How a Cold-Case Atheist Detective Became a Case-Making Christian

How a Cold-Case Atheist Detective Became a Case-Making Christian

,

By Terrell Clemmons

I think it may be true,” Jim Wallace said to his wife, Susie. He was lying in bed, staring at the ceiling.

“What may be true?”

“Christianity.” Why did she need to ask? He’d been obsessed with the subject for several weeks now, talking her ears off on multiple occasions. It had all started at Saddleback Church during an otherwise normal Sunday morning service. A friend, a fellow police officer, had been inviting him for months, and he’d finally acquiesced. Susie liked the family to attend church, and although Jim had no use for religion, he loved his wife deeply and placed a very high priority on marriage and family. As for church, he didn’t get it, but he was fine going along for her sake.

Jim managed to ignore most of the sermon, but his ears did perk up when Pastor Rick Warren mentioned some wise principles Jesus taught that could be applied today. He’d described Jesus as “the smartest man who ever lived.” This guy Jesus might have some information I could use workwise, Jim thought. He’d always been open to learning from any ancient sage whose wisdom had stood the test of time. So the following week he dropped $6.00 on a Bible at B. Dalton bookstore and leafed straight to the New Testament Gospels. He wasn’t interested in anything but the red letters. What did Jesus say?

As Jim read, though, he was soon struck by something else. By this time in his career as a police officer and crime investigator, he had interviewed hundreds if not thousands of eyewitnesses and suspects and had read countless written testimonies. The Gospel accounts, he was surprised to note, bore a striking resemblance, not to the mythology or moralistic storytelling he’d always believed them to be, but to actual eyewitness accounts, something with which he was intimately familiar. His investigator’s curiosity was piqued.

Opening an Investigation

Since he’d shown a knack for interviewing early in his career, Jim had received special training in a variety of investigative techniques. One of them, a methodology called Forensic Statement Analysis (FSA), was especially designed to scrutinize eyewitness testimonies to detect deception and other manner of falsification. Wow, Jim thought, wouldn’t it be cool to try to apply this discipline I do at work to one of the Gospels?

He was in his element now. He started with the Gospel of Mark. For a full month, he meticulously picked it apart, hanging on every word, and in spite of deep skepticism going in, ultimately came to the conclusion that the Gospel writer Mark had penned the eyewitness account of the Apostle Peter, exactly what traditional Christianity has held all along. Pressing on, he subsequently reached the conclusion that the other three Gospels also gave every appearance of being exactly what they purported to be—authentic, eyewitness accounts written by men who genuinely believed what they were writing.

Personal Crossroads

This was a wholly unexpected development. At this juncture, Jim’s well-honed drive to uncover truth ran square up against his lifelong aversion to all things religious. The only son of a divorced, cultural Catholic mother and atheist father, Jim had been an avowed atheist all his life. And he was quite happy with it. Religion had always been just plain silly to him, and as a shrewd cop for whom skepticism was a skill that got you home at night, he had a very low threshold for silliness. Christianity might be a useful delusion for some, or an area of weakness for others, but nothing beyond that. Worse, despite his love and respect for Susie as a quiet believer, he’d badmouthed the few people he’d known in the department who were Christians. Now, as a follow-the-facts-wherever-they-lead investigator, he had to contend with the possibility that there might be something to this “garbage” after all.

By now, he was on much more than an intellectual exercise. The Scriptures he’d been examining contained certain claims that were supremely unsettling to a contented atheist. There were supernatural claims, claims about authority, claims about exactly who was God. And some of Jesus’ teachings, if you took them seriously, were devastatingly convicting. What do I do with the claims of Jesus related to his own divinity? And the claims of Jesus related to the nature of my heart?

As an atheist, he’d always felt like he was a good guy. He’d made his own rules for what was appropriate, and according to them, he was living a good life. He wasn’t hurting anybody. He was even devoting his life to stopping the bad guys who were. He didn’t believe in heaven, but if there was one, he was fairly confident he would make it in. But Jesus said differently. Who was right?

“I knew that I was standing on the edge of something profound,” he wrote in Cold Case Christianity.

I started reading the Gospels to learn what Jesus taught about living a good life and found that He taught much more about His identity as God and the nature of eternal life. I knew that it would be hard to accept one dimension of His teaching while rejecting the others. If I had good reason to believe that the Gospels were reliable eyewitness accounts, I was going to have to deal with the stuff I had always resisted as a skeptic. What about all the miracles that are wedged in there between the remarkable words of Jesus?… And why was it that I continued to resist the miraculous elements in the first place?

These were imposing questions, threatening to upheave everything he’d believed all his life.

Sometime during this Gospel investigation, a friend gave him a copy of Mere Christianity, by C. S. Lewis. After reading it, Jim, ever obsessive once onto the trail of something, went out and bought everything C. S. Lewis had written. One quote from God in the Dock resonated powerfully when he read it and never left him afterwards. “Christianity is a statement which, if false, is of no importance, and, if true, is of infinite importance,” Lewis wrote. “The one thing it cannot be is moderately important.” It made such perfect sense. The big-question issues of life, Jim thought, those are the ones I should be spending my time on. The most important thing he could do right now was to answer the question, Are these Gospels divine?

All his adult life, he’d instructed jurors to stay evidential in their examination of what happened. “Live and breathe what the evidence dictates to you,” was the inviolable rule. And just as jurors must make decisions based on the evidence, not personal predispositions, so, he knew, must he. And after a full investigation, he found that the evidence strongly suggested that the Gospels were, in fact, divine. And if they were, it followed that Jesus was right and he was wrong. He knew that to reject this truth any longer would be perilous. He accepted it as transcendent truth and began making life adjustments accordingly.

Case-Making Christianity

Jim became a Christian, not because he had any life problem he needed to fix—he was quite happy with his life—but because he became convinced that Christianity is true. “It’s not convenient for me. It’s not always comfortable, and it doesn’t always serve my purposes. There are times when my brokenness would like to take a shortcut, but I’m stuck with the fact that this is true,” he says. “And like any transcendent truth, you’re either going to measure yourself by it, or you’re going to reject it to your own peril.”

But don’t get the idea that he’s a reluctant convert. He immediately plunged with Wallace-esque drive into full-bore Christian case-making: he enrolled in seminary and seven years later completed a masters in theology. He also served part-time as a youth pastor, all the while still working full-time as a detective. Out of his passion to train believers, particularly young people, to become case-making Christians, he created PleaseConvinceMe.com [coldcasechristianity.com current site] as a place to post and discuss what he was discovering about the evidence supporting Christianity.

The website draws fire at times because Jim doesn’t limit himself to presenting Christian principles for a Christian readership. Quite to the contrary, he regularly puts forth objective truth claims about reality, making the case that Christianity is true, not just true for him and maybe true for you, but transcendently true for everyone at all times.

And he’s amassing formidable evidence to support the claim. Much of it is objective and rational—that’s what draws the fire. But there is also that which is subjective and personal, but no less real. Case in point: this formerly angry atheist who had been ever ready to tell any bothersome Christian why he didn’t accept all that “hooey” engages his detractors with remarkable patience, occasionally hearing echoes of his own younger voice. As a toughened cop and softened believer, he can now “take a punch and deliver a kiss. I no longer have a desire to respond with anger,” he explains. “Not because I’m more clever tactically, but because I think that God has done something in my own life. That God who I discovered was true evidentially, I’m also discovering in my own life is true evidentially. Because he’s changing me.” •

Christian Case-Making 101

Cold Case Christianity

Jim Wallace keeps a leather bag packed beside his bed. His callout bag holds the tools he’ll need if he’s called to a homicide scene during the night—a flashlight, digital recorder, notepad, etc. It also contains an investigative checklist representing years of distilled wisdom gleaned from partners, classes, training seminars, and his own years of experience. His new book, Cold Case Christianity, offers a metaphorical toolkit for both Christians and skeptics and invites them to retrace with him the steps he took when he applied his investigative tools to the Gospels years ago. The real-life detective stories he uses to illustrate the principles will be an added delight for TV crime-show fans. Cold Case Christianity will:

  • Give you ten principles of cold case investigation and equip you to use them to evaluate the claims of the New Testament Gospel authors. Applying these principles will help you gain a firmer handle on the historic evidence for Christianity.
  • Provide you with a four-step template for evaluating eyewitnesses to determine if they are reliable, and walk you through applying these steps to the eyewitness Gospel accounts, showing how they more than adequately pass forensic muster.

The historic truth claims of Christianity are under assault from all directions, but when pressed, they withstand the most scrupulous of investigative techniques. Jim Wallace is passionate about getting this information out, and about training Christians to become skilled case-makers for Christianity. “Most other theistic worldviews are deficient in the very areas where Christianity is strong,” he says. “We have great reasons to believe what we believe.”

—Terrell Clemmons

 

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/2VUTDDS

/by
How Naturalism Defeats Science As A Knowledge Discipline

How Naturalism Defeats Science As A Knowledge Discipline

,

By Luke Nix

Introduction

One of the core necessities of science is the constancy of the laws that govern this universe. The fact that the laws of physics have the same since the beginning of the universe and will continue until the universe is destroyed allows scientists to not only observe and know what is happening in the moment of their observation, but it allows them to discover what has happened in the past and even make accurate predictions of the behavior of objects and conditions in the future. Some scientists even use the understanding that the laws of physics are constant to make predictions of what we will observe in the past (by observing distant celestial objects), then conduct multiple observations to test their theory. But where do they come up with the idea that the laws of physics are constant in the first place?

The Constancy of the Laws of Physics

We certainly cannot look inside this universe to establish it, for that would be to beg the question (assume what we are trying to conclude). Without something outside the universe that established the constancy of the laws of physics, such an assumption has no justification. So, on this view, since our first assumption has no justification, neither do any of the conclusions that follow it. At best, the constancy or variability of the laws of physics is unknowable. Since scientists foundationally base their claims about the past and the future upon something that is unknowable, then their claims about the past and the future can only reach the same level of knowledge: unknowable.

At this point, many scientists would object based upon observation of distant celestial objects. My response is to point out that a subtle fallacy is in place. While we think that we can observe the past by looking at distant celestial objects to observe how the laws of physics behaved back then, we are still stuck with merely a suspicion (thus the whole scientific enterprise that is dependent upon constancy is suspect). I ask that the objector recalls that in order to correlate the observation to any point in time, the speed of light (governed by the laws of physics) must be finite and constant– light does take time to travel, so we are seeing light as it was when it left the object not as it is now. To say that observing distant objects establishes the constancy of the laws of physics is to commit the fallacy of begging the question. The objector has sneaked his conclusion into his argument. This invalidates his conclusion that our observations establish the constancy of the laws of physics. But all is not lost, they do still have a suspicion that the laws have been constant into the past.

Naturalism Defeats Science As A Knowledge Discipline

If this universe is all that there is, then there really is no possible way to justify the belief in the foundational idea that the laws of physics are constant. All further conclusions will remain as merely suspicions and will remain unknowable. However, if something exists outside the universe that does provide a foundation for the laws of physics, then we at least have something to reason toward constant laws of physics without begging the question. If God exists and created this universe, then He certainly would be the source for the laws of physics, but this alone does not tell us if they are constant or variable over time.

Christianity Provides The Foundation For Science As A Knowledge Discipline

Interestingly enough, though, God has revealed to us which option He selected, and it matches the observations that cause us to suspect one or the other. Let us examine Jeremiah 33:25-26:

Slide5

In this passage, God compares His constancy to the laws that govern His creation. If these laws are not truly constant, then the comparison means, at best, nothing, and at worst, the exact opposite (that the laws are variable).

If scientists wish to claim that their conclusions are more than mere unknowable suspicions, then they have no choice but to be dependent upon God’s existing. And we’re not talking about some deistic god, for a deistic god does not reveal Himself to His creation (God is revealing His constancy, among other characteristics, in the passage above), nor are we talking about some generic theistic god. We are talking about the God of the Bible.

This God not only told us the truth of something that we only became suspicious may be true in recent centuries (the constancy of the laws of physics), but He came to earth, died, and resurrected from the dead (see this historical evidence in the post: “Did The Historical Jesus Rise From The Dead?“). In that resurrection, He confirmed His claims to be God, the Creator of the universe: the Source of the laws of physics.

Slide11

Conclusion

Naturalism simply cannot justify the conclusion that the laws of physics are constant, and unless scientists are willing to ground this foundationally necessary concept in the God of the Bible outside the universe, none of their conclusions can be more than suspicions, and suspicions hardly counts as knowledge. In order for any conclusions that count as knowledge to come out of the scientific enterprise, God must exist to be the source of the constancy of the laws of physics. If naturalism is true, then science necessarily is not a knowledge discipline.

 

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/2JxRMOV

/by
The Education of Jesus of Nazareth

The Education of Jesus of Nazareth

,

By Brian Chilton

Often, critical scholars make Jesus of Nazareth out to be a country bumpkin, one who was uneducated and unsophisticated. However, when one evaluates his life and teaching style, it appears that Jesus of Nazareth was a well-polished individual who spoke and taught with great authority and wisdom. The Jewish leaders marveled at Jesus, saying, “How is this man so learned, since he hasn’t been trained” (Jn. 7:14, CSB)? While this writer holds that Jesus was the divine Son of God, the human aspect of Jesus does not indicate that Jesus was an uneducated hillbilly, but rather one who had at least some formal education. The following are five reasons to believe that Jesus was a well-educated man.

