Facebook Christian Parent

How Facebook Can Make You a Better Christian Parent

,

By

I’ve finally wrapped up my next book, taken a couple of weeks to recover, and am ready to get back to blogging! I have a lot to tell you about my new book, but it doesn’t come out until October, so I’ll wait a bit to share more about it.

As I worked against my writing deadline in the last few weeks, I spent a lot less time on Facebook. I just had too much to do to check in and engage as regularly as usual. But being away from it has been a good thing because it made me realize something a bit surprising:

Being on Facebook can make you a better Christian parent.

I know that’s not the conclusion of most who take social media breaks. Usually people step back for a while and then conclude their life is better without Facebook or Twitter distractions. And, to be sure, there are aspects of social media that can be tiring and soul-draining. If you’re at the point where you can’t possibly scroll past one more person talking about how blessed they are without wanting to punch your screen, you probably do need a break.

But for Christian parents who want to raise faithful kids in a secular world, Facebook can be an invaluable tool for gaining some much-needed perspective for the job.

The Generational Disconnect

In the last year, I’ve had the opportunity to speak at churches and conferences across the country about the importance of parents teaching kids apologetics, the biggest faith challenges parents should address with their kids (I walk through 5 of the 40 in Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side), practical ideas for teaching apologetics at home, and how to teach kids good critical thinking skills.

In my talks, I use quotes from atheist authors/bloggers, memes and snippets of online conversations with skeptics as examples of claims kids will encounter today. I regularly find that parents are surprised by what I present.

I often ask how many have heard the claim I’m addressing—for example, that the Bible is unreliable because it’s been copied so many times—and only a few hands go up.

Or I ask how many have heard of influential atheists/agnostics like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Bart Ehrman—and even fewer hands go up (if any).

Then, when I talk to parents after an event, a common thread of conversation is that the presentation was eye-opening because they haven’t had their own faith challenged in such ways.

Meanwhile, at least 60 percent of kids raised in Christian homes are walking away from Christianity by their early 20s, due in large part to the intellectual challenges to faith they encountered.

I think’s fair to say there’s an enormous disconnect between what kids and parents are exposed to today.

Being on Facebook is one way that Christian parents can gain better perspective. I say that for three key reasons.

1. Being on Facebook can expose you to views and conversations you may not hear elsewhere.

Last month, I shared an article on my personal Facebook page and simply said, “Here are some interesting statistics.” One Facebook friend—an acquaintance from high school—was so appalled that I held a different view on a hot issue that she commented, “You aren’t worthy of being in my Facebook news feed. Consider yourself unfriended. Goodbye.”

Within seconds, she was no longer in my friend list.

Just because we have different views.

Honestly, there are certain people I’m connected to on Facebook who post things that make me want to scream. But—and I mean this in all seriousness—for the sake of my kids, I don’t unfriend them. These Facebook friends and I couldn’t be more opposite in our worldviews, and that’s a good thing for me to experience.

I need to understand what they’re saying and why they believe what they do.

I need to see the arguments and articles they find compelling.

I need to read how they interact with others.

I need to know what they’re teaching their kids about the world, because those kids are going to be the adult peers of my kids someday.

Those whose online comments bother you most are those you can learn the most from. Don’t be tempted to unfriend them. Chances are, you’re not being challenged in the same ways by people you interact with in person.

And if you don’t have Facebook friends who post things you disagree with, that’s a sure sign you’ve built yourself a worldview silo. It’s time to expand your Facebook connections and start following pages that post things you disagree with.

2. Being on Facebook can give you a better understanding of “street-level” logic.

Parents are often intimidated by the idea of learning about and teaching their kids apologetics (how to make a case for and defend their faith). They think it involves reading a towering pile of academic books that would put a “normal” person into a coma of boredom. But it doesn’t need to be that way.

For intimidated parents, I often share the results of the Fixed Point Foundation’s study of college students who are members of Secular Student Alliances or Freethought Societies. These college groups are the atheist equivalents to Campus Crusade for Christ. They meet to fellowship, encourage each other, and even proselytize. In a nationwide study, researchers found that most of these students had had not chosen their beliefs from neutral positions, but rather in reaction to Christianity. When students were asked to cite key influences in their conversion to atheism—people, books, seminars, etc.—the responses overwhelmingly indicated their loss of faith was due to what they had read in website forums or videos they had watched on YouTube.

Just everyday stuff kids see online.

The kinds of stuff parents can easily see too—then proactively take the time to discuss with their kids—if they’re on social media and are using it effectively.

There’s certainly a time for book learning, but there’s no substitute for seeing the worldview battle firsthand.

3. Being on Facebook can give you a sense of Christian parenting urgency.

The change I noticed most in myself after being away from Facebook for a few weeks was the emotional complacency that started to set in. Of course, I was still intellectually aware of all the faith challenges in the world—after all, I wasn’t on Facebook because I was writing a book about those challenges! But I didn’t feel the everyday sense of urgency that I normally feel when I’m regularly exposed to all that’s out there.

That’s not a good thing.

The more you’re exposed to, the more you realize how important your job is as a Christian parent…and how much you need to do to raise your kids with a deeply rooted faith today.

There are many ways parents can be educated about faith challenges without being on social media, so none of this is to say everyone needs to use it. But I do think Facebook in particular makes it easy to gain some of the perspective that many Christian parents lack. If you’re on Facebook and not seeing a good mix of worldviews in your news feed, try following some of these pages:

And balance it out by following some great Christian apologetics pages that post a wide variety of articles:

———————–

/by
Soul Collider Ghosts

Brian Cox, Souls, & the Large Hadron Collider

By Tim Reed

There are so many great scientists out there. The things they get to discover and explain to the rest of us lay people are always very cool. Every so often, however, a well-known scientist will get a bit of publicity over a controversial comment they make. When theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking’s book, The Grand Design was released, it caused quite a stir in the philosophy community regarding his statement in the book that “philosophy is dead.”

Hawking’s claim that “philosophy is dead” is a self-refuting philosophical statement. He goes on to endorse, ironically enough, a philosophical view called model-dependent realism, gets facts about the history of philosophy wrong, implies a philosophical, metaphysically impossible claim about the universe, and finally states that the law of gravity itself is responsible for the existence of the universe. More recently, Bill Nye the “Science Guy” (a mechanical engineer by trade) gets basic biology wrong, misunderstands the pro-life view, and confuses science statements with philosophical statements in a Big Think video about abortion.

Recently, several online science outlets like LiveScience and ScienceAlert, have published articles referencing a BBC program featuring theoretical physicist Brian Cox and astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. I noticed that even well-known theoretical physicist Sean Carroll shared the article by LiveScience on Facebook. The conversation between Cox and Tyson has gotten traction because of a claim that Cox makes about the Large Hadron Collider and ghosts. Here’s the relevant portion of the conversation:

“If we want some sort of pattern that carries information about our living cells to persist then we must specify precisely what medium carries that pattern and how it interacts with the matter particles out of which our bodies are made. We must, in other words, invent an extension to the Standard Model of Particle Physics that has escaped detection at the Large Hadron Collider. That’s almost inconceivable at the energy scales typical of the particle interactions in our bodies” (Cox).

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, who was also on the show, pressed Cox to clarify his statement.

“If I understand what you just declared, you just asserted that CERN, the European Center for Nuclear Research, disproved the existence of ghosts.” (Tyson)

Cox replied,

“Yes . . . I would say if there’s some kind of substance that’s driving our bodies, making my arms move and legs move, then it must interact with the particles out of which our bodies are made. And seeing as we’ve made high precision measurements of the ways that particles interact, then my assertion is there can be no such thing as an energy source that’s driving our bodies.” (Cox)

So, per Brian Cox, since ghosts are an “energy source” and the Large Hadron Collider has never detected the energy of ghosts, they must not exist. A perusal of various Facebook posts using the search feature easily demonstrates that many people believe the same argument advanced by Cox extends to belief in the existence of souls. Again, since souls are an energy source and the Large Hadron Collider has never detected the energy of souls, they must not exist either (according to Brian Cox).

Let’s talk for a minute about Christian philosophy and belief in souls. As a Christian, I believe the Bible teaches that the human person is a composite being made of two fundamental realities, one material and the other non-material. This idea is articulated very generally in the Bible, leaving us the conceptual space to explore details of this view through philosophy. In Christian philosophy, we have a technical term for the view that human persons are a body/soul composite. It is called Substance Dualism. This is the view that each person is an embodied soul, a simple, indivisible substance not having any parts. Substance Dualism has been defended rigorously by Christian philosophers like Richard Swinburne, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford and J.P. Moreland, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University.

