Gen Z

Who is Gen Z? w/ Jonathan Morrow

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

Frank remembers the life and legacy of the great Billy Graham followed by a fundamental conversation with Jonathan Morrow from the Impact 360 Institute about the latest findings on Gen Z. Find out who they are and what they believe about truth, Christianity, and reality in general. How can we reach them knowing that only 4% of them hold to a Biblical worldview?

Learn More about Impact 360 here: https://www.impact360institute.org/

 

/by
Jesus' Deity

3 Syllogistic Arguments For Jesus’ Deity

,

By Evan Minton

The Bible teaches in a variety of ways that Jesus Christ is God incarnate. In some places, The Bible couldn’t possibly be more explicit, and it boggles the mind how anyone who takes scripture as the inspired word of God could avoid any conclusion other than that Jesus is divine. In other places, it’s more subtle, and you need to be paying close attention to catch Jesus’ claim to divinity or one the epistles claims to divinity. In other words, there are explicit claims (on both Jesus’ and the epistle writers’ part) that Jesus is God, and there are implicit claims that Jesus is God.

When it comes to the more subtle and implicit claims, sometimes the conclusion of Christ’s divinity comes from piecing together biblical teachings about God and Jesus, which wouldn’t seem to say anything about Christ’s divinity when taken in isolation. These scriptural assertions can be used to form syllogistic arguments which result in the conclusion that Jesus is God. In my study of The Bible, I’ve come up with 3 such syllogisms. Let’s look at them below:

SYLLOGISM ONE

1: Yahweh is the only Savior of mankind.

2: Jesus is the Savior of humankind

3: Therefore, either The Bible contradicts itself or Jesus is God.

4: The Bible cannot contradict itself.

5: Therefore, Jesus is God.

This is a logically valid syllogism. This means that if the premises are true, then the conclusions follow. So, are the premises true or are they false? Let’s look at them.

The first premise states that Yahweh is the only Savior of mankind. This premise is backed up by Isaiah 43:11, which says; “I, even I, am The Lord, and apart from me there is no Savior.” This is Yahweh speaking through the prophet Isaiah. He says that He is The Lord and that apart from Him, there is no Savior. If Yahweh didn’t act to initiate our salvation, our souls would be doomed to Hell. No one can save us but God.

What about the second premise? It’s indisputable that Jesus is called our Savior. Titus 2:13 says “while we wait for the blessed hope-the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,” This verse clearly calls Jesus “Our great God and Savior.” That alone should end any debate that Jesus is God. Yet, cultists try to avoid the seemingly obvious conclusion by saying that Paul is referring to two different entities “Our Great God” on the one hand, and “our Savior, Jesus Christ” on the other.[1] Very well. For this argument to work, it doesn’t matter whether “Our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” is referring to God and a merely human or angelic Jesus, or whether both “God” and “Savior” are both being applied to Jesus. Even the cultists will admit that Titus 2:13 undoubtedly calls Jesus our Savior.

1 John 4:14 says “We have seen as testify that The Father has sent His Son to be the Savior of the world.” 
In his letter to the Philippians, the apostle Paul is contemplating his impending martyrdom. In Philippians 3, the apostle Paul tells his readers that a relationship with Jesus is far superior to anything else he has obtained in this Earthly life, even to the point of calling all of the goods he’s received “garbage” (verses 1-8). In verses 20-21, Paul says “But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.” (emphasis mine)

In Acts 13:23, Paul also calls Jesus by the title “Savior.”

In fact, not much biblical defense for this premise even needs to be given. Even a casual reading of The New Testament will show even the lousiest exegete that Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead, and this act atoned for our sins. This is what Jesus did to save us. No sect will deny that Jesus is the “Savior” any more than they’ll deny that The Father of Jesus is God.

This brings us to premise 3: Obviously, we’ve got a dichotomy here. If only God is the Savior if there is no savior besides God, and yet Jesus is our Savior, then what are our options? Either The Bible erroneously calls God the savior, or it erroneously calls Jesus the Savior. In other words, maybe The Bible is just plain wrong. On the other hand, perhaps The Bible isn’t wrong. Perhaps Jesus is God. I don’t see a third alternative.

Defense of Premise 4: The Bible cannot contradict itself. 

The Bible cannot contradict itself. It is the word of God (2 Timothy 3:16, Proverbs 30:5). The Holy Spirit cannot inspire false teachings. To the person who doesn’t take The Bible as divinely inspired (atheists, agnostics,), this won’t be a problem. But for Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons, who do take The Bible as divinely inspired, this is not an option. But in that case, there’s only one possible alternative: Jesus is God.

SYLLOGISM TWO

1: Only God created the universe.

2: Jesus created the universe.

3: Therefore, either The Bible contradicts itself, or Jesus is God.

4: The Bible cannot contradict itself.

5: Therefore, Jesus is God.

This syllogism takes the same logical form as the previous one, so the validity of the syllogism’s logic shouldn’t be in question. Rather, we need to ask whether or not the premises are true. They are.
The first premise is backed up by The Old Testament. In Isaiah 44:24, God says “This is what the LORD says- your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,” (emphasis mine). In this verse, God says that He spread out the Earth by himself. Other translations render it “I alone spread out the Earth.” In Job 9:8, Job says of God “He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea.” Both of these verses (Isaiah 44:24 and Job 9:8) state that God alone is responsible for the stretching out of the heavens. This is an act of creation, whether you agree with Hugh Ross in that this is referring to the expansion of the fabric of space from The Big Bang point of origin, or whether you interpret this in its ancient near eastern context which would see this as God spreading out a solid dome over the flat Earth. Whether you take the concordist approach (that this is referring to the expansion of space from the big bang) or the non-concordist approach (that this is referring to God setting the solid dome over the Earth), the “stretching out of the heavens” is a creative act, and The Bible says that God is the sole entity responsible for it.

What about the second premise? John 1:1-3 says “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him, nothing was made that has been made”. This prologue to John’s gospel echoes Genesis 1 (“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” – 1:1). In the beginning, prior to the creation of the physical space-time realm, The Word alone existed. He was with God and was God Himself. The text goes on to say that The Word created all things and that nothing came into being except through The Word. John says essentially “If it exists, Jesus made it.” John asserts in so uncertain terms that Jesus is the Creator of everything that exists, everything!

In Colossians 1, the apostle Paul says the same thing: “The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him, all things hold together.” 

Premise 2 is pretty well established. The Old Testament says that God created the universe alone! He had no helpers in the act of divine creation! And yet, The New Testament says clearly that Jesus created the universe.

This leads us to premise 3: “Either The Bible Contradicts Itself Or Jesus Is God.” Again, I don’t see a third option. If Jesus isn’t the same being as Yahweh, then either The New Testament is false in saying that Jesus created the universe, or the Old Testament got it wrong when it said Yahweh had no helpers in creation. Of course, there is a second option: Jesus and Yahweh are one in the same (cf. John 10:30).

Premise 4: If you really believe God breathed both testaments, then the former option is not acceptable. God cannot err. The Bible is God’s word. Therefore, The Bible cannot err.

Since the 4 premises are true, then so is the conclusion: 5: Therefore, Jesus is God.[2]

SYLLOGISM THREE

1: Anyone who accepts worship other than Yahweh is a blasphemer.

2: Jesus accepted worship.

3: Therefore, Jesus was either a blasphemer or He was Yahweh.

4: Jesus was not a blasphemer.

5: Therefore, Jesus is Yahweh.

Defense of Premise 1: 

Revelation 4:11 says, “You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; For You created all things, And by Your will they exist and were created.” This verse states that God is deserving of worship. In part, it is because we owe our very existence to Him. If God never decided to create us, we wouldn’t exist. We should praise and thank Him for allowing us to come into being and to enjoy a fulfilling relationship in eternity with Him, and even for goods in this lifetime (cf. James 1:17).

That God, and God alone, is worthy of worship is spelled out in the first of The Ten Commandments; “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3). This isn’t an arbitrary command of God. It isn’t, as skeptics of The Bible have said, that God is insecure and needs validation and assurance of His goodness. God is deserving and worthy of worship because of two things: we owe our existence to Him and ergo our praise (see Revelation 4:11), and also because God is what St. Anselm called “The Greatest Conceivable Being.” God is a being of which no greater can be conceived. God is great in every way one can be great, and He is great in those ways to the maximal extent. This is generally stated in Bible passages like 1 Chronicles 16:25 which says “For great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised; He also is to be feared above all gods.” and Jeremiah 10:6 which says “There is none like You, O LORD; You are great, and great is Your name in might.” and Isaiah 43:10 which says “‘You are my witnesses,’ declares the LORD, ‘and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.'” and Psalm 77:13 which says “Your way, O God, is holy; What god is great like our God?”

More specifically, it is an entailment from The Bible passages asserting God’s omnipotence (e.g Job 42:2, Jeremiah 32:17, Matthew 19:26), omniscience (Job 21:22, Psalm 139:1-4, Proverbs 15:3, Isaiah 40:13-1, Hebrews 4:13), omnipresence (Jeremiah 23:24, 1 Kings 8:27, Psalm 139:7-10, Acts 17:27), omnibenevolence (e.g John 3:16) which logically flows from his moral perfection (Deuteronomy 32:4).

So, the reason worship is a moral obligation is that we owe it to God. Why? Because He is literally the greatest thing in the universe! To direct our utmost adoration to anything else would be evil. God, being morally perfect, wills for us to direct our utmost devotion to the summum bonum (the highest good). It just so happens to be Him. If something else were the summum bonum, He would will we worship that, but He is the Greatest Conceivable Being. On top of that, we owe our very existence to Him. That we can enjoy anything is thanks to the creative act of God. Therefore, it is the hight of blasphemy for anyone other than the Greatest Conceivable Being who is our Creator to acclaim worship for Himself. As preachers frequently say: “Everyone worships something,” and that’s true. Everyone has something in their number-1-adoration-spot. The Greatest Being deserves that spot. It’s immoral for anything else to occupy that pedestal. This is why Paul and Peter freaked out when people tried to pay them homage (e.g. Acts 10:25-26).

Defense Of Premise 2:

Jesus definitely received worship, and unlike Paul and Peter, he never rebuked anyone for it. Even when Jesus was a baby, he received worshiped. As soon as the Magi laid eyes on the infant Christ, “they bowed down and worshiped Him” (Matthew 2:11). Of course, one may object that Jesus, being a baby, had no ability to rebuke the Magi for worshipping him. Therefore, this instance proves nothing. I agree, so let’s fast forward to Jesus’ adulthood. In the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, Jesus received worship: “So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, crying out, ‘Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel!’” (Matthew 21:9; John 12:13). The gospels of Matthew and John do not record a single word of rebuke out of Jesus’ mouth for this. Hosanna is a plea for salvation and an expression of adoration. This is definitely a form of worship.

But perhaps the most startling example is found in John 20, where St. Thomas falls to his knees and cries out “My Lord and my God!”. Jesus never says “Don’t call me God, you fool! I’m merely a man just like you!” instead he says “Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who believe but have not seen”. No rebuke, no warning. Jesus acts as if being called God and being bowed to is totally normal.

Defense Of Premise 3

Once again, we reach a dichotomy. Since only God is worthy of worship and Jesus received worship happily, it follows that either Jesus was blaspheming or He was simply accepting what was rightfully His. Which one is it? This leads us to premise 4:

Defense of Four: Jesus was not a blasphemer.

How do we know whether or not Jesus was blaspheming? If God raised Jesus from the dead, then He put His stamp of approval on everything Jesus said and did. He agreed with Jesus’ teachings and conduct. God would not have raised a liar or a lunatic. For the cultists who believe The Bible is God’s Word, one need only point out that The Bible teaches that Jesus rose from the dead.
This blog post isn’t intended to convince skeptics of The Bible, but believers of The Bible who deny the deity of Christ. When trying to convince atheists, agnostics, Muslims, or other non-Christians that Jesus is God, I take a different tactic. First, I apply the criteria of authenticity to sayings of Jesus in the gospels that entail that Jesus believed that He was divine. I do this, for example, in my blog post “A Quick Case For Jesus’ Divine Self-Understanding.” Then, I argue that if Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead, then that means that Jesus was telling the truth. After all, the God of Israel would never resurrect a heretic and a blasphemer. So if Jesus rose from the dead, then God put His stamp of approval on Jesus’ teachings, including his teachings that He is divine. Obviously, the resurrection would be a miracle (i.e. an act of God). Atheists are right in claiming that science has proven resurrections don’t happen naturally. The more scientific knowledge we gain, the more we can be sure that a dead corpse isn’t just going to spontaneously regenerate. That only helps the Christian’s cause, as it keeps anyone from saying that if Jesus truly came back to life, there was some natural explanation behind it. If a corpse returns to life (especially one in as bad a shape as Jesus’), you can be sure that a miracle has taken place. Of course, that only raises another question: how do we know Jesus rose from the dead, apart from presupposing The Bible’s inspiration. Here is where I apply “The Minimal Facts Approach” which utilize the aforementioned “criteria of authenticity” mentioned above in examining both the New Testament documents as well as extra-biblical documents. I give a brief presentation of The Minimal Facts argument in my blog post “A Quick Case For Jesus’ Resurrection,” but I go into more depth in “The Minimal Facts Case For Jesus’ Resurrection PART 1” and “The Minimal Facts Case For Jesus’ Resurrection, PART 2”. This Easter, I’ll have an entire 10 part blog post series giving an exhaustive treatment of the subject.

However, since this is aimed, not at people who disbelieve The Bible, but people who believe The Bible (Christadelphians, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc.), then merely pointing out that The Bible teaches that God resurrected Jesus will be sufficient. You can simply quote the latter parts of the gospel and leave it at that.

Five: Therefore, Jesus is Yahweh

Given the truth of the premises, the conclusion follows.

CONCLUSION

For an argument to be successful, it must meet three criteria. It must have valid logic (i.e., it must follow the rules of inference such as modus ponens, modus tollens, hypothetical syllogism, disjunctive syllogism, etc.), it must have true premises, and it must have evidence to demonstrate the truth of the premises. If an argument meets these three criteria, then one is justified in believing the conclusion.

In order to refute an argument, one must either show that the argument’s conclusion doesn’t follow even if all the premises were true (i.e. the logic is invalid), or that at least one of the premises is false. There is no other way to refute an argument. For cultists to deny the deity of Jesus, I ask this question: which premise(s) of each of these arguments do you reject, and why do you reject it?

