder in the evening. The seder was already over, having been consumed the previous evening, and they must be concerned about some other meal in Passover, most likely the chagigah.

Rabbi Singer claims that John 13 does not concern a Passover seder. However, this again is false. We read in John 13:1-2:

Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. 2 During supper…

In Greek, the text does not say that the supper was before the feast. Rather, it says that before the feast, Jesus loved his disciples to the end. D.A. Carson notes rightly that “there is nothing in the words themselves to discourage us from taking the clause as an introduction to the footwashing only, and not to the discourses that follow the meal.” [ii]

Indeed, the most natural reading of the reference to the supper in John 13:2, in light of 13:1, is that the last supper was in fact the Passover meal. Craig Blomberg concurs [iii]:

Verse 1 thus stands as a headline over the entire passion narrative (cf. Ridderbos 1997: 452). Because Passover began with a supper-time meal as its most central ritual (and 1 Cor. 11:20 speaks of the Last Supper explicitly as a deipnon), to hear then that the supper was being served (v. 2) would naturally suggest that the Passover had begun (Ridderbos 1997: 455; cf. Michaels 1983: 230; Kleinknecht 1985: 370–371; Burge 2000: 365–367), not that this was some separate supper prior to the Passover (as for Casey 1996: 20–21). If there is still any doubt, as Cullen Story (1989: 317) explains, ‘The presence of Judas, Jesus’ prediction of his betrayal, Judas’ departure from the table (implicit in the Synoptics, explicit in John), the affirmation by Peter of unswerving loyalty to Jesus, and Jesus’ prediction of his denial—all of these circumstances together form solid lines of connection between the meal in John 13 and the Synoptic account of the holy supper.’ Almost certainly, then, John intended his audience to understand that he was beginning to describe events that took place on ‘Maundy Thursday’ night, as part of the Passover meal, just as they would already have learned in the oral kerygma.

Though Singer appeals to John 13:29 where some speculate that Judas has been charged with getting what they need for the feast, this argument doesn’t work either since the feast of unleavened bread continues for another week, which easily could be the meaning of the phrase ‘the feast’ in this context. One might object to this that, if there were indeed Passover night, the shops would not have remained open. However, as D.A. Carson notes [iv],

One might wonder, on these premises, why Jesus should send Judas out for purchases for a feast still twenty-four hours away. The next day would have left ample time. It is best to think of this taking place on the night of Passover, 15 Nisan. Judas was sent out (so the disciples thought) to purchase what was needed for the Feast, i.e. not the feast of Passover, but the Feast of Unleavened Bread (the ḥagigah), which began that night and lasted for seven days. The next day, still Friday 15 Nisan, was a high feast day; the following day was Sabbath. It might seem best to make necessary purchases (e.g. more unleavened bread) immediately. Purchases on that Thursday evening were in all likelihood possible, though inconvenient. The rabbinic authorities were in dispute on the matter (cf. Mishnah Pesahim 4:5). One could buy necessities even on a Sabbath if it fell before Passover, provided it was done by leaving something in trust rather than paying cash (Mishnah Shabbath 23:1).

Another aspect of John 13:29, curiously omitted by Singer — which actually supports my contention that this meal was in fact the Passover seder — is the disciples’ speculation that Judas had been charged by Jesus to give something to the poor. Carson notes that “it was customary to give alms to the poor on Passover night, the temple gates being left open from midnight on, allowing beggars to congregate there. On any night other than Passover it is hard to imagine why the disciples might have thought Jesus was sending Judas out to give something to the poor: the next day would have done just as well.” [v]

In addition to the foregoing considerations, two undesigned coincidences confirm that the last supper in John 13 is the same meal as spoken of in the synoptic gospels. In the parallel account of the last supper in Luke 22:27, Jesus says, “For who is the greater, one who reclined at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.” What does Jesus mean by this phrase, and to what could he be referring? When we turn over to John 13:4-5, we learn that Jesus on this same occasion gave the disciples an object lesson in servanthood: “[Jesus] laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet…” This act (not reported by Luke) casually dovetails with Jesus’ statement in Luke 22:27 (not reported by John) that, though he is the greatest among them, he nonetheless acts as their servant. One may ask, however, why Jesus washes the disciples’ feet on this particular occasion. Luke 22:24 gives us a detail not supplied by John that provides us with some relevant background: “A dispute also arose among [the disciples], as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest.” Luke, then, reports the occasion that gave rise to Jesus’ object lesson in servanthood, but not the object lesson itself. John reports the object lesson but not the occasion that gave rise to it. The accounts dovetail so casually and artlessly that it supports that these are in fact the same meal, and rooted in historical memory.

The Mary Magdalene ProblemTovia also gives another alleged discrepancy regarding the resurrection accounts, where he points out that, according to Matthew, the women all met Jesus (Matthew 28:9-10), whereas in John it looks like Mary, in her report to Peter & the disciple whom Jesus loved, has no idea what had happened to Jesus’ body (John 20:1-2). One would predict, supposing those accounts to be both anchored in historical memory, that Mary must have left the larger group of women prior to their encounter with the risen Jesus. Indeed, I can hardly see any other viable way of harmonizing those accounts. But this is precisely what is suggested by a close reading of John 20:2: “So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know (οὐκ οἴδαμεν) where they have laid him.” The use of the plural verb there suggests that she had in fact left the larger group of women and that there had in fact been others with her (which comports with the synoptics). This harmonization is not owed to us by the text, supposing them to be in conflict, but the fact that the only viable harmonization is suggested by a close reading of John suggests that these accounts are in fact based on historical memory, being independent accounts that dovetail.

According to John, Mary Magdalene ran back immediately upon noticing the stone rolled away and surmising or seeing the tomb empty (there may have been one or two other women with her, we don’t know). Notice that Matthew does not say that the angel appeared to Mary Magdalene, but rather that he spoke to the women. Thus, it was the women other than Mary Magdalene who left the tomb together as described in Matthew and, while going to tell the disciples, saw Jesus on the way. Matthew says that plural women left the tomb and that “they” saw Jesus on the way but does not expressly say that Mary Magdalene was with them at that time. Again, he may just not have known that she had left the group already, but he does not explicitly say either way. John knew since he was one of the two disciples (along with Peter) to whom Mary Magdalene reported the empty tomb and missing body of Jesus.

We can pick up Mary Magdalene’s story as reported by John. She ran back to get Peter and John immediately upon seeing the stone rolled away. They came back to the tomb with or slightly ahead of her. By this time the rest of the women have already seen the angels and left. They may even be seeing Jesus on their own route back into the city while Peter, John, and Mary Magdalene are on their way back to the tomb. It must be borne in mind that the old city of Jerusalem was a maze. There is no reason at all to expect that these groups would have run into each other. Mary Magdalene (as explained in John) still believes Jesus is dead at this point. She hangs around after Peter and John have looked at the tomb and left in puzzlement. She peers back into the tomb and the angels reveal themselves to her, but she does not understand. She turns around, grieved, and sees Jesus and has the dialogue with him of which we read in John 20. She then goes back to tell the disciples more about all of this. All this time she is not with the other women. When the other women have seen Jesus, they run and tell at least some of the disciples, though they might have to wait for Peter and John to get back from their tomb visit. Of course, we also do not know for sure that all of the disciples were staying together. The other women may actually have gone to see a different set of them in some different location.

ConclusionIn summary, though the alleged discrepancies offered by Rabbi Singer require some investigation to untangle, closer inspection — and more careful reading of the relevant texts — reveals the arguments to be unfounded. The solutions that I have offered to these challenges are not strained or forced harmonizations, but rather are suggested from within the texts themselves. As the nineteenth century Anglican scholar T.R. Birks once noted, “the very test of historical truth…is found in the substantial unity of the various narratives, their partial diversity, and the reconcilable nature of that diversity, when due allowance is made for the purpose of each writer, and the individual character of their separate works.” [vi]

Footnotes[i] Tovia Singer, Let’s Get Biblical! Why Doesn’t Judaism Accept the Christian Messiah? Volume 1 (RMBN Publishers, 2014).

[ii] D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 460.

[iii] Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel (England: Apollos, 2001), 187–188.

[iv] D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 475.

[v] Ibid.,

[vi] T.R. Birks, Horae Evangelicae, or The Internal Evidencce of the Gospel History (London: Seeleys, 1852), 269-271.

Recommended resources related to the topic:Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

How Can Jesus be the Only Way? Mp4, Mp3, and DVD by Frank Turek

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3meSo0c

The post Are There Colossal Contradictions in the Gospels? A Reply to Rabbi Tovia Singer appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

I once got an angry email from a lady who didn’t like the fact that I criticized a false teacher on our I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist podcast. “You shouldn’t criticize other Christians!” she scolded me.

Do you see the problem with this? There she was criticizing me, another Christian, while claiming you ought not criticize other Christians. To paraphrase Elon Musk, if irony could kill, she’d be dead right now.

Jesus Called Out False TeachersApparently, she never considered that Jesus spent much of his time criticizing the false teachings and practices of the religious politicians known as the Pharisees whose hearts were far from God. He also warned people who led young believers astray, “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea (Matt. 18:6).”

Paul exposed five false teachers by name in his letters to Timothy. He warned that “the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear” (2 Tim. 4:3). He also told the Romans to “watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naïve people” (Rom 16:17-18). Notice that the people causing divisions are not those defending the truth, but those who are introducing the false teachings.

In fact, every writer of the New Testament warned against false teachers at some point. Peter said that “false teachers” would introduce “destructive heresies” that “promise people freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity” (2 Pet. 2:1,19). John wrote, “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1John 4:1). The writer of Hebrews told us to “not be carried away by strange teachings” (Heb. 13:9). Jude said we need to “contend for the faith” because “ungodly people… pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord” (Jude 3-5). James cautioned us about becoming teachers because teachers will be judged more strictly (James 3:1). And the list goes on.

In one sense the entire Bible is one long warning to avoid false teachings and practices. Yet, somehow, modern people are under the impression that it is a bigger sin to warn people of false teaching than to actually be a false teacher!

I say all this because my friend Natasha Crain has taken a bunch of online heat from some fellow Christians for pointing out 7 problems with the “He Gets Us” Campaign, which included two 30 second commercials during this year’s Super Bowl. When you read Natasha’s piece—which has been shared on social media over 26,000 times—you realize that the “He Gets Us” campaign ironically doesn’t get Jesus.

It’s not just that their 30 second commercials leave out the most important truth about Jesus (that could be forgiven—after all it’s only 30 seconds!). But their website misleads people into thinking that Jesus was just a really good man whose primary mission was to achieve social justice. There’s nothing prominent about Him being God or our Savior.

Social Justice Warrior or Savior of the World?As Natasha observes, the head of the marketing firm behind the campaign explicitly said, “Ultimately, the goal is inspiration, not recruitment or conversion.” That’s why Jesus isn’t being highlighted as our substitute. He’s merely presented as a good example of “peace and love.” A motivational speaker. A social justice warrior.

But that wasn’t Christ’s mission. How do we know? Because he stated his primary mission explicitly. Here are just a few of several statements by Jesus:

• “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many (Mk. 10:45).”
• “The Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Lk. 19:10).
• “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him” (John 3:16-17).
• “Now my soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, ‘Father, save me from this hour’? But for this purpose I came to this hour” (Jn. 12:27).
• “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Luke 24:46)

As Greg Koukl observes in “The Legend of the Social Justice Jesus”, “For Jesus, salvation was not economic prosperity, equal distribution of goods, or sexual liberty without judgment or shame. Instead, salvation came through belief in him, bringing forgiveness of sins and eternal life.”

God didn’t add humanity to his deity and suffer a brutal death to make sure everyone uses the right pronouns. He came to be the ransom who pays for our sins.

Of course, Jesus wants us to love our neighbor, but that’s not a new teaching—it was already the stated policy of Yahweh in the Old Testament (Lev. 19:18). Moreover, love in the Bible doesn’t mean approval as the “He Gets Us” campaign implies. Love seeks what’s best for people, and that requires us to oppose any evil a loved one wants to do. As Paul put it, “Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres” (1 Cor. 13:6-7).

So contrary to the “He Gets Us” campaign, Jesus didn’t come to give some new ethical teaching. He came to be “the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (Jn. 1:29)—the ultimate sacrifice that the Old Testament sacrificial system foreshadowed.

So What’s the Big Deal?Ok, so “He Gets Us” doesn’t get Him. So what? What’s the big deal?

Natasha writes, “’He Gets Us’ has the potential to actually harm the public understanding of Jesus. People need to know that Jesus is our Savior, not a compassionate buddy.” I would like to amplify and illustrate this excellent point.

“People need to know that Jesus is our Savior, not a compassionate buddy.”
Natasha Crain

Imagine you see a commercial for a place you know nothing about called St. Jude’s. The commercial only speaks of the good food that they serve children. When you go to the website highlighted on the commercial, you only see more about the food. Their mission statement says nothing about St. Jude’s being a hospital or the fact that their mission is to treat and try to heal children with childhood cancer free of charge. They only push the food angle. You come away thinking this is some kind of restaurant that caters to kids.

Who would think that’s an accurate commercial? Of course, they must serve food to the children, but that’s not their primary mission—it’s not why they exist. While a commercial can’t give complete information, it should at least give accurate information.

Instead of informing people, such a commercial would be misinforming people. The people who saw that and the website would first have to unlearn the misinformation fed them before they would be open to learn what St. Jude’s is actually about. And that could be deadly. If you had a child with cancer, you could miss out on having your child cured for free at St. Jude’s hospital because their campaign obscured that life-saving mission.

There is a similar danger to the “He Gets Us” campaign. While there may be some good that comes of it—like spurring conversations about Jesus—it’s outweighed by the fact that many unbelievers will be misled into thinking that Jesus came just to make our lives better here. That his primary mission was to achieve social justice on this earth. People will have to unlearn that false teaching after being led astray by the campaign. They risk missing a free life-saving cure for their sins by the great physician. They risk missing eternal life.

If only Christians would act like Jesus and the apostles to correct the “smooth talk” that “deceives the minds of naïve people.” If only they would “contend for the faith” instead of buying into whatever “their itching ears want to hear.”

Wait, that’s exactly what Natasha has done. And yet some Christians are mad at her! They should go back and read their Bibles. Jesus and the apostles didn’t hold their tongues because their goal wasn’t to be “nice.” Their goal was to love people by warning them of harmful misinformation and replacing it with the truth just like Natasha has done. (For more, click here.)

Recommended resources related to the topic:The Great Book of Romans by Dr. Frank Turek (Mp4, Mp3, DVD Complete series, STUDENT & INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, COMPLETE Instructor Set)

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)

How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide

Podcast: He Gets Us Why Don’t We Get Him | Frank Turek

Blogpost: How to Explain to Your Kids Why Social Justice Warriors Hate Christians So Much | Natasha Crain

Blogpost: 7 Problems with the He Gets Us Campaign | Natasha Crain

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Frank Turek (D.Min.) is an award-winning author and frequent college speaker who hosts a weekly TV show on DirectTV and a radio program that airs on 186 stations around the nation. His books include I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, Stealing from God: Why atheists need God to make their case, and is co-author of the new book Hollywood Heroes: How Your Favorite Movies Reveal God.

Natasha Crain’s Original Blog on the “He Gets Us” Campaign: http://bit.ly/3ZjMiKm

The post He Gets Us, But Do We Get Him? The Case for Criticizing False Teachers appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

By: Justin Angelos

Have you ever been in the situation where you are trying to make sense of evil and suffering? At some point in a person’s life, there will be some sort of pain, or suffering, and some form of evil, either natural or moral evil. And then the question naturally arises, why? Why me? Why does God allow me to go through this? The question of evil and suffering can be a big stumbling block for people, in fact, this is why some people become atheists. In fact, atheists use evil and suffering as a weapon to discredit Christianity and say, there is no God. “How can an all-powerful all-loving God allow innocent people to suffer?” This is the type of question atheists will throw at theists.

Trying to Make Sense of the Origin of Moral and Natural EvilGenesis chapter 3 gives us the origin of evil and suffering, 1. “Now the serpent said to the woman, did God really, you must not eat from any tree in the garden”? 2.” The woman said to the serpent, we may eat from the trees in the garden but, God did say, you must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch, or you will die.” (Gen 3:2 NIV).

The serpent, casts doubt in eve’s mind, the serpent twists God’s word by saying, “you will certainly not die, for God knows that when you eat from it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, know good and evil.” (V4) Genesis 3:16 God said to the woman I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing, and your desire shall be for your husband. In Genesis 3:17, God tells Adam, “Cursed is the ground because of you.” As a result of Adam’s sin, God cursed the ground and removed His blessing upon the earth.

The problem of evil and suffering is not only a question for Christians but also a problem for every other worldview. I once heard someone say, “Atheism does not remove the pain, it just removes the hope.” Philosophers have been unable to prove that an all-powerful, all-loving God and the existence of evil are logically contradictory, as they are not mutually exclusive like a married bachelor or a squared circle, the purpose of this article is not to solve the logical or philosophical problem of evil but, hopefully, shed some light on why God might allow evil and suffering.

Trying to Make Sense of the Definition of EvilFirst, evil is not a thing, evil is a privation of good, in other words, good and evil are not relational properties, and good does not depend on evil for its existence. We can have good without evil, but we cannot have evil without good. Think of evil like this, imagine a shiny new BMW convertible car with a V6 engine, now imagine that same car with rust all over it. you can have a BMW without the rust, but rust would not be possible without the existence of the BWM. So, evil is a corruption of what is good. Therefore, the existence of evil does not disprove God’s existence, therefore there must be some morally sufficient reasons why God would allow evil and suffering.[i]

Is All Suffering Bad?I have concluded that not all suffering is a bad thing, there is a little girl who was born with a rare disease called CIPA, which is a disease in which the little girl cannot feel any pain at all. She can step on a thick rusty nail, and she would not feel a thing, this little girl is literally incapable of feeling any physical pain. At first one would think, “what a blessing” but, it is not a blessing at all. It is a life-threatening disease.

The morning prayer of this little girl’s mother is, “Dear God, please let my little girl feel pain.”[ii]** Her mother pleads with God to let her daughter feel pain, the very thing we wish God would remove from our lives, is the very thing her mother is asking God for. I remember being in agony laying in the emergency room with my gallbladder in 2020 asking God, “please remove this pain” and here is a little girl’s mother, who is asking God for pain.

Leibniz and Lennox on Evil and SufferingGottfried Wilhelm Leibniz asked, what the best possible world is, and out of all the possible worlds, which one is the best world God could have created? God could have created nothing at all, but the best possible world God could have created is a world in which free will exists, and the possibility to freely choose and to freely reject.[iii] In any possible world in which there is no free will, love can never truly exist because love, requires freedom, a man cannot force a woman to fall in love with him, she must freely decide to love him. When people choose to love and worship God, it is freely done out of genuine love for God. This is not possible if, we were to live in a world where all of humanity is determined.

