The Abortion Debate: Dr. Mike Adams vs. Abortion Doctor

,

Dr. Mike S. Adams takes on Dr. Willie Parker, an abortion doctor who has performed thousands of abortions. This debate took place on February 21, 2019 at UNC Wilmington. Although Dr. Parker claims to be a Christian, he says in his book that there are no moral absolutes and there is no right interpretation of Christianity. So much for sin then.

While Dr. Parker does claim, oddly, that the parable of the Good Samaritan somehow supports his work as an abortionist, this debate does not hinge on scripture passages, but on the distinction Dr. Parker tries to make between a human being and a person. That false distinction was used to defend chattel slavery when the Dred Scot Supreme Court decision declared that blacks were only three-fifths of a person.

“Human” is discovered by the science of genetics. “Person” is defined by whoever is in power at the time, maybe even just five lawyers on a court. If human beings don’t have a right to life, only what we define as “persons” do, then none of us are safe.

Watch the debate here:

 

/by

Collusion against the Truth

Podcast: Play in new window

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

If the evidence is so good for Christianity, why don’t more people follow Christ? There are three possible factors for it and Frank discuss each one of them in this episode of the Cross Examined Official Podcast. We’ll see what motivates people to come to conclusions that are completely opposite to the facts.

Keep us 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
Meet the New Apologists (Part 1)

Meet the New Apologists (Part 1)

By Jordan Apodaca

God is doing an awesome work around the world. He is calling His church back to the defense and proclamation of the Gospel and you get to be a part! If you’ve been Apologetics sites like this one for a while, my guess is that you have an itch. There is a deep yearning within your soul to take the apologetics knowledge you’ve accumulated and use it to minister to others.

“Yes, you’re quite right. But do I know enough?”

If you could give me a basic five-minute explanation of God’s existence, Jesus’ resurrection, and the problem of evil, and if you’re humble and willing to trust God for this journey, then you are ready. The world is dying because of “lack of knowledge” (see Hosea 4:6). You have that knowledge! You know the Gospel, and you know that it is true! The world and the church need that knowledge!

“But how in the world do I start?”

Well, let’s ask seven thinkers who are relatively new to the apologetic scene! These are all apologists who have begun young and thriving apologetics ministries. In this first post, we will meet the apologists and hear the stories of how God led them to begin their ministries, what that looked like, and what makes their ministries unique. In the next post, we’ll hear them share advice on a broad range of topics, from how to reach local churches to picking names to finding a niche. But first, let’s meet the “new apologists!”

Tim Stratton (Free Thinking Ministries)

Q: Who are you? How did you get into apologetics? And how did you decide to begin an apologetics ministry?

My name is Tim Stratton. I never really thought that much about apologetics until after being in full-time youth ministry for several years. This was because teenagers and college students were asking hard questions and raising tough objections against Christianity. I had no idea how to answer the good questions of many students. I tried ignoring them, then telling them to simply have more faith or “just believe harder.” This ultimately backfired and many of them left the church. Some lost their faith and became atheists.

God used this to spark something in me. I started listening to Dr. Craig’s Reasonable Faith podcasts every day. Sometimes I would listen to several episodes in one day. If I did not comprehend the topic I would listen to that episode over, and over, and over, and over – and over, and over again until it “clicked.” After completing all the podcasts I realized I needed more so I enrolled at Biola University and majored in Christian Apologetics in the MACA program.

I did not really decide to start an apologetics-based ministry. It just sort of happened. Or perhaps I should say, “God did it!” I was content to continue pastoring at my church in Nebraska and trying to influence students and others in the congregation by sprinkling my sermons with “apologetics goodness” (like a Tim Keller). But then, one day in early April (2015) I went to go meet with my tax guy. He was aware of the online presence I had via social media. He asked me if I had ever thought about starting an apologetics-based ministry. I thought something like that could never happen, but he asked me to do him a favor and dream about it and to also write up a proposed job description along with a mission and vision for what “Tim Stratton Ministries” might look like. I really thought this was a waste of time but I typed something out and brought it back to him a couple days later. To my surprise, two weeks later I was having breakfast with my tax guy (he is a CPA), a couple successful businessmen, a lawyer, two pastors from the area, and a couple profs from the local university. I sat back and listened to them discuss finances, 501c3 stuff, a website, and more. Then they turned to me and asked, “So, Tim, do you want the job?”

This still seems surreal to this day and I can only give credit to our sovereign God!

However, if I had to give any advice (and in a nutshell) I would point out that FreeThinking Ministries began to exist because God led me to be a forceful presence on Facebook and social media. I would constantly defend the faith of Christians — especially young Christians — whenever I saw the opportunity. Eventually parents started tagging me in threads in which atheists were attacking their kids. This online battle for the mind was noticed by many and eventually a few of these guys asked me to start a website as a resource. This eventually turned into FTM.

Q: What Else Should We Know About You?

My wife Tia, and I have one son Ethan who is currently a sophomore in High School (and a great wrestler). Besides theology and apologetics, I love to spend time with my family. I enjoy working out with my wife and doing mixed martial arts with his son. I used to compete professionally in martial arts and had a successful coaching career in MMA. I also was an accomplished bass player in several Christian rock bands and I continue to occasionally record as a studio musician. I have recently taken up competitive pistol shooting. I love watching football, basketball, superhero movies and Star Wars!

Q: What currently makes your ministry unique compared to other ministries? What is the focus of your ministry?

Probably the one thing that sets FreeThinking Ministries apart from all the other apologetics-based organizations is our heavy emphasis on libertarian freedom (commonly referred to as free will) and how Molinism (a view explaining God’s sovereignty and human freedom/responsibility) answers so many apologetics-related questions. FTM definitely discusses a plethora of other issues, but a majority of our content defends the truth of Christianity through the lens of Molinism.

Q: Did you know from the beginning what would make your ministry unique? Or did you figure it out on the go? Explain how you came to focus on what you focus on.

Answer: It was definitely “on the go” for me! I did know that I wanted to push what I refer to as the “Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism,” but I had no intentions of writing so much about Molinism. This was a byproduct, however, of advancing the Freethinking Argument because so many Christians who opposed the idea of libertarian free will attacked the Freethinking Argument which was aimed at atheists. I thought this was odd since the argument is against naturalism and eventually seeks to show that the biblical view of God is the best explanation of the free will possessed by humanity. I never thought that my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ would attack my argument more than atheists. To counter this unexpected problem I appealed to Molinism. In fact, I changed the focus of my PhD work from philosophy and metaphysics to systematic theology so that I could study Molinism in depth.

Q: How do I pick a name for my ministry? How important is having a good name?

See my above answer.

Yes, I think it is good to have a unique name. Some of the men who helped start my ministry really thought I should name it “Tim Stratton Ministries.” I felt that this was a bad idea for several reasons. The primary reason is that I hope FreeThinking Ministries becomes bigger than just one guy (this is also why I developed a team and love to post guest blogs).

Scott Olson (Free Thinking Ministries)

Q: Who are you? How did you get into apologetics? And how did you decide to begin an apologetics ministry?

My name is Scott Olson, and I’m the director of media content for Freethinking Ministries. I’m also one of the hosts of the Freethinking Podcast which I cohost with Tim Stratton. I was first introduced to apologetics when I was in junior high. We watched a series of videos called TrueU (at least I think that’s what it was called) by Dr. Stephen Meyer for Sunday School, and I was riveted by the arguments being made for theism. That curiosity continued into high school when I first read half of Dr. William Lane Craig’s book On Guard. I don’t entirely remember why I ended up not finishing that book at that point, but I do remember finally finishing it my sophomore year of college. From that moment on, I couldn’t stop talking and reading about apologetics and theology. I managed to get several of my friends into it, and we began meeting and studying the arguments and evidence together. I suppose I haven’t ever started an apologetics ministry, but Tim and I had become acquaintances through my brother and so when Tim reached out and asked if I’d like to help out, I jumped at the opportunity. I managed to convince Tim to do a podcast with me, and we’ve been going at that for awhile now.

Q: What Else Should We Know About You?

I’m fascinated by marketing, persuasion, and influence, and I think that’s an area where Christians could use a stronger focus. For that reason, I’ve been taking a bit of a break from any hardcore studying of apologetics and I’ve been focusing on how we as Christian apologists can better articulate the importance of doing strong apologetics within the church.

Q: What currently makes your ministry unique compared to other ministries? What is the focus of your ministry?

Answer: I would say our ministry is the most prolific in terms of its defense of libertarian free will. Tim is constantly writing on the subject, applying it to numerous apologetics and theological issues, as well as talking about it with me on the podcast.

Q: How do I pick a name? How did you pick your name for your ministry? Are you happy with the name? How important is having a good name?

Answer: This might come as a surprise, but I don’t think the name of your ministry is nearly as important as you might think. The number of people who will come to be familiar with your ministry as a result of your name is really not that many. What’s much more important is that you create valuable content, and that those who read your content truly believe in what you’re doing. Your audience sharing your content is what will contribute the most to your growth, so I wouldn’t fret too much about the name. I suppose some good advice might be to pick a name that accurately reflects the niche you’ve chosen. Spell out the solution to the problem you solve in your name if at all possible.

Matt Schmidt (Engage 360)

Q: Who are you? How did you get into apologetics? And how did you decide to begin an apologetics ministry?

My name is Matt Schmidt.  I have an incredible wife and four young children.  My wife and I moved to Charlotte, NC for me to attend Southern Evangelical Seminary and have ended up settling here for the foreseeable future.

I had a great family growing up, and my parents instilled a lot of really great values in us.  We grew up in Nebraska and attended a conservative, mainline Lutheran Church until I was 12 or so.  I always had a lot of questions and remember challenging the pastor even when I was younger. By the end of high school, I would have considered myself an atheist, though a fairly moral atheist, believing that science had enough answers that you did not need God.  That combined with a comfortable middle-class life with loving parents, success in academics, success in sports, and a wide social circle created a situation with no existential need for God. For me it was just a matter of if it was true or not. That was it.

I had a lot of questions about how we got the Bible, whether science could prove that we don’t need God, and others.  I did not find Christians that were able to answer any of these questions. To keep the story short, over a period of about three years early on in college, I went from atheism, to deism (though I did not know that word at the time), to theism (though I did not know the distinction from Deism), to Christianity, to actually understanding the Gospel.  This was largely on my own. I heard the Gospel through the radio ministry of Alistair Begg and began listening to his show more regularly. One time I left it on after and hear R.C. Sproul’s Renewing your Mind.  I was amazed and excited that there were other people (even Christians) asking and answering the kind of questions I had wrestled with for years on my own.  I immediately became an apologetics junkie. I ended up also hearing Ravi Zacharias on the same channel and started purchasing books on a regular basis.

How I ended up starting an apologetics ministry is a bit of a complex story, so I will give a brief version.  I entered seminary to study philosophy, theology, and apologetics. I did not have any clear intention of getting a “job” because of my degree.  I just wanted to learn and be more prepared in my life, to serve whatever church we were a part of, and be more effective at sharing with others.  A few years into my studies, I was asked to take over a local chapter of a new apologetics-based campus ministry that had started out of Southern Evangelical Seminary called Ratio Christi.  I was then asked to join the National Team of Ratio Christi overseeing hiring and new chapter formation. After four years and overseeing close to 200 people coming into the organization, circumstances required that I had to take a new direction.

One conviction I had throughout much of my time in Ratio Christi was a frustration over the disconnect with the church and its integration of both apologetics and evangelism.  Most of our chapters were doing great work with their students but churches were not interested for the most part, even in situations where the local directors were working to establish relationships.  I had been thinking about how we could better serve the local church and how crucial they were to the long-term success of what we were doing in Campus Ministry with students who cycled out every few years.  Once it was clear I was needing to change directions, more directly addressing the need of apologetics-evangelism in the local church was a very clear direction. I was immensely blessed with a large number of people whom I had been laboring alongside for several years who had this same conviction and Engage 360 went from an idea to an official para-church ministry quite quickly.

Q: What Else Should We Know About You?

I am an untrained entrepreneur at heart, and I love doing things as a team.  True teamwork is immensely valuable, and it takes much more than having a group of people trying to do the same thing to have a team.  A healthy team can emphasize everyone’s strengths and largely cover up each person’s weaknesses. I love taking on new challenges and figuring out how to solve them.  I am very passionate about helping all Christians understand that they can be more effective at understanding and sharing their faith no matter what their individual gifts and abilities are.

Q: What currently makes your ministry unique compared to other ministries? What is the focus of your ministry?

As far as apologetics ministries go we are unique in our focus on hands-on, guided evangelism training by focusing on how to have spiritual conversations in everyday life.  Our training is highly interactive and focused on modeling how to put the apologetics evangelism content into practice in everyday life. Relative to most Evangelism ministries, we are unique in our emphasis on not taking a one-size-fits-all approach but asking questions to learn who a person is and presenting Christianity and the Gospel in light of who that person is (which means a variety of other “methods” can be effective if used in the right way with the right person).  Working with the same basic training concepts, we are offering three ways of accomplishing our vision of helping people have spiritual conversations in everyday life. First through hands-on church training, second through geographically based online communities, and third through University outreach events (which will combine church training and an online community with a multi-day outreach event on a University campus).

Q: Did you know from the beginning what would make your ministry unique? Or did you figure it out on the go? Explain how you came to focus on what you focus on.

I knew before we started that it was fairly unique in that most apologetics ministries to the church were focused on events, lectures, and conferences.  These are really valuable, but we saw a gap in people actually applying what they learned in everyday life, so we zeroed in on that as our focus. Charlotte has no lack in apologetics-based training, but even with the churches that emphasized apologetics there was a disconnect between getting people to use their apologetics knowledge in everyday conversations.  We wanted to try to focus on a very entry level approach that was something anyone could benefit from and use in their lives. We trust that those who begin the process with us will continue to grow and will most often get deeper into apologetics as time goes on. We are trying to offer a very practical, “entry level” onramp into apologetics evangelism.

Q: How do I pick a name? How did you pick your name for your ministry? Are you happy with the name? How important is having a good name?

That is a really hard one.  I was stuck on a very descriptive name for our ministry that was way too long but it said what we were doing so well.  My incredible wife rescued us and came up with the name Engage 360 as a way of summarizing: Engage the whole person, take them through a whole training process, that they can be effective in their whole life.  It is helpful to have a simple descriptive word that can be used in many ways. Engage is becoming more of a buzz word and does a good job of saying what we are about in one word. It also can be used in different formats.  For instance, our podcast will be called Engage Your World.

Cameron Bertuzzi (Capturing Christianity)

Q: Who are you? How did you get into apologetics? And how did you decide to begin an apologetics ministry?

Hi, I’m Cameron Bertuzzi. I’m a professional photographer and Christian apologist. I stumbled into apologetics back in 2012 when I learned that my brother had become an atheist. I worked through a period of doubt myself while attending Bible school a few years earlier, and figured, quite wrongly, that my brother’s doubts could easily be resolved. Boy was I wrong! His questions far outstripped what I was prepared to answer. After our initial conversation, I decided that I would get to the bottom of this. I wanted to know for myself whether Christianity could be rational. In my research, which has now spanned over the course of several years, I’ve discovered that Christian belief is entirely rational and that there are very good answers to the questions and objections he raised.

I started Capturing Christianity (CC) primarily as a place to blog and start practicing my writing. At the time, back in 2016, I didn’t think CC would grow beyond that. But 2 years later, the ministry has quite literally exploded–not just in our viewership, but in the kind of content we produce. We’ve moved beyond blog posts and now have a podcast, host live discussions between Christians and non-Christians, and film high quality interviews with professional philosophers and apologists. We have big plans for the future, too! God is good.

Q: What Else Should We Know About You?

You should probably know that I have a beautiful wife and two adorable children. Another fun fact: Cameron is my middle name. My full name is Richard Cameron Bertuzzi.

Q: What currently makes your ministry unique compared to other ministries? What is the focus of your ministry?

There are at least 5 things that make us unique. First, CC is unique aesthetically. All you’ve got to do is look at our website or watch any of our interviews to know what I’m talking about. My background in photography has set pretty high standards for the way we present our content. Second, CC is not all about Cameron Bertuzzi. There’s a term one of our board members came up with that I like: Platform Model. CC is really a platform to showcase the work of other thinking Christians. Third, our social media presence, at least on Facebook, is unparalleled. Our posts get commented on, shared, and liked more than ministries that have twice as many followers (as I’m writing this, we’re just now passing 7,000 likes). Check out our Facebook page to see what I mean. Fourth, our content is philosophically informed. Part of what’s great about having a platform model is that a lot of the content we produce comes from actual professionals. Even the stuff I write, I try to make it as informed as I can. Lastly, what makes Capturing Christianity unique is Cameron Bertuzzi. I don’t mean for that to sound haughty or arrogant, but that’s something that other ministries don’t have. In the same way, part of what makes Reasonable Faith unique is having William Lane Craig. God has gifted us each with unique abilities. It’s our job to take the talents and gifts that God has given us and creatively further the Kingdom (see the Parable of the Talents).

Our target market is Christians who are interested in apologetics. That sounds straightforward, but it’s actually pretty specific. On our website and in our podcast we typically mark the difficulty level for our content. The difficulty we produce most regularly is ‘intermediate.’ There’s a reason for that. Part of what it means to expose the intellectual side of Christian belief is to bring the very best ideas to light. It’s just a fact that many of those ideas are highly nuanced and complex. We do what we can to summarize, but what often happens is that the content ends up requiring some existing background knowledge in apologetics. And we’re okay with that. The ultimate goal is to expose the intellectual side of Christian belief.

Q: Did you know from the beginning what would make your ministry unique? Or did you figure it out on the go? Explain how you came to focus on what you focus on.

Answer: I knew from the beginning that our website would be pretty, but I did not know that social media would be our thing. If you can believe it, I wrestled with the idea of starting a Facebook page. I’ve started other pages in the past, I even have one for my personal photography page (Bertuzzi Photography), but none of them were very successful. CC is an enigma. It started out as a place where I would just share blog posts and do my best to get likes and shares. I used it solely as a marketing tool. But nowadays it’s a place to share ideas, start conversations, and even meme.

The platform model (mentioned in the previous question) is also something that came later. Not much later, but definitely later. As I said, CC started out as a blog for my own thoughts. Everything else we do developed organically.

Q: How do I pick a name? How did you pick your name for your ministry? Are you happy with the name? How important is having a good name?

Once I became comfortable with embracing my identity as a photographer, the name ‘Capturing Christianity’ soon followed. I knew that I didn’t want “Apologetics” in the name because most people have no idea what that means. That’s also the reason it’s not in our tagline (ie: Exposing the intellectual side of Christian belief.)

Selecting a name is important, but don’t spend too much time thinking about it. My wife and I have started several businesses over the course of our marriage that never panned out. Don’t get me wrong–we learned a lot from those experiences, but countless hours were spent thinking about what to name our business when what we should have been thinking about was how we were going to make it successful. Success in business has way more to do with discipline and execution than it does having a clever name (e.g., “Google”).

Travis Pelletier (Ratio Christi)

Q: Who are you? How did you get into apologetics? And how did you decide to begin an apologetics ministry?

My name is Travis Pelletier, I got into apologetics when I first read C.S. Lewis at 12 years old. I ended up rejecting my faith in College and regained it through a deeper study of apologetics. I decided to begin an apologetics ministry when I saw that my experience of doubt was very common, and that there was a huge need for apologetics Training.

Q: What Else Should We Know About You?

I’m married to a beautiful wife, and I have a 1 year-old son!

Q: What currently makes your ministry unique compared to other ministries? What is the focus of your ministry?

Our ministry is focused on reversing the trend in which Christian youth walk away from their faith in College. We do this by 1) Starting apologetics clubs on campus to discuss the evidence for and against the Christian faith, 2) Getting into high schools to prepare students before they get to college, and 3) Getting into churches to teach parents how to strengthen the faith of their children.

Jeremy Linn (Twin Cities Apologetics)

Q: Who are you? How did you get into apologetics? And how did you decide to begin an apologetics ministry?

I got into apologetics after a winter conference I went to with the organization Cru. At the conference they had a seminar based on the book Reason for God by Timothy Keller. I got interested in the arguments for God’s existence, as I grew up in an area where Christianity was always assumed to be true and those things weren’t discussed. Then I went into a “crisis of faith” mode a few months later after getting into online debates with Atheists, and started an investigation into the truth of Christianity.

I decided to start an Apologetics ministry after a friend who is passionate about Apologetics and I talked about the idea of starting an Apologetics group. That was it. But over time as conversations about it with others started to happen, the vision of the group expanded beyond anywhere we expected at the time.

Q: What Else Should We Know About You?

I went to UW-Green Bay for an undergrad and accounting. I work full time as an accountant right now along with co-leading the ministry, focused on the social media side of things. I also go to Bethel Seminary for their Christian Thought masters degree program.

Q: What currently makes your ministry unique compared to other ministries? What is the focus of your ministry?

We are the only ministry of its kind in the Twin Cities… and there are MANY Christian ministries here. What I mean is, we are the only ministry (outside the university) that provides training specifically for Apologetics to Christians in the area.

Q: Did you know from the beginning what would make your ministry unique? Or did you figure it out on the go? Explain how you came to focus on what you focus on.

In a sense we didn’t know what would make it unique, and thought it wouldn’t attract much interest. But then when we started talking to people about it, we realized it was something that wasn’t provided in our area, and people were seeking opportunities to be built up in Apologetics.

Q: How do I pick a name? How did you pick your name for your ministry? Are you happy with the name? How important is having a good name?

I gave some ideas for a name earlier. I picked the name after starting to brainstorm, writing down Twin Cities Apologetics, and pretty quickly realizing that nothing is going to top it. It came from the idea that there is a gap in the cities for Apologetics, so we are going to fill the gap with this ministry. I’m not extremely happy with the name because it doesn’t create too much appeal for our content for people outside the area. I start to question if we should have gone with a more general name, but then that brings me back to the idea that we would just be like any other apologetics ministry then. I can kind of go in circles that way. Having a name is one of the most important aspects of starting and growing the name. I mentioned Capturing Christianity earlier – one of the most successful Facebook pages out there. Much of that is because the name – It has alliteration. It is a play on words in light of the fact that the creator is a photographer. And it may appeal to people who don’t know what the word Apologetics means.

Matt Slama (Twin Cities Apologetics)

[He didn’t answer the first two questions; suffice it to say he is the other mastermind behind Twin Cities Apologetics.]

Q: What currently makes your ministry unique compared to other ministries? What is the focus of your ministry?

Perhaps we are not unique in format or structure. However, we are unique in the sense that we have decided to be a strong point of apologetics here in our own community, the Twin Cities. There is a huge need in today’s church to teach the defense of the Gospel. Talking with pastors here in the Twin Cities, it became very apparent that this is where we need to focus. Reaching outside of the Twin Cities would be an abandonment of our own community.

So, with that, we have 3 areas were we focus: building Christians up who need help with their faith, dialoguing with non-believers, and defending the faith against attacks here in our community.

Q: Did you know from the beginning what would make your ministry unique? Or did you figure it out on the go? Explain how you came to focus on what you focus on.

We never wanted to be unique. We saw the need that we needed to fill and decided on what was going to be the most effective. There is a vast amount of apologetic material online from trained philosophers. Jeremy and I are not trained philosophers. Fortunately, because those resources have been put together by great men and women of God, we don’t need to be. Taking those materials, we decided to train people up in sound doctrine and teaching. Looking at current science and also the philosophy of antiquity, we help people defend their faith and use that as a stepping stone for evangelism.

 

Jordan is a Christian, the husband of Tarah, an evangelist-apologist with Ratio Christi, a volunteer with Engage 360 and Reasonable Faith, and an aspiring philosopher studying at Southern Evangelical Seminary. His intellectual passions include the study of free will and the doctrine of heaven. His ministry passions are to share the love of the Gospel and to equip ordinary Christians to do the same. Other interests include sports (especially Ultimate Frisbee), time management, veganism, peanut butter, and personality theories.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2TBnQC3

/by
The Deity of Christ in the Old Testament

The Deity of Christ in the Old Testament

,

By Ryan Leasure

Most readers of the Bible affirm that the New Testament unequivocally proclaims the deity of Christ. It’s hard to read texts such as John 1:1-4, John 8:58, Romans 9:5, or Hebrews 1:8, and come to any different conclusion. This clarity is why the Council of Nicea (AD 325) affirmed that the Son shares the exact same nature with the Father. That is to say, from the earliest times, the church affirmed the full deity of Christ, and rightly so.

Yet the Jewish expectation was for a human Messiah. After all, the Christ, according to the Old Testament, would come from the human line of David. Wouldn’t it make sense that the Messiah would be human as well?

Be that as it may, while the Old Testament predicts a future human Messiah, I believe it tells us to expect a divine Messiah as well. And to demonstrate this claim, I want to highlight four different texts — two from the Psalms and two from the prophets.

Psalm 45:6-7

Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore, God, your God, has set you above your companions.

Notice a few key points. First, this Psalm is a wedding song and is addressed to a Davidic son who is about to take his bride.

Second, the psalmist addresses this song specifically to “the king” (v. 1) and at the same time calls him “God” (v. 6). That is, this Davidic son is both “king” and “God.”

Third, his description of this king is so superfluous — most excellent of men (v. 2), mighty one (v. 3), majestically rides forth in victory (v. 4), the nations fall at your feet (v.5), reigning eternally (v. 6), and nations will praise you forever and ever (v. 17) — that this cannot be a predictor of any mere human king.

Fourth, while the psalmist declares that this king is God in verse 6, in verse 7, he refers to his God. In other words, another person exists, beyond this king, who is also God. It seems the psalmist is planting Trinitarian seeds in this text.

And finally, the author of Hebrews applies this text specifically to Jesus. In Hebrews 1, the author declares the superiority of Jesus to the angels and then drives his point home in verse 8, “But of the Son he says, Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.” Hebrews emphatically states that it’s the Son who is the eternally reigning God described in Psalm 45.

Psalm 110:1

The LORD says to my Lord: sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.

This psalm of David is the most quoted Old Testament text in the New Testament. Jesus, striving to make a point to his contemporaries, references it in Mark 12:35-37 by asking:

Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet. David himself calls him Lord. How then can he be his son?

Jesus wanted his audience to understand the implications of David’s words. How could David refer to the Messiah as his Lord? Wasn’t the Messiah David’s future son? This claim — suggesting the son is greater and more authoritative than David — would no doubt have shocked the Jewish audience who always showed deference to the Father over the son.

Furthermore, notice, under the direction of the Holy Spirit (Mk. 12:36), David distinguishes between LORD (YHWH) and Lord (Adonai). That is, even though the Messiah would be Lord, there is another who is also LORD.

And finally, it was unthinkable, from a Jewish perspective, that a mere human could sit at YHWH’s right hand and rule from a position of authority. Make no bones about it. David said his Son would be divine.

Isaiah 9:6-7

For unto us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the greatness of his government and peace, there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever.

Here are a few key points to consider: First, Isaiah exuberantly declares that this son — the one who will reign on David’s throne (an obvious reference to the Messiah) will be called “Mighty God.”

Second, Isaiah tells us that this son will reign eternally when he calls him “Everlasting Father” and tells us that he will uphold his kingdom of “justice and righteousness from that time on and forever.”

Third, the phrase “Everlasting Father” need not throw you off. No such Trinitarian terms existed at this point in redemption history. Rather, the term Father should be understood as one who provides (Job 29:16), guards (Isa. 22:11), and guides (2 Kgs. 2:21). By giving the Messiah the label of “Everlasting Father,” it was just one more way to declare his deity.

Daniel 7:13-14

In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Who is this son of man — this human-like figure who also has divine-like qualities? Daniel says he’ll come on the clouds of heaven which is always an expression to deity (Ps. 97:2; Isa. 19:1). This son of man will have all authority, glory, and sovereign power. All the nations will worship him, and his kingdom will last forever! Nobody can read this text and conclude that this Son of Man was not a divine figure.

Interestingly, during Jesus’ arrest, the Jewish leaders interrogated him by asking who he claimed to be. Here is Mark’s description of the conversation:

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. “You have heard the blasphemy.” — Mark 14:61-64

Truth be told, “Son of Man” was Jesus’ favorite title for himself. And here in Mark 12, Jesus most certainly claims to be the divine son of man figure in Daniel 7. We know this is the case because the high priest tore his clothes and accused Jesus of blasphemy.

The Deity of Christ in the Old Testament

Yes, the Messiah would come from the line of David. And yes, he would be human. But based on these four texts, we can confidently assert that the Old Testament also predicts a divine Messiah. And, of course, this is what we find in the New Testament. Jesus, while human, was fully divine as well.

 

Ryan Leasure holds an M.A. from Furman University and an 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/2CGqRLJ

/by
Seven Aspects of Jesus’s Life that are Historically Certain

Seven Aspects of Jesus’s Life that are Historically Certain

,

By Brian Chilton

When I had struggled with my faith, it was not in the area of science. I believed that science and faith can coexist, and I still do. The God who gave the special revelation of the Bible is also the same God who created the heavens and the earth from no materially existent thing. My struggles were in the area of history. In 1997, I came across a work by a group called the Jesus Seminar (composed of individuals such as John Dominic Crossan, Robert Funk, and Marcus Borg) which claimed that the majority of the words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels could not be historically verified. I later came to find that the Jesus Seminar had no evidence to support their claims, just their own presuppositions.

However, as I began studying the areas of history, philosophy, and theology, I came to realize that the core details of Jesus of Nazareth’s life can be known with great certainty. One of my professors at Liberty, Gary Habermas, developed what he calls the minimal facts approach. This approach lists out six areas of Jesus’s life that are universally accepted by all historians. He also adds a seventh which holds strong support, albeit less than the other six. So, what are these seven historical aspects of Jesus’s life that can be held with great certainty? They are as follows.

  1. Jesus died on a Roman cross. It is universally accepted that Jesus of Nazareth died by crucifixion. Even agnostic leaning atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman states that “The crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans is one of the most secure facts we have about his life.”[1] The Romans were efficient killers. They would ensure that the individuals whom they were instructed to kill died. Otherwise, their lives would have been taken in the victim’s place.
  2. The disciples had experiences that led them to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead. It may surprise you to discover that nearly all historians accept that the disciples had experiences that led them to believe in the resurrection of Jesus. Nearly all scholars agree that something happened on the first Easter Sunday. But what happened is where they differ.
  3. The disciples were transformed by their experiences to the point that they were willing to die for what they knew to be true. People die for what is false all the time. Many individuals have fallen in a war for nations that did not have noble causes. However, it is far different when the person dies for something they know to be true or false. The early disciples were willing to lay their lives on the line, and the lives of those they loved, for what they knew to be true or false. They literally believed that Jesus had risen from the dead.
  4. The resurrection message was promoted early in the church’s history. This is one of the points that excites me. I hope to write my dissertation on this very topic. Throughout the New Testament are early creeds that predate the New Testament documents. One of the earliest is 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 which tells of Jesus’s resurrection appearances to the disciples, James, and 500 witnesses at one time. The creedal formulation is extremely early. Bart Ehrman, an agnostic, holds that the material goes back “to the early 30s of the Common Era.”[2] James D. G. Dunn holds that the material dates to “within a year or two of the events themselves.”[3] More likely, the creed dates to the very year of Jesus’s death, burial, and resurrection. This along with Galatians 1:18-19 and the early creeds are among the earliest material in all of the New Testament record.
  5. Paul of Tarsus, the former opponent of Christianity, became a Christian after encountering the risen Jesus. No one denies that Paul of Tarsus had some experience on the road to Damascus which radically transformed his life. What could have transformed this Pharisee of Pharisee who was either a member of the Sanhedrin or one who was on his way to becoming a member (a position that paid extremely well)? Having an encounter with the risen Jesus would have brought such a transformation.
  6. James the brother of Jesus, a former skeptic, became a Christian after encountering the risen Jesus. The same holds true for James the brother of Jesus who was not a follower of Jesus until after the resurrection. James disproved of Jesus’s ministry (see Jn. 7:5) perhaps in part because it was expected that the oldest sibling would take over the family business. Jesus didn’t. Instead, he went on a preaching campaign. James probably felt great resentment towards Jesus during Jesus’s earthly ministry. However, his experience with the risen Jesus changed all that.
  7. The tomb was found empty. While this fact is not held as strongly as the other six, 75% of historical scholars accept that the tomb of Jesus was found empty on the first Easter Sunday. It is also interesting to note that the preaching of the resurrection happened early in Jerusalem. This is compelling because the skeptic would have known where the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea was located. The tomb could easily be checked. Jesus was not there.

More likely than not, as we approach the Easter season, you will encounter shows, books, and booklets that will try to dissuade you from believing that Jesus rose from the dead. The reality is, the best evidence supports not only that Jesus lived and that he died, but that he also rose again from the dead. As James and Paul were transformed by the resurrection of Jesus, so can you! Let us shout in triumph with the angels standing by the empty tomb of Jesus, “He is not here, but has risen” (Lk. 24:6).

Notes

[1] Bart D. Ehrman, Why Was Jesus Killed?, Kindle ed.

[2] Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? This Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York: HarperOne, 2012), 141.

[3] James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, Christianity in the Making, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids; Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2003), 864.

 

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/2HI5Bte

/by

Is the Quran the Word of God? w/ Dr. David Wood

Podcast: Play in new window

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

Dr. David Wood joins Frank during this episode of the Cross Examined Official Podcast. They tackled the question: Is the Quran the Word of God? David talks about how he became an expert on Islam and how that’s related to his friendship to the late Nabeel Qureshi.

Islam is the fastest growing (enforced) religion in the world and we as Christians should know how to speak intelligently with Muslims about the truth of Christianity.

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
Knowledge and Certainty Can You Know that God Exists

Knowledge and Certainty: Can You Know that God Exists?

, ,

Mikel Del Rosario

Do you have to be absolutely certain about something like “God exists” before you can say that you actually know it? Christians who talk about the evidence for God sometimes get frustrated when skeptics challenge a basic premise like “everything that begins to exist has a cause,” by saying that we haven’t explored the entire universe to know if that’s true. Maybe you’ve heard a friend say you can’t actually know anything about God unless you’re absolutely sure about it.

But saying this is an either-or kind of thing is a false dilemma. In this post, I’ll explain why you don’t have to have 100% certainty before you can know that God is real.

No good reason for either-or-thinking

In Philosophy, saying you have certainty about something means it’s impossible for you to be wrong. So, maybe saying “I exist” is one of the few things that fall into that category. But some skeptics say you can’t really know much about anything at all. Others say your beliefs aren’t justified even if they turn out to be true. For them, we can know almost nothing about God and our world since nobody can be absolutely certain about most things. But the idea that knowing something is the same as being absolutely sure about it turns out to be self-defeating. In fact, even though they say we can’t know much about anything, many seem to think they know enough to correct you if you say you know God is real. [1]

Think about it. The hyper-skeptical view is that you can’t say you know that God exists unless it’s impossible for you to be wrong about it. But is there any good reason to say that knowledge is the same as certainty? No. For example, I know that I’m writing this post on my computer. But it’s possible that I’m just dreaming about it. Still, does the mere fact that it’s possible that I’m dreaming means that I can’t know that I’m using my computer? Of course not.

Skeptics think they know something you don’t when they say you’re wrong

The thing is, skeptics, do claim to know certain things. For example, “Since we can’t go back in time to watch the big bang, we can’t know that the universe had a beginning” or “since we haven’t yet discovered every possible naturalistic option, we can’t know that God caused the universe.” These are actually claims to know something. But how do they know that?

Some skeptics have told me that in order for you to know something, you have to be 100% sure that you know it. But can’t you know something even if you aren’t entirely sure that you know it? Sure you can. For example, imagine that you memorized all the correct answers to the review questions in your textbook for class. Even if you’re not sure what questions will be on the quiz, you have a pretty good guess that some of them will be. Unbeknownst to you, every single one of those questions you studied actually make up the entirety of next week’s quiz.

In this scenario, you would actually know all the answers to the questions on next week’s quiz. You’d know the answers to a quiz you haven’t taken yet—even if you don’t realize that you actually know the answers! Turns out, you don’t have to be 100% sure (or even aware) that you know something in order for you to actually know it.

If the evidence for God’s existence seems compelling to you, there’s no need to be shy or tentative about your beliefs. You don’t have to have 100% certainty before you can know that God is real. [2]

 

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/2TOqFVg

/by
Book Review The Beauty of Intolerance

Book Review: The Beauty of Intolerance

,

By Luke Nix

Introduction

A few years ago, Sean McDowell gave a talk at the AMP Conference called “The Beauty of Intolerance.” In the talk, he spoke of two different views on tolerance that seem to be clashing in today’s society. He explained how the differences explain much of the political rhetoric of “hate” and “phobias” and “intolerance.” He focused specifically on the Church’s speaking truth in love and how this view is actually the most tolerant. This talk has been one of my favorites for a while. I discovered shortly after I first saw the talk that Sean and his father, Josh McDowell, coauthored a book, “The Beauty of Intolerance,” that went into the topic much deeper and focused on how Christian parents can effectively communicate moral truth to a morally relativistic generation. As a parent and one who defends the objectivity of morality (and, thus, the existence of God), this book was one I dare not pass on reading, which turns out was an excellent decision. Now, before I get to my usual chapter-by-chapter summary review and the remainder of my thoughts, here is the talk by Dr. Sean McDowell that originally caught my attention.

Chapter 1: True for You but Not for Me

The book begins with a fictional conversation between a college student coming home for the holidays and her parents. She and her boyfriend are expecting to be able to stay together in the same bedroom but her parents will not permit it. Both sides get into a heated discussion about morality and tolerance. The daughter wishes her parents to respect her moral decision and allow it even though they disagree, and her parents expect her to maintain the morality she grew up with. The conversation is designed to highlight the differences between the generations regarding the view of morality and tolerance. Josh and Sean McDowell use this as a springboard to begin their investigation into how the generations can respect one another yet still be guided by an objective moral compass.

They begin by pointing out that the different generations tend to recognize different sources for moral truth. One source of truth is God’s nature. It is objective and applies to every person whether they recognize it or not. The second source of moral truth is the individual. It is subjective and applies only to the person who maintains that particular view. The source that a person appeals to will not only affect the moral decisions they make, it will also affect their definitions of many words and phrases. Terms such as “tolerance” and “acceptance” are defined according to the source of moral truth. Drs. McDowell show the differences between the definitions of these words and several others. The two sources of moral truth often clash, and that is what causes much of the tension between the generations.

Chapter 2: When Tolerance Doesn’t Mean Tolerance

The second chapter starts with another fictional conversation; this one is meant to illustrate the difference between two radically different views of tolerance. The authors label the two views as “Traditional Tolerance” and “Cultural Tolerance.” They explain that Traditional Tolerance is grounded in the idea that morality is objective. This means that something is right or wrong whether someone believes it to be that way or not. It applies to all people in all cultures at all times. It has a hierarchy of morality that places some behaviors over others in objective goodness and truth value. Tolerance in this view means that even though people may not agree with another’s views, they are still to respect the other’s views and their decision to live by those views. Essentially, Traditional Tolerance is to love and respect the person despite what they believe and do.

Cultural Tolerance, on the other hand, is grounded in the idea that morality is relative and subjective. Morality is to be determined by the culture or the individual and does not apply equally to all people in all cultures at all times. Nor does this view hold a hierarchy of morality that places the goodness or truth value of one over another. In this view of tolerance, all behaviors and beliefs are equally good, equally true, and should be equally accepted by all people in all cultures at all times. Essentially, Cultural Tolerance is to celebrate the person’s behaviors and beliefs regardless of what they believe and do.

Chapter 3: The Irony: Intolerance in the Name of Tolerance

Ironically, many of those who hold to the cultural view of tolerance end up violating their own view in that they not only refuse to celebrate but instead condemn those who behave and believe differently from them. Yet, these same people do not believe themselves to be in such violation. So, who is truly being intolerant of whom, here? Josh and Sean explain that to answer this question, a standard of morality (thus tolerance) must be recognized by both sides. Just as claims of truth about reality must be tested against the standard of reality, truths about morality must be tested against the standard of morality. The source of morality that all humans are subject to (and can answer this question) is the biblical God. They explain that morality that is grounded in God is not decided by God moment-by-moment but is grounded in His nature. God does not decide what is good and true; He is what is good and true.

There was a point in history when God, as the standard of morality, was accepted in general by western culture, but it has slowly changed over the centuries. The authors take the reader through different periods of time that gradually brought in the change- the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, Darwin’s publication of his book on evolution, and modern rapid technological advancement. They explain how in these periods of time the source for answers in the culture gradually shifted from God to man, encouraged by many legitimate recognitions and much progress in the arts and sciences. However, despite the advancements in these areas, philosophy was regressing from recognizing the existence of objective moral truth to settling for subjective moral truth. This “modernist” philosophy is what many in the culture have adopted today and is the source for the cultural view of tolerance.

Chapter 4: When Anything Goes

Because God is no longer seen as the source of objective moral truth, the Bible cannot possibly contain objective moral truth. In the rejection of objective moral truth by this new culture, the Bible has become more of a “self-help” book. One that is not taken to have any objective truth, but one that is to be subjectively interpreted and applied where the reader is comfortable. Because there is no source by which to judge one action as “good” and another as “evil,” anything goes. Anything and everything a person wishes to do can be considered “good.” Everything from the beheadings carried out by ISIS to the dismemberment of babies moments before they are delivered into this world–all of these behaviors cannot be judged as objective evil because it is the culture, not a source above the culture that determines what is good and what is evil.

Further, because there is no objective “good” or “evil,” what is to be made of injustice? Without an objective standard by which to judge actions, what is “just” and “unjust” cannot be identified either. What we observe and positively identify as “unjust” cannot truly be considered unjust when differing cultures believe that opposite behaviors are “good.” This is one of the many ways that the idea of cultural tolerance goes against our better judgment as human beings. We know that certain actions are objectively evil, and we want to fight to right the wrong and see that injustice is stopped. The authors take the reader back to the early Church and point out that their intolerance of the injustices of the Roman Empire (leaving unwanted children in the streets to die) was objectively evil. No one, who holds to the cultural view of tolerance, can consistently believe that any act is evil or unjust. When they make such a claim of true evil and injustice, they are borrowing capital from the traditional view of tolerance.

Chapter 5: Love Makes It Right

One of the major tenants of the cultural view of tolerance is that love makes everything right. The way that this is expected to be applied is that if you love someone you will affirm whatever behavioral choices they make, no matter how strongly you disagree with them. While Drs. McDowell do agree that love does make right, they highlight the fact that cultural tolerance forces a truncated definition of love, one that focuses merely on the current feelings of the loved one and not their future wellbeing. The one who loves should not affirm a destructive behavior in the name of “love;” for to do so would be to send the “loved” one to their own destruction. This is the exact opposite of the goal of the person who loves them. By not including the future wellbeing of the loved person, cultural tolerance turns love upside down.

The authors explain that the biblical love that one must show involves the ideas of cherishing and nourishing the other person. And in the context of romantic love, one must cherish and nourish the other as they do themselves. These involve not just the present moment but also guarding against things that can hurt in the future and promoting things that will grow the person in the future. The marriage commitment is a commitment to cherish and nourish the spouse. The authors began the chapter with a fiction conversation between two parents and their daughter who wished to be affirmed in her sexual relationship with her boyfriend because they are in love (a fairly common situation in today’s world where the parents’ ideas of traditional tolerance and the children’s ideas of cultural tolerance are at odds). The problem is that the love protects security and commitment, which neither are in place because no commitment has been made between the boyfriend and girlfriend. To claim “love” at that point in their relationship is truly inaccurate, thus to have sexual relations would actually contradict what love is, and for the parents to affirm the relationship would also contradict their love for their daughter.

Chapter 6: True Love

But how do parents deal with such a situation? If they press too hard, they risk alienating their daughter. Can the truth be spoken and love demonstrated in such a way that the daughter can accept it and appreciate it? Josh and Sean emphasize the difference between “doing” and “being.” They explain that every person is created in God’s Image and that gives them intrinsic worth. They also explain that every person is sinful by nature, so that means that they will make wrong choices. Further, the environment and even some genes may make certain choices more difficult for some people than others, but we are still responsible for our choices. This makes for a legitimate distinction between who a person is and what they do. This is the view of traditional tolerance- Personal worth and personal choices are judged independently of the other. Cultural tolerance does not allow such a distinction, so it holds that judgment of one necessarily judges the other the same. To illustrate the beauty and importance of this distinction, the authors take the reader through Jesus’ encounter with the woman at the well in John 4. Jesus showed this culturally outcast woman love, respect, dignity, and value, yet he called out her sin- a message that she understood (as evidenced by her reaction) to be loving.

Chapter 7: Know the Truth and Speak It in Love

Every loving parent desires to protect their children from harm. The traditional view of tolerance allows a parent to love their child AND protect (or attempt to protect) them from harmful behaviors, where as the cultural view does not. A truly loving parent wants what is best for their child, and if they do not recognize that the child is making a wrong decision yet they do not address it and allow them to continue on the path, the “love” comes into question. Again, the traditional view of tolerance is quite intolerant of wrong choices yet alerts the person out of love and concern- that is beautiful. Ironically, the cultural view requires that even if a harmful decision is identified that we must permit and even encourage continuing on the harmful path. This is NOT loving and is NOT beautiful. Even though a parent may disagree with a child’s beliefs or behaviors, the traditional view of tolerance allows them to lovingly guide them away from harm.

To conclude the chapter, the fictional conversations that began the previous chapters were revisited. This time the conversations were guided by the parents’ intentional purpose of communicating their disagreement in the context of their desire for what is best (true love- the traditional view of tolerance) and keeping the lines of communication open about the wrong decisions. The new versions of these conversations were successful in keeping minds open and love being communicated. The authors caution that even though these fictional conversations seemed almost effortless, that in reality they require much patience and a long-suffering heart. Sometimes such a parent will be required to walk through the “hometown” of those who they disagree with in order to demonstrate their love and willingness to properly understand where that person is coming from to appropriately communicate the truth that their decision is, in fact, wrong.

Chapter 8: Cultural Tolerance and Education

The cultural view of tolerance is not just an idea that some people in society possess; it has permeated everything from education to government to the Church. The effect on the education system is quite evident when the cirricula are examined. Every subject, from math to history is taught through the lens of cultural tolerance. In many cases, the education system goes so far as to teach that if something cannot be tested then nothing about it can be known factually. Because many different cultures believe certain things that cannot be tested, it is taught, not only that these beliefs have not factual value but, that they are merely opinion, and students must simply accept that.

This is projected onto the students as well. They are taught that their thoughts, feelings, and beliefs have no claim on truth over another student’s thoughts, feelings, and beliefs. According to modern education, these are all just the product of opinions, and everyone needs to accept and even celebrate everyone else’s opinions. The authors are careful to emphasize that not every teacher is attempting to indoctrinate our kids; however, they do recognize that there are many in the system who are and who do so quite aggressively. This caution is provided not to cause alarm and to pull our kids from the public education system but to encourage us as parents to recognize that we are responsible for our kids’ education and that means that we need to prepare our kids at home to understand that and how such views are incorrect.

Chapter 9: Cultural Tolerance and the Government

Cultural tolerance has also greatly impacted governments in the West. But this is not to be a surprise for the Christian, for there are two kingdoms: the earthly kingdom and the Heavenly Kingdom, each having its own standards. Most of the time, both kingdoms’ standards are similar enough that Christians can live both objectively right and legally right at the same time, but if it ever comes to the time in which they are in conflict, the Christian must follow the Heavenly Kingdom because it is the one that holds to the objective standards that even earthly governments are supposed to follow. Our allegiance should lie with God, the foundation of objective moral truth; not the government, which is subject to the foundation of objective moral truth.

But how are we to respond when the time comes that the relative laws of the land come into conflict with the objective laws of God (such as when same-sex marriage was legalized a few years ago)? Drs. McDowell emphasize that our response must not just be a factual one but one given in love- a love that tells the truth with the person’s best interest in mind and in the context of a loving relationship, with traditional tolerance, not cultural tolerance, at the heart of our communication.

Chapter 10: Cultural Tolerance and Society

Because of the impact that cultural tolerance and moral relativism have had on our society, it is quite common for parents to feel helpless. This feeling of helplessness is often the cause of heated exchanges between parents and their children that leave both sides feeling unloved and disrespected. However, parents can increase their moral impact in their children’s lives by continually reminding them that God ultimately has their best interests and purposes in mind (true love), and His moral commandments are given so that those interests and purposes can be realized in their lives.

How can parents guide their children in their moral choices and focus on God’s loving interests and purposes for their lives? Josh McDowell takes parents through his process of the 4-Cs that he expounds on even more in his book “10 Commitments for Dads,” which has now been added to this reviewers reading list. The 4-Cs are:

1. Consider the choice

2. Compare it to God

3. Commit to God’s way

4. Count on God’s protection and provision

By equipping our children with this process and how to use it, our children can successfully identify when cultural tolerance is guiding them in the wrong direction and can adjust accordingly to God’s perfectly loving interests and purposes for their lives. It is not only important that parents teach this process but model it in their lives, so that their children not only hear it but see it and its results in real-life situations with real people.

Chapter 11: Cultural Tolerance and the Church

One of the things that makes teaching the correct view of tolerance (the traditional view) so difficult is that some of the concepts of the cultural view of tolerance have infiltrated the Chuch. This is not something that was (or even is) intended nor is it something that was (or is) blatant. Church leaders, while holding strong to the inerrancy of Scripture, have unwittingly adopted some of the language of cultural tolerance which communicates the concepts contradictory to what the leaders intend to communicate. Josh and Sean McDowell look at five common phrases that we hear in today’s church that are problematic:

1. The Old and New Testaments are the Bible of the Jewish and Christian faiths.

2. The Bible contains truth designed just for me.

3. There are 101 ways to interpret the Bible.

4. What’s true for you isn’t necessarily true for me.

The Bible is God’s Word, but experience determines interpretation.

Each of those contains is partially true, but they also contain error. Each one, in its own way, implies that either Christianity is not true for all people across all generations and/or that truth is relative. It is important that parents recognize when the language is used and reinforce with their children and in their own minds where the truth is and how it can lead to error if not properly understood.

Chapter 12: You Can Make a Difference

In the concluding chapter, Josh and Sean offer three ways that Christians can be effective in our culture in changing the view of tolerance back to the correct view. They recount instances in their own lives where each one has been successful. They also recommend resources, beyond their own work, that the Christian can use in their efforts. They emphasize that there is no “silver bullet” that will convert a culture or even a single person. This is an effort that can take days, month, or even years. We are called not to convert people overnight but to patiently build truly loving relationships with them and show them the love of Christ not only in our words but also in our lives.

Reviewer’s Thoughts

“The Beauty of Intolerance” certainly did not disappoint. The conversational style (and conversations) that the McDowells used made this book’s deep philosophical ideas easy to comprehend and see how to apply in everyday life. The book keeps the reader engaged from beginning to end. As a parent, at nearly every turn of a page I discovered new ways to effectively communicate truth to my children and teach them how to discern moral truth from error in our relativistic culture. And as someone who discusses moral and political issues frequently with friends, family, and coworkers, I found the content to be extremely valuable. I, no doubt, will be referring readers of this blog back to this book in future posts.

As you can tell, I highly recommend this book for every Christian and especially Christian parents. Whether your kids are still at home or your children are now adults, this book will be invaluable for you and for them as you and they navigate through today’s culture. Once I got through the third or fourth chapter, I placed one of my Top 5 Books posts on hold simply to trade out one of the recommendations for this one. I also have the audiobook on MP3 CD and multiple copies to borrow out and give to fellow parents. Parents, DO NOT pass up this book; you will find it engaging and encouraging, and the philosophical and biblical insights throughout its pages will enhance your relationship with your kids and help you keep their eyes on Christ and remind them that God truly loves them by always having their best interests at heart.

 

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/2TlgYZa

/by
Cashed Out Feminism

Cashed Out: Feminism

,

By Terrell Clemmons

The War Against Sexual Order Has Young Men in Full Retreat

Beware of the sperm-jacker, warns Dean Cardell on the men’s website AskMen.com. She’s “all about getting pregnant and not about being into you.” He identifies five types: (1) the Lesbian, who may at least do you the courtesy of asking for your contribution directly (the others go after it by stealth); (2) the Girl Running Out of Time and (3) the Trapster, both of whom are looking for a “just-add-water” family; (4) Miss Lonely, who needs someone to cling to; and (5) the angry Miss Independent, who nevertheless wants a little one to fill a void. All sperm-jackers have one thing in common: they need something they can only get from a man. Most any man will do.

Cardell’s post has all the class of a Bill Maher rerun, but it does expose a very serious threat to men, as psychologist and men’s advocate Helen Smith, Ph.D., documents in Men on Strike. Take the following cases of nonconsensual insemination: Nathaniel from California, age 15, had sex with 34-year-old Ricci, which, due to his age, was legally considered non-consensual. Emile from Louisiana was visiting his parents in the hospital when a nurse offered him oral sex if he wore a condom, which she conveniently offered to dispose of for him afterward. S. F. from Alabama passed out drunk at the home of a female friend and awoke undressed the following morning. In all three cases, including the one involving the minor, a woman got sperm and, nine months later, a child, and the man got ordered by a court of law to pay support for eighteen years.

Less devious, but similarly amiss, are those cases in which a man, having been betrayed by his wife or girlfriend, was nevertheless held financially responsible for a child genetically proven to be another man’s offspring. While not as sensational as sperm-jacking, it is another form of paternity extortion.

The Assault on Men

Paternity fraud is only one aspect of the larger, decades-long, feminist-incited assault on men to which Smith is attempting to draw public attention. While the feminist movement may originally have been about equal respect for both sexes, what it has morphed into, she argues, is a female privilege. From rape laws that empower women but not the men they may falsely accuse, to divorce laws tilted in favor of the wife, to the feminization of the U.S. education system, men have become the sex under the gun, while women enjoy the status of a protected class.

But unlike their mothers or grandmothers, men today are not taking to the streets burning their undergarments and shrieking demands (thank God). They’re doing just the opposite, which is far worse. They’re going on strike. The strike zones are manifold:

Higher Education. In addition to the enrollment imbalance, which is approaching a 60/40 ratio of women to men, college has become, in the words of one professor, “a hostile working environment [in which] males increasingly feel emasculated.” Smith quotes a student named John, who had this to say about his college experience: “I had already been cautious around women, having grown up with Tawana Brawley in my backyard and daily stories of sexual harassment; I played it safe and passive every time. But it doesn’t matter. The only way not to lose is to not play. So I’m out.”

Work, including community involvement. With higher female graduation rates and salaries, men today are falling behind their fathers economically and professionally. Consequently, their efforts to prove themselves worthy mates through hard work and higher earnings don’t win female attention the way they used to. Discouraged, too many retreat to a man cave, and inertia sets in from there.

Marriage. Marriage rates are down, and honest men opting out will tell you why. Smith cites a Rutgers University study of single heterosexual men which turned up the top reasons they hadn’t married. They can get sex and the companionship of cohabitation without marriage more easily than in times past, and they don’t want to open themselves up to the risk of divorce and financial loss. It really isn’t that complicated a decision. In fact, it’s often not an actual decision at all. It just happens.

Reasonable Reactions

But Smith cautions against any superficial conclusions that attribute all this to male immaturity, laziness, or plain sexual economics. While those things may figure in, the man-child label simply doesn’t stick to the men she actually hears from. On the contrary, she says men are “acting rationally in response to the lack of incentives today’s society offers them to be responsible fathers, husbands, and providers.” It isn’t an organized, or even a declared strike. It’s more of a reluctant retreat. Why should they do otherwise? Chris, a thirty-something single man, captured it: “There is nothing in it for me, no incentive and no reason.”

Ironically, feminist demands have had the effect of shrinking the pool of appealing marriage prospects. And scheming women have descended to the grossly abusive and socially malignant shenanigans of sperm-jacking and paternity seizure. Clearly, something has gone terribly wrong.

The Real Conflict

Smith offers men and their supporters two strategies for fighting back (her words). One is to “go, Galt,” a metaphor—taken from the 1957 Ayn Rand classic Atlas Shrugged—for withdrawing one’s labor from the marketplace to keep from being exploited. This is what some men are doing, as the trends indicate. The other strategy amounts to a counteroffensive deploying the same power plays the feminists have used: forming alliances and support groups, lobbying for legislative change, and, short of that, mocking or intimidating opponents.

Smith has written a very important book, and certainly, there’s a place for some of her suggestions. But there’s a shortcoming in both of her strategies in that they are founded on the premise that the main “war” is the one between the sexes. Going Galt is effectively capitulating, which is neither noble nor masculine while deploying counterstrikes is fighting women directly, which is worse. But the combatants in this “war” aren’t so much primary warriors as they are casualties. They—and the children caught in the fray—are collateral damage in a larger conflict: the war on basic sexual order.

Consulting the Past

There is a better way to win. In his article about sperm-jackers, Cardell advises, “Be prepared to draw the line regarding your involvement and your connection to her crazy a$$.” He’s warning men of the potential consequences of (pardon me) wanton ejaculation and advising them to set boundaries and take control of themselves for their own benefit. He doesn’t even mention the potential effects for her or for their potential offspring, which are incalculably profound. Before you get involved, he says, draw the lines. Aside from the crass wording, it’s decent advice.

Sometimes, as former police officer and author J. Warner Wallace has noted, the road to the future we want passes through the past we’ve forgotten. Wallace was writing about the importance of fathers with respect to crime prevention, but the same idea applies to the context in which a man becomes a father.

Once upon a time, there was a custom for drawing the lines in this area of life. Often marked by a special ceremony, it involved promises—promises so solemn they were made before God and witnesses. When kept, they assured the woman of a father for her children and gave the man a companion and progeny to work for and invest in. The result created the best guard against exploitation, both for them and for their offspring. They could cooperate rather than compete, exalt rather than exploit. For battle-weary men and women, there’s no better time than the present to consult the wisdom of the past.

 

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/2OgDnpY

/by

10 Things Every Christian Should Know For College

Podcast: Play in new window

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

In this episode, Frank interviews author Austin Gentry about his book titled: 10 Things Every Christian Should Know For College: A Student’s Guide on Doubt, Community, & Identity. This book stands at the intersection of the Christian faith and the college life. 10 Things Every Christian Should Know For College is a replete guide for not merely surviving in college, but more importantly, thriving in college.

Make sure to forward this podcast to all your friends and family member that would benefit from it.

In the last section of this episode, Frank answer questions from our Q&A email “Hello@CrossExamined.org” send your questions now!

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