Notes

[1] For an explanation of why this maneuver doesn’t work, see James White’s book The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering The Heart Of Christian Belief.

[2] Oneness Pentecostals and other modalists use this exact same argument but come to a slightly different conclusion. They are correct in inferring from these two sets of scripture passages that Jesus is God, but that doesn’t at all entail that Jesus and The Father are the same person. The doctrine of The Trinity does not insert that The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are different Gods who all worked together in creating the universe. Rather, the Trinity states that there is only one God but that this God consists of 3 persons (The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit). This argument supports the conclusion that Jesus is God and is of the same divine essence as His father, but it doesn’t prove that there is no distinction in their personhood. To make that conclusion is to beg the question in favor of modalism. Trinitarians and modalists both agree that Jesus and His Father are God (the same God). We just disagree on whether God consists of a plurality of persons or not. So, modalists should certainly use this argument to defend Christ’s deity, but they need to stop using it against Trinitarians.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2orQ7Ox

/by
Image of God

The Image Of God, Mental Faculties, And The Sanctity Of Life

By Evan Minton

Genesis 1 teaches that human beings are created in God’s image, in His likeness. Much debate and speculation over the years have occurred over what exactly that means. It obviously cannot mean that we look like God if for no other reason than that everyone looks different. In my blog post “What Does It Mean To Be Made In God’s Image?” I argued that to be made in God’s image entailed a number of attributes which we have that animals don’t have: rationality, a moral compass, and free will.

Some theologians, however, object to this list. They argue that if this is what it means to be made in God’s image, then that must mean that fetuses, infants, and the severely mentally incapacitated cannot be made in God’s image. The argument goes that if they’re not made in God’s image, then they have no intrinsic value. If they have no intrinsic value, then it would not be evil to kill them, any more than it would be evil to shoot a deer or stomp on a cockroach. Consequently, this position on the imago Dei falls on the horns of a dilemma: either abortion and infanticide are justified, or else this cannot be what constitutes the divine image.

Dr. Michael Heiser made this objection in his book The Unseen Realm. Heiser wrote: “Identifying the nature of the divine image has preoccupied students and pastors for a long time. Chances are you’ve heard a sermon or two on the topic. I’m willing to bet that what you’ve heard is that the image of God is similar to something on this list: •Intelligence •Reasoning ability •Emotions •The ability to commune with God •Self-awareness (sentience) •Language/ communication ability •The presence of a soul or spirit (or both) •The conscience •Free will All those things sound like possibilities, but they’re not. The image of God means none of those things. If it did, then Bible-believers ought to abandon the idea of the sanctity of human life in the womb.”[1]

It’s understandable why some would raise this objection. After all, fetuses cannot reason and neither can infants. Infants don’t know the difference between right and wrong (this is, after all, my primary argument against the reformed doctrine of infant damnation). So if rationality and moral knowledge are what makes the divine image, and fetuses and infants don’t have these, then obviously this must mean they’re not made in God’s image. Since this is absurd, we must reject this view of the imago Dei.

What do we say to this?

First: I Now Believe That These Are Necessary Conditions Of The Divine Image, But Not Sufficient Conditions

Doing some study of John Walton’s “Lost World” books has shown me some surprising insights into how the ancient Israelites would have read Genesis. In The Lost World Of Adam and Eve, Professor Walton explains that to be made “In God’s Image” meant to be God’s representative. Humans represent God on Earth in a similar way in which statues of deities represented those deities in the temples in which those deities were worshipped. Humans are God’s “statues” so to speak, in His “Cosmic Temple” (i.e. the universe, which took 7 days to inaugurate, as was customary of the inauguration of any temple in the ancient near east).[2]

This would explain why angels and demons are never considered by scripture to be divine image bearers. They have rationality, free will, and the moral law written on their hearts, but they are not God’s representatives on Earth. Indeed, angels rarely appear visibly to people, and even when they do, people are often unaware of it (see Hebrews 13:2).

  1. Richard Middleton (Roberts Wesleyan College) agrees with Walton. In, The Liberating Image, Middleton says that the image of God describes“the royal office or calling of human beings as God’s representatives and agents in the world.”Image of God means that humans have been given “power to share in God’s rule or administration of the earth’s resources and creatures.”[3]
    But notice this: in order to be a representative of God, you need to be rational, know the difference between good and evil, and have free will.  If you aren’t an a-rational, a-moral, causally determined creature, you won’t be a very good representative of God on Earth. Having rationality, free will, and moral knowledge are prerequisites to being God’s representative on Earth. So, I don’t recant what I said in “What Does It Mean To Be Made In God’s Image,” I merely admit that my list of essential attributes was incomplete.

For a creature to be created in God’s image, one must
1: Be God’s representative on Earth. 

This means that the creature must be

2: Capable of rational thought.

3: Capable of knowing morally right actions from morally wrong ones.

4: Have free will of the libertarian variety. 

If scholars like Walton, Middleton, and others are right; that being made in God’s image is to be his representative and co-regent in the world, then the mental qualities described simply follow by logical extension.

This, by the way, also answers Heiser’s other reductio ad absurdum; that “If one animal anywhere, at any time, learned anything contrary to instinct, or communicated intelligently (to us or within species), or displayed an emotional response (again to us or other creatures), those items must be ruled out as image bearing.”[4]  Lower animals weren’t cosigned by God to be his representatives on Earth, so even if apes became as smart as the apes in the Planet Of The Apes movie series, it wouldn’t mean that they suddenly gained the image of God. To bear the divine image means to be God’s representative on Earth which requires rationality, free will, and the moral law. But possessing the latter 3 doesn’t entail that you are the former. The latter are simply needed for the former to exist.

Secondly, Babies Don’t Have The Aforementioned Faculties, But They Will In Time.

While babies and fetuses aren’t yet capable of exercising these capacities, they will be eventually, if allowed to grow. They are the sort of creature that has the capacity to gain these abilities. They have the inherent potentiality to be rational, moral agents. A kitten or a baby chimp lacks this potentiality altogether. Even if the cat lives 20 years, it will never be capable of learning the 9 rules of logical inference or knowing that stealing is wrong. A fetus, on the other hand, will.

An imago Dei creature either has these abilities already or at the very least will have them and can have them.

Heiser anticipates this response and says that if you argue that those things are there potentially, then that means that you have only a potential person. The problem with Heiser’s objection is that it acts as a boomerang, coming back to hit him in the face. Heiser understands the image of God in the exact same way as Walton and Middleton do: i.e. as God’s representatives on Earth. As I said above, I don’t disagree with this, but the essential properties of a representative are rationality, morality, and free will. Not only does an unborn child only have the mere potential to have these mental qualities, but even the “status” (Heiser’s own words) to which the mental qualities are prerequisites is but a mere potential. I can’t imagine that an unconscious fetus 3 days after conception can represent God in any meaningful sense. If Heiser is correct that the mere potential to possess abilities entails that fetuses are only potential persons, then is it not the case that the potential to be God’s representative entail the same? How is Heiser’s view of the imago Dei immune to the objection he brings against the mental faculty position? He doesn’t explain.

