It is often assumed that the doctrine of the Trinity – the idea that there is one being of God that is comprised of three eternal and co-equal divine persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) – is something that is revealed only in the New Testament. While it is certainly true that the expression of the Trinity reaches its climax in the New Testament, few people (Christians and non-believers alike) are aware that one can find evidence of divine plurality – and even of there being three divine persons – throughout the Old Testament as well. Listen to this fascinating episode with our guest Jonathan McLatchie and pay attention to how he reveals the Trinity in the Old Testament.

Keep Frank busy by sending your questions to Hello@CrossExamined.org and don’t miss this episode!

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

 

By Wintery Knight

Have you ever heard Gary Habermas, Michael Licona or William Lane Craig defend the resurrection of Jesus in a debate by saying that the resurrection is the best explanation for the “minimal facts” about Jesus? The lists of minimal facts that they use are typically agreed to by their opponents during the debates. Minimal facts are the parts of the New Testament that meet a set of strict historical criteria. These are the facts that skeptical historians agree with, totally apart from any religious beliefs.

So what are the criteria that skeptical historians use to derive a list of minimal facts about Jesus?

Dr. Craig explains them in this article.

Excerpt:

The other way, more influential in contemporary New Testament scholarship, is to establish specific facts about Jesus without assuming the general reliability of the Gospels. The key here are the so-called “Criteria of Authenticity” which enable us to establish specific sayings or events in Jesus’ life as historical. Scholars involved in the quest of the historical Jesus have enunciated a number of these criteria for detecting historically authentic features of Jesus, such as dissimilarity to Christian teaching, multiple attestations, linguistic Semitisms, traces of Palestinian milieu, retention of embarrassing material, coherence with other authentic material, and so forth.

It is somewhat misleading to call these “criteria,” for they aim at stating sufficient, not necessary, conditions of historicity. This is easy to see: suppose a saying is multiply attested and dissimilar but not embarrassing. If embarrassment were a necessary condition of authenticity, then the saying would have to be deemed inauthentic, which is wrong-headed, since its multiple attestation and dissimilarity are sufficient for authenticity. Of course, the criteria are defeasible, meaning that they are not infallible guides to authenticity. They might be better called “Indications of Authenticity” or “Signs of Credibility.”

In point of fact, what the criteria really amount to are statements about the effect of certain types of evidence upon the probability of various sayings or events in Jesus’ life. For some saying or event S and evidence of a certain type E, the criteria would state that all things being equal, the probability of S given E is greater than the probability of S on our background knowledge alone. So, for example, all else being equal, the probability of some event or saying is greater given its multiple attestations than it would have been without it.

What are some of the factors that might serve the role of E in increasing the probability of some saying or event S? The following are some of the most important:

(1) Historical congruence: S fits in with known historical facts concerning the context in which S is said to have occurred.

(2) Independent, early attestation: S appears in multiple sources which are near to the time at which S is alleged to have occurred and which depend neither upon each other nor a common source.

(3) Embarrassment: S is awkward or counter-productive for the persons who serve as the source of information for S.

(4) Dissimilarity: S is unlike antecedent Jewish thought-forms and/or unlike subsequent Christian thought-forms.

(5) Semitisms: traces in the narrative of Aramaic or Hebrew linguistic forms.

(6) Coherence: S is consistent with already established facts about Jesus.

For a good discussion of these factors see Robert Stein, “The ‘Criteria’ for Authenticity,” in Gospel Perspectives I, ed. R. T. France and David Wenham (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1980), pp. 225-63.

Notice that these “criteria” do not presuppose the general reliability of the Gospels. Rather they focus on a particular saying or event and give evidence for thinking that specific element of Jesus’ life to be historical, regardless of the general reliability of the document in which the particular saying or event is reported. These same “criteria” are thus applicable to reports of Jesus found in the apocryphal Gospels, or rabbinical writings, or even the Qur’an. Of course, if the Gospels can be shown to be generally reliable documents, so much the better! But the “criteria” do not depend on any such presupposition. They serve to help spot historical kernels even in the midst of historical chaff. Thus we need not concern ourselves with defending the Gospels’ every claim attributed to Jesus in the gospels; the question will be whether we can establish enough about Jesus to make faith in him reasonable.

And you can see Dr. Craig using these criteria to defend minimal facts in his debates. For example, in his debate with Ehrman, he alludes to the criteria when making his case for the empty tomb.

Here, he uses multiple attestations and the criteria of embarrassment:

Among the reasons which have led most scholars to this conclusion are the following:

  1. The empty tomb is also multiply attested by independent, early sources.

Mark’s source didn’t end with the burial, but with the story of the empty tomb, which is tied to the burial story verbally and grammatically. Moreover, Matthew and John have independent sources about the empty tomb; it’s also mentioned in the sermons in the Acts of the Apostles (2.29; 13.36); and it’s implied by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthian church (I Cor. 15.4). Thus, we have again multiple, early, independent attestation of the fact of the empty tomb.

  1. The tomb was discovered empty by women.

In patriarchal Jewish society, the testimony of women was not highly regarded. In fact, the Jewish historian Josephus says that women weren’t even permitted to serve as witnesses in a Jewish court of law. Now in light of this fact, how remarkable it is that it is women who are the discoverers of Jesus’ empty tomb. Any later legendary account would certainly have made male disciples like Peter and John discover the empty tomb. The fact that it is women, rather than men, who are the discoverers of the empty tomb is best explained by the fact that they were the chief witnesses to the fact of the empty tomb, and the Gospel writers faithfully record what, for them, was an awkward and embarrassing fact.