  1. Jesus could read. The Synoptic Gospels indicate that Jesus stood in the synagogue of Nazareth. Luke notes that Jesus “entered the synagogue on the Sabbath day and stood up to read” (Lk. 4:16, CSB). The text indicates that he read from the prophet Isaiah. In Jewish culture, Hebrew boys were expected to be able to read from the Scriptures. In Jesus’s case, it is clear that he had the ability to read, which was better than 90% of the society at the time. The reading level for Jews was higher than the those of the Greco-Roman world due to the emphasis of schools in the synagogues, at least for boys.
  2. Jesus could write on some level. While John 7:53-8:11 is not found in the earliest manuscripts of John, it is generally accepted to be historically genuine since it has all the earmarks of the historical stories told of Jesus. What makes the passage of Scripture so fascinating is that on two occasions, Jesus is said to have written something in the sand (Jn. 8:6, 8). The term used for Jesus’s writing does not indicate some abstract doodling, but the writing of words. Graphō is used for writing that is found in books and scrolls. According to Louw and Nida, “Since the knowledge of writing is almost universal, there is usually no difficulty in obtaining a satisfactory term for writing” (Louw & Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the NT, 395).
  3. Jesus taught according to rabbinic styles. Jesus also used rabbinic styles of teaching. Jesus often answered questions by asking them. When the rich young ruler asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life while calling Jesus good, Jesus responded by asking, “Why do you call me good” (Lk. 18:19, CSB)? In another case, Jesus is asked whether people should pay taxes. Jesus responds with the question after taking a denarius, “Whose image and inscriptions does it have” (Lk. 20:24)? Jesus also uses a rabbinical style of teaching called Remez, which alludes to a passage of Scripture. Remez is a Haggadic method of interpretation. Since many people memorized the Scripture, it wasn’t necessary to quote the entire passage of Scripture. Rather, one could recall part of the Scripture or allude to the Scripture. When the allusion to the Scripture is given, the entire passage is referenced. When Jesus answers the disciples of John the Baptist as to whether he is the Messiah, Jesus replies by saying, “The blind receive their sight, the lame walk, those with leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor are told the good news, and blessed is the one who isn’t offended by me” (Mt. 11:5). In this one statement, Jesus references Isaiah 29:18; 35:5-6; 42:7; and 61:1. John the Baptist would have understood Jesus’s citation (Blizzard and Bivin, org, 2013). Not only does Jesus use extensive rabbinic techniques, Jesus uses tremendous methodologies of logic in his teaching as well as various picturesque expressions in his teaching, including similes (Mt. 7:24, 26), metaphors (Mt. 13:19-22), hypocatastates (comparison of two unlike things in naming, Lk. 13:32), metonymies (word or phrase is substituted for another word or phrase associated with it, Mt. 10:34; 11:21, 23), synecdoche (like metonymies but that this substitutes a part for a whole or vice versa, Lk. 23:29), hyperboles (exaggerations to prove a point, Mt. 5:29-30), personification (Mt. 6:3, 6:34, 11:2), apostrophes (addresses an object as if it were a person, Mt. 11:21, 23; Lk. 10:13), euphemisms (substitution of an inoffensive expression with a bold one, Mt. 9:24; Jn. 11:11), ironies (Mk. 2:17; Mk. 7:9), paradoxes (Mt. 5:2-5; Mt. 19:29; Mt. 23:11), puns (Lk. 21:11; Jn. 3:3), humor (Mt. 6:2; 7:3; 19:24), enigmas (Mt. 8:22; Mt. 10:34), aphorisms (Mt. 5:13-14; 6:34; Lk. 12:34), repetitions (“Blessed” in the Beatitudes; “I tell you” in Mt. 18:3, 10, 18-19, 22; 26:21, 29, 34), a fortiori (Mt. 6:26; 10:29-30), reductio ad absurdium (Mt. 5:46-47; 12:24-26), excluded middle (Mt. 12:30; 21:25-27), noncontradiction (Lk. 6:39) analogies (Mt. 12:40), contrasts (Mt. 23:23-24), and Hebrew forms of poetry (Mt. 10:24, 26) (Zuck, Teaching as Jesus Taught, 183-234). The high level of logic and reasoning in addition to his rabbinical style of teaching seems to preclude that Jesus of Nazareth was well educated.
  4. Jesus knew the Hebrew Bible well. This point does not need a lot of exposition. It is evident even upon a casual reading of the Gospels that Jesus knew the Scriptures well. He even segments the Scriptures into the classical way of segmenting them as the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms (Lk. 24:44). Jesus quoted from Deuteronomy, Isaiah, the Psalms, and other prophets frequently indicating that he had memorized large segments of Scripture.
  5. Jesus lived in a region that had schools. Finally, it should be noted that according to Professor Shmuel Safrai, the number of Galilean rabbis eclipsed those of Judean rabbis in the first century (Safrai, Jewish People of the First Century). Archaeologists have uncovered synagogues in the Galilean area as found within the first century. Jesus would have received his education at the synagogues by the rabbis of the area in addition to his earthly father, Joseph of Nazareth. While not much is known about Joseph, if James, the half-brother of Jesus, is any indication, it would seem that Joseph would have been quite knowledgeable of the Scriptures himself as he would have passed along an education to Jesus and James.

When Jesus was called unlearned, it is most likely that the Jewish leaders noted that Jesus had not been trained in the approved schools in Judea. He had, however, been educated in Galilee. Each synagogue had its own bet-sefer, that is, a school of learning. While Jesus may not have received the training that a scribe would have received in Jerusalem, Jesus would most certainly been educated during his early years as was evidenced by Jesus’s reading, writing, and teaching skills. Many people ask, “What was Jesus doing in his early years?” I think the answer is quite simple. Jesus was memorizing and learning the Scriptures in preparation for his ministry, which was to come. If Jesus, the Son of God, needed to study the Scriptures, what does that say of our need to study them?

Sources

Blizzard, Roy B., and David Bivin. “Study Shows Jesus as Rabbi.” Bible Scholars.org (May 2013). Accessed on April 29, 2019. https://www.biblescholars.org/2013/05/study-shows-jesus-as-rabbi.html.

Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Albert Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. New York: United Bible Societies, 1996.

Safrai, Shmuel. The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural, and Religious Life and Institutions. Volume 2. Boston: Brill, 1988.

Zuck, Roy B. Teaching as Jesus Taught. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1995.

 

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/2w51gbs

/by
You Can’t Make Your Kid a Christian

You Can’t Make Your Kid a Christian

By Natasha Crain

I thrive on control.

I love projects that can be broken into goals, tasks, and success or failure criteria. Nothing motivates me more than the opportunity to strive toward the successful completion of something. I actually have spreadsheets that outline every hour of my life with a color code for the activity, so I can understand exactly where my time goes. I even have spreadsheets for my kids’ lives!

For a major “control freak” like me, having kids is a real wake-up call to the fact that there are some very important things in life that cannot be controlled via spreadsheet (gasp). I didn’t realize that, however, until a few months ago when I was trying to identify why I was always mad at my twins. Aside from the fact that they were being typical 3-year-olds, they were not behaving according to “my plan.” I had the mentality that perfect parenting could lead to perfect kids. I certainly never thought my parenting was perfect, but every time they misbehaved, I felt it was a direct indictment of the quality of my parenting, and that led to misplaced frustration… at them. When they were good, I attributed it to me, and when they were bad, I attributed it to me even more so.

The problem with this is that it effectively made my parenting all about me rather than about my kids. I realized that I needed to start having a teacher mentality rather than a boss mentality. The key distinction is that teachers are responsible for learning. Bosses are responsible for outcomes. When you think you are working toward an outcome, your focus is on controlling the process. When you think you are working toward learning, your heart lets go of the process to embrace that which will most impactfully grow the student.

How much more so this is true as applied to the development of our children’s faith!
If our motivation for investing in our children’s faith development is even subconsciously rooted in the belief that we 1) can control that outcome or 2) are responsible for that outcome, we will start controlling the process too tightly.

We can’t “make” our children Christians.  

Only God can call our children. Not me. Not you.

