Can stones give you insights into the past? What do they tell you? When I encountered the Rosetta Stone at the British Museum, I was surprised that a stone could say so much. Archaeological pieces like this provide a witness to a society in time.

The Rosetta Stone contributes to the witness of the Bible. It also allows us to gain insights into how ancient cultures lived and experienced life. Archaeologist Randall Price states, “The Bible cannot be proved or disproved by archaeology. . . however, archaeology can bring historical confirmation to the historical statements in the text of the Scripture.” [i] Although archaeology cannot provide certainty of the Bible, it is a witness to the Bible, it contributes to its reliability, and it is a voice offering evidence to confirm the claims of the Bible.

Figure 1The Rosetta Stone – Source: Hans Hillewaert, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3153928

Archaeology Reveals Mosaic Authorship as Plausible

Many people believed Moses could not have written the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) because writing did not go back that far in time. In 1799, however, near Rosetta, Egypt, General Napoleon Bonaparte’s officer discovered the famous Rosetta Stone. After the defeat of Napoleon, it was taken by the British and placed in the British Museum in 1802. It cites the celebration of the first anniversary of Pharoah Ptolemy V in 195 BC. The intriguing factor is that the citation on the stone is written three times in three different languages: Egyptian Hieroglyphics, demotic Egyptian, and Greek capital letters. The Greek text could be read by Greek New Testament scholars, who helped crack the code to hieroglyphs. This revealed the hieroglyphics as more than signs but an actual readable language. The discovery of the bilingual text of the Rosetta Stone provides evidence that readable language existed during the time of Moses. Therefore, Moses could have written the Pentateuch.

Archaeology Reveals Israel as A People

Another discovery that contributes to the witness of the Bible is the Merneptah Steele. It was unearthed in Thebes, Egypt, and could be the earliest reference to the people of Israel outside of the Bible. The black granite was inscribed to honor the various gods and the king’s achievements. “The stela concludes with a short list of cities and people in Canaan also defeated by the king: it includes the phrase ‘Israel is laid waste and his seed is not. Egyptologists agree that of the eight names on the stela, seven refer to a land while the reference to Israel refers to a people group, indicating that at this time Israel was not yet settled in a land it could call its own.” [ii] The Merneptah Stela discloses that by 1209 BC, Israel was described as a people group that fits the period of Judges.

Archaeology is a Contribution to the Reliability of the Bible

Archaeology may not be able to prove the Bible with certainty, but it provides evidence for the reliability of the Bible. The Rosetta Stone and the Merneptah both support the Bible’s reliability. The Rosetta Stone suggests that Moses could write the Pentateuch, while the Merneptah Stele offers support that Israel was an organized nation. [iii] Many other discoveries support the Bible’s reliability, especially after King David’s time, that can be further studied. The Bible has the historical support to assure its reliability.

Understanding the evidence supporting the Bible’s reliability can encourage confidence when reading about God and His witness to the nations. The Bible claims to be the “word of truth” in passages such as “Never take your word of truth from my mouth,” located in Psalm 119:43. Also, in 2 Timothy, which states, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.” The Bible was given to people so that we might know God and the way of salvation through Christ. Therefore, archaeology can contribute to the witnessing of the Bible so that people can trust it and know the one true God.

References:

[i] Randall Price, Handbook of Biblical Archaeology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 26.

[ii] Clive Anderson and Brian Edwards, Evidence for the Bible (England: Day One Publications, 2014), 32.

[iii] [Editor’s note: According to the Bible, Israel was organized under judges around that time, but not under a king. That monarchic period wouldn’t happen till the time of King Saul and David, around 1000 BC, long after the time of Merneptah in Egypt. Israel was a distinct and organized people, even in the time of the judges, and in that sense were a nation.]

Recommended Resources:

What I Discovered Digging in Jerusalem by Eli Shukron (with Frank Turek) (DVD) (Mp4 Download)

The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth mp3 by Frank Turek

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

Debate: Does God Exist? Turek vs. Hitchens (DVD), (mp4 Download) (MP3)

 


Deanna Huff is a wife and mother. She is passionate about teaching others to share and defend their faith, drawing on 25 years of experience in the field. Her publications include contributing chapters to Why Creationism Still Matters and Strong Faith. She currently works at the Museum of the Bible. She has also led many seminars for the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Ladies Retreat, and the State Evangelism Conference. In addition, she taught high school students for ten years at Christian Heritage Academy, covering subjects such as Bible, Universal History, Apologetics and Philosophy. Deanna earned a Ph.D. in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. She holds a Master of Theology in Apologetics and Worldview from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, a Master of Divinity with Biblical Languages from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Oklahoma. Deanna is an active member of Capitol Hill Baptist Church where she co-hosted a podcast called The Analysis with Pastor Mark DeMoss. She also co-hosted a podcast with her daughter Ellie Huff called but why should i care. She and her husband teach an adult Sunday school class, discipling others in the faith.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/41Zc4bl

For almost a week in late 2020, my 11-year-old son practically went viral on the Internet, and he doesn’t even know it. Let me tell you why. You see, he had walked out onto our back deck and, cool as a cucumber, announced to my husband and me that he had accepted Jesus as his Savior. Needless to say, we were pleasantly caught off guard.

“Oh? When did this happen?” I asked.

“The other night. Yup,” he nodded in a very Young Sheldon-esq way, “I looked at the evidence and Christianity makes the most sense.” Then, away he went to build a new Lego creation.

We had a good chuckle over his matter-of-fact confession. I thought my apologetics friends would, too, so I hopped on Twitter and shared the amusing scene. I didn’t think it would make much of a blip on the social network but mamas. . .  Twitter. Lost. Its. Mind.

In just hours, my tweet had 100,000+ views and a torrent of comments. I thought my phone was busted because it wouldn’t stop dinging. The majority of people interacting were split between being furious that he accepted Christ or denying that this even happened.

Here are a couple of examples:

The tweet was even nominated for a “Didn’t Happen In Real Life” Twitter award which, hilariously, is actually a thing. [i]

For those few days, we waffled between amusement and sadness. People weren’t just skeptical, some were downright vile. When Christ said we will be hated because of our belief, He wasn’t kidding.

Making Sense of the Twitter Minefield

As I sorted through the comments, I noticed that most of the hatred revolved around a few main challenges toward Christian parenting. Each have their own valid concern and, sadly, their own wound. Most parents will be accused of at least one of these, but let me encourage you, each can easily be debunked. Ready?

  1. “Your child isn’t mature enough.”
    The first big reason I saw floating amidst the tweets was the claim that kids can’t make a decision about their faith because their brains haven’t fully matured. Had my son said he was pro-choice, anti-Trump, atheist, or identifed as a different gender, these same critics probably wouldn’t have had a problem. [ii] But believe in Jesus? Not a chance.

Had my son said he was pro-choice, anti-Trump, atheist, or identifed as a different gender, these same critics probably wouldn’t have had a problemClick To Tweet

They’re right that children’s brains aren’t fully developed, but they kinda shoot themselves in the foot, too. The human brain isn’t fully formed until around the age of 25. Yet, it continues to develop and sharpen critical reasoning skills for the duration of a person’s life. [iii] When then, is the cognitive finish line? At the very least, this argument would mean that we couldn’t discuss Christianity ’til our kids are middle aged and starting families of their own. Talk about ridiculous.

Secondly, just because a person has reached the age where their brain is developmentally mature, it doesn’t guarantee they’ll make informed sound decisions. I mean, have you been on a college campus lately?! If we’re going to implement standards on when a person