There are actually a few more reasons for believing in the empty tomb that he doesn’t go into in the debate, but you can find them in his written work. For example, in his essay on Gerd Ludemann’s “vision” hypothesis. That essay covers the reasons for all four of his minimal facts.

So, if you are going to talk about the resurrection with a skeptic, you don’t want to invoke the Bible as some sort of inerrant/inspired Holy Book.

Try this approach instead:

  1. Explain the criteria that historians use to get their lists of minimal facts
  2. Explain your list of minimal facts
  3. Defend your list of minimal facts using the criteria
  4. Cite skeptics who admit to each of your minimal facts, to show that they are widely accepted
  5. List some parts of the Bible that don’t pass the criteria (e.g. – guard at the tomb, Matthew earthquake)
  6. Explain why those parts don’t pass the criteria and explain that they are not part of your case
  7. Challenge your opponent to either deny some or all the facts or propose a naturalistic alternative that explains the facts better than the resurrection
  8. Don’t let your opponent attack any of your minimal facts by attacking other parts of the Bible (e.g. – the number of angels being one or two, etc.)

And remember that there is no good case for the resurrection that does not make heavy use of the early creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8.

The best essay on the minimal facts criteria that I’ve read is the one by Robert H. Stein in “Contending with Christianity’s Critics“. It’s a good short essay that goes over all the historical criteria that are used to derive the short list of facts from which we infer the conclusion “God raised Jesus from the dead”. That whole book is really very, very good.

 


Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Tfx7jC

By Terrell Clemmons

Last December, television talk-show host Meredith Vieira invited relationship expert Siggy Flicker onto her show as part of her “Ultimate Relationship Gift Guide,” to help her female audience answer the big holiday question, “What do I get him?” “It should be about ‘from the heart’ and it should be a thoughtful thing,” Siggy said right off the bat. So, what was the recommended from-the-heart, thoughtful thing for the relationship of a few weeks to three months in? “You’re starting to get to know each other… I always say, lingerie, pajamas—or, I love Hanky Panky underwear,” she said, holding up a pair of black and red g-string panties.

“But wait,” Meredith feigned objection, “that’s a suggestive thing, isn’t it?”

“Ya know, in the beginning of a relationship, what are you doing a lot of?” Siggy shot back, still holding up the panties. “You’re getting to know each other!” she semi-barked in a New Jersey beat. Like, Who hasn’t gotten the memo that morals are just, so… passé?

Isn’t it strange that something as intimate and private as sex has become, at least in the eyes of some, the fulcrum around which all relational life seems to turn? Or not turn. Take reactions to Lolo Jones for example, the rags-to-riches track and field star whose intention to save sex for marriage drew more coverage than her athletic success. “Lolo Jones should’ve had sex before that race,” was one of the tamer digs fired her way, “because #SexisforWinners.”

Sex may well be for winners, but before making a definitive statement out of that, the smart single would do well to figure out which game she (or he) is trying to win.

The Economics of Sex

The Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture, a research group specializing in family, sexuality, and social structures, took a rigorous look at today’s romantic landscape, and condensed what they found into a brilliant, ten-minute video titled, “The Economics of Sex.” It looks at sex as an exchange that goes something like this: Historically, the woman has been the gatekeeper for sex in a relationship. Will the man have to pay her a few compliments to get sex? Or take her on a certain number of dates? Or will he have to pay the premium—a lifetime commitment of all he is and has? She sets the price.

But the rise of feminism and contraceptive use upset that market equilibrium. It lowered the cost of sex by reducing the likelihood of pregnancy, and gradually the supply of women settling for sex at a reduced rate increased. Men in turn, taking the path of least resistance, went in droves for low-cost sex, rather than paying the premium. This split the mating market into two sub-markets: one where people go for sex, and another where people seek marriage. The former is more male-heavy, while the latter leans female.

This split market altered the woman’s gatekeeping function. It became easier for her to secure a mate in the short term because men looking for sex outnumber available women. But the reverse is true for women seeking marriage. Because, in that market, men, being in shorter supply, have the upper hand.

The Feminist Who Says, “Settle!”

This disappointing reality hits home especially hard for the aging woman who wants a family. In her 2010 book Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough, Lori Gottlieb, a 40-something single mother (by sperm donation) thoughtfully reflected on, not her unmet fill of sex, but her unmet longing for marriage and family. “Do it [settle] young,” she writes, rather than holding out for Mr. Perfect.

Of course, we’d be loath to admit it in this day and age, but ask any soul-baring 40-year-old single heterosexual woman what she most longs for in life, and she probably won’t tell you it’s a better career or a smaller waistline or a bigger apartment. Most likely, she’ll say that what she really wants is a husband (and, by extension, a child) … in reality, we aren’t fish who can do without a bicycle, we’re women who want a traditional family.

Her argument met with, shall we say, mixed reviews, though her counsel seemed to be offered in all sincerity.

Solutions That Satisfy

And given current market conditions, it seems fitting. Strictly speaking, the market solution for women would be for them to band together to raise the price of sex. This would call men back to a higher standard, thereby improving relational prospects for all.