Let’s see how a few philosophers define what they mean by a soul, since this may give us some indication where Brian Cox’s argument may have gone astray. First consider the words of Richard Swinburne:

“…I conclude that the human soul cannot be analyzed as composed of form and matter; it is *non-physical* and indivisible, and possesses only pure mental properties. This is the view of Plato and Descartes…” – Richard Swinburne, Mind, Brain, & Freewill

J.P. Moreland writes:

“In chapter 3, I defended property dualism and concluded that consciousness is, indeed, *non-physical*. In this chapter, I will argue for substance dualism, the view that the owner of consciousness-the soul or self-is *immaterial*.” – J.P. Moreland, The Soul: How We Know It’s Real and Why It Matters

Baker and Goetz state,

“As dualists we do not (necessarily) deny that current research in brain sciences and related disciplines might pose some interesting new challenges to a dualist theory that includes the Soul Hypothesis as a component. For example, dualists have the specific challenge of sorting out in some detail which features of human mental life depend directly on the physical part (the body) and which depend directly on the *nonphysical* part (the soul).” – Mark Baker and Stewart Goetz, Introduction to the Soul Hypothesis volume

Dean Zimmerman says,

“A person, like me, who thinks he’s an *immaterial* soul uses “I” in roughly the same way as a person who thinks that he’s a brain, or a body, or even (like some “madmen” Descartes mentions) that he is made out of glass.” – Dean Zimmerman, From Experience to Experiencer

Brandon Rickabaugh states,

“I am puzzled and very concerned by the move toward physicalism among theologians, especially within the Society of Vineyard Scholars. I can see no convincing arguments in favor of doing so, and this paper has demonstrated the tremendous failure of such arguments against SD (substance dualism). We are *embodied human persons* (an SD view), not bodily human persons.” – Brandon Rickabaugh, Responding to N.T. Wright’s Rejection of the Soul: A Defense of Substance Dualism

I emphasized certain words in the previous quotes to help you figure out what the problem is. According to these Substance Dualist philosophers, the soul is a “non-physical” or “immaterial” entity. An immaterial entity can’t be composed of energy because it is non-physical. It can use energy, but its essential nature does not consist of energy. I love how Brandon Rickabaugh put it, that we are “embodied human persons.” If we are embodied, that means that our essential nature is something other than a physical body. It’s reasonable to say that these five quotes are representative of the substance dualists writing and defending the view in the philosophy community. I would further contend that no category of substance dualism (i.e., Thomist, Cartesian, or Emergentist) believes anything other than that the soul is immaterial.

Physicist Brian Cox assumes that souls are an “energy source,” then constructs his argument upon that assumption. The Large Hadron Collider should have discovered such an energy source by now, but they haven’t, so says Brian Cox. Clearly, the problem here is that his argument doesn’t work because people who believe in souls don’t agree with his assumption. We reject his assumption and so, therefore, his entire argument does not even get off the ground. Brian Cox and the people who find his flawed reasoning convincing are simply mistaken. Cox and company have not attacked the soul; rather, they merely attack a straw man.

Along with the philosophers noted above, Tim Stratton has argued forcefully for the existence of the soul. The Freethinking Argument provides good reason to think the soul exists. That is to say, the view that human persons are composed of a nonphysical component called a soul is still alive and well.

/by
God Gaps Apologetics

What About God of the Gaps?

,

By

If you present the cosmological or design arguments to skeptics at least a few times, it’s extremely likely that you’ll hear the words “That’s a ‘God of the gaps’ argument.” This objection is rooted in the idea that because a number of things throughout human history have been wrongly attributed to the supernatural activity of God or gods, we can now safely dismiss God as a cause behind anything else we observe. These previous misfires include primitive myths like lightning bolts being signs from Zeus and Thor to the universally admired Isaac Newton positing God as a mechanic to straighten out errant orbits. We later learned that lightning has to do with electrical qualities, while wobbly orbits turned out to be the result of other bodies in orbit around the sun. ¹

So, in the mind of many skeptics, this trumps any theistic argument. Because science has previously found natural causes behind assumed supernatural events, it will do so in the future. “So”, says the skeptic, “you have a gap in knowledge, and you just arbitrarily insert God into the gap.” There are problems with this argument, one being that not all proposed gap fill-ins are equal. As John Lennox discusses here, there are arguments for God’s existence that are based on what we do know, rather than what we don’t.

Indeed, both the cosmological and design arguments rely on the same method of inductive reasoning that the anti-supernatural position relies on. After observing that natural causes have replaced miracles as an explanation for a number of events, the inference is drawn that all events will be explained by natural causes. Likewise, the design argument is based on the observation that complex specified information (such as that found in DNA) has never been shown to originate from anything other than an intelligent mind. The cosmological argument also relies on the same logic, that every time we observe something that comes into existence, there is always a cause behind it.

Well, not exactly. There is one very important difference. The anti-miracle conclusion is not by any means the only obvious or plausible way of interpreting the data. For example, 19th century scholars were often highly skeptical of claims made by ancient historians. However, archaeology has revealed that these historians were correct on a number of doubted claims key. But it would be totally illegitimate to infer that archaeology will vindicate them at every point someday. It just means that they were more reliable than previously thought. Likewise, natural causes to certain events would only show at best that the universe has less supernatural activity than previously believed. The origin of information and the necessity of causality conclusions that belong to their respective theistic arguments also have far more instances of observation, without any reasonable alternative rearing its head.

But in the case of false supernatural claims, there is another alternative that presents itself. To illustrate, let’s ask the question “Does this really tell us more about the universe, or more about humanity?” For example, there are many cases of UFO sightings turning out to involve something more down to earth. Does this tell us anything about what is “out there” in space? No, it tells that humans are curious and prone to believing that aliens do exist. But this has not stopped the search for intelligent extraterrestrial life from being a live area of scientific research. As a total hypothetical, let’s say an alien space craft did land and interact with several people. Once they told others, it is pretty likely that others would start to see moving objects in the sky and jump to unjustified conclusions about them being a sign of alien life. False reports about aliens would be almost certain feature of a universe where they actually have visited earth. False reports could also be a feature of a universe where they don’t exist at all. The existence of false reports doesn’t tell us much by itself. We’d have to decide based on other evidence.

But in the same way, in a universe where God has put a spiritual desire for Himself in the human heart, it is to be expected that some humans would falsely attribute some or even a lot of phenomena to the divine. This is an almost certain feature of what a theistic universe with fallible humans would look like. This by itself doesn’t prove that God exists or acts in the universe, but by itself it also doesn’t point in the opposite direction, either.

One other point is worth mentioning. It wasn’t because of science that people began to disbelieve that Zeus was throwing lightning bolts from the sky. It happened because, unlike paganism, which saw the gods as not being distinct from the creation, Christians saw God as being separate from it. ² There was no need to see a god behind virtually every force of nature.

¹. Wiker, Benjamin. Moral Darwinism, pp. 127-28
². Carroll, Bruce and Shiflett, David. Christianity on Trial. p. 58-59

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

/by
Image God Christianity

Why Is The Image of God So Important?

By Luke Nix

Introduction

Those who follow this blog are aware that I not only defend “mere” Christianity, but I also defend specifics in the Christian worldview. As I have written before, I believe that if a Christian is defending an incorrect detail of their worldview to a skeptic, that skeptic can easily use that incorrect detail as an excuse to reject the entire worldview (even though this is not logically reasonable). Over the last few years of interacting with fellow Christians regarding the details of our worldview, one of the doctrines that are not discussed explicitly very often, but other debates directly affect, is the doctrine of the Image of God. I have noticed that some positions in the other debates imply different views of the Image of God, and these different views of the Image of God can be used to test the positions in the other debates. But before I get into those debates, we need to know why this Judeo-Christian doctrine is so important in the first place.

What Is At Stake?

The Image of God provides the grounding for several essential characteristics of humans that set us apart from the animal kingdom. Without appropriate grounding for these characteristics, a worldview cannot explain these characteristics, thus it is forced to deny that they even exist…with dire consequences, as we shall see. What are these characteristics, though? While the Image of God grounds several characteristics, I want to examine four of them today:

  • Intrinsic Value
  • Free Will
  • Moral Responsibility
  • The Ability to Reason
 Intrinsic Value

It is common today to think that a person’s value is based upon their race, sex, age, religion, intelligence, economic status, physical ability, entertainment ability, or a whole host of other “useful” things to a society. All of these, though, are relative and fleeting. Anytime that one of those are different (between persons or even in the same person at different times in their lives) their value goes up, down, or disappears. Intrinsic value is value that is not based on any of those accidental characteristics. Intrinsic value is value that is objective, found outside the societies, groups, or other individuals who are judging a person’s worth. This is an objective value that people possess simply in virtue of being human.

No human is intrinsically more or less valuable than another. This concept provides the ground for the idea of “equal rights” regardless of sex, race, age, ability, or status. If you are a human, you are intrinsically valuable, period. Since animals do not possess the Image of God, they do not possess such intrinsic value; they are valuable based upon whatever someone else needs them to accomplish. Animal value is relative and subjective, but human value is objective. If someone violates (harms) an intrinsically valuable thing, it is a moral evil. Specifically, an attack on a possessor of the Image of God is a direct attack on God Himself. If humans do not possess the Image of God, no act against us for any reason is evil. In fact, if humans do not possess the Image of God, it is permissible (if not obligatory) that humans be treated no different than any other animal (and vice versa). Just as a house fly may be killed because it is irritating us, so may a human be killed because he or she is irritating us, and if a human’s life is to be protected by the law, then so should the life of every animal be protected by the law also.

Free Will

When I say “free will” I am talking about the ability to choose to do something other than what we actually do, given the same circumstances (called “libertarian” free will). For instance, you have a choice to continue reading this post or not. Sure, some things will influence that choice, but ultimately you are choosing whether to accept those influences and act upon them or not; the circumstances (or your desires) do not determine your choice, though they do influence your choice. What allows us to do this is the fact that we are “agents” or “souls.” These (and we) are beings that exist independent of physical reality, thus we are not 100% governed by its laws (though our bodies are, which many of our decisions require us to take into account). Because an agent is not physical, it must have a non-physical source- the Image of God provides that source for humans. If humans do not possess the Image of God, then we do not possess free will and all our “choices” are determined by something else, not us.

The animals do not possess the Image of God, thus they do not possess free will. They are beholden to their environment for their behavior. Their surroundings are what determine how they act. The fact that humans have free will means that humans are capable of choosing how to act towards one another, nothing or no one else makes the choice for us, we are responsible.

Moral Responsibility

Taking the two previous characteristics provided by the Image of God, we discover that humans have moral responsibility. If humans are not intrinsically valuable, then no act committed against them is evil. If humans do not have the ability to choose to do otherwise, then they cannot be held responsible for such an evil act. Thus both intrinsic value AND free will are necessary for moral responsibility. This makes us moral beings. Something that animals are not. If an animal kills another animal, we do not call it “murder” because “murder” is “killing” plus a moral element. Animals do not possess intrinsic value (so the killing is not a violation of God’s Image) and animals are not morally responsible beings. On the other hand, man is both intrinsically valuable AND a moral being, so if a human kills another human it is a moral act based on the Image of God in both the victim and the killer. And the morality of that act must be justified by the Moral Law that God has written on the hearts of every human (via His Image) and in His further revelation of Scripture.

This means that if humans wish to hold other humans morally responsible for their actions, the Image of God is necessary on two accounts. Without the Image of God, there is no ground for moral responsibility, no ground for reward or punishment. In fact, if either intrinsic value or free will are missing from the equation, moral responsibility (and reward and punishment) cannot do not make sense; they are meaningless.

The Ability to Reason

Often times it is difficult to distinguish between what is true and what is practical because the two do not always seem to align. What is practical is derived from what allows us to survive and thrive in any given environment. We act and react, according to what stimulates our senses, with those two purposes as the end goal. This is the mode of operation of a creature that not only does not possess free will but also one that does not possess reliable reasoning faculties. If our ability to reason is grounded in a process or object that is focused on survival, then that is exactly what it will do, and the misalignments between what is practical and what is true will never be detected. We are forced to conflate truth with practicality, on this view, because as the environment changes, what is necessary for survival also changes (think of living in Saudi Arabia vs. living in the United States).

On the other hand, if our reasoning faculties are grounded in something that is essentially concerned with what is true, then that faculty can be trusted to be able to detect the difference between a belief that is merely practical for an environment and one that is true (independent of the environment). The Image of God provides this grounding in the Creator, who IS omniscient and desires that humans come to know what is true and not just what is practical for their given environment. In being made in the Image of God, humans not only possess the ability to freely choose among options, we have a reliable tool to identify which option is the correct option. Thus this makes our moral responsibility even more binding.*

The Origin and Current Status of the Image of God

Because all four of those characteristics are tied to the Image of God, it is important that in our defense of the Christian worldview, and specifics within the worldview, that we consistently hold and defend a specific view regarding its origin and status.

Testing Origins Views Via The Image of God

Regarding its origin, some people believe that the Image of God came about by natural processes- it is a functional distinction between us and the animals based upon our evolution from the lower species. This view is most commonly found in the origin position called “theistic evolution” or “evolutionary creationism” (but not all of them hold this view of the Image of God; I’ll address that important distinction in a minute). This cannot be the way the Image of God appeared because it is merely a difference in degree of development between animal and human rather than a difference in ontological essence (“kind”). A difference in degree is not an ontological difference, but the Image of God, in order to be an ontological ground for the four characteristics I described above (and the many others I didn’t), must be an ontological difference. If one holds that the Image of God is not a difference in kind, then all the implications of the above-described characteristics’ absences are actually the reality- human intrinsic value does not exist, free will does not exist, moral responsibility does not exist, and the ability to reason does not exist.

While I do not defend common descent of humans with any animal (I’m not an evolutionary creationist), I must understand that not every evolutionary creationist holds to this view of the Image of God because of its dire philosophical and theological (biblical) implications. These theistic evolutionists hold, just as much as any creationist (young-earth or old-earth), that the Image of God appeared suddenly in history (as a special creative work of God) and that sudden appearance is evident in the fossil and archaeological record.

Where things get difficult, though, is that many naturalists insist that all features of humans appear gradually in the fossil and archaeological records. If that is true, then even the Image of God appears gradually. That would imply that the Image of God is merely a difference in degree and not in kind. So, if a Christian theistic evolutionist wishes to maintain common descent of humans with prior animals (and they wish to avoid the implications of merely a functional Image of God), then they must reject the interpretation of the historical records that naturalists offer regarding the Image’s features appearing gradually (descending from “lower” species).

What is really interesting is that the more that the data is reinterpreted to be consistent with an ontological Image of God (a sudden appearance), the more the line is blurred for the theistic evolutionist between the sudden appearance of the Image of God and the sudden appearance of humans. Perhaps a persuasive case for the rejection of common descent between humans and animals (and the acceptance of humans as a special creation of God independent of His other creations) is found in our defense of the proper view of the Image of God and its endowments (e.g. intrinsic value, free will, moral responsibility, and the ability to reason) upon humans. Our maintaining the proper view of the Image of God helps us to test and guide our view of human origins. If this has intrigued you, I highly recommend reading the book “Who Was Adam” by biochemist Dr. Fazale Rana to see the scientific evidence for the sudden appearance of the Image of God (and humans) in the scientific record.

One More Thing- Abortion and Active Euthanasia
Before I leave the origins debate, though, I do want to bring up one more implication for holding that the Image of God is merely a difference in the degree of development. If you are familiar with some of the more common defenses for abortion, you will know that one of the reasons offered to deny the unborn intrinsic value (and the intrinsic right to life) is the degree of their development. (Now, I have to be extremely careful not to equivocate on the term “degree of development,” because if the terms do mean the same thing in both the common descent view and the abortion view, then we have a serious problem.) Simply put, the argument for abortion from the degree of development points to the lack of certain features in the unborn that a fully developed human being possesses. The pro-abortion advocate uses this lack of development to conclude that the unborn are not really human, thus do not possess intrinsic value (which means that killing the unborn is perfectly acceptable).

In the book “The Case For Life,” pro-life apologist Scott Klusendorf points out that the “degree of development” argument, applied consistently, also removes intrinsic value (thus justifies intentionally killing) from those living with health issues, including physical handicaps, degenerative diseases, mental disorders and others. If the Image of God is merely a matter of degree of development, then any human who manifests cognitive, creative, or physical limitations akin to those of our pre-human ancestors (on the theistic evolutionary view), they too necessarily lack the Image of God. This would include the unborn (abortion would be morally permissible) and the born (active euthanasia would be morally permissible).

This is one more way that we can use the proper view of the Image of God to test our view of human origins. Unfortunately, it can also be used in the opposite direction to justify abortion and active euthanasia- which is one more reason why maintaining the proper view of the Image of God is so important. We must hold to the proper view of the Image of God to guard against such logically fallacious and morally reprehensible (sinful) views from entering our worldview (even if we insist on maintaining the belief in the common descent of the physical human body).

Testing The Current Status of the Image of God

In the on-going debate about how God’s sovereignty and man’s free will work together, some Christians have opted to deny that man has free will at all by positing that the Image of God was destroyed at the Fall of Adam and Eve. However, when the implications I described above are explained, the Christian usually quickly changes their position, but in many cases the change holds that the Image of God was damaged specifically in a way to destroy human free will but maintain the other traits. While this may seem like an acceptable position, it poses a severe problem.

If intrinsic value does exist, but free will does not, then punishment is a moral evil because it is a violation of (attack against) the intrinsically valuable human, created in the Image of God, who did not have a choice to not commit the crime against another intrinsically valuable human, created in the Image of God. This means that if free will does not exist, God’s punishment of those who commit sin is His attacking Himself- a moral evil. However, we know from the Bible that God cannot sin, that He cannot deny Himself, that a house brought against itself cannot stand, and that God does punish the wicked. If a Christian is to maintain the doctrine of eternal conscious punishment (or even the heterodox view of annihilationism), yet deny free will, then they are saying that God is sinning in virtue of His immoral attack against a creature created in His Image.

Some have attempted to say that God can do whatever He wants. However, this then enters into the debate about God and morality. A common objection to God’s existence comes in the form of the Euthyphro dilemma. This poses the question, “Is God good because He says what is good, or because He is subject to good.” The dilemma is that if the first option is selected then morality is subjective and arbitrary (not objective) because God could simply change His mind about what is good, while if the second option is selected then God is not the highest being, thus He cannot be God. If it is not obvious, the attempted escape from the implication of denying free will but affirming intrinsic value fails because it is the first option of the dilemma- morality is then arbitrary and subjective, thus there is no objective standard by which God can judge, which adds another level of problems because without objective morality, nothing is evil, even an act that attacks a bearer of the Image of God (so, murder, abortion, rape, and every other “sin” is not objectively evil- it is merely God’s opinion at the moment that they are or are not)- moral responsibility essentially was destroyed if free will was also.

The only way to avoid this implication is to affirm that man’s free will is still intact regardless of how we view the effects of the Fall of Adam and Eve. Because of that, we can use the proper view of the current status of the Image of God (intact) to test our views regarding the coexistence of God’s sovereignty and man’s free will.

Conclusion

The Image of God is an important doctrine of Christianity. It provides the ontological grounding for intrinsic value, free will, moral responsibility, and the ability to reason. Without these characteristics in place in humans, Christianity is, at worst, false, and at best unknowable and indefensible. So, it is important that as we defend the truth of the Christian worldview that we do not also defend a scientific or theological position that either asserts or implies that the Image of God is not ontological or was damaged in a way to destroy free will. If we do, then we are defending contradictory claims, and the unbeliever can use that as a reason (because they are made in the Image of God) to freely choose to reject the truth of the Christian worldview.

Recommended Books for More on this Topic

*Of course, mere observation of reality and reason do not always lead to the correct conclusion. The Image of God also provides the Moral Law that is written on all humans’ hearts (since all humans are made in the Image of God). Further, God has given us His special revelation that gives us explicit moral codes. But He did not just give us a book without establishing that it was divinely inspired by the Source of the Image of God. The Bible contains numerous claims about reality, and especially history when no human was present to observe the events (thus eliminating any reasonable natural explanation [e.g. that the author saw it or guessed it). Dr. Hugh Ross explains these in his numerous books on the scientific evidence for the inspiration and authority of the Bible. So, there are two additional tools that solidify man’s moral responsibility and the fact that all men “are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2q1OxlG

/by
Personhood Human Abortion

When Does Personhood Begin? Part II

By 

Previously we looked at some of the arguments and assumptions made to assert that the unborn either are not humans or are not “persons”.

But now we’ll look at another kind of objection. Some pro-choice advocates know that the unborn are biologically human from fertilization. However, they’ll argue that while the unborn are humans biologically, they are not full-fledged humans in a “morally relevant” sense. While they may be a member of the species Homo Sapiens, they should not be considered a member of the human community until they fulfill certain criteria, or reach a certain stage of development.

In my previous entry, I looked at why we can’t use the immediately exercisable capacity for consciousness or the ability to feel pain as criteria for acceptance into the human community.

Remember that the right to life is a categorical property; you either have it or you don’t. As such, it can’t be tied to a property that comes in degrees (such as consciousness).

A natural right, like the right to live or to defend yourself, should not be confused with legal rights, such as the right to vote or drive. A natural right is a right that every human has by virtue of our common human nature, whereas a legal right is a right that the government grants based on our common status as citizens. These rights are gained through maturity or ability. When we say that an embryo is no morally different than you or me, we recognize that they have obvious differences. An embryo can no more drive a car than a toddler should be trusted to vote for president. However, the right to life is an intrinsic right shared by all humans, regardless of their maturity level or instrumental value to society.

So if not at fertilization, when should our natural rights be attributed to us? There are several stages along human development that are offered, but none of those stages succeed as an appropriate line to draw between a state of having no natural rights and a state of acquiring natural human rights. Let’s look at those.

1) Implantation/Quickening.

Once the mother’s egg is fertilized by the father’s sperm, both egg and sperm cease to exist and conception has occurred, bringing into existence a new, unique human individual. It takes about a week for the zygote to be propelled down the fallopian tube (via hair-like structures called cilia) and implant in the uterus.

The important thing to take note of is the fact that the entity that implants is the same entity that was conceived just a week ago. There is no grounds for considering the implanted embryo as a member of the human community, but not that same entity before it implanted itself there. Embryologists consistently agree that the embryo from fertilization is a living, human organism.

Doctor Bernard Nathanson [1] argues that at the moment of implantation, the unborn “establishes its presence to the rest of us by transmitting its own signals — by producing hormones — approximately one week after fertilization and as soon as it burrows into the alien uterine wall.” For Nathanson implantation is significant because prior to this time the unborn “has the genetic structure but is incomplete, lacking the essential element that produces life: an interface with the human community and communication of the fact that it is there.” [2]

Francis Beckwith notes that there are two flaws with this argument. First, you are who you are regardless of whether anyone notices you’re there. Being noticed does not change one’s nature. One interacts with a human being, one does not make a being human by interaction.  Second, this does not explain humans conceived through IVF in a petri dish. Just as there is no difference between a Bill Clinton in a possible world who pumps gas in Little Rock, and the Bill Clinton in the actual world who is the former president of the United States, there is no essential difference between an embryo in a petri dish and an embryo implanted in the womb.

Quickening is the point in pregnancy at which the fetus’ movements can first be felt by the pregnant woman. I have grouped it here because the objection to this criterion is essentially similar to the objection for implantation. Aside from showing that the entity is the same living human organism before it quickened, one’s nature does not change once they have been noticed.

Additionally, if movement is necessary for full-fledged humanity, then this argument proves too much. This would disqualify the paralyzed from full-fledged humanity.

2) Viability.

Viability is the point in a pregnancy after which the unborn fetus can realistically survive outside the womb. Currently, viability is considered to be at about 24 weeks’ gestation, although some babies have been born at 21 weeks and survived.

A major flaw with this argument is that it’s arbitrary. Fifty years ago, viability was considered to be at 28 or 29 weeks’ gestation. So one would have to argue that an unborn child is a full-fledged human at 24 weeks now, but fifty years ago that same child would not have been a full-fledged human. Viability is a moving target that changes as technology improves.

Also, Siamese twins depend on each other for their survival but both are considered to be persons. People on life support are also completely dependent on the machine for their survival, but if viability were necessary then we could kill them for any reason even if they have a good chance of recovery. It simply makes no sense to use viability as your criterion for establishing basic human rights.

3) Birth.

There is nothing “mystical” about birth that suddenly bestows upon an entity “humanity” or “personhood.” As I mentioned in my previous article, an eight-inch journey down the birth canal does not change the nature or value of the entity.

Many pro-choice people believe abortion should remain legal because of bodily rights arguments, and if they are right, then birth would be the sensible place to draw the line. After birth we would be obligated to keep you alive, but not before. This argument will be addressed in my next article.

4) After birth.

Some pro-choice philosophers (e.g. Michael Tooley and Peter Singer) support infanticide because there is no morally relevant difference between a child inside the womb and a child outside the womb. They are correct, even if their conclusion is repugnant to our moral intuitions. They are simply being consistent and allowing the pro-choice position to lead to its natural conclusion. I’ll plan on writing more on “after-birth abortion” in the future, but essentially the entity outside the womb is the same one inside the womb.

There simply isn’t any reason for these criteria to suddenly establish value or change the nature of the unborn. We know that the unborn are human from fertilization. As there is no morally relevant difference between a zygote, embryo, fetus, or toddler (or later stages of development), then all humans should be protected, even very young ones.

[1] Doctor Nathanson is a former abortionist and founder of NARAL, who later converted to the pro-life position.
[2] Dr. Bernard Nathanson (with Richard Ostling), Aborting America, (New York: Doubleday, 1979), p. 216, as quoted in Francis J. Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, New York, 2007), p. 73.

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

/by
Resurrection Jesus History

10 Reasons to Accept the Resurrection of Jesus as an Historical Fact

,

By Brian Chilton

When I left the ministry due to my skepticism, one of the factors involved in my departure concerned the reliability of the New Testament documents and the resurrection of Jesus. The folks from the Jesus Seminar had me second-guessing whether I could trust what the New Testament said and if I could truly accept the literal bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. In July of 2005, my life changed. I entered the Lifeway Christian Bookstore in Winston-Salem, North Carolina and read three books that changed my life more than any other book outside the Bible. I discovered Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ, Josh McDowell’s The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, and McDowell’s A Ready Defense. I discovered that there are many reasons for accepting the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth as a historical fact.

Through the years, the evidence has increasingly mounted for the historicity of Jesus’s resurrection. This article will provide 10 of the most fascinating arguments for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. This list is not exhaustive and my dealings with each argument is extremely brief. Nevertheless, I hope this list will provide a starting point for you to consider the authenticity of Jesus’s resurrection.

  1. The First Eyewitnesses were Women. The first eyewitnesses of the resurrection were women. All the Gospels note that the first individuals to discover the tomb empty were women. Matthew notes that “After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to view the tomb…The angel told the women, ‘Don’t be afraid, because I know you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. He is not here. For he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the play where he lay” (Matthew 28:1, 5-6).[1] Women were not held in high esteem. In Greco-Roman culture, a woman’s testimony was not admissible in court. In Jewish circles, it took the testimony of two women to equate that of one man. If one were to invent a story, the last people one would place as the first witnesses would have been women, unless it were otherwise true.
  2. Minimal Facts Concerning the Resurrection. Gary Habermas has popularized the so-called minimal facts argument for the resurrection. The minimal facts are those things that are accepted by nearly all New Testament scholars. The minimal facts are “1. Jesus died by crucifixion. 2. Jesus’ disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them. 3. The church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed. 4. The skeptic James, brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed. 5. The tomb was empty.” [2] These facts are nearly universally accepted by New Testament scholars, including liberals.
  3. Transformation of the Early Disciples. As noted in the minimal facts, James, the brother of Jesus, was changed from a skeptic to a believer because of the resurrection. James along with his brothers did not believe in Jesus during Jesus’s early ministry (see John 7:5). However, Jesus appeared to James (1 Corinthians 15:3-9) and James became a leader in the early Jerusalem church. His death is recorded by Josephus.[3] Paul is another example of one who was completely transformed by the resurrection of Jesus. Paul had been a persecutor of the church. After witnessing the risen Jesus, Paul became a proclaimer for the church.
  4. Embarrassing Details of the Resurrection. Historically speaking, embarrassing details add veracity to a historical claim. The fact that women were the first witnesses, that a member of the Sanhedrin (the same Sanhedrin that executed Jesus) had to give Jesus a proper burial, and that the disciples were fearful and fled all serve as embarrassing factors for the resurrection account.
  5. Willingness to Die for What Was Known. Many people will die for what they believe to be true. But no one will die for something they erroneously invented. The disciples knew if they were telling the truth. Yet, one finds that the disciples were willing to die for what they knew to be true. Stephen died by stoning (Acts 7:54-60), James of Zebedee died by the sword at the hands of Herod (Acts 12:2), James the brother of Jesus died,[4] and Peter and Paul died at the hands of Nero.[5]
  6. Documentary Evidence. The documentary evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is quite good. The historian seeks to find how many primary and secondary sources[6] can be gathered for an event to determine the event’s historicity. Concerning primary sources, the resurrection has Matthew’s account, John’s account, and Paul’s account in 1 Corinthians 15, including the additional references by James (if one accepts that James wrote the letter attributed to him) and Jude. The following are secondary sources for the resurrection: Luke, Mark, Clement of Rome, and to a lesser degree Ignatius and Irenaeus.
  7. Circumstantial Evidence. Douglas Groothius notes that circumstantial evidence for the historicity of the resurrection is “namely, the practice of the early church in observing baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and Sunday worship.”[7] Baptism is based upon the analogy of Jesus’s death, burial, and resurrection. The Lord’s Supper is a symbol of Christ’s sacrificial death. In addition, it is quite odd that faithful Jews would move their worship from a Friday evening into Saturday to a Sunday morning unless something major had occurred on a Sunday morning. The major Sunday morning event was Jesus’s resurrection.
  8. The Missing Motive. J. Warner Wallace has noted in his lectures and books that when a conspiracy is formed, three motivating factors are behinds such a move—power, greed, and/or lust.[8] The disciples would hold no power behind claiming the resurrection as history. They were running around while often being threatened by the Jewish and Roman authorities. As far as greed, they taught that one should not desire earthly possessions, but spiritual ones. Lust was not a factor, either. They taught celibacy before marriage and marital fidelity after marriage. In fact, N. T. Wright notes in his classic book, The Resurrection of the Son of God, that the disciples had no theological motivation behind claiming that Jesus had risen from the dead as they were anticipating a military hero and a final resurrection at the end of time. What motivating factors existed for these disciples to invent such a story? None! The only reason the disciples taught the resurrection of Jesus was because Jesus’s resurrection had occurred.
  9. Enemy Attestation of the Resurrection. Historically speaking, if one holds enemy attestation to an event, then the event is strengthened. When one considers the claims of the authorities that the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus (Matthew 28:11-15), the testimony of the resurrection is strengthened. The early belief that the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus is strengthened by the discovery of the Nazareth Inscription that orders capital punishment for anyone who steals a body from a tomb.[9] In addition, several refences to Jesus and his resurrection include citations from Josephus,[10] Tacitus,[11] and Suetonius[12] among others (including the Babylonian Talmud).
  10. Multiple Post-Resurrection Eyewitnesses. Finally, there is multiple eyewitness testimony pertaining to the resurrection of Jesus. Several people had seen Jesus alive for a period of 40 days. The eyewitnesses include Mary Magdalene (John 20:10-18), the women at the tomb accompanying Mary (Matthew 28:1-10), the Roman guards (Matthew 28:4), the Eleven disciples (John 21), the two men on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35), an indeterminate number of disciples (Matthew 28:16-20); over five-hundred disciples (1 Corinthains 15:6), to James (1 Corinthians 15:7) and to Paul (1 Corinthians 15:8-9). I am certain that there were many other witnesses that are unnamed.

Conclusion:

Many other evidences could be given for the resurrection of Jesus. Thinking about the methods of history, one must understand that there is a reason why American accept the first President of the United States as George Washington and not Spongebob Squarepants. History backs up the claim that Washington was the first President. In like manner, history backs up the reality of Jesus’s resurrection. Now the question is this: what will you do with such information? Some will try to ignore the event. Some will try to dismiss it. Others will acknowledge the factual nature of the event and worship Jesus as the risen Lord. It is my prayer that you will do the latter.

 Notes

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

[2] Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004), 48-50, 64-69.

[3] Josephus, Antiquities XX.200.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Eusebius, Church History XXV.5.

[6] Primary sources are documents written by eyewitnesses. Secondary sources are documents written by individuals who know eyewitnesses. For instance, my grandfather was an eyewitness to the biggest naval battle in World War II history. From the information my dad gathered from him, he would be a secondary source, whereas my grandfather would have been a primary source.

[7] Douglas Groothius, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (Downers Grove; Nottingham, UK: IVP Academic; Apollos, 2011), 553-554.

[8] See J. Warner Wallace, “Rapid Response: I Think the Disciples Lied About the Resurrection,” Cold-case Christianity.com (October 17, 2016), retrieved April 11, 2017, http://coldcasechristianity.com/2016/rapid-response-i-think-the-disciples-lied-about-the-resurrection/.

[9] See http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/07/22/The-Nazareth-Inscription-Proof-of-the-Resurrection-of-Christ.aspx#Article.

[10] Josephus, Antiquities XX.9.1.

[11] Tacitus, Annals XV.

[12] Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars-Claudius 25 and Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars-Nero 16.

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

/by
Trinity Divine God

A Rebuttal To The Philosophical Argument For God’s Triune Nature

By Evan Minton
In my book “Inference To The One True God”, I gave an argument for a while only the God of the Bible can be the God proven to exist by The Moral and Ontological Arguments. The Argument here is that the Moral and Ontological Arguments prove the existence of a being that is morally perfect. Given that the Moral Argument and the Ontological Argument are logically valid, and the premises of both of these arguments are true, it follows that a necessarily existent, morally perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, personal being exists.
Now, in order to be a morally perfect being, this being would have to exist as more than one person. If God is not a trinity then God is not love. This is because love requires three things: someone to love, someone to do the loving, and a relationship going on between the lover and the Beloved. If these three things are not present then love is not present. But before any human beings were created, God was all by himself. So if God was all by himself, who was there to love? God had no one to love! Given that God had no one to love, God couldn’t be love or loving until he created the first human beings or Angels or any persons other than himself. But in that case God could not be maximally great or be the the standard of morality, for in order to be maximally great and in order to be the standard of morality, God would have to be morally perfect, which he could not be if God were only a single person. But the Moral and Ontological Argument established the existence of a being who is indeed morally perfect and ergo maximally great. So how does one resolve this dilemma? The doctrine of the Trinity provides the answer. If God is a trinity, then God can be an intrinsically loving being, because if God is a trinity then all of the necessary requirements for love are present. You have a lover, you have a beloved, and you have a relationship between them. The Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father. The Holy Spirit is the spirit of love. This is why I said in my book that only the trinitarian concept of God is compatible with the God demonstrated to exist by the Moral and Ontological Arguments. But the real kicker is that only Christianity has a God who is a trinity. Therefore the Moral and Ontological Arguments demonstrate the truth of Christianity.
However, I have recently encountered one objection to this philosophical argument for the Triune nature of the God of the Moral and Ontological Arguments. The objector argues that God was omnipotent even before he created the universe and he did not have an apparent outlet to display his power. The objector is arguing that according to my logic, we would have to argue that God could not be omnipotent without a physical universe. Why? Because without a physical universe, God would not be able to display any acts of power because God would be the only thing that could exist and God cannot cause any effects on himself. This would imply that either God is Not omnipotent, or he doesn’t need an outlet to display his power. In a similar way, we must conclude that if my logic is sound, then God really is not perfectly loving, or we must conclude that having other people to love is not necessary for God to be loving, and therefore God doesn’t have to be a trinity in order to be loving from eternity past.
God is omnipotent and did not have an outlet for that until he created the universe. There is a parallel there with God’s love.
Is this a good objection? I don’t think so. Let’s think about God’s omnipotence for a moment. Omnipotence is a modal property meaning that a being who is omnipotent has the ability to do anything that is logically possible. God can create out of nothing, God can make ax heads float in water, God can make a virgin pregnant, God can raise people from the dead, it cetera. It is a modal a tribute and just simply means that you have the ability to do anything that does not violate the laws of logic. Given that comma I don’t see why God would have to have a physical Universe in order to have the property of omnipotence. Omnipotence does not mean that you will do everything that is logically possible, it just means that if you are omnipotent you can do anything that is logically possible. It doesn’t mean that you will do everything that you are able to do, just that you are able to do it.
Love is different. Unlike the property of being powerful, Love Is not just pure potentiality. A person who is stranded on a desert island with no other people around may have the potential to be loving. It may be in his nature to be kind and compassionate and selfless and so on. Nevertheless if there are no other people around, he will never have the ability to express these attributes. This person will forever just have a loving potentiality, but will never have actual love. If God were only one person, then before he created any other beings, he would be like a machine that is turned off. This “Love Machine” would have the ability to be loving, but he would never actually be expressing that love. It seems very intuitively clear to me that a being who is constantly expressing love is a greater being than one who merely has the potential to be perfectly loving. But in order to be a being who is constantly expressing love and is not merely a being of potential love, this being would have to be a trinity.
In conclusion, this objector has not succeeded in showing that my Arguments for the Triune nature of the maximally great being of the Ontological Argument, and the being who is the standard of morality of the Moral Argument fail.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2n04ISN
/by
Cultic Church Signs

10 Signs of a Cultic Church

By Brian Chilton

A few weeks back, I was troubled to hear about a Word of Faith congregation in Spindale, North Carolina, that was guilty of abusing its members. Reports included young children being punched by the leadership while being called Satanists. Jane Whaley and her husband are at the center of these accusations. The full report can be accessed at http://wspa.com/2017/02/27/spindale-church-accused-of-abuse-responds-to-accusations/.

(c) WSPA News 7
wspa.com

Unfortunately, cultic churches abound. Just last night, a guest pastor from the Philippines spoke about particular cults in his land. He noted that one cult did not allow the congregants to open their Bibles as everything had to be interpreted by the leadership. Churches like these are identified as cultic churches as contrasted with authentic churches. Authentic churches are the body of Christ. They are the assemblies of baptized believers who fully adopt biblical principles and have the freedom to grow and develop in their relationship with Christ.

Cultic churches are aberrations of the authentic church. Cultic church lead by power-plays and draconian control over their members. Cultic churches are distinguished from cults in that their theology may be close to orthodoxy (right beliefs)—however, upon further investigation most cultic churches border on heresy. In contrast, cults are completely separated from Christian orthodoxy in their beliefs. However, cultic churches are not authentic churches due to questionable orthopraxy (right practice). Their actions do not represent the loving precepts found in God’s Word. So, how does one know that a church has the characteristics of a cultic church? Consider the following 10 signs of cultic churches.

1. Biblical orthodoxy is held in low-esteem. Most cultic churches are merely one step removed from being a full-blown cult. Biblical doctrine and theology are dismissed in favor of elevated levels of emotionalism. While there is nothing inherently wrong with emotionalism, the loss of biblical integrity develops into some downright bizarre practices. Orthodoxy affects orthopraxy. In authentic churches, biblical orthodoxy is both taught and practiced.

2. Personal interpretations are held to an equal or higher view than biblical truth. Recently, I interviewed cult expert, Michael Boehm. Boehm noted that many trained cult leaders can twist most Christians into knots by pulling various quotes from the Bible. Without proper training, cult and cultic leaders will make biblical connections that do not exist. Thus, the leader’s interpretation is given an equal, if not higher, standing than clear biblical precepts. In authentic churches, biblical truth is given greater weight then personal opinions.

3. Members are not allowed to grow intellectually. In cultic churches and with cultic leaders, intellect is dismissed. Members are discouraged from learning philosophy, history, science, systematic theology, or about anything with which the leader(s) is/are not familiar. Much of this anti-intellectualism comes by the leader being threatened with information that would show a potential weakness in the leader’s philosophy or theology. To show superiority, the cultic leader maintains a domineering attitude to show his/her supposed intellectual and/or spiritual superiority. In authentic churches, all members are encouraged to grow spiritually, emotionally, and intellectually.

4. Members are not allowed to ask questions of the leadership. In cultic churches, questions are condemned. Most likely, cultic leaders do not want to expose any weakness on their part. Thus, questions are restricted and shown to be a sin. The leader may show that to question him or her is like questioning God because the cultic leader has assumed a delusional godlike stature. In authentic churches, questions are the means of growth. The leader and leadership are transparent. People who have nothing to hide are transparent.

5. Traditions are equated to commandments. While all churches have favored traditions, cultic churches elevate their traditions to the level of the Ten Commandments. Jesus combated the Pharisees over this very issue. Jesus said to the Pharisees in reply to a question pertaining to their traditions,

“But you say, ‘Whoever tells his father or mother, ‘Whatever benefit you might have received from me is a gift committed to the temple,’ he does not have to honor his father.’ In this way, you have nullified the word of God because of your tradition. Hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied correctly about you when he said: This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. They worship me in vain, teaching as doctrines human commands” (Matthew 15:5-9).[1]

In contrast, authentic churches—while they have traditions they love—will place biblical commands over personal desires. This is not to say that changing traditions is easy. But if an assembly sets an exorbitant and stringent set of traditions as a prerequisite for a person’s attendance to their church, then it is likely that the assembly is leaning towards a cultic code of conduct.

6. Members are required to follow harsh, legalistic rules. The sixth sign flows forth from the 5th. Members are required to follow a harsh set of rules. In places like the Word of Faith Fellowship, leaders determined where their members could live and even how a husband and wife could be intimate. Authentic churches…well…don’t. Authentic, Bible-based churches will promote members to live a holy lifestyle originating from biblical ethics. But, leaders realize that people are free to make their own decisions and are not dictatorial (1 Peter 5:1-5).

7. Outsiders are viewed with skepticism, evangelism is avoided. The seventh, eighth, and ninth signs are complementary. Since cultic leaders seek complete control of their members, outsiders are viewed with great skepticism. Potential members may be allowed in slowly and with great reservation. Cultic churches are not committed to the Great Commission. Evangelism is avoided. Cultic churches are committed to power and control. Authentic churches are committed to the gospel. Authentic Christian leaders have a passion to see souls come to Christ. Thus, healthy churches are mission-minded churches.

8. Exiting the church is difficult and may be met with threats. Since the cultic church is about power and control, cultic leaders do everything in their power to keep control over their members. Therefore, if a person attempts to leave, the leader(s) will emotionally, spiritually, financially, or even physically threaten the member. In stark contrast, authentic churches realize that their ministry may not suit everyone’s taste. Thus, while authentic churches seek to keep its members, threats are never employed. Remember, Jesus allowed Judas to betray him, fully knowing what Judas was planning.

9. Cultic churches are opaque. A strong sign on the spectrum of authenticity is transparency. Authentic churches are transparent as they have nothing to hide. This includes every aspect of ministry including financial matters. Cultic churches are almost always opaque and secretive. Cultic leaders do not want the general public to know what they are doing. The more secretive a movement, the more cause for concern. Jesus publicly taught, publicly performed miracles, was publicly crucified, publicly resurrected, was publicly seen alive after his resurrection, and publicly ascended into heaven.

10. The church desires its membership to become more like themselves than like Christ. The final sign of a cultic church deals with the end goal. What do the leaders desire? Cultic leaders want to make their members more like themselves. Authentic churches desire people to become more like Christ. If Christ is the Son of God, then he is the perfect example for one to model. When leaders become cultic, they desire people to become like themselves so that they can exert more power and control. Coercive and manipulative measures are used. Jesus, by contrast, allows people to come to him fully knowing what is expected of them. Concerning cultic leaders, Jesus warned those who abusively used people in his day, saying, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to make one convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as fit for hell as you are” (Matthew 23:15)!

Conclusion

This article is not an attack against the church. The church is a blessing. Many good, Bible-based, churches exist and are thriving. A person needs to find a place where he or she can attend, grow, develop, and serve. However, we must realize that there are many places that claim to be churches, but do not possess characteristics that are honoring to the Lord. In Revelation, Jesus addressed seven churches (Rev. 2-3). Some of the churches were good, like Philadelphia. Others were bad, like Laodicea. Some places that call themselves churches are more in the realm of cultic than Christian. Be watchful! John warns that we should “not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). My prayer is that multiple Bible-based churches will grow and expand, while cultic churches will diminish and cease. If you are in a cultic church, for the good of yourself and your loved ones, leave! Find a good, Bible-based church in your area. A good church family is a great blessing and worth the effort to find.

 

Post-note: Jonny Scaramanga argues that there should not be a distinction made between authentic churches and cultic churches. While I agree with Scaramanga that all churches need to examine their practices to ensure that they are not abusive, I fully disagree with him in saying that there are not distinctions between the two. The patterns of the two are quite different. Scaramanga is writing from a bias against Christianity in general as he left Christian fundamentalism for, what appears to be, atheism. The distinctions that have been discussed in this article are not only found between the authentic and cultic churches of today, but are clearly observable in the leadership style of Jesus as opposed to the extreme Pharisees and cultic leaders of his day. Scaramanga’s article can be read at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/leavingfundamentalism/2016/05/23/stop-calling-abusive-churches-cults/.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2oM9kIy

/by
Behavior Believe Secular

Is How We Live More Important Than What We Believe? (Bad Secular Wisdom Series #1)

By Natasha Crain

Today I’m starting a blog series called, “Bad Secular Wisdom.” If you’re not familiar with the term, a blog series is where an author writes multiple posts on a related subject. I’m not normally a fan of such series because I think they get old fast, but in this case there are so many interesting and important topics for Christian parents that fall under the umbrella of “Bad Secular Wisdom,” I’m excited to do it. I’ll be posting once per month in the series, with remaining posts on other subjects.

The reason this series is so important is that our world is filled with bad secular wisdom…little pieces of a godless worldview that spread like a virus and infect the minds of young people before they even realize it. They sound good, but are harmful narratives that kids too often attach to their Christian worldview without understanding the great inconsistencies. My hope is that this series will inspire you to challenge your kids to think critically about each of the subjects we cover.

For the first post, we’re going to tackle the illogical idea that how we live is more important than what we believe.

Is How We Live More Important Than What We Believe?

I first came across the phrase “how we live is more important than what we believe” on a chalkboard outside of a coffee shop last year. I shook my head, thinking the baristas should stick to coffee making. Since then, however, I’ve seen the idea pop up in all kinds of places.

One well-known person who actively promotes this notion is Gretta Vosper. Vosper is a United Church of Canada minister…who’s also an atheist.

In 2015, a review committee from her denomination found that she was “not suitable” to continue in her role because she doesn’t believe in God (a shocking committee conclusion, I know). But Vosper’s congregation has insisted on keeping her as pastor, despite the fact she no longer preaches about Christianity.

If that sounds hard to believe, this quote from one loyal church member will help you understand the mentality of the congregation: “It’s not about coming to hear that I’m a sinner. That is so yuck. This fulfills my need to feel upbeat. The services are more happy and joyful, more interested in community and justice.”

Vosper has authored several books, including one called, With or Without God: Why the Way We Live is More Important Than What We Believe. On her website, she emphasizes, “We’re not going to stop trying to make the world a better place. We hope you don’t either.”

Vosper and her church community are clearly committed to living lives that benefit the Earth and those who live on it. They’re presumably doing many good things for society, and that’s commendable. But is Vosper’s claim true, that how we live is more important than what we believe?

As we’ll see in this post, this is bad secular wisdom.

It’s not consistent with atheism or Christianity!

Inconsistent with Atheism

Saying how we live is more important than what we believe presumes there is some way all people should live. No one has an objective basis for claiming that, however, if God doesn’t exist—should implies a moral obligation. But if humans are nothing more than a bunch of molecules in motion, to whom would we be morally obliged? To other molecules in motion? Clearly not. In a world without God, no one can prescribe a way of living for anyone else because there’s no moral authority, and, therefore, no objective basis for doing so. How a person “should” live can only be a matter of opinion.

An atheist who chooses a life of crime because he or she doesn’t believe there’s any moral significance to our existence is living more consistently within the atheistic worldview than one who claims all people should live in a particular way.

Inconsistent with Christianity

The Bible says that what you believe about Jesus has eternal significance:

  • John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
  • Romans 10:9: “If you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”
  • And John 14:6 says Jesus is the only way to God: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

From a Christian perspective, how you live cannot be more important than what you believe—what you believe determines where you will spend eternity. To be clear, however, that doesn’t mean the way in which a Christian lives his or her life doesn’t matter. The Bible says that “faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead” (James 2:17).

A genuine love for God results in a life of good works for God’s glory. Belief and action go hand-in-hand.

Furthermore, only Christians and other theists have an objective basis for determining what it means to do “good” works in the first place. In a godless world, there’s no objective moral standard by which works can even be called good.

The Bottom Line

Anyone, regardless of what they believe about God, can do good things with their life. Christians, atheists, and people with all kinds of other beliefs help the homeless, give money to charities, participate in environmental causes, fight child abuse, advocate for crime victims, and much more. For atheists, doing things like these that Christians and other theists would call good is a matter of preference…one as morally legitimate as a life of crime. While some atheists, like Vosper, might say all people should live to make the world a better place, that’s an objective claim that’s inconsistent with an atheistic worldview. “How you live is more important than what you believe” is a belief itself, and ironically determines how a person lives.

While the lives of atheists and Christians sometimes look similar in the good works they do, the Bible is clear that those similarities don’t make believing in Jesus any less important.

Belief matters…in an eternally significant way.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2oM0gDt

/by
Omnibenevolence God

The Omnibenevolence of God

By Tim Stratton

God is Omnibenevolent! Simply put, God is perfectly good and all-loving. Not only does the Bible make this clear (Psalm 100:5; Psalm 145:17; John 3:16), but logicians have also deductively concluded this apart from the Bible through the Moral Argument and the Ontological Argument.

Now, if God were simply omnipotent (all-powerful) and omniscient (all-knowing), but not perfectly good and all-loving, then we would have reason to be frightened. In fact, this is how Muslims view Allah. According to Islam, God is not all-loving, and whatever Allah does is simply called “good,” even if it is really hateful. As a result, Muslims have no assurance of salvation (unless they die in Jihad).

The Original Sin?

Some Christians fall into a similar trap and incorrectly think of God this way. Indeed, the church has been infected with a low view of God for ages. A.W. Tozer, in his book The Knowledge of the Holy, says, “What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us.” In the preface of this same book Tozer writes:

The Church has surrendered her once lofty concept of God and has substituted for it one so low, so ignoble, as to be utterly unworthy of thinking, worshipping men. . . The low view of God entertained almost universally among Christians is the cause of a hundred lesser evils everywhere among us.

This low view of God has infected the minds of most Christians today, but I believe its roots can be found in the very beginning. The original sin was not eating of a forbidden fruit, but rather, doubting the omnibenevolence of God. This was the trap Satan lured Eve into in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3):

“Did God really say…?”

Satan convinces Eve to consider the idea that God is not really interested in her ultimate flourishing. The fact of the matter, however, is that God does desire the ultimate flourishing for each and every human being. This is supported by scripture such as John 3:16, 1 Tim 2:4, 1 Tim 4:10, and 2 Peter 3:9. It is also supported in the first book of the Bible. Consider this counterfactual:

IF Adam and Eve would have kept God’s commands (and all of their offspring followed suit), then every single human WOULD experience ultimate flourishing and not experience any suffering.

Thus, God created a world in which it was logically possible for all people to flourish. However, Eve doubted that God was omnibenevolent and desired the best for her. This doubt led to the fall of man and terrible suffering has followed in its wake.

Many people continue to doubt the perfect goodness and love of God. Some Calvinistic theologians (like Arthur Pink) actually teach that God does not love all people or desire the best for all people! This is a horrible mistake — a sin — that leads to weak faith.

Additionally, some Christians hold to a view called “Divine Determinism” and think that God controls all thoughts and beliefs. If this is the case, then God forces most people to believe lies. If God forces some to believe truth and others to believe lies, then how can you be certain that God is not forcing you to believe false things too (including your view of divine determinism)? This low view of God ultimately leads to many in the church doubting their salvation just as Muslims do (both views of God are wrong).

Indeed, this low view of God influenced the Canons and Dogmatic Decrees of the Council of Trent. A.D. 1563. They incorrectly affirm that one should doubt their salvation in Chapter XII:

No one, moreover, so long as he is in this mortal life, ought so far to presume as regards the secret mystery of divine predestination, as to determine for certain that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; as if it were true, that he that is justified, either can not sin any more, or, if he do sin, that he ought to promise himself an assured repentance; for except by special revelation, it can not be known whom God hath chosen unto himself.

When one doubts or rejects the fact that God is omnibenevolent then major problems arise. The primary problem is that their presupposition of God — a low view of God — was incorrect in the first place. They follow in the footsteps of Adam and Eve.

A Maximally Great God

Consider the perfect goodness of God: Because God is perfectly good He is perfectly holy. When humans freely choose to do good things, then we approximate to the perfect standard of God, and we do holy things! Worshipping God is holy. Loving your neighbor is holy. Loving your enemy is holy!

We are not perfectly holy, but we should make every effort to approximate to the One who is! The Bible says this:

“And the Lord said, you shall be holy; for I the Lord your God am holy” (Leviticus19:1-2).

God is the standard of goodness and therefore, we can always trust the commands he has given to be perfectly good. Moreover, since God is perfectly intelligent, then His commands are always the most intelligent thing to do. Therefore, it is just plain stupid and wrong not to obey the commands of God!

How do we know God’s commands? Through Jesus’ declarations validated by His resurrection! Consider Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39:

1- Love God first!
2- Everybody love everybody (from your neighbors to your enemies)!

Christians ought to be the most loving people on the face of the planet!

Next, consider God’s perfect love and what it means to be all-loving which is part of omnibenevolence. The Bible makes it clear: “God is love” (1 John 4:16).

So, if God is love, then God’s very nature is loving. As William Lane Craig wrote in his children’s book, God is ALL-Loving:

“He is loving as He is holy. And God’s love is a very special kind of love; He doesn’t love you because you’re good. His love is unconditional!”

This is a perfect Daddy, right? I am not a perfect dad by any means and do not require my son, Ethan, to be perfect either. I know he will make mistakes, he will sin, he will disappoint me, and he will be anything other than perfect. But even though I know these things about Ethan, it does not mean that I do not love him with all of my heart. I am still willing to die for my imperfect son! If that is how imperfect dads are, imagine a perfectly good, intelligent, and loving Heavenly Father! God does not love you based on your actions – He just loves you and desires you to love Him in return. But He will not force you into a relationship with Him; you must make the choice to enter that love relationship or not.

That is what a saving relationship is: when a human freely chooses to love God in return, then a true love marriage occurs – a saving relationship with God. Because God first loved us, when we respond to His love and freely choose to love God back, we are saved! This is demonstrated by Jesus when he tells the Parable of the Prodigal Son found in Luke 15:11-32.  Jesus is telling this fictional story of a dad – a great dad – who is loving his son the way God loves all humans (John 3:16; 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9). Jesus is telling this story of a great and loving father so that those listening to this story will begin to understand the way God loves all humans.

You see, the father’s love was always available to his son. The father’s love never went anywhere. The dad never stopped loving his son with all of his heart. However, the son made some choices – free choices – which separated him from the love of his father. It was not until the son made the choice – the free choice – to come back to his father’s love and to love his father in return, that their relationship was restored.

If the son would have never made the free choice to return to his father, then their relationship would have never been restored.

This is representative of God’s love for YOU. God loves you unconditionally, just as the father in the parable, and His love is always there for you. With that said, however, you and I are responsible for our own decisions, and we can make horrible choices that separate us from God’s perfect love.

Eternal Divorce

Some people freely choose to separate from God for eternity (this is called hell)! Since it is logically impossible for God to force a person to freely choose to love Him (that is on the same incoherent level as married bachelors or triangles with four corners), then some will freely choose to divorce themselves from God forever — but it does not have to be this way!

Jesus did all the work for you, but now the ball is in your court. You have a real choice to make and are now responsible for your eternity!

Do you want perfect love with your Creator? It is available through the atoning power of Jesus Christ. You have a perfect Father – a Daddy – who loves you with his entire essence! You are worth more than the entire universe to Him! He desires an eternal true love relationship with everyone — including YOU.

Conclusion

You might feel like the prodigal son. You might be in a place right now that you know you are not supposed to be. The prodigal son had to make a choice – a free choice – and swallow his pride and come back to his father. If you are in a place that is far from God right now, then I encourage you to make the same choice – swallow your pride and come back to your Daddy. He is a perfect Father and His love is waiting for you!

Stay reasonable (Philippians 4:5),

Tim Stratton

Notes

A special thank you to Shannon Eugene Byrd for finding the Council of Trent quote!

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2n2J1l1

/by