Dr. John Lennox explains it this way, “could God have created a world without suffering? Yes, He could have, but you and I would not live in it because, it would empty the world of something most precious to our humanity, and that is the capacity to love, and our capacity to love, hinges on our capacity to choose.” [iv]

Trying to Make Sense of Evil and Suffering through the CrossThe unique thing about Christianity is—at the heart of the gospel message—is a Cross. And on that cross, God himself suffers incomprehensible evil and suffering. Which says that God has not remained distant from our human suffering.[v] Christianity offers you a Savior, a personal God, who has bled and suffered in our world.

This also says, that God does truly care about our suffering, and the Lord who suffered, rose from the dead conquering sin and death and offering us eternal life, and the beauty, and the joy that awaits, our suffering becomes irrelevant when standing in the presence of God himself, we may never have a comprehensive understanding of why, God allows suffering, but, There is a Savior, who has suffered in our world, and a Savior who truly does cares about our suffering, and we have a Savior who truly does understand our pain.

“But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.” (Isaiah 53:5 ESV)

Recommended reading on Evil and suffering: Clay Jones, Why Does God Allow Evil?

Footnotes[i] Sean McDowell, Clay Jones, why does God allow suffering? (Biola apologetics MA lecture week 4 biola.edu, 2023)

[ii] Lance Cashion. “Why Pain Is Good.” Lance Cashion, May 1, 2013. https://revolutionofman.org/why-pain-is-good/.

[iii] Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopedia. “Best of all possible worlds.” Encyclopedia Britannica, June 6, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/topic/best-of-all-possible-worlds.

[iv] VeritasForum. “The Loud Absence: Where Is God in Suffering? | John Lennox at Harvard Medical School.” YouTube. YouTube, December 19, 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPm6Y-pANYI.

[v] John Lennox, Where is God in Suffering?

Recommended resources related to the topic:Why Doesn’t God Intervene More? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

Why does God allow Bad Things to Happen to Good People? (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Seattle native Justin Angelos brings a passion for evangelism and discipleship along with theology and apologetics. He has studied at Biola University and Liberty University. Justin focuses on providing help for those who suffer from emotional and anxiety issues. He currently resides in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3lQlgff

The post Trying to Make Sense of Evil and Suffering appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

By Bob Perry

Science, and the technology it breeds, is a dominating force in our culture. Understandably so. Science has extended our lives and made them more comfortable. It promises to do more of the same in the future. But the successes of science also tempt us to place more value in it than it deserves. As a society, we do more than accept the idea that science provides a way to know how to improve the human condition. We’ve actually been led to believe that science gives us the only way to know anything. This way of thinking about science is called scientism. And scientism is more than a misplaced belief system. When science becomes a religion it also becomes a dangerous ideology. Sadly, all of us have accepted this idea to some extent. But it pays to be clear in our thinking about science.

*What Is Scientism?Philosopher of Science Tom Sorell defines scientism* as:

“… the belief that science, especially natural science, is … the most valuable part of human learning … because it is the most authoritative, or serious, or beneficial … or that it is always good for subjects that do not belong to science to be placed on a scientific footing.”

There is a lot of history that has led us to think this way but I want to focus on how scientism affects the world we live in today.

*A Reflection Of Our Scientism*Recently, a university near my home launched a citywide marketing campaign. Its purpose was to highlight the unparalleled success of the university hospital’s medical research and treatment programs. No doubt, they are phenomenal. But the slogan we see in local TV, radio, and billboard ads around our city says this:

“In Science Lives Hope.”

I don’t want to make to much of a local city advertising campaign, but do you see the reflection of scientism in this billboard? It’s not just that science is a valuable pursuit. We live in a culture that thinks science is the pathway to hope.

This is the ultimate promise of scientism. And the first thing you should notice is that it’s not a scientific claim. You can’t do a science experiment to prove that “in science lives hope.” And you can’t use science to show that science is the only way to know things. That’s because those kinds of claims aren’t scientific. At best, they are philosophical. And in the end, they’re really religious.

Here’s why I say that.

*What Is Science?The dictionary defines science as, “a branch study … that gives systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.” It comes from the Latin word scientia*, which means “knowledge.” And that may be where the corruption of our thought about it began.

The problem with scientism is that it tells us that science is our only source of knowledge. But it’s not. Science is just one way to understand the world in which we live. And it’s not even the most reliable one.

*Things You Know Without Using Science*There are plenty of things you know about the world that you didn’t discover by doing science. For instance, you know that:

• Statements about the world cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same way. This is just one of several laws of logic that you use all the time without even thinking about it.
• You don’t need to conduct a science experiment to know mathematical truths (like 2+2=4). These are things that are necessarily true. They couldn’t be any other way.
• You know more about what is going on in your own mental life than any other person (or scientist) ever could. In fact, the only way someone else could know what you’re thinking or feeling is if you tell them.
• You have moral knowledge about the world and that it has no basis in science. There is no science project could convince you that torturing little babies for fun is a good thing to do.

*The Prerequisites Of ScienceDon’t miss the significance of these things. Each of them is a form of knowledge that you have without ever doing science. In fact, you have to use each of them before you can do science at all*.

Science depends on using logical thinking to determine how to conduct an experiment or evaluate the data you get from one.

Mathematics is the language of science. You have to use math to describe the methodology and findings of any scientific experiment.

Every scientist has to be aware of his/her own mental states to determine how to plan and conduct their scientific research.

In order to rely on the conclusions of scientists, you have to trust that the scientists themselves are telling you the truth.

Science Doesn’t Say AnythingThe important thing to understand about science is that it is nothing but a tool we use to understand the way our world works. Science doesn’t really tell us anything on its own. Or, as the infamous Frank Turek puts it:

“Science doesn’t say anything; scientists do.”

And therein lies the problem with scientism. What it teaches us depends on the philosophy of scientists who practice it. What they believe about the world can’t help but be reflected in the conclusions they draw. It’s human nature.

When we accept the notion that science is our only source of knowledge about the world, we fall prey to the presuppositions of scientists. That’s why I say scientism is a religion. It’s a belief system. It’s a way of thinking about the ultimate questions in life.

Where Science Can LeadThe sciences of astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology brought us direct knowledge that the universe had a beginning. Some scientists view that as evidence for a Creator. Others deny that it infers any such thing.

From the biological sciences, we have learned incredible facts about the inner workings of the cell. Some scientists see a Designer in their microscopes. Others see the complex outcome of an undirected, natural process.

Nuclear physics created radiation oncology to kill cancer. But it also created the atom bomb.

Science and technology showed us ultrasound images that confirmed the reality of human life in the womb. And it is science that allows some parents to destroy that life if it doesn’t measure up to the genetic test results they expected.

It was scientists who developed vaccines, and who continue to find ways to cure genetically-based diseases. But it was also scientists who pursued eugenics, practiced forced sterilization, and conducted experiments on living human beings in the Nazi Death Camps.

Science has the potential to increase human flourishing. But it is no less likely to bring on an inconceivable level of human suffering. It all depends on the purpose you think it promises.

The Danger Of ScientismRecently, I was “listening in” on a Facebook discussion about the nature and value of human life. I cut-and-pasted the following exchange from the comment thread:

Q: Do you believe that you have an intrinsic right to life, liberty, etc?

A: No, I do not. But I would believe in them if you could produce these intrinsic rights such that I could put them on my workbench and run reliability tests on them.

This is what you get in a culture convinced that anything worth knowing comes from science. It is the fruit of scientism — a person who believes that life, and love, and justice are illusions unless you can test them on a workbench.

Make no mistake, scientism is a religion. But it is not a religion that offers hope. It may be able to cure your disease, or extend your life, or make that life more comfortable. These are all good things. But they are temporal.

Real hope is eternal. And you’ll never find it in a test tube or a telescope.

Recommended resources related to the topic:Why Science Needs God by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and the culture at truehorizon.org. He is a Contributing Writer for the Christian Research Journal and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of military and commercial flying experience. He has a B.S., Aerospace Engineering from the U. S. Naval Academy, and an M.A., Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown sons.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3YABuqY

The post When Science Becomes a Religion appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

How many times have you heard me cry out

“God please take this”?

How many times have you given me strength to

Just keep breathing?

Oh I need you,

God I need you now.

Though I walk through the shadows,

And I, I am so afraid.

Please stay… please stay right beside me,

With every single step I take.

These beautiful lyrics are from a 2013 song named “Need You Now by Tiffany Arbuckle Lee. But you probably know her by the name “Plumb.” In case you don’t know of Plumb, she was active until about 2018, and her songs regularly played on Christian radio. I remember listening to this song when I had a two year old, tears in my eyes knowing the feeling of this type of desperation.

I think anyone with a two year old gets this type of desperation, am I right?

She was inspired to write the song due to her suffering from debilitating anxiety when she was younger and the difficulties in her marriage. I remember hearing on the radio about the tough times that she was going through in her marriage. I recall thinking at the time how hard that must be for her to share something so personal. She shared how she and her husband had overcome so many obstacles. They were reconciled, were stronger than ever, and everything was made beautiful out of the ashes.

Until it wasn’t.

She and her husband are no longer together, and Plumb has been very quiet on the music scene. It’s now 2023, and she hasn’t released a single since 2018. It seems a lot has been going on for the singer in the last five years. I follow her on social media and didn’t really notice a lot from her until June 2022, when she made a controversial post about Roe Vs. Wade being overturned. She stunned her followers by implying that this isn’t something we need to be happy about and that the Church sometimes talks more about what we’re against than what we’re for. Granted, I have to agree to a point. But I would draw a hard line here and say that it would be exceedingly strange not to speak against killing innocent children, as this is exactly what many Christians believe abortion is!

It would be like a Christian speaking against child abuse, but then someone throws a rebuke at us, saying that because we’re Christians, we need to speak about what we’re for, not against. Is there actually a way to speak about the realities of abortion outside of speaking against it? Isn’t this precisely why it’s called “pro-life,” not “anti– Abortion”? But I digress.

She posted later in the year how she and her husband were officially done. I could tell it was a tough few years for her. She probably feels like she was in a toxic relationship that has left a wake of pain and confusion. No doubt this changed a lot for her. But it was the post from Wednesday, January 04, 2023 that stopped me in my tracks. It says:

Thx @walkingpastor for sharing this #richardrohr post…it’s a new year…begin again. I am. Asking questions I’ve been intimidated to ask. Being more open minded. Wanting to learn things I’ve been lazy to learn. Making space to love God and others well. That’s it. 3 years ago my life fell completely apart. In the process, deconstruction happened w/o me even realizing it at first. It’s been a long road. This year…I am starting a journey to piecing back together a new me. It’s not all gonna just magically happen in 2023…but it’s the year I am starting to begin again. And again. And…again. #GraceForSelf.

Richard Rohr. Deconstruction. I Am.

“Not Plumb!” I thought to myself! Another Christian singer has fallen for the Progressive Christian serpent speak. I thought about this post and prayed for days afterward for her and for those who have no idea of the consequences of these words. Though she hasn’t given many details in this regard, it would seem that Plumb is reading and aligning with the teachings of Progressive teacher Richard Rohr. This is an alignment with beliefs in a social justice gospel, inner divinity, a denial of many essential Christian doctrines such as the beautiful Atonement, that the Bible isn’t the Word of God, and much more. This made me sad.

“Two things happens when we hit rock bottom as Christians: We run from God, or we run to God.”

It seems it all started when her life fell apart, and I find that one of two things happens when we hit rock bottom as Christians: We run from God, or we run to God. They give up instead of look up. They look inward instead of upward.

I can’t sit here and say I understand her position or pain. But it seems that this was the turning point for her. How can someone who’s sung such beautiful lamented lyrics suddenly deny the God she claims to have sung for? Did she have someone to help guide and disciple her through this time? What questions has she been intimidated to ask? How well did she know her Bible? I naturally want more answers for clarification. The cultural climate is extremely aggressive toward Biblical Christianity. I think some are tired of running the race. I think some don’t want to be seen as being “against” the LGBTQ+ community. They want to seem loving, tolerant, open-minded, and non-judgmental. They are fatigued from fighting the good fight. So they stop fighting.

Christian, keep up the good fight. Cross that finish line, even if you have to crawl to it. Anchor yourself in God’s Truth.

There’s a God-shaped hole in all of us,

And the restless soul is searching.

There’s a God-shaped hole in all of us,

And it’s a void only He can fill.

I pray these words from her own song to remind her that deconstruction and Progressive Gospel will leave her empty and hopeless. Only Jesus can fill her void. He is the Living Water, the Bread of Life. I have been praying for her, and I hope you will join me.

Recommended resources related to the topic:Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) downloadable pdf, PowerPoint by Dr. Frank Turek

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Melissa Dougherty is a Christian Apologist best known for her YouTube channel as an ex-new ager. She has two associate’s degrees, one in Early Childhood Multicultural Education, and the other in Liberal Arts. She is currently pursuing her bachelor’s degree in Religious Studies at Southern Evangelical Seminary.

The post Thoughts on Musician Plumb’s Deconstruction By Melissa Dougherty appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

By Al Serrato

A common challenge raised by atheists is to point out the brokenness of the world and to use it as evidence that there cannot be a God. Your God is perfect, they reason, so why did he create such an imperfect place as this? They point to the natural suffering in the world, the harm that hurricanes and earthquakes can wreak on mortal and fragile human beings. They highlight too the evil that people, driven by their basest emotions, inflict upon their fellow human beings, from theft to murder and everything in between. How could a perfect God have ended up with this as his creation?

This is how one skeptic framed the argument:

“If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. Someone once said that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, and yet this “perfect” God created a “perfect” universe which was rendered imperfect by the “perfect” humans. The ultimate source of imperfection is God. What is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so God must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible.”

The logic being employed by this challenger appears valid. If something that is perfect can only create perfection, then the Christian God is disqualified, as we believe God to embody complete perfection but concede that this world, and its human inhabitants, are clearly not perfect. But the problem with this argument is not the logic; it is instead the assumptions that underly the stated premises. The challenger’s first sentence – that nothing imperfect can come from a perfect creator – is not proven. It is simply an assertion. For the argument to actually hold, there must be some support for the premise that a perfect being is “limited” in what it can do, namely, that such a being can only create perfection. But the very articulation of this notion betrays the problem embedded in the assertion: it purports to limit the power of a perfect being. In other words, immediately after acknowledging God’s infinite power – his perfection – the skeptic, himself an imperfect being, attempts to limit the types of things God can do.

But how could the skeptic possibly know what God can or cannot do? On what basis can he conclude that a limitless, all-powerful being is constrained in the options available to him? Certainly, the possibility that a perfect being could create something less than himself is not contradictory. The opposite, of course, would be true; an imperfect being would be unable to impart perfection to his creation, something that he himself does not possess. So, it would be contradictory to claim that an imperfect being could create God. But why would a greater being be unable create something that is lesser than himself?

But there is an even greater flaw embedded in the challenge. That is, the skeptic assumes that God set out to create a “perfect” universe and somehow failed. Let’s take a moment to examine this conclusion? What evidence does the skeptic rely upon relating to God’s purpose or to conclude that God failed to achieve this purpose? To arrive at such a conclusion, one would first have to know the intent of the creator. Is not “perfection,” or at the very least success, dependent upon what the actor had as his goal? After all, perfection denotes a quality or performance or attribute that cannot be surpassed. For example, perfect vision would mean vision that cannot be improved upon. But to know what perfect vision is, one would first have to know what is to be accomplished with vision. Is it simply seeing in daylight, or also in complete darkness or underwater? A perfect robot would be one that completed its assigned tasks flawlessly, on time and without any failures or breakdowns. But to measure such performance, the reviewer would first need to know what tasks have been assigned, what the time limit is and what constitutes a breakdown or failure. It is only when one first has in mind a clear understanding of the designer’s purpose that one can decide whether the creation in question has achieved the ends or purposes set for it.

To this, the challenger would no doubt respond that this universe is imperfect under any definition. But by this he would simply mean that things break, that health suffers, that people do evil, or other things of this nature. But of course this only follows if one first assumes that God set out to create “perfectly” functioning humans in a flawless universe. Was this God’s goal? Could it have been, to the contrary, that God had in mind a much different purpose, specifically, to allow for the development of beings who possess free will and who can experience true love, freely given? In other words, did he instead set out to create conscious, intelligent and self-aware beings who were actually capable of exercising free will, and by so doing, necessarily capable of rejecting him and doing evil? Could the struggles we face in this broken world be part of a process by which we are developed, and refined?

This is certainly possible. If free will is to have any meaning, then people must of course be free to do wrong and to harm others. They must be free to reject love and embrace hate. They must be free to reject the God who created them.

Christians believe that God is, ultimately, love, which we understand to be the commitment of the will directed toward the good of the other. Love must be freely given if it is to have meaning. A spouse who remains in a marriage out of fear, or desire for material benefit, does not love the other spouse. We all desire to be the object of another’s true love, and by that we certainly do not mean someone who “cares” because they are afraid to be caught not caring or whose “love” is purchased. There is no reason to believe that God views love any differently. Despite our imperfections and limitations, we remain free to seek God and to ask him to do the refining work in us that is necessary to make us ready, and able, to reunite with him. In other words, as we make our way through this broken and imperfect world, we have the ability, and the freedom, to learn to love and begin to reciprocate the love of the God who gave us life, and intelligence and self-awareness. And, by contrast, we also remain free to reject him.

With sufficiently clear vision, it is possible to see that creating a universe filled with robots and other perfectly functioning things would not have accomplished God’s actual purpose. Yes, life on Earth is messy and often filled with great pain and suffering, much of which we struggle in vain to understand. As we make our way through this vale of tears, we may not understand God’s purpose; indeed, it may seem to us limited beings that such suffering has no purpose. Understanding that God’s plan requires imperfection in the here and now, and the suffering that may come from that, may not bring us comfort in the short run. But contemplating what God has in store for us, what reuniting with a perfect being will entail, may help us begin to make sense of our lives…and better plan our future. For what God has in mind is so much more ambitious – and wonderful – than creating something that fits our definition of perfection.

Recommended resources related to the topic:The Wounded Healer: Finding Ultimate Purpose in Your Suffering (crossexamined.org)
Why the Problem of Evil is a Problem (crossexamined.org)
https://crossexamined.org/is-a-perfect-being-possible/

How Old is the Universe? (DVD), (Mp3), and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek

God’s Crime Scene: Cold-Case…Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe (Paperback), (Mp4 Download), and (DVD Set) by J. Warner Wallace

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com

The post Can A Perfect Being Create the Imperfect? appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

By Brian Chilton

Modern understanding of quantum mechanics suggests that an eternal Cosmic Observer may in fact exist. If true, this holds numerous positive ramifications for arguments concerning the existence of God. Before we investigate the data, we must first ask what is meant by an eternal Cosmic Observer. A conscious observer is a living being that observes another entity. For instance, I am currently staring at the words being typed onto my computer screen. I am a living, conscious being that is observing the documentation of this piece. Spectators watching a sporting event are conscious observers of the events taking place in the stadium.