It will not do though simply point out that Heiser’s proposal (which I don’t disagree with) falls under the same objection.

Conclusion
I don’t think theologians are wrong to say that our unique mental faculties are necessary conditions to the imago Dei, but I think it is wrong to say that they are sufficient conditions. If they were sufficient conditions, then even Satan would bear God’s image. Rather, we need to see the imago Dei as being God’s representatives on Earth. This, of course, presupposes the mental faculties of rationality and so on. This last quality is what humans have that angels and demons do not (or aliens if there are any out there).

Notes

[1] Heiser, Michael S. The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (p. 40). Lexham Press. Kindle Edition.

[2] See Walton, John H.. The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the Human Origins Debate (Kindle Location 1331-1356). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.

[3] The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis, March 1, 2005, by J. Richard Middleton, Brazos Press.

[4] Heiser, Michael S. The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (p. 41). Lexham Press. Kindle Edition.

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

/by
Bart Ehrman & the God of Christmas

Bart Ehrman & the God of Christmas

, , ,

By Tim Stratton 

One of the most well-known New Testament scholars to graduate from Moody Bible Institute is Bart Ehrman. He has a powerful influence on many young minds today as he is a professor at the University of North Carolina and has written many bestsellers about Jesus. What is surprising, however, is that Ehrman is not a Christian! In fact, he has made claims suggesting that he is a happy agnostic who leans toward atheism.

Although I think Ehrman is wrong to “lean toward atheism,” I do respect him. In fact, I would venture to say that he knows the Bible far better than the vast majority of professing Christians found behind the doors of the church today. Although I believe his “reasons” for becoming an agnostic/atheist are philosophically weak,[1] I do believe that Ehrman is fair and charitable most of the time.

In fact, although it is popular to see many internet atheists today claiming that Jesus never existed, Ehrman shows them the foolishness of their ways. This became apparent during a question and answer session when a “Jesus myther” claimed that he did not see any evidence for a historical Jesus. Here is Ehrman’s fantastic response:

“Well, I do. I mean, that’s why I wrote the book. I HAVE A WHOLE BOOK ON IT! There is a lot of evidence; there is so much evidence [for the existence of Jesus]!

I know in the crowds you all run around with it is commonly thought that Jesus did not exist. Let me tell you, once you get outside of your conclave; there is nobody, I mean, this is not even an issue for scholars of antiquity. IT IS NOT AN ISSUE FOR SCHOLARS OF ANTIQUITY!

There is no scholar at any college or university in the western world who teaches classics, ancient history, New Testament, early Christianity – any related field – who doubts that Jesus existed!

Now, that is not evidence, that is not evidence. Just because everybody thinks so doesn’t make it evidence. But, if you want to know about the theory of evolution versus the theory of creationism – and every scholar, at every reputable institution in the world, believes in evolution, it may not be evidence, but if you’ve got a different opinion, you had better have a pretty good piece of evidence yourself.

The reason for thinking that Jesus existed is because he is abundantly attested in early sources. That’s why, and I give the details in my book. Early and independent sources indicate that certainly, Jesus existed. One author that we know about KNEW JESUS’ BROTHER, and knew Jesus’ closest disciple, Peter. He’s an eyewitness to both Jesus’ closest disciple and his brother.

So, I’m sorry. I respect your disbelief, but if you want to go where the evidence goes? I think that atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism because frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world. If that’s what you are going to believe, you just look foolish.”

I could not have stated it better!

The God revealed in the New Testament

Because Ehrman spends so much time in the New Testament (in an attempt to debunk it) he does seem to grasp what it teaches about God’s character. In fact, this past December (right before Christmas) Ehrman offered a lengthy post on his Facebook page that benefits both Christians and atheists. Consider his parting words:

“The God of Christmas is not a God of wrath, judgment, sin, punishment, or vengeance. He is a God of love, who wants the best for people and gives of himself to bring peace, joy, and redemption. That’s a great image of a divine being. This is not a God who is waiting for you to die so he can send you into eternal torment. It is a God who is concerned for you and your world, who wants to solve your problems, heal your wounds, remove your pain, bring you joy, peace, happiness, healing, and wholeness. Can’t we keep that image with us all the time? Can’t we affirm that view of ultimate reality 52 weeks of the year instead of just a few?

I myself do not believe in God. But if I did, that would be the God I would defend, promote, and proclaim. Enough of war! Enough of starvation! Enough of epidemics! Enough of pain! Enough of misery! Enough of abject loneliness! Enough of violence, hatred, narcissism, self-aggrandizement, and suffering of every kind! Give me the God of Christmas, the God of love, the God of an innocent child in a manager, who comes to bring salvation and wholeness to the world, the way it was always meant to be.”

I must admit when I first read these words emotion overcame me as I shouted “AMEN” to Ehrman! He is exactly right about God’s character. The God of Christmas loves all people — including Bart Ehrman and including YOU! God desires a true love relationship with all people and desires the best for all people for eternity (See The Omnibenevolence of God)!

The God revealed by Jesus is the same God who does not want anyone — including Bart Ehrman — to suffer in hell for all eternity. God desires a true love relationship with all people — a “marriage” with each individual (1 Timothy 2:4) — and does not desire anyone to perish (2 Peter 3:9) or be eternally divorced from Him.

However, since true love requires genuine free will, if God desires a true love relationship with all people, He must give all people this freedom to reject His “marriage proposal” or not. When humans use their freedom to love in a backward kind of way, we bring evil and suffering into God’s creation. This is easy to remember because LOVE backward is EVOL.

C.S. Lewis states it well:

God has made it a rule for Himself that He won’t alter people’s character by force. He can and will alter them—but only if the people will let Him. In that way, He has really and truly limited His power. Sometimes we wonder why He has done so, or even wish that He hadn’t. But apparently, He thinks it worth doing. He would rather have a world of free beings, with all its risks, than a world of people who did right like machines because they couldn’t do anything else. The more we succeed in imagining what a world of perfect automatic beings would be like, the more, I think, we shall see His wisdom. (“The Trouble with ‘X,’ God in the Dock)

God is not waiting for you to die so He can send you to hell! No, the opposite is true, God is pleading with you to stop rejecting His love so that you will not be divorced from Him for all eternity (See True Love, Free Will, & the Logic of Hell).

God loves all people, desires the best for all people, and desires all people to love all people all the time! In fact, this seems to be the objective purpose of the human existence — to love all persons and to be loved by all persons (from each person of the Trinity to each person created in the image of God). Jesus made it clear when He summed up the entire Law in two simple and easy to remember commands (Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39):

1- Love God first!

2- Everybody love everybody (from your neighbors to your enemies)!

Ehrman is right; can you imagine what this world would be like if all people actually listened to and followed the teachings of the God of Christmas (aka, Jesus Christ)? If we all followed Jesus’ commands 52 weeks a year, think about the “Peace on Earth and good will toward men” that would follow in the wake of this tsunami of love! It sounds pretty close to heaven to me!