Yes, all. In the latest National Marriage Project report, titled “What Happens in Vegas Doesn’t Always Stay in Vegas,” researchers Scott Stanley and Galena Rhoades found that the way couples conduct their sex lives before marriage has a bearing on their future happiness. About 90 percent of couples have sex before marriage, they reported, but those who do so only with their future spouse have better odds for marriage stability than those who play the market first.

In other words, sexual monogamy is a pretty good plan for winning at relationships, if what you ultimately want is marriage and potential family. Admittedly, it’s not the way to “win” if sex is all you’re after. Since the odds are against finding success at both, the wise single will consider early on, Which one do I want? and choose a course of action accordingly.

Getting to Know Each Other: The Premium Way

Chelsea and Mark got married last summer at age 21. They’d been dating since their freshman year of high school. And while they didn’t make a big, public deal about it, most of the friends and family at their wedding knew they had waited.

They, too, drew attention for making a counter-cultural choice. Sometimes there was ridicule, which hurt. But the thing that surprised them most was not the ridicule, but the way some of their peers seemed not even to have categories of thought by which to conceive of such a relationship (What? Well … why?).

“They have sex right from the start, and then they have to learn how to communicate with each other,” Chelsea said. “If they don’t have sex in four days, it’s like the biggest nightmare to them. And it’s a nightmare because they feel like they don’t have the relationship when there’s no sex because that’s all the relationship’s based on.”

She finds that really sad. “It’s as if they can’t even talk to each other. All they seem to know how to do is have sex. Then they get bored and move on to the next relationship.” For her, waiting prioritized the relationship over sex so that the friendship could mature and develop a life of its own, without sex being the center of it. Since the wedding, the sex “has been nice, but we have so much more besides that. Other couples are missing out on so much more that there is.”

We should pity Ms. Flicker for confusing cursory sex with “getting to know each other.”

Know Your Power

In financial terms, to corner, a market is to get sufficient control of an asset to manipulate the price. Casual sex surrenders control and gives everything away dirt-cheap. The smart woman (and man) who wants a sex life that is thoughtful and satisfies longings will retain control of her assets until the set price—the premium—has been paid. “The Economics of Sex” video concludes, “For a woman to know what she wants in a relationship, and to signal it clearly… this is her power in the economy.” It’s also the most winning strategy for achieving sexual and relational success.

 


Terrell Clemmons is a freelance writer and blogger on apologetics and matters of faith.

This article was originally published at salvomag.com: http://bit.ly/2WdB7TJ

By Luke Nix

The Creator Revealed

In 2018 University of Oklahoma particle physicist Dr. Michael G. Strauss released his latest book. In this short non-technical volume, he introduces the reader to the astrophysical discoveries that reveal the characteristics of the Creator of the universe, hence the title “The Creator Revealed.” He strongly emphasizes the claim of Romans 1:20 that the Creator’s attributes are “clearly seen” in the creation, even by those who wish to deny the Creator’s existence. I gave the book a full chapter-by-chapter review available here, but today I want to highlight fifteen of my favorite quotes from the book.

The Christian and the Life of the Mind

“I think that when we as Christians do not fully investigate the truth of something because we are concerned that it might confront our beliefs, we forget one of the very basic characteristics of the God we serve, namely that he is a God of truth.”

“How can we, as Christians, stand firm when our faith is challenged intellectually? We can do this by learning to love the Lord our God with all our minds; by asking tough questions about God and the Bible and finding good, reasonable answers to those questions; by learning how to properly interpret the Bible in its context and according to its culture…and by understanding that all truth discovered by humans will ultimately reveal the creator of all truth.”

“I have found that the more one studies nature, the more one can see that it reveals God’s personality, to such an extent that many of the writings of even nonreligious scientists clearly declare God’s power and majesty.”

“When we find truth in nature or we find truth in scripture, we see God’s character revealed.”

Does The Big Bang Reveal God’s Invisible Attributes?

The Creator Revealead Quotes 1“If the big bang was God’s method of creation yet we as Christians deny its veracity, then we are building an unnecessary wall between us and other people who accept the big bang but don’t yet know God.”

“Most people already have heard of the big bang and agree with scientists that it accurately describes the origin of the universe. What most people don’t know is that the big bang also reveals the characteristics of the creator, the God of the Bible.”

“The evidence that the big bang was God’s method of creation is compelling for many reasons. For instance, it reveals the very nature of God, just as Romans 1:20 says creation should. It doesn’t just reveal God’s character to those who already believe in him or to those who only look superficially at nature; it reveals the very nature of his character to those who study the universe in depth. It drives people to realize that the creator is a transcendent designer who cares for humanity. It leaves them truly without excuse because they have rejected the creator, not for the record of creation.”

“Modern science and the big bang can be tremendous evangelistic tools when we realize that they reveal the character of God.”

“When we understand how the big bang reveals the person and character of God, we see him more clearly, and this shows his glory, majesty, and wonder.”

Why Do Scientists Accept The Big Bang?

The Creator Revealead Quotes 2“Based on the evidence from both observations and theoretical calculations, the scientific community eventually, and maybe reluctantly, has accepted the idea that the universe appears to have begun about fourteen billion years ago–because there is no other explanation that fits the evidence.”

“The evidence for the beginning of the universe in the big bang has become so powerful and so convincing that scientists have accepted it as true even though the philosophical and theological implications may be repugnant to some.”

“There are some Christians who say that most scientists today have misunderstood the facts of nature. They say that the facts clearly point to a universe created just a few thousand years ago. But such a belief is inconsistent with what Romans 1:20 implies. Paul says that the evidence left by the creator should be clearly visible so that all, even the scientists studying the universe, are without excuse if they fail to see it… [T]his is exactly the case with the big bang.”

