2017 - Page 11 of 20 - CrossExamined

5 Common Answers to Kids’ Questions about God That Can Do More Harm Than Good

By Natasha Crain

A couple of years ago, my husband and I were invited to a dinner party with a few other new parents from our kids’ Christian elementary school. After we worked our way through appetizers and the requisite small talk, the conversation turned to our respective faith backgrounds. One of the moms confessed that, as much as she loved the Lord, she struggled with how to share her faith with her son—so she had enrolled him at a Christian school where others might be able to do a “better job.”

Another mom replied, “Well, I don’t worry too much about it. I just tell my daughter that believing in God is like believing in Santa Claus. Some people believe, and some don’t. It’s a matter of faith.”

I glanced over at the mom who said that, ready to laugh with her at the idea of placing God and Santa in the same category.

But she wasn’t laughing.

She had just matter-of-factly shared what she honestly thought was a helpful way of explaining belief in God’s existence to her daughter.

Now, if an atheist had overheard this dinner party conversation, he or she would have delighted in my friend’s comparison of God and Santa because that’s precisely how atheists want us to think . . .

God and Santa: two entities with no evidence to demonstrate their existence.

God and Santa: childish beliefs people should outgrow once they understand there’s no evidence to demonstrate their existence.

Without realizing it, this mom was playing right into the hands of atheists. She was talking about God in a way that could actually damage her daughter’s faith eventually, given the types of challenges she’s likely to encounter.

As Christian parents, it’s critical that we understand our job isn’t to just talk about God in any way we can.

How we talk about God matters.

I was reminded of this fact—and my God vs. Santa experience—when I joined a Christian parenting Facebook group recently. Within a couple of days, I saw someone post that her 12-year-old son was suddenly struggling to believe in God and was asking his mom how we know God exists. She asked the group what she should tell him.

Dozens of parents chimed in, but almost all of the answers offered were in the “God and Santa” category—answers that can actually do more harm than good. It was really disheartening.

So today I want to share five kinds of responses I saw—and see often—that we should avoid when our kids ask questions about God’s existence.

5 Answers That Can Do More Harm Than Good

(Just) have more faith.

I don’t know if any word today is more misused than “faith.” For example, several people replied something to the effect of, “It just takes faith. Tell him this is what faith is all about.”

This answer implies that even when we don’t think God exists, we just need to somehow summon up enough “faith” (sheer force of will?) to hold on to our beliefs. But that’s not what biblical faith is all about. Biblical faith is trusting in what we have good reason to believe is true—not committing ourselves ever more strongly to a blind leap in the dark with no rational basis.

When we understand that, we can see why it doesn’t make sense to answer a child’s question about God’s existence by telling him or her to just have more faith. Faith comes from the conviction that something or someone isworth trusting. The answer, therefore, isn’t to tell kids to focus on theoutcome of conviction—it’s to increase their conviction by giving them solid reasons to believe God exists.

(Just) pray.

Many people said that the mom should start praying fervently for her son and tell him he needs to pray as well. I would say that too.

But it should be clear from every part of the Bible that we must pray andtake earthly action. Noah didn’t just pray to be saved from the flood; he built an ark. Joshua didn’t just pray to conquer the Canaanites; he marched around Jericho. Paul didn’t just pray that the gentile world would come to know Jesus; he spent the rest of his life on missionary journeys.

So, yes, pray. But don’t stop there. Kids need to learn why there’s good reason to believe there’s actually a God to pray to.

That’s (just) the enemy attacking you.

I’ll never forget reading a detailed “About Me” page written by a young man who grew up in a Christian family but eventually lost his faith…and became a vocal atheist. Over and over, he came back to the fact that his family and church didn’t answer the specific questions he had. Instead, they continually reiterated that he was under attack from the enemy and he just needed to mentally fight against his doubts. For a long time, his faith hung on by a thread; he no longer believed in God but told himself that it was only Satan making him think that way. Eventually he gave up and let go of the thread.

As with the first two points, there is certainly truth to the reality of spiritual warfare. Ephesians 6:12 says, “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” People were quick to point this out to the mom on Facebook.

But the fact that someone may be under spiritual attack doesn’t lessen the need to offer them specific answers to their questions. Offering those answers—in this case, the evidence for God’s existence—actually grounds them in the truth that allows them to withstand spiritual attack.

General restatements of Christian belief that don’t address the question asked.

Several of the Facebook responses said something like, “Remind him [the child] that God loves him and Jesus died for him.” Well, yes, God does love him and Jesus did die for him. It certainly never hurts to remind anyone of that. But if a child is asking how we even know God exists in the first place, this kind of statement is unlikely to help him or her through a spiritual crisis.

Silence.

Another suggestion was to just be patient, as this is a “phase” many kids go through. Silence, however, says so much. To a child doubting God’s existence, it says, “I don’t have good answers for your questions so I’ll just be over here in the corner waiting this whole thing out.” And if mom and dad don’t have good answers, kids are unlikely to assume good answers exist elsewhere. Silence is not golden.

Need Help with Better Answers?

Parents, questions of God’s existence are foundational to our kids’ faith. We have to get these conversations right, particularly in a world that challenges the fact of God’s existence each and every day.

That’s exactly why I wrote my new book, Talking with Your Kids about God: 30 Conversations Every Christian Parent Must Have. I wanted to help parents not just talk with their kids about God, but do so in the ways most needed by kids growing up in a secular world. In the book, you’ll find five sections that will prepare you to discuss how we know God is real and what we can know about Him from many different angles (check out the full table of contents here):

The Existence of God
Science and God
The Nature of God
Believing in God
The Difference God Makes

Every chapter even has a step-by-step conversation guide. If this looks like a valuable resource for your family, church, or school, please take a minute to pre-order it now at christianbook.com, bn.com, or amazon.com. It comes out in just a few weeks, and your early support encourages retailers to stock it!

Let’s work together to give our kids the answers they deserve. We don’t want anyone ever to grow up thinking there’s no more evidence for God than there is for Santa.

“The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge” (Psalm 19:1-2).

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2eIJXF2

September 5, 2017/by Guest

Beach Balls and the Sexual Revolution

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

It’s no secret that sexual mores have changed radically over the past few decades in America (and beyond). Certain commonsense and natural beliefs about the purpose and nature of sex and marriage have been uprooted.

Given the increase in abortion since Roe vs. Wade, our cultural addiction to pornography, and the ubiquity of broken marriages, many people are rightly asking how we can bring sanity back to the conversation.

I certainly don’t have the “secret sauce” to transform our entire culture. But I do have one tactic that, for the sake of the next generation, we should be utilizing at every turn. Simply put, we need to show how the ideas of the sexual revolution bump up against reality. In other words, the ideas behind the sexual revolution simply don’t match up with human sexuality. Proponents of the sexual revolution propagate ideas, but reality pushes back.

Think about it this way: What happens if you try to push a beach ball beneath the surface of the water? The answer is obvious—it pops back up! Push it down one direction and it will come up another. The nature of the beach ball is to float to the surface, even when people try to keep it submerged.

The same is true with human sexuality. Proponents of the sexual revolution promote ideas about human nature, but the problem is that the ideas bump up against reality and the truth (like a beach ball) pushes to the surface. Consider two examples.

Sex Is A Big Deal

One of the ideas behind the sexual revolution is that sex is simply a physical act, not unlike any other. It is not about procreation, and it is not sacred. It’s merely a physical act between two people (or more) for pleasure.

But despite this common mantra, like a beach ball, the truth about human sexuality simply won’t stay submerged.

For instance, there was a sex scene between Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence in the recent film Passengers. In an interview with People Entertainment Weekly, journalist Jess Cagle asked how Chris, as the male character, made the scene comfortable for his female co-star. Interesting question, but given the assumption of the sexual revolution (that sex is no big deal), why should Pratt feel uncomfortable at all? Why not ask him about a scene when they walked down the corridor together?

The answer to these questions is obvious: we all know that sex is a big deal and that it is not simply a physical act. We know it is about procreation and that it involves being uniquely vulnerable with someone else. We intuitively know it is meant to be a private experience. Despite the claim that sex is no big deal, we all know differently. And this truth emerges in a conversation about the Passengers movie, even if unwittingly.

Gender Matters

Barack Obama was the first president to endorse same-sex marriage. In doing so, he essentially claimed that two moms or two dads are equivalent to a mom and a dad. In other words, gender is irrelevant for the institution of marriage and the wellbeing of children.

Yet, ironically, Obama chose females for his first two nominees to the Supreme Court. His nomination of Sotomayor and Kagan was certainly motivated by political concerns, but also to bring more women to the court so there would be balance. I appreciate his concern for gender balance. But I do wonder: Why is gender balance important for the Supreme Court, but not for marriage?

If gender matters, then how can Obama consistently support same-sex marriage? If gender doesn’t matter, then why is it important to nominate two women to the court? The reality is that we know gender matters both for marriage and for SCOTUS. And in moments like these, the beach ball of denying gender distinctions floats to the surface.

We could consider a host of other examples. But the point should be clear: The sexual revolution bumps up against the reality of human nature. Like a beach ball, the truth of human nature simply will not stay submerged. For the sake of the next generation, we need to point this out at every turn.

Sean McDowell, Ph.D. is a professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University, best-selling author, popular speaker, part-time high school teacher, and the Resident Scholar for Summit Ministries, California. Follow him on Twitter: @sean_mcdowell and his blog: seanmcdowell.org.

September 5, 2017/by Sean Mcdowell

Who Wrote the Gospel of John?

4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

For the past few weeks, we have investigated the authors of the Gospels and the book of Acts. In this article, we examine the evidence for the Gospel of John. Who wrote the Fourth Gospel? As we have in previous articles, this article will look at the proposed author, the internal and external evidences for authorship, the dating, and the location and intended audience for the Fourth Gospel.

Proposed Author by Tradition: Church tradition claims that John the apostle wrote the Fourth Gospel while pastoring as an aged man in Ephesus. Does the evidence back up this assumption?

Internal Evidence: Internally, as the other Gospels, the author is unnamed. However, a clear reading of the Fourth Gospel denotes that the one named the beloved disciple, or the disciple whom Jesus loved, is also the author of the book. The phrase “the disciple whom Jesus loved” appears 5 times in the Fourth Gospel. This disciple holds a prominent role even to the point that Peter asks about the beloved disciple’s ministry in John 21., son of Zebedee, meets this criterion as well as James, the brother of John. We know that James, son of Zebedee, died in the 40s AD (Acts 12:1-5). The beloved Jesus appears with Peter in 13:23-24; 18:15-16; 20:2-9; and in chapter 21. John is also found with Peter in Luke 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3-4; 8:14-25; and Galatians 2:9. So, only John meets the criteria needed for the Fourth Gospel’s authorship. The question of Peter in John 21 indicates that the author was aged and reflecting back on his life with Jesus and the apostles.

External Evidence: Referencing the Fourth Gospel’s author, early church father Irenaeus (c. 130-202 AD) writes,

Further, they teach that John, the disciple of the Lord, indicated the first Ogdoad, expressing themselves in these words: John, the disciple of the Lord, wishing to set forth the origin of all things, so as to explain how the Father produced the whole, lays down a certain principle,—that, namely, which was first-begotten by God, which Being he has termed both the only-begotten Son and God, in whom the Father, after a seminal manner, brought forth all things. ^[1]

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 AD), as quoted by the church historian Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 263-339 AD) denotes the following:

Again, in the same books Clement has set down a tradition which he had received from the elders before him, in regard to the order of the Gospels, to the following effect. He says that the Gospels containing the genealogies were written first, and that the Gospel according to Mark was composed in the following circumstances:—

Peter having preached the word publicly at Rome, and by the Spirit proclaimed the Gospel, those who were present, who were numerous, entreated Mark, inasmuch as he had attended him from an early period, and remembered what had been said, to write down what had been spoken. On his composing the Gospel, he handed it to those who had made the request to him; which coming to Peter’s knowledge, he neither hindered nor encouraged. But John, the last of all, seeing that what was corporeal was set forth in the Gospels, on the entreaty of his intimate friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.^[2]

Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35-108 AD) quotes John’s Gospel quite frequently as he writes an epistle to the Antiochians. Ignatius’s quotation of the Fourth Gospel illustrates that the book was viewed in a positive light and authoritative. Ignatius is noted as a disciple of John the apostle along with Polycarp. The Marytrdom of St. Ignatius notes the following:

Wherefore, with great alacrity and joy, through his desire to suffer, he came down from Antioch to Seleucia, from which place he set sail. And after a great deal of suffering he came to Smyrna, where he disembarked with great joy, and hastened to see the holy Polycarp, [formerly] his fellow-disciple, and [now] bishop of Smyrna. For they had both, in old times, been disciples of St. John the Apostle. Being then brought to him, and having communicated to him some spiritual gifts, and glorying in his bonds, he entreated of him to labour along with him for the fulfilment of his desire; earnestly indeed asking this of the whole Church (for the cities and Churches of Asia had welcomed⁶ the holy man through their bishops, and presbyters, and deacons, all hastening to meet him, if by any means they might receive from him some spiritual gift), but above all, the holy Polycarp, that, by means of the wild beasts, he soon disappearing from this world, might be manifested before the face of Christ.^[3]

Much more could be given as far as external evidence. However, the presented information should suffice for our purposes.

Date: Evidence suggests that John’s Gospel was the last to be written at some point after 70 AD. It appears that John may have been written in the mid-80s to early 90s as he may have served as pastor of the church of Ephesus.

Location and Audience: John’s testimony is preserved while serving in Ephesus in Asia Minor. Thus, he writes to the people of that area, but also to the future generations of the church. Perhaps this is why Clement of Alexandria calls it a “spiritual gospel.”

Conclusion: I believe that John the apostle authored the Gospel by dictation. That is to say, John most likely provided the material to an amanuensis. The amanuensis documented the aged apostle’s words and added the addendum to the Fourth Gospel and the title “the disciple whom Jesus loved” in reference to the apostle. I think the evidence is quite strong for John the son of Zebedee authoring the Fourth Gospel. Claims to the contrary[4] bring more questions than answers. Such as, why do the other Gospels not elevate the other suggested candidates to a higher light? How is it that John is an inner circle disciple in the other Gospels and is missing in prestige in the Fourth Gospel if John is not the author?[5] To reiterate, I believe an amanuensis was employed in the Gospel’s formation. But the use of an amanuensis does not negate the apostle’s hand in writing. So, for those who erroneously claim that the apostle could not have formed a document such as this, such an argument is dispelled if an amanuensis is employed. It is still quite possible with the knowledge obtained by Jesus and his earlier employment that John, son of Zebedee, could have written the entire Gospel by hand. But, I prefer to think that an amanuensis was employed.

Notes

^[1] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies, 1.8.5.” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 328.

^[2] Clement of Alexandria, “Fragments of Clemens Alexandrinus,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. William Wilson, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 580.

^[3] Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds., “The Martyrdom of Ignatius,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 130.

[4] Ben Witherington, III holds that Lazarus was the author of the Fourth Gospel.

[5] For instance, it seems clear that the beloved disciple was one who was prominently known. John the apostle holds such a status.

About the Author:

Brian Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently working on his Ph.D. in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian is a full member of the International Society of Christian Apologetics and the Christian Apologetics Alliance. Brian has been in the ministry for over 14 years and serves as the pastor of Huntsville Baptist Church in Yadkinville, North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2wVQNSb

September 3, 2017/by Guest

Debating Atheists: Arrival of Evil (Part 4/5)

2. Does God Exist?, Debates

By Dan Grossenbach

Understanding evil reveals an important part of reality. As much as we try to avoid it, evil is part of the universal human condition – something theists and atheists both have in common. You may be surprised, however; that the way atheists think about evil actually shows God exists.

For the previous post on part 3, atheist arguments for the Arrival of Biological Information, click here. Unlike other points in this series so far, probing evil touches the heart. It gets emotional. The argument I’m presenting, by contrast, isn’t designed to address the emotional part of the problem. There are volumes dedicated to that. Rather, the point here is to reason through three facts about evil that nearly all people agree on and to see what follows:

Evil exists

This fact is so obvious that even the argument of evil used against God relies on it. Readers have probably heard the “problem of evil” used as a critique against theism. This was something I knew Dr. Shapiro would bring up in our debate, since he’s brought it up in a prior encounter, so I decided to hit it head on. As expected, Dr. Shapiro parroted the classic criticism from 4^th century BC philosopher Epicurus: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” [1]

The question puts God in a dilemma. Either he’s not all powerful (he can’t stop evil) or not all good (he’s unwilling to stop it). Theists believe God is both all-powerful and all-good thus find themselves having to eliminate one. I address this more later. What we must consider at present; however, is that the objector assumes the existence of evil prior to the objection. This is a huge assumption. Epicurus posed a fair question to the Greek polytheists of his day but is it fair to carry this over to God of the Bible? We’ll address that later. The immediate question is whether or not evil exists at all and this objection only works if it does. Put simply, if there’s a “problem” of evil, then there’s evil.

Seeing the plain consequences of this fact, skeptics typically go one of two ways: 1) ground goodness on something other than God, or 2) deny good or evil exist at all.

This first group accepts value propositions as something real (good and evil exist) but tries to avoid God. Freedom from Religion founder and president Dan Barker says “’Good’ is that which enhances life, and ‘evil’ is that which threatens it.”[2]

Sam Harris defines morality as the “right and wrong answers to the question of how to maximize human flourishing in any moment…”[3] In my debate with Dr. Shapiro, he repeated the secular humanist doctrine that value relates to the standard of universal “well-being.”

The careful reader may see that they shifted the meaning of good. Rather than goodness defined as ultimate moral perfection, they see it as the best way to accomplish a goal. Plenty could be said about this shift, but it doesn’t really matter for this part of my argument. Whether they ground goodness in human flourishing or not, they still have an objective standard. They don’t put it on God, but instead on something else of objective and universal value. Sam Harris urges, “we need some universal conception of right and wrong”[4]. So, despite this shift in definition, they find themselves in the same place in terms of establishing objective goodness. For this purpose, we can join together in agreement with atheists who agree objective goodness exists, right?

Not so fast! Other well-known atheists dismiss value altogether. In Darwinian naturalism, there is no way things are supposed to be. Dawkins puts this best:

In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference[5].

An abstract from Cornell University scientist William Provine’s second annual Darwin Day speech starts off this way: “Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly” One of those consequences, he suggests, is that “no ultimate foundation for ethics exists”[6].

If moral values aren’t real, this disrupts my first premise. There are plenty of reasons to reject the idea that moral values are a convenient social construct, but it’s important to show where this takes us if it were so.

It turns out the denial of moral value just exchanges one problem for another. If the atheists who deny evil are right, then the problem of evil goes out with it. If there’s no evil, there’s nothing to complain about. Saying there’s no evil is different than living that way, however. For most people, this isn’t as far as most are willing to go. Our gut-wrenching feelings on the inside and our outward actions tell us that everyone knows evil exists. In fact, even atheists arguing this objection often find themselves blaming God for the evil they just told us doesn’t exist. While the denial of evil may be something popular writers do, those dedicated to clear thinking on this issue have come to a much different conclusion. They know objective value is only possible with God.

The philosopher who put this most poetically was one of the greatest thinkers of the 19^th century who also happened to be an ardent atheist Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche vividly illustrates the absurdity of a moral laden world without God in this passage from The Joyful Wisdom:

“Where is God gone?!” he called out. “I mean to tell you! We have killed him, – you and I! We are all his murderers! But how have we done it? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the horizon? What did we do when we loosened this earth from its sun? Whither does it now move? Whither do we move? Away from all suns? Do we not dash on unceasingly? Backwards, sideways, forwards, in all directions? Is there still an above and below? Do we not stray, as through infinite nothingness? Does not empty space breathe upon us? Has it not become colder? Does not night come on continually, darker and darker? Shall we not have to light lanterns in the morning? Do we not hear the noise of the grave-diggers who are burying God? Do we not smell the divine putrefaction? – for even Gods putrefy! God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him![7]

In our own time, atheist philosopher of science Michael Ruse puts it this way,

“The position of the modern evolutionist . . . is that humans have an awareness of morality . . . because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth . . . . Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says ‘Love they neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves . . . . Nevertheless, . . . such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory . . . . [8]

The late atheist Christopher Hitchens conceded that it “could be true, yes. That could well be true,” that morality is a by product of social evolution without any objective foundation[9]. He adds, “one wants to think their love for their fellow creature means more than that.” No Christopher, they don’t merely want to think it, they actually do think it and for good reason.

Nietzsche, Ruse, Hitchens, and other like-minded atheists may not believe in God and many despise him. However, they know that without him, they’re posed with another problem worse than the first. Namely, they are unable to account for the kinds of evil that we all know is real. Worse, they deny the very evil atheists typically point to as evidence against God. This argument turns the challenge on its head. We can only make sense of evil if God exists.

In my recent debate, my secular humanist opponent didn’t seem to grasp this. Instead, he doubled down. Dr. Shapiro indicted God for allowing things he described as real examples of evil. The irony here was that he was proving my point. If Shapiro is right that there are real unjustified evils that God was allowing, he’s granting that the first premise above. It’s as if he wants to argue “God exists and he’s really bad so he can’t exist!” He can’t have it both ways. Take it from the atheists, either evil exists or we need to act like it does.

So which is it? Do moral values exist in something other than God or are they useful illusions? We’ve seen how Darwinian naturalism leads to a world without value. On the other side, we’ve seen God’s critics condemn his acts as evil in no uncertain terms. We’ve also seen that a world devoid of evil can’t condemn God for something that doesn’t exist. If true, advocates of this view don’t point us to God nor do they challenge him, essentially making evil a non-issue. Those who blame God for real evil agree with us on this first point, but how far will they go?

Evil entails objective good

By objective good, I mean absolute moral perfection by which all things of value are measured. Evil isn’t really a thing at all. Rather, it’s the absence of something – namely, something good. Just as darkness isn’t anything on its own without light (dark = the lack of light rays), evil only comes about when something good is taken away. For Harris, Barker, and Shapiro evil is when human well being doesn’t go the way it should. Whether we base value on God or our own idea of human flourishing, evil is when something goes wrong. It’s not the way things are supposed to be. This only makes sense if there’s a right way for things to be. Next, we see what kinds of things come with objective goodness.

Objective good must transcend, precede, hold accountable, and value humanity.

Transcending: First, goodness entails a moral authority which crosses all times, places, and cultures. People groups can’t make up their own values. Instead, value applies to all people regardless of what anyone thinks about it. That’s what philosophers mean by “mind-independent.” The Nazis can’t be just in doing what they did no matter how many people agreed with it. Instead, goodness must extend beyond the individual mind or community consensus to be the standard by which ALL people and cultures are compared. The value inherent in objective goodness must transcend humanity in this way.

Preceding: Second, goodness cannot have been invented by the first humans. After all, any values established by man can be later undone by men[10]. It would be absurd to think the first humans could come up with whatever value system they wanted because they were first on the scene. It doesn’t take much effort to see the advantage of having lying or stealing as virtues. No, that isn’t an option available to us. Goodness wasn’t invented. It was already there.

Holding Accountable: Third, there is no objective goodness if evil goes unpunished. As my friend Frank Turek puts it, where there’s no justice, there’s no injustice. When people are allowed to do bad things without any consequences, there is no justice. Objective goodness demands justice. But there’s not always justice in this world. The murderers of black teenager Emmet Till in the 1950’s rural Mississippi never faced trial. The murderer of 6 year old Adam Walsh admitted the killing but was never charged. While in his 70’s Joseph Stalin had already killed about 50 million people (not including war casualties) and continued his genocidal orders from his deathbed in a Moscow mansion. In a purely natural world with no accountability for all people, there’s no justice for all people. If there’s no justice for all people, there’s no justice at all. If that’s not good, then goodness must include universal human accountability.

Value Giving: Fourth, objective goodness must include the intrinsic value inherent in all human life. By intrinsic, I mean they all have equal worth just for being part of the species and not for any act, experience, or attribute they have or lack. It would make no sense to violate the rights of a human being if they aren’t valued in the first place. Evil and suffering experienced by humans only makes sense if the species has worth beyond itself and that their value is an objective fact of reality.

Therefore, since evil exists, there is a transcendent, authoritative, human valuing source of objective goodness

Biblical Christianity’s explanation offers a solution that perfectly fits these facts:

God transcendshumanity – Job 12:10, Acts 17:25, 28, Col 1:17, Heb 1:3, Eph 4:6
God precedeshumanity – Gen 1-2, Ps 90:2, Job 36:26, Rev 1:8, Jn 8:58
God holds humanity accountable– Gen 3:24, Amos 9:1-4, Mt 6:20, 1 Pet 4:4-5, 2 Pet 3:9, Mt 25, Mk 9:43, Rev 14:9-11, 20:10
God valueshumanity – Gen 1:27, Ps 16:11, 73:25-26, Isa 62:5, Zep 3:17-18, Jn 3:16, Eph 5:23-32, 1 Jn 4:19
God isobjective goodness – Gen 1:31, Ps 100:5, Lk 18:19, Rom 12:2, 1 Thes 5:18, 1 Jn 4:8

As I said in the beginning of this post, it’s hard to separate emotion from logic when reflecting seriously on evil. This was a tough one to cover. On stage during the live debate, I had three examples of human suffering in my slide show but by the third one I lost my composure and had to skip it. I know I was being overly emotional in my appeal, but my unexpected emotional response just emphasized the point. Evil exists and deep down we all know it. Christianity might not be what people like, but it provides the best explanation. Dr. Shapiro didn’t think so, but he missed the point entirely. This was most evident during the Q&A when he said “I want to clear up something really fast. Christians always say if you don’t believe in God you can’t say anything about morality. That’s nonsense!”

Nobody ever argued this and Dr. Shapiro is smart enough to know better. The point he ignored that there is no objective basis to ground moral values under atheism. I’ve had the chance to meet with Dr. Shapiro since our debate and learned he considers all morality as relative. So, even when he grants the horrid act of abusing babies as objectively wrong, he still considers it relative.

Strangely, Dr. Shapiro seems to embrace moral realism when he condemns God’s actions, or his failures to act. Shapiro can’t allow for any moral values as real and mind independent since it makes no sense under atheistic naturalism. In other words, Dr. Shapiro might argue like this: Since God doesn’t exist, there are no moral values outside of the human mind. Since there are no values outside human minds, all morality is relative.

The trouble is, I don’t think Dr. Shapiro has followed the logic as far as it goes. As Dr. Shapiro said in his opening speech “It just is what it is.” At bottom, the universe has no meaning or purpose outside of humanity, he said.

Christianity does offer it. It offers a basis for grounding value in the universe, a value of humanity and holding people accountable. Dr. Shapiro didn’t understand the point and furthered the case for Christianity every time he complained about evil. It’s ironic, actually. The very person he blamed for evil – God – is the one we can see much more clearly in contrast to the evil we all know exists. The intellectual dishonesty really showed in the inconsistent demand Shapiro and questioners put on Christianity. They tolerated, even celebrated ignorance on origins of cosmos or biology but demanded to know why God allowed evil. Even if they could ground evil in something transcendent and authoritative, why not find ignorance on that just as “refreshing?” It gets worse.

This brings us to an important rule: the one who bears the burden of proof is the one who makes the claim. It wasn’t my burden to refute my opponent’s unsupported assertions but they are his to defend. I had to provide support for my position, but so did he. No one gets a free pass here.

Dr. Shapiro is fully within his rights to criticize my ideas, but he must do more than rely on emotional reaction and make a compelling case for his view. He gave no case so there was nothing to address. That’s why I pointed out to the audience that Dr. Shapiro depended on a “shock” factor in the absence of sound argument. In addition to pointing out this fallacy, I gave three points that Dr. Shapiro needed to defend for the Epicurian dilemma mentioned at the top of this post:

God has no moral authority to do as he sees fit with his creation.
God has no justification to accomplish a greater good (and we have enough knowledge to determine this).
God could have done otherwise to accomplish a better result.

Even after pointing this out during my rebuttal speech, Dr. Shapiro still failed to provide any good reasons to believe these three hidden assumptions implicit in his complaint about God. Instead of arguing it, the appeal was to the heart, “How could a good God allow this?!”

As in the other points I made, I invited Dr. Shapiro to present an alternative explanation for evil. Since he didn’t do that, the offer presented consistent with Christian theism remained the best explanation offered that day.

Theism offers the best explanation but it does more. It is so obvious that there are things wrong with this world, that the burden falls on those who deny it. Sitting on a comfy couch with my wife talking about our day is all it takes to bring this reality home. As a federal agent and a nurse, the common question “How was your day, honey?” makes this evident daily. Regardless of where you are in life, I’m sure this could be true for you too.

Christian theism not only explains evil in our world, but it’s the only one that offers a satisfying solution to it. The same God of the Bible whose perfect nature sets the standard for value also offers mercy to people who have violated it. In perfect justice, the crimes against him are paid in full by the only one who can bear it, the God-man Jesus of Nazareth. Clearly, this is something that atheists won’t grant. But you would be surprised what they do say about him. The question of Jesus will take us to the fourth and final point in this short series.

Endnotes:

[1] Classic argument for the “problem of evil” first attributed in this form to the Greek philosopher Epicurus

[2] Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith, page 125

[3] Sam Harris, bases his moral standard on what he deems human flourishing,https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/thinking-about-go

[4] Ibid

[5] Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: The Darwinian View of Life, Basic Books, 1995, p133

[6] William Provine, “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life” [abstract] from speech given at the Second Annual Darwin Day Celebration, University of Tennessee – Knoxville on Feb. 12, 1998https://web.archive.org/web/20070829083051/http://eeb.bio.utk.edu/darwin/Archives/1998ProvineAbstract.htm

[7] Friedrich Nietzsche, The Joyful Wisdom,https://archive.org/stream/completenietasch10nietuoft/completenietasch10nietuoft_djvu.txt

[8] Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262, 268-269.

[9] Hitchens vs. Craig debate “Does God Exist,” Biola University (La Mirada, CA), April 4, 2009, at approximately 1:25 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tYm41hb48o

[10] Gregory Koukl, The Story of Reality, p73

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2xAUvhp

September 3, 2017/by Guest

Right Behavior. Does It Exist?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”3.22″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”3.25″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text” _builder_version=”4.11.0″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” sticky_enabled=”0″]

By Michael C. Sherrard

How do you know if your idea of right behavior is truer than mine? I ask, of course, because nearly every day I’m confronted, as are you I’m sure, by someone who insists that they are right and I wrong about how to live. Arguing is native; it’s the air we breath. The article you read before this one was likely someone arguing that their view of right behavior is better than another’s and that you should fall in line. Everyone has uttered the words “that’s not fair, or “right” or “good”, be it about something like eating the last piece of cake or whether or not to bake a cake with a message on it you find objectionable. So if we agree, then, that it is obvious that people believe there is behavior that is better than other behavior, how can we have any confidence that our behavior is the good one?

Well, there is only one way to have confidence at all, and it is this – right behavior must actually exist. It must be a place we can arrive at, a destination of sorts. C.S. Lewis explained this well in Mere Christianity, perhaps my favorite book of all time. He wrote, “The reason why your idea about New York can be truer or less true than mine is that New York is a real place, existing quite apart from what either of us thinks.” As it is true of ideas about New York, it is also true of ideas about behavior. There must be a real right way to live and a real wrong way to live for our ideas about behavior to be truer or less true than another’s. For it would be nonsense to argue about something that doesn’t actually exist.

Indeed, there must be something official, something authoritative, some standard of good behavior that really exists that one’s behavior more closely aligns with than another’s for one’s behavior to be right and the other wrong. This is quite simple isn’t it. Such an obvious fact of reality. Fighting about beliefs assumes their are right and wrong beliefs. But of course, you know the next question this brings. What is this standard with which we judge beliefs about good and bad behavior and from where did this standard come?

I suppose, of course, we could abandon all together the notion that right and wrong exist and give up arguing. But to even get there, we would need to argue if that is the right thing to do. It seems we are stuck. If we are going to continue to fight about whose beliefs of right behavior are best, we also must have a talk about whose standard for judging behavior is best.

I don’t think I’ll take this space to explore this thought any further and try to settle what’s the best standard for judging behavior. Rather, let me just end by insisting that we recognize the obvious fact that our arguing about behavior presupposes that there exists some standard of good and bad behavior. It is probably a healthy exercise for all people to reflect on their standard. How did you come by it? Who told you it was the standard? And most importantly, why is your standard sufficient to be the authoritative source of moral judgement? Regardless of what side of an issue you find yourself in the future, remember that you share common ground with your opponent. You are each trying to conform yourself and others to some standard. Which brings one last question to my mind. Why on Earth should anyone obey your standard? Why is it worth my allegiance? Perhaps a time out is in order so that all parties can reflect on these kinds of questions before resuming the incessant declaration’s of “I’m right!”

Debating Atheists: Arrival of Biological Information (Part 3/5)

2. Does God Exist?, Debates

By Dan Grossenbach

Information embedded inside all of life demands an explanation. Virtually all agree that, at some point in earth’s early history, the first living being came about from non-living (dead) material. Setting aside for the moment the incredible principle of life arising from death, what we find inside of life gives us the greatest mystery of all. The information inside of life is exactly what we see in high tech computer engineering. It’s remarkably designed. Bestselling atheist writer and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins remarks on information in every cell this way:

“The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.”[1]

So the argument goes like this…

All life requires DNA/RNA.

Citing Richard Dawkins, “DNA code is universal among all living things” [2]

DNA/RNA is information

What’s information? “By information, I mean the specification of the amino acid sequence in protein…Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases of the nucleus acid or in amino acid residue in the protein.” Christian skeptic and co-discoverer of the DNA structure, Francis Crick. “Genes are information…a code…in sequence…just like what a computer programmer would do!” [3]

Information requires a mind

In his debate with Christian apologist David Wood last year, leading atheist and editor of Skeptic Magazine Michael Shermer explains it this way,

Is there some advanced intelligence, a designer, call it whatever you want. Maybe. How do we know? Our methodology is actually pretty good for finding out…[Y]ou know the SETI program has algorithms. They grind through of signals coming from space to determine if it’s random noise or if it’s a signal. [4]

Shermer concedes that information infers an intelligent cause and even offers a way to verify it. Ironically, his method is the very same one offered by the ID advocates he’s trying to refute.

Therefore, life required a mind.

This is why religion critics like Francis Crick[5], Richard Dawkins [6] and others propose the rarely accepted view of panspermia, or the idea that intelligent alien life seeded the early earth at just the right time for life to take root. In fact, there’s little discussed about origin of life at all. Normally, the question skips the origin of life issue and goes right into the evolution mechanism. Like all facts which lead us to conclusions we don’t like, it’s much easier to simply ignore the problem.

But not all of them are. The arrival of biological information is an area evolutionary biologists around the world are dealing with. In Nov 2016, scientists from around the world met in London to discuss how the neo-darwinian mechanism fails to account for the complexity of life. Recordings of the lectures will be provided on the Royal Society website soon. What’s more, is that the issue of information already in the cell before the first organism ever existed is not even a matter of evolution at all.

The reason I presented this as evidence for God is the same reason atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel and former atheist Antony Flew saw purpose and design in biological life. Every living cell requires something that is so particular that it cannot, in principle, be attributed to chance or natural causes. The DNA molecule contains not only complexity – for it has that. The complexity must also be arranged in such a way that it performs a specific function for the development of a living organism.

The specific complexity of this program is exactly like computer software. In fact, the four fundamental nucleotide base chemicals comprising the DNA molecule strands are not only similar to a computer program but they are the exact same thing. The pioneer of modern software, and no friend to Christianity, recognized this when he said, “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” [7] The four chemicals abbreviated A-C-G-T are a four character code much like the binary two character code of human developed software consists of particularly placed zeros and ones. The only difference, is that whereas a slight computer code error typically results in a minor disfunction, any deviation from the DNA sequence most likely terminates the organism and any future decendants. This poses major problems for the. Neodarwinist theory of random mutation but that’s beyond our immediate scope.

Lest anyone be tempted to think time and chance under natural laws can produce such a function-based information code, atheist paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould shows that time is not available to us:

[W]e are left with very little time between the development of suitable conditions for life on the earth’s surface and the origin of life. Life is not a complex accident that required immense time to convert the vastly improbable into the nearly certain. Instead, life, for all its intricacy, probably arose rapidly about as soon as it could. [8]

Richard Dawkins goes further by ruling out chance a priori:

However many ways there may be of being alive, it is certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead, or rather not alive. You may throw cells together at random, over and over again for a billion years, and not once will you get a conglomeration that flies or swims or burrows or runs, or does anything, even badly, that could remotely be construed as working to keep itself alive. [9]

Not only was there no time for the DNA/RNA to develop naturally, there was also no known natural mechanism for it to do so.

Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel agrees, “The more details we learn about the chemical basis of life and the intricacy of the genetic code, the more unbelievable the standard historical account [neo-Darwinian evolution] becomes.” [10]

“It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection.” [11]

“I realize that such doubts will strike many people as outrageous, but that is because almost everyone in our secular culture has been browbeaten into regarding the reductive research program as sacrosanct on the ground that anything else would not be science.” [12]

“I believe the defenders of ID deserve our gratitude for challenging a scientific world view that owes some of the passion displayed by its adherents precisely to the fact that it is thought to liberate us from religion.” [13]

Whenever information is found, in uniform and repeated human experience, it’s been the product of an intelligent mind. I left it to Dr. Shapiro to provide at least one piece of evidence to the contrary. He didn’t.

This was the third in a series of five posts showing how atheists concede four primary facts that infer biblical Christianity. For a fuller picture of this argument, you may want to check out part one (introduction) or part two (arrival of the universe).

Notes

[1] Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, New York:Basic Books/Harper Collins, 1995., p17

[2] This fact is so widely assumed it was hard to find a direct quote. Richard Dawkins cited in a news article https://news.virginia.edu/content/richard-dawkins-universal-dna-code-knockdown-evidence-evolution. It’s worth noting after an exhaustive search, I found no published work directly denying this fact.

[3] Richard Dawkins interview starting at 1:25 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oF1UzhPA5N8

[4] Michael Shermer vs. David Wood debate on “Does God Exist” October 10, 2016, Kennesaw State University

[5] Francis Crick, directed panspermia 1972, https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/scbccp.pdf

[6] Richard Dawkins at the end of Expelled https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=Dee3DLgEDEw

[7] Bill Gates, The Road Ahead p228

[8] Stephen Jay Gould, “An Early Start,” Natural History, February, 1978.

[9] The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design 1988, p9 The immediate relevance to this was pointed out to me by Douglas Axe.

[10] Nagel, Thomas (2012). Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p5

[11] ibid, p5

[12] ibid, p7

[13] ibid, p12

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2veByDB

August 29, 2017/by Guest

¿Quién escribió el evangelio de Lucas y los Hechos?

Español

Por Brian Chilton

Nos hemos dedicado a una serie de artículos sobre la autoría de los libros del Nuevo Testamento. En este artículo, consideramos el Tercer Evangelio, el Evangelio de Lucas. ¿Quién escribió el Evangelio? ¿Qué pistas tenemos de la evidencia interna y externa, la fecha, la ubicación y la audiencia?

Autor propuesto por la tradición

Tradicionalmente, Lucas es propuesto como el autor del Tercer Evangelio. Lucas era un médico y un compañero de Pablo, el apóstol (Colosenses 4:14, Filemón 24).

Evidencia interna

En el interior, se encuentran algunos marcadores distintivos. En primer lugar y con mayor claridad, el autor del Tercer Evangelio escribe a un “Teófilo” (Hechos 1: 3)[1] y trata de proporcionar una “secuencia ordenada” (Hechos 1: 3) de la vida de Jesús, después de haber tenido “cuidado de investigar todo desde el principio” (1: 3), según lo que “los testigos originales y los siervos de la palabra han transmitido” (Hechos 1: 2). A partir de esta información, se puede constatar que el autor no fue testigo de los acontecimientos de la vida de Jesús; sin embargo, sí tuvo acceso a los que sí lo fueron.

Segundo, el autor del Tercer Evangelio también escribió el libro de Hechos. El nivel de detalle y precisión, el estilo de escritura, la dirección similar a Teófilo, así como la cláusula conectiva en el primero de los Hechos conecta las dos obras al mismo autor.[2]

Tercero, el nivel de griego utilizado tanto en el Tercer Evangelio como en el libro de Hechos está muy avanzado. Habiendo tomado cursos bíblicos de griego, he descubierto que una persona aprende primero del Evangelio de Marcos y Juan antes de abordar el Evangelio de Lucas. Debido al alto grado de griego empleado en el Tercer Evangelio y el libro de Hechos, se puede deducir que el autor está bastante avanzado en su educación.

En cuarto lugar, el autor se centra en el ministerio de Jesús a los gentiles y a los marginados de la sociedad. El Sermón del Monte se conserva en el Tercer Evangelio. Allí el autor señala que la gente vino a oír a Jesús de todas partes. El autor señala que muchas de las personas que oyeron a Jesús eran gentiles de la región de Tiro y Sidón (Lucas 6:17).

Quinto, el autor describe asuntos médicos mucho más y en mayor grado que los otros Evangelios. En Lucas 4:38, Lucas está seguro al notar que la suegra de Simón Pedro sufrió de fiebre alta. En Lucas 14: 2, el autor describe el cuerpo de un hombre que se había “hinchado de líquido”. Tales detalles indican a un hombre que tiene un ojo para los asuntos médicos.

En sexto lugar, debido a la participación del autor en el libro de Hechos, se puede deducir de los “pasajes” que el autor era un estrecho colaborador del apóstol Pablo. Por ejemplo, el autor de los Hechos escribe que “Cuando se decidió que íbamos a Italia, entregamos a Pablo y a otros prisioneros a un centurión llamado Julio, del Regimiento Imperial” (Hechos 27: 1).

Finalmente, el autor tuvo acceso a una gran riqueza de las enseñanzas de Jesús que no se encuentran en los otros Evangelios. Por ejemplo, sólo en el Evangelio de Lucas se lee la Parábola del Buen Samaritano y la Parábola del Hijo Perdido. El autor habría necesitado tener acceso a múltiples testigos para poder poseer tal conocimiento y ser capaz de construir el relato ordenado que él hizo.

En conjunto, la evidencia interna apunta fuertemente a alguien del calibre de Lucas, el médico. Lucas tendría los antecedentes educativos, el acceso a los testigos, los recursos y la formación necesaria para construir tanto el Tercer Evangelio como el libro de los Hechos. Por lo que a mí respecta, no creo que haya otros contendientes. ¿Por qué elegir un no-testigo que era un gentil[3] para el autor si no hubiera sido así?

Evidencia externa

Externamente, la iglesia primitiva es unánime en que el Dr. Lucas escribió el Tercer Evangelio y el libro de Hechos. Ireneo (c. 130-202) escribe: “Lucas también, el compañero de Pablo, registró en un libro el Evangelio predicado por él”.[4] A menudo, Ireneo añadirá “Lucas también, seguidor y discípulo de los apóstoles”[5] antes de citar el Evangelio de Lucas. Justino Mártir (c. 100-165), antes de citar el Evangelio de Lucas y los otros Evangelios, señala que “los apóstoles, en las memorias compuestas por ellos, que se llaman Evangelios, nos han entregado lo que les fue ordenado.[6] Ya que el Evangelio de Lucas fue escrito por un gentil, Marción, el hereje antiguo, sólo permitió una forma abreviada del Evangelio de Lucas en su canon. Ireneo señala que “Marción, mutilando eso, según Lucas, es demostrado ser un blasfemo del único Dios existente, de aquellos [pasajes] que todavía retiene”.[7] De la evidencia de la iglesia primitiva, el Dr. Lucas es el único candidato válido para la autoría del Tercer Evangelio.

Fecha

Viendo que Hechos termina con el encarcelamiento de Pablo (c. 64 d.C.), el Evangelio de Lucas debe haber sido escrito en algún momento a principios de los años 60 d.C.

Ubicación y audiencia

Lucas–Hechos comprende aproximadamente el 60% del contenido del Nuevo Testamento. Lucas escribe al influyente Teófilo, un hombre de gran prestigio y estatus prominente. Teófilo pudo haber suministrado los recursos para que Lucas y Hechos fueran escritos. El costo de producir un libro del tamaño de Lucas habría sido de alrededor de $ 6,000 según la modernidad de los Estados Unidos. Los Hechos habrían costado casi lo mismo. El producto entero de Lucas–Hechos habría costado aproximadamente $ 12.000. Así, un hombre con los medios de Teófilo fue utilizado por Dios para financiar la antigua obra en dos volúmenes que encontramos en el Evangelio de Lucas y los Hechos de los Apóstoles que fueron escritos y compilados por un hombre con los recursos y formación del Dr. Lucas.

Lucas tenía un público gentil en mente. Pero la ubicación de la composición de Lucas es un misterio. Los mejores y más probables lugares de la composición de Lucas incluyen Cesárea, Achaia, Decápolis, Asia Menor y Roma. Supongo que Lucas fue finalizado en Roma.

Conclusión

De la evidencia interna, se descubre que el autor del Tercer Evangelio debe haber sido muy educado y bien informado en materia medicinal. El estilo de escritura era bastante exquisito, señalando que un hombre de profundo conocimiento compiló el Evangelio. La asociación que el Tercer Evangelio mantiene con el libro de Hechos ilustra la asociación que el autor tuvo con el apóstol Pablo debido a los “pasajes” en Hechos.

La evidencia externa por unanimidad sostiene al Dr. Lucas como el autor de Lucas–Hechos. No existen otros contendientes. La participación de Lucas en el Evangelio de Lucas–Hechos está documentada por Justino Mártir, Ireneo, Papías y otros.

La fecha del Evangelio debe ser a principios de los años 60 debido a la necesidad de que los Hechos sean completados en el año 64 d.C. Por lo tanto, Lucas–Hechos es ciertamente lo suficientemente temprano como para contener testimonios de testigos.