Ultimate Reality

Bart Ehrman does not believe in God, but he says that if he did, he would defend this view of God offered in the New Testament. I encourage him to examine his reasons for his “lack of belief” in God (See Atheism: Lack of Belief or Blind Faith?). I also encourage Ehrman and any others who do not believe in God to consider a plethora of arguments that either deductively concludes the existence of God or point to the probable existence of God. Here are a few to consider as you start your journey:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

The Argument from Contingency

The Moral Argument 

The Fine-Tuning Argument

The Ontological Argument 

Why God Allows Evil & Suffering (logical problem)

Why God Allows Evil & Suffering (probability version)

The Freethinking Argument 

With all of these arguments in mind, why not promote, proclaim, and defend the God of Christmas? After all, even if all of these powerful arguments for the existence of God turned out to be false, if all the world lived according to the teachings of Jesus Christ 52 weeks a year, then we would have a virtual end to war, starvation, epidemics, pain, misery, abject loneliness, violence, hatred, narcissism, self-aggrandizement, and so much suffering!

I think Jesus was on to something!

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Notes

[1] I could be wrong, but from what I have gathered it seems that Ehrman’s reasons for leaning towards atheism are related to his doubts regarding the inerrancy of the Bible and with the problem of evil. I contend that these are not problems at all for Christianity (See Inerrancy Debate and Lex Luthor’s Lousy Logic).

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2EMa9O8

/by
Truth Claims

Simple Tools to Test Truth Claims

,

By Brian G. Chilton

We live in a day called the information age. This is a time when we are inundated with information. Some information is based on truth, whereas other truth claims are flawed. While it is not a popular assumption to hold: Not every opinion is correct. Not every worldview is truthful. So, how does one know whether a claim is truthful or flawed? You could take detailed courses in logic, which is advised if you are able to do so. However, a few simple tools in your tool belt will help you decipher truth claims. This article will focus on two: the laws of logic and testing truth claims.

  1. Know the Essential Laws of Logic

First, it is important for you to know the essential laws of logic. Let’s focus on five of the more important laws.

Law of Identity: (A = A). The law of identity simply states that something is what it is. Douglas Groothuis compares this to a person saying to another, “You aren’t acting like yourself today.” The person infers the identity of the individual as a particular thing.[1] The claim “An oak is a tree” infers that oaks are identified as trees.

Law of Noncontradiction: (A ≠~A). The law of noncontradiction states that nothing can be what it is not. That is, an oak cannot be a tree and cow’s milk. Either it is a tree, or it is cow’s milk. Thus, a thing cannot be what it is at the same time being what it is not.

Law of Excluded Middle: (A V ~A). The law of excluded middle shows that a claim must either be the thing it claims to be or not. It cannot be both. An oak cannot be milk. Therefore, if a person needs shade in the summer, then the person must decide whether the shade from the oak’s leaves will be beneficial or milk. Since milk does not provide shade, the person must choose the oak. But, perhaps the milk would provide a refreshing beverage, but it cannot be chosen to provide shade.

Law of Bivalence: (A⊕~A)=(A V ~A).[2] The law of bivalence simply notes that one must choose between proposition A or proposition ~A. That is, every truth claim is either true or false. It can’t be both. Therefore, one must choose.

Law of Rational Inference: (A = B, and B = C, then A = C). Coinciding with the previous four, the law of rational inference may be helpful in deciphering truth claims. In this sense, if A is shown to equal B, and B equals C, then naturally it follows that A would equal C. For example, if my son’s father’s name is Brian, and I am my son’s father, then it logically follows that I am Brian, my son’s father.

  1. Know How to Test Truth Claims

A syllogism is a logical construct that has two criteria and one conclusion. The kalam cosmological argument is a syllogism. It has two premises and one conclusion. The argument goes as follows: 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2) The universe had a beginning. 3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. How does one test such arguments such as these? Simply follow three steps.

  1. Define the terms. Terms will either be clear or unclear. Are the terms that used clear? In the case of the Kalam, they are. The term universe refers to the material cosmos. Beginning refers to the origin or starting point of a thing. Cause references the reason for something’s existence. In the case of the kalam, the terms are clear.
  2. Test the premises. Premises, or statements, are either true or false. Do things that begin to exist have a cause? Certainly! Homes have a reason for their existence, to provide shelter. The second statement is also true. It is nearly unanimously agreed that the universe had a beginning, a starting point. Both premises in the Kalam are true.
  3. Evaluate the argument.[3] Arguments are either valid or invalid. If the first statement is true, “Everything that begins to exist has a cause,” and the second statement is also true in that “The universe had a beginning,” then the argument naturally flows to its conclusion that “The universe has a cause.” That Cause can be inferred to be the Creator. The kalam cosmological arguments pass the truth test.

Conclusion

The tools given in this article do not only apply to syllogisms, they apply to any truth claim. The fact is that not everything you hear from others, read online and in the newspapers, or see on television is based on truth. Use these tools, and you will have, what I call, an instant bologna tester. You will be able to decipher truth from fiction. As wonderful as it is to proclaim, Christianity gloriously holds to the test of truth. That being said, the Christian should strive to find the truth, because the “truth will set you free” (Jn. 8:32, CSB).

Notes 

[1] Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2011), 48.

[2] The ⊕ symbol refers to exclusive or propositions. In this case, one is forced to choose between A or ~A because both cannot be true.

[3] For further details, see Peter Kreeft, Socratic Logic (South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s, 2014), 26-27.

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently in the Ph.D. program 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 15 years and serves as the pastor of Huntsville Baptist Church in Yadkinville, North Carolina.

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

/by
Creer Dios Existe

Pasar del “Creer que Dios existe” al “Creer en Dios”

Por Jairo y Josafath Izquierdo

Todo aquel que creyera en el nombre del Señor será salvo.

Ro. 10:13

El punto principal de la apologética es demostrar que el cristianismo es verdadero y lidiar con argumentos que intentan demostrar que es falso. También lo es el de fortalecer la fe de los cristianos que se ve atacada por las dudas. Pero también el objetivo de la apologética—y que la mayoría de los cristianos suelen “olvidar”—es el de evangelizar, de ganar almas para Cristo. Así que, el apologista cristiano no sólo debe terminar su tarea en demostrar que el cristianismo es verdadero ante un no creyente el cuál ha sido convencido de la verdad del cristianismo, sino guiarlo ahora entender que no basta con sólo creer Dios existe para la salvación de su alma, sino ayudarlo a pasar de ese “creer que Dios (existe)” al “creer en Dios”.Creer Dios Existe

¿Qué debes hacer ahora que la persona en cuestión sido convencida de la verdad del cristianismo y que desea ser salva? Bien, como dijimos al principio, no basta ahora con sólo creer que Dios existe, sino de entender la importancia de saber que hay un Dios que ha creado este Universo y que tiene un propósito para su creación. Veamos algunos puntos que el reciente “creyente” debe comprender ahora con el fin de ser verdaderamente salvo.

  1. Reconocer Mi Condición. ¿Cómo Me Ve Dios?

Veamos que dice Romanos 3:23:

…por cuanto todos pecaron, y están destituidos de la gloria de Dios…

Este versículo nos enseña dos verdades de nuestra condición delante de Dios:

  • Todos somos pecadores delante de Dios. Si yo me robara 100 pesos, ¿cómo me llamarían? Pues ladrón. De igual manera, si yo cometo un pecado ¿cómo me llamarían? Pecador.
  • Mi vida pecaminosa ha afectado mi relación con Dios. Mi pecado me ha destituido (perder un lugar de privilegio) delante de Dios. Esto es, que soy incapaz de tener una relación correcta con Dios por mis propias fuerzas, pues mi vida ha afectado mi relación con Él.

Hoy Dios está viendo nuestras vidas. ¿Cómo nos ve Dios?

  1. Reconocer Mi Posición. ¿Mi Pecado Actual Afecta Mi Destino Eterno?

Toda acción tiene una reacción, por lo tanto, mi pecado también tiene una consecuencia. Veamos que dice Romanos 6:23:

Porque la paga del pecado es muerte, mas la dádiva de Dios es vida eterna en Cristo Jesús Señor nuestro.

Este versículo me enseña que la consecuencia de mi pecado no sólo tiene consecuencias tempranas o tardías en esta vida, sino que también tiene grandes consecuencias espirituales: la muerte. Esto es, la eterna separación entre Dios y mi alma. Ahora veamos qué dice Apocalipsis 21: 8:

Pero los cobardes e incrédulos, los abominables y homicidas, los fornicarios y hechiceros, los idólatras y todos los mentirosos tendrán su parte en el lago que arde con fuego y azufre, que es la muerte segunda.

Mientras Dios habita en santidad, un día mi pecado me condenará en el infierno tal como enseña este versículo. Aun la más pequeña mentira ha sido suficiente para condenarme en el infierno.

Si hoy Dios te juzgará por los pecados que has cometido, ¿cuál sería su juicio? ¿Cielo o inferno? Simplemente somos reos esperando el cumplimiento de nuestra justa condena.

  1. Reconocer El Sacrificio De Cristo. ¿Acaso Dios Quiere Condenarme?

De ninguna manera, Dios desea salvarme de la condenación de mis pecados, esta es la verdad de Romanos 5:8:

Mas Dios muestra su amor para con nosotros, en que, siendo aún pecadores, Cristo murió por nosotros.

Nuevamente, vemos dos verdades en este pasaje:

  • El amor de Dios se manifiesta en el sacrificio de Cristo. El amor de Dios no tiene que ver con perdonar todo. Evitemos pensar que un día delante de Dios bastará decirle “perdóname” y esa palabra será suficiente para estar eternamente con él. Dios es amor, pero también es justicia; su justicia hace que deba pagar en el infierno por mis pecados. Cuándo un asesino está delante del juez, ¿qué debe hacer el juez justo con el asesino? Lógicamente, hacer que pague por su delito, sin importar lo bueno que haya hecho o lo mucho que se disculpe, debe pagar por las vidas que tomo a sangre fría. Así será un día con nosotros delante de Dios.
  • La deuda tan inmensa de todos mis pecados que me condenaba al infierno ha sido pagada por Cristo Jesús en la cruz del calvario. Dios no desea condenarme. Jesucristo murió por mis pecados para darme vida eterna con él (Juan 3:16).
  1. Reconocer El Perdón En La Sangre De Cristo. ¿Cómo Es Que Dios Puede Perdonarme Sin Dejar De Ser Un Juez Justo?

Por el sacrificio de Cristo, su sangre derramada en aquella cruz hace más de dos mil años, es la paga de todos mis pecados; porque Dios, en la persona de Cristo, estaba imputando todos mis pecados. En la cruz de Cristo, Dios muestra cuanto me ama al proveer de un medio de salvación, pero también muestra su justicia al manifestar cuanto odia el pecado en la cruz de Cristo.

Por esta razón I Pedro 1:18-19 nos dice que fuimos rescatados… (v. 18) …con la sangre de Cristo (v. 19). Esto fue el pago de nuestros pecados, lo que nos salva del infierno, y que incluso tiene el poder de salvarnos de una vana manera de vivir (una vida que se deleita en el pecado).

Dios es capaz de perdonarme porque Cristo ha pagado por mis pecados. La gran pregunta hoy es: ¿Quién va a pagar por los pecados que he cometido? ¿Yo con mi propia vida en el infierno o aceptaré lo que Cristo ya hizo por mí en la cruz del calvario?

  1. Reconocer Que No Hay Otro Medio De Salvación. ¿Cómo Puedo Apropiarme De Este Maravilloso Y Grande Sacrificio Que Cristo Ya Hizo?

Muy fácil, creyéndole y aceptándole con todo mi ser. Veamos lo que dice Romanos 10:9, 10:

…si confesares con tu boca que Jesús es el Señor, y creyeres en tu corazón que Dios le levantó de los muertos, serás salvo.

Pablo nos explica que debemos de creer con el corazón y que nuestra boca debe confesar lo que hemos decidido creer. Hoy tú debes confesar delante de Dios y de las personas que aceptas que Cristo ha muerto por tus pecados y que crees firmemente con todo tu ser que este es el único medio de salvación. Así, Apocalipsis 3:20 nos dice que Cristo está llamando a la puerta del corazón, de tu ser; Él quiere tener una relación personal e íntima contigo, pero tú debes abrir tu mente y corazón, tú debes recibirle y pedirle que entre y sea tu Señor y Salvador.

Conclusión

Así que, hemos visto que el evangelismo es parte importante—lo más importante, en mi opinión—de hacer apologética. No solo de demostrar que el cristianismo es verdadero, sino de mostrar el plan de salvación a las personas que sinceramente han decidido creer en Cristo. Y si tú en estos momentos estas leyendo este blog y has estado pensando sobre si lo que dice la Biblia es cierto, si crees que los argumentos a favor del cristianismo te convencen, entonces ¿qué harás con este regalo de Dios? ¿Por qué no decides creerle con todo tu ser y confesarlo abiertamente ante todos? Y así serás salvo.

 

Jairo Izquierdo Hernández es el fundador de Filósofo Cristiano. Actualmente trabaja como Director de Social Media para la organización cristiana Cross Examined. Es miembro en la Christian Apologetics Alliance y ministro de alabanza en la iglesia cristiana bautista Cristo es la Respuesta en Puebla, México.

Josafath Izquierdo Hernández es pastor de la iglesia cristiana bautista Cristo es la Respuesta en Puebla, México.

/by
Pro life

A Response To The “You’re Not Pro-Life Unless” Movement

By Michael Sherrard 

Pro-life friends, I need some help. The “you’re not really pro-life unless _____” (pick any social issue to fill in the blank) is a very popular position currently amongst pro-lifers. I’m having a hard time getting my head around this stance. What is driving it? What is its aim? What is the end goal?

Historically, the pro-life movement has been understood to refer to those working to end abortion. Great strides have been made through this movement even though abortion is still, obviously, legal. For years our critics have accused us of being hypocritical, saying things like, “You’re not pro-life; you’re just pro-birth. You don’t care about women or the babies once they are born.” This charge is of course absurdly wrong, but I can understand a critic using this ad-hominem attack as a tactic to change the subject when they can’t refute pro-life arguments. But why is this attack coming from those sympathetic to our goal of ending abortion? Why the friendly fire?

Recently, my friend Scott Klusendorf wrote an article for The Gospel Coalition that stressed the importance of keeping a laser-like operational focus in the pro-life movement. It seemed perfectly reasonable to me. My own experience and that of other pro-life apologists proves that when you deliver a persuasive case for the lives of the unborn, people respond, especially students. There is no need to buy the premises of our leftist critics. Indeed, now, more than ever, we need to focus our resources and press in, not spread ourselves thin and bicker. We need to be united. For this sound advice, Scott was aggressively attacked by some pro-lifers. I can’t figure this out.

Why does anyone sympathetic to the pro-life position feel the need to say you’re not really pro-life unless you oppose human trafficking, poverty, racism, income in-equality, spousal abuse, etc., and so on? Why change the subject and divert resources and attention away from the movement to end abortion? Does anyone really think that we approve of or are indifferent to these evils? Have they so bought the slander of our critics that they truly think we are the cold, heartless elite? What but compassion drives us and what but sympathy and support do we have for the movements to end other great social evils?

Are they compelled to say it because they think that working to end abortion isn’t enough? I could understand this if they didn’t really think abortion was that bad, but they’re pro-life. They do think that abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being don’t they? They have seen the images of the dismembered unborn, right? So why even make the point that there are other important issues to work on? Would they have reminded Bonhoeffer that there are other social issues other than just the extermination of Jews? Do they presently tell researchers seeking to cure cancer that there are other diseases that need attention? We all know the world is full of pain. I don’t understand their agenda here.

Maybe their rationale is purely definitional. And in that regard, they are right. There are clearly other issues that pertain to life other than abortion. But most issues pertain to life and human flourishing. Speed limits, seat belt laws, flossing, screen time, gym memberships, global warming, environmental regulations, recreation, food packaging labeling– what subject isn’t about life? So, I suppose I can understand one saying, “Technically, the term pro-life should be about more than just abortion because there are other issues that pertain to life, you know.” Of course, there are, but how many things are we now going to include in the definition? The more issues that are added to “pro-life” the less helpful the term becomes. Soon it will describe so many things that it ends up describing nothing at all. It will become a term that simply means “for good things and against bad things.” And this is one of the great problems with the “you’re not pro-life unless” movement.

You see, calling the movement to end abortion “pro-life” doesn’t undermine the importance of any other important movement. It takes nothing away from them. However, the “you’re not pro-life unless” movement diverts attention and resources away from the work of ending abortion. Namely, it becomes a salve for the conscience of those that would rather not speak against abortion while it shames those currently working to end it. It unfairly reinforces and spreads the oppressive, unloving stereotype that our critics love to place on us. This misguided moral pressure will silence many and keep others from engaging the issue. It will allow fearful pastors to remain silent on abortion because, hey, they’re still pro-life; they mentioned the wage gap. This comes at no small cost to the movement to end abortion.

We need more people engaging the issue of abortion, not less. As we draw nearer and nearer to ending abortion we need to be unified, moving forward with strategy and grace. There are far more people working to kill the unborn than there are to save them. So do not disparage the good work pro-lifers are doing because there is other good work that needs to be done. Indeed, encourage them, support them, and help them to keep fighting the good fight. Those with a clear mind understand that all people should be committed to loving their neighbor and ending oppression, injustice, and inequity wherever it exists. Abortion isn’t the only atrocity in society to be sure. But what a healthier society it will be when we cease to slaughter 1,000,000 unborn children every year.

 

Michael C. Sherrard is a pastor, a writer, and a speaker. Booking info and such can be found at michaelcsherrard.com.

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

/by
Would Jesus Participate in Politics?

Would Jesus Participate in Politics?

By Luke Nix

Introduction

“Would Jesus participate in politics?” This has been a common question posed among followers of Jesus Christ since he was asked about paying taxes to Caesar. It came across my Facebook feed a few weeks ago, so I thought I’d take some time to prepare a careful answer. Some Christians believe that a theocracy should be established on earth, while some other Christians believe that we should not have anything to do with politics. The rest of us believe that the correct position falls somewhere in the middle, and we struggle to find where. While I do not claim to know exactly where the correct balance is located, I do want to offer some observations and reflections that may help us identify an acceptable range of options.

Foundations of Politics

Politics usually focus on laws- laws that are legislated because the legislators believe the moral duties that they reflect are objectively true and that those governed by the laws are morally responsible beings. Without objective morality, laws have no objective foundation; this results in “might makes right” as the ultimate governing principle of morality. Under that principle, whoever has the most power, whoever has the loudest voice, and/or whoever has the most money makes the laws. Without the Image of God, man is not a morally responsible being thus is not morally responsible for keeping the moral duty of obedience to the laws (given that the laws in place do not violate objective morality). That means that even if “might makes right,” without the Image of God, humans have no moral duty to obey the laws. Without objective morality and the Image of God, laws are pointless beyond the sophomoric desire to control everyone and everything.

Scripture reveals much about morality (including its objective nature, grounded in God’s eternal nature) and human beings’ intrinsic value and moral responsibility (being created in the Image of God). The Bible very much has a lot to say about morality and ethics, thus it has a lot to say about politics. Jesus is God (as the second person of the Trinity), and since we are created in God’s Image, our moral responsibility to obey laws is grounded in God. It is only if morality is objective and man is created in God’s image that politics is logically inseparable from Christianity. Since Christianity is true, both of those conditions are met, thus politics and Christianity cannot be separated from one another. Because they are inseparable, we are not permitted to live a political life uninformed by the reality of Christianity.

Jesus and Politics

Now, while this is true, we have to remember two things about Jesus: First, He did not come to abolish The Law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17), and second, His ultimate Kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36). The tension between these two must be recognized and accounted for in our political lives. While we do not necessarily need to concern ourselves overly with the politics of earthly kingdoms, we do need to be concerned enough to protect the lives of God’s Image bearers by promoting the legislation and enforcement of laws designed to do so. By protecting God’s Image bearers, we give them more time to hear and accept Jesus’ sacrifice for them on the Cross and for them to become a member of the future Kingdom that is “not of this world” (Matthew 28:19). So, since our view of the future Kingdom informs our interaction with and effects on earthly kingdoms, we keep both truths of Christ in mind and in practice.

Would Jesus Participate in Politics?

Interestingly enough, that is not really the question that needs to be asked, for it assumes that Jesus is not participating in politics already. As members of the Body of Christ (being His “hands and feet” in this world), Jesus already is participating in earthly politics through Christians who are politically active. It is our duty to ensure that we accurately represent our Savior in the political arena. Since “all Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16) and Jesus is God, then we must take into account all that Jesus said (all of Scripture, not just the “red letters”) when we try to determine which proposed laws we will support, which existing ones we have a duty to obey, and which existing ones need to be either amended or removed.

Recommended Books

One of my favorite books on the topic of the Bible and politics is “Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible.” I strongly encourage any Christian concerned with politics (that should be all of us, based on what I argued above) to read this book to help prepare them to not only act Christianly in their political duties but to be able to articulate the reasons for doing so to their friends and family. I also recommend four other books to help inform the Christian in their political decisions in my Top 5 Books on Ethics and Politics. That post will link to my chapter-by-chapter reviews of each book to give the reader a taste of their content.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2C1RTP2

/by
Atheist Questions

Answering More Atheist Questions

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

After traveling for several weeks and presenting the truth of Christianity on five different college campuses, Frank answers some of the questions raised by Atheist during those presentations in this Podcast. He also talks about the most recent school shooting and the press slamming Vice President Mike Pence about his religious beliefs.

 

 

/by
COMPUTER SIMULATION

Is The Universe A Computer Simulation?