Physicists have observed that conscious beings can have an impact on physical objects and events simply by observing them. This impact precedes the dawning of conscious human beings, and really the existence of anything. Thus, this new body of research argues that all of reality is based upon the prior existence of an eternal cosmic observer. That Cosmic Observer must be God. While this article pushes a conclusion in a direction that is not necessarily implied by the biocentric physicists, it certainly appears that this would be the logical direction that the research leads.

So, what exactly does the data from the quantum world reveal about the Cosmic Observer? This article will note a few areas of considerable interest—biocentrism, consciousness, and time.

*Biocentrism and the Case for an Eternal Cosmic ObserverRobert Lanza, MD, and Matej Pavsic, PhD spoke of biocentrism in their book The Grand Biocentric Design.* Biocentrism holds that nothing can exist unless a conscious observer observes it. Lanza and Pavsic lay out seven key principles for biocentrism:

• “What we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness … Space and time are not independent realities but rather tools of the … mind.”[i]
• “Our external and internal perceptions are inextricably intertwined.”[ii]
• “The behavior of subatomic particles—indeed, all particles and objects—is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer.”[iii]
• “Without consciousness, ‘matter’ dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe that could have preceded consciousness only existed in a probability state.”[iv]
• “The structure of the universe is explainable only through biocentrism because the universe is fine-tuned for life—which makes perfect sense as life creates the universe, not the other way around.”[v]
• “Time does not have a real existence outside of animal sense perception. It is the process by which we perceive changes in the universe.”[vi]
• “Space, like time, is not an object or a thing … Thus, there is no self-existing matrix in which physical events occur independent of life.”[vii]

While Lanza and Pavsic make connections to conscious human observers, the reality is that the universe existed prior to our conscious observations. If reality depends on life, then it stands to reason that a Conscious Observer must have lived before the creation of the universe. If the findings of biocentrism hold, then we could then say that reality depends on the existence of an eternal living Being. That Being we know as God.[viii]

*Consciousness and the Case for an Eternal Cosmic Observer*According to experimentation, photons and electrons could appear, disappear, and rematerialize. The question was, what caused the wave function to “collapse and give birth to the object as an actual enduring entity.”[ix] According to the double-slit experiment, it was observations by conscious entities that made the difference. This finding is not something that is only made by Lanza and Pavsic. Max Planck, John Bell, and Niels Bohr also confirm the change evoked by consciousness.

But what exactly is consciousness? That is the million-dollar question. However, the best understanding of consciousness is that it is an awareness accompanied by volition, emotion, thought, and mind. Some claim that consciousness emerges from the brain.[x] Yet how could it be that the human consciousness is dependent on the brain when reality is dependent on the conscious mind? Rather than consciousness stemming from the physical world, it must be independent of the body while certainly connected to it.

If reality is dependent on consciousness and consciousness is dependent on physical reality, one eventually reaches an impasse. Because if one goes back far enough into the past, then one reaches Ground Zero, a time before physical entities existed. If reality is dependent on consciousness and there is a time when consciousness did not exist, then reality could not have come about. Thus, if reality is dependent on consciousness, then an eternal consciousness must exist independently of the space-time continuum that is our creation. As such, there must be an eternal Cosmic Observer. That Being we know as God.

*Time and the Case for an Eternal Cosmic Observer*Lanza and Pavsic later contend that time also depends on a cosmic observer. They aver that “space and time are relative to the individual observer—we carry them around as turtles do their shells.”[xi] This led Lanza to believe that death is merely an illusion for conscious, living beings. While Lanza does not necessarily take a Christian perspective on the passage of death, he does note the everlasting aspect of living consciousness. With the volumes of objective evidence for near-death experiences (NDEs), we have a strong case to believe that death does not bring an end to the conscious, everlasting soul.

*Conclusion: What Can We Deduce about the Eternal Cosmic Observer*Biocentrism is a fascinating field of study in quantum mechanics. Though it is relatively new, its findings have tremendous value in how we view the universe. According to the data presented in biocentrism—and if its deductions hold true—all material reality is dependent on consciousness. This is a revolutionary concept! Like NDEs, biocentrism completely shakes the concept of materialism—the idea that all reality is materialistic with no spiritual entities—to the core. Not only does biocentrism show that materialism is dependent on consciousness, but it also logically implies that a form of consciousness existed prior to the creation of the universe.

Furthermore, consciousness created reality. Or, one might say that reality is contingent upon the continued observance of the ultimate Cosmic Observer. These implications align perfectly with what one finds in the pages of Genesis and throughout the biblical text. For it was God who brought creation into existence (Gen. 1:1) and sustains it by his power. For God is “before all things, and in him all things hold together” (Col. 1:17).

Footnotes:[i] Robert Lanza and Matel Pavsic, The Grand Biocentric Design: How Life Creates Reality (Dallas, TX: BenBella, 2020), 19.

[ii] Ibid., 20.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Ibid.

[v] Ibid., 21.

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] For a scholarly scientific article describing the impact of an observer on reality, see Dmitriy Podolskiy, Andrei O. Barvinsky, and Robert Lanza, “Parisi-Sourlas-like dimensional reduction of quantum gravity in the presence of observers,” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics (2021).

[ix] Lanza and Pavsic, The Grand Biocentric Design, 76.

[x] Such is the case implied by Boris Kotchoubey, “Human Consciousness: What It Is and Where It Is From,” Psychology 23, 9 (April 2018), https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00567/full

[xi] Lanza and Pavsic, The Grand Biometric Design, 150.

Recommended resources related to the topic:How Old is the Universe? (DVD), (Mp3), and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek

God’s Crime Scene: Cold-Case…Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe (Paperback), (Mp4 Download), and (DVD Set) by J. Warner Wallace

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as a pastor in northwestern North Carolina.

The post The Case for an Eternal Cosmic Observer appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

By John D. Ferrer

In part one[i] we raised a question from one of our viewers in Nigeria at the contentious Islamic/Christian border there. He asked what should Christians do when the other guy is cheating? In this case, Muslims from the north are rigging elections to win political influence over the Christian south. Our answer is don’t sink to their level, but honor God above all. Unless you’re literally forced to lie or cheat, then don’t lie or cheat.

The next logical question is, “Okay, don’t ‘sink to their level.’ But how do we do that?” Here are seven principles for when our opponent isn’t fighting fair.

*First, “live not by lies.”*In 1974, just before his exile from the U.S.S.R., Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote an essay that became his farewell address to Soviet Russia. Titled, “Live not by lies,” this essay answered how to stay spiritually grounded in the face of government oppression. Solzhenitsyn distilled his wisdom down to one clear warning: “live not by lies.” Oppressors will press you. They’ll hurt your body, restrict your freedom, and test your faith. But they can’t touch your soul unless you let them. When you let them make you a liar, you’ve volunteered for that corruption.

To be clear, “live not by lies” doesn’t mean be foolhardy. You don’t have to draw a target on your back or invite persecution. But neither should you let them make you a liar. You can be discrete. Measure your words. Be quiet where your words will be misconstrued. Just don’t let them make you a liar. Or a cheat, for that matter. Otherwise, you get pulled into their game. Why would you want to play their game? They’re masters at it. You’re not. And you’ll lose. Plus you’d betray your own conscience and faith just by playing it. Soon you’re no better than they are.

*Second, get creative with the influence you do have*.You have more influence than you may realize. Get creative. Be savvy. You’ll be surprised at the ways you can affect positive change. Besides voting and public office, there’s also citizen journalism, signing petitions, starting “go-fund-me” campaigns, peaceful protests, concerts, graphic arts, social media, boycotts, rearing children, and more.

This is Biblical too. Scripture instructs people not just in the law but also in wisdom. There’s a whole genre of biblical books called “wisdom literature” (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon). Scripture guides us with law and wisdom as complementary traditions running parallel like train tracks so we can get where we need to go. We need more than just law-abiding moral behavior. We also need wisdom to find the best way to obey God’s laws. Jesus implies as much when he says to his disciples,

“Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (Mt 10:16)

*Third, reframe the gameWe should also remember the bigger battle happening here. Stolen elections aren’t just about politics. They’re not just earthly warfare or even just battles between church and mosque. This is ultimately spiritual warfare*. When we understand that fact, we can reframe our earthly struggle in terms of the bigger picture.

We could dwell on this point, but for now, just remember that spiritual warfare isn’t a metaphor. It’s literal. It forces everyone to take sides. It engulfs every other battlefield. And it rewrites the rules of engagement. As Paul says, “our struggle is . . . against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God” (Eph 6:12-13).

Fourth, remember the real enemyOur ultimate enemy isn’t other people but rather Satan and his forces. Before Paul describes this spiritual warfare in Ephesians 6 he points out that “our struggle is not against flesh and blood” (vs. 12). You may be tempted to treat your earthly opponent as the real enemy. But that person might not even be a rebel. He or she could just be a confused and deluded captive who doesn’t know any better. We fight differently against captives than against a rebel army. So don’t forget who the real enemy is.

Fifth, we don’t fight as the world fightsSince our battle is ultimately spiritual warfare, and Satan is the real enemy, it should be no surprise that we need to fight differently. I can’t explain this point any better than St. Paul does.

“For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:3-5)

Sixth, you can’t force divine justice ­This world is fallen, it remains fallen, and will keep falling… until Christ returns. In the meantime, we have only hints and bits of justice. They’re like glimpses into the eternal perfection of heaven. God carved out lots of room for us to practice redemptive influence here and now. But be assured that justice isn’t guaranteed till Judgment Day.

If you try to “force” God’s hand, seeking divine justice now, you’re probably using questionable methods. Plus, you might make the same mistake Judas did. Some scholars believe that Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus in hopes of triggering an uprising where Jesus would have to lead a revolt against Rome to claim his Messianic crown. We can’t be certain of Judas’s motives, but we can say that in betraying Jesus, even Judas’s best intentions couldn’t redeem those actions. You may be tempted to “force” justice on this side of eternity by taking “creative license” with the law. But this is quicksand. There’s no clear biblical case for vigilante justice in the New Testament.

Seventh, draw courage from believers who’ve gone before you.We’re not alone in this struggle. Persecution and hardship are normal Christian living (John 16:33). Yet believers across church history have pressed on. And so can you. Whether it was from Roman laws, Jewish zealots, Muslim invaders, state authorities, or rude neighbors, persecution is part of normal Christian living. Countless believers have gone before us setting an example to follow. Some faced persecution. Some died as martyrs. But all of them ran their race and passed the baton to future generations. That’s us. As we “run the race” marked out for us, they are a “great cloud of witnesses” now cheering us on from the stands (Heb 12:1). For their sake, and for God’s, we cannot afford to take shortcuts, bending the rules for some “greater good.”

Final WarningsSo how do we answer whether “turnabout is fair play”? In We need to honor God above all – even when our opponent breaks the law. We talked at length about how to do that. But a few more warnings are in order.

If we cheat because our opponent cheats, then we invite God’s judgment all the same. Plus, we risk losing our integrity. Our character is hard to earn and easy to lose especially if we forget that the ends don’t really justify the means. Also, remember that we represent our family, our church, and our God. So, if we ever lie and cheat for political gains it’s like spraying graffiti on the walls of our home or church: “LIAR!” “CHEAT!” Winning an election is not worth defacing our family name, our church, or the name of Jesus.

Are there any exceptions?Earlier I mentioned some possible exceptions that don’t apply here. Stay tuned for part 3 in this series where we talk about dilemmas!

Footnotes:[i] https://crossexamined.org/when-your-opponent-cheats-what-should-you-do

Recommended resources related to the topic:Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4

When Reason Isn’t the Reason for Unbelief by Dr. Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. John D. Ferrer is an educator, writer, and graduate of CrossExamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

The post Part 2 “When Your Opponent Cheats, What Should You do?” appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

By John D. Ferrer

You may have heard the phrase, “turnabout is fair play.” If your opponent on the soccer pitch, football field, or basketball court is illegally pushing, shoving, and elbowing you, then it’s only fair that you can push back, right? Turnabout, as they say, is fair play. And as long as it’s not against the law, immoral, or physically harming anyone, then that principle might work fine at least for ball games and boardgames. But what about the game of politics?

Frank and I had a podcast on this topic too. Check it out at:
When Your Opponent Cheats, What Should You Do? | with Dr. John Ferrer

How far should we take this idea of, “turnabout is fair play?” A gentleman from Nigeria by the name of Austin sent us a question about this last week.

“Imagine that you’re in the ring of boxing with an opponent who is breaking all the rules and nobody is calling him to order, would you keep following the rules? To be more specific, this analogy is to capture the imbalance of political power between the muslim north and the christian south of Nigeria. As I’m sure you already know, the survival of Islam is hinged on political power and domination. Our muslim brothers are extremely political, while the christians are, for the most part, passive. But besides the political docility of the christians, our muslims don’t really play fair. For example, muslims go as far as registering underaged voters. This is one of the major reasons northern votes beat southern votes in federal elections, not that the number of muslims is above that of christians. There’s a lot more of their shenanigans that I’d rather not name here. The situation is far uglier than I’ve decided to capture at this present time… So, how do you see this? How do you play fair with an opponent who doesn’t play fair?”

Austin is clearly concerned for more than just apologetics. He yearns for justice. Beneath the looming weight of political corruption and injustice, he is staring down one of the largest militant fronts of modern day Islam. He’s rightfully concerned that religious and political opponents have rigged the system. Of course, he wants to do something about it!

If his opponents in the Muslim north are cheating and abusing the system to stay in power, then perhaps Christians in the South can use the same tactics to stand against the spreading Islamic caliphate. The Christians would have good motives. The other guys cheated first. So, is it okay to lie and cheat if the other guy is doing it?

In short, no.While I sympathize with Austin in Nigeria, I can’t condone that behavior. He’s asking a practical question, of whether the “ends justify the means.” That axiom is the centerpiece of Utilitarianism[i], a non-Christian ethical theory coined by Jeremy Bentham. Sure, lying and cheating might help you win elections. And you might be cheating the same way your opponents are. But the ends don’t justify the means. The means need to be justified themselves.

Moreover, lying and cheating won’t preserve the integrity of the church or showcase the light of Christ to the world. Now, we’ll get into some exceptional cases later. But at this point, if you aren’t literally being forced lie and cheat, then you shouldn’t lie or cheat.

Heart checkPerhaps the best starting point for unpacking that answer is to do a heart-check. Ask yourself: Do you fear and love God more than anyone else?

“Do you fear and love God more than anyone else?”

By that I mean, do you fear God as the sovereign judge and King more than you fear anyone else? And do you love God as your heavenly Father, more than you love anyone else? When we can answer this heart-check with a resounding “Yes!” then we’re in a good position to face hardship and do the gritty work of apologetics.

This heart-check was Peter’s advice to first century believers. Apologists love to quote him in 1 Peter 3:15b, “always be prepared to give an answer.” But just before that classic call to defend the faith, Peter sets it inside a persecution context. In verse 14 he says, “But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.” Answering how to do that, Peter says to put Jesus first. “But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord” (vs15a). The surrounding passage, 1 Peter 3:9-17[ii] reinforces this point saying, “do not repay evil with evil,” “or insult with insult,” “repay evil with blessing,” “keep [your] tongue from evil and lips from deceitful speech,” and “suffer for doing good” rather “than for doing evil.”

That’s easy for you to sayOf course, it’s easy for me to say all this. My job, my family, my way of life, are all safe. There are no political enemies or religious invaders beating down our door. My home church faces no real danger of conquest, at the hands of radical Muslims, militant Hindus, or even snarky atheists. It’s easy for me to tell folks to endure persecution heroically when it’s their persecution and not mine. That’s why I’m not speaking on my own authority. Apostle Peter said it first. I’m just agreeing with him. If I ever face persecution like my brothers and sisters in Nigeria are facing, I pray I’d have the courage to take my own advice, I pray I would follow St. Peter in honoring Christ as Lord and suffering well.

“Love and honor Christ as Lord, then suffer well.”

How do we do that?At this point, you may be saying to yourself, “Okay, be righteous and don’t ‘sink to their level.’ I get it. But how do we do that?” That’s a great question. I’m glad you asked! Stay tuned for part 2 where I explain seven principles we should all follow when our opponent isn’t fighting fairly.

Footnotes:[i] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/

[ii] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Peter+3%3A9-17&version=ESV

Recommended resources related to the topic:Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4

When Reason Isn’t the Reason for Unbelief by Dr. Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. John D. Ferrer is an educator, writer, and graduate of CrossExamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

The post When Your Opponent Cheats, What Should You do? appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

By Bobby Conway

Have you ever found yourself in a conversation with a skeptic only to be asked in gotcha fashion, “Well, who made God?” Asking the question, “Who made God?” is like asking, “How did Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata taste?” It just doesn’t fit. The question is a classic category mistake. God wasn’t made and Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata can’t be tasted. Adding to this blunder, the famed atheist Bertrand Russell notoriously said, “If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.” Yet, it’s not true that everything must have a cause. Only that which begins to exist must have a cause. And herein God is perched up in a category all His own.

God is the uncreated Creator.

He is the beginning-less Beginner.

He is the uncaused Cause of all that began to exist.

Think about it. Everything that had a beginning had a cause. And every beginning had a Beginner. And every product has a Producer. And every initiative must have an Initiator. If there is an origin, there must be an Originator. And since there is a genesis, there is a Generator.

That generator my friend is, well, you guessed it.

God.

The Scriptures exclaim from the very first verse, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). Far from being made, God is the maker of all things made.

Again, note the distinction. The difference between God and everything else that exists is everything else began to exist whereas God just exists. Do you remember what God said to Moses when He appeared to him in the burning bush? Moses said,

“If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you’” (Exodus 3:13-14).

What was God saying to Moses? He was revealing Himself to Moses as the self-existent one. As the one who wasn’t made. God was saying, “Moses, go tell them that the One who never began to exist sent you. The unmade One.”

Unlike us, God is what philosophers refers to as a necessary being, an independent being. And each of us, unlike God, are contingent beings and, therefore, dependent. The universe is also contingent because God spoke it into existence. This means that all things that began to exist are dependent on God for existence.

It turns out there is a problem with the question, “Who made God?” The word made can’t be said of God. For God is the unmade Maker. As expected, he’s in a league of his own.

Recommended resources related to the topic:Why Science Needs God by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Does Science Disprove God? by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bobby serves as lead pastor of Image Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, and is well known for his YouTube ministry called, One Minute Apologist, which now goes by the name Christianity Still Makes Sense. He also serves as the Co-Host of Pastors’ Perspective, a nationally syndicated call-in radio show on KWVE in Southern California. Bobby earned his Master of Theology degree from Dallas Theological Seminary, his Doctor of Ministry in Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary, and his Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from the University of Birmingham (England) where he was supervised under David Cheetham and Yujin Nagasawa. Bobby’s also written several books including: The Fifth Gospel, Doubting Toward Faith, Does God Exist, and Fifty-One other Questions About God and the Bible and the forthcoming Christianity Still Makes Sense to be published by Tyndale in April 2024. He’s married to his lovely wife Heather and together they have two grown kids: Haley and Dawson.

The post Who Made God? appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

By Shanda Fulbright

It never fails. When churched kids hit a certain age, I get panicked messages from parents. They usually start with, “We’re a Christian family, but my son doesn’t want to go to church anymore. He doesn’t believe in God.” Or, “I assumed my daughter was pro-life but she just told me women have the right to choose. How can this be when we are a pro-life family?”

These messages never come when the child is 8 or 9. I never hear about an 11 year old struggling to believe whether or not the Bible is true. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, I’m just saying this isn’t the age where parents start to panic.

It’s usually around the time our kids are well into their teenage years that parents begin to notice our kids aren’t on board with the whole God, Jesus, and the Bible stuff. Why does it take so long to realize this? There are two main factors. First, we assume that because our kids go to church, they are adopting the beliefs of Christianity. Second, most parents aren’t being discipled, so it’s impossible to catch the discrepancies in the worldview our child actually has compared to a biblical worldview until something big happens – like the approval of abortion or a blatant disbelief in God.

This is where parents hit the panic button.Is there hope for parents whose teenagers are about to walk away from Christianity? The good news: as long as we have Christ there is always hope. The reality: it’s not going to be as easy in the teen years as it would have been to teach them when they were younger. It will take diligence, and if diligence is what’s been missing all along, be diligent now.

The question is, what does diligent teaching look like in the 21st century?

Learning is a layered process.That means we must transfer knowledge strategically, layer by layer. There has to be a foundation laid and basic knowledge taught before anyone can understand larger concepts. This goes for students of any age. If we skip the foundation, there will be a gap in knowledge. In Christianity, the gap in knowledge is evident when Christians lack a biblical worldview. By the time parents hear their kids expressing a disbelief in God, the gap is already there and it’s likely because they skipped the foundational stage.

So, let’s discuss the three basic stages in the layered process of learning, no matter how old your kids are. Keep in mind that there are recommended age groups to begin each stage, but if you are just beginning to disciple your kids, this is the process from beginning to end.

The good news is that you can always begin at any stage, depending on where you left off. And if you have been doing this all along, keep plugging away knowing that in due time you will reap a harvest (Gal 6:9).

Foundational stage: God’s Word (suggested age – birth to primary)The path to a biblical worldview begins with biblical literacy. The Bible talks about the word of God as the foundation on which to build (Matt 7:24-27). It also refers to the word of God as spiritual food. It is a necessity of life that all who follow the Lord must implement into their daily walk. But we can’t expect our kids to do this without help.

The approach we take to teaching our children is important because how we present the word of God will determine how they view the word of God. Is it important to you? Then it will be important to them. Do you believe it is the infallible word of God? Then they will too. If you present it as stories instead of historical narratives, then they will view it as a fictional story thrown into their bedtime routine. The language we use when we talk to our kids about God and His word matters. So present the word as a necessity, not as an option.

Connection Stage: God’s World (suggested age – adolescent to preteen)When we teach apologetics to Christians, we must take a different approach than when we use apologetics to defend our faith with a secular audience. Middle schoolers must begin to make the connection that God’s word and God’s world are not in conflict. We will only be successful at adding this layer to our children’s learning if we laid the foundation of biblical literacy during the first stage.

What happens if we didn’t? The good news is that we can start now. Weave biblical truths into your instruction so that the apologetics concepts are tethered to Scripture. For example, kids need to know God’s nature of goodness in order to understand why He is the moral law-giver. Do a study on God’s attributes before you study the apologetics arguments. This will help fill-in the biblical literacy gaps missed in stage one. Just remember – saturate them with the word of God in every stage, not just the first stage. The word of God is at the core of Christian education.

It’s imperative that we ensure our middle schoolers see how God’s word and God’s world connect. Scientific evidence that points to God’s existence supported by biblical truths accomplishes this. This is where the Cosmological and Design Arguments come in handy. If we don’t help middle schoolers connect the word with the world, it’s likely they’re already questioning the validity of one and where they fit into the other.

Action Stage: Live God’s word in God’s world (suggested age – teens to adult) How we view the world affects how we live. At this stage, it is important to help your teens make the connection between the word of God and how it applies to the issues of life. In other words, get comfortable with having uncomfortable conversations.

It is the goal to get them to this stage with a biblical worldview so that they draw from biblical truths when looking for the answers to life’s questions. Students who have been discipled and understand why there are good reasons to believe Christianity is true will begin to connect knowledge of God and His word to the understanding of God and His word, and live for God by His word. In fact, this is where the evidence of a biblical worldview is seen in the life of our kids. When the knowledge of all they’ve learned leads them to an understanding of it, they are able to live it. And that’s how we know what someone truly believes.

All too often, Christians compartmentalize the Bible and separate it from the real world. We must be willing to bring real world issues into our conversations with our teens. But I caution you not to wait for your teen to come to you. Open the door to hard conversations about gender and sexuality, abortion, co-habitation, and all of the hot-button topics that make parents cringe. Trust me. Once you get used to having hard conversations they won’t be so hard anymore and you will help your teen live the word in the world.

Successful parents have this in commonIf you find your kids are older and they’re beyond the first and second stages suggested here, don’t panic. As I said before, as long as Jesus is in the equation there is always hope. However, the stages of teaching a biblical worldview don’t change:

First, lay the foundation of biblical literacy: God’s word.

Next, add the building block of apologetics: God’s world.

Finally, teach them to apply it: live the word in God’s world.

For those parents who are wondering if the opportunity to teach your kids has passed you by, I want to offer some encouragement. You are the most influential person in your child’s life and that will never change. Use that influence to go back and make up the ground you think you’ve lost. Because as I’ve said before, with Christ it is never too late.

It is our job as parents to make sure we do all we can to raise godly men and women. Our culture looks different today than the cultures before us, but the biblical mandate to parents has always been the same. God calls us to be diligent, and parents must answer the call.

Recommended resources related to the topic:Proverbs: Making Your Paths Straight Complete 9-part Series by Frank Turek DVD and Download

God’s Crime Scene for Kids by J. Warner Wallace and Susie Wallace (Book)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Shanda Fulbright is a credentialed teacher and has a certificate in Christian Apologetics from Biola University, a certificate from the CrossExamined Instructor’s Academy as well as several certificates from Online Christian Courses. She hosts Her Faith Inspires podcast where she takes cultural issues and aligns them to biblical truth. You can read her blogs and find out more about her at shandafulbright.com

The post Don’t Panic: A Step by Step Approach to Teaching Kids About God appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

By Erik Manning

On the evening of April 2, 1968, a Muslim bus mechanic was working across the street from St. Mary’s Coptic Church in Zeitoun, a district of Cairo, Egypt. Suddenly, something on the roof of St. Mary’s got his attention: a figure that looked like a young woman. The mechanic pointed it out to a few people nearby who saw the same thing. Concerned that the young lady was about to commit suicide, they called the police. A crowd gathered around the church to watch. Then, after just a few minutes, the woman suddenly vanished. As you can imagine, this got people talking.

At first the police tried to explain things away, saying it was just some light reflecting in a strange way from a street light – but many weren’t persuaded. A week later the female figure appeared on the roof again. The appearance of the woman lasted for a few minutes and then disappeared. Some people began to connect the dots: This is St. Mary’s church. The church is believed to be one of the locations that Jesus’ family stayed during their flight to Egypt. We’re seeing a shining female figure on the roof. Sure this must be the Mother of Jesus!

From there the appearances began to happen more frequently, at times lasting for hours. In some reports, the apparition appeared to be bowing toward the cross atop the church or blessing onlookers on the street below. Some of the faithful who came to tour the holy site reported to be healed of illnesses. The Coptic Orthodox Pope appointed a committee of high-ranking priests and bishops to investigate. On May 4th, the church issued an official statement confirming the apparitions as genuine.

The apparitions were witnessed by the Egyptian President. Some were recorded on film by newspaper photographers and Egyptian television. Police investigations found no apparent explanation. No device was found within a radius of fifteen miles capable of projecting the image, and many photos were taken of the alleged apparition from independent sources. With no alternative explanation and approval from religious and political leaders, the Egyptian government accepted the apparitions as true.

ARE APPARITIONS LIKE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES?So why am I talking about the Marian apparitions of Zeitoun? It’s because scholars like Dale Allison and Bart Ehrman attempt to parallel these appearances with Jesus’ resurrection appearances. In fact, Allison says that they are in some ways better evidenced and yet he remains agnostic about them. Allison writes:

“Our knowledge of what happened in the days after Good Friday is depressingly sparse over and against our knowledge of what happened in Zeitoun. With respect to the latter, we have interviews with multiple eye-witnesses. We have photographs. We have on-the-spot, as-it-unfolded journalistic reports from religious and irreligious. We have a statement from an investigative committee. We have none of this, by contrast, with respect to Jesus’ resurrection, only a lamentable paucity of evidence and lack of detail at every turn. One wonders how, if we cannot solve the puzzle of Zeitoun, about which we know so much, we can solve the puzzle that is Jesus’ resurrection, about which we know so little.”

Bart Ehrman mostly agrees with Allison. He seemingly points out some inconsistency among resurrection apologists like William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas and Mike Licona, writing:

“it is striking and worth noting that typically believers in one religious tradition often insist on the “evidence” for the miracles that support their views and completely discount the “evidence” for miracles attested in some other religious tradition, even though, at the end of the day, it is the same kind of evidence (for example, eyewitness testimony) and may be of even greater abundance. Protestant apologists interested in “proving” that Jesus was raised from the dead rarely show any interest in applying their finely honed historical talents to the exalted Blessed Virgin Mary”

(How Jesus Became God) Ehrman doesn’t call them out by name, but these three prominent resurrection apologists are all committed Baptists.

When an Emailer asked about the parallel between Marian appearances and Jesus’ post-mortem appearances, Dr. Craig had his colleague Mike Licona respond to the reader’s question. Licona wrote:[i]

“In my debates with Ehrman, when he has raised the topic of Marian apparitions, I have responded that I do not doubt that the recipients saw something. What they saw is what I question. Elliot Miller and Kenneth Samples co-authored the book The Cult of the Virgin: Catholic Mariology and the Apparitions of Mary. In this book, they discuss the three major accounts of Marian apparitions: Lourdes, France; Fatima, Portugal; and Medjugorje, (mud·joo·jor·jee) Croatia. I know Samples personally. He has interviewed several of the seers to whom Mary has appeared in Medjugorje. Although Samples is a Christian whose Protestant theology does not incline him to believe that Mary has appeared to others, he is convinced that these seers have seen a spirit being. In fact, I had an opportunity to inquire further of Samples on the matter. He told me that several of the seers in Medjugorje continued to have visions of Mary. In fact, he was with one of the seers while he was experiencing such a vision, although no one else in the room saw her. Samples told me he asked the seer if Mary had ever spoken to him. The seer said she had, recommending a specific book which the seer was to read. When Samples looked up the title of the book, it was occultic. This led him to believe that a demonic spirit is what is appearing to the seers.”

I’m sure the “it’s the devil” hypothesis will offend Catholics and Orthodox Christians. I’d bet that Ehrman would be content to let them fight it out amongst themselves. Pitting Catholics vs. Protestants is a classic move made by skeptics going back to the Deist Controversy in the 17th and 18th century. Rather than denying the evidence, Licona refers to Samples’ theological argument, which seems to be based on some personal anecdotes and doctrinal inferences.

Even if you’re theologically opposed to the veneration of Mary, this evil spirit hypothesis is probably giving the devil more credit than due. While I’m a settled Protestant, I’m not automatically inclined to say that all Marian apparitions are either delusions, hoaxes or demonic because of my prior theological commitments. With enough evidence, my mind could be changed. But I don’t think Marian apparitions come anywhere near what we have for the resurrection. It’s more of an apples and oranges comparison.

WHAT WOULD BE EVIDENCE OF MARIAN APPARIATIONS?What would convince me of Marian apparitions? Let’s think about it. Imagine if Mary appeared to a dozen people and ate several meals with them, they touched her hands, and she conversed with them. Now also suppose this group of twelve people were all Protestants, living in a country where converting to Catholicism could result in their arrest, torture, or death. That would move me a bit closer to accepting them.

But there’s a big problem. No one who has seen an apparition of Mary knew Mary before she died. There’s a tradition that she appeared to James the Son of Zebedee in Spain in 40 AD, but the evidence for this tradition is thin and Mary was probably still alive at that time. Those who believe in this appearance claim that she was supernaturally present in two places at once. The first recorded Marian apparition approved by the Catholic church was in 1555. Obviously Mary hasn’t been known by anyone personally for centuries, so there’s always at least the possibility that someone could be hoaxing these people in this proposed scenario.

People laughed when Robert Greg Cavin came up with his “twin brother” theory to explain away the resurrection. But Cavin had to come up with a theory to explain why the disciples thought they saw the risen Jesus, as they knew what Jesus looked like. They had hung out with him for three years.

But some might say that perhaps what the apostles saw was something like what people saw in Zeitoun. Maybe they experienced something like a bright light on a rooftop that they mistook to be Jesus and enthusiasm took its course from there. The problem with that is we can’t say that if we take the gospel accounts seriously. For they report multisensory group appearances extended across 40 days. These appearances involved conversations with Jesus, touching his wounds, and eating fish together. These aren’t the kinds of things you can be mistaken about.

Ehrman and Allison think that these accounts are embellished and unreliable, and so this is why they run this weak parallel. It’s not that they don’t think the disciples experienced appearances of Jesus of some sort. They do. This is because of what Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15 that Peter, the Twelve, Paul, James and an unnamed 500 brothers all claimed to have seen the risen Jesus. But what the appearances were like isn’t something Paul goes into detail about. If the best evidence we have for the resurrection is the creed that Paul quotes to the Corinthians, then we’re left with a pretty vague report. Or to use Allison’s words, “depressingly sparse”. Vague appearances that were overinterpreted by the disciples would be consistent with the creed in 1 Corinthians 15.

If we’re going to defend the resurrection, we’re going to need to defend the detailed reports contained in the Gospels are at least what the early disciples reported. But because Licona will only use facts that 90% + of scholars agree upon — which include the likes of Allison and Ehrman — he’s not able to do that. In his big book on the resurrection, Licona writes:

“We may affirm with great confidence that Peter had such an experience in an individual setting, and we will see that the same may be said of an adversary of the church named Paul. We may likewise affirm that there was at least one occasion when a group of Jesus’ followers including “the Twelve” had such an experience. Did other experiences reported by the Gospels occur as well, such as the appearances to the women, Thomas, the Emmaus disciples, and the multiple group appearances reported by the tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 and John? Where did these experiences occur? Historians may be going beyond what the data warrants in assigning a verdict with much confidence to these questions.”

The Resurrection of Jesus, A New Historiographical Approach, Kindle location 3758

This is why I’m not a fan of the minimal facts approach. If we are willing to say that the appearances to the Emmaus disciples or Thomas are impossible to know historically because that’s what the scholarly consensus allows us to say is a minimal fact, then there’s a massive problem. But if we look at the Gospels closely and more fairly, I think we can know with some confidence that they are scrupulous, habitually honest and close up to the facts. They were not the kind of authors who would be prone to embellish things. Nor are they likely to be schizophrenic authors, showing all these signs of truthful testimony, but suddenly at other times consider themselves free to invent and change facts.

And so it looks like they recorded what was really originally claimed by witnesses about Jesus’ resurrection. And this was the apostles’ claim in the midst of persecution, so it would be unlikely that they were fudging the truth. See my playlist on the reliability of the Gospels for more.

So getting back to Marian apparitions. I don’t think it’s at all impossible to have evidence that has strong weight for Marian claims. Let’s suppose that two Protestants who had previously publicly criticized Marian doctrine both claimed at the same time to have seen a vision of a woman claiming to be Mary telling them that she was taken bodily into heaven. Neither had a prior history of mental illness. They destroyed their own Protestant careers and endangered their lives by claiming this.

Furthermore, suppose the woman in question instructed them to call each other and ask each other, “Did you have any strange experience in the last 24 hours?” And they independently did this. That would be evidence of the Marian claims, but it wouldn’t exactly be an analogy to Jesus’ appearances on earth. It would perhaps be more analogous to the conversion of Paul and James. Oddly enough, Dale Allison says nothing short of Mary appearing to him would convince him. I don’t think our standards need to be that absurdly high.

This whole Marian apparition analogy just doesn’t work when one takes a more maximal data approach to the Gospels. I might not be able to explain all Marian apparitions, but they’re not the same as the resurrection appearances in the Gospels. At best they make me say “huh. Maybe the world is a weirder place than I thought, and I don’t really know what to make of this.” But because there seems to be some vagueness about what these apparitions mean or where they originate from I don’t feel super inclined to believe them.

Footnotes:[i] https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/appearances-of-mary-and-jesus-resurrection-appearances

Recommended resources related to the topic:Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

When Reason Isn’t the Reason for Unbelief by Dr. Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Erik is a Reasonable Faith Chapter Director located in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. He’s a former freelance baseball writer and the co-owner of a vintage and handmade decor business with his wife, Dawn. He is passionate about the intersection of apologetics and evangelism.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3Vs9Z0Y

The post Appearances Of Mary Vs. Jesus’ Resurrection Appearances appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

By Judge Phil Ginn

‘I would much rather trust the true Christ than a blatantly false figment of someone’s misguided imagination’

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Parishioners at Trinity College chapel, a constituent college of the University of Cambridge, were stunned and horrified when junior research fellow Joshua Heath preached a sermon claiming that due to select works of historical art, Christ had a “trans body.”[i]

Despite the cries of heresy during the sermon, Dr. Michael Banner, the dean of Trinity College, said Heath raised “legitimate” speculation about the gender of Christ, claiming his sermon “suggested that we might think about these images of Christ’s male/female body as providing us with ways of thinking about issues around transgender questions today.”

Judge Phil Ginn, president of Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES, www.ses.edu), responded to this outlandish speculation, warning Christians against the false doctrines espoused by the misguided and to hold fast to the truth of the Gospel.

Ginn stated, “In the year 167 BC, Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), the king of Syria, captured the city of Jerusalem and laid waste to the capitol of Judaism. In doing so, he desecrated the temple by sacrificing a pig on an altar to Zeus, which had been constructed over the holiest portion of the Jewish Temple. Sadly, desecration of holy places continues to this day despite the warning from 1 Corinthians 3:17 that if ‘any man defiles the temple of God, him shall God destroy.’

“Such is the case with junior research fellow Joshua Heath and even more unfortunately with Dr. Michael Banner, a Dean at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. As reported by Fox News, Mr. Heath apparently preached a sermon in which he claimed that works of art portraying the crucifixion and death of Jesus essentially contemplated the martyrdom of a ‘trans Christ.’ Going even further in his malaise, Heath concluded from his observation of the paintings that the spear wound in Christ’s side ‘takes on a decidedly vaginal appearance.’ Cries of heresy arose from the crowd, but amazingly Dean Banner came to the defense of the blasphemy. Cambridge, of course, labeled the message as ‘thought provoking academic inquiry in keeping with open debate and dialogue.’

“I am sure that Mr. Heath is thankful that someone in authority like the Dean and the Cambridge University leadership came to his defense with their words of support. However, I would tend to lend greater credence to what the Apostle Paul had to say about heretical words and actions desecrating the holiness of God: ‘For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth’ (Romans 1:18). Paul goes even further: ‘For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened’ (Romans 1:21). Finally, Paul says this in the last verse of Romans 1: ‘Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.’”

Ginn concluded, “At Southern Evangelical Seminary we are well familiar with the Latin phrase ‘Coram Deo.’ Simply put, it means to live your life as though you are doing so before the very face of God. We constantly are reminding ourselves and our students to live worthy of the calling of God on our lives. That is why we are standing steadfast in the truth of the Gospel. We hold fast to the inerrant and infallible word of God because we know that it is by the Word of God that our lives will be judged. My prayer is that Mr. Heath, Dean Banner, and all of Cambridge University will come to know the true Messiah who gave his life for the sins of the world and rose on the third day victorious over death. I speak for SES and myself when I say that I would much rather trust the true Christ than a blatantly false namby-pamby figment of someone’s misguided imagination.”

Judge Phil Ginn was appointed president of SES in April 2021 after a distinguished career as both a lawyer and a judge. Over the course of his 22-year judicial career, he was privileged to hold court in almost 50% of the county seats in North Carolina. He holds a B.A. from Appalachian State University, a J.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and a Doctor of Ministry from Southern Evangelical Seminary. Prior to his appointment as SES president, Judge Ginn served as SES Chairman of the Board of Trustees.

SES is proud to announce the upcoming release of “Steadfast: In a World of Confusion, Know Why You Believe.”[ii] This new 10-week study for small groups doubles as a seminary primer course and will give every believer game-changing training for living the Christian faith in today’s world. The study will feature exciting sessions from select SES professors. For more information about the upcoming study, click here.

The mission of SES is to train men and women, based on the inerrant and infallible written Word of God, for the evangelization of the world and the defense of the historic Christian faith. SES offers a range of undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral degrees (along with several for-credit certificates) that uniquely integrate theology, philosophy, and apologetics to build a complete and systematic Christian worldview.

Footnotes:[i] Cambridge dean defends sermon about Jesus’ ‘trans body,’ ‘vaginal’ side wound blasted as ‘heresy’

[ii] In a World of Confusion, Know Why You Believe STEADFAST 10-Week Small Group Apologetics Study

Recommended resources related to the topic:Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) downloadable pdf, PowerPoint by Dr. Frank Turek

You Can’t NOT Legislate Morality mp3 by Frank Turek

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3VlirPt

The post SES president: Heretical Cambridge sermon claiming Christ had a ‘trans body’ is sign of evil in world today appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

By RYAN LEASURE

At Grace Bible Church, we have a statement of faith that all members must affirm. It’s a fine statement of faith (though a little long if you ask me). And it provides a nice summary of basic Christian belief. That said, not all doctrines are created equal. Some doctrines are absolutely essential while others are less important. How, then, should Christians “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) without contending for too much or too little?

In other words, how do we know which doctrines are worth fighting for and which ones are not? To help with these matters, we have adopted what Al Mohler once dubbed a “Theological Triage.”

Theological TriageThe word “triage” comes from a French word which means “to sort.” And if you’ve ever been to an emergency room, you’re familiar with the sorting process that takes place. If someone shows up with the sniffles, they’re most likely put at the back of the line. If someone shows up holding their decapitated leg, they’re put up front.

Doing theological triage follows a similar principle. As Christians, we must think through doctrine and decide which doctrines get sorted to the front (first-order issues) and which ones get pushed to the back (third-order issues).

At every membership class, I explain this concept and teach newcomers which doctrines are essential and which ones we can agree to disagree on. Let’s consider the three categories in turn.

First-Order DoctrinesFirst-order doctrines are the absolute essential doctrines to the Christian faith. These are doctrines that every true believer should affirm without hesitation. These doctrines include:

• God is a Trinity
• God is the creator of all things
• Jesus Christ is the Son of God
• Jesus is both God and man
• Humans are made in God’s image
• All humans are sinners and they must repent of their sin
• Jesus died on a cross for our sins and rose again from the dead
• People are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone
• The Bible is God’s inspired word
• Jesus is coming back to judge the living and the dead

You get the idea. These beliefs are so fundamental to the faith that if someone were to deny them, we would say that person belongs to a different faith system altogether.

Second-Order DoctrinesSecond-order doctrines are not essential doctrines of the Christian faith, but they are essential for church membership. That is to say, even though people may disagree with us on these issues, we would not call into question their standing with God. We may think they’re wrong and think they should reconsider their views. But we would not question their faith altogether. That said, if people are going to be part of the same church, they need to agree on these second-order issues:

• The recipients of baptism
• Women Pastors
• Revelatory gifts (speaking in tongues or prophecy)

Our statement of faith is clear on the first two points. We baptize believers and believe God has ordained for qualified men to serve as pastors. Our statement of faith doesn’t speak to revelatory gifts in the same way. So one could technically classify it as a third-order doctrine. But I suspect if someone felt strongly about publicly prophesying or speaking in tongues before the church, they would feel compelled to go to a different church where those types of practices were more accepted.

Third-Order DoctrinesThird-order doctrines are not essential to the Christian faith, nor are they essential for church membership. That is to say, church members are free to disagree on these matters. This does not mean, however, that these doctrines are unimportant (we can think of less important beliefs). It does not mean that we should not study the Scriptures to try and make sense of them as best as we can. What it does mean is that we are not going to divide over these issues.

Now sadly, it’s these third-order issues that have led to more church splits than anything else. But at Grace Bible Church, we are committed to remaining unified around the main things while allowing charitable disagreement around the not-so-main things. These third-tier doctrines include:

• Calvinism vs. Arminianism
• Age of the Earth
• Millennial or tribulation views

Our statement of faith does not take a hard stand on any of these issues. Therefore, one does not need to affirm Calvinism or Arminianism in order to be a member in good standing at Grace Bible Church. In fact, our church leadership has disagreements on these matters! The same goes for one’s understanding of the age of the earth and the millennium. Good faithful Christians throughout history have disagreed on these matters which leads us to believe the issues aren’t as clear as the first and second-order doctrines.

What we encourage, then, is for each member to act charitably towards others with whom they disagree. We should never ridicule someone or call their faith into question because they land in a different place on one of these third-tier issues. We can agree to disagree or even study the topic together with the hopes of learning from one another. Let’s remember, though we’re all trying to get it right, none of us are infallible.

Dividing Over DoctrinePlacing doctrines in their proper tiers allows the church “to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). It protects the church from contending too much or too little.

Liberals have historically contended for too little. They have tended to press first-tier doctrines down to the third tier. They’ve adopted an “agree to disagree” mentality when it comes to important matters such as Christ’s bodily resurrection from the dead! On the flip side, fundamentalists have historically contended for too much. They have pushed third-tier issues up to the first tier and have divided over less-than-critical matters.

Doing theological triage protects us from both of these errors.

Recommended resources related to the topic:Legislating Morality (mp4 download), (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), (PowerPoint download), and (PowerPoint CD) by Frank Turek

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ryan Leasure holds a Master of Arts from Furman University and a Masters of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Currently, he’s a Doctor of Ministry candidate at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He also serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.

The post Can We Agree to Disagree on Predestination? appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

By (Josh Klein)

If God is so good, why did he command the Israelites to utterly destroy everyone and everything in the Old Testament?

Is God a moral monster?[i] Particularly in the conquest of the land of Canaan? God calls for the complete and utter destruction of men, women, and children (as well as animals) multiple times[ii]. How could a moral God do this? Is that not genocidal malevolence? Would we not condemn a national leader today if they said “God told me to do murder thousands of children and women in His name” as a lunatic and a monster?

I believe these are important questions.

The question is a thoughtful one. When asked honestly, it takes seriously the biblical claims of God’s goodness, righteousness, love, and grace. The question, better asked, is like this: If God is who the rest of scripture says he is then how could he act in such a manner here? If God’s morality is inconsistent, then he really is not a god at all is he?

How we answer this question says a lot about who we believe God to be and what we believe scripture to be.

When I was in seminary, I took a class on Old Testament theology. I enjoyed the class because it came from a different perspective than I was used to. The professor in the class insisted that much of the narrative was mythological and/or allegorical in a way that was intended to set up Judaism’s religious structure and, ultimately, their need for a Messiah. He went so far as to say that Israel was likely a people that “emerged” from within the land of Canaan only to create a mythological origin story at a later date. In other words, the inerrancy of scripture is dubious at best.

One of the main issues brought to bear during the class was the violence in the Old Testament scriptures, particularly in the Israelite conquest of Canaan. I remember responding to the question with this statement: “If God is the author of life and death can’t God remove life at his will, and it be just? Especially considering man’s sin nature?”

This response alone fails to take the question seriously. The question is not about God’s power or his creative authority. It is about God’s consistency and biblical inherency. Why would God, out of one side of his mouth, condemn the Canaanite people to death, and then out of the other side of his mouth say things like “pray for those who persecute you?”

If God is not consistent then he is not moral. If God is not moral then he is not good, and if God is not good then he is not God.

Another unhelpful response is to use Romans 9[iii] as a justification in and of itself to proclaim that God creates some people to be killed for something they had no choice in doing. This sort of Exhaustive Divine Determinism[iv] unwittingly plays into the question’s premise. If God is creating people merely to smite them with his chosen people, then God seems to be a sadist. And while we can argue for God’s divine authority to do so until we are blue in the face, it does not, in fact, address the argument. Nor does it bring the skeptic closer to understanding God.

There are many responses to this question that are biblically and philosophically sound, and I cannot articulate all of them at length in this space. However, I believe we can provide a short answer that both takes the question seriously and remains faithful the biblical text without having to become an expert on ancient middle eastern civilizations.

For more on this objection check these out: Tim Stratton,[v] John Piper,[vi] William Lane Craig[vii]**

To be clear, this is not an argument for the existence of God. The argument only follows once God’s existence has been established. This is also not an answer to the Euthyphro[viii] or Epicurean[ix] dilemmas. Perhaps I will tackle those another time, but I find them pedantic and shallow and easily refuted.

This is an argument for the consistency of the Judeo-Christian God, and a defense of his ethical consistency relying on the very thing he used to reveal himself: scripture.

To understand why God is a good God even (and perhaps especially!) within the context of the conquest of Canaan we need to go back to the very beginning to understand God’s relationship with creation in a post-fall world. I do not endeavor to provide a comprehensive breakdown in the limited space available here. Suffice it to say that entire books have been, and still could be, written on the topic and each line of thinking through the scriptures that I will provide could be expounded on ten-fold.

The foundation of God’s morality in this issue stems from a theology of sin that is introduced in the early part of Genesis. We find the penalty for sin, in general, is death[x]. However, we also find that the judge of the matter is God[xi] not man. The first human death recorded in scripture does not come from the hands of God, but from the hands of one brother to another. Cain feels slighted by Abel because his offerings to God are taken seriously while Cain’s are not. Cain’s response is to murder his brother in a fit of jealous rage. What Cain thought was justice we find to be injustice, and thus, punishable. The ethical keys to using death as discipline are only ever in the hands of God. Unless God proclaims death as consequence, death ought not be a consequence. We see this as well in God’s handling of Cain after the fact. It is God’s choice to allow Cain to live, despite the murder of his brother, and to give him a mark to indicate that this judgement is final and cannot be undone by human hands. Divine justice, from the hands of God is wielded for specific reasons upon specific people and we find this to be true throughout the scriptures.

Fast forward to the story of Noah[xii] and we find that God’s declaration of death upon all creation is due to the fall in the beginning of Genesis. While many will focus on the unfathomable act of judgement that occurs with a global flood in Genesis 6-11, one aspect that is often overlooked is God’s patience in the matter. A common theme throughout scripture is God’s patience with evil over time but swift rendering of justice when it reaches its fullness. God waits until “every intent of the thoughts of their (humanity’s) hearts was only evil continually” before he enacts divine justice through death with the global flood.

In the first 11 chapters of the Bible, we are reminded that God is just, loving, gracious, and merciful with his creation and God’s character in that regard does not shift in the time of the conquest of Canaan. Nor has it shifted since. Someday, the Lord will return with the keys to the second death, the real penalty for sin[xiii], and his judgement will be swift, righteous, and eternal!

But what make’s God’s judgement of humankind just? Using scripture as the barometer we find that humanity is corrupt from birth. We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are constituted sinners.[xiv] Thus, all of humanity is deserving of death from the moment we are born. Living any part of life is a gift. God then, can take human life at his will because it is perfect and just for him to do so. The beginning of Genesis teaches us this. Every person that dies is experiencing judgement from the first sin, and every person that lives experiences grace.

But what about when God uses other humans as his tool for judgement? Up until now we have seen only instances of God’s divine intervention. However, soon, in biblical history, we are introduced to God’s use of human vessels to enact his judgement on the sins of humanity.

God’s judgement is just when it comes to taking human life, and God can and will take human life by utilizing human actors. Innocence cannot be claimed to the divine by a fallen being. The taking of “innocent” human life then, must be ordained by God as judgement for a wicked and theocratic people.

As Cardinal Manning once remarked, “all human conflict is ultimately theological.” So it is with biblical history between nations. Starting with the nation of Egypt at the end of Genesis and into the opening chapters of Exodus, we find that nearly every nation God’s chosen people interact with is a theocratic nation. Thus, God’s judgement on those nations reflects their devotion to a god that does not exist. They must be punished as a group, not merely as individuals lest they lead the nation of Israel astray into a different theocracy. We find this to be true with the flood[xv], Sodom and Gomorrah[xvi] the plagues of Egypt[xvii], and so it is with the conquest of Canaan. God waits until sin has reached its apex to blot it out and he erases demonic deities in the process.

We find this convergence between God’s divine patience and his need to exact justice on nations that worship non-deities in Genesis 15:16 when God says, “…the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.”

God’s patience is such that he will note strike against an entire nation of people unless their wickedness has been made complete. At this point in time, he will hand them over to their sin and punish them accordingly[xviii]. At the time that Israel is poised to enter the promised land we find that the wickedness of the Canaanite peoples in the land were at a fever pitch.

But God’s grace still abounds, prior to Israel’s arrival God promises to drive people from the land himself, “little by little” to make the conquest of Canaan easier for the Israelites but also because of his righteous judgement.[xix]

What constitutes completed wickedness? Why was God’s patience running out upon the entrance into the land of Canaan? Believe it or not, God’s law, specifically in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy gives us an answer.

God is very clear in Deuteronomy 9 that he is using Israel as a vessel for judgement. That the land is not a reward for Israel, but the conquest is a punishment for the wicked nations inhabiting the land.

We find that the nations in Canaan were engaged in all sorts of abhorrent, deviant, and evil behaviors. Incest, rape, child sacrifice, temple prostitution, homosexuality, bestiality, witchcraft, and profane violence to name only a few[xx]. After listing all of these behaviors as unlawful and worthy of the death penalty in Leviticus 18 God goes on to say this about the nations inhabiting Canaan at that time, “Do not defile yourselves by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am casting out before you have become defiled,” and again in Leviticus 20:23, “Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I will drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them.”

There are many extra-biblical accounts of the evil practices of the Canaanite theocratic city-states as well. Particularly found in the Archaeological record (Archaeology and the Old Testament)[xxi] (Moloch and Canaanite Worship).[xxii]

The judgement that God foretold in Genesis 15 came to fruition through the Israelites in the conquest of Canaan. God’s judgement on a theocratic people was swift and severe lest the “gods” of the Canaanites be said to have “saved” select people to maintain the faith. And we know that this happens because the Israelites ultimately fail to live up to the billing and allow Canaanite religions not only to remain, but to thrive in their midst. Likewise, the violent judgement of Israel foretold by Yahweh in Deuteronomy[xxiii] came true with the conquest of the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians.

We find that Joshua did all that he was told at the beginning of the book, but the Israelites failed to carry that mantle after his death. There is a common misconception by some that this means either Joshua used hyperbole to indicate he accomplished his task or that God was using hyperbole when he commanded Joshua to utterly destroy certain Canaanite cities. I believe neither viewpoint to be accurate.

It is clear from the beginning of the book of Joshua that he and the Israelites took very seriously God’s command. Otherwise Achan would not have been destroyed along with his family for violating the commandment after the Israelite defeat at Ai.[xxiv]

A careful reading of God’s rules for engagement in Deuteronomy 7 indicates that God anticipates survivors and even makes it clear to the Israelites that these survivors must not be allowed to prosper.[xxv] Elsewhere, in Deuteronomy 20, we find that there are other options for cities not placed under the “ban”. Israel was to first offer terms of peace, and if peace was rejected then they were to only destroy the men.[xxvi] Thus, the conquest of Canaan was primarily a judgement upon the kings of Canaan for their wicked and perverse structures.

God’s character remains the same in each of these events, and will remain the same in the consummation of time when God deals once and for all with sin and death. What does this mean? It means that the conquest of Canaan is no different than the flood story or the judgement of the world at the end of time. God’s divine ethic remains unwavering, and while it can seem unsettling for us to engage, we must understand the curse of Genesis 3 is what leads to the conquest in Joshua and the seat of judgement in Revelation.

Finally, while the divine ethic does not change, how that ethic is accomplished on earth does shift as God’s sovereign story continues to unfold. Just as God promised to never judge the world by a flood in Genesis[xxvii], he likewise shifts the focus of judgement from temporal to eternal through the establishment of his church through Jesus Christ. Could God still use nations to rain judgment down on each other? Absolutely, the heart of every human conflict is theological and current wars are no different. However, the time that God articulates a judgement on a people through the conquest of another people has long since passed. Not because it was wrong for God to do so, but because his choice in displaying his justice to the world now simply looks different.

God has released his final Word in the world and judgement rests on what the world does with Him[xxviii]. Thus, the idea that a current nation could legitimately use the idea that God is using them as a tool for judgement is refuted in scripture itself. But that’s another topic for another time.

In the end, the divine ethic survives severe scrutiny when placed within the framework of the biblical text. The Canaanite cultures were among the most abusive and evil cultures to have ever been established on the earth and God’s judgement of them was certainly just. The conquest is certainly unpalatable to our western minds, and for good reason. What matters most in this instance is not whether or not it makes us feel uneasy but whether or not this action is consistent with the character of God throughout history and scripture. I believe, that even in this short treatment we have found this to be right and true.

Footnotes:[i] https://www.christianbook.com/moral-monster-making-sense-old-testament/paul-copan/9780801072758/pd/072758?event=ERRCER1

[ii] Deuteronomy 2:34, 3:6, 20:17; Joshua 6:21, 8:26, 10:28

[iii] Romans 9

[iv] https://freethinkingministries.com/3-reasons-why-exhaustive-divine-determinism-edd-is-not-redundant/

[v] https://freethinkingministries.com/ten-problems-with-the-canaanite-objection/?fbclid=IwAR1exRdFZkfyooD9VdxxgClonAsPVnkcNZzBuBv2tY_TNZ1XFN37tlxD2MI

[vi] https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/the-conquest-of-canaan

[vii] https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/slaughter-of-the-canaanites

[viii] https://www.rationalrealm.com/philosophy/ethics/morality-objective-without-god-page5.html

[ix] https://epicurus.today/the-epicurean-paradox/

[x] Genesis 3, Romans 3:23

[xi] Genesis 4:1-16

[xii] Genesis 6-9

[xiii] Romans 3-4

[xiv] Romans 5

[xv] Genesis 6-9

[xvi] Genesis 19

[xvii] Each plague refutes an Egyptian god including the taking of Pharoah’s son – Exodus 9

[xviii] Romans 1:23-30

[xix] Exodus 23:30; Deuteronomy 7:21-23

[xx] Leviticus 18-20

[xxi] https://www.amazon.com/Archaeology-Old-Testament-Merrill-Unger/dp/0310333911

[xxii] https://allthatsinteresting.com/moloch

[xxiii] Deuteronomy 28-30

[xxiv] Joshua 7-8

[xxv] Deuteronomy 7:2-6

[xxvi] Deuteronomy 20:10-15

[xxvii] Genesis 9:11

[xxviii] Hebrews 1

Recommended resources related to the topic:Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Frank Turek (DVD/ Mp3/ Mp4)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Josh Klein is a Pastor from Omaha, Nebraska with over a decade of ministry experience. He graduated with an MDiv from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his spare time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married for 12 years to Sharalee Klein and they have three young children.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3G6x44M

The post Joshua’s Conquest and God’s Moral Consistency appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

By Bob Perry

Even people who don’t celebrate Christmas seem to know what it’s about — the birth of a Savior who comes to rescue us from the consequences of our rebellion against Him. Ultimately, that means it’s part of God’s rescue plan and where we go when we die. But there’s another aspect to Christmas that I think is important too. It’s also about showing us how to live. And right-living depends on how we think. Unfortunately, our thinking is infused with lies that we’ve accepted as being part of “the human condition.” And believing those lies results in dissension, oppression, racism, political wrangling, class struggle, economic strife, and war. Sadly, it’s all part of the gravest story ever told. Christmas offers an antidote to the effects of that story too.

The story started in The Garden. And we’ve been repeating it to each other ever since. It thrives on divided minds. But we are designed to be united. God and man. Husband and wife. Body and soul. Physical and spiritual. The division we experience is a symptom of wrong thinking about the nature of reality. But there is a way to fix it. Christmas shows us how. It’s the cure for our two-storied world.

Focus On The Physical World There is an assumption in our contemporary society that all of us have tacitly accepted, even if we claim to be “religious.” It is an assumption born in the Enlightenment and nurtured through four-hundred years of modern philosophy, medical breakthroughs, and technological innovation. The assumption is this: That the physical world is all that really exists. And, since science is the study of the physical world, the logical assumption is that it will give the answers to our most profound questions. This is called Naturalism or Materialism. And many of us claim not to accept this view. We may even argue vehemently against it. But it is a difficult assumption to overcome because it is embedded in the fabric of our culture.

When we hear of an inexplicable healing, or an answered prayer, or an eerie “coincidence,” or a Christmas Star, our initial reaction is to seek a scientific explanation. Even those of us who take our faith seriously secretly wonder if the walls of Jericho really just fell down; if the Red Sea really parted, or (though we would be loathe to admit it) if Jesus really rose from the dead. We are hard-wired to be skeptical of those kinds of claims. In a thousand different ways we have assimilated, accommodated, and capitulated to the materialistic world. And with each baby step in that direction, the idea of the miraculous diminishes into a faintly held belief we have little hope of defending.

Non-Physical RealityThe Apostle Paul told us to “test everything” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). So, we take him up on it. But in our knee-jerk reaction to do so we sometimes forget that a Christian view of the world is not limited to physical things. In fact, science is impotent when it comes to answering our biggest questions. And that’s because Ultimate Reality is not physical. It’s transcendent. It’s spiritual.

The Christian worldview encompasses both the physical and the non-physical. Alone, neither is adequate to describe us as persons. And neither can explain the makeup of all we know and experience. Ideas. Values. Reason. Mind. Morals. Love. None of these things are physical. But all of them are real. Life would be meaningless without them.

Creating The Two-Storied WorldThe modern, materialistic culture we live in disdains such a view. It does its best to belittle and destroy it. The result is that we are constantly engaged in the battle of ideas that this kind of philosophy has created. Francis Schaeffer addressed this conflict many decades ago. He didn’t originate the idea. But he identified its roots in a kind of “split” thinking. And he popularized the notion in a phrase we all recognize when we talk about taking a “leap of faith.”

On Schaeffer’s view, we have created a two-storied vision of reality. And we all live in it. Think of it as a two-story house. Non-physical realities like values, spirituality, religion, faith and the like, reside upstairs. Downstairs we find things like the physical world and science.

UPPER STORY: Values – Spiritual – Religion – Faith — Private

LOWER STORY: Facts – Physical – Science – Knowledge — Public

Living In The Two-Story WorldWhen you think this way, the lower story is where we are told to go when we want to know the true things. Only science can help us. It is public and verifiable. The culture tells us this is where we should be living our lives. It’s the force behind the exhortation we hear every day to “trust the science.”

Conversely, upper story ideas are private and subjective. We are free to take an irrational “leap of faith” to the upper story if we want to. But we must realize that to do so is to ignore rational thought. That kind of stuff has no business seeping into the “real world.” We take the leap upstairs on faith alone. And while no one is permitted to question the thoughts or ideas of your “private world,” neither are we free to allow those ideas to influence how we understand the lower story.

The Consequences Of A Two-Storied ViewUnfortunately, most of us go along with this program unwittingly. We tacitly accept the idea that our personal faith and religion are disconnected from, and have little value in, a fact-based world. But this doesn’t fit with what we know and experience. There is no way to understand meaning and purpose.

The lower story is right in front of us. But it contains no hope. Nothing in it can save us. And our world is filled with people who are wallowing in this disconnected reality. They live in the lower-story, but they long for the upper.

Wrong SolutionsSome religions just accept the disconnect. The secularists deny the upper-story. They try to construct a replica of it downstairs using only lower-story stuff. Conversely, the New Age, Gnostic, and eastern religions try to deny or escape the lower-story. They’re happy to float around upstairs with no attachment to the ground.

Both of these are dismal failures because they can’t make sense of the whole show. They don’t even try. All they can offer is a truncated view of the reality.

Christianity is a house where the two stories meld into one. A place where it all makes sense. Facts and values. Spiritual and physical. Religion and science. Faith and knowledge. All of these make up an integrated view of reality.

The two-storied world is not meant to be divided. It never was. There are stairs right in the middle of the house. But they’re too tall for us to climb.

So, God comes down.

ChristmasThis is the other Christmas message. The Author steps onto the stage to offer His ultimate revelation. He shows us that human-centered thinking is inadequate to address the human condition we created shortly after we arrived on the scene. We came up with the flawed philosophy that exacerbated those problems. We’re the ones who manufactured a “two-story” view of the world. Our humanistic thinking divided that which was meant to be indivisible.

Christmas reminds us that it all can be fixed in only one way. God gives us the ultimate example of how the world was meant to be through the Incarnation. That’s what it means. God’s essence quite literally “puts on meat.” “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”

The spiritual is united with the physical right in front of our eyes.

At Christmastime, the floor joists shatter and a thundering shock wave pierces the night. The ceiling above our human-centered world collapses. And the spirit Who has been rattling around in the attic comes crashing into our living room.

The divine unites with the human in one person. A person who offers us the perfect example of what it means to bear His image. What it means to function as an integrated whole. That person offers us a way out of our self-made morass of idiotic ideas and worldly wisdom. The infinitely perfect man comes downstairs to rescue us. But He also shows us how to live.

Only He can do such a thing. And when He does, the world makes sense again.

Recommended resources related to the topic:Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)

How Can Jesus Be the Only Way? (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and the culture at truehorizon.org. He is a Contributing Writer for the Christian Research Journal and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of military and commercial flying experience. He has a B.S., Aerospace Engineering from the U. S. Naval Academy, and an M.A., Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown sons.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3WctDyY

The post Christmas: The Cure For Our Two-Storied World appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

By Al Serrato

Later this week, Christians throughout the world will celebrate the birth of the Savior. But to the growing number of atheists, this celebration makes little sense. Having accepted the materialist’s view of reality, they have limited themselves to thinking that nature is all there is, or was, or ever will be. Largely oblivious to the futility of such a barren worldview, they think they have the corner on reason as they insist that miracles like the Incarnation are simply not possible.

But the thinking underlying this worldview is circular: they begin with the assumption – the working hypothesis – that nature is all there is, and that all things and events must be explained by natural processes. Is it any wonder, then, that they end up where they began, with the conclusion that miracles do not occur? And without the possibility of miracles, they conclude Christianity must be false, without ever bothering to examine the historical evidence that supports it. But, of course, for a Creator powerful enough to create the universe from nothing -as the Big Bang corroborates occurred – and intelligent enough to create practically infinite varieties of life through the assembly of amino acids into DNA, entering this world as a flesh and blood creature isn’t really an obstacle. Insisting that this is impossible is roughly similar to a fish in an aquarium insisting that nothing exists beyond the tank. To the fish, the tank may seem to define the limits of reality, but that is simply because its frame of reference is so limited.

This Christmas season, it’s worth remembering that the real miracle of Christmas is not that God became man, but the manner in which He did it. When Jesus came into this world, Augustus Caesar ruled a Roman Empire that was making its might felt in all directions of the compass. But Jesus wasn’t born into wealth, power or privilege. Swaddled in rags, He drew his first breath in the lowliest of circumstances, welcomed by parents who could barely care for Him and who needed to flee the country in order to protect Him. He was born to a people that were themselves powerless. Defying expectations of a conquering messiah, He walked among men and women as a simple carpenter, seeking neither to form a church nor raise an army. Instead, He spoke of God’s great love for us, our need to repent and the consequence of remaining in our rebellion. The new “Adam,” he lay down his life to restore what was lost through the original Adam, to fix what was broken…to re-balance the scales of justice through an unmerited act of mercy.

In so doing, he showed us the meaning of real love – love that seeks neither reward nor return, love that is given selflessly and without limit – the kind of love we each long for but seek in the wrong places. He emptied himself so that he could fill us with the love that could restore the relationship broken when man chose to use his free will to defy God. Possessing infinite power, he chose to serve, rather than be served. Without ever putting quill to parchment, his teachings nonetheless reverberate down to us 2000 years later, with the same transformative power that rocked the Roman Empire, and then the world.

The Psalmist says:
“When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,
The moon and the stars, which You have ordained;
What is man that You take thought of him,
And the son of man that You care for him?”

What is man?

To the atheist, nothing more than an animal. An intelligent animal, to be sure, but nothing more.

But to the Creator of the universe, man holds a much-revered place. That he would bother with us, that he would express such love to us and for us, that, indeed, is the true Miracle of Christmas.

Recommended resources related to the topic:Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)

How Can Jesus be the Only Way? Mp4, Mp3, and DVD by Frank Turek

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com

The post The Miracle of Christmas appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

By Michelle Johnson

Perpetua was born in Carthage (modern day Tunisia) near the end of the second century. Her family of origin was well off and when we first meet her, she is a young wife and mother. The church in Carthage had grown in the century and a half since the resurrection of Jesus. Perpetua had responded to the truth of the Gospel and became a follower of Jesus. When we encounter her in the pages of history, she is a catechumen. This means she was being taught the core tenants of Christianity in preparation for the public declaration of her faith through baptism.

What we know about Perpetua’s early life is limited to these few facts. Were it not for the existence of her own personal diary, we may not have ever heard of Perpetua—the brief details of her life or the story of her death. There are a few things that make this document unique and important. First is the fact that Perpetua is a woman. It is one of the earliest—if not the earliest, preserved writings by a woman in church history. She personally wrote the part documenting her imprisonment, death sentence, and two visions she had while in prison. Another person picked up the project and described the remaining part of the story.[i] While the second author is unidentified, some speculate it was Tertullian—early Christian apologist and author.[ii]

Perpetua – the VisionaryHer written story is also important as it gives us insight into the “popular piety” or contemporary Christian thought and practice of the late second and early third century in North Africa.[iii] We can garner information about the theology of martyrdom that was prevalent at the time. The theology of martyrdom had certain characteristics that Ferguson points out from Perpetua’s visions. At this time, the church believed to be called to be a martyr meant to share in the suffering Jesus experienced and therefore it was a gift to be embraced.

The martyr was seen as a witness. As we see in Perpetua’s diary, there is an audience present when she and others are brought before the authorities to face judgment and sentencing. The conversation occurs between the judge and the one charged but the testimony is overheard by those present. Any declarations of the truth of the gospel during this testimony is seen as an opportunity to spread the news of Christ. The account of her vision also provides insight into the eschatology of the time. It was believed those who died as a martyr immediately entered heaven.[iv]

Perpetua – the PrisonerIt is Perpetua’s own writing that gives us what little information we have about her life before her arrest.[v] She begins her story while in prison. We learn she was arrested along with a handful of other catechumens but was able to be baptized while imprisoned. She describes having her infant son with her and God’s grace upon them both when they were ultimately separated. The reader is introduced to Perpetua’s father. He makes a handful of visits to the prison attempting to persuade his daughter to do what was necessary to save her life. Her father was not a Christian and suggests there is no danger offering a sacrifice to the emperor in exchange for her freedom. Perpetua expresses sorrow over her father’s suffering but is resilient in her commitment to follow Jesus and worship Him along as God.

Perpetua records two visions or dreams. The significance of these for us today was discussed above. The first one occurs before Perpetua and the others are sentenced. She seems to understand from this, she will indeed die because she won’t compromise her commitment to the one true God. The second vision comes the night before she is to face the beasts in the arena. This vision convinces Perpetua she is fighting the devil himself, not animals of the earth.[vi]

Perpetua – the MartyrPerpetua documents this second vision and is resigned to the fact that she will not write the account of the fight within the arena. She doesn’t assign someone to pick up the task but seems to leave it to whoever might. As mentioned before, some speculate it was Tertullian in part and this is so because there are literary qualities that match two of his other works.[vii] Regardless of who it was, they faithfully continued to tell Perpetua’s story. She and her fellow prisoners were led to the arena to face the animals. While she suffered injury, she was not killed by the beasts but ultimately died by the sword of the gladiator.

ConclusionPerpetua’s story has had enduring influence throughout church history. Her diary was read in local churches for centuries following her death. St. Augustine, famous church father from a couple centuries later utilized Perpetua’s story in no less than four of his sermons. Her story has value for us today. The academic value–learning about Christian thought and beliefs of second century believers was discussed above. It also allows us to hear the personal testimony from a believer in the earliest centuries of the church.

While not all of us will be called to die for our faith, the temptation to bow to another god is something common to each one of us. It may not be the emperor to which we must consider sacrificing but it might be self, money, career, relationship or more. The one true God is quite clear: we “shall have no other god beside Him.” (Exodus 20:3 CSB)

Footnotes[i] “The Martyrdom of Saints Perpetua and Felicitas”, https://www.ssfp.org/pdf/The_Martyrdom_of_Saints_Perpetua_and_Felicitas.pdf. (accessed September 22, 2022). This link provides access to an English version of Perpetua’s diary.

[ii] Johannes Quasten, Patrology: The Beginnings of Patristic Literature, Patrology 1 (Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press, 1992), 181.

[iii] Both Ferguson and Quasten address this point. Everett Ferguson, Church History – From Christ to the Pre-Reformation, Second edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013), 81-83. Quasten, Patrology, 182.

[iv] Ferguson, Church History, 82-83.

[v] https://www.ssfp.org/pdf/The_Martyrdom_of_Saints_Perpetua_and_Felicitas.pdf

[vi] Ferguson, Church History, 82-83.

[vii] Quasten, Patrology,181.

Recommended resources related to the topic:Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

What is God Like? Look to the Heavens by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Michelle Johnson is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Theology and Apologetics program at Liberty University. She also earned her M.A. in Theological Studies and her M.Div. in Professional Ministries at Liberty University. Michelle graduated from the University of Minnesota with her undergraduate degrees. She and her husband Steve live in Mankato, Minnesota, where she also serves in women’s ministries. In addition to her love of theology and apologetics, Michelle also has a passion for historical studies, particularly the theology of the Patristics. When she is not spending time reading or writing, Michelle can often be found dreaming of her next travel adventure or enjoying a great cup of coffee. Michelle Johnson serves as the Executive Vice-President and Managing Editor of Bellator Christi Ministries.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3YfPdEr

The post Perpetua appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

By Jonathan McLatchie

Have you ever wondered why some people are able to think about the world clearer, forming more balanced and nuanced views about controversial topics, than others? Have you ever pondered what thinking patterns are most conducive to good reasoning and well supported conclusions, and how one might avoid the pitfalls of confirmation bias and self-deception? In her book The Scout Mindset: Why Some People See Things Clearly and Others Don’t, Julia Galef (host of the podcast “Rationally Speaking” and co-founder of the Center for Applied Rationality) attempts to answer these questions. [i]In the first half of this essay, I shall summarize Galef’s insights; in the latter half, I shall discuss what lessons we as Christian scholars and apologists can glean from the book.

A Summary of The Scout MindsetGalef distinguishes between what she dubs “the soldier mindset” and “the scout mindset.” According to Galef, the soldier mindset, also known as motivated reasoning, leads us to loyally defend the stronghold of our belief commitments against intellectual threats, come what may. This involves actively seeking out data that tends to confirm our beliefs, while rationalizing or ignoring contrary data that tends to disconfirm them. On the other hand, the scout mindset attempts to honestly determine how the world really is – as Galef defines it, the scout mindset is “the motivation to see things as they are, not as you wish they were,” (p. ix).