Only our children can respond to that call. Not me. Not you.

That’s why we could invest 24 hours per day in spiritual activities for our kids, and they could be atheists the day they leave home. That’s why we could invest 0 hours per day in spiritual activities for our kids, and they could be rock-solid Christ-followers the day they leave home.

This shouldn’t be discouraging. It simply means we need to put our children in God’s hands and focus on the responsibility God has given us.

So what ARE Christian parents responsible for?

The three most specific passages in the Bible on parenting all speak to the role of teaching (not to outcomes).

“…bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.” (Ephesians 6:4, emphasis mine)

“Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old, he will not depart from it.” (Proverbs 22:6, emphasis mine)

“You shall teach them (God’s commands) diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.” (Deuteronomy 6:7, emphasis mine)

Our hearts have to be precisely right for this calling of Christian parenting. Our time spent in faith development is not a purchase; it is an investment that may or may not pay off with the desired outcome. But God has called us as teachers. We need to let Him be the boss.

 

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/2Jr9cNe

/by
When C.S. Lewis Warned Us About Alfie Evans and Charlie Gard

When C.S. Lewis Warned Us About Alfie Evans and Charlie Gard

By Bob Perry

Unfortunately, everybody has heard about Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans. They were both born with eerily similar and rare genetic disorders. They both died before they reached age two. Sadly, those kinds of things happen too often. But neither of them are the reason you’ve heard of Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans. You’ve heard of them because they became icons for the inherent dangers of a state-controlled health care system. C. S. Lewis warned us about this more than 70 years ago.

Charlie Gard

Charlie Gard was born in England on August 4, 2016, with an exceptionally rare genetic disorder. His prognosis was not good, but his parents found a hospital in the U.S. that agreed to offer an experimental treatment for the disease. They even raised the 1.3 million Pounds (about $1.74 million) required for the treatment. But the hospital where Charlie was born, and the grossly misnamed European High Court of “Human Rights” (ECHR), would not allow him to go receive the treatment. They didn’t want his case to set a precedent. Charlie Gard died on July 26, 2017.

Alfie Evans

In a more recent but similar story, Alfie Evans was born in England on May 9, 2016. Shortly thereafter, Alfie was diagnosed with another rare degenerative genetic disease. Once again, the prognosis was dire, but Alfie’s parents arranged for their son to be treated at a hospital in Italy. Again, the British hospital refused to allow him to go. The case was appealed to the same ECHR (Family Division) and got the same response. Alfie died on April 28, 2018.

Remember, the families of both of these children were not allowed to seek treatments outside the state-controlled health care system, Britain’s National Health Service. The power of a state bureaucracy trumped the wishes of the family, even when the family had raised the money for treatments on their own.

The Prescience of C. S. Lewis

Many people are unaware that C. S. Lewis wrote a three-book science fiction series called The Space Trilogy. The third installment of that series was titled, That Hideous Strength. In that book, the main character (Mark Studdock) was seduced to corruption by the promise of joining the inner ring of a powerful English society. It was an organization of men who used questionable tactics to establish an “efficient” state bureaucracy run by controllers who saw themselves as being a cut above the rest of the world. The name of the society Mark yearned to join was the National Institute of Co-ordinated Experiments — N.I.C.E. Lewis described N.I.C.E. as:

the first fruits of that constructive fusion between state and laboratory on which so many thoughtful people base their hopes for a better world. It was to be free from almost all the tiresome restraints… which have hitherto hampered research in this country. It was also largely free from the restraints of economy…

This was a fictional foreshadowing of what Lewis feared would become a socio-political reality. Some of his reviewers begged to differ. At the time, the New York Times described That Hideous Strength as “superlatively nonsensical excitement, challenging implications,” while Time magazine called it a “well-written, fast-paced satirical fantasy.” That was in 1946.

Fast forward to 2009. Writing in National Review on September 21, 2009, John C. Goodman reported on the contemporary Britain’s National Health Commission:

“which currently recommends against any treatment that costs more than $45,000 to save a year of life. Because of [the commission], British cancer patients are denied access to drugs that are routinely available in the U.S. and on the European continent, and thousands die prematurely.”

The name of the commission he is talking about is the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The British people refer to it by the more commonly recognized acronym: N.I.C.E.

I wish I could make this stuff up. In fact, when I read this story, I assumed that Mr. Goodman had made it up. He hadn’t. But the creepy stuff doesn’t stop there.

N.I.C.E. Roots of a State-Controlled Health Care System

Mr. Goodman’s story was about the fact that some American politicians thought N.I.C.E. was a great model to use in America. Then Senator Tom Daschle said so in his book, Critical: What We Can Do About The Health-Care Crisis.

Ten years later, the relentless pursuit of state-controlled health care systems continues. And make no mistake. Even though the issue is currently on the back burner of American politics, it won’t stay there for long. Politicians of both parties will revivify it. They will tout a better system. There will be promises of no “death panels.” They will sell it as a more economically efficient system.

Your Children Are Not Your Own

I am reminded of the late Senator Phil Gramm. During hearings about education reform in the 1990s, he was bantering with a bureaucrat who was defending government control. Gramm stated that his policies were based on the fact that “I care more about my children than you do.”

The bureaucrat responded, “No, you don’t.”

To which Gramm replied, “Okay, What are their names?”

The State Has No Moral Conscience

Senator Gramm’s pithy response illuminates the obvious. No government bureaucrat cares more about your family than you do. And the implications of that are inevitable. Behind all the N.I.C.E. talk you hear there will be budget constraints and bureaucrats tasked with keeping them. There will be medical review boards and “human rights” courts happy to enforce them. The state will decide which persons are worthy of living. And the state will replace your family and doctor as the moral authority for the decision.

But the state has no moral accountability or conscience. The state seeks only to be efficient. And when the time comes, you will have no say in the matter. Some bureaucrat will be responsible for deciding who gets what treatment.

Someone like Mark Studdock.

That is a hideous strength for anyone to wield. Just ask the parents of Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans.

 

Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and the culture at: truehorizon.org. He is a Contributing Writer for the Christian Research Journal, and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of military and commercial flying experience. He has a B.S., Aerospace Engineering from the U. S. Naval Academy, and a M.A., Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown sons.

Original Blog Source:http://bit.ly/2JSWlm2

/by

So the Next Generation will Know

Podcast: Play in new window

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

Whether you’re a Christian parent, youth leader, or educator who works with Generation Z, you got to listen to this interview. As powerful ideas in our increasingly secular culture shape more of this generation, trusted leaders must share what they know about Jesus in ways that will reach them. Frank interview J. Warner Wallace and Sean McDowell about their new book. This book is backed by the latest research and first hand experience, and it shows how to share biblical truth with a generation that desperately needs to hear it in a way that draws them in instead of pushing them away. Make sure you listen to this insightful interview.

If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at  Hello@CrossExamined.org.

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

Pastor leaves the faith?

Podcast: Play in new window

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

After 40 years, ‘megachurch’ pastor slams Christianity and quits… This is part of the headline of an article in the Christian Post about former pastor Dave Gass who recently renounce his faith publicly on social media. Frank takes a look at the reasons Mr. Gass gives for rejecting the faith to see if they are good reasons for waking away from Christianity. Please let’s pray for Mr. Gass and his family.

If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at  Hello@CrossExamined.org.

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
The Kalam Cosmological Argument NOT Debunked

The Kalam Cosmological Argument NOT Debunked

, ,

By Evan Minton

I discovered a YouTuber called “Rationality Rules” very recently. One of his many videos is “The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked – (First Cause Argument Refuted)” which you can watch here. One of my patrons brought this video to my attention and requested that I respond to it, so here we go.

For the uninitiated, The Kalam Cosmological Argument is formulated as follows:

1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2: The universe began to exist.

3: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Let’s look at each of Rationality Rules’ rebuttals.

Objection 1: The Argument Doesn’t Support Theism 

Rationality Rules (RR) says “Even if the Cosmological Argument were accepted in its entirely, all it would prove is that there was a cause of the universe, and that’s it. It doesn’t even suggest, let alone prove that this cause was a being, and it certainly doesn’t suggest that that cause was a being that is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, personal and moral. That is one hell of a leap. Hence, even if accepted, the argument doesn’t even remotely support theism.” 

I really couldn’t believe what I was hearing. Has RR even paid the slightest bit attention to apologists’ defenses of The Cosmological Argument? This is patently false. Given that everything that has a beginning has something that caused it to come into being, and since Big Bang cosmology, the second law of thermodynamics, and the two arguments against actual infinites establish that the universe came into being out of nothing a finite time ago, it follows that a cause transcendent to matter, energy, space, and time must have caused matter, energy, space, and time (i.e the universe) to come into existence. Now, granted, the syllogism doesn’t define this cause as “God”. It only asserts “Therefore, the universe has a cause”. However, in every defense of The Kalam Cosmological Argument I’ve ever heard given, this is not where the argument stops. Once it is established that the universe a transcendent cause, the apologist (William Lane Craig, Frank Turek, Lee Strobel, Myself) do a conceptual analysis of what it means to be a cause of the universe. The conceptual analysis part of the argument is being totally ignored by RR.

When you do a conceptual analysis of what attributes or properties the universe’s cause must have, you do indeed end up with a being heavily resembling God.

The cause must be

Spaceless – Because space came into being and did not exist until this cause brought it into existence, the cause cannot be a spatial being. It must be spaceless or non-spatial. You cannot be inside of something if you are that something’s cause. You cannot be inside of something if that something did not exist until you brought it into existence.

Timeless – Since time did not exist until The Big Bang, the cause cannot be inside of time. It must be a timeless being.

Immaterial – The cause’s non-spatiality entails immateriality. How so? Because material objects cannot exist unless space exists. Material objects have mass and ergo occupy spatial dimensions. If there is no space, matter cannot exist. This means that because the cause is non-spatial, it is therefore non-material.

Unimaginably Powerful (if not omnipotent) – Anything able to create all matter, energy, space, and time out of absolutely nothing must be extremely powerful, if not omnipotent.

Supernatural – “Nature” and “The universe” are synonyms. Nature did not begin to exist until The Big Bang. Therefore, a natural cause (a cause coming, by definition, from nature) cannot be responsible for the origin of nature. To say otherwise would be to spout incoherence. You’d basically be saying “Nature caused nature to come into being.”

Uncaused – Given that the cause of the universe is timeless, the cause cannot itself have a beginning. To have a beginning to one’s existence entails a before and after relationship. There’s a time before one existed and a time after one came into existence. But a before and after of anything is impossible without time. Since the cause existed sans time, the cause, therefore, cannot have a beginning. It’s beginningless.

Personal – This is an entailment of the cause’s immateriality. There are two types of things recognized by philosophers that are immaterial: abstract objects (such as numbers, sets, or other mathematical entities) or unembodied minds. Philosophers realize that abstract objects if they exist, they exist as non-physical entities. However, abstract objects cannot produce any effects. That’s part of what it means to be abstract. The number 3 isn’t going to be producing any effects anytime soon. Given that abstract objects are causally impotent, it, therefore, follows that an unembodied mind is the cause of the universe’ beginning. Two other arguments for the personhood of the universe’s cause can be given, and I’ve unpacked these in my book The Case For The One True God: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Historical Case For The God Of Christianity available on Amazon.com in both paperback and Kindle.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause, given that the universe began to exist, if follows that the universe has a cause of its existence. The cause of the universe must be a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, supernatural, uncaused, personal Creator.

This being that is demonstrated to exist by this argument is consistent with The Christian God. The Bible describes God as spaceless (see 1 Kings 8:27, 2 Chronicles 2:6), timeless (1 Corinthians 2:7, 2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2), immaterial (John 4:24, 1 Timothy 1:17, 1 Timothy 6:16), powerful (Psalm 62:11-12, Job 9:14, Matthew 19:26), uncaused (Psalm 90:2, Isaiah 57:15, 1 Timothy 1:17, Revelation 1:8), supernatural, and is a personal being (John 1:12, James 4:8). Moreover, The Bible credits Him with being the Creator of all physical reality (John 1:1-3).

Additionally, as I point out in my book The Case For The One True God: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Historical Case For The God Of Christianity a study of comparative religions demonstrates that only 4 religions are consistent with the Cosmological argument’s conclusion: Judaism, Christianity, Islam (that’s why Ghazali defended it), and Deism. All other religions involve either an eternal cosmos that have God or gods bringing order out of the eternally existing matter, energy, space and time, or else their god is the universe itself (pantheism). Therefore, if you’re picking a view about God based on the cosmological argument alone, your list of options consistent with the evidence is limited to just 4 options, Christianity being among them. Only the Abrahamic religions (and Deism) teach that a God like the one described above brought all physical reality into existence from nothing.

Rationality Rules complains that the argument doesn’t demonstrate the omniscience, omnipresence, or the moral character of the universe’s cause, but the argument was never designed to get those qualities. Richard Dawkins made this same complaint about the argument. Dawkins said it like this “Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading innermost thoughts.”[1] and Dr. William Lane Craig responded to it thusly:

“Apart from the opening slur, this is an amazingly concessionary statement! Dawkins doesn’t dispute that the argument successfully proves the existence of an uncaused, beginningless, changeless, timeless, spaceless, and unimaginably powerful personal Creator of the universe. He merely complains that this cause hasn’t also been shown to be omnipotent, omniscient, good, creative of design, listening to prayers, forgiving sins, and reading innermost thoughts. So what? The argument isn’t intended to prove those things. It would be a bizarre form of atheism, indeed an atheism not worth the name, which admitted that there exists an uncaused, beginningless, changeless, timeless, immaterial, spaceless, unimaginably powerful, personal Creator of the universe who may (for all we know) also possess the properties listed by Dawkins. So we needn’t call the personal Creator of the universe “God” if Dawkins finds this unhelpful or misleading. But the point remains that such a being as described by this argument must exist”[2]

This is just a pitiful objection to The Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Objection 2: It Doesn’t Prove The Universe’s Cause Was The First Cause. 