“It doesn’t matter when the universe was created, whether it was six thousand years ago or fourteen billion years ago, to the naturalist who doesn’t believe in God, both ideas are equally repugnant.”

“It should not surprise you that the big bang reveals characteristics of the creator that (1) are clearly evident, (2) are apparent even to those who do not accept any kind of deity, and (3) correspond to attributes ascribed to God in the rest of the Bible. After all, that is exactly what Paul [in Romans 1:20] said the evidence should do.”

“An accurate understanding of the big bang and its implications can change lives. Truth has a way of doing that.”

The Creator Revealead Quotes 3

 


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

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2R7yRJU

If you don’t have this right, you don’t have any other rights… thank God you are alive and able to read this podcast description which means you are enjoying the right to life. Unfortunately, hundreds of thousands are denied that right every year and millions have been murder in the womb due to the human rights abuse of abortion. As you know Frank does not shy away from delicate or controversial topics so join him in this episode as he unpacks this difficult subject and learn how to address this topic intelligently.

Keep Frank busy by sending your questions to Hello@CrossExamined.org and don’t miss this episode!

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

 

By Brian Chilton

Life is often about finding the right balance. Too much of anything is bad for a person, even water. Consuming too much water will cause one to lose electrolytes and minerals which could lead to death—a condition called hyponatremia. The point is, balance is important with nearly everything. This same is true of the Christian life and Christian theology. Consider the issue with divine sovereignty and human freedom. If a person accepts the sovereignty of God without human freedom, then a person accepts a determinist philosophy in which human beings become nothing more than preprogrammed robots. If a person accepts human freedom and neglects divine sovereignty, the person’s perception of God becomes flawed to the point that the person contends that God does not know anything about the future. Both concepts are beyond the teachings of Scripture in my estimation. Balance is important in one’s interpretation of Scripture.

Jesus presents two concepts concerning the Christian life in his classic message: the Sermon on the Mount. On the one hand, Jesus says, “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt should its taste, how can it be made salty? It’s no longer good for anything but to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet” (Mt. 5:13, CSB). On the other hand, Jesus says, “You are the light of the world. A city situated on a hill cannot be hidden. No one lights a lamp and puts it under a basket, but rather on a lampstand, and it gives light for all who are in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven” (Mt. 5:14-16, CSB). One trait without the other leads to an illegitimate Christian lifestyle and an erroneous biblical interpretation.

  1. Salt – Light = Legalism.

First, Jesus instructs the Christian to be the salt of the earth. Salt was used in biblical days as a purifying agent as well as a substance to add flavor to food. If the salt lost its flavor, then the salt was not good for anything except to be thrown out. The worthless salt would be thrown out to do nothing but kill the grass on which it fell. Salt represents the righteousness of a person as well as the person’s stand for truth.

If a person has salt in one’s life with no light (representing God’s love and grace), then the person will become a legalist. Legalistic Christianity has led more individuals to atheism than Karl Marx and Charles Darwin combined. Legalism can also lead to the creation of cults and cultic churches which is extremely troubling! Legalism is an inauthentic Christian worldview which Jesus and Paul often combated. Don’t let yourself become Pharisaical or a Judaizer in your stance for truth. As Paul says, “And if I give away all my possessions, and if I give over my body in order to boast but do not have love, I gain nothing” (1 Co. 13:3).

  1. Light – Salt = Liberalism.

Jesus also tells his disciples to be the light of the world (Mt. 5:14). This is intriguing as Jesus also says that he is the light of the world (Jn. 8:12). Light is a symbol of God’s presence (Ps. 27:1; Is. 9:2; 2 Co. 4:6) as God is light (1 Jn. 1:5). Light represents God’s love, grace, and goodness. Jesus said that if we follow him, we “believe in the light so that you may become children of the light” (Jn. 12:36). Thus, people can only be the light of the world if they have received the Light of the World into their lives. Furthermore, shining forth the light of God means that we share God’s love and grace to a dark world.

However, if a person lives his or her life with light that is not tempered with salt, then the person accepts a liberal mindset which is as destructive as legalism. Liberalism, in this sense, shares God’s word and extends God’s love but does not hold a standard of truth and moral righteousness. The result is a life that is not undergirded with God’s truth and eventually becomes watered down. This person is ironically one who becomes more susceptible to cults and cult-like movements due to his or her naivety.

  1. Salt + Light = Legitimate.

The only legitimate construct is one that combines both salt and light. Salt with no light leads to legalism, light with no salt leads to liberalism, but salt and light leads to a legitimate Christian walk. Paul notes that a life of love is one that “finds no joy in unrighteousness but rejoices in the truth” (1 Co. 13:6). You might say, “Yeah, but I don’t like telling anyone that they may be wrong.” Consider this: If you witnessed someone who was unaware that he or she was standing dangerously close to a cliff’s edge, would you advise them to be careful or just let them fall to their death? The loving thing to do would be to caution the person of the danger. Likewise, Christians should lovingly stand for truth and lovingly extend God’s grace to all they encounter by acts of kindness. As Jesus said, we need to both be the salt of the earth and the light of the world. As a friend of mine once said, “Only Jesus had the appropriate balance. We need to attempt to find that balance ourselves.”

Note: Bellator Christi is trying to change the URL on the YouTube channel to match the name of this site. We need 100 subscribers to make this happen. If you haven’t already, please subscribe to my YouTube account at https://www.youtube.com/bcpowerman. We are almost there! Click subscribe to the YouTube channel to help me out. Thanks!

 


Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as the Senior Pastor of Westfield Baptist Church in northwestern North Carolina.

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

By Colin Burgess

“Philosophy is everybody’s business.” – J. Mortimer Adler.

Aristotle opened his opus on philosophy, The Metaphysics, with, “All men by nature desire to know.” Nothing could be truer; when one begins to ask the ‘why’ questions, one is taking intellectual responsibility for constructing their weltanschauung, or worldview. No longer are they taking their thoughts or beliefs for granted, but are rebelling against their upbringing and are no longer espousing beliefs by means of dogma, adopted as a child, through upbringing and indoctrination, but are making these beliefs their own as they categorically examine them. This is not to say beliefs passed onto us from early childhood are wrong, but those who examine them carefully seek to provide some sort of justification for them. It is by philosophy we can have a discussion with long-dead thinkers, like Plato, Marx and the Apostle Paul, and as we represent their views, as accurately as possible, we can see what they were saying as though they were sitting right in front of us. By carefully doing this we can abandon the politics and religion of our parents, or examine them further and make them truly our own.

Often it is said that children are the best philosophers. Perhaps this is because they ask the most honest and uncensored questions. As we grow older our thoughts tend to reach a state of entropy, and we no longer seek justification for beliefs but are content to think only as much as necessary to get through our daily routine, and our minds begin to atrophy. Too often we let celebrities, politicians, clergymen, and newscasters tell us what to think, rather than learning, for ourselves, how to think, as we eat our TV dinners. Is this what Socrates meant when he said, “The unexamined life is not worth living?” He didn’t mean to say that those who don’t examine their thoughts should kill themselves, but that those who do not live an examined life are living without intent, they are basically marking time, waiting to die.

Maybe we will wake up from our intellectual slumber long enough to seek justification for defending certain social views we hold, or at election time when we defend our voting decisions to ourselves, our family and friends, but then once the dust has settled, many of us are too busy or content to fold our hands and resume life as normal. Surely this is not because of stupidity, many of these people are our doctors and lawyers, or highly skilled people in the trades. Perhaps it is because we are not in a “food for thought” economy, no one has given me a penny for my thoughts, so we do not pursue the art of ordering our thoughts simply because there are bills to pay and our children are hungry, and in the absence of a philosophy factory being built there is little chance many of us, except the chosen few, will ascend to the heights of academia where we will pay them a penny for their thoughts. Some may fancy themselves philosophers or have taken a module or two in philosophy, as part of an academic requirement, but many see philosophy as being difficult, or even boring.

Many have a misunderstanding of what philosophy is, without even realizing we are all philosophers even if we aren’t acquainted with the terminology; many think philosophy has to do with scratching our flea ridden beards, sitting around and pondering obtuse questions which have no ultimate answer. While such has been the case in the history of philosophy, this is certainly not the normative. While there is no consensus in the discipline of philosophy on many issues, philosophers seek to deal with very real issues which affect our society today, such as in the fields of ethics and medical research, there are political philosophers which examine political ideas and their effects on society. The discipline of law is built on philosophy, and many lawyers are required to study this, so they may reason through a set of premises and formulate a well-reasoned argument. In the sciences philosophy functions as a tool for defining what science is and how we ought to think about the world being studied.

One doesn’t have to do philosophy out of thin air, many philosophers today are standing on the shoulders of giants, and we can see how thinkers in the past dealt with similar issues facing us today, saving us the effort of reinventing the wheel, and allowing us to pick up where they left off.

To put philosophy in a nutshell, it can be summed up in 4 major periods, the ancient philosophers, the pre-Socratics, the Socratics, and the Medieval philosophers. All of these philosophers dealt with their experience of the world, and if one reads a tome on the history of Western Philosophy, they can get a comprehensive picture, after the fact, how they sought to wrestle with issues of their time. These philosophers, ranging from Aristotle to Nietzsche, wrestled with issues pertaining to metaphysics (what is real), epistemology (theory of knowledge), ethics (how we ought to behave), existentialism (who we are) and logic (how we ought to think). How one answers these questions will determine their views on God, politics and many other aspects of life, and if one opens up an introductory text to the philosophy, they will eventually see similarities in their views or thoughts to how the ancients thought, to some degree.

This is not to defend any particular view of ethics, metaphysics or religion but is to defend and encourage the art of thinking carefully and ordering our thoughts and becoming more aware of our beliefs, so they may be held with a greater degree of intentionality and justification and not taken for granted.

For those who want to briefly examine philosophy without committing to an expensive book on the subject, Douglas Groothuis has written an excellent and concise book summarizing the most famous philosophers and their famed sayings, in “Philosophy in Seven Sentences,” and for those wishing to further explore, I found ‘Philosophy for Dummies’ to be very informative and accessible. While Bertrand Russell has written an excellent history of western philosophy, Anthony Kenny has written a “New History of Western Philosophy,” which covers more contemporary philosophers as well as older ones.

 


Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3gm5JkR

By Natasha Crain

Last year, for various reasons, our family had the opportunity to attend a few different churches. Each time, we debriefed on what happened in Sunday school and what the kids learned. As they recounted their experiences, I was struck by how similar they were to the stories I’ve heard from so many parents in the last few years while speaking at churches and conferences.

