Tag Archive for: Tim Stratton

100 Gorillas vs. 1 Man

The internet has been buzzing with a hypothetical: “Could 100 men defeat a fully grown gorilla in a fight?”

 

As a former MMA fighter and coach, I’ve seen the limits of human strength—and the power of teamwork. I’ve trained with Olympic medalist wrestlers and UFC champions. Based on that experience, I’m convinced that 20 heavyweight, Olympic-caliber wrestlers or UFC champions could bring down a gorilla. Not because they’re stronger pound-for-pound, but because they’re strong enough together, and—more importantly—smart enough to devise a plan and execute it.

So, yes, 100 average men using their reasoning powers, coordination, and willpower could defeat one gorilla. But let’s flip the script: Could 100 gorillas outwit a single reasonable human? Absolutely not.

Even with sheer numbers, gorillas lack the intellectual hardware and cognitive faculties to engage in metaphysics, abstract reasoning, mathematics, moral judgment, strategic deception, or language. You could have a hundred gorillas staring at a chessboard or a copy of Mere Christianity, and they’d still be no match for even a modestly intelligent human being.

Why? Because Intelligence Isn’t Additive—It’s Categorical

Physical strength adds up: 100 pounds + 100 pounds = 200 pounds. But intelligence doesn’t scale like that. You don’t get collective rationality just by adding more non-rational minds together. Ten gorillas aren’t “ten times as clever” as one. A hundred gorillas don’t become a committee of philosophers. You just get a louder troop.

The Deeper Point      

Human beings are categorically different, not just stronger or more social, but made in the image of God. The imago Dei means we are capable of recognizing metaphysical reality, reflecting morally, reasoning logically, practicing self-awareness, and giving and receiving genuine love. These are not just evolutionary adaptations. They are spiritual fingerprints—ontological markers of our uniqueness.

Strength and Intelligence: Different Kinds of Power           

This gorilla debate accidentally reveals something profound: Raw strength and intelligence are distinct forms of power.

  • Strength is brute force.
  • Intelligence is strategic dominion.

And it’s intelligence that allows strength to be managed, directed, or overcome. That’s why God told Adam to subdue the earth and govern the creatures—not because Adam was stronger than a lion, but because he was rational, relational, reflective , and morally responsible.

Conclusion: Why This Even Matters 

It’s possible—at least hypothetically—for one hundred men to defeat a gorilla with brawn, brains, and teamwork. But not even a thousand gorillas could beat a man at chess, solve a logic puzzle, write a sonnet, or engage in metaphysics. Because intelligence isn’t just power in numbers. It’s power of a different kind altogether—a power that reflects the very mind of God.

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),
Tim Stratton

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)

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

 

Tim Stratton (The FreeThinking Theist) Tim pursued his undergraduate studies at the University of Nebraska-Kearney (B.A. 1997) and after working in full-time ministry for several years went on to attain his graduate degree from Biola University (M.A. 2014). Tim was recently accepted at North West University to pursue his Ph.D. in systematic theology with a focus on metaphysics.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/40cLE4j

/by

Jesus: Santa Claus for Adults?

It’s common for atheists to be a “Grinch” over the Holidays and exclaim that Jesus is just a “Santa Claus for adults!” When I hear that claim, I immediately respond with a question: “What do you mean by that?”

If one means that children often believe in fictional fairy tales and adults believe in fact-based evidence, then I agree – Jesus is for adults (and actually people of all ages)! But I don’t think that’s the intent behind this claim. I believe the intent of the atheist (“Grinch”) is to convey that little kids believe in a fictional Santa Clause and many adults believe in fiction too – Christianity.

How the Grinch Stole Christ out of Christmas

Well, why think a thing like that, Mr. Grinch? Is belief in Jesus — or belief in God — really no different than belief in Santa? To answer this question, we must first ask if we have any good reason to believe in Santa. What good reasons are there that would lead us to logically conclude, “Therefore, Santa exists”?

Now, I’m not emotionally opposed to the existence of Santa Claus, and my life would not really have to change if Santa really exists, so if there were any evidence pointing to a jolly fat man in the North Pole who flies around with Rudolph giving gifts made by the elves, then I would happily follow that evidence wherever it leads. Even if there were logic-based arguments concluding that Santa PROBABLY exists, I would be very open to the existence of Santa. Come to think of it, Santa Claus would save me a ton of money on Christmas presents! Be that as it may, there is no evidence or any logic-based arguments concluding that Santa Claus exists — or even PROBABLY exists. So, although I am willing to be persuaded, there just doesn’t seem to be any evidence or logical reasons to believe in Santa Claus (sorry kids).

Now perhaps, Mr. Grinch, you’re saying to yourself: “That’s right! There’s no evidence for Santa Claus AND there is no evidence of God or Jesus either! That’s why it’s ridiculous to believe in Santa Claus or God!”

A False Equivalence

But is that true? Is the evidence — or lack thereof — for Santa Claus and the evidence for God really the same?

Well, if Santa does exist, we would know what to look for: A big, jolly, white-bearded, fat man in a red suit flying around in a sleigh being pulled by flying reindeer delivering presents to children on Christmas Eve. We would look for his factory full of elves at the North Pole too! So far (as far as I know), this evidence for Santa has never been detected. That in and of itself is not PROOF that Santa does not exist, but once we add to the fact that we have no other positive reasons to believe that Santa exists, then we can safely say that Santa does not exist.

But what about God? If God does exist, what would we expect to find? Do you even know what evidence you should start looking for?

Before stating that there is no evidence for something, Mr. Grinch, make sure you know what kind of evidence there should be if that thing does exist. If the God of the Bible exists, for example, he is not the kind of being you would see flying around in the clouds. He would not be some “sky daddy,” as many internet atheists seem to think. No, if the God of the Bible exists, He would not be some humanoid “Zeus-like being.” God (if He exists) is an immaterial unembodied mind – a “spirit” (John 4:24).

How Christ Saves Christmas, from the Grinch

So, what should we expect to find if Christian theism is true? We would expect to find scientific evidence for the beginning of the space-time universe. We have that! We would expect to find evidence for the fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the big bang so that intelligent life – not to mention matter itself – could exist. We have that! We would expect to have historical data showing that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person of history who was executed by the Roman government. We have that!

In fact, we would expect to be able to make a strong case — via the historical method alone – that Jesus actually rose from the dead. Historians have demonstrated that the resurrection of Jesus is the inference to the best explanation after examining all of the historical facts!

So, the things we would expect to find if Santa exists, do not exist. However, the things we would expect to find if the God of the Bible exists, those things DO exist!

After taking everything into consideration, although it would be irrational to believe in Santa Claus, one is quite coherent believing in the God Jesus revealed. That is to say, we have good reason to celebrate Christmas.

So, the next time Mr. Grinch compares Jesus to Santa Claus, just show him the evidence pointing to the reason for the season.

Have a reasonable (Isaiah 1:18) and Merry Christmas,

Dr. Tim Stratton

Recommended Resources: 

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

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

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

How Can Jesus Be the Only Way? (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek

 

Tim Stratton (The FreeThinking Theist) pursued his undergraduate studies at the University of Nebraska-Kearney (B.A. 1997) and after working in full-time ministry for several years went on to attain his graduate degree from Biola University (M.A. 2014). Tim was recently accepted at North West University to pursue his Ph.D. in systematic theology with a focus on metaphysics.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/49fAu1O

/by

Key Tenets of Marxism VS America’s Philosophical Foundations

I’ve been fascinated by Marxism since my parents first told me about the Cold War we were living in when I was almost 10-years-old (1983). I remember asking them why the Soviet Union had nuclear weapons aimed at us. After my parents reassured me that we had just as many nuclear missiles aimed back at them — ensuring that they will not use these weapons against us (peace through strength) — they explained it to me like I was 10-years-old (because I was). While not using these exact words, my parents basically told me that the Soviet Union was based upon a philosophy called Marxism which is logically incompatible with America’s theological and philosophical foundations. This sparked a desire to learn more about our fundamental disagreements.

I wanted to know about America’s philosophical foundations. I wanted to know more about Marxism. So, over the past four decades I have studied Marxism off and on as a hobby. While I make no claims to be a Marxist scholar, as a philosophically inclined analytic theologian — who has applied the tools of my trade to this hobby — I do think it’s fair to say that I know enough about Marxism to have an informed conversation on the matter. So, since my parents provided me with a nice introduction to Marxism four decades ago, allow me to pay it forward and provide an introduction here.

Marxism 101 

In a nutshell, Marxism is a socio-political and economic ideology developed by Karl Marx (hence the name “Marxism”) and Friedrich Engels in the 19th century. As Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto, his philosophy emphasizes the role of struggle between the oppressed and the oppressor in societal development. Marx advocated for a classless, stateless society where the means of production are owned collectively.

That might look good on paper, but Marxism has a rich history of utter failure, poverty, tyranny, death, and destruction. Indeed, if we are comparing death counts, Marxism makes Hitler’s Nazi Party seem tame. While Hitler’s Holocaust of evil murdered six million Jews, those putting Marx’s philosophy into action have killed well-over 100 million people! Yet, while we do not hear that we’ve got to keep trying Naziism again and again, Marxists demand that despite repeated failures, along with more and more death and destruction, we must keep trying to implement Marxism again, and again, and over again.

Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting Different Results

The preceding words are attributed to Albert Einstein, but whoever originally said it, these words ring true. Yet, Karl Marx’s philosophy — which promises a better tomorrow — always leads to the same outcome, with the “useful idiots” who helped to usher Marxists into power, now trying to escape their new “utopia.” (The term “useful idiots” is not a pejorative term, but a Marxist term for a naive or credulous person who can be manipulated or exploited to advance a cause or political agenda.)

Konstan Kisin was fortunate enough to escape Marxism and puts it this way:

Lenin promised a better tomorrow in Russia, before imposing tyranny, poverty, and terror.
Mao promised a better tomorrow in China, before imposing tyranny, poverty, and terror.
Castro promised a better tomorrow in Cuba, before imposing tyranny, poverty, and terror.
Chavez promised a better tomorrow in Venezuela, before imposing tyranny, poverty, and terror.

Surprisingly, many useful idiots living within the borders of America — while enjoying a protection of their unalienable God-given rights — seem to think that they should use their freedom to destroy their freedom by making progress toward a Marxist utopia. The historical death count alone should prevent any sane person from advancing the cause of Marxism today, yet key tenets of Marx’s philosophy are alive and well.

Marxism’s Key Tenets

Here’s a short list of key ingredients included in Marx’s philosophy:

1. Class Struggle: Marxism is basically a worldview that posits a necessary conflict that only Marxism can solve. Marx said that the history of class struggles were between the bourgeoisie (owners of the means of production) and the proletariat (working class). Today, the language typically used (and that most of us will recognize) is the struggle between the “oppressed” and the “oppressor.” The ultimate goal is for the proletariat (or “the oppressed”) to overthrow the bourgeoisie (“the oppressor”), leading to a classless society.

Marx utilized the oppressor/oppressed narrative in the 1840s when he co-authored the Communist Manifesto. Today, you will hear the exact same language used by those at the top of the Black Lives Matter organization. This makes sense since the leaders of the movement have proudly admitted that they are “trained Marxists.”

2. Abolition of Private Property: Marxists advocate for the abolition of private ownership of the means of production (factories, land, etc.) and propose that these should be owned collectively by the community or ruling government.

As the World Economic Forum (WEF) recently said, “You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy.”

3. Collectivism and State Control: Marxism starts with Socialism and emphasizes the central role of the government in controlling and distributing resources until the state itself “withers away” and transforms into full-blown Communism.

4. Critique of Capitalism: Marxism views capitalism as an exploitative system where the bourgeoisie (or the oppressor) extracts surplus value from the labor of the proletariat (or the oppressed), leading to inequality and social injustice. Thus, the Marxist advances what they refer to as “social justice,” which seeks equity (equal outcomes) as opposed to equal rights and opportunity.

Kamala Harris points out the difference between equality (equal rights and opportunity) as opposed to equity — “all ending up in the same place” (equal outcomes) in this short video.

5. Revolutionary Change: Marxism advocates for a revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist system, rather than reforming it through gradual or democratic means. We have seen this throughout history. “Political power grows out of a barrel of a gun” are infamous words uttered by Chinese Marxist named Mao Zedong. This has happened multiple times in world history, but most of us are old enough to remember that Black Lives Matter led a summer full of “mostly peaceful” protests combined with extremely violent riots in 2020 (that made January 6th look like a guided tour of the Capitol building). We saw a snapshot of what trained Marxists are willing to do in order to destroy “the system” in hopes to “Build Back Better.”

Karl Marx died in 1883, but his ideas have evolved and advanced at the Frankfurt School in Germany which exists for the purpose of advancing Marxism. This provided the foundation for the idea known as Critical Theory, and what has been advanced recently as Critical Race Theory (CRT). It’s vital to recognize this “theory” has deep roots in Marxism.

*Click here to read a copy of a speech I gave to the Kearney Public Schools Board of Education in 2022 about the dangers of CRT.

America’s Philosophical Foundations

The key tenets of Marxism are in opposition to America’s theological foundations stated in the Declaration of Independence and enemies of the United States Constitution. That is to say, the foundational documents of the United States are based upon principles that are incompatible with Marxism:

1. Individual Equal Rights and Private Property: The Declaration of Independence emphasizes God-given equal and “unalienable rights” including “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” which are closely tied to the protection of individual rights and private property (starting with the private property of your own body). The Constitution enshrines these rights through various amendments, particularly the Bill of Rights. Marxism, in contrast, seeks to abolish private property and emphasizes collective rights and property over individual rights and property.

2. Limited Government: The U.S. Constitution establishes a system of limited government, with checks and balances designed to prevent any one branch from gaining too much power. When the government is smaller, We the People have more freedom. Marxism, on the other hand, advocates for a powerful state — ultimately a dictator — to control resources and enforce equity (equal outcomes) upon all people, regardless of their personal choices.

3. Democratic Processes: The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic and the U.S. Constitution is based on democratic principles where change is achieved through We the People in an electoral processes and the rule of law. As noted above, however, Marxism often advocates for revolutionary change, which can involve the use of horrible violence and the overthrow of existing governmental structures.

This is one reason why the Second Amendment (2A) of the U.S. Constitution is so important. America’s Founders realized that the human right of self-defense — and the defense of loved ones — serves as an insurance of all of our other rights and is “necessary to the security of a free state.” This makes it clear that the 2A is not about “hunting rights,” it’s about security and the ability to oppose enemies of the Constitution; foreign or domestic (this might explain why progressives, who are willing to use violence to overthrow the freedoms of American citizens, often seem frustrated by the 2A).

4. Capitalism: The American system is built on a capitalist economic model, which Marxism fundamentally opposes. The protection of free markets and private enterprise is central to the U.S. economy, whereas Marxism seeks to dismantle capitalism entirely.

These fundamental differences lead to an inherent opposition between Marxist ideology and the principles enshrined in America’s theological and philosophical foundational documents. These two views are logically incompatible. The American system prioritizes individual human freedom (my favorite topic), private ownership of property, and a government that serves and protects objective and unalienable human rights, whereas Marxism seeks to replace these structures with a collectivist system focused on equity and the forced communal ownership (ultimately through the barrel of a gun) of all resources and everything else.

I believe that America’s philosophical foundations are objectively true (i.e., they correspond to reality). Thus, in order to avoid painful collisions with reality, we ought to strive to correspond to reality. In a nutshell, I affirm Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

Accordingly, objectively good governments will not violate a human’s God-given rights. Indeed, an objectively good government will use its power to protect and fight for the God-given rights of humanity.

Since I possess knowledge that Christianity is true (given a cumulative case of evidence), I also know that Jefferson was right. Humanity was created on purpose and for specific purposes. This places us in an epistemic position to know exactly what our God-given rights are. This is also why it’s vital to study the entirety of God’s inspired Word (read your Bible)! Ultimately, Bible-believing Christians know that humans have God-given rights that ought not be violated by anyone – including governments.

In addition to the four philosophical principles of American philosophy, listed above, House Speaker Mike Johnson provides seven key essentials (some overlap with the above list) that American Conservatives — those seeking to conserve America’s philosophical and theological foundations — uphold:

  1. Individual Freedom
  2. Limited Government
  3. The Rule of Law
  4. Peace through Strength
  5. Fiscal Responsibility
  6. Free Markets
  7. Human Dignity

 

Progressives, as opposed to conservatives, have different goals. Whenever one refers to themselves as a “progressive,” I always ask them to clarify and be specific about what they are “progressing away from” and what they are progressing toward. I’ve had these conversations on many college campuses around the country and it seems that those who refer to themselves as “progressive” tend to make progress away from America’s philosophical foundations and often find themselves on a journey toward what they have been promised: a Marxist utopia.

This utopia can only exist if America’s foundation can be destroyed. Or in the words of Kamala Harris:

“To see what can be, unburdened by what has been.”

Make no mistake, Marxists have a religious devotion to being “unburdened by what has been” (America’s philosophical foundations). Despite horrendous failures over and over again, a Marxist utopia is what they believe “can be,” if they just try it one more time.

A Theological View of Marxism

Marxism is not merely a “shallow philosophy” (Colossians 2:8). As a theologian, I believe it is fair to refer to Marxism as a religion or a religious substitute. Of course, Marx did say that “religion is the opium of the people” so, although Marx himself would probably not refer to Marxism as a “religion,” it does share striking similarities with religion. Indeed, it seems to be an anti-Christ religion.

Just as Buddhism is often referred to as an “atheistic religion,” Marxism also seems to be worthy of that label. This is because it steps into the theological lane and attempts to provide answers to the problem of evil, sin, atonement, and forgiveness.

I have published two books and an academic journal article destroying particular arguments raised against the knowledge of God (2 Corinthians 10:5). Namely, all the problems of evil. I highly recommend reading the chapter I contributed to the book, Faith Examined (Wipf and Stock, 2023) where I show that if Christianity is true, combined with God’s necessary omniscience, then all the so-called “problems of evil” melt away. But, as philosopher Owen Anderson notes in his article, “Mere Marxism,” the Marxist seeks to take a non-theological approach to addressing why evil exists in the world. The problem is that some people have more stuff than other people. The Marxist’s answer is that the places where there is not as much suffering have exploited the places that have more suffering. Dr. Anderson writes:

In this story, those places were once Edenic. The people lived in harmony with each other and with nature until European sails were seen on the horizon, and all hell broke loose.

Of course, anyone with minimal knowledge of history knows this is historical revisionism (see, How Christianity Changed the World by Alvin J. Schmidt). As Anderson notes, before these lands were “colonized” by Europeans they were . . .

“filled with idolatry, sexual immorality, warfare, cannibalism, rape, self-mutilation, torture, and human sacrifice. But if you are taught the Mere Marxist narrative from K-12 and then in college, it is all you know.”

So there is a “problem of sin” in Marxism, and some are born sinners and some are born sinned against. But don’t worry, just as Jesus provides good news so that you can be set free from sin, the Marxist religion also provides atonement for your sins (more theology) if you happened to be born into the class of “oppressor.” Of course, this atonement is not through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, but rather, Marxism is a religion of works. If you were born into the class of the sinful oppressor, you can be saved and make the world a better place by giving lots of your money and time to progressive causes — along with much virtue signaling.

Anderson notes that

“Marxism should rightly be considered as a cult that borrows from Christian beliefs. It teaches about a perfect time, the introduction of sin (private property and greed), and the path through atonement and redemption. It is a religion of works. There is no grace or mercy. You can only be redeemed by doing your fair share.”

Now that we’ve shown Marxism to meet the requirements for being a religion, I’m sure the ACLU will be consistent and demand the separation of Church and State.

So, not only is Marxism the enemy of America’s Philosophical Foundations, it’s also opposed to The Law of Christ and the gospel message. Marx seemed to realize this inherent contradiction between these two worldviews when he decried that “religion was the opium of the people.” Thus, religion — especially Christianity — opposed the goals of Marxism. After all, if the ultimate goal of Marxism is equity (equal outcomes despite personal choices) it opposes the teachings of Jesus and the Law of Christ.

This is why, in order to transform America into a Marxist utopia, one of the first steps was to advance arguments raised against the knowledge of God. This is also why those advancing Marxist ideals have spent so much time focused on the growing number of theologians and philosophers who “destroy every argument raised against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:5) and provide a cumulative case of arguments and evidence supporting the existence of God and the truth of the historical resurrection.

When Christianity thrives, Marxism dies. 

Conclusion

This article briefly surveyed some key principles of Marxism and compared and contrasted them with key principles of America’s philosophical and theological foundations. We have seen that these two worldviews are logically incompatible and thus, natural enemies. Indeed, when one takes the oath to defend the U.S. Constitution . . .

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

. . . one promises to defend it against all enemies foreign or domestic. Marxism is at the top of the list of these enemies.

Although the evil of Marxism presents itself in physical form against your neighbors, loved ones, and the least of these (Mark 12:30-31; Matthew 25:31-46), while promising to help them, it comes to destroy them. We must remember where this evil comes from. The Apostle Paul reminds us in Ephesians 6:

12 For our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the world powers of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavens. 13 This is why you must take up the full armor of God, so that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having prepared everything, to take your stand.

Of course, these spiritual forces of evil in which Paul speaks have infected the minds of many humans. We must seek to reason together (Isaiah 1:18) and speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) as we strive to free their minds (which is what FreeThinking Ministries is all about). We must always speak the truth, but we should begin with gentleness and kindness. If those we love refuse to listen — and as this evil becomes a clear and present danger to them and others — then Jesus and Paul give us examples of how the most loving thing to do is to stop worrying about being nice or coming across in humility. At that point, speaking the hard truth with cold facts is often the most loving thing a person can do for those refusing to see this danger.

Stay awake!

8 Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. 9 Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world (1 Peter 5:8-9).

Bottom line: We must call out the evils of this “shallow philosophy” (some have referred to it as the “woke mind virus”) which has taken so many captive (Colossians 2:8). Your neighbors, your loved ones, and the least of these depend on your voice. With this in mind, do not be silent in the face of evil! Be loud for the sake of love.

Much more can be said on this topic. Don’t worry, although this article was written as an introduction to the topic, FreeThinking Ministries has many articles and videos about the evils of Marxism (including several from Phil Bair, the author of Marx Attacks). More are forthcoming. Stay tuned.

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18) and live in freedom (Galatians 5:13).

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)

You Can’t NOT Legislate Morality mp3 by Frank Turek

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

 

Tim Stratton (The FreeThinking Theist) Tim pursued his undergraduate studies at the University of Nebraska-Kearney (B.A. 1997) and after working in full-time ministry for several years went on to attain his graduate degree from Biola University (M.A. 2014). Tim was recently accepted at North West University to pursue his Ph.D. in systematic theology with a focus on metaphysics.

Original Blog Posted Here: https://bit.ly/47wepLU

 

/by

Apologetics and Politics

How should we live?
How should we think?
How should we vote?

Are these questions with objectively right or wrong answers? That is to say, is it true — apart from human opinion — that humanity ought to live, think, and even vote in a certain manner?

Some Questions that Need Answering

If it is not objectively right or wrong to live, think, or vote in a certain manner, then does anything really matter? Moreover, if it is objectively wrong to live, think, and vote in a certain manner — how would we know? After all, is how we ought to vote determined by the majority vote? That doesn’t seem right. Are these things merely based on your emotions or “how it makes you feel?”

That doesn’t seem right either because, as Ben Shapiro often says “Facts don’t care about your feelings.” One might not have warm feelings toward Ben Shapiro, but it is quite hard to disagree with his mantra. In fact, it is impossible to argue against it without proving his point (since one would have to appeal to facts to argue against the importance of facts).

Ultimately, the answer to these questions boils down to the ontological question: “Does God exist?” More specifically: “Is Christianity true?”

I will soon explain why the existence or non-existence of God is bedrock. But if how we ought to live, think, and vote are based upon this bigger ontological question, the epistemological  questions are raised once again: “How would we know?”

How would we know if God exists — or not? And if God does exist, how would we know if Christianity is true? After all, perhaps Islam, Judaism, or some form of deism is true? How would we know? Can we know?

Before we answer that question, we need ask one more question: “What does it mean to know?” What is knowledge? The late Dallas Willard (my first lecturing professor at Biola University) provides a working definition of knowledge:

[block quote] “We have knowledge of something when we are representing it as it actually is, on an appropriate basis of thought and experience.”[1]

Willard shares that we have knowledge of something when we have proper justification or warrant for our beliefs and that our beliefs regarding it conform to reality. Socrates referred to this justification as a “tether to reality.”

A statement is true when it corresponds to reality and reality is the way things are. Knowledge, therefore, must align with truth (based on evidence or insight) and it must be “tethered” to reality. That is to say, knowledge is not based upon luck.

An Illustration from Math Class

To put it in simple terms, consider three students in a math class. The teacher gives the students a multiple-choice quiz to see if they KNOW how to solve a story problem. The first student does not understand the problem at all, but luckily happens to guess the correct answer.

He circles the correct answer on the paper. . . but does he KNOW the answer – does he possess KNOWLEDGE?

The next student does not understand the problem either, but he cheats and looks on his neighbor’s quiz, hoping she got it right. And he circles one of the alternative options, the same one his neighbor circled.

The answer happens to be correct, but does he KNOW the answer?

Finally, the last student not only understands the problem just fine, but she shows her work leading to the correct answer. The fact that she “showed her work” is the “tether” that demonstrates to her teacher, and to herself, that she possesses KNOWLEDGE of reality.

Now, one may happen to possess true beliefs. If, however, he does not possess a proper justification,  a “tether” for a specific belief, and his true beliefs are simply based on “luck,” his belief does not qualify as a knowledge claim (even if it happens to be true).

Willard notes that rational people are those who base their lives upon knowledge. It is not required to know something is true with absolute 100 percent certainty. It simply requires a commitment to a way of life and thought based upon evidence and a justified trust in God through knowledge.

A Tether to Reality

Let us return to the BIG question: Can we have real knowledge of God? A cumulative case of evidence appealing to logic, science, and history pointing toward God’s existence and the truth of Christianity says we can. Consider a few of these multiple “tethers”:

These evidences provide the justification required for the knowledge of God, but what view of God is true? After all, we have the “final four” from which to choose:

  1. Christianity
  2. Judaism
  3. Islam
  4. Deism

This all comes down to the “tether” or historical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Since Judaism, Islam, and deism all deny the resurrection of Jesus, and Christianity affirms it, if there is evidence based upon the historical method that Jesus actually rose from the dead, then Christianity would provide the BEST explanation of all the data. Guess what . . . we have that evidence:

  1. The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus (The Facts)
  2. The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus (The Explanation)

It is also vital to note that Christianity enjoys the “Ring of Truth” when compared and contrasted against other contenders. Moreover, we can also have knowledge of God through a personal and experiential relationship with Him through the inner witness of the Holy Spirit — but this is also supported by all the evidence previously mentioned.

With a cumulative case of logical arguments in mind, a Christian should be a person of faith . . . because he or she is primarily a person of knowledge. Christians put their trust in what they know is probably true. This is what William Lane Craig refers to as “reasonable faith.”

What I’m NOT Saying

Please hear me: I am not proposing that we can know Christian theism is true with 100 percent certainty — if we had that it would not be “faith.” We can, however, gain knowledge of God with a high degrees of certainty. This includes not only knowledge of a powerful and personal Creator of the universe, but also knowledge of the particular truth of Christianity through evidential and spiritual means.

If God exists and Christianity is true, then it would follow that humanity was created to live a certain way and created to think in a certain manner. That is to say, there would be some objective “shoulds” to how humans ought to live and how we ought to think. It logically follows that this would even include how we ought to vote and think about cultural and political issues (See “The Great Commission Is Racist” as an example).

Now, many people think that we should not mix politics and religion. Is that true?  Are they right? Why think a thing like that?

A Tether to Political Reality

It would be absurd not to have one’s worldview (religion) influence their politics. In fact, one’s worldview ought to do at least that much (and not the other way around). That is to say, if one truly believes that God exists, created humanity on purpose and for a specific purpose, and that Jesus revealed how we ought to live, then the laws of politicians will either approximate the “law above the law” (ultimate reality) or not.

If this is the case, then politicians can actually pass “illegal laws” that “We The People” ought to resist and rebel against.

If God does not exist, however, then humanity was not created on purpose or for any specific purpose. Thus, we would be mere accidents if atheism is true. If humanity is nothing but accidents then politics is objectively meaningless (along with everything else) as there would be no objective purpose in the existence of humanity (if this is the case, say goodbye to objective or unalienable human rights).

Thus, on atheism, it would not really be wrong (objectively speaking) if Obama, Trump, Hitler, or Stalin were calling the shots. It is simply one’s irrelevant subjective opinion (which is merely causally determined by physics and chemistry).

If God exists and Christianity is true, however, then one’s subjective political opinions can be objectively right or objectively wrong.

A Tether Between Politics & Gospel

It is often asserted — even by some Christians — that they do not want their “politics and religion mixed.” This is a good indicator that they probably do not understand their own religion for at least two reasons: (1) Jesus got involved in politics, and (2) we are commanded to love all people and to share the gospel with the world.

First, consider the fact that Jesus constantly interacted with the Pharisees in the New Testament. The Pharisees were the religious and political rulers of Israel. Matthew 23:23-24 provides a good example (note that Jesus was not always “nice”):

23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.”

Frank Turek points out the following in Does Abortion Trump Everything Else? (I encourage all to listen to this podcast in its entirety):

“Not all moral laws are of equal weight. Jesus spoke of weightier matters of the law in Matthew 23:23. And the least of these, Matthew 5:19. And the greatest commandment, Matthew 22:36. He told Pilot that Judas had committed the greater sin, John 19:11.”

Think about the weightier or “more important matters of the law” and modern-day America. Politicians today are more concerned about the consequences of using plastic drinking straws than placing restrictions on abortion (killing millions of innocent human beings) and actually advocate for it in many cases. What do you think Jesus would say to these politicians or those who vote for them? Based on His reaction to the political leaders of Israel, do you think Jesus would worry about hurting the feelings of modern-day politicians or those who vote for them?

Indeed, I believe Jesus would say “facts don’t care about your feelings.” We must not disregard the “more important matters of the law.”

Second, if a Christian does not take politics seriously, then he or she probably does not take evangelism seriously. Turek shows a satellite image of the Korean peninsula to make this point (See Why Christians Should Be Involved In Politics).

Notice the stark contrast between the north and south. South Korea is filled with light, activity, and productivity. According to Turek, “it is one of the most Christianized countries in the world.” North Korea, on the other hand, stands in polar contrast to their neighbors south of the border. North Korea is dark and seemingly “dead.” Turek accurately describes it as a big “concentration camp.” What is the difference between North and South Korea? One word: POLITICS! We can clarify: Communism!

Many South Koreans have heard the gospel of Jesus Christ because there is political freedom to share the gospel. The communist government of North Korea, on the other hand, does not allow the gospel to be shared — it is a communist dictatorship based upon Marxism which is an ideology that makes Hitler’s Nazism look like a summer picnic. Indeed, we must treat the “hammer and sickle” in the same manner in which we treat the swastika.

If the gospel message is true (and we have good reason to believe it is true) then this is the most important information a person could ever have access to or possess. If we truly love all people — as Jesus commanded — then we must desire the people who have never heard the gospel to have access to this eternally vital information.

Since Marxist policies (politics) are keeping millions of souls from hearing the gospel, if we truly love and care for all humans, then we ought to care about politics and vote in a certain manner. We ought to be “Anti-Ma” (anti-Marxism). To not care about politics is to not care about people.

The Lesser of Two Evils

If Christianity is true, then we must “mix” it with politics — at least if you are striving to love God with all of your mind and live a consistent Christian life striving to love all people. After all, if Christianity corresponds to reality, then the politicians you support and vote for should advance policies that correspond to reality too. Of course, no politician will do this perfectly, but some political views and policies approximate to reality (and the nature of God) more than others.

Unless Jesus Christ is running for office, all elections are a vote between the lesser of two evils. As Turek notes, if Billy Graham was running against Hitler, it would still be a vote between the lesser of two evils. Obviously, one who strives to be an objectively good person would do anything possible to keep Hitler — because of his politics — out of office (even if Hitler happened to be “nicer” than the other candidate). That would include “mixing” politics with religion and sharing his or her views with as many voters as possible.

Bottom line:  Understanding ultimate reality by way of apologetics, philosophy, and logical theology places humanity in a position to know how we ought to live, think, and even how we ought to vote in an objective sense. Indeed, understanding ultimate reality provides an expertise allowing one to intelligently provide insight into things that fall under the umbrella of ultimate reality — like some political issues — as an expert too. That is to say, political opinions can be informed from knowledge of reality.

If one’s religion is true and their political view is also objectively good or right, then one’s religion and politics must be “mixed” . . . independent if they realize it or not. Moreover, if there is an objective manner in which we ought to live and think, then one’s vote will be objectively right or objectively wrong. Choose wisely and stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18).

References:

[1] Dallas Willard, Knowing Christ Today: Why We Can Trust Spiritual Knowledge, Harper Collins, New York, NY, 2009.

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)

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

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

 

Timothy A. Stratton (PhD, North-West University) is a professor at Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary. As a former youth pastor, he is now devoted to answering deep theological and philosophical questions he first encountered from inquisitive teens in his church youth group. Stratton is founder and president of FreeThinking Ministries, a web-based apologetics ministry. Stratton speaks on church and college campuses around the country and offers regular videos on FreeThinking Ministries’ YouTube channel.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3KL9SdU

 

/by

The #1 Doctrine That Answers Christianity’s Toughest Questions with Dr. Tim Stratton

It’s the age old question–if God is sovereign over all things then how do we have free will? And if God controls everything, does that make Him the author of evil since He causes humans to sin? How do we reconcile a good God with all of the pain and suffering that’s happening in the world?

It can seem like a bit of a conundrum for Christians, and the lack of satisfactory answers has caused many people to turn away from God. But what if there was a doctrine or school of thought that could help us make sense of these seemingly intractable problems? Joining Frank on the podcast this week is CIA graduate and professor of Theology at Trinity Theological Seminary, Tim Stratton, who has spent his fair share of time studying these dillemmas. So much time in fact, that this centuries old school of thought known as “Mere Molinism” became the focus of his doctoral dissertation. During the episode, Frank and Tim will answer questions like:

  • What event in his personal life caused Tim to question his former Calvinist beliefs?
  • Where does the term Molinism come from?
  • What are the two “main ingredients” of Molinism?
  • How does Molinism compare to Arminianism and Calvinism?
  • What is the proper interpretation of Romans 9?
  • How does Molinism solve the problem of evil?
  • How does Avengers: Infinity War and Endgame apply to Molinism?

If you’ve ever struggled with the problem of evil or wondered how we can possibly steer our own ship when God is completely omniscient, then this episode will definitely give you a few light bulb moments! For more information on this topic, be sure to check out Tim’s contribution to Faith Examined (a collection of essays written by CIA graduates) or Tim’s book ‘Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism‘.

To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into some great discussions with like-minded Christians while simultaneously providing financial support for our ministry.

You can also SUPPORT THE PODCAST HERE.

RESOURCES MENTIONED DURING THE EPISODE:

Faith Examined book: https://a.co/d/hvS13kK
Free Thinking Ministries: https://freethinkingministries.com/
Tim’s book on Mere Molinism: https://a.co/d/bBWr0u1
In-Person CIA (Charlotte, NC): https://crossexamined.org/what-is-cia/
CIA Online 2024: https://bit.ly/3T8Unjw

/by

Tweets Against Christianity

By Tim Stratton 

Scott Clifton is a Hollywood actor who has gained fame as a soap opera star (One Life to Live, General Hospital, and The Bold and the Beautiful). He has also gained the respect of both sides of the aisle in the “God vs. atheism” debate.

Clifton is an ardent, but philosophically inclined atheist who goes by the moniker “Theoretical BS” (TBS). He recently tweeted out an argument against Christianity that left the Church scrambling. Indeed, many Christians did not know how to respond to Clifton’s logically deductive argument. Moreover, and sadly, many Christians who did respond to his tweet, provided reason to place one’s face in one’s palm.

Consider TBS’s tweet raised against the knowledge of God:

​​

I must admit, Clifton provided a good argument for all to consider. It is based upon premises that many Christians affirm. Indeed, Theoretical BS was on his A-game to craft this argument, which, at the least, exposes the inconsistency of many churchgoers.

This led my friend Benjamin Watkins, who is also an avid atheist on Twitter, to Tweet the following:

To be clear, we are “born sick” and offered the cure. Each person is free to take the “red medicine” Christ offers, or to reject his love and grace. With that said, I was disheartened to see the lack of good responses from my fellow Christians on Twitter. I saw Calvinists suggesting that the first premise is false, and that “ought does NOT imply can.”

That’s a horrible move!

Discussing Premise (1)

Think about it: if someone says, “You really ought to fly like Superman and save the woman trapped on the 50th floor of a burning skyscraper.” You would look at him as if he were an idiot. Since you cannot fly like Superman, it makes no sense to say “you ought to fly like superman.” Now, if someone tells the trained lifeguard, “You ought to save the child struggling to keep her head above water in the 3-foot,” we know exactly why that makes sense — because the lifeguard has been trained and *CAN* help the child before she drowns.

Moreover, if you were in a boat and your wife said, “You really ought to walk on water,” you would not take her seriously because you can’t walk on water. However, if Jesus commanded you to get out of the boat and walk on water with Him, the reason why it would make sense for you to get out of the boat and run toward Him is because He would use His divine power to make it possible for you to walk on water. Thus, if Jesus says that you *ought* to walk on water, then it follows that you *can* walk on water.

Yes, the first premise of Clifton’s argument is intuitively obvious and true: “ought implies can.” To deny this premise makes Christians look foolish.

Discussing Premise (2)

Some Christians were trying to reject the second premise: “If Christianity is true, we ought to live without sin.”

Oh my! Whatever you do, do not reject premise (2). Think of all the commands to live a holy life and to avoid sin. Here is a small sampling:

Galatians 5:19-21
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 13:14
But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts.

Hebrews 12:1
Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us . . .

1 Thessalonians 5:22
abstain from every form of evil.

2 Corinthians 7:1
Therefore, since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God.

1 Peter 1:15-16
But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.”

John 8:11
And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

This list could go on and on, but TBS’s second premise is supported via ample biblical data. Christians ought to avoid sin.

Discussing Premise (3)

Some might try to reject Premise (3) which reads: “From (1) and (2), if Christianity is true, we can live without sin.”

I agree with TBS. That is to say, regenerated Christ-followers can live without sin. Indeed, with the first two premises supported, it makes no sense to deny (3). We can avoid sin. That is to say, through God’s love, grace, and regenerating power, all Christians can live a holy life.

Discussing Premise (4)

This leaves only one premise remaining before we reach the dreaded death-blow of a deductive conclusion, “Therefore, Christianity is not true.” The fourth premise reads as follows:

“We cannot live without sin.”

I was shocked to see so many Christians in the Twitter-verse accept this premise. Indeed, many Calvinists (who affirm exhaustive divine determinism) advance this premise because if God determines all things, then when God determines a Calvinist to cheat on his wife (for example), it is impossible for the Calvinist to do otherwise. I was screaming at my iPhone as I was scrolling through the comments. Indeed, here’s a counter-factual:

Because of the lack of proper responses, IF I had hair, I WOULD have pulled it out!

I could not take it any longer. So, finally, I tweeted my own reply:

Only three “likes”? What’s up with that?

Anyway, because the Apostle Paul rejects the fourth premise, so do I. Indeed, based upon Paul’s words in his first letter to the Corinthians, it is possible for a Christian to avoid any sin. Consider this important passage of Scripture:

1 Corinthians 10:13

No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

Consider this awesome promise: every time you are tempted to sin, God provides a “way of escape” so that you do not have to sin. Thus, when you sin, do not say that “the devil made me do it,” and whatever you do, do not say that “God determined me to commit this sin.” No! That response is downright blasphemous. Instead, take responsibility for your actions. You chose to fall into temptation, but you did not have to. You could have done otherwise and taken the way of escape God provided.

This also means that you possess libertarian freedom.

Now, some might respond and say that no one has ever gone the rest of his life free from sin. Really? Is that true? What about the guy who only had five minutes left to live and he spent every remaining second of those five minutes praying and praising God? It seems that this person avoided sin for the “rest of his life.”

So, if it is possible for a Christian to resist temptation for five minutes, is it possible for ten minutes? If not, why not? Is it possible for 24 hours? If not, why not? Is it possible for for a week, a month, a year, or fifty years? If not, why not?

It seems that if one grants that a regenerate Christ follower does possess the power to “take the way of escape” for the last five minutes of his life, then asserting that it would be impossible to refrain from sin for any longer period of time is just plain arbitrary and ad hoc. Indeed, if Paul is right, and in every circumstance when we are tempted to sin God also provides a way of escape so that we do not have to sin, then it is possible (it is not impossible) that a Christian who has been transformed by God’s amazing grace can live the rest of his life always choosing the way of escape God provides (again, by His grace).

Discussing the Conclusion

In conclusion, TBS’s conclusion does not follow. This is the case because the fourth premise is false. Therefore, not only does the conclusion not follow, the cumulative case of arguments for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity suggest the exact opposite of what his failed argument concludes:

Therefore, Christianity is probably true! 

Thus, it makes great sense to choose to put your faith in Christ alone.

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Dr. Tim Stratton

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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 

How Can Jesus be the Only Way? Mp4, Mp3, and DVD by Frank Turek

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

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Timothy A. Stratton (PhD, North-West University) is a professor at Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary. As a former youth pastor, he is now devoted to answering deep theological and philosophical questions he first encountered from inquisitive teens in his church youth group. Stratton is founder and president of FreeThinking Ministries, a web-based apologetics ministry. Stratton speaks on church and college campuses around the country and offers regular videos on FreeThinking Ministries’ YouTube channel.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3gi0ann 

 

/by
3 Reasons Why Jesus Is The Only Way

3 Reasons Why Jesus Is The Only Way

,

By Tim Stratton

Sermon Outline

Riddle me this: What’s black and white and RED all over?

I remember the first time my dad posed that question to me when I was a young child. Even as a little boy – untrained in philosophy – I knew something was amiss.

I intuitively understood that if something was literally black and white . . . like a news paper . . . then it could not be the COLOR RED all over. After all, something cannot be the colors RED and Black and White simultaneously and in the same sense. There’s a contradiction here – nothing can actually be black and white AND the color red ALL OVER.

Then my dad explained to me that there was a “play on words” going on here – a “word game!” The “read all over” doesn’t refer to a color, but refers to the fact that someone can read the entire newspaper, and thus, the black and white newspaper will be READ all over.

Now, why can’t a newspaper actually be black and white AND the COLOR RED all over? Because this statement violates the logical law of non-contradiction.

The Laws of The Logos

How many of you know about the laws of logic?

I actually discuss the laws of logic in my book (my doctoral dissertation which was published last year). The first chapter is focused on how to properly interpret The Bible. Think about it: Interpreting Scripture correctly presupposes and depends upon the laws of logic. There are three fundamental Laws of Logic that are always required in rational discussion – and in interpreting Scripture:

  • The Law of Identity: Something is what it is. Things that exist have specific properties that identify them.

Let’s talk about God. Christians typically recognize God as a Maximally Great Being who possesses certain properties such as omnipotence (perfect power), omniscience (perfect knowledge), and omnibenevolence (perfect love for all people). Some theologians claim that God does not love all people and thus, based on the Law of Identity, worship a different God. I have noted that this is dangerously close to idolatry (see this short video for more).

  • The Law of Excluded Middle: A well-defined proposition is either true or false. There is no middle position. For example, the proposition that “A proposition is either true or false” is either true or false.

I’ve often said that the Law of the Excluded Middle is my favorite logical law! Think about it this way: God either exists or He doesn’t (there is no middle position). Jesus either physically rose from the dead, or He didn’t.

  • The Law of Non-Contradiction: When two claims contradict one another, one must be false.For example, if one person claims that God exists and another asserts that God does not exist, we can know that one of us must be correct and the other must be wrong. When two propositions contradict one another, one must be false and the other must be true; they cannot both be true and they cannot both be false.Similarly, when two contrary statements are made (not to be confused with contradictory statements) we can know that at least one of them must be false (even though both of them could be false). If Bill says that “the moon is made entirely of green cheese” and Bob says “the moon is made entirely of blue cheese,” then these contrary statements cannot both be true. Either Bill or Bob must be wrong. In fact, both Bill and Bob are wrong.Now, let’s talk about contradictions: As Wayne Grudem puts it, “Contradictions aren’t acceptable in the study of systematic theology, since there aren’t any contradictions in the Bible.”

This presupposition is supported by Scripture itself. For example, Psalm 119:160 states that the sum of your words is truth and this implies, in turn, that God’s Word, which Christians believe is true in all that it teaches, will be logical when studied in the context as a whole.

Wayne Grudem continues:

“There are many times we need to acknowledge mystery, paradox, and things we can’t fully understand. But that’s different from saying there’s a [logical] contradiction. God never asks us to believe a contradiction.”

These laws are just as necessary to keep a person grounded in rationality as the law of gravity is necessary to keep them grounded on the earth. The laws of logic are tools which help a person to objectively determine true or false propositions, inferences, and deductions.

In my book I wrote the following:

“Logical laws apply to everyone regardless of when or where he lives, that is to say, the laws of logic transcend humanity and are objectively true. In fact, truth and logic are inextricably linked—one cannot have one without the other. Thus, if Christians claim that Christianity is true, then the affirmations of Christianity must be logical.”

Now, many people these days assert that “all religions are true!” Based on the laws of logic, however (namely, the law of non-contradiction), we KNOW this cannot be true! Consider statements made from different worldviews/religions:

Mohammad VS Jesus

Love those who consider you to be an enemy VS. Kill the infidel! (Which one is it?)

Hinduism VS Islam

“There are multiple gods” VS. “Allah is the one true God.” Both cannot be true

Buddhism VS Judaism

These religions contradict each other. They are mutually exclusive. They might both be false, but they cannot both be true. (BTW: They are both false).

Atheism VS Theism

Based on the logical law of the excluded middle, God either exists or He doesn’t. Since atheism says God does not exists and Christians, Jews, and Muslims claim that God does exist, one might not know what worldview is true, but one can KNOW – with certainty – that both views cannot be true simultaneously.

These views are mutually exclusive.

Every other view VS Mere Christianity

“God raised Jesus from the dead.” If those six words comprising that one statement is true, then some flavor of Christianity is true. CS Lewis described this as “Mere Christianity.” This leads us to what has been called “the most hated words in the Bible.” This verse is contained within today’s passage of Scripture.

READ: John 14:1-14

14 “Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God[a]; believe also in me. 2 My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going.”

5 Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”

6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know[b] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

Let’s pray . . .

“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one gets to the Father, but by me.”

In 1998 the great theologian and philosopher known as Madonna confidently declared (on MTV):

“All ways lead to God!”

Madonna, although I don’t remember her saying anything about Jesus at the time, was directly opposing Jesus. Well, based on the laws of logic, we must ask the question:

“Who is right!? Madonna or Jesus?”

If Madonna is right, then Jesus is wrong. But if Jesus is right, then Madonna is wrong.

In fact, just a couple weeks ago a survey was published showing that over 60% of self-described “born-again Christians in America between the ages of 18 and 39 do NOT believe that Jesus is the ONLY WAY to Heaven — and that Buddha and Muhammad also are valid paths to salvation, the Christian Post reported.

The Church (at large and across our nation) is in BIG TROUBLE!

Today, I’m going to give you reason to put your trust in the words of Jesus (as opposed to Madonna) and provide reasons as to WHY Jesus is THE ONLY WAY. In fact, all people should see that Jesus is the only way – the only way to eternal life in Heaven – for three reasons.

Reason #1: God raised Jesus from the dead!

God raised Jesus from the dead (thus, seemingly placing His divine stamp of approval on everything Jesus said, taught, and exemplified – and upon those Jesus chose to continue His teachings).

I don’t have time to unpack all of this right now, but based on the historical method – the same historical method that historians employ to find out facts about the past – the same historical method that historians have employed to find out facts about Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and so many more – is the same historical method historians have employed to find out certain facts about the historical person known as Jesus of Nazareth.

If you’d like to learn more please watch four videos I recorded about the historical resurrection on my YouTube channel:

Part 1- Historical Facts: https://cutt.ly/KYPicUq

Part 2- Examining the Evidence: https://cutt.ly/0YPibBB

Part 3- Hallucinations, Aliens, and Other Silly Ideas: https://cutt.ly/FYPiQ9e

Part 4- The Good News of the Resurrection: https://cutt.ly/mYPiRH5

Historians seek independent sources, such as, eyewitness accounts, both positive and embarrassing. These sources are plentiful when it comes to the life of Jesus and his resurrection. Mike Licona states that we have as much evidence of the resurrection, if not more, than we have of Julius Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon in 49 BC.

He notes that even the harshest skeptical and atheistic historians admit several things as historical fact about Jesus. For example:

  1. Jesus existed.
  2. Jesus died by crucifixion.
  3. Jesus’ disciples (at least) really believed that Jesus rose from the dead, and appeared to them.
  4. The church persecutor, and Christian hunter, Saul was radically transformed into the Jesus preaching Paul.
  5. The skeptic James (the brother of Jesus) was suddenly changed into someone who was willing to die for the gospel.
  6. The tomb of Jesus was found empty by his women followers.

Licona makes his case even stronger by utilizing a “minimal facts” approach that does not even reference the Gospels, meaning that even if the Gospels did not exist these facts about Jesus remain:

  1. Paul was an eyewitness (hostile).
  2. Paul knew Jesus’ disciples.
  3. Paul taught what the disciples taught.
  4. They taught appearances to individuals and groups, to friend and foe alike.
  5. They and Paul taught (and believed) Jesus was physically raised from the dead.

Points one through four are accepted facts regarding Jesus and the fifth, although not accepted by many skeptics, remains unrefuted. So, when it comes to the historical method we need to ask the following question:

What hypothesis best accounts for all of these facts?

In Licona’s book, he demonstrates that the resurrection hypothesis accounts for all of these facts – while no other scientific hypothesis offered accounts for all of these together. The best explanation of the facts is the hypothesis which makes sense of all of them together.

The resurrection hypothesis is the only one left on the table.

For a deep dive into this study, I recommend Licona’s book: “The Resurrection of Jesus.”

Bottom line: if God raised Jesus from the dead, then some flavor of Christianity has gotta be true. And if God raised Jesus from the dead, then it seems that God has given His divine stamp of approval to the words and life of Jesus . . . and we have no reason to think He has done so for Madonna.

Thus, a rational and logical person should follow Jesus on this matter and believe what He says in John 14:6 – Jesus is the ONLY WAY and NO ONE gets to the Father except through Jesus!

So, the first reason why you should believe that Jesus is the ONLY WAY, is because we have historical evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead (that’s great reason to celebrate Easter)! This seems to be a divine stamp of approval upon the life and teachings of Jesus, and since Jesus taught that He is the ONLY WAY, we have good reason to believe Him.

But this raises the philosophical question: WHY is Jesus the only way to God? This leads us to the next point:

Reason #2: Jesus is God!

 Jesus is the only way to God because He is God.

Hold up! You might be thinking: Doesn’t saying that Jesus IS God violate the logical law of identity or the law of non-contradiction? Isn’t this some kind of a logical error?

A few months ago I led a youth group to Salt Lake City and BYU was kind enough to host our group, give us guided tour of their beautiful campus, they gave each one of us a nice BYU ball cap, and then we had a time of Q&A with one of the top Mormon leaders in Salt Lake.

One thing my Mormon friend said was that our view of Christianity had to be false because it is non-sensical to say that we worship ONE person and THREE persons at the same time.

I respectfully interrupted him and said,

“That’s not an accurate description of the Trinity, sir. We worship ONE WHAT and THREE WHOS. When one distinguishes between the WHAT and the WHOS one can see that there is no logical contradiction in saying that Jesus IS God . . . He is just not God the Father. Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity, known as “The Son.” 

So, the concept of “Jesus being God” is logically coherent . . . but do we have biblical reason to think Jesus actually is the Creator of the universe? Consider what both John and Paul say about Jesus. Since we are in the Gospel of John, let’s start there and rewind to the beginning . . .

John 1: states the following:

 “In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made…. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

Now, I just mentioned Easter, but this is the message of Christmas — God “dwelt among us” (Immanuel)!

What I want you to see here is that The Bible refers to Jesus as “The Logos” and implies that not only is Jesus God, but also gives us some insight into the Trinity. From a theological perspective, this passage of scripture carries much weight.

Science Supports Scripture

Do you know that we actually have scientific evidence supporting this scripture?

To quickly summarize: The current scientific consensus strongly supports the theory that all nature (the stuff that scientists can test and discover) had an absolute beginning (big bang cosmology, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin Theorem of 2003).

Everything that begins to exist has a cause, and the evidence demonstrates that the universe (all nature) began to exist. It follows that since nature began to exist, nature cannot be the cause of nature itself. Therefore, the cause of nature must be something other than nature (supernatural).

This is exactly what the first chapter of John is stating about Jesus – he is the supernatural cause of the natural universe, and he entered into his creation so that we could know him. Think about that! The Creator of the universe entered into the universe to save the people within the universe. This is what Christmas is all about. This is why we have good reason to celebrate Christmas.

To survey some of the science supporting scripture (and more), click here!

“The Logic”

Another thing to keep in mind when reading the first Chapter of John is that the Greek word for “word” – “Logos” – is used synonymously with Jesus in the text. It is interesting to note that “logos,” in Greek, means, “the principle of reason.” This is where we get the word “logic.”

The Bible is clear that Jesus is God and seems to suggest that He is the grounding of logic and reason. You see, logic is grounded in the essence of God. Therefore, when we choose to think and behave logically, we are godly (approximating to or being like God).

On a side note: it’s quite interesting to note that Critical Race Theorists reject logic and exclaim that “appealing to logic and reason is racist!” However, God commanded us to “be reasonable” in Isaiah 1:18 . . . so, I’m gonna stay reasonable and appeal to logic no matter what anyone might call me.

See, “The Great Commission Is Racist!” https://cutt.ly/IYPiwoC

Bottom line: if you were thinking that we should not place so much emphasis on logic, then – according to John – you are not putting enough emphasis on the nature of Jesus!

Jesus is “The Logic” – the only way to make sense of reality!

With that said, what does the Apostle Paul say about Jesus in Colossians 1:16 . . .

The Preeminence of Christ

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

Wow! According to Paul, if one can say that the creation of the universe “flowed” (as it were) through one person of the Trinity, it would be through the Second Person of the Trinity – Jesus Christ Himself!

The Creator of the universe, entered into the universe, to save the people within the universe. How cool is that? With that in mind, let’s talk about HOW Jesus saved the people within the universe.

This is our last point about WHY Jesus is the ONLY WAY!

Reason #3: The atonement of Jesus just makes sense.

Why did Jesus have to die? Why is the wages of sin death? Why can’t the wages of sin be five bucks or seven years of hard labor?

Why did Jesus have to die?

Before addressing that all-important question, first understand two things: 1- who we are, and 2- who God is.

According to Westminster Confession, the objective purpose of mankind is to know and enjoy God. I like to “tweak” it ever so slightly, and state: The objective purpose of mankind is to grow in our knowledge of God, to grow in love with God, and to enjoy a personal relationship with our Creator for all eternity (Hosea 6:6; Luke 10:27; Col 1:9; 1 Tim 2:4).

Or to say it this way: You were created on purpose and for the specific purpose of enjoying a true love relationship with God into the eternal future.

Scores of humanity have considered the meaning and purpose of life. The fact remains, if God does not exist, then there is no objective purpose in life (Atheism Catch-22). Christians, however, do not suffer from this sort of conundrum. In fact, we have a ready answer. We know the objective meaning and purpose of life: God created every human to know, love, and enjoy God into the eternal future. This is why God created the universe and all of its contents. This is why you exist, so that you could know him. We were created on purpose and for that exact and specific purpose.

Like Oil & Water

By definition, God is a maximally great being and necessarily perfect in every way. Moreover, God created you to enjoy a perfect, holy, and pure love relationship with him.

But we’ve got a problem — a big problem! As a result of sin, now we as humans are anything but holy and pure. Now we are guilty, alienated, and corrupt in nature. Since we are corrupt and imperfect, we are unequally yoked with a maximally great being.

Like oil and water, now, we are “unmixable” with a perfect God. He is necessary perfection and we are infection. The two simply do not mix and that is a major problem for humanity.

So, humanity needs a savior. With a savior we can be justified instead of guilty, adopted instead of alienated, and have a purified and regenerated nature instead of a corrupt nature.

We were created for one objective purpose – to be the Bride of Christ (Eph 5:25-27) in a perfect and true love marriage. We were created to love and to be loved by our Creator. However, now, because of sin, we are infected and do not mix with necessary perfection any longer (i.e., oil and water). As a result, we are necessarily separated from God.

Our hearts were created to be “pointed” to God, but now they are dysfunctional, sick, and twisted because of this separation. Our hearts are now “curved in” on themselves, they are self-centered, selfish, and sinful. We have completely “missed the mark” (the objective purpose of human existence). This is literally what the word “sin” means in the original Greek. The “mark” is God, but we are separated from him; we do not even know God exists apart from his revelation. Due to this separation, we cannot even “aim” at God and of course we will “miss the mark” and sin.

We are infected, self-centered creatures – but we are not supposed to be. God created you for a specific purpose and gave you a job description: BE HOLY! (Namely by loving God and others.) Being holy means to be God focused instead of self-focused. The problem is, all of us have “missed the mark” and have become “infection.” Therefore, we have a damaged relationship with perfection – God.

Is Restoration Possible?

The question remains: how is a broken relationship restored? Two things must occur if a damaged relationship is to be restored: 1) The offended party must choose to bear the harm. 2) The offending party must choose to confess and repent. In our relationship with God, he is the offended party as we sinned against him. We are the offending party, and are thus powerless to restore this relationship on our own. Our works are meaningless unless God, as the offended party, chooses to bear the harm. Left to our own devices, our work does not work (Isaiah 64:6).

God is life! He is the author and giver of life. He invented it and life comes from him. In the well-known Bible verse, John 14:6, Jesus claims he is “the life.” If God is life, then separation from life is death. Since sin separates us from God (like oil and water), then, consequently, sin equals death. Therefore, in every aspect that you have life, you will die if you are separated from the source of life. “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23).

If our relationship with God is to be restored, then God must bear the harm as the offended party. If the harm is death, then, God must die. One small problem though: it is logically impossible for a necessary being to die. God cannot die physically because he is immaterial and spirit. God cannot die spiritually because he cannot be separated from himself (although Jesus felt like it on the Cross).

You are a soul (an immaterial thinking thing) with one set of cognitive faculties. God is one soul with three sets of cognitive faculties. Just as your cognitive faculties cannot be separated from you as a spiritual substance (soul), God’s cognitive faculties (all three of them) cannot be separated from his “spiritual substance.”

If God is going to bear the harm, he has to die because the wages of sin is death. God cannot die as God. Therefore, if humans are to be saved, God had to become human so he could bear the harm and experience death. We need Christmas, we need Good Friday, and we need Easter to have a restored relationship with our Creator (Happy Holy-Days)!

Why do we need Easter (the Resurrection)? It took more than just executing Jesus, because if death was punishment, if Christ is still dead, then he is still being punished. The Resurrection is proof that God is satisfied with Jesus’ atoning work. Therefore, Christianity is true!

Remember, we were created on purpose and for the objective purpose to love God with our entire being. We see this demonstrated in multiple Bible verse such as Luke 10:27 and Matthew 22:37, we are to love God with all of our mind/soul, and body/strength.

The reason why you exist is to LOVE! You were created on purpose and for the specific purpose to love God . . . AND . . .  to love our neighbors (and even those who consider you to be an enemy as our very selves!

Taken together—love God and love others—comprises the WAY of Jesus. We’re talking this morning about why we believe in the TRUTH of Jesus. But He also says that He is the WAY to live… and this is His way: “Love God and love everyone!”

The purpose of life is all about LOVE!

To do anything other than that is to miss the mark (the very definition of sin).

If we ever choose not to love God in any way that we have life, then our lives ought to be terminated because we are objectively broken. This is an appropriate outcome. If something breaks, we either throw it away, or we fix it. Now, as far as our broken relationship with God goes, we have the choice to either be “thrown away” or to be “fixed.” Because of the work of Jesus (the Atonement) all people can be “fixed” and restored — as we ought to be in an objective sense — if we choose to be.

Justice is Good

Consider the nature of God to gain understanding of these issues. Psalm 97 states, “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne.” This is not referring to God’s chair; rather, this is stating the essential attributes and the essence of God. This describes who God is! In other words, if God did not exist, there would be no such thing as objective righteousness, goodness, wickedness, or justice. God is perfect love (1 John 4:8). Thus, perfect justice must be part of his essential omni-benevolent nature as well. After all, justice is good and loving.

When someone escapes justice, we intuitively know that it is a bad thing. God created the universe, and part of the fabric of His creation is a moral universe. There are also natural laws, mathematical laws, and logical laws that govern the universe. Similarly, there are moral laws that we are obligated to obey (Paul says they are “written on our hearts” in Romans 2:15).

Perfect justice demands punishment, or it is not really justice. God cannot turn a blind-eye to our sin and say, “Oh well, boys will be boys, girls will be girls, humans will be humans.” That is not justice; it is injustice and ignoring crime and ignoring evil is bad. Therefore, God cannot ignore our sin and remain worthy of worship.

If a criminal commits a crime, we know that he deserves to be punished. We also know that the punishment should be fair and that it ought to fit the crime. If a seventeen-year-old shoplifts a pack of bubblegum from the gas station, there should be an appropriate punishment – we don’t give him the death penalty! However, moral monsters like Ted Bundy, Timothy McVeigh, and Osama bin Laden deserve a much greater punishment than the bubblegum burglar.

Now think about our crimes; we might not be a Ted Bundy, or a Hitler; however, we have all committed crimes against the very essence of morality, love, goodness, and justice – God! Because of this fact, we do not “mix” or relate with God. One may object and state that they are generally a “good person.” This may be true; however, they are not perfectly good, and cannot “mix” with a necessarily perfect God. Our lives are broken and infected, and therefore, we need a savior so that we can have a relationship with our creator. This brings us to Jesus; this brings us to the cross.

Conclusion

Some have falsely accused God the Father of some form of “cosmic child abuse” because he took out his wrath on his innocent son, because we sinful humans made him so angry. This is bad theology (remember the doctrine of the Trinity). We worship one God (not three); Christians are monotheists. Jesus is God. It logically follows that Jesus *is* the offended party. Therefore, Jesus, at the cross, satisfied his own righteous wrath – his own justice (which is good), for us! This is amazing love! This is amazing grace (the Cross was enough)!

Do you see the beauty? The offended party (a sinless, holy, pure, and morally perfect God) became human to pay our gruesome debt, to bear the harm, to satisfy his morally perfect justice. Wow! Because God has chosen to bear the harm, now, we have a choice to make. We can either choose to accept God’s act of love on the cross, or we can reject God’s grace and deal with his justice (separation from God and all that is good). Do you want perfect justice or perfect love? Perfect love is Heaven and perfect justice is separation from the Creator of the universe (Hell).

Because of what Jesus has done, we can have a restored relationship with our Creator. All you have to do, as the offending party, is freely choose to confess, repent, follow, and fall in love with Jesus. This is the essence of the message of the Gospel.

You see, we have THREE very good reasons to believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven, just as He claimed to be.

  • God raised Jesus from the dead (a divine “stamp of approval”).
  • Jesus is the only way to God because Jesus IS God.
  • The atoning life, death, and resurrection just makes sense – no other religion or worldview offers anything similar.

Have you put your trust in Jesus? Do you love Jesus?

Pray . . .

Outro: What is black and while and SHOULD be READ all over? Your Bible!

Spend time in your Bible. That’s a great way to fall in love with Jesus.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

How Can Jesus be the Only Way? (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

Counter Culture Christian: Is There Truth in Religion? (DVD) by Frank Turek

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Timothy A. Stratton (PhD, North-West University) is a professor at Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary. As a former youth pastor, he is now devoted to answering deep theological and philosophical questions he first encountered from inquisitive teens in his church youth group. Stratton is founder and president of FreeThinking Ministries, a web-based apologetics ministry. Stratton speaks on church and college campuses around the country and offers regular videos on FreeThinking Ministries’ YouTube channel.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3Gou2pR

 

/by
Missing Melanchthon

Missing Melanchthon

By Tim Stratton

Recently I have been accused of “historical eisegesis.”[1]

According to Wikipedia, “eisegesis is the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one’s own presuppositions . . . It is commonly referred to as reading into the text.” This is definitely a problem when someone does this when reading Scripture, but it’s never a compliment to be accused of this in any context.

The context of this accusation is regarding my book, Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism. After surveying Luther, Calvin, and Philip Melanchthon, I concluded that the original Reformers were quite open to the concept of “limited libertarian freedom.” That is to say, although they might have rejected libertarian freedom when it comes to soteriological matters, they seemed to affirm the libertarian freedom to make choices regarding issues not related to salvation.

Indeed, the eminent Reformed scholar Richard Muller has reached similar conclusions in his book, Divine Will and Human Choice (p 222-223):

“Not a few of the proponents and critics of the Reformed doctrine of free choice and divine willing have confused the specifically soteriological determination of the Reformed doctrine of predestination with a ‘divine determinism of all human actions.”

Although I am not the first to point this out, the charge of “historical eisegesis” seems to have been lodged against me alone which left me scratching my head. How could anyone reach this conclusion after reading multiple quotes from the great Reformers I shared in my dissertation/book? One quote from Melanchthon particularly stood out to me. Although I thought Luther and Calvin were clear enough, if there were still any doubt, the great systematic theologian of the Reformation made it clear that humans seem to possess the freedom, opportunity, and categorical ability to do otherwise (libertarian freedom) in mundane matters not related to soteriology (salvation). Indeed, it is my favorite quote from the historical survey. Here is how it reads in my dissertation submitted to North-West University (also found on pg. 111 of my book):

Melanchthon (1521b:151)—the acknowledged theologian to Lutheranism—explains Luther’s position more thoroughly:

“Nor, indeed, do we deny liberty to the human will. The human will has liberty in the choice of works and things which reason comprehends by itself. It can to a certain extent render civil righteousness or the righteousness of works; it can speak of God, offer to God a certain service by an outward work, obey magistrates, parents; in the choice of an outward work it can restrain the hands from murder, from adultery, from theft. Since there is left in human nature reason and judgement concerning objects subjected to the senses, choice between these things, and the liberty and power to render civil righteousness, are also left…. Therefore, although we concede free will the liberty and power to perform the outward works of the Law, yet we do not ascribe to free will these spiritual matters, namely, truly to fear God, truly to believe God, truly to be confident and hold that God regards us, hears us, forgives us, etc.” [151].

Following this quote, I included one more from Melanchthon which seems to seal the deal. In fact, this is my favorite quote from any Reformer because he seems to be explicitly clear in describing libertarian freedom noting that we have power to choose or choose otherwise:

In another place Melanchthon (1521b:151) says: “You yourself have experienced that it is in your power to greet or not to greet him, to put on this coat or not put it on, to eat or not to do so…. By contrast, internal affections are not in our power.”

 If that does not sound like the limited libertarian freedom to choose or choose otherwise, I’m not sure what does.

After reading the words of the Reformed systematic theologian, how could anyone accuse me of “historical eisegesis?” Indeed, it seems to me that anyone reading the Reformers in their own words and reaching a different conclusion could be accused of the same. After contemplating this charge, I went to my book and was met with horror . . . Melanchthon’s key quote somehow did not make the final cut!

I have no idea how this happened. One of the most important and key quotes from my dissertation did not make it to my book for some reason (I am sure I am to blame — or gremlins)! I will rectify this situation in the second edition of my book. I’m currently working on a “Mere Molinism Study Guide” (which will be published by Wipf and Stock) co-authored with Timothy Fox. We will find a way to include it in the study guide when we write the section on the historical survey. Stay tuned!

Bottom line: There is good reason to believe that the original Reformers, although they rejected the idea of libertarian freedom regarding salvation issues, would also reject the idea of exhaustive divine determinism (EDD). It seems that they affirmed the idea of limited libertarian freedom in external matters (libertarian freedom limited to things unrelated to salvation issues).

Oswald Bayer seems to affirm libertarian freedom in these “external matters.” In fact, he contends that even the unregenerate can freely choose to do “good” things (or not). These “good” choices in the context of the community of the external world are meaningless regarding issues pertaining to salvation. Bayer summarizes the views that Luther, Melanchthon, and the majority of Reformers probably shared:

A human being has the freedom to order his or her own life. He or she carries responsibility for the way in which this occurs. A Christian acts in the realm of worldly justice together with those who are not Christians. In this realm, God preserves the reason and freedom of both Christians and non-Christians.[2]

Bayer (along with multiple other scholars) vindicates me from the charge of historical eisegesis.[3] Moreover, and more importantly, if Bayer is right about the beliefs of the original Reformers regarding limited libertarian freedom, and the Reformers also believed that an omniscient God knows these limited libertarian free choices logically prior to the divine creative decree and that God is still sovereign over these libertarian choices, then the original Reformers were “mere Molinists” whether they realized it or not!

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Dr. Tim Stratton

Notes

[1] Guillaume Bignon, A critical review and fairly comprehensive refutation of “Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism” by Timothy A. Stratton, http://www.associationaxiome.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Response-to-Tim-Stratton.pdf. See my 50-page response here: Bignons’ Review of Mere Molinism: A Rejoinder.

[2] Freedom? The Anthropological Concepts in Luther and Melanchthon Compared Author(s): Oswald Bayer Source: The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 91, No. 4 (Oct.,1998), pp. 373-387 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity School Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1509856 Accessed: 08-03-2018 20:23 UTC (Pg 385)

[3] Consider the words of Shedd (a Reformed systematic theologian) who affirms the sourcehood libertarian freedom of Adam:

“In respect to its having no sinful antecedent out of which it is made, sin is origination ex nihilo. Sin is the beginning of something from nothing, and there is this resemblance between it and creation proper. In holy Adam, there was no sinful inclination or corruption that prompted the first transgression. Adam started the wicked inclination itself ex nihilo, by a causative act of self-determination.”

William Greenough Thayer Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, ed. Alan W. Gomes, 3rd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub., 2003), p. 521

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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)

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Timothy A. Stratton (Ph.D., North-West University) is a professor at Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary. As a former youth pastor, he is now devoted to answering deep theological and philosophical questions he first encountered from inquisitive teens in his church youth group. Stratton is the founder and president of FreeThinking Ministries, a web-based apologetics ministry. Stratton speaks on church and college campuses around the country and offers regular videos on FreeThinking Ministries’ YouTube channel.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/0vF2wLd

 

/by

The Woke-ing Dead and the Futility of Reason

By Tim Stratton

The COVID-19 “quarantine” wasn’t all bad. Sure, no one likes being sentenced to “house arrest,” but I enjoyed spending some extra time with my wife and 17-year-old son (I did not take those moments for granted). The dreaded coronavirus, however, shut down Hollywood, movie theaters, restaurants, and sporting events. Being sequestered at home, my family and I considered other entertainment options.

A friend told me about The Walking Dead — a series featuring survivors of a zombie apocalypse fighting to survive amidst a constant threat of attacks from mobs of the undead, colloquially referred to as “walkers.” I went to Netflix and saw nine seasons awaiting our binge-watching pleasure. My wife and I decided to give the first episode a shot, and the next thing you know, we had watched all nine seasons in just a few weeks.

I think there is much one can learn from this series. During “insane times,” for example, it is good to have several others to partner with to ensure mutual survival and flourishing. It is also vital to realize the importance of sharing the same set of core values and agreeing upon the same set of “rules” or morality for any group to flourish. If a group does not possess an agreed-upon “constitution,” the group will fall.

“I know this sounds insane, but this is an insane world!”

— Rick Grimes (The Walking Dead, Season 6: First Time Again)

Oh, and one of the most important take-aways is this: guns and ammunition are vital; never surrender your weapons!

Learning from Zombies

Aside from these practical lessons, The Walking Dead also provides a good opportunity to philosophize about the nature of zombies. These “walkers,” as the title implies, are technically dead. It seems the soul (the person) who previously inhabited the body has “left the building.” Thus, the zombies do not possess the ability to reason or think logically (the FreeThinking Argument Against Naturalism describes how the human soul makes rationality possible). The walkers (also referred to as “biters”) simply respond to stimuli, namely, to consume flesh and blood.

A single walking corpse is not a serious threat to a seasoned survivor. Even a handful of zombies can easily be dispatched by Rick Grimes and company. However, when the zombies accumulate to the size of a mob, all bets are off. These mobs are extremely dangerous and will overwhelm and destroy rational humanity with sheer brute force.

After binge-watching the entire Walking Dead series, I went to sleep that night, finding solace reminding myself that mobs of non-rational “walkers” seeking to destroy humanity do not exist. To my horror, I woke up the next day to the realization that zombies do exist! That is to say, mobs of seemingly non-rational “woke-ing dead” have taken to the streets seeking to destroy rational civilization as we know it.

If one attempts to reason with the woke zombies, the mob will simply raise their voices, scream louder, destroy property, break more windows, and physically assault those who disagree. Reason is not an option. Rational conversation is futile. In fact, appealing to logic, reason, and rationality is rejected as merely “western” or “racist” by the mob.

“You ever heard about the broken window theory? Boils down to this– you keep the windows intact, you keep society intact.”

— Rick Grimes (The Walking Dead, Season 5: Spend)

James Lindsay notes why it seems to be impossible to have a logical or reasonable conversation with a “woke zombie.” Lindsay explains that: “Debate and conversation, especially when they rely upon reason, rationality, science, [and] evidence . . . are not their methods and they reject them.” This irrationality is exemplified by Margaret L. Anderson’s assertion in Race, Class, and Gender: “The idea that objectivity is best reached only through rational thought is a specifically Western and masculine way of thinking.” In other words: rational thought is “racist” because it’s merely the product of old white males.

Not only is this lack of critical thinking sad, it is extremely dangerous. It is sad because if one rejects reason, they become unreasonable. If one rejects rationality, they become irrational. If one rejects science and evidence, what remains? Indeed, one can see that the comparison to modern mobs in the streets and zombies is not an extreme comparison at all. This rejection of rational thought is dangerous because, as I have noted elsewhere: “If one rejects logic, all one is left with is gibberish, temper tantrums, and perhaps physical violence.” Given the growing woke mobs of non-rational zombies flooding the streets, I fear mass-violence is on the horizon. Prepare for battle!

An Un-Perfect Analogy with the Un-Dead

Unlike the zombies in The Walking Dead, the mob of The Woke-ing Dead in the streets of America today — although they behave remarkably similar to the zombies in the show — are each human being created in God’s image. Believers are called to love them and to attempt to reason together with them (Isaiah 1:18). With that said, be careful — zombies are bad, but sometimes humans are worse.

Be that as it may, Christ-followers are called to love those who consider you an enemy (even when it’s not your greatest desire). You are called to share the Gospel and fulfill the Great Commission. But even if these “zombies” are not willing to listen, all hope is not lost. Rational Christians must be a loud voice of reason in the public square and on social media (while it is still possible) and reason with those who have not yet been infected with poisonous Marxist philosophy. Inoculate humanity with an epistemic foundation and reasons for reality before they are exposed to this pandemic of irrationality. Start here:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

The Moral Argument

The Teleological Argument

The Ontological Argument

The Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism

The Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism

The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus (The Facts)

The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus (The Explanation)

When one has a proper grasp of ultimate reality — God — then certain political and cultural views usually fall into their proper place. When this occurs, the woke-ing dead often becomes born again and typically begin thinking clearly. Sharing the Gospel intertwined with apologetics is more important today than ever before. So be proud, loud, logical, and loving while telling the masses about the Good News! Be strong and courageous, for the Lord is with you (Joshua 1:9).

“We’ve been praying together. Praying that God will save our town. Well, our prayers have been answered. God will save Alexandria because God has given us the courage to save it ourselves.” 

— Father Gabriel Stokes (The Walking Dead, Season 6: No Way Out)

If you succumb to fear, however, the zombies will eventually eat your face!

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Dr. Tim Stratton

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Fearless Faith by Mike Adams, Frank Turek and J. Warner Wallace (Complete DVD Series)

Counter Culture Christian: Is There Truth in Religion? (DVD) by Frank Turek

Defending the Faith on Campus by Frank Turek (DVD Set, mp4 Download set and Complete Package)

So the Next Generation will Know by J. Warner Wallace (Book and Participant’s Guide)

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book)

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

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

 

Tim Stratton (The FreeThinking Theist) (Ph.D., North-West University) is a professor at Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary. As a former youth pastor, he is now devoted to answering deep theological and philosophical questions he first encountered from inquisitive teens in his church youth group. Stratton is the founder and president of FreeThinking Ministries, a web-based apologetics ministry. Stratton speaks on church and college campuses around the country and offers regular videos on FreeThinking Ministries’ YouTube channel.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3gWugYQ 

/by

The Best Kind of Love

,

By Tim Stratton

Question:

Dear Dr. Stratton,

In your interview with Jorge Gil on Cross Examined’s Hope One, you attempted to answer “all the problems of evil” by appealing to love. In fact, you said that “the best kind of love requires libertarian free will.”  Surely this is false, for I can think of a counter-example that clearly shows this to be false.

After all, the members of the Trinity are the epitome of perfect love and they do not have libertarian free will. They cannot do otherwise. They must love by necessity. So how can “the best kind of love” require libertarian free will?

– Phillip

Tim’s Response

I am thankful for your question, Phillip! When I read it I could have kicked myself for not providing this vital clarification in my interview with Jorge Gil. Your question provides this opportunity.

Contrary to your assertion, the members of the Trinity (God) do possess libertarian freedom. This is easy to demonstrate when considering creation. The vast majority of theologians agree that God possessed the ability — the power — to create the universe or to refrain from creation. This is the epitome of libertarian freedom. Moreover, if nothing other than God causally determined Him to create the universe, then God possesses libertarian freedom. In fact, this conclusion can be reached by merely thinking about the rational implications of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The cause and creator of the universe must possess libertarian freedom.

If God possesses the libertarian freedom, for example, to create the universe or not to create the universe, then this is an “ability to do otherwise” kind of freedom. With that said, however, we are not discussing the creation of the universe, but something different. We are discussing the “best kind of love,” or the “kind of love worth wanting.” You aptly pointed out that God does not possess the “ability to do otherwise” when it comes to love — namely the love between the Trinity which you noted is the epitome of the “best kind of love.”

I agree that each member of the Trinity does not possess the ability to NOT love the other members. For example, it is impossible for the Holy Spirit not to love the Son, and it is impossible for the Son, not to love the Father. Does this not “destroy” my claim — that the best kind of love requires libertarian freedom?

Not at all!

Just because God might not have the ability to do otherwise when it comes to love, it does not follow that God does not possess the libertarian freedom to love. This is the case because NOTHING other than God causally determines God to love. Moreover, nothing other than the Father causally determines His love for the Son and the Spirit.

It is vital to remember that there are basically two definitions of libertarian freedom:
1- The PAP/”ability to do otherwise” version.

2- The source-hood version (which simply means that a person is not causally determined by something other than the person).

When it comes to love, God possesses the source-hood version of libertarian freedom. God is not causally determined by something other than Him to love. As 1 John 4:8 makes clear: “God IS love.”

So, with all the data in mind, the best kind of love still requires libertarian freedom to be possessed by each person in the relationship. The best kind of love is when persons are not causally determined to love the other. In fact, it is simply oxymoronic to refer to a relationship where at least one person in the union was causally determined to enter the relationship as a “love relationship.” It is not love at all, rather, it is simply an incoherent combination of words.

Since it would be impossible for God to create a contingent being whose nature is necessarily loving (like God is), without causally determining the nature of the creature, God creates humans with an “ability to do otherwise” kind of libertarian freedom so that a true love relationship with humanity can be attained. Humans, then, unlike God, possess both the source-hood version and the PAP version of the libertarian freedom to love. God only has the source-hood version.

Robots have neither!

Bottom line: The best kind of love, or the kind of love worth wanting, requires libertarian freedom.

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Tim Stratton

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 

 

Timothy A. Stratton (Ph.D., North-West University) is a professor at Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary. As a former youth pastor, he is now devoted to answering deep theological and philosophical questions he first encountered from inquisitive teens in his church youth group. Stratton is the founder and president of FreeThinking Ministries, a web-based apologetics ministry. Stratton speaks on church and college campuses around the country and offers regular videos on FreeThinking Ministries’ YouTube channel.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/2By5Cy6 

/by