Lucas–Hechos está escrito para un hombre influyente llamado Teófilo de quien Lucas pudo haber recibido el financiamiento para este esfuerzo de la escritura. Teófilo pudo haber sido un nuevo converso y fue financieramente capaz de afrontar los fondos y materiales necesarios para Lucas. Lucas, él mismo, habría sido un hombre de grandes medios, también.

Compilando toda la información que tenemos ante nosotros, el Dr. Lucas–el médico y compañero de trabajo con el apóstol Pablo–es el único candidato viable para la autoría de la obra de dos volúmenes conocida como Lucas-Hechos.

Notas

[1] A menos que se indique lo contrario, todas las Escrituras citadas provienen de la Christian Standard Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017).

[2] Hechos comienza con las palabras, “Escribí la primera narración, Teófilo, acerca de todo lo que Jesús comenzó a hacer y a enseñar” (Hechos 1: 1).

[3] Lucas es nombrado entre los que fueron incircuncisos en Colosenses 4:11. Sólo Aristarco, Marcos y Justo eran los cooperadores circuncidados de Pablo. El Dr. Lucas aparece en el versículo 14.

[4] Ireneo de Lyon, “Ireneo contra las Herejías” 3.1.1, en Los Padres Apostólicos con Justino Mártir e Ireneo, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, y A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 414.

[5] Ireneo de Lyon, “Ireneo contra las Herejías”, 3.10.1., 423.

[6] Justino Mártir, “La Primera Apología de Justino” 66, en Los Padres Apostólicos con Justino Mártir e Ireneo, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, y A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 185.

[7] Ireneo de Lyon, “Ireneo contra las Herejías”, 3.11.7, 428.

Brian Chilton es el fundador de BellatorChristi.com y es el anfitrión de The Bellator Christi Podcast. Recibió su Maestría de Divinidad en Teología de la Liberty University (con gran distinción); su Licenciatura en Ciencias en Estudios Religiosos y Filosofía de la Gardner-Webb University (con honores); y recibió la certificación en Christian Apologetics de la Biola University. Brian está actualmente estudiando en el Ph.D. Programa de Teología y Apologética en la Liberty University. Brian es miembro de pleno derecho de la International Society of Christian Apologetics y de la Christian Apologetics Alliance. Brian ha estado en el ministerio por más de 14 años y sirve como pastor de la Huntsville Baptist Church en Yadkinville, Carolina del Norte.

Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2uTq0n2

Traducido y Editado por Jairo Izquierdo

August 27, 2017/by Guest

Who Wrote the Letters of Peter?

4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

Over the past few months, we have been investigating the authors and backgrounds of the New Testament books. In this article, we will look into the letters attributed to Peter. Towards the back of the New Testament, one will find two letters associated with Peter, most would think this would be the same Simon Peter as found in the Gospel narratives. But, what do we know about the author and background behind these two letters?

Author: The author of 1 Peter is identified as “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 1:1). 2 Peter is also associated with “Simeon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 1:1). Thus, Simon Peter is the clear candidate for authorship of the two letters bearing his name. Silvanus was employed as an amanuensis for the first letter (1 Pet. 5:12). The second letter does not mention an amanuensis as far as I can tell. It could have been that an unnamed amanuensis was employed, but it is odd that no name is given especially with the church’s disdain for pseudonymous letters.[1] The Semitic spelling of Simeon in 2 Peter 1:1 suggests that Peter himself penned the letter. In addition, while 2 Peter had some skeptics, the vast majority of the early church accepted 2 Peter as a genuine writing from Simon Peter. 1 Peter was unanimously accepted as being the words of the imprisoned Simon Peter. Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria all accepted the letters’ authenticity.

Date: If 1 Peter was written by Simon Peter, then it must have been penned somewhere between AD 62 and 64. Paul was imprisoned around AD 60 to 62 and he never mentioned Peter. Likewise, Peter never mentions Paul being in Rome with him. Only Silvanus and Mark were with Peter (1 Pet. 5:12-13). This suggests that 1 Peter was after AD 62 when Paul was imprisoned and released for a time, but at a time before 2 Peter. So, when was 2 Peter written?

2 Peter, like 1 Peter, was likely written from a Roman prison cell. The author of 2 Peter know that he is about to soon die as he writes “since I know that I will soon lay aside my tent, as our Lord Jesus Christ has indeed made clear to me” (2 Pet. 1:14).[2] Tradition indicates that Peter died sometime around AD 67 during Nero’s reign (AD 54-68). 2 Peter was written after 1 Peter which forces the dating of 1 Peter to a time between AD 62-67. I think it can be said that 1 Peter was written around AD 65 with 2 Peter coming about in AD 67.

Purpose: 1 Peter was addressed to “those chosen, living as exiles dispersed abroad in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” (1 Pet. 1:1-2a). Peter writes about the living hope that the children of God have while living in the last days. Throughout the text, Peter provides ethical standards for the child of God. This theme on ethical living is continued in 2 Peter (2 Pet. 1:3-11; 3:11-18) but with the emphasis of focusing on the true teaching of Christ (2 Pet. 1:12-21; 3:1-10) and the rejection of false heresies that attempt to infiltrate the church (see especially 2 Pet. 2:1-22).

2 Peter’s Association with Jude: 2 Peter and Jude are quite similar. Some scholars suggest that one author borrowed from the other. If the author of 2 Peter borrowed from Jude, then Peter was probably not the author since Jude was written somewhere between AD 65-80.[3] However, if Jude borrowed from Peter, then Peter is more likely the author. It is far more likely that Jude borrowed from Peter than vice versa. Since Peter was an influential leader and Jude, even if he was the brother of Jesus, was not a disciple until after the resurrection of Jesus.

The letters of Peter are quite powerful and important for modern Christians. Believers are reminded of the call to moral living in Peter’s letters. In addition, we are reminded of the importance of truth. It is in 1 Peter 3:15 that we are given what has become the mantra for apologetics. Peter teaches that the believer must “regard Christ the Lord as holy, ready at any time to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you. Yet do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that when you are accused, those who disparage your good conduct in Christ will be put to shame” (1 Pet. 3:15-16).

Notes

[1] Tertullian flatly rejected a pseudonymous letter related to Paul and Thecla. See also Eusebius, Church History, 6.12.3.

[2] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible(Nashville: Holman, 2017).

[3] Later datings of Jude would certainly eliminate Peter from contention as he died in AD 67 by the command of Nero.

About the Author

Brian Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian is full member of the International Society of Christian Apologetics and the Christian Apologetics Alliance. Brian has been in the ministry for over 14 years and serves as the pastor of Huntsville Baptist Church in Yadkinville, North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2gcThEy

August 27, 2017/by Guest

College Is Not A Day Care: The Devastating Consequences of Abandoning Truth

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

In 2015, Oklahoma Wesleyan University president Everett Piper wrote a provocative article entitled, “This is Not A Day Care. It’s A University!” The article was quoted in the Washington Post, the New York Times, NBC News, and more. Needless to say, he ruffled some feathers! The article was such a success that Dr. Piper followed up with a recent book entitled Not A Day Care. I had the privilege of endorsing the book and highly commend it to you. Even if you end up disagreeing with Dr. Piper, he has struck a significant nerve and advances an argument that merits serious consideration.

Check out this brief interview. Then I hope you will get a copy of his new excellent book and consider talking about it with a friend:

SEAN MCDOWELL: What do you think has caused the Snowflake rebellion on our campuses?

EVERETT PIPER: When you teach self-absorption and narcissism in the classroom you shouldn’t be surprised to find self-absorbed and narcissistic students at our colleges. Richard Weaver told us that Ideas have consequences and the lousy ideas we have been teaching for decades are bearing themselves out in the lousy behavior we now see on the nightly news. Garbage in garbage out. What is taught today in the classroom will be practiced tomorrow in our culture, on our campuses, in our communities, in our corporations, and even in our churches.

MCDOWELL: You claim that Bethlehem, not Berkeley, is the birthplace of the free speech movement. How so?

PIPER: Chesterton told us that if you want freedom you have to build a fence. He also said that when you get rid of big laws you don’t get liberty but rather thousands of little laws that rush in to fill the vacuum. Jesus said you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free. If you stop teaching truth it always leads to tyranny. There is no liberty without law and there is no freedom without fences. This message was born in Bethlehem not Berkeley. The proof is in the pudding. Just watch these college protests and ask yourself who is really more free. Who really believes in openness and debate? Who really believes in a robust exchange of ideas? Which worldview lends itself to intellectual freedom and which one seems shockingly close to ideological fascism? Berkeley or Bethlehem? You choose.

MCDOWELL: What about your chapter titled Pro-woman and Proud of It? Why do you think the biblical worldview is more pro-woman than any other?

PIPER: Because we believe women are real. We believe in science. We believe in the fact of the female. What could possibly be more misogynistic than to suggest that a woman is not a fact but rather merely a fantasy or a fabrication; nothing but a social construct. How is it possible to be a feminist while denying the empirical reality of the feminine? You can’t be pro-woman and yet deny that a female exists. You can’t be pro-woman while at the same time claiming that she is really is nothing more than a leprechaun or a unicorn – that she’s make believe – and that anyone who wants to pretend can raise his hand on a given day and take away her privacy, her dignity and her very identity.

MCDOWELL: You’re against “safe spaces.” Shouldn’t the college experience be safe?

PIPER: C.S. Lewis said of the great lion Aslan that he was not safe but that he was good. Let me paraphrase and suggest that the great lion of the liberal arts; the great lion of the academy; the great lion of the university – of the ivory tower – is not supposed to be safe but it is supposed to be good. There is a huge difference between goodness and safety. Safety implies comfort. Goodness implies confrontation. We don’t grow if we are always comfortable and safe. We only grow when there is dissonance and when we are challenged. Iron sharpens iron and the Lord disciplines those he loves. College should be about you growing closer to God’s standard of goodness not feeling safe and comfortable in your sin.

MCDOWELL: Why are “trigger warnings” and “micro-aggressions” bad ideas?

PIPER: Yes these are terrible ideas and the reason is because they have essentially become synonyms for simple disagreement. If I don’t like your ideas all I need to do is cry “micro-aggression.” If your political views make me feel uncomfortable I accuse of you violating my “safe space.” If I don’t want to even be exposed to an intellectual challenge I demand that you issue a “trigger warning” before you speak. All of this is predicated on the assumption that it is somehow good to avoid contrary ideas – ideas that are different from our own biases. This is terrible education and it is the exact opposite of what the classical liberal arts education was all about.

August 22, 2017/by Sean Mcdowell

How Does Christianity Fulfill our Deepest Aspiration? Author Interview

Theology and Christian Apologetics

My friend and Biola colleague Greg Ganssle has written a fascinating new book called Our Deepest Desires: How the Christian Story Fulfills Human Aspirations. Professor Ganssle takes a unique approach to the apologetic task. Essentially, his goal is not to show that Christianity is true, but to argue that when it is properly understood, people should wish it were true. He talks about how tragedy, beauty, and freedom make the most sense in a Christian worldview and that only Christianity fulfills our deepest desires.

Our Deepest Desires is one of the most interesting books I have read in awhile. I hope you will check out this interview and think about getting a copy of his excellent book:

SEAN MCDOWELL: Can you tell us briefly what your book is about?

GREG GANSSLE: As the subtitle indicates, the book is about how the Christian story explains and grounds our basic aspirations. Every person has the same task—that is we all aim to navigate life in the best way we can. We navigate life with some notions of what it is good to be and to do. These notions are widely shared among people, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack of them.

I structure the book around four fundamental commitments that are widely shared. First, there is the commitment to persons. Nearly everything we care about is connected to human beings. Second, is the commitment to goodness. We want to be good and we enjoy what is good. Third, we are drawn towards beauty. Beauty calls us home in two ways. First, it calls us to see that this world is a wonderful place. Second, it points beyond this world to the next. Lastly, we long for personal freedom. That is the freedom to become the kind of people we want to be.

Each of these areas makes sense in the Christian story. God, the most fundamental reality, is personal. He is good and made a good world for his own good reasons. We are not surprised to find the world to be beautiful because he is a master artist. God created us to embody certain virtues, and we find our own freedom as we experience these.

MCDOWELL: The goal of your book is to convince people they should hope Christianity is true. What do you mean, and why start there?

GANSSLE: I start there because I think that most people do not care whether or not Christianity is true. They are already convinced that it is a story that hinders human flourishing, rather than a story that secures and promotes flourishing. What is startling is the fact that the things most human beings care most about fit better within the Christian story than they do in the various atheistic stories. Once we see this connection, we see that we want the Christian story to be true. Of course, the fact that we want it to be true does not show that it is true. But once a person wants it to be true, the objections to the truth of the Gospel seem much smaller.

MCDOWELL: Who is the primary audience?

GANSSLE: As I wrote this book, I was thinking of the many professors I know who are not yet followers of Christ. I was trying to overcome what I see as the biggest obstacle to belief in Christ–that the Christian story is unattractive. Nietzsche quipped, “What is decisive against Christianity now is our taste, not our reason.” I am trying to overcome the sense that the Christian story is not to be desired.

MCDOWELL: How might those who are already believers use and benefit from this book?

GANSSLE: There are two ways this book can benefit those who are already followers of Jesus. First, it can help us grasp the Gospel more deeply. We often have a superficial understanding of the Christian story. As a result, we fail to see its intrinsic relevance to the deep aspirations of every person. Our own appreciation of the Christian story will be enriched as we reflect on how it provides the resources to capture the most common human aspirations.

Second, this book will be a good tool to start conversations. You can hand it to a thoughtful person and discuss it later. Because it is not a work of scholarship, it is accessible to all kinds of people. I even made sure the chapters were short! I would recommend giving it to neighbors and following up with some questions.

MCDOWELL: What message is there for the church?

GANSSLE: I am convinced that the next horizon for apologetics is the desirability of the Gospel. As one of my colleagues has written (Dave Horner), the Christian story is “too good not to be true.” We have been so keen to defend theological notions such as the sinfulness of every person that we have neglected the deeper theological truths of the value, goodness and beauty of all God has created. We do not believe in the omnipotence of sin. Sin twists everything, to be sure, but it cannot erase that goodness that God has put into the world and into human beings.

MCDOWELL: I have heard you mention how tragedies reveal the deepest human desires. What do you mean, and how does this support the Christian worldview?

GANSSLE: When we encounter suffering, we long for meaning. We want our suffering to be meaningful or to contribute to a meaningful life. Horrendous suffering has the potential to crush a person’s soul. Unless our meaning is securely grounded in the God who brings good out of evil, who experienced evil, and who gives us his presence in the midst of suffering, we may find it impossible to experience a meaningful life in the midst of suffering. It is Jesus weeping at the grave of Lazarus that gives us hope because he is the God who bears our suffering and offers his presence.

August 22, 2017/by Sean Mcdowell

5 Common Answers to Kids’ Questions about God That Can Do More Harm Than Good

Beach Balls and the Sexual Revolution

Who Wrote the Gospel of John?

Debating Atheists: Arrival of Evil (Part 4/5)

Right Behavior. Does It Exist?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Debating Atheists: Arrival of Biological Information (Part 3/5)

¿Quién escribió el evangelio de Lucas y los Hechos?

Who Wrote the Letters of Peter?

College Is Not A Day Care: The Devastating Consequences of Abandoning Truth

How Does Christianity Fulfill our Deepest Aspiration? Author Interview

QUICK LINKS

FEATURED RESOURCES

SUPPORT CROSSEXAMINED