Parents who take the discipleship of their kids seriously are typically disappointed by the quality of their kids’ Sunday school program.

For example, I asked people on my blog’s Facebook page a few weeks ago how they felt about the kids’ program at their church. The typical response was, “It’s OK. Standard stuff. Bible stories. Snack. Some songs. Maybe a video. Nothing very deep.”

It’s well known that at least 60% of kids are leaving Christianity by their early 20s today, most turning to a secular worldview. There are a lot of factors that go into that, but today I want to talk about how Sunday school programs fail to be more influential. More specifically, I want to talk about how their failure to be more influential results in kids becoming a particular kind of secularist: the secular humanist (secular humanists are those who reject a belief in God but believe they have a responsibility to be “good” people).

To understand why this happens, we have to first understand the role of culture in influencing our kids’ beliefs.

Sunday Schools

Cultural Influence is Stronger Than You Think

I recently read Dr. John Marriott’s new book, A Recipe for Disaster: Four Ways Churches and Parents Prepare Individuals to Lose Their Faith and How they Can Instill a Faith That Endures. Marriott has spent a large portion of his academic career researching factors behind deconversions from Christianity to atheism. In his book, he describes how churches and parents inadvertently set kids up for faith crises by “over-preparing, under-preparing, ill-preparing, and painfully-preparing” them for the world.

Marriott’s chapter on under-preparation and how churches and parents often fail to appreciate the power of culture is especially powerful. It sheds much light on why the church experience is so important for kids—and why it so often doesn’t have the impact it should. I can’t do full justice to Marriott’s work and insights here, but I want to highlight a key point from that chapter as it relates to my current topic.

Marriott defines culture as “a comprehensive, shared set of largely subconscious assumptions and values of a group that are the product of both history and institutions, and which constitutes for them a social ‘reality.’ It is the space in which we live and move and have our being. As such, it has incredible power to shape the kind of people we are and what we accept as reasonable and moral” (emphasis mine).

We generally assume that what we believe is simply what is most rational, as determined by our cognitive abilities. As Marriott points out, however, that is only part of the story. He explains, “Ideas do not originate, seem reasonable, and find acceptance in a vacuum; they do so within social settings and conditions that make them seem either plausible or not. But, and this is crucial, the role of culture in influencing claims as plausible or rational is subversive. By that, I mean that the plausibility and rationality of claims is felt, not apprehended cognitively. Culture does its formative work at the affective level of the gut, not the intellectual level of the head” (emphasis mine—more on those words in a minute).

What’s the implication here? When a society buys into a given interpretation of the world, it legitimizes that interpretation, and it does so at the deepest gut level, despite what your own thinking may otherwise tell you. Consider Europe in the middle ages, for example. Nearly everyone held a Christian worldview. The church played a role in every part of life and every level of society, including the economic, social, intellectual, and cultural lives of all Europeans. The prevalence of the Christian worldview in culture reinforced its rationality. If the medieval church didn’t do a good job of explaining to people why they should believe Christianity is true, it wasn’t as critical for justifying their beliefs—those beliefs were already legitimized by culture.

Today, however, it’s secularism that is legitimized by culture. Belief in the supernatural—that anything beyond the natural world exists—can no longer lean on society’s acceptance for its plausibility. Culture now shapes our kids’ gut-level reaction to God in a negative way.

It’s up to the church and parents to offer an even stronger response.

Where Sunday Schools Go Wrong

If you’re familiar with my writing at all, you know that I’m constantly beating the drum of how parents have the primary responsibility for their kids’ discipleship. None of this is to suggest I now think that falls to the church.

But the church has a tremendous opportunity to come alongside parents and be an alternative culture that reshapes our kids’ gut-level reaction to a supernatural worldview in a positive way.

As I said at the beginning of the post, research demonstrates this isn’t happening. Sunday schools are doing very little to offer a strong response to counter the culture narrative, and what they are doing is actively contributing to kids walking away to secular humanism.

While much could be said as to how that happens, I want to focus on four problematic themes I’ve personally seen in churches, and that I’ve inferred from my conversations with other parents about the Sunday school programs in their churches. Of course, this is a generalization. There are certainly Sunday schools out there that don’t match this profile, or only do so to a mild degree. But I’ve found these to be common problems.

  1. Lessons focus on character development without thoughtful ties to theism (a belief in God).

The predominant message kids get in many Sunday schools is that they should be good people. They should love others. They should forgive. They should share. They should give to others.

That’s nice. I want my kids to do all those things.

But there are critically important questions, given the competing secular narrative, that are rarely discussed, like:

  • Why is it that we can call anything good? If God didn’t exist, there would be no objective basis for calling anything good or bad. Everything would be a matter of opinion because there would be no higher-than-human moral authority.
  • Why should we be good people? If God didn’t exist, there would be no objective reason why anyone should live in any particular way. The word should imply a moral obligation that can’t logically exist in an atheistic world.
  • What evidence is there that God even exists?

No, these aren’t philosophical questions kids can’t understand. In Talking with Your Kids about God, I provide conversation guides for these and many related topics that are being used with kids as young as first grade. It’s not that it’s not possible; it’s that the church hasn’t woken up to the necessity. It’s easier to teach a lesson on being a helpful friend.

Many of these church kids will grow up to maintain the value of being “good,” but not understand how the existence of God is necessary to define that (nor understand why there’s a good reason to believe He exists).