I facepalmed even harder at this objection than I did the previous one. Rationality Rules said “A second problem that even we accepted the argument. It wouldn’t prove that the universe itself was without a cause. Or in another words, it wouldn’t prove that first cause existed, which for a first cause argument is pretty damn ridiculous. To be fair, the proponents of this argument do indeed offer additional arguments in an attempt to assert that the cause of the universe must be without a cause. But the point that I’m trying to make here and now is that The Kalam Cosmological Argument, by itself, is pretty damn trivial. And hence, the proponents of this argument almost always employ additional arguments to reach their conclusions including the likes of Craig” 

There are good reasons given as to why the cause of the universe must be uncaused. I’ve given one of them above. I wrote “Given that the cause of the universe is timeless, the cause cannot itself have a beginning. To have a beginning to one’s existence entails a before and after relationship. There’s a time before one existed and a time after one came into existence. But a before and after of anything is impossible without time. Since the cause existed sans time, the cause, therefore, cannot have a beginning. It’s beginningless.” Another reason is that if you do not allow for an uncreated Creator, if you insist that God must have a Creator, you get thrown into an infinite regression. For God to come into being, His creator must have come into being, and before that creator could come into being, the creator before him had to come into being, and before that creator could come into being, the creator before him had to come into being, and so on back into infinity. No creator could ever come into being because there would always have to be a creator before him to bring him into being. In fact, no creator in the entire infinite past series of creators could ever come into being because each would have to be preceded by a previously created creator. And since no creator could ever come into being, the specific creator that brought our universe into existence couldn’t have come into being. But obviously, here we are. This suggests that there wasn’t an infinite regression of creators begetting creators. But if there was no infinite regression of creators begetting creators, then that logically brings us to an uncreated Creator, a Creator without beginning.

Even Rationality Rules admits that Kalam proponents back up the assertion that the cause is uncaused by arguments, as you can see in the quotation above. However, he doesn’t dispute the arguments. He doesn’t even say what the arguments are. He seems to think that merely having to bolster the conclusion “the universe had a cause” with additional arguments is an invalid move. But why think a thing like that? Yes, the syllogism by itself only gets you to “The universe had a cause”, but why take Christian Apologists to task for unpacking the implications of that conclusion with additional arguments?

The question RR should be asking is not whether additional arguments are needed, but whether the additional arguments given are good. RR’s objection is pretty damn trivial.

Objection 3: It Commits The Fallacy Of Equivocation

Rationality Rules indicts The Kalam Cosmological Argument for committing the fallacy of equivocation. What is the fallacy of equivocation? The fallacy of equivocation is when an argument uses the exact same word, but employs two different definitions of the word. It would be like if someone argued “God made everything. Everything is made in China. Therefore, God is Chinese”. The word being equivocated on here is the word “everything”. In the first premise, it means literally everything that exists, whereas, in premise 2, it only refers to everything that American consumers purchase.

Rationality Rules says that in the second premise, what we mean by the term “Universe” is the scientific definition of universe (i.e all matter, energy, space, and time), whereas in the conclusion, we employ the colloquial usage of the term “Universe”, meaning literally everything that ever was, is, and ever will be. Thus, RR says that steps 2 and 3 of the argument employ the same words with different meanings.

This objection is just as underwhelming as the previous two. For one thing, why isn’t “all matter, energy, space, and time) not synonymous with “everything that ever was, is, or will be”? Perhaps RR is assuming The Mother Universe theory whereby The Big Bang was not the absolute origin of all material objects, but only the birth of one of many “baby” universes” that come into being inside of a much wider Mother Universe. In that case, the origin of our universe would indeed not be “everything that ever was, is, or will be”.

But as I argue in my blog posts “Does The Multi-Verse Explain Away The Need For A Creator?” and “Is The Universe A Computer Simulation?” not to mention chapter 1 of The Case For The One True God, this Mother Multiverse scenario cannot be extended into past eternity. The Borde-Guth-Velinken Theorem, as well as the impossibility of traversing actual infinites, bring us to an absolute beginning of literally everything at some point, whether that be the beginning of our universe, The Mother Universe, The Grandmother Universe, or whatever.

This leads to my next point; we do mean literally everything in both steps 2 and 3. We mean all matter, energy, space, and time that ever was, is or will be in both steps 2 and 3. Now, RR can dispute whether premise 2 is true, but if I, William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, Frank Turek, Hugh Ross, etc. mean literally everything in both steps, then a charge of the fallacy of equivocation cannot stand. We mean the same thing by “universe” in both steps 2 and 3.

Objection 4: Nothing Has Ever Been Demonstrated To Come Into Being From Nothing 

RR says “And this brings us comfortably to another critical flaw with the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It asserts that something can indeed come from nothing – a concept in philosophy known as Creatio Ex Nihilo (creation out of nothing), when this has never been demonstrated to occur. In fact, to the contrary, everything we know about cause and effect overwhelmingly and unanimously tells us that when a new thing is created it is due to the rearrangement of energy and matter that already existed… that is, everything is the result of Creatio Ex Materia (creation out of material).”

Another underwhelming objection. Before I give my response, let me inform my readers that I distinguish causes via Aristotelian Causation. The ancient philosopher Aristotle recognized that there are different types of causes. A “material cause” is the stuff out of which something is made. For example, a chair’s material cause is the wood gathered from chopped down trees. An efficient cause of the chair would be the carpenter who fashioned the chair from the wood. Another type of cause Aristotle identified was Final Causality. This is the teleology, the purpose or end goal of bringing something into being. In the example of the chair, the final cause would be the purpose of sitting. But for this discussion, only efficient and material causes need to be distinguished.

The objection here is that the inductive evidence is overwhelmingly against the idea that things can come into being without a material cause. The conclusion of The Kalam Cosmological Argument is that the universe came into being via an efficient cause (God), but with no material cause. God didn’t use previously existing material to manufacture the universe.

Now, I would agree that our experience shows us that whenever something comes into being, it had a material cause as well as an efficient cause, thus rendering us with as much inductive evidence for material causation, but this inductive evidence can be overridden if we have powerful evidence that all physical reality came into being out of nothing a finite time ago. The Big Bang demonstrates just that. To look at the evidence, see my blog posts “The Kalam Cosmological Argument” and “Is The Big Bang The Origin Of The Universe?”

As I explain in the above blog posts, we do in fact have powerful scientific evidence as well as philosophical arguments which show us that the whole of physical reality (space, time, matter, and energy) had an absolute beginning.

Objection 5: Special Pleading Fallacy 

RR says that Kalam proponents commit the special pleading fallacy. What is that? The Special Pleading Fallacy occurs whenever you make an exception to an established rule without justification. RR says “they [Kalam proponents] assert that the cause of the universe didn’t begin to exist and therefore it didn’t have a cause, without adequately justifying why this cause is an exception.”

My face is hurting from all the facepalming I’ve been doing throughout watching this dude’s videos. First of all, there’s no exception to even be made! The argument is that “Whatever begins to exist has a cause.” The Kalam proponent would only be special pleading if he or she said that God began to exist, but made him the exception by saying he came into being uncaused. However, all proponents of The Kalam Cosmological Argument hold that (A) God is uncaused, uncreated. And (B) we give arguments for that. I’ve given arguments for that above.

Objection 6: Argument From Ignorance

Of course. The overused “God Of The Gaps” objection. This is not based on what we don’t know. It’s based on what we do know. As I explained in subheader 1, the cause of the universe must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, uncaused, and personal. And I didn’t just arbitrarily assign these attribute’s to the universe’s cause, I gave positive arguments for why the universe’s cause must have these attributes. I, nor has any proponent of this argument ever said, “Scientists can’t explain how the universe came into being, so it must be God” or anything of that sort. One must suppose that atheists continue to illegitimately accuse the Kalam of committing this fallacy because they just don’t pay attention when it is explained to them. If you keep falling asleep in class, it’s no surprise that you don’t know what you’re talking about when it’s time to do your essay.

As for being the specific God I believe in, I’d recommend a look at The Case For The One True God. I admit that The Kalam doesn’t get you to the uniquely Christian conception of God, but it does get you to a conception of God that doesn’t match the majority of the ones most religions out there. Abrahamic religions and Deism are consistent with this argument, but polytheistic, animistic, and pantheistic religions are not. And atheism certainly is not consistent with the argument’s conclusion.

Conclusion 

When my patron Kevin Walker, asked me to make a response to this video, I was actually bracing myself for some pretty hard-hitting rebuttals, if not refutations. I was like “Boy, I hope I can handle these responses.” I never expected the pitiful, flimsy objections RR put forth.

Notes 

[1] Richard Dawkins, “The God Delusion” p. 158.

[2] William Lane Craig, “Deconstructing New Atheist Objections To The Arguments For God,” https://www.reasonablefaith.org/videos/short-videos/deconstructing-new-atheist-objections-to-the-arguments-for-god/

 

Evan Minton is a Christian Apologist and blogger at Cerebral Faith (www.cerebralfaith.blogspot.com). He is the author of “Inference to The One True God” and “A Hellacious Doctrine.” He has engaged in several debates which can be viewed on Cerebral Faith’s “My Debates” section. Mr. Minton lives in South Carolina, USA.

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

/by
How Can God be Sovereign over Evil and not Morally Culpable for It

How Can God be Sovereign over Evil and not Morally Culpable for It?

By Ryan Leasure

It’s not uncommon to hear those in the non-Reformed tradition make the claim that Reformed belief necessarily makes God blameworthy for evil. After all, if God has sovereignly decreed everything whatsoever to come to pass — including evil — how is he not morally culpable for it? It’s certainly a good question, but as I’ll try to point out, it’s one that misunderstands the Reformed view.

I believe that when we evaluate Scripture, we find a God who is meticulously sovereign over every detail. At the same time, though, he is praiseworthy for the good and not blameworthy for the bad. Allow me to explain.

God’s Meticulous Sovereignty

When I say “meticulous sovereignty,” I mean two things: 1) God has decreed before the foundation of the world everything that will happen, and 2) he actively works in his creation to ensure that his sovereign decrees are carried out. This is even true with respect to human free will.

Who can speak and have it happen if the LORD has not decreed it? — Lamentations 3:37

In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps. — Proverbs 16:9

Many are the plans in a man’s heart, but it is the LORD’s purpose that prevails. — Proverbs 19:21

It seems clear from these texts, that we can only do what God has decreed. We can make plans, the proverb says, but ultimately God determines our steps. No one can act outside the bounds of God’s sovereign will.

Furthermore, nobody can frustrate God’s plans. That is, his plan is always what happens. Consider these texts:

I know you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted. — Job 42:2

I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please. — Isaiah 46:10

In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will. — Ephesians 1:11

Nothing can thwart God’s sovereign plan. Everything he decrees will happen, and when he acts, no one can reverse it.

God Sovereignty over Good and Evil

It’s not uncommon to hear people say things like: “In God’s good providence, I met my spouse.” Or, “God providentially provided a job for me.” It’s highly unusual for people to make comments like: “In God’s providence, I got cancer.” You see, we’re quick to acknowledge God’s role in good circumstances. We’re hesitant to do so during the bad ones. Yet the Bible says God is in control of both.

When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other. — Ecclesiastes 7:14

I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things. — Isaiah 45:7

Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come? — Lamentations 3:38

Many Christians work diligently to get God off the hook for evil. The Biblical authors, however, don’t seem to share that same concern.

God’s Good Nature

Before we can explain how God should be praiseworthy for the good and not blameworthy for the evil, we need to address a couple more issues. The first issue is God’s character. The Bible unequivocally affirms that God is morally pure and good in every way. Consider these texts:

This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all. — 1 John 1:5

For you are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not dwell with you. — Psalm 5:4

Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God.” For God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. — James 1:13

So while God controls both good and evil, he does not delight in wickedness. Nor does evil dwell in him, nor does he cause or tempt anyone to sin. In short, God is good and not evil, though he controls both good and evil.

God’s Asymmetrical Relationship to Good and Evil

Building off the previous section, we must now ask ourselves an important question. If God is, indeed, meticulously sovereign over both good and evil, what is his relationship to the two respectively? Is his sovereignty over good and evil equally ultimate? Or is his relationship to both different? I submit that his role in both is different. And because it’s different, we should view his relationship to good and evil as asymmetrical.

God’s Role in Good

In the case of the good, we can say that God’s good nature actively causes all the good that happens. Nothing good in the world occurs apart from God’s good nature breathing it into existence. As James 1:17 tells us, “Every good gift and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights.” Notice James says that every good gift is from God. Not just some or most, but every.

We can call God’s control of the good direct-causative.1 That is, God directly causes every good act, and every good act is an extension of his good character. This is why Jesus says in Matthew 5:16, “Let your light shine before others, so they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.” God rightly deserves the credit for all the good because he actively brings it about by his grace.

God’s Role in Evil

When respect to evil, we must affirm that God sovereignly controls it as we read above in Isaiah 45:7, Lamentations 3:38, and Ecclesiastes 7:14. We must, however, say that God’s relationship to it is different than his relationship to good. As we just saw, all the good in the world is a direct extension of God’s good character. Evil, however, does not flow from God’s character as it stands opposed to his goodness.

Since evil does not flow from God’s character, and he doesn’t actively cause it to happen like he does the good, we can refer to his control over evil as indirect-permissive.2 Unlike the active role God plays to bring about good; he merely allows evil to occur that will accomplish his ultimate purposes.

The idea that God doesn’t actively cause evil but merely allows it is found in Scripture.

Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death. But if he did not lie in wait for him, but God let him fall into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place to which he may flee. — Exodus 21:12-13

In past generations he allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways. — Acts 14:16

Let me reiterate that God permits only the evils that serve his ultimate purposes. This implies that God could stop any evil from occurring if he deemed in his good wisdom to do so. Thus, all evil occurs under his watch, but he doesn’t cause any of it to happen.

What About Free Will?

If God does meticulously control all things, how does that square with human freedom? I believe the two are compatible if we hold to the right definition of freedom. One popular view of freedom — known as Libertarian Freedom — argues that we are only free if we have the ability to do otherwise. That is, we must possess the freedom of contrary choice if we’re to be considered truly free.

I don’t think this view of freedom squares with the meticulous sovereignty of God outlined in the previous sections. There’s another view of freedom; however, that fits nicely with God’s sovereignty. This view is known as the Freedom of Inclination. It states that humans are free if they choose what they most want to choose in the moment of choice. That is, they choose from the desires of their hearts.

Paul tells us in Romans 8:7-8, “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” The picture Paul gives us here is of someone without the Spirit of God who is unable to please God. In other words, they don’t have the ability to do otherwise.