Por Evan Minton

Some atheists, in an attempt to avoid the conclusion that The Big Bang origin of our universe was caused by a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused, powerful, supernatural Being (i.e God), have posited that perhaps our universe and everything in it is just a computer simulation being run by aliens in a laboratory. The Big Bang was the launch of the program and the development of the universe by its finely tuned laws were all a part of the program-universe’s code.

If you think I’m making this up, check out this quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson in his award-winning book Astrophysics For People In A Hurry:

“Or what if everything we know and love were just a computer simulation rendered for entertainment by a superintelligent alien species?” [1][2]

I also saw this idea flushed out in a cartoon where a couple of aliens were at this massive particle accelerator. The aliens were your typical little green men, with no hair, giant black eyes, and silvery space suits. And the picture depicts our universe as being the result of an experiment the aliens were doing with the large particle accelerator/collider.

Are these atheists right? Was The Big Bang the result of aliens messing around with a particle accelerator in their universe?[3] Or are we just a simulation in a program by beings more advanced than we are? Refuting this proposal is the aim of this blog post.

ANY UNIVERSE OF ALIENS CREATING A COMPUTER SIMULATION MUST HAVE A BEGINNING

First of all, even if we conceded this idea (which even Tyson only throws out as a bare possibility), it wouldn’t get rid of God. It wouldn’t eradicate the conceptual analysis of The Kalam Cosmological Argument. Why? Because in the universe in which the computer simulating ours exists, that universe must be enduring through time. If this universe is enduring through time, then it must have a beginning and therefore a transcendent cause.

How did I reach this conclusion? From one of the same philosophical/mathematical arguments that lead me to conclude that our universe had a beginning. First of all, we know that these aliens would have to be enduring through time because the aliens are living in a world of cause and effect, of before-and-after relationships. There was a time before these alien scientists were born and a time after they were born. There was a time before they got their degrees in computer engineering and a time after they graduated. There was a time before they built the computer which caused our simulated universe and a time after they ran the simulation. Before-and-after relationships are impossible without time. According to the description of this theory, our alien creature creators are temporal beings. This leads me to my next point.

1: It is impossible to traverse an actually infinite number of temporal moments.

2: If it is impossible to traverse an actually infinite number of moments, then the present moment cannot be reached.

3: The present moment has been reached.

4: Therefore, we have not endured through an actually infinite number of temporal moments (i.e the universe had a beginning).

This is a logically valid syllogism. If the premises are true, so is the conclusion. So, are the premises true? I think they are.

Let’s look at premise 1. If the universe of our alien creators were eternal and beginningless (unlike the universe they simulated), then that means their world endured through an actually infinite number of moments to reach the point in time in which they caused their simulation. Before the day of the simulation, the day before the simulation had to dawn. And before the day before the day of the simulation could dawn, the day before the day before the day before the simulation could dawn. Before that day could dawn, the day before it had to dawn. Before that day could dawn, the day before it had to dawn, and so on and so forth. As you can see, the day in which the alien scientists caused their universe simulation could never have arrived, because there would need to pass an infinite number of prior moments. In fact, no moment in their universe at all could dawn. Before each day in the infinite series of days, there would always have to be a day that had to dawn first.

Getting to the present moment while having to first cross an infinite number of past events is analogous to jumping out of a bottomless pit, or causing a bottomless coffee pot to overflow. No matter how much coffee you pour into the cup, it will never fill up to the brim.

But if an infinite past could not be crossed, then that means the day of the start of the simulation could not arrive. And that means our present day could not arrive. The start of our 14 billion year history could never have occurred (this is premise 2). But clearly, the present moment has arrived (premise 3). We’re here. You’re reading this blog post right now. It is self-evident that the present has arrived. This means that the universe of our alien creators could not have endured forever, but must have a beginning. And since everything that begins to exist must have a cause, it follows that the universe of our alien creators must have a cause.

BUT MAYBE WE’RE IN A SIMULATION THAT’S INSIDE A SIMULATION
At this point, the atheist might respond “Okay, but maybe the universe of our alien creators is a simulation as well. We’re in a simulation that’s inside a simulation. Just like how a nesting doll can be inside of another nesting doll”. This doesn’t solve the problem. It only pushes it back a notch. Are those aliens subject to time? It would seem so if they evolved, were born, grew up, went to universities to get degrees in computer programming, and then created a universe-simulation that would have a universe-simulation within it. In that case, you run into the same problem. That universe must also have a beginning.

But perhaps the atheist could say “Well, perhaps we’re a simulation within a simulation within a simulation?” Again, the same problems apply.

What happens is that in this alien-scientist-creating-a-universe-simulation scenario is that you get thrown into an infinite regress of aliens creating universe simulations which themselves contain aliens that create universe simulations which themselves contain universe simulations with themselves contain universe simulations ad infinitum.

As already explained above, traversing an actually infinite number of things is impossible. Our own simulation could never have arisen if a past infinite number of universe simulations had to come into being first. Before the aliens could simulate our universe, their universe had to be simulated, and before their universe could be simulated, their universe had to be a simulation, and so on ad infinitum. No simulation could ever come to past, and ergo the present simulation (and present moment within the simulation) could never come to be.

WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN?

It means that even in a scenario which posits super advanced aliens creating a computer program of a universe, you eventually get traced back to a universe that is not a computer simulation, but nevertheless contains super advanced alien creatures and (wait for it….) had a beginning. In this scenario, we must come to a first universe, the first beginning, and therefore, the first cause.

But what properties would this cause have? It wouldn’t be a team of super advanced aliens since this first-universe is not itself the result of a prior team of alien scientists. The cause would transcend all physical reality, all of space and time, and therefore be immaterial and uncaused. In other words, God rears His holy head again.

God is exempt from the problems the aliens creators would have. He had no beginning and is uncaused, and therefore needs no prior cause to explain Him. God being beginningless wouldn’t imply that He endured through an actually infinite number of moments because God, sans creation of time, existed outside of time. There was no time. Once God flicked the first domino, time began. This is a bit of a heavy subject, and Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has devoted an entire book the to the subject,[4] but I just wanted to point out that being timeless sans creation, God avoids the problems associated with being beginningless in a temporal manner.

CONCLUSION 
Unfortunately for the atheists, this alien computer simulation idea only forces God to go upstairs at most. It doesn’t get rid of Him. The conceptual analysis of The Kalam Cosmological Argument still stands.

Notes 

[1] deGrasse Tyson, Neil. Astrophysics for People in a Hurry (Kindle Locations 170-171). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

[2] Don’t let this wild idea deter you from getting Tyson’s book by the way. He only mentions the simulation idea in this one place. Astrophysics For People In A Hurry It is a fantastic introductory course in astrophysics. Tyson does not put forth wild theories like this throughout, and he only shows his atheistic sleeve a total of two times. The first in this part of the book, and the second, in the final chapter. It’s an overall religiously neutral work. I recommend anyone who loves science (and is especially not well read in science) to pick up the book.

[3] By the way, this happened in a Doctor Who episode (titled Extremis). I won’t describe what happened in the episode. Watch it yourself. Watch the whole series in fact. It’s an awesome show!

[4] The book is called “Time and Eternity: Exploring God’s Relationship To Time”.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2ErH4n3

/by