For the one in soldier mindset, argues Galef, reasoning is like defensive combat – “it’s as if we’re soldiers, defending our beliefs against threatening evidence,” (p. 7). For the soldier, to change one’s mind – to admit that one was wrong – is seen as surrender and failure, a sign of weakness. One’s allegiance is to one’s cherished beliefs rather than to the truth, even if those beliefs conflict with the balance of evidence. For the soldier, determining what to believe is done by asking oneself “Can I believe this?” or “Must I believe this?”, depending on one’s motives. For the one in scout mindset, by contrast, reasoning may be likened to mapmaking, and discovering that you are wrong about one or more of your beliefs simply means revising your map. Thus, scouts are more likely to seek out and carefully consider data that tends to undermine one’s own beliefs (thereby making one’s map a more accurate reflection of reality), deeming it more fruitful to pay close attention to those who disagree with their own opinions than to those whose thinking aligns with them.

The prevalence of soldier mindset in society today is aptly demonstrated by a sobering study, cited by Galef, in which participants were tested in regard to their “scientific intelligence” with a set of questions.[ii] Questions were divided into four categories – basic facts; methods; quantitative reasoning; and cognitive reflection. Remarkably, when conservative republican and liberal democrat participants were also asked whether they affirmed the statement that there is “solid evidence” of recent global warming due “mostly” to “human activity such as burning fossil fuels,” there was a positive correlation between “scientific intelligence” and divergent opinion. That is to say, the higher one’s scientific intelligence, the more likely a liberal democrat was to affirm the statement and the more likely a conservative republic was to disagree with it. This is not the only study to reveal the tendency for more educated people to diverge in opinion on controversial topics. Another study surveyed people’s views on ideologically charged topics, including stem cell research, the Big Bang, human evolution, and climate change.[iii] Their finding was that “Individuals with greater education, science education, and science literacy display more polarized beliefs on these issues,” though they found “little evidence of political or religious polarization regarding nanotechnology and genetically modified foods.” Galef summarizes the implications of those studies: “This is a crucially important result, because being smart and being knowledgeable on a particular topic are two more things that give us a false sense of security in our own reasoning. A high IQ and an advanced degree might give you an advantage in ideologically neutral domains like solving math problems or figuring out where to invest your money. But they won’t protect you from bias on ideologically charged questions,” (p. 48).

Though there is an element of scout and soldier in all of us, Galef argues, “some people, in some contexts, are better scouts than most,” being “more genuinely desirous of the truth, even if it’s not what they were hoping for, and less willing to accept bad arguments that happen to be convenient. They’re more motivated to go out, test their theories, and discover their mistakes. They’re more conscious of the possibility that their map of reality could be wrong, and more open to changing their mind,” (pp. 14-15). On the flip side of the coin, often “[w]e use motivated reasoning not because we don’t know any better, but because we’re trying to protect things that are vitally important to us – our ability to feel good about our lives and ourselves, our motivation to try hard things and stick with them, our ability to look good and persuade, and our acceptance in our communities,” (p. 26). For example, if we are being honest, how often do we, when considering a claim, “implicitly ask ourselves, ‘What kind of person would believe a claim like this, and is that how I want other people to see me?’” (p. 23). Such thinking fuels soldier mindset. In practice, we cannot eliminate soldier mindset from our reasoning processes entirely. After all, it is our default mentality. By nature, we like having our beliefs confirmed. But we can take intentional steps towards cultivating more of a scout mindset.

What are some of the key characteristics that distinguish scout from soldier mindset? In chapter four, Galef gives five features that define a scout. The first is the ability to tell other people when you realize that they were right. Galef caveats this quality by noting that “Technically, scout mindset only requires you to be able to acknowledge to yourself that you were wrong, not to other people. Still a willingness to say ‘I was wrong’ to someone else is a strong sign of a person who prizes the truth over their own ego.” The second quality is reacting well to criticism. Galef explains, “To gauge your comfort with criticism, it’s not enough just to ask yourself, ‘Am I open to criticism?’ Instead, examine your track record. Are there examples of criticism you’ve acted upon? Have you rewarded a critic (for example, by promoting him)? Do you go out of your way to make it easier for other people to criticize you?” (p. 52). The third quality that marks out a scout is the ability to prove oneself wrong. Galef asks, “Can you think of any examples in which you voluntarily proved yourself wrong? Perhaps you were about to voice an opinion online, but decided to search for counterarguments first, and ended up finding them compelling. Or perhaps at work you were advocating for a new strategy, but changed your mind after you ran the numbers more carefully and realized it wouldn’t be feasible,” (p. 54). The fourth feature of scout mindset is to avoid biasing one’s information. “For example,” writes Galef, “when you ask your friend to weigh in on a fight you had with your partner, do you describe the disagreement without revealing which side you were on, so as to avoid influencing your friend’s answer? When you launch a new project at work, do you decide ahead of time what will count as a success and what will count as a failure, so you’re not tempted to move the goalposts later?” (p. 56). The fifth feature that Galef lists is being able to recognize good critics. Galef comments, “It’s tempting to view your critics as mean-spirited, ill-informed, or unreasonable. And it’s likely that some of them are. But it’s unlikely that all of them are. Can you name people who are critical of your beliefs, profession, or even choices who you consider thoughtful, even if you believe they’re wrong? Or can you at least name reasons why someone might disagree with you that you would consider reasonable (even if you don’t happen to know of specific people who hold those views)?” (p. 57). In summary, Galef notes, “Being able to name reasonable critics, being willing to say ‘The other side has a point this time,’ being willing to acknowledge when you were wrong – it’s things like these that distinguish people who actually care about truth from people who only think they do,” (p. 57).

Chapter 5 of the book offers five tests of bias in our reasoning. The first test is the double standard test, which essentially asks whether we apply the same standards to ourselves that we would apply to others. The second test is the outsider test, which attempts to determine how you would assess the same situation or data if you had no vested interest in the outcome. The third test is the conformity test, which attempts to discern the extent to which one’s opinion is in fact one’s own. Galef explains, “If I find myself agreeing with someone else’s viewpoint, I do a conformity test: Imagine this person told me that they no longer held this view. Would I still hold it? Would I feel comfortable defending it to them?” (p. 66). The fourth test is the selective skeptic test – “Imagine this evidence supported the other side. How credible would you find it then?” (p. 68). The final test is the status quo bias test – “Imagine your current situation was no longer the status quo. Would you then actively choose it? If not, that’s a sign that your preference for your situation is less about its particular merits and more about a preference for the status quo,” (p. 69).

Another thing that marks out a scout, according to Galef, is one’s attitude towards being wrong. Scouts, explains Galef, “revise their opinions incrementally over time, which makes it easier to be open to evidence against their beliefs,” (p. 144). Further, “they view errors as opportunities to hone their skill at getting things right, which makes the experience of realizing ‘I was wrong’ feel valuable, rather than just painful,” (p. 144). Galef even suggests that we should drop the whole “wrong confession” altogether and instead talk about “updating”. Galef explains, “An update is routine. Low-key. It’s the opposite of an overwrought confession of sin. An update makes something better or more current without implying that its previous form was a failure,” (p. 147). Galef points out that we should not think about changing our minds as a binary thing – rather, we should think of the world in “shades of grey”, and think about changing our mind in terms of an “incremental shift” (p. 140). Galef notes that thinking about revising one’s beliefs in this way makes “the experience of encountering evidence against one of your beliefs very different” since “each adjustment is comparatively low stakes” (p. 140). For example, “If you’re 80 percent sure that immigration is good for the economy, and a study comes out showing that immigration lowers wages, you can adjust your confidence in your belief down to 70 percent,” (p. 140).

Galef also points out that, when it comes to intentionally exposing ourselves to content representing the ‘other side’ of a debate in which we are interested, people tend to make the mistake of always ending up “listening to people who initiate disagreements with us, as well as the public figures and media outlets who are the most popular representatives of the other side,” (p. 170). However, as Galef explains, “Those are not very promising selection criteria. First of all, what kind of person is most likely to initiate a disagreement? A disagreeable person. (‘This article you shared on Facebook is complete bullshit – let me educate you…’) Second, what kind of people or media are likely to become popular representatives of an ideology? The ones who do things like cheering for their side and mocking or caricaturing the other side – i.e., you,” (pp. 170-171). Instead, Galef suggests, “To give yourself the best chance of learning from disagreement, you should be listening to people who make it easier to be open to their arguments, not harder. People you like or respect, even if you don’t agree with them. People with whom you have some common ground – intellectual premises, or a core value that you share – even though you disagree with them on other issues. People whom you consider reasonable, who acknowledge nuance and areas of uncertainty, and who argue in good faith,” (p. 171).

Lessons We Can Draw from The Scout MindsetTo what extent are we, as Christian scholars and apologists, cultivating a scout mindset? Too often debates between theists and atheists devolve into tribalism, an ‘us vs. them’ mentality, and a smug condescension towards those who disagree with us. But what if we saw those with whom we disagree not as enemies but as colleagues in our quest to attain a better map of reality? Our critics are those who are best placed to discover flaws in our own reasoning, which may be invisible to us. We ignore them at our peril. By listening carefully to our critics, we can construct a more nuanced, more robust worldview. And which critics of our faith are we seeking out to represent the dissenting view? Are we primarily engaging with popular but less-than-nuanced critics of Christianity, or are we actively seeking out the very best, most erudite and well-informed critics of our faith, even if less well known? Can we name some of our critics as honest and thoughtful? How are we positioning ourselves to be in the best place possible to find out we are wrong, if we are in fact wrong? If we are wrong about one or more of our beliefs, can we honestly say that we value truth enough to want to know? How do our answers to the foregoing questions bear on that latter question?

Perhaps at this juncture it should be clarified what exactly apologetics is, since there is regrettably much confusion surrounding this word, both inside and outside of the Christian community. It is commonly thought that the exercise of apologetics is contrary to open-ended inquiry where the conclusion is not stipulated a priori. However, this view is quite mistaken. While apologetics is not identical to open-ended inquiry, it is co-extensive with it in the sense that apologetics is what happens after the results of open-ended inquiry are in, and the time has come to publicize our interpretation of the data. Thus, though the term is seldom used in this context, every publication of a scientific paper is an exercise in apologetics. Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species was an exercise in apologetics since he sought to sell his interpretation of the observations that he had made on the Galapagos islands. It is common to think of apologists as playing the role of a criminal defence attorney who is committed to defending his client, come what may. In reality, however, a more apt parallel is to an investigative journalist, reporting for popular consumption the results of a fair and balanced inquiry.

Being an apologist of the gospel is no light responsibility. We are asking people to pledge their allegiance to Jesus Christ and dedicate every aspect of their life to His service. This may cost them greatly – even their life. The weight of this responsibility is emphasized by the apostle Paul himself, who stated that, if Jesus was not in fact raised, “We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised,” (1 Cor 15:15). We therefore owe it to those to whom we preach to study diligently the facts and arguments on both sides of the debate to ensure that the gospel is in fact true. We also owe it to those with whom we share the gospel to fully and completely inform them, as far as is possible, concerning the facts of the case. Too often I have seen apologists present popular arguments for Christianity but omit relevant facts that undermine the force of their argument. For some examples of this, see my recent conversation with Wesley Huff on arguments Christians should NOT use.[iv] Whenever you encounter an argument that is supportive of a position that you like, you should always, before publicly repeating the argument, conduct a thorough search for any relevant data that might reduce the evidential force of the argument. At the very least you should determine whether any academic publications, especially those critical of your beliefs, have already addressed the argument. This is but one of several ways in which you can reduce the negative effects of confirmation bias on your reasoning.

What other steps can we take to mitigate against confirmation bias? I try to make it my habit to expose myself to more material – whether that be books, articles, podcasts, videos or other media – that argues against my beliefs than those which argue for them. This reduces the likelihood of me fooling myself, and forces me to think deeper and more carefully about my beliefs, and to develop a more nuanced expression of them. It also puts me in a strong position to find out that I am wrong if I am in fact wrong about any of my beliefs. A first step towards stepping outside of your intellectual echo chamber can be recognizing that smart people can argue in good faith and yet disagree with you.

I am sometimes asked how a newcomer to religious debates may discern which apologists to listen to and whom to disregard. Of course, the difficulty here is that, in order to discern which apologists can be trusted to give reliable content, one must have already attained a certain level of knowledge about the subject. But in order to arrive at that threshold of knowledge concerning the subject, one must first determine who to receive information from. How might we escape this dilemma? One criterion of several that I often give is to be wary of anyone who asserts that all of the evidence supports their own personal view and that there is none which tends to disconfirm it. Whenever anyone tells me, concerning any complex topic (whether that be theism, Christianity, evolution or anything else), that all of the evidence is on the side of their own personal view, it leads me to reduce my confidence in their objectivity with the data, and I begin to think that confirmation bias is particularly prominent in this individual’s reasoning process. It is an intellectual virtue to be able to admit that one or more pieces of evidence tends to disconfirm your own view. Of course, presumably you also maintain that the evidence that tends to confirm your view is stronger, on balance, than that which tends to disconfirm it. Nonetheless, recognizing the existence of difficult or anomalous data is a mark of scout mindset. And how might we go about determining whether a given datum confirms or disconfirms our Christian beliefs? For each piece of data we encounter, we should ask ourselves whether that datum, considered in isolation, is more probable given Christianity or given its falsehood. If the former, then it is evidence that is confirmatory of Christianity; if the latter, then it is evidence against. Too often I see people reason that, if a set of data can be made compatible with their beliefs, then they have neutralized the objection to their beliefs. However, this approach is quite simplistic. It is nearly always possible to make discordant data compatible with your beliefs. But that does not mean that the data is not better predicted given that your beliefs are false than that they are true, or that you should not lower your confidence in those beliefs. The appropriate question, when confronted with discordant data, is not to ask “Can I believe I am still right?” Galef rightly points out that “Most of the time, the answer is ‘Yes, easily,’” (p. 141). Rather, we should ask to what extent our confidence in our beliefs needs to be updated in response to this new data.

Another criterion of a credible apologist is that he or she is willing to offer critiques of arguments presented by others on his or her own side of the debate. Are they even-handed in subjecting arguments for their own view to the same scrutiny as those put forward by those on the other side of the debate? This reveals that they are discerning and have a genuine concern for factual accuracy. How one responds to criticism, both friendly critique as well as that from dissenting voices, is also a measure of one’s concern for correct representation of information. An ability to publicly retract false or misleading statements and issue corrections goes a long way to establish one’s credibility. When we encounter a new contributor to the debate, with whose work we have not hitherto interacted, we should also fact-check their statements, going, if possible, back to the primary sources – especially when they stray into territory outside of our own domain of expertise. If they are able to sustain a track record of being reliable in their reportage of information and fully informing the audience about the relevant facts, one ought to be more inclined to trust them as a credible authority. If on the other hand they have a habit of getting things factually incorrect, one should be very hesitant to take anything they say on their word.

One should also be wary of apologists who exaggerate the strength of their argument, over-pushing the data beyond that which it is able to support. It is always better to understate the merits of one’s arguments and pleasantly surprise by overproviding, than to overstate the merits of the argument and disappoint by underproviding. This is why in my writing and public speaking I prefer to use more cautious-sounding statements like “this tends to confirm” or “this suggests” rather than bolder statements like “this proves” or “this demonstrates.” Similarly, I will speak of being “confident” rather than “certain” of my conclusions.

My enthusiastic advocacy for integrity and nuance in apologetics, together with my insistence on subjecting arguments advanced in support of Christianity to the same scrutiny that we would subject contrary arguments to, has on occasion been misconstrued – by atheists as well as by Christians – as an indication of my losing confidence in the truth of Christianity. However, this does not at all follow and, frankly, it saddens me that Christian apologetics has come to be associated, in the minds of many, with a soldier rather than scout mindset. Clearly, it is possible to be convinced by the evidence that Christianity is true and yet still be committed to the honest presentation of information. It is also possible to believe that Christianity is well supported while also maintaining that many of the arguments advanced in support of Christianity are fundamentally flawed or dramatically overstated. I believe it is a virtue rather than a vice to recognize one’s own confirmation bias and thus take steps in the direction of reducing its negative effects on one’s reasoning. The principles that I have advocated in this essay are germane to apologists of any position, regardless of how convinced of that position they are. Otherwise, it is too easy to deceive ourselves, apply double standards, cherry pick data, and inoculate ourselves against finding out that we are mistaken in regards to one or more of our beliefs.

One may of course object to the principles advocated in this essay that, if unsound data or overstated arguments leads people to embrace the gospel, then the end justifies the means. I recall complaining, on more than one occasion, about the presentation of factually erroneous information in defence of Christianity at a University-affiliated Christian society in the United Kingdom. The response with which I was met, lamentably, was that it is very unlikely that any other of the attendees would know enough about the subject to pick up on the errors in the presentation, and we should rejoice that they heard the gospel. This thinking, however, is flawed for at least two reasons. First, we claim to represent the one who identified Himself as truth itself (Jn 14:6). Plenty of Biblical texts condemn the employment of deceptive methods (e.g. Exod 20:16; Ps 24:3-5; 101:7; Prov 10:9; 11:3; 12:22; 24:28; Col 3:9; Eph 4:25). It is therefore not honouring of God when we perpetuate misinformation, even in defence of the gospel. Second, if one with whom we have shared the gospel later does his or her own research to determine whether the things we have said are in fact true, much like the Bereans are commended for doing in regards to Paul’s preaching (Acts 17:11), we are responsible for having placed another obstacle between them and the gospel. This is a grave thing to be responsible for.

In summary, cultivating a scout mindset, and minimizing soldier mindset, can help us to think more clearly and with greater intellectual honesty about our beliefs and our reasons for holding them. I cannot recommend any more highly Julia Galef’s book The Scout Mindset. I would also recommend her presentation for TEDx Talks, “Why ‘scout mindset’ is crucial to good judgment.”[v]

Footnotes[i] Julia Galef, The Scout Mindset: Why Some People See Things Clearly and Others Don’t (New York: Porfolio, 2021).

[ii] Dan M. Kahan, “Ordinary science intelligence’: a science-comprehension measure for study of risk and science communication, with notes on evolution and climate change,” Journal of Risk Research 20, no. 8 (2017), 995-1016.

[iii] Caitlin Drummond and Baruch Fischoff, “Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, no. 36 (Sep, 2017), 9587-9592.

[iv] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVad8BE5A6c

[v] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MYEtQ5Zdn8

Recommended resources related to the topic:I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3iKor6w

The post Why Apologists Need a Scout Mindset: Lessons to be Learned from Julia Galef appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

By Bob Perry

St. Francis of Assisi may have died 800 years ago, but his influence still looms. He was a man who venerated nature and lived a life of great sacrifice in service to God and his church. But within the Christian ecosystem, he has become most famous for an adage that strikes a chord with anyone who is serious about sharing their faith:

Preach the Gospel always. If necessary, use words.

The modern interpretation of Assisi’s exhortation is clear. Our charge is to love people into the kingdom, not argue them there. If you’ve bought into that mindset it may surprise you to learn that it’s not accurate. And it may surprise you even more to learn that it flies in the face of an atheist’s call to make our case.

Here’s why.

A Gospel Without Words?On one level there is no denying that, “who you are speaks so loudly that no one can hear what you say.” We certainly don’t want the life we live to deny everything about the faith we claim to represent. But is the Franciscan inversion of this exhortation also true? Can we proclaim the message through our actions alone?

The problem here is that the Gospel makes propositional truth claims about the nature of the world, the nature of man, and the remedy for man’s rebellion against God. It’s a story about reality. And it’s only “good news” if it’s actually true. So, how can we share the propositional truth claims of such a message and explain their implications without using words or giving answers?

I contend that we can’t. Furthermore, the attitude that says we can is not only harmful, but it also does violence to the Gospel it claims to love. This contention is not my own. A rabid atheist will back me up.

The Gift of a BiblePenn Jillette and his partner, Raymond Teller, have been entertaining Las Vegas audiences for years. Their mixture of magic, music, and commentary – the Penn & Teller show – is the longest-running show at the same hotel in Las Vegas history. Jillette is a magician, actor, and inventor. He is also a hard-core atheist – so adamant about his denial of God’s existence that at one point in his life he is said to have owned three cars with vanity license plates that read: “atheist,” “nogod,” and “godless.”[i] “Strangely enough,” says Jillette, “they wouldn’t give me ‘infidel.’ He was also a happy participant in YouTube’s viral “blasphemy challenge,” in which participants publicly mock and denounce the Holy Spirit.

Penn Jillette is no friend of Christianity. But he has a message that every Christian should take to heart.

In July 2010, Jillette posted a video online[ii] in which he shared the story of a man who approached him after one of his performances. The man was extremely complimentary of the Penn & Teller show. He said he enjoyed Jillette’s honesty, his use of language, and his talent. The man was polite and humble. And he came bearing a gift.

“I was here last night,” said the man, “I brought this for you.” The man handed Jillette a pocket Bible containing the New Testament and the book of Psalms. Penn Jillette was genuinely humbled and impressed by the actions and attitude of this kind Christian man. And he is quite direct about how he received the gesture.

I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. If you believe there’s a heaven and hell … and if you believe that people could be going to hell, or not getting eternal life … and you think that it’s not worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward … How much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that? If I believed beyond the shadow of a doubt that a truck was bearing down on you and you didn’t believe it, there’s a certain point where I tackle you. And this is more important than that (emphasis mine).

Misquoting AssisiMost of us don’t have a lot in common with a rabid atheist Las Vegas showman who mocks the Holy Spirit. But every Christian would do well to take seriously Penn Jillette’s reflection. Not only does it fly in the face of the just-love-them-into-the-kingdom mindset, but it also comports with what Assisi actually said … and with what he did.

It turns out the legendary quote attributed to St. Francis is nothing but a modern corruption of the words he actually wrote in 1221 AD:

Let none of the brothers preach contrary to the form and institution of the church … Nevertheless, let all the brothers preach by their works.

Notice that Francis did not render preaching the gospel a contingent option. Instead, he linked words and actions directly together.

Francis of Assisi devoted himself to the kind of life for which he is now known after being convicted by a sermon he heard in 1209. He took a vow of poverty, felt connected to nature and the beauty of the creation, and demonstrated empathy for others. But he was also known for the powerful sermons he delivered. He lived out the Gospel, and he was happy to tell others about it.

Words Are Always NecessaryArguments and evidence are far from arrogant intellectual add-ons to the Gospel.[iii] They are integral to it. God saturated our world with truths that could never be adequately expressed through our actions alone. There are plenty of examples of militant atheists who have turned to God after hearing about them. C. S. Lewis, Antony Flew, Lee Strobel, and J. Warner Wallace[iv] come to mind. Penn Jillette isn’t on that list – yet. That’s his choice, not ours. Don’t hate him for it. Be winsome and kind. But by all means, don’t be silent.

Footnotes[i] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_Jillette

[ii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6md638smQd8

[iii] https://truehorizon.org/the-gospel-requires-us-to-give-answers/

[iv] https://salvomag.com/article/salvo24/the-evidentialist

Recommended resources related to the topic:Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)

How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and the culture at truehorizon.org. He is a Contributing Writer for the Christian Research Journal and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of military and commercial flying experience. He has a B.S., Aerospace Engineering from the U. S. Naval Academy, and an M.A., Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown sons.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3UxOXgU

The post An Atheist’s Call To Make Our Case appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

By Ryan Leasure

“Away in a manger no crib for a bed, the little Lord Jesus laid down his sweet head. The stars in the sky looked down where he lay, the little Lord Jesus asleep on the hay. The cattle are lowing, the baby awakes. But little Lord Jesus no crying he makes. . .”

What a peaceful scene. It’s as every Christmas card portrays it. Sweet baby Jesus cooing softly in his manger with smiles all around. The only problem is that it doesn’t portray reality. Aside from the point that Jesus most certainly would have been crying as any normal baby would, Revelation 12 describes the Christmas story as a dangerous event, loaded with spiritual warfare.

The Dragon FightsChapter 12 is a prime example that Revelation does not record history chronologically. As I’ve argued previously,[i] Revelation provides several complementary, parallel visions. In this way, several of the visions recapitulate, or retell, the same story from slightly different angles. I made this point specifically with the seven seals, trumpets, and bowls.[ii]

Chapter 12 stands as a unique chapter in that it speaks of the incarnation. In verse 1, John describes a vision of a woman dressed in the sun, standing on the moon, and wearing a crown of twelve stars on her head. Scholars debate the identity of the woman. I think one can make a good case that she represents the people of God, though some argue for Mary. The cosmic images demonstrate the exalted status of this figure, especially the crown of twelve stars on her head. We read elsewhere in Revelation that God made his people rulers (Rev 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). And the number twelve symbolically represents the people of God (twelve tribes and twelve apostles).[iii]

Verse 2 notes that the woman was pregnant and in labor. Repeatedly throughout the OT, we read that Israel suffers labor pains before their Messianic salvation comes (Isa 26:17-18; 66:7-10; Mic 4:10). At the same time, a great red Dragon with seven heads, ten horns, and seven diadems on its heads swept down a third of the stars of heaven to the earth. The dragon is a clear reference to Satan (Rev 12:9; 20:2).

The dragon attempts to mimic Jesus who also has horns and diadems (Rev 5:6; 19:12). We read later in Revelation 17:12 that the ten horns represent ten earthly kings. In other words, the Dragon accomplishes his evil schemes through earthly kingdoms and rulers.[iv] And though many think the stars represent angels, most likely the stars represent people as they did in Daniel 8:10 when Antiochus Epiphanes also threw down “stars.” In other words, John appears to making the same point Daniel was making: the enemy will persecute God’s people.

Meanwhile, the woman gives birth to a son. And not just any son, but a son who will rule the nations with an iron staff. This language most certainly refers to Psalm 2:9: “You shall break them with a rod of iron.” This Psalm, which speaks of the Lord’s “anointed” (the Messiah), also says of the anointed, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you” (Ps 2:7). This son is none other Jesus of Nazareth who would bring blessing to the nations (Gen 12:3).

And how would he bring blessing? Verse 5 says that the child was “caught up to God and to his throne.” That is to say, even though the dragon sought to devour this male child, he would triumph over the dragon by means of his resurrection and ascension to the right hand of the Father.

And though Christ defeated Satan, the dragon continues to fight against God’s people while he still can. We read in verse 6 that the woman flees into the wilderness for 1,260 days (3.5 years). There in the wilderness, God nourishes his people, just as he did ancient Israel.

While scholars differ on their interpretation of the 1,260 days, I believe they represent the time span between Christ’s resurrection and eventual return. The time of 1,260 days most likely comes from Daniel 9:27 which prophesies that sacrifices will end for “half of a week.” A week in that context referred to seven years. So half of a week refers to forty-two months or 1,260 days.

Daniel, it seems, was prophesying that Christ’s future death would bring sacrifices to an end for the final 1,260 days which symbolically represents the time between Christ’s two comings. In chapter 11, we read that enemies will trample the people of God for forty-two months (1,260 days). And it’s during this 1,260 days that the two witnesses (the church) will prophesy to the world. Each of these texts supports the idea that 1,260 days refers to the present church age.

The Dragon FallsWhile some want to locate the fall of Satan and his angels from heaven before the dawn of the human race, the context goes against this position. True to apocalyptic form, this vision pulls back the curtain to give us a glimpse of a cosmic battle between the dragon and Michael. Michael represents the people of God and overpowers the dragon, casting him down to the earth.

Verse 9 notes that “the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world.” Certainly, these images allude back to the serpent in the garden (Gen 3), the Leviathan (Job 41:1; Isa 27:1), Rahab (Job 26:12), and the sea monster (Ps 74:13; Ezek 29:3). Each of these serpent creatures (snakes and sea monsters) represent Satan’s opposition to God’s people.

We read that the dragon and his angels are expelled from heaven because of “the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony.” It seems, then, that Satan used to stand before God and accuse people of their sin (Job 1:9; Zech 3:1). But Christ’s substitutionary death silenced the accuser![v] Satan, therefore, is cast out of heaven, and is further defeated by the proclamation of the gospel. God’s people continue to proclaim the message, even though they suffer for it.

Though the dragon has been defeated, he doesn’t just lay down. He takes down as many as he can with him.

The Dragon FlailsThough Satan fell to earth, he continues to wage war on the woman and her “offspring.” While some may want to distinguish between these two, I think its best to read them as referring to the same entity—the people of God. If one wants to parse them out, one could possibly think of the woman as the church and the offspring as individuals of the church.

As the dragon seeks to attack the church, we read that God delivers them on the wings of eagles into the wilderness, just as he did at the exodus (Exod 19:4). Again, we read that God nourishes his people in the wilderness for “a time, times, and half a time.” This phrase is just another way of saying 3.5 years or 1,260 days. As I already stated earlier, this time frame represents the span of time from Jesus’ resurrection[vi] till his return. That is to say, it’s during this current church age that God is protecting his people from Satan’s attacks.

At the same time, Satan continues to attack the church. He continues to accuse, though he cannot accuse legitimately now that Christ has died. His only recourse is to lie. It’s imperative, therefore, that believers constantly remind themselves of the gospel as to fight off Satan’s accusations. Though Satan continues to wage war, God will ultimately protect his people and bring them safely home.

The Dragon-Slayer

The story of the Bible, then, proclaims that Jesus came as the seed of the woman to crush the head of the serpent.[vii] All throughout Scripture, we see hints of the dragon’s opposition through individuals like Pharaoh, Goliath, King Herod, and the Jewish leaders. But as we see here in Revelation 12, it was really the great serpent pulling the strings. And while this dragon may be a fierce enemy, he is no match for the great dragon-slayer Jesus.

We read of the dragon’s ultimate demise in Revelation 20:2-10, “And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. . . . And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.”

Footnotes[i] https://ryanleasure.com/reading-revelation/

[ii] https://ryanleasure.com/seals-trumpets-and-bowls-oh-my/

[iii] https://ryanleasure.com/who-are-the-144000-in-revelation/

[iv] https://ryanleasure.com/the-seven-churches-in-revelation/

[v] https://ryanleasure.com/what-did-the-cross-accomplish/

[vi] https://ryanleasure.com/jesus-brother-james-and-the-resurrection/

[vii] https://ryanleasure.com/serpents-dragons-and-the-bible/

Recommended resources related to the topic:Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)

Cold Case Resurrection Set by J. Warner Wallace (books)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ryan Leasure holds a Master of Arts from Furman University and a Masters of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Currently, he’s a Doctor of Ministry candidate at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He also serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3VKGTtY

The post A Dragon at Christmas appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

By Melissa Dougherty

Some people see the King James Bible as far superior to other translations. They believe other translations are heretical, full of redactions with verses purposely and vindictively taken out. Any attempt to “modernize” the language is seen as compromising the very Word of God. Some people in this group see the 1611 English King James Version as even far superior to the Greek copies themselves! Some also believe that the Bible that might be on your shelf is actually… New Age.

I know this because I used to be a King James Onlyist. A KJO.

I want to clarify two things. First, I think the King James is a fine version, and I don’t believe that everyone who prefers the King James is a KJO. Second, I understand that there’s a spectrum of beliefs within the KJO community. I’m going to share what I would consider the most common claims people make on why they believe the King James is superior. I still read this version sometimes. If you like it, that’s great. But some elevate it to an idolatrous level. I want people to know this information, especially the ex-new agers. Many are afraid to read a modern version because they’ve been told the KJV is the only true version and have scared them by saying these other versions are New Age when they’re simply not.

In my time as a KJO, I noticed there are spectrums to this position from the extreme where even putting the King James on the floor is a horrendous sin to the more passive. But, in general, this group basically believes that the true word of God is the King James Version of the Bible, and all others are corrupt and are infiltrated by the New Age. Some are so extreme that they believe the English King James corrects the Greek!

In other words, the King James Bible is the Word of God, not the Greek and Hebrew that it was copied from. This is one reason you see extra verses in the King James and don’t see it in your Bibles, but more about that later.

I personally took more of a middle road in the spectrum and used to believe that the King James Bible was the most reliable and complete, and the rest of these other versions were either missing verses or were compromised somehow. I looked down on people who used different versions, which only furthered my misconceptions about how we got the Bible and how it was translated. When I came out of the New Age, one of the first things I did was research how we got the Bible, and I was amazed by what I learned. The fancy word for this is called “Textual Criticism.”

Here are three main aspects to consider and why other reputable versions are not* New Age:1.) Conspiracy to Deceive.*

One of the arguments from the KJO camp is that there’s a New Age conspiracy to deceive people into preparing the way for the antichrist. This is done by creating other Bible translations that they claim take essential doctrines out of the Bible to deceive millions. They say the deity of Christ is taken out and the Gospel itself. This is demonstrably false. First of all, a conspiracy is a pretty terrible one if virtually everyone knows about it. Second, it’s ironically a conspiratorial mindset someone has to be in even to claim there’s a New Age conspiracy. In other words, many KJOs believe this out of a fear-based mindset rather than a factual one. The misinformation that is out there on this is staggering and only hurts the people that promote this as they seem to take a more “cultish” position on this than an academic one. One of the biggest issues they bring up is that the King James is “complete” because it has verses other Bibles don’t. This brings me to my second point.

2.) Supposed missing verses.

This is one of the most significant claims from this camp. They pride themselves in owning a “complete ” version, while we have these second-class versions that are demonic and belong in the garbage. This was probably the #1 reason I ascribed to the King James as superior. For those that might not know, if you compare the King James and New King James Versions with the newer translations (e.g., the New International Version, English Standard Version, Christian Standard Bible, New Living Translation, etc.), you will see that several verses seem to be missing from the newer translations. We usually see these passages or texts in the footnotes in other versions. Along with these supposed missing verses are many words and phrases that are “missing” from newer translations. Why are these omitted? Are the newer translations taking verses out of the Bible, in a grand New Age conspiracy, as some claim? No. Not at all. When I researched this a long time ago, this part of my research was startling, but in a good way.

I learned that there are no Bible verses. What I mean by that is that the King James translators added the chapters and verses to help the reader navigate the text, and this is not a bad thing. This is helpful. But it’s important to know that the original authors never wrote like this. It was intended to be read as a letter or book. And second, the real game changer is that these newer translations are striving to present what the biblical writers originally wrote correctly, which means leaving out anything that was not part of the original text. In other words, any content that’s supposedly “missing” in newer translations? Is believed by most scholars not to have been in the Bible to begin with.

It’s important to mention that the King James translators in 1611 used the manuscripts they had available to them at the time, and that’s when the King James Version was written. Since then, older manuscripts have been found that don’t have these verses. Over 1,500 years, some words, phrases, and even sentences were added to the Bible, intentionally or accidentally. So “missing verses” are simply not found in some of the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. Also, there’s a fancy word called “expansion of piety.” This is a desire to fiercely protect the sacredness of Jesus, which led people to expand the titles of Jesus, possibly even without meaning. It’s ironic because the accusation is that the modern translations removed them when the actual situation was that they were added. This does NOT downgrade the King James Version. Again, I think it’s a fine translation to use.

3.) This brings me to my last point. Why are there so many translations, then? This is easier to answer than you think! Again to someone who holds a King James only position, it’s because there’s a New Age conspiracy, and all the older manuscripts have been infiltrated and compromised. For them, this only holds more reason why the King James is the most authentic version. The Bible is written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. So all these partial and complete manuscripts we find scattered everywhere are copies, but the good news is that they match. This can be a bit divisive when we talk about it being translated into English because there are so many different ways to translate a word sometimes. For this reason, it’s beneficial to compare translations. I think some versions are to be avoided, such as versions with only one translator or loose paraphrases. An example of this is the Passion Translation or the Message. Because Greek and Hebrew aren’t English, you will have different words translated differently in different versions. The King James Version is a testament to how language can change over time. Following this logic, if the King James truly is the very Word of God, then in another few hundred years, people would practically have to learn another language to read it. Language evolves and changes over time, and this includes English. Nobody speaks Old English today.

For these reasons, there are trustworthy modern translations that are not New Age. They are excellent to read and study and compare to one another.

Recommended resources related to the topic:Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)

How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Melissa Dougherty is a Christian Apologist best known for her YouTube channel as an ex-new ager. She has two associate’s degrees, one in Early Childhood Multicultural Education, and the other in Liberal Arts. She is currently pursuing her bachelor’s degree in Religious Studies at Southern Evangelical Seminary.​

The post Is Every Bible “New Age”… Except the King James? appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

The post Got Doubts? Stop Doing This! appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

The post Why Most People Would Rather Be Right Than Find the Truth appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

The post Tweets Against Christianity appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

The post UFOS, Aliens, And Christianity appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

The post Archaeology and Apologetics appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

The post How We Got Our Bible: The KJV Only Movement appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

The post Five Signs of Spiritual Maturity appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

The post The Historical Paul Vs. The Legendary Paul? appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

The post The Balance of Law and Love appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

The post My Heavens – Not in the Stars appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

The post How We Got Our Bible: Modern Translations appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

The post Are We All Born Children of God? appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

The post Why The Bible Depicts God As Jealous appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

The post Does Isaiah 9:6 Affirm the Deity of Israel’s Messiah? appeared first on Cross Examined.

View Details

The post Fertility Matters appeared first on Cross Examined.