My contention is that the person in the flesh freely chooses not to please God. The reason? They don’t want to in their fallen state. As Jesus tells us elsewhere, a bad tree will only produce bad fruit (Matt. 7:17). If God’s sovereignty over this person’s actions in the flesh is indirect-permissive, as I’ve previously argued, we can, therefore, lay the blame at the person’s feet because they’re simply doing what they want to do.

For the person who does good, the Freedom of Inclination view argues that they only do good because God has sovereignly worked in that person’s heart (Phil. 2:12-13; Jn. 15:5). In other words, God’s sovereignty is direct-causative in softening a person’s heart so that they freely want to do good. And because of this, God, not humans, gets all the glory for the good (Matt. 5:16).

God’s Middle Knowledge and Evil

Perhaps you’re wondering how can God guarantee that people freely choose to do the evil that is part of his ultimate plan if he doesn’t actively bring it about himself?

Here is where I think an understanding of God’s Middle Knowledge is really helpful. Theologians dating back to Luis Molina (1535-1600) have argued that God not only knows what will happen (Free Knowledge), he also knows what could happen (Natural Knowledge), and he knows what would happen if the circumstances were different (Middle Knowledge). It’s this last category that is especially applicable to our topic.

The Bible speaks of God’s Middle Knowledge in several places. Let me give you a couple of examples:

Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. — Matthew 11:21

When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them by the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near. For God said, “Lest the people change their minds when they see war and return to Egypt.” — Exodus 13:17

In both instances, God knew how people would respond if the circumstances were different. With respect to Tyre and Sidon, Jesus knew that they would have repented if they would have received the same amount of revelation as Chorazin and Bethsaida. In the case of Israel, God knew they would have turned back to Egypt if he had led them by the land of the Philistines.

Since God knows exactly how we will respond in every situation, he is able to guarantee that free creatures will do the evil that accomplishes his greater purposes without directly causing them to do it.

Consider a sting operation as an example. When done properly, law enforcement orchestrates a situation so that a person who wants to sell drugs freely does so. The law enforcement doesn’t have to coerce him to do it. They simply set up certain “factors” so that the drug dealer chooses to do what he most wants to do, and therefore, he is held morally responsible for his actions. All the while, this person did exactly as the law enforcement planned for him to do.

While many of my Libertarian friends also affirm God’s Middle Knowledge, I believe it makes the most sense within the Freedom of Inclination framework. After all, how can God truly know what free creatures would do in a hypothetical situation if they had the power of contrary choice? But if people choose according to their strongest desires, God can know exactly what evil choices people will make because he knows their heart’s desires (1 Sam. 16:7).

What you Meant for Evil, God Meant for Good

Let’s apply God’s Middle Knowledge to the story of Joseph. All sorts of evil occurred in that story, especially Joseph’s brothers selling him into slavery. At the end of the story, Joseph declares to his brothers “you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive” (Gen. 50:20).

As we think back through the story, we can see how God orchestrated the circumstances in such a way to guarantee that Joseph made it to Egypt. He made Joseph the favorite child and gave him certain dreams. He had him sent out to check on his brothers, made sure Reuben was there, so Joseph wasn’t killed, and had Reuben conveniently missing when the slave traders came traveling by. You see, God knew that Joseph’s brothers would sell Joseph into slavery when all of these “factors” were present.

God’s good purpose of getting Joseph to Egypt was so he could save the nation of Israel from extinction. Yet he worked through the evil choices of Joseph’s brothers — choices they wanted to make, and choices God knew they would make if the circumstances were just right. As Joseph stated in the end, his brothers were morally responsible for their evil despite the fact that they carried out God’s good sovereign plan.

With Joseph, my hope is that we’ll all be able to see that even though God has sovereignly ordained evil, he isn’t evil for doing so. He merely allows humans to do the evil that is in their hearts in ways that accomplish his greater purposes.

 

Ryan Leasure holds a M.A. from Furman University and a M.Div. from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He currently serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.

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

/by
Who Made God A Cosmological Argument for Kids

Who Made God? A Cosmological Argument for Kids

,

By Mikel Del Rosario

Who Made God? Here’s a Simple Answer

Watching Phil Vischer’s Jelly Telly show with my little boy reminded me that accessible apologetics training is for kids, too! One day after church, we sat down to watch a little clip online. There was a puppet newscaster hosting a segment called “Buck Denver’s Mail Bag.”

At first, I wasn’t too excited about it. But then, Buck said that an 11-year old boy asked this question: “Who made God?” My ears perked up and began to lean forward.

What came next was something I’d never seen before: a puppet engaged in apologetics and using the cosmological argument to teach kids!

Video Transcript

Who made God? Easy answer: No one. You say, “How could that be? Everything I’ve ever known has been made by someone. How could God not be made by anyone?” Well, here’s the thing. Something has to have been not made.

Cause if you start with like, um, your car. Who made your car? Well, it came out of the factory. Who made the factory? Well, it was built by the builders. Who made the builders? Well, their mommies, kind of. And um, who made them? Their mommies and their mommies and going way, way, way, way back. It can’t go back forever. So at some point, it had to start with something that was not made. Something that just always was. That is God. God always was. He was never made. Pretty cool, huh? Something had to have started it all, and that something is God.

This reminded me of William Lane Craig’s wife, Jan, who responded in a similar way to a student who said she did not believe in God. Jan’s quoted in Reasonable Faith: “Everything we see has a cause, and those causes have causes and so on. But this can’t go back forever. There had to be a beginning and a first cause which started the whole thing. This is God” (122).

Here’s how William Lane Craig himself responded to the question, “Where did God come from?” He explained, “God didn’t come from anywhere. He is eternal and has always existed. So he doesn’t need a cause. But now, let me ask you something. The universe has not always existed but had a beginning. So where did the universe come from?”

Simple is Good

Whether it’s responding to kids, college students or anyone else, it’s not enough to have an answer to a tough question like, “Who Made God?” It’s also important to share it simply—at least at first. If the conversations get more technical, so be it. But let’s take a cue from Buck Denver and start with something simple.

Like This?

You’re gonna love this. The Jelly Telly crew got together and produced an awesome DVD series which incorporates accessible apologetics and theology for kids: Buck Denver Asks What’s in the Bible?

When it comes to introducing the Bible, theology, and apologetics to children in a way they can understand, this seriously rocks. It’s Bible literacy for a new generation. Whether you’re a parent, grandparent, Sunday School teacher, or just looking for a gift for that Christian kid on your list, check out Buck Denver Asks What’s in the Bible?

My kid loves this series. And I do, too!

 

Mikel Del Rosario helps Christians explain their faith with courage and compassion. He is a doctoral student in the New Testament department at Dallas Theological Seminary. Mikel teaches Christian Apologetics and World Religion at William Jessup University. He is the author of Accessible Apologetics and has published over 20 journal articles on apologetics and cultural engagement with his mentor, Dr. Darrell Bock. Mikel holds an M.A. in Christian Apologetics with highest honors from Biola University and a Master of Theology (Th.M) from Dallas Theological Seminary where he serves as Cultural Engagement Manager at the Hendricks Center and a host of the Table Podcast. Visit his Web site at ApologeticsGuy.com.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2HcDa3U

/by