  1. There’s not enough emphasis on understanding the identity of Jesus and why it matters.

Secular humanists often appreciate Jesus as a “good moral teacher” in a way that irreligious people without a Christian background do not. And if you listen to the average Sunday school lesson, you couldn’t be blamed for thinking that was the basic church message as well. But whether Jesus was God makes all the difference in the world.

With the culture saying He was only a good moral teacher, Sunday schools should be responding by helping kids answer questions like:

  • Did Jesus really claim to be God?
  • Who did the disciples think Jesus was?
  • Why did people around Jesus conclude He wasn’t “just” a good moral teacher, as so many people believe today?
  • What difference does it make if Jesus was God incarnate or just a good moral teacher?

By not addressing these deeper questions, Sunday schools prepare kids to appreciate Jesus’s moral teachings but also to drop their vague belief in his divinity once the culture becomes the stronger narrative. Once again, we end up with secular humanism.

  1. Bible teaching is limited to what’s in the Bible, and rarely addresses questions about the Bible.

Kids hear all about amazing biblical miracles in church, then go into a world that says those miracles aren’t possible.

Repeat.

What are they to take from that intellectual tug-of-war?

If the Bible is going to be taken seriously, Sunday schools can’t just keep retelling stories. They have to address why there’s a reason to believe those stories are actually true. In a world that says the Bible is a book of fairy tales, Sunday schools should proactively be answering questions like:

  • How were the books of the Bible selected?
  • Why were books left out of the Bible?
  • How do we know we can trust the Bible’s authors?
  • How do we know the Bible we have today says what the authors originally wrote?
  • Does the Bible have errors and contradictions?

(If you’re not sure how to answer these, they are all chapters in Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side.)

Without this knowledge, kids can learn to appreciate secular humanist values like courage through David, leadership through Moses, or self-sacrifice through Jesus, but they won’t have any reason to conclude the Bible is a true telling of reality that’s authoritative for their lives. The stories they hear each week will become just one more source of literary moral inspiration for a secular humanist.

  1. Churches aren’t supporting parents enough in discipleship, so parents end up focusing on raising “nice” kids.

Something I consistently hear from parents is that the kids in their child’s Sunday school can be just as negative of an influence as kids outside the church. I’m not talking about things that would be natural for all kids to struggle with (general sinfulness), but things that you might expect to be different with church-going families. For example, it’s common that kids in Sunday school are now telling others in class that the Bible isn’t true or that believing in God is stupid.

In many cases, this is because parents—even those with deep faith themselves—don’t know how to equip their own kids for today’s world. The culture has already done its work at the gut level, the parents send their kids to Sunday school hoping to counter that, the Sunday school isn’t up to the task (for reasons already discussed), and the church ends up looking like the outside culture—a place filled with kids who adhere to a secular worldview, consciously or not.

It’s a vicious cycle. And few churches are working to equip parents with the understanding they need to respond faithfully to culture at home. Meanwhile, parents do what’s easier and focus on raising kids with the kinds of “good values” any secular humanist would be proud of. Those kids eventually discard Christianity in favor of simply being “good without God.”

The church and parents lose the culture war together.

Last year, a team and I started a ministry to change that: Grassroots Apologetics for Parents (GAP). GAP works with local churches to launch and host chapters that equip parents with a deeper understanding of the Christian worldview and apologetics. Chapters complete two 10- to 12-week studies each year. Dozens of pilot chapters launched in the fall or are launching this Spring. Click here to learn more about bringing GAP to your church—we would love to have you part of this movement.

It’s going to take a lot for the church to catch up to the impact of culture. But it can be done. Just as parents and the church can lose the culture war together, we can win the culture war together. It starts with the realization that the battle is happening whether we want to fight or not. The choice is then ours: Prepare and engage, or keep giving kids goldfish and playing games each Sunday.

If you’re interested in curricula designed to take kids to this deeper level in churches and private schools, check out Foundation Worldview Curriculum and Deep Roots Bible Curriculum.

 


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

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Rr1wPt

Como no creyente, sospeché que las historias sobre Jesús se volvían más elaboradas y grandiosas con el paso del tiempo. Por eso era tan importante para mí leer los primeros documentos relacionados con Jesús; esperaba que los relatos iniciales retrataran a Jesús como un maestro sabio, pero nada más. Desde luego, no esperaba que Jesús fuera representado como Dios hasta mucho más tarde en la historia. Pero descubrí justamente lo contrario. Los primeros testigos describen a Jesús como divino y claramente lo adoraron como Dios. Esta representación de Jesús aparece constantemente en los escritos de cada estudiante sucesivo y líder cristiano fiel a través de los primeros años de la historia cristiana. A continuación, un breve resumen de las primeras descripciones de Jesús:

La Deidad de Jesús no es una leyenda tardía

Bernabé, compañero de Pablo (c. 70-130 d.C.)

“Él es el Señor de todo el mundo, al que dijo Dios en el principio del mundo: Hagamos al hombre a imagen y semejanza nuestra”.

Ignacio, obispo de la Iglesia de Antioquía (c. 110 d.C.)

“Dios mismo se manifestó en forma humana para la regeneración de la vida eterna”.

Clemente de Roma, el obispo de la Iglesia en Roma (c. 120 d.C.)

“Hermanos, es lógico que deben pensar en Jesucristo como de Dios – como Juez de

los vivos y los muertos”.

Ireneo, Obispo de la Iglesia en Lyons (Actualmente), Francia (c. 180 d.C.)

“De esta manera Él manifiesta en términos claros que Él es Dios, y que Su venida fue en Belén… Dios, entonces, se hizo hombre, y el Señor mismo nos salvó”.

“Él es Dios, porque el nombre Emmanuel indica esto”.

“¿Cómo pueden ser salvos si no fue Dios quien obró su salvación en la tierra? ¿O cómo pasará el hombre a Dios, si Dios no hubiera venido primero al hombre?”

Clemente de Alejandría, maestro cristiano de renombre en Egipto (c. 195 d.C.)

“¡Oh, el Gran Dios! ¡O el Hijo perfecto! El Hijo en el Padre y el Padre en el Hijo… Dios el Verbo, que se hizo hombre por amor a nosotros”.

“Nada, entonces, es odiado por Dios, ni tampoco por la Palabra. Por tanto, son uno — es decir, Dios. Porque Él ha dicho: “En el principio el Verbo estaba con Dios, y el Verbo era Dios”.

“El Verbo mismo, que es el Hijo de Dios, es uno con el Padre por igualdad de sustancia. Es eterno e increado”.

Hipólito, presbítero líder en la Iglesia en Roma (c. 205 d.C.)

“Aunque soportó la cruz, volvió a la vida como Dios, habiendo aplastado la muerte”.

Tertuliano, apologista cristiano apasionado en Cartago, África del Norte (c. 207 d.C.)

“Nosotros los que creemos que Dios realmente vivió en la tierra, y que tomó sobre sí la humilde condición humana, con el propósito de salvar al hombre, no pensamos como aquellos que rehúsan creer que a Dios le importe algo…. Afortunadamente, no obstante, es parte del credo de los cristianos el creer en el hecho de que Dios sí ha muerto y que, sin embargo, Él está vivo hoy y para siempre”.

Orígenes, alumno famoso de Clemente de Alejandría (c. 225 d.C.)

“Nadie debe sentirse ofendido que el Salvador también es Dios, al ver que Dios es el Padre. Del mismo modo, ya que el Padre es llamado Omnipotente, nadie debe sentirse ofendido de que el Hijo de Dios también se llama Omnipotente. Porque de esta manera, serán ciertas las palabras que Él dice al Padre: “Todo lo mío es tuyo, y lo tuyo, mío; y he sido glorificado en ellos”.

“El Hijo no es diferente del Padre en sustancia.”

Note que la descripción de Jesús no cambia con el tiempo. Jesús no se hizo más divino con el paso de los años. Jesús era Dios desde los primeros relatos y Él fue adorado como Dios desde el principio. Incluso los no creyentes del primer siglo observaron que Jesús fue adorado como Dios desde los primeros días. Plinio el Joven (61-112 d.C.), el gobernador de Bitinia (d.C. 112) y un senador romano, escribió al emperador Trajano pidiendo orientación sobre cómo se debe tratar a los cristianos en su provincia. Él dijo que los cristianos estaban “reunidos en un cierto día fijo antes de que se hiciera de día, cuando cantaban en forma alternada un himno a Cristo como a un dios, y se comprometían a un juramento solemne, a no hacer malas obras, a no cometer nunca fraudes, robos, adulterios, a no mentir ni negar la fe”. Está claro, incluso a partir de esta referencia pagana, que los primeros creyentes adoraron a Jesús como a Dios.

William Lane Craig, en su libro, Reasonable Faith: Truth And Christian Apologetics (La fe razonable: la verdad y la apologética cristiana), escribe: “Los estudios realizados por académicos del N.T. como Martin Hengel de la Universidad de Tubingen, CFD Moule de Cambridge, y otros han demostrado que después de veinte años de la crucifixión; la Cristología de que completamente proclamaban a Jesús como Dios encarnado ya existía… el sermón cristiano más antiguo, el relato más antiguo de un mártir cristiano, el informe pagano más antiguo de la Iglesia, y la oración litúrgica más antigua (1 Corintios 16:22) todos se refieren a Cristo como Señor y Dios”. Eso es muy poderoso. La Deidad de Jesús no es una creación tardía o una atribución legendaria. Los primeros creyentes, en los primeros capítulos de la historia cristiana, proclamaron que Jesús es Dios.

 


J. Warner Wallace es autor de Cold-Case Christianity, tiene una trayectoria de más de 25 años como policía y detective, posee un Master en Teología por el Seminario Teológico Golden Gate Baptist y es profesor adjunto de Apologética en la universidad de BIOLA.

Blog Originalhttp://bit.ly/2U24Qx0

Traducido por Jorge Gil Calderón

Editado por María Andreina Cerrada

Do you have locks on your doors? How about on your car? Got a fence so your kids can play safely? The truth is everyone believes in secure borders. In fact, life would be impossible without them. As long as human nature is what it is—bent toward evil—borders will be necessary.
Frank skillfully discuss this extremely difficult topic and help you navigate thru this issue with some clear and helpful insights.
Also, during the last section of this episode, he responds to a question from a listener related to a Bible Study she attended where they told her basically she doesn’t have to give reasons for the truth of Christianity. Yikes! Yes, we know; unfortunately, there are still preachers, teachers, and pastors that don’t get it, and then when 75% of their youth leaves the faith when they go to college, they act surprised. Make sure to listen until the end. God bless!

Keep Frank busy by sending your questions to Hello@CrossExamined.org and don’t miss this episode!

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher