2019 - Page 3 of 25 - CrossExamined

Did Paul really change his tactics after Athens and begin to take a dim view of apologetics?

Some Christians have argued that apologetics is a waste of time. We aren’t supposed to be arguing with unbelievers; we’re just called to preach the simple gospel. If we’re faithful to do that, the Holy Spirit will supernaturally come to our aid — either in supernatural conviction, or performing signs and wonders through us that no one can gainsay.

To support this view, these well-meaning believers will point to Paul’s so-called ‘failure’ in Athens. Paul debated with the thinkers of Mars Hill, using natural theology and quoting their own philosophers in order to persuade them of the truth of the gospel. Paul’s results were modest. Acts 17:32-34 reads: “Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, “We will hear you again about this.” So Paul went out from their midst. But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.”

After Athens, Paul moved on to Corinth and switched up his approach, or so the story goes. In 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:5, Paul says that the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing. He quotes Isaiah, who wrote that “God will destroy the wisdom of the wise,” which included the ballyhooed wisdom of the Greeks. God isn’t calling very many of those who are wise by worldly standards.

Paul says that when he came to the Corinthians, he didn’t come to them with lofty speech or wisdom. He decided to know nothing but Jesus and him crucified and came in demonstration of the Holy Spirit and power. In 1 Cor. 4:20, Paul continues this line of thought, saying the kingdom of God doesn’t consist in talk but in power.

So these critics argue that for Paul, using fancy arguments and evidence wasn’t necessary anymore. He learned this the hard way at the Areopagus.

Here’s the thing about this view: While there is some seemingly some biblical evidence that Paul switched things up with the Corinthians, it just isn’t true that Paul didn’t continue to use evidence and arguments in order to persuade people to become Christians. We just have to keep reading.

Did Paul give up on using reason and evidence after Athens?

For starters, let’s see how Luke records Paul’s visit to Corinth. Acts 18:3 says: “And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks.” The Jews later tried to get Paul arrested, saying to the proconsul, “This man is persuading people to worship God contrary to the law.” (v. 13).

Paul clearly was still in the business of trying to persuade people. This pattern continues in the very next chapter when Paul goes to Ephesus. Check out Acts 19:8-10:

“And he entered the synagogue and for three months spoke boldly, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God. But when some became stubborn and continued in unbelief, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them and took the disciples with him, reasoning daily in the hall of Tyrannus. This continued for two years so that all the residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews, and Greeks.”

Paul was reasoning in the synagogues. When the Jews weren’t having it, he moved on and rented out the lecture hall of Tyrannus and was “reasoning daily,” there for two whole years. He did this until everyone in the area heard the gospel. This almost sounds like a daily public Q+A session. As Peter May writes:

“for Paul, a lively exchange of views, in which he presented the gospel. By engaging with [the culture in the cities in Acts], he challenged their assumptions, clarified the issues, stormed their defences, provoked their questions, addressed their doubts, and presented the gospel in a compelling manner. This sort of “inter-faith” dialogue was not merely about finding common ground or seeking mutual understanding. It was far more than that. Paul engaged in dialogue in order to win his hearers to Christ.”

Peter May, What is Apologetics?

Paul still continues this pattern at the end of Acts. Even after having a healing revival of sorts (Acts 28:8-9), he still used arguments and reason to persuade others to become Christians. Acts 28:23, we read: “When they had appointed a day for him, they came to him at his lodging in greater numbers. From morning till evening, he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets.”

Paul’s still using his eyewitness testimony of the resurrection. He’s still using the argument from prophecy.

Paul used apologetics in his letters

We also have what Paul wrote that undercuts this argument of “preach and perform miracles only.” In the very same letter, Paul points to eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus in order to prove the resurrection of the physical body to the Corinthians. 1 Cor. 15:3-8, he cites a creed that lists multiple individuals and groups who had seen the risen Jesus.

He even uses modus tollens in the form of an argument. Quoting the Expositor’s Greek NT Commentary on 1 Cor 15:17-18, “Paul leaves the inference, which observes the strict method of the modus tollens, to the consciousness of his readers (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:20): “We are true witnesses, you are redeemed believers; on both accounts it is certain that Christ has risen,—and therefore that there is a resurrection of the dead”.

Paul deftly uses logic to show them that they’re begging the question when they say there is no resurrection from the dead. For if Christ isn’t raised, then their faith is useless. But Christ has been raised, therefore their faith isn’t futile — they too will one day be raised.

In his second letter to the Corinthians, Paul says, “We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.” (2 Cor 10:5) And writing from prison a decade letter, Paul writes to the Philippians that he is set for the defense of the gospel. (Phil 1:7) The Greek word defense there is apologia, where we get our word apologetics. He is set out to remove false ideas and defend the gospel.

Paul did not give up on apologetics

So the bottom line is that it’s just not true that Paul didn’t value using reason and evidence in proclaiming and defending the gospel. It’s ironic that these pious-sounding critics against apologetics use reason and evidence to defend their own view that apologetics is worthless. They’re making an apologetic against apologetics, which is just sawing off the branch that they’re sitting on. Why not think that God’s Spirit can use preaching, miracles, and arguments? Why limit what God can use?

By pointing to Paul’s alleged paltry results in Athens, they basically are saying reaching Damaris and Dionysus the Areopagite was a waste of time. Jesus doesn’t think that way, the parable of the lost sheep tells us that Jesus will leave the 99 to find the one. Paul said became all things to all men in order that he might save some. (1 Cor. 9:21-23)

¿Por qué no soy Fideísta? Parte III

Español

By Xavier Gonzalez

Part I: Definition and history of Fideism.

Part II: The story of Christians with reasonable faith.

Promoters of Reasonable Faith

As we saw earlier, the first Christians were not fideists, and that is in total contradiction with the fideists and certain atheists who claim that faith is blind and irrational, and that there is a contradiction between faith and reason, but would those Christians who have some academic specialization say the same? Did those who tried to find out where their faith is based think the same, as did the apologists of the second century? Or did they have (and do they have) good reasons to think that the Christian faith is really a reasonable faith?

We will quote certain statements from different academics who follow this line of thought:

Faith is indeed the response to evidence, not a celebration of the absence of evidence.

—John Lennox

Reason is the left hand of our soul, faith is the right.

—John Donne

Reason and faith are two banks of the same river.

—Domenico Cieri Estrada

Real Faith is Not Blind, It is Based on Evidence.

—Rice Brooks

The Christian Faith requires its members to know their beliefs for themselves. Being a Christian means feeling responsible for one’s own beliefs and living them in a conscious and intelligent way.

—Alfonso Ropero

In Scripture, faith involves putting our trust in what we have reason to believe. Faith is not a blind, irrational leap into the darkness. In a biblical perspective, faith and reason cooperate with each other. They are not inherently hostile.

—JP Moreland

Thus, faith and thought go hand in hand, and it is impossible to believe without thinking. BELIEVING IS ALSO THINKING!

—John Stott

The Christian faith is, in its essence, the act of thinking.

—John Stott

The Bible never states that we should take a leap in the dark. Faith is not blind, in the sense of being arbitrary, eccentric, or a mere expression of human wish. If so, why does the author of Hebrews say that faith is the “conviction of things not seen”?

—RC Sproul

Few are those who leave their intellectual comfort to satisfy these uncertainties, but those who set out in search of evidence will not be disappointed, because the Christian faith is not a blind faith, but a faith in facts, facts that can be subjected to the judgment of reason.

—Claudio Garrido

My faith is Reasonable, Christianity is reasonable and based on History.

—Chris Du Pond

If a rational God has created us as rational beings with the loving intention of having communion with him, then we must confidently expect to come to know something of his existence and nature.

—Thomas V. Morris

Christian belief is justified in the same way that belief in atomic theory is justified: through good arguments and evidence.

—Cameron Bertuzzi

Faith does not show us God rationally, but it shows him to us reasonably.

—Francisco Lacueva

Everyone who believes, thinks. Because faith, if what is believed is not thought, is null.

—Augustine of Hippo

Faith in Christianity is based on evidence. It is reasonable faith. Faith, in the Christian sense, goes beyond what is reasonable, but it does not go against reason.

—Paul Little

Our trust in Christ is not based on blind emotion, but on the intellectual evaluation of the evidence that has convinced us of the truth of Christianity and given rise to a reasonable faith.

—Tricia Scribner

To renounce reason is to renounce religion; reason and religion walk hand in hand, every irrational religion is a false religion.

—John Wesley

It is not that we are trying to trick the opinion of fideists or atheists with a long list, these are simply a few to name and that also goes for fideists and atheists, phrases that would perhaps be capable of knocking anyone’s face down.

Now, the promoters of reasonable faith really think that there is a balance or compatibility between what is faith and reason, so for my brothers in Christ who have a Fideistic thought I say: Study!

Question your beliefs if necessary, but always looking for answers and justification of those beliefs if they are true or not. Do not stay like vagabonds in a box without seeking answers or help like a child who no longer goes out to the playground for fear of getting hurt, the only advice I give you is from the Apostle Paul himself: “But test everything; hold on to what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.” (1 Thess 5:21-22) and “Brothers, do not be children in your thinking, but be children in malice, but be mature in your thinking.” (1 Cor 14:20).

And for the not-so-friendly atheists (this can also include agnostics) who still accuse Christians of being brainless, if you are going to question the Christian faith… I appreciate it! This encourages committed Christians to study the faith further and seek better answers.

But to be frank, if they are going to be skeptical even of the evidence that one puts on the table and do not deign to carefully analyze what is presented, then it can be said that skeptics of this style have a rather naive and superstitious Faith , what I mean is, questioning everything without having good reasons for why to sustain such skepticism, that does not indicate that atheism is a reasonably and intellectually satisfactory position, it is only intellectual, rational laziness and even a comfortable way to take refuge in one’s own worldview, as intellectually lazy Christians also do.

Reasonable Faith (Biblically)

We may have described a bit of history and respectable promoters of a rational faith, but to finish this writing, we must go to the Bible, since atheists as fideists try to justify the irrationality of Christianity and what better way than using the very same sacred book that Christians use or believe respectively.

Let’s just see, are atheists right in saying that the Bible allows for blind faith? Do John 20:29, 2 Corinthians 5:7 and Hebrews 11:1 really assert that Christian faith is blind? We will analyze these and other quotes with great care and detail.

In this part of the writing we will first analyze the verses that assert that “faith” itself (or that it seems) is blind, we will use the classic Reina Valera of 60 :

John 20:29

Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen me, have you believed? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

2 Corinthians 5:7

(because we live by faith, not by sight)

Hebrews 11:1

And faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Before we go into depth about the verses themselves, let’s first see what the word “Faith” really means in Greek, this word in its original translation is pronounced πιστός (pistos or pistis) this word in the Greek sense is used in 2 ways, which are active and passive, in the active mode it means that it is confident and in the passive mode it means that it is faithful, so this word in Greek is not synonymous with blindness but with trust or fidelity, the term first of all is firm persuasion, conviction based on what is heard, to give an example, it is like the doctor who diagnoses the patient, the doctor tells his patient the disease he has and the cure for that disease, and the only option the patient has is to trust the word of his doctor or not, hence the trust in someone. This is where the apologists base themselves on 1 Peter 3 15, to make a reasoned defense .

Now that it is clear what “Faith” really is, let us analyze the verses:

First to get a clarification of why Jesus said that, let’s go to the previous verses, John 20:24-29

24 But Thomas, one of the Twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus appeared.

25 Therefore the other disciples said to him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will never believe.”

26 And after eight days his disciples were again within, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you .

27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands, and put your hand here and put it into my side; and do not be unbelieving but believing.”

28 Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen me, have you believed? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Before let’s see certain conditions that happen here, first when Jesus appeared to the other disciples Thomas was not with them, then it happens that when the disciples met again with Thomas, he did not believe them, but wait a moment, how many people were there when Jesus appeared to them resurrected bodily before meeting with Thomas? Well, in Luke 24:13 it gives us 2 testimonies that they saw Jesus and the other appearance that the disciples had was in John 20:19, the verse does not tell us how many people were gathered, but here I would speculate that it was with almost all the disciples, because if they hid for fear of the Jews, I imagine that they agreed to have a hiding place so that the Jews would not catch them, although it was the right place and time for Jesus to appear to them. Now let’s see, whether it was the course of days or the week in which Jesus appeared to them (except for Thomas, of course), Thomas still had good justifiable evidence to believe, and it was the testimony of the other disciples, although Jesus always appeared to Thomas, we see 2 particular things, (1) that the faith that Jesus demanded from the apostles did not end up being a blind faith and (2) that that faith does have good justification for its evidence, but our question here is why did Jesus say that? And our answer is that:

The beatitude Jesus pronounced is not comparative in itself, that is, he does not say that “more” blessed are those who believe without seeing, although this might be implied. He accepted and approved Thomas’ faith by sight as true, but he omits to say that he is blessed. Thomas had the opportunity to believe in the resurrection based on the testimony of his companions, without visual evidence, and he did not take advantage of it. Jesus was apparently looking ahead to when his future disciples would have to believe without being able to see and he steps forward to pronounce a blessing on them. Culpepper observes that throughout the Gospel, John has discussed the relationship between seeing and believing, presenting a series of signs, but encouraging readers to a faith that is not based on signs.

So, in simple words, even if Jesus does not appear to us bodily resurrected every day, it is not a plus that our belief is not really well justified.

Now let’s move on to the next verse, which is 2 Corinthians 5:7. This quote tells us in a very emphatic way that “Faith” is “blind,” but we must take both the verses before this one and those that follow it in order to have an adequate context of the verse, and not juggle the same verse and end up deducing false conclusions. Now let’s see what the verses before and after 5:7 tell us.

1 For we know that if our earthly house, this tabernacle, were destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

2 And thus we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly habitation,

3 For even though we are unclothed, we will not be found naked.

4 For we who are still in this tent groan with anguish, because we do not want to be unclothed, but to be clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life.

5 And he who destined us for this very thing is God, who gave us the Spirit as a guarantee.

6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, while present in the body, we are absent from the Lord.

7 ( because we live by faith, not by sight);

8 But we are confident, although we prefer to leave the body and be with the Lord.

As we read in these verses, it indicates a faith directed toward another goal or purpose, which is not obviously a faith without evidence, but a faith in a promise. To put it in our perspective, it is like when a Father promises his son that he will give him a toy, and the child trusts and hopes in the promise that his Father made him. So what Paul does is contrast our faith that we will be resurrected and have a home in heaven with our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the faith that he speaks of here is toward a promise that we still await. Verse 7 with the passages that come from it refers to the fact that life is a journey, or a pilgrimage, and that the Christian is traveling to another country. The sense here is that we conduct ourselves in our course of life with reference to things that are not seen, and not with reference to things that are seen. Sometimes the people of this world strive for those objects that they have not seen, without any promise or assurance that they will obtain them. The inability to grant them has been promised to them; No one has assured them that their lives will be lengthened in order to obtain them. In a moment they may be cut off and all their plans frustrated; or they may be utterly disappointed and all their plans fail; or if they do obtain the object, it may be unsatisfactory and may not give such pleasure as they had anticipated. But not so the Christian. He has:

(1) The promise of life.

(2) He is assured that sudden death cannot deprive him of it. He immediately brings it to the object of persecution, not away from him.

(3) You are assured that when it is obtained, it will not displease, satiate, or deteriorate, but will fulfill all the expectations of the soul and will be eternal.

Thus, the verse quoted from 2 Corinthians 5:7 contextualizing its verses, does not exactly refer to an incompatibility between “faith and reason” it simply refers to “faith and promise”; therefore, given what is understood in this verse, let us go to the next one.

Hebrews 11:1

And faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Here we discover the essential characteristics of faith from the author’s point of view. Faith has to do with things to come (hoped for) and things invisible (unseen). The RSV translation (the constancy of things hoped for) puts the emphasis on faith as an expression of our confidence in God’s promises. However, it is also possible to translate “faith is the substance (hypostasis) of things hoped for” or “faith gives substance to our hopes.” Such a translation suggests that things hoped for become real and have substance through the exercise of faith.

Now given the context of the verse, it is not a reference where it can be used to denote that faith is blind in itself, because if one reads the verses that follow we see certain characters who believed in what God told them, one could say that rather the faith that is referred to in this verse is in itself a fidelity to God, a fidelity to his promises; although something is quite clear, that when one reads the following verses and the faith that these characters had, it did not turn out to be a “blind faith” either, thus, faith is always accompanied by evidence, as my friend Anselm of Canterbury would say “I believe in order to understand and I understand in order to believe.”

Now that the verses have been clarified, we must touch on an important point, and that is, how do we come to know that a Faith is blind in itself? And here is the crucial point, for a faith to be blind, its very content must be false. What do I mean by this? That the content of the faith, where the heart of the belief is found, cannot justify or sustain what it declares about itself, and here we are going to touch on the verse 1 Corinthians 15:14 and 17.

12 If then it is preached that Christ was raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

13 For if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised either;

14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is also in vain.

15 And we are found to be false witnesses of God, because we testify that God raised up the Messiah; whom he did not raise, if it is true that the dead are not raised.

16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either.

17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins,

18 and those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.

Now, given as we read well in these verses, Paul denotes in a very emphatic way 2 things, (1) that the heart of the Christian faith is the resurrection and (2) recognizes that for the Christian faith to be blind the resurrection of Christ could never have occurred, hence the implications that he himself mentions, now if this is so, then this is where the atheist must attack to demonstrate that the Christian faith is blind, not starting from how the world was created or otherwise, thus, the Christian faith rests on 2 propositions that make the Christian faith true and reasonable, the first in the own statements that Jesus made of himself for all who believe in him and in the second that his resurrection is the basis or solid confirmation of all his statements.

Now, to give an analogy, imagine that a king declares war on a nation and motivates his army saying that he will win the war, here we see 2 propositions where the army puts its faith in its King, which are (1) that the guarantee that they will win the war is based on the King’s declaration and (2) that the event occurs for that declaration to be true, but if the opposite happens then the army gave their lives for nothing and the faith they had towards the king ended up being in vain, it is so in the Christian faith if what Jesus Christ said about himself after his death was not fulfilled, then I have no reasons to be a Christian I would even dare to say that Christianity would cease to exist, in fact in Acts 5:34-39 a Pharisee Gamaliel recognized that although what these men preach is a lie, there will come a point when it will disappear, but if what these men preach is true, if the same statements of Jesus came true after his death, then even maintaining this FAITH IS REASONABLE.

That is why we can consider that Faith rests on a Faith founded on truth, and it can be demonstrated that it is true and that anyone can embrace that truth, with the mind and with the heart .

Xavier Gonzalez is from Venezuela and is dedicated to the study of philosophy, early Christianity and theology. He converted to Christianity at the age of 15. He managed the Me Lo Contó Un Ateo website and is in charge of the apologetics section of the Iglesia Cristiana la gracia website ( http://www.iglesialagracia.org ).

November 25, 2019/by Guest

Reactions to John Crist’s Moral Failings Demonstrate Our Culture’s Confusion about Christianity

Apologetics for Parents, CrossExamined, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Natasha Crain

News broke yesterday that popular Christian comedian and YouTuber John Crist has come forth with an admission of ongoing “sexual sin and addiction struggles” after multiple women exposed years of his sexually immoral behavior.

Honestly, my heart sank when I saw this. I love Crist’s videos. We watch them with our kids. In fact, our family had just watched one of his most popular ones, “Church Hunters,” this week! If you’re not familiar with Crist, he pokes fun at evangelical culture through his videos, and in a way that you can typically nod along with because they (unfortunately and humorously) hit close to home. Church Hunters, for example, is a parody that features a couple searching for a new church, but they’re considering all the wrong criteria…something all too common today. The video actually made for a great discussion with our kids about how people DO look at the wrong things, and what is most important when considering a church home.

You can read a detailed article with the accusations and Crist’s own statement here. In that article and some common responses, I’ve seen to it on social media, I’ve noticed three areas of serious confusion that both Christians and nonbelievers sometimes have about this kind of news:

Confusion 1: Thinking popular Christians are more immune to sin than others.

Honestly, I feel this point is so obvious that it’s embarrassingly uninsightful to point out. But consider this statement in the article from one of the women who says she was emotionally devastated by her encounters with Crist:

“I was truly blinded by his celebrity status…There were a few moments I thought, ‘Hey, this is kind of weird,’ but the same phrase kept playing through my head that stopped me from leaving: ‘It’s OK. He’s a Christian. He won’t do anything inappropriate.’”

The naivety of that last statement is mind-blowing. A Christian wouldn’t do anything inappropriate? May we all be mindful of the following biblical truth:

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).

All.

While we may feel disappointed when we learn of the moral failings of Christians we appreciate, admire, or learn from, we should never be shocked. Christians are able to sin just as nonbelievers are. The Bible never claims that we become perfected in this life—only that when we put our trust in Jesus for the forgiveness of our sins, we will someday stand before the Lord clothed in his righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21). Of course, saving faith doesn’t see that as a license to sin—we should never sin so that “grace may abound” (Romans 6:1).

Confusion 2: Assuming that popular Christians should be seen as church leaders.

Social media is buzzing with commentary on Crist, and a good number of people are referring to him as a fallen Christian “leader.”

There’s an important distinction to be made here: John Crist is a popular Christian, but that doesn’t mean anyone should consider him to be a Christian leader.

Equating the two things has become a real problem in our culture. Given the nature of social media, anyone can build a platform and influence others. But just because a person identifies as a “Christian” doesn’t mean they teach biblically sound doctrine or faithfully attempt to represent Jesus in their everyday lives. Leaders in the local church, however, are held to specific biblical standards in order to qualify as worthy of shepherding the flock (see Titus 1:5-9, for example).

One example of the confusion in this area is the following comment made by a woman on Facebook: “Crist’s exploitation of women was well-known for the past 7 years…The question is, WHY were there no consequences, and his career was allowed to flourish?”

Unless you’re confused about the difference between popular Christians and Christian church leaders, the answer to this is clear. Who would have the authority and ability to issue “consequences” and stop his career from “flourishing” if his work is outside the context of a church or church organization? People are free to enjoy social media content, however, they want. Crist was in no church position to step down from.

Do I wish that every Christian would be above reproach, whether in a position of formal church leadership or not? Yes, of course. But to think every popular Christian naturally has the same kind of accountability structures as actual leaders in the church is misguided and problematic. It results in people placing a critical light on an ambiguous notion of “the church” rather than on individual choices.

Confusion 3: Believing the failures of Christians are indicative of whether or not Christianity is true.

The article reports that “Crist’s use of his Christian reputation to gain trust contributed to at least two women—Nora and Lindsey—losing trust in Christianity altogether. Neither affiliates as a Christian today.”

Lindsey says, “I haven’t been to church in years…It’s hard. It’s hard to go into a place where you know that people know things that are going on, and they never do anything about it because they just list it as ‘bad behavior’ or something that someone can just be forgiven of and then it’s fine. It’s not fine. Even when you forgive someone, it’s important to go back and make restitution and to change your ways and change your behavior. It’s really hard to even consider participating in a community, in a body of believers, that would allow such behavior to unfold unchecked, and give it a platform. No, I don’t consider myself a Christian anymore. … I have no ill will toward the church. I don’t have bitterness there. I think a lot of people are really earnest in what they believe, and I respect that. But I want to be able to respect it more.”

Based on this statement, it seems that Lindsey doesn’t consider herself a Christian due to her disappointment in a particular Christian and the perceived lack of moral concern from the Christian masses, resulting in her inability to “respect” Christianity.

Unfortunately, this demonstrates the lack of critical thinking about worldview that is prevalent in the church today. It’s yet another example of why teaching kids apologetics (how to make a case for and defend the truth of Christianity) is absolutely critical.

Christianity does not become more or less “respectable,” depending on whether your favorite Christian comedian lives consistently within his stated beliefs—even when it affects you personally.

It also doesn’t become more or less respectable, depending on how many people have heard about his moral failings and have rallied to collectively bring them to light.

There is just one question that should determine if you should be a Christian:

Is Christianity true?

That’s it.

End of story.

If Christ hasn’t been raised, your faith is in vain (1 Corinthians 15:14). That’s the truth test, and nothing else.

You may be hurt by other Christians; you may be hurt by someone in your local church, you may be disenchanted with leaders who presume to represent Christianity but do so poorly, you may not like what the Bible says on some matters, you may wish the world were different…but none of this should logically substitute for an objective investigation of the evidence for the truth of Christianity (see these books for help having these conversations with your kids).

If Christianity is true, we should be Christians in spite of bad experiences. The question isn’t whether John Crist is trustworthy; it’s whether Jesus is. That’s not to minimize the hurt done in the name of Christ (a subject outside of my scope here), but rather to refocus our kids on the objective questions that matter most.

I hope that John Crist’s statement of repentance is sincere and that he emerges from this experience as a more committed follower of Christ. In the meantime, let’s recognize this as nothing more than what it is: a popular Christian has admitted a long pattern of immoral behavior and needs to address it personally, with those he hurt, and with the Lord.

Let’s pray that good will come from this, so Crist can better use his influence in the future for the glory of God.

Is Chick-fil-A Chicken? And your questions

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

Jesus said that you can’t serve both God and money. It looks like Chick-fil-A may be sacrificing God for money. Under pressure from LGBTQ activists, they’ve decided to stop supporting the Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. They say they want to focus their charitable giving “in areas of education, homelessness, and hunger.”

Newsflash: That’s exactly what the Salvation Army and FCA do!

Now, Chick-fil-A can give or not give to whomever it wants. But don’t say the reason you’re not giving to the SA or FCA is that you want to focus your giving on exactly what those organizations are already doing! There must be something else going on here.

Join Frank as he investigates that and answers questions on:

Theistic evolution: Is macroevolution compatible with the scriptures? Is there scientific support for macroevolution?
What can we conclude from the thousands of New Testament manuscripts?
Why didn’t the Egyptians report the Exodus?
Will we have free will in Heaven?

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

Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google

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

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

November 23, 2019/by Guest

Was Apollonius of Tyana a Jesus Parallel?

4. Is the NT True?, Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

Bart Ehrman is the most popular skeptic in America today. Writing at super-sonic rates, his books seem to find their way on the New York Times Bestseller list about every other year. Because of his rapid output and wide popularity, his views are spreading like gangrene across the American landscape (and beyond).

Additionally, Ehrman is a professor of religion at UNC-Chapel Hill where he works to cripple the faith of every young Christian who enters his classroom. He shares one of his faith-crippling tactics in his book How Jesus Became God.

Ehrman tells the story of beginning his class by sharing this description of a famous man from the ancient world.

“Before he was born, his mother had a visitor from heaven who told her that her son would not be a mere mortal but in fact would be divine. His birth was accompanied by unusual divine signs in heaven. As an adult, he left his home to engage on an itinerant preaching ministry. He gathered a number of followers around him who became convinced that he was no ordinary human, but that he was the Son of God.

And he did miracles to confirm them in their beliefs: he could heal the sick, cast out demons, and raise the dead. At the end of his life, he aroused opposition among the ruling authorities of Rome and was put on trial. But they could not kill his soul. He ascended to heaven and continues to live there till this day.

To prove that he lived on after leaving his earthly orb, he appeared again to at least one of his doubting followers, who became convinced that in fact, he remains with us even now. Later, some of his followers wrote books about him, and we can still read about him today.1

Ehrman, of course, wants everyone in his class to thinks he’s talking about Jesus. But alas, he reveals the shocking news that he wasn’t talking about Jesus at all. Instead, he’s referring to Apollonius of Tyana.

This revelation is intended to rattle whatever remaining faith his Christian students might have. For if he can demonstrate that Jesus’ story isn’t any different from Apollonius of Tyana, well then Jesus must not be the unique Son of God after all.

Apollonius of Tyana — The Skeptics’ Best Parallel

As demonstrated in the story above, skeptics think that if they can show parallels of Jesus from the ancient world, they can prove that Jesus was just one more in a long line of myth stories.

And Ehrman isn’t the only skeptic using this tactic. In fact, if you listen to debates on the historical Jesus, Apollonius of Tyana is mentioned far more than any other ancient “parallel.” In other words, Apollonius is the best parallel the skeptic has to offer.

So, should Christians be worried? Does Christianity crumble in light of Apollonius of Tyana? Was Apollonius even remotely similar to Jesus? No, no, and no. Allow me to elaborate.

The Problem of Dating

Apollonius supposedly lived between AD 15-96. That is, his life comes shortly after the life of Jesus. Yet the only source we have for his life comes from Philostratus in the third century (AD 225). In other words, there is virtual silence about this man for about 150 years prior to Philostratus’ work.

If Apolonnius had been a Jesus-like figure, how come nothing is said about him for such a long period of time?

Sources for Jesus, on the other hand, all date within the first century when eye-witnesses to his ministry would have still been around. The Gospels come about 30-50 years after his life, and Paul writes his letters even earlier (20-30 years after Jesus). Moreover, Paul quotes or references traditional material that predates his work by decades. All that to say, Jesus’ fame understandably spread shortly after his death and resurrection.

Yet we have crickets with respect to Apollonius. This is hard to believe if he truly was the Son of God who performed miracles and rose again from the dead.

The Problem of Motive

What did Jesus’ followers have to gain for spreading the message of Christianity? Ostracism at best, and death at worst. In other words, they had no motive (money, sex, or power) to make up these stories in a hostile environment. In the end, most of them faced severe persecution for their faith.

What about Philostratus? Well, it just so happens that he was paid by the empress Julia Domna to write a laudatory account of Apollonius’ life in order to improve Apollonius’ reputation amongst the Romans and diminish Jesus’ importance.

Living during a time when Christianity was spreading rapidly across the Roman Empire, the pagan empress needed to do something to restore cultic worship amongst the citizens. Funding this project seems to be her attempt to minimize Jesus’ fame.

Philostratus Was Skeptical of Apollonius’ Miracles

Philostratus, though, couched miracle claims with phrases such as “it is reported that” or “some believe.” Case in point. Reporting on Apollonius of Tyana’s most famous miracle (raising a dead girl to life), Philostratus reports that the girl probably wasn’t dead at all, and even states that only some believed she was. He indicates that this girl had some kind of mist coming out of her mouth prior to Apollonius “healing” her.

The Gospels are nothing like this. They make no qualms about Jesus’ miraculous activity. Furthermore, non-Christian sources also indicate that Jesus was a miracle-worker.

The Problem of Historical Errors

The Gospels provide all kinds of evidence for their historical reliability. Non-Christian corroborating sources, eye-witness testimony, an understanding of local customs, and embarrassing material all suggest that these sources are trustworthy.

Since not many people will take the time to read through Philostratus’ five hundred page work on Apollonius, they will miss out on the fact that Philostratus made all sorts of historical errors — mostly anachronisms.

The blunders are so bad that historian H. C. Kee reports, “what Philostratus reports tells us a great deal about the author and his time — that is, at the turn of the third century — but provides no unassailable evidence about Apollonius and his epoch.”2

While Philostratus attempts to give us a biography, many scholars acknowledge that his work reads more like a romance novel. As Boyd and Eddy remark, “while few have gone so far as to reject a historical Apollonius altogether, most scholars are rather skeptical about the historicity of major aspects of the image offered by this one source written well over a century after the figure it depicts.”3

The Alleged Resurrection

Jesus’ resurrection is the single-most-important fact about Christianity. If he didn’t rise, Paul says, we’re still in our sins. Fortunately, Jesus did die and rise again as the Gospels report, and there’s ample evidence to back this up this claim.

But what about Apollonius of Tyana? Did he rise again as Ehrman suggests? Simply put, no he did not. The only hint in Philostratus’ work that gets remotely close to a resurrection is when one doubting disciple has a dream about the spirit of Apollonius after his death.

A Parallel? Really?

Scholars have systematically debunked every line from the Erhman quote above. At best, he’s misleading. At worst, he’s downright deceitful.

No heavenly messenger announced Apollonius’ birth and said he would be divine. That messenger actually came from Egypt and never said Apollonius would be divine. He wasn’t so much an itinerant preacher as he was a visitor of foreign sages. Furthermore, he took a vow of silence for several years as he began his journey. His miracles were dubious, and he wasn’t killed by Roman authorities. Nor did he rise from the dead and appear to his followers. And none of his followers wrote books about him either.

Be that as it may, what if Philostratus had reported exact parallels? What would that prove? For starters, Jesus predates Apollonius. So any parallel would be evidence against Apollonius of Tyana and not Jesus.

Additionally, even if these so-called parallels did exist, it wouldn’t do anything to diminish the historical Jesus.

Taking this line of thought, you could prove I’m a myth because of the parallels between my life and Bart Ehrman’s. Both of us went to Bible college and later seminary. We both write about the historical Jesus and teach others about the Bible. Both of us live in the Carolinas. We’re both white males. And on and on.

The point is you can find parallels anywhere. Many have shown parallels between Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. Does that mean Kennedy was a legend? Absolutely not.

In the end, it’s not the parallels that matter, but the differences. So while the story of Apollonius of Tyana is interesting, it does nothing to disprove the historicity of Jesus Christ.

LGBT activist calls for “hardball” “fight” to empty the church pews of Christians

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Wintery Knight

Transgender woman calls for “hardball” “fight” to “empty the pews”

Previously, I blogged about how transgender activists shut down a discussion of transgender issues on a university campus in Canada. You might think that suppressing debate and disagreement is something that only happens north of the border. But an LGBT activist with 50,000 Twitter followers is being re-tweeted by prominent people on the left after demanding a “fight” to “empty the pews”.

Look at this Twitter thread from “Chrissy Str00p“, a transgender woman:

The Christian Right has won its culture war under the noses of “liberal elites.” Long before Trump, abstinence-only #FakeSexEd came to dominate public schools. Abortion became effectively inaccessible in most areas.

We’re fighting to take ground back and even to realize rights that have never been fully realized, and it’s time we understood that. We’re the goddamn Rebel Alliance; the Empire is in power.

If we win big in 2020—far and away not a given—we need to play hardball.

#EmptyTheP3ws

I’m talking adding justices to the Supreme Court hardball (Roe is lost in the meantime, and likely Obergefell and even Griswold into the bargain). Maybe even finding a way to remove Kavanaugh and Gorsuch from the bench hardball. They hold their seats illegitimately.

The Christian Right will impose minority authoritarian rule for as long as it can, and it’s about g*dd*m time we started acting like we’re fighting an anti-democratic force, a real threat to democracy and human rights because we f*cking are, and not by choice.

Get in the fight.

Now, you have to ask yourself, given the previous post about transgender activists using threats of violence to suppress basic human rights like free speech, what does Str00p mean by emptying the pews? How does Str00p intend to get the Christians in those pews to vacate the pews? Does Str00p sound like a tolerant, law-abiding person who respects a diversity of views? Does Str00p sound like someone who engages in a rational debate?

I don’t mind that Str00p has those views, or speaks them. I hope Str00p’s words don’t incite violence against Christians, as they could easily be interpreted to be a call for violence by someone mentally unstable. It’s happened before. Remember the gay activist Floyd Lee Corkins II, who was sentenced to 25 years in prison for domestic terrorism, after attacking the Family Research Council building armed with a gun? We just don’t know what Str00p meant.

I hope that Christians take note of Str00p’s views and that they don’t just vote in 2020. I’d like Christians to get informed, and be persuasive to their undecided neighbors using facts and evidence. All it takes for Str00p to win is for us to be so intimidated by Str00p’s rhetoric that we decide that it’s not worth it to share facts and evidence with our neighbors. If you have to use an alias to share facts and evidence with your neighbors, then get an alias.

¿Por qué no soy Fideísta? Parte II

Español

By Xavier Gonzalez

Part I: Definition and history of Fideism.

Reasonable Faith, Historical?

This section is not a commercial for the ministry of the popular American philosopher William Craig. It is intended to investigate the history of the early church, that is, have the first Christians always been irrational and anti-intellectual? Did they embrace any idea of fideism? Did they avoid the objections that were put to them? Or is it the opposite?

Well, for this section we will try to answer these questions and others that may come to mind, but our short answer to these questions and others is:

The early church like the church fathers always had a reasonable faith!

And to demonstrate this, we are going to defend two theses: the first is that the first Christians really did think about what respected their faith and the second is that God does not want ignorant or anti-intellectual followers.

Going back to the beginnings of Christianity, the early Christians were generally known for worshipping God [1] and not for venturing to resolve the great philosophical and doctrinal dilemmas of their time.

We can say that Christianity in its beginnings was a religion that was concerned with the worship of God and those who cared about helping others, however, at first Christians did not focus on answering the question of the origin and value of the world as something to be resolved, nor as a doctrine that they should defend.

Yet, strange as it may seem, even the first Christians did not consider an explanation of the origin and functioning of our world to be important. For them, creation was so important in their worship, because in some way it praised God the Creator, something like hymns or quotes in the Psalms.

Like the ancient Hebrews, Christians came to think of the same God who was their redeemer as the creator of all things. That is, they claimed that the God they worshipped was the same God to whom they entrusted their salvation . By then, the Christian doctrine of creation came from the experience of worship, not from an intellectual exercise.

The conviction in Christian worship carried with it certain guidelines towards the world, how to live in it. In the pagan and cloying world where the church was located, it was the cradle of the union of Judaism and Christianity, an action planned towards God’s saving purpose.

The doctrine of creation was not important as an explanation of the origin of the world, but rather as the foundation for life in the world and as a neat expression of faith, which the church celebrated and shared in its worship.

The early Christians had pagan culture as their neighbors, and this led them to think and reason, as well as to objections outside the ranks of Christianity. Christian leaders of that time felt compelled to think and write about creation for two reasons:

First, there was always the danger that pagan cultural views on the nature and value of the world would creep into the life of the church. This would have undermined Christian obedience in the present world, while calling into question faith in the creator and redeemer God whom the church worshipped.

Secondly, it became necessary to show society in general that what the Church celebrated in its worship, nor the way in which Christians viewed the physical world, was not irrational.

Otherwise, Jesus and faith in him would have been a source of ridicule and mockery. It was in response to this double challenge that Christians developed the doctrine of creation. A doctrine—again—that they shared with the people of Israel. That is why the official doctrine of creation was developed in response to the challenges of opposing opinions.

And with that ideal in mind, some of the first Christian theologians, or “second-century apologists,” set about seeking points of contact (or common ground) between the teachings of the Church and the opinions and most respected traditions of the surrounding Hellenistic culture.

This may come as a surprise, but it was very important to remove all obstacles from the path of unbelievers to faith. In addition, Christians had to combat many of the rumors and accusations that circulated about the supposedly “perverse” practices of their new cult [2]

Despite the struggles, not everything was bad…

The task had been greatly simplified for the benefit of Christians, thanks to the good work of a number of thinkers and philosophers of that time. They did not see the world as if it were a cruel battlefield between gods, but instead tried to explain the world in a coherent and rational way. However, Christians would take these tools with a grain of salt, as they rejected, accepted or modified the theses.

This allowed the Neonate [3] of the church to present the Christian doctrine of creation for one God in such a way that the Hellenistic world and its intellectual class could understand and respect the formulation of the creation of the world. This would answer important questions for the new religion, difficult questions such as, How is God dependent on the different places and times where people have not heard about Jesus Christ? To deny such activity would be a dagger in the heart of creation and its redemption. Therefore, Christians needed to consider the origin as the value of cultures that did not know about Jesus Christ in order to answer such questions.

But still, Christians had some difficulties in communicating the gospel to people from a different or totally different cultural background, after all, many of those cultural backgrounds differ massively from Christian doctrine.

And if we talk about the most cultured people of that time… It was difficult to converse with clever citizens who were proud of the achievements of their civilization and of their philosophers. This raised the obstacle that it would be necessary to suggest that they reject all this, or was there some way in which the Christian understanding of the world, creation and history could interpret, evaluate, accept or transform some of the most valuable achievements of civilization? Was the Christian message so radically new as to tear out such roots? To give a frivolous yes would be like falling into the Marcionism that the Church of the second and third centuries fought so hard, leaving individuals naked in their culture to embrace Christianity…

Another difficulty for the expansion of the gospel was the Roman persecution, apart from the accusations, let us see for example the relations of the Roman emperor, Trajan , with the Christians, in this case the response given to Pliny the Younger :

You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting through the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down a general rule to serve as a sort of fixed standard. They should not be sought; if they are denounced and proven guilty, they should be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it—that is, by worshipping our gods—even though he was under suspicion in the past, should obtain forgiveness by repentance. But anonymously published accusations should have no place in any judicial proceedings. To do so is at once a dangerous sort of precedent and would not be in keeping with the spirit of our times. [4]

Adding these negatives, Christianity had it difficult at that time, this pressure led them to inquire about the faith and the culture that surrounded them, for them to use the following instrument, The doctrine of the Logos .

In the philosophical tradition it was customary to refer to a Being who was above all others and to whom all others owed their existence. Some Platonists thought that reality was the product of a series of emanations from that first being, the One . Christians soon realized the need to reject such ideas, because they led to pantheism and, therefore, to idolatry. Despite these stains, the idea that there was only one being, above all others, coincided with Christianity and this was very attractive to Christians who were trying to refute the polytheistic ideas of pagan culture.

That tradition had been reflecting on the perfections of this First and Supreme Being since the time of Parmenides of Elea (6th century BC), one of the pre-Socratic philosophers. Parmenides, and his long tradition of followers, had reached a certain consensus about those perfections. And as Parmenides, and most of the Platonic tradition, had understood them, Christian theologians adopted those perfections with slight changes. In this way they sought to show that their faith was not as irrational as some claimed and that, far from being atheistic innovators, the Christian faith was actually the culmination of the best of classical philosophy. For these perfections have become part of the Christian heritage when speaking and thinking about God. [5]

In short, the first Christians, moved by their worship, persecution and pressure, took on the task of presenting their faith as a reasonable faith.

Next part, meet the promoters of Reasonable Faith.

References

[1] Let us consider, for example, the satire made by the second-century Greek satyr , Lucian of Samosata , when he speaks of Christians in his work, The Death of Peregrine :

11. It was then that he learned of the wonderful tradition of the Christians, through association with their priests and scribes in Palestine. And – how else could it be? – in an instant he made everyone look like children, for he was a prophet, a cult leader, a synagogue chief, all of that, all by himself. He interpreted and explained some of their books and even composed many, and they worshipped him as a god , made use of him as a lawgiver, and set him up as a protector, next to that other, to be sure, to those who still worship , the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.

13. Indeed, people came even from the cities of Asia, sent by the Christians at their common expense, to succour and defend and encourage the hero . They show incredible speed whenever such public action is taken; for in a short time they squander their all. So it was then in the case of Peregrinus; much money came to him from them on account of his imprisonment, and he did not seek not a little of the proceeds of it. The poor wretches have convinced themselves, in the first place, that they will be immortal and live for ever, consequently, whereof they despise death and even willingly give themselves into custody; most of them. Moreover, their first lawgiver convinced them that they are all brothers among themselves after they have transgressed once, for all in denying the Greek gods and in worshipping that crucified sophist and living under his laws. Therefore they despise all things indiscriminately and consider them common property, receiving such doctrines traditionally without any definitive proof. So if any charlatan and swindler, capable of taking advantage of opportunities, comes among them, he quickly acquires sudden wealth by imposing it on the simple people….

-Lucian of Samosata, The Pilgrim’s Pass, 11 and 13.

[2] Nero’s slander towards Christians for the fire in Rome:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com.es/historia/grandes-reportajes/neron-y-el-incendio-de-roma_6822

[3] Newborn.

[4] As you can see, it is not a witch hunt, but the fruits of rumors and heavy slander that fell on Christians in the Roman Empire are undeniable:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html

[5] Paraphrase, Brief History of Doctrines , Justo L. Gonzalez, pp. 47-58)

November 18, 2019/by Guest

A Review of Nancy Pearcey’s Saving Leonardo: A Call to Resist the Secular Assault on Mind, Morals, and Meaning

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Terrell Clemmons

Nancy Pearcey knows the captivating power of secular ideas because she used to hold them herself. As a teenager, she rejected the religion of her childhood and embraced a host of “isms,” from moral relativism to scientific determinism to New Age spiritualism.

But she persisted in her quest for truth, only to find that the biblical worldview offers far better and more complete answers to the real-world questions those philosophies attempted to address. For those of us who lack such intellectual stamina, her books serve as a tour of the long and winding journey by which she arrived at that conclusion.

The Soul of Science, which she co-authored with Charles Thaxton in 1994, defied the deeply embedded cultural myth which said that faith and science occupy mutually exclusive intellectual camps, and showed how, quite to the contrary, scientific progress grew specifically out of Christian culture.

How Now Shall We Live? a joint effort with Charles Colson in 2004, fully developed the concept of worldview as an explanatory system that must fit all of reality. A worldview must therefore satisfactorily answer three foundational life questions: (1) Who am I and where did I come from?, i.e., the question of origins; (2) What’s wrong with the world?; and (3) How can it be fixed? Pearcey and Colson argued persuasively that the biblical metanarrative of Creation/Fall/Redemption provides the most excellent answers to all three.

Total Truth, Pearcey’s first solo work, built upon the core insight of Francis Schaeffer, under whom she studied as a young adult. Schaeffer had observed that modernity has erected a “two-story” view of reality, wherein objective “facts” occupy the lower story and subjective “values” occupy the upper. Total Truth showed how secularists use this fact/value split to banish biblical principles from public discourse, not by disproving them but by dismissing them out of hand.

In Saving Leonardo, Pearcey has turned her attention to the arts, and she analyzes how the fact/value split has fragmented modern thought and therefore compromised modern art. Most people view art as simply personal expression, but Pearcey says that it is much more than that: “Artists always select, arrange, and order their materials to offer an interpretation or perspective.” Art conveys ideas.

Saving Leonardo sets out to train us as consumers to thoughtfully “read” the art we take in, to analyze and interpret it. Not to make us art critics, but to make us wise and effective “change agents,” equipped “to engage in discussion with real people seeking livable answers in a world that is falling apart.”

Secular Devolution

Part One of the book examines the emerging global secularism and the toll it is exacting in human lives and dignity. Secularism is generally defined as the view that religious considerations and any beliefs based on the supernatural should be excluded from civil and public affairs. Today, secular ideologies control what our schools teach, how states govern, how economies are managed, and how (and what) news is reported. Secularism is sold on the premise that it provides a more enlightened ordering principle for social arrangements, but in reality, it works to degrade, rather than advance, a society. It leads to:

Dehumanization. The idea that human rights are universal and inherent to individuals is a uniquely Judeo-Christian concept. It rests on the understanding that human beings were created by God and bear his image. Without this foundation, grounded in a transcendent reality, human rights and human dignity are demoted to just another competing interest.

To illustrate how far out on this precipice, we already stand, Pearcey paraphrases pragmatist philosopher Richard Rorty: “Because of Darwin, we no longer accept creation. And therefore, we no longer need to maintain that everyone who is biologically human has equal value. We are free to revert to the pre-Christian attitude that only certain groups qualify for human rights.” What this translates into is a social order in which the strong can oppress, enslave, or exterminate the weak at will. This is how we got such twentieth-century horrors as the Nazi Holocaust and the Soviet gulag.

Tyranny. Secularism preaches tolerance but practices tyranny. The biblical worldview unabashedly states that there is such a thing as an objective standard of right and wrong. The secular tenet of moral relativism is the direct converse of that principle. Simple logic says that both principles cannot be true, but secularizers try to have it both ways anyway. “If moral knowledge is impossible,” Pearcey points out, “then we are left with only political and legal measures to coerce people into compliance.” This explains why homosexual activists call their opponents bigots and homophobes (usually in highly moralistic tones), rather than sitting down with them for a good-faith discussion over the risks of ditching policies like “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

In fact, secularism makes its advances, not through good-faith reasoning and persuasion, but by brute hubris. Its relativistic approach to religion derives from a certain set of beliefs that are just as exclusive as the claims of any religion; the secularizers just aren’t “honest” about it. This setup enables them to dismiss opposing views, not by marshaling sound arguments against them, but by baldly excluding them or by categorizing them as private values, which are then declared irrelevant.

Double-mindedness. Secularism not only imposes a certain ideology; it also effectively changes the definition of truth by dictating what kinds of information even qualify as truth. The fact/value split, Pearcey says, is “the key to unlocking the history of the Western mind.” It has fostered a kind of double-mindedness, both for individuals and among societies. It’s reflected in the 2008 comments of a Newsweek editor: “Reason defines one kind of reality (what we know); faith defines another (what we don’t know)”; and in the words of Albert Einstein: “Science yields facts but not ‘value judgments’; religion expresses values but cannot ‘speak facts.'”

It’s alive and well in the churches, too. Tim Sweetman, a teen blogger, noted that many of his peers seem like “double agents.” They “are Christians in church…but have a completely secular mind view. It’s as if they have a split personality.”

Logos: Truth in Toto

In the face of this pervasive yet fragmented view of truth, Pearcey puts forward a game-changing alternative view: The nature of truth is holistic, comprehensive, and coherent. “Because all things were created by a single divine mind, all truth forms a single, coherent, mutually consistent system. Truth is unified and universal.”

This is not new. It was the predominant view in Western culture for over two millennia. The ancient Greeks had a term for the underlying principle that unifies the world into an orderly cosmos, as opposed to randomness and chaos. They called it the Logos. And well into the 1900s, American universities were committed to the unity of truth. Even the word university suggests the pursuit of the whole, integrating truth. But the crack-up has so fractured modern thought that the idea of the “unity of truth” presents a radically reoriented perspective.

This “whole truth” perspective is what Pearcey is urging us to bring to the arts.

Secularism: Truth Fragmented

Part Two of Saving Leonardo begins with a crash course on how to discern worldview themes in a work of art. Using over one hundred reproductions and other images to illustrate, Pearcey traces the intellectual currents that guided modern thought and shows how the two-story recasting of truth has manifested itself in the arts, from visual arts to music to literature to architecture.

In the wake of the scientific revolution, philosophy—and therefore art—split into two opposing streams of thought. Occupying one camp was philosophical naturalism, or the materialist stream, which accepted scientism’s exclusive claim to the realm of knowledge. In the other camp coalesced Romanticism, which rebelled against science and sought to protect everything else—theology, literature, ethics, philosophy, and the arts and humanities.

The materialistic view is reflected in such styles as Picasso’s intersecting lines, arcs, and geometric shapes and Jack London’s “tooth and claw” narratives of Darwinian survival of the fittest. Meanwhile, the Romantics produced such styles as Expressionism, the goal of which was the pure expression of the artist’s “inner self,” indifferent to any outer reality. Consider Van Gogh’s dreamlike paintings, or composer John Cage’s piano piece titled 4’33”, which is “performed” by playing absolutely nothing for four minutes and thirty-three seconds. Both streams deny the existence of any transcendent reality or truth beyond the artist or the work itself. If art is whatever you deem it to be, “nothing” qualifies.

But the definition of art as personal expression was a historical novelty. The traditional purpose of art, Pearcey stresses, was to convey “some deeper vision of the human condition.” Modern art has become disconnected from this purpose, and we must fill in the missing elements that can restore the vision of transcendent reality.

Can These Bones Live?

Doing that can take many forms. Here’s an example taken from Fox TV’s crime drama, Bones. Dr. Temperance Brennan, a forensic anthropologist, is the quintessential scientific rationalist. She’s called “Bones” because she solves murders by examining human remains. Her colleague, FBI Special Agent Seeley Booth, possesses all the social finesse she lacks, believes in God, and mistrusts science. As a father, he values relationships, and as a former army sniper, he’s haunted by guilt—two emotions utterly foreign to a materialist.

The relationship between Bones and Booth dances along a perpetual impasse because the two characters operate from completely different—in fact, mutually exclusive—philosophical and intellectual universes. They are an excellent example of the dichotomized understanding of human existence. Their ongoing worldview clashes make for good TV drama, but real humans do not fall into one category or the other. More important, we don’t have to choose one or the other. We are both. “The biblical worldview fulfills both the requirements of human reason and the yearnings of the human spirit,” Pearcey writes, supplying the truth that’s missing from the Bones-style depiction of humanity.

In the modern era, ideological idols have led to dictatorships and death camps. Beliefs shape history, Pearcey says, and worldview questions are a matter of life and death. Saving Leonardo calls us to be prepared with worldview answers that preserve life and human dignity for all and that restore art as a means of conveying truth. Integrated truth that can even make dry bones live.

Guilty by Reason of Insanity with David Limbaugh

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

How do you get informed as to what is going on in our crazy political discourse right now? I can’t keep up with it all. I not only can’t keep up with it all, but I also forget what happened politically last week, and last month, and last year. I need someone to document it all for me so I can make informed decisions as we enter an election year. New York Times best-selling author, David Limbaugh, has done so with his new, exquisitely researched book, Guilty by Reason of Insanity. David covers a wide range of topics—racism, gender, intersectionality, socialism, capitalism, abortion, immigration, religious freedom, etc.— that should be important to all people, especially Christians. No matter what you believe politically right now, you should read David’s amazingly insightful book and listen to this interview!

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

Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google

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

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

November 16, 2019/by Guest

The Works of Jesus in the Nicene Creed

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Mikel Del Rosario

Jesus: The Essential Works

What are the essential truths Christians believing about the things Jesus did? As defenders of the faith, we need to know which beliefs about Jesus’ deeds are essential and why we should believe them.

I had a conversation with my mentor Darrell Bock about this on an episode of the Table Podcast focusing on the works of Jesus mentioned in the Nicene Creed—a collaborative statement of essential Christian beliefs crafted in 325 AD. This creed was based on the Apostle’s Creed and various Scriptures. Early creeds are a good reminder that the essentials of the Christian faith were not just made up recently but actually go back to the earliest memories of Jesus and the teachings of his official spokespeople.

Let me share a couple of things we mentioned while talking about a line that that mentions Jesus’ historic death and burial:

“For our sake, he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.”

The Nicene Creed makes historical claims about Jesus but also includes theological interpretations of the facts. In this post, I’ll define what Christians mean when we say Jesus died “for us.” Then, I’ll touch on the historical evidence for Jesus’ crucifixion and burial. At the end of this post, you can check out the complete podcast to hear our full conversation on the works of Jesus described in the Nicene Creed. So what’s it means to say Jesus “was crucified for us?”

The Nicene Creed says Jesus was crucified for us

First, the Nicene Creed highlights a kind of substitution where Jesus bears the penalty for human sin. As Anselm of Canterbury explained, Jesus paid an infinite debt no mere human being could pay.

Second, understanding the Jewish context of the earliest Christian thought brings a couple of pictures to mind: The suffering servant of Isaiah 53 who “bears our reproach” and the way Jews understood an animal suffering in the place of a sinner. In some cases, Jews put their hands on the sacrifice to symbolize a transfer of responsibility in the sacrificial system. When you wonder about the significance of something Jesus said or did, remember that themes from the Hebrew Scriptures are often the background, and it pays to see Jesus in his cultural context.

So that’s a theological interpretation of Jesus’ death. But what about the event itself? The Nicene Creed mentions Jesus’ suffering on the cross. What’s the historical evidence for Jesus’ death on the cross?

The Nicene Creed says Jesus died on the cross

Jesus’ death by crucifixion is well-attested: It’s mentioned not only in the Gospels but in a snippet of something the Jewish historian Josephus wrote in his Antiquities, which verifies Jesus’ death under Pontius Pilate. The Roman historian Tacitus alludes to Jesus’ crucifixion as well in The Annals. As even a rather skeptical scholar like John Dominic Crossan recognizes, “That [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.” [1]

“That [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”

But what happened to Jesus’ body? The Nicene Creed says Jesus was buried, just like we read about in Mark 15 and Luke 23. But what about this?

The Nicene Creed says Jesus was buried in a tomb

Some skeptics ask, “Weren’t crucifixion victims thrown into shallow graves? How do we know Jesus was put in a tomb?” First, we have reports of Jesus’ burial from the time when people who knew about it were still alive. Second, ancient Jewish sources never say Jesus’ body was thrown to the dogs in a shallow grave. There are good reasons to believe Jesus was really buried in a location that was known and that he was buried in a way that by sensitive to Jewish culture.

For example, convicted felons weren’t buried in family tombs. That’s why Jesus wasn’t buried in a family tomb. He was buried in the tomb of a fellow Jew: Joseph of Arimathea. So Jesus’ burial honored what Jewish tradition says about the way a Jewish crucifixion victim should be buried.

So Christian belief operates on two levels: The historical and the theological. As Christians, we believe historical things about Jesus—events you can actually look into like other events in ancient history. But Christians also believe theological things about Jesus—the stuff that makes historical things really matter in our lives.

Like many Christians, I affirm my belief in both the historical and theological truths of the Nicene Creed as I recite it along with my brothers and sisters in the church.

The Works of Jesus in the Nicene Creed

For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven,

was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary

and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;

he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day, he rose again

in accordance with the Scriptures;

he ascended into heaven

and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,

and his kingdom will have no end.

Watch the Table Podcast

We cover a lot more about the works of Jesus in the Nicene Creed during our conversation. What are the essential Christian beliefs? Why should we believe this stuff? Check out the complete podcast:

Did Paul give up on using reason and evidence after Athens?

Paul did not give up on apologetics

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Promoters of Reasonable Faith

—John Lennox

—John Donne

—Domenico Cieri Estrada

—Rice Brooks

—Alfonso Ropero

—JP Moreland

—John Stott

—John Stott

—RC Sproul

—Claudio Garrido

—Chris Du Pond

—Thomas V. Morris

—Cameron Bertuzzi

—Francisco Lacueva

—Augustine of Hippo

—Paul Little

—Tricia Scribner

—John Wesley

Reasonable Faith (Biblically)

Confusion 1: Thinking popular Christians are more immune to sin than others.

Confusion 2: Assuming that popular Christians should be seen as church leaders.

Confusion 3: Believing the failures of Christians are indicative of whether or not Christianity is true.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Apollonius of Tyana — The Skeptics’ Best Parallel

The Problem of Dating

The Problem of Motive

Philostratus Was Skeptical of Apollonius’ Miracles

The Problem of Historical Errors

The Alleged Resurrection

A Parallel? Really?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Reasonable Faith, Historical?

References

Secular Devolution

Logos: Truth in Toto

Secularism: Truth Fragmented

Can These Bones Live?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Jesus: The Essential Works

What are the essential truths Christians believing about the things Jesus did? As defenders of the faith, we need to know which beliefs about Jesus’ deeds are essential and why we should believe them.

The Nicene Creed says Jesus was crucified for us

The Nicene Creed says Jesus died on the cross

The Nicene Creed says Jesus was buried in a tomb

The Works of Jesus in the Nicene Creed

Watch the Table Podcast

Recommended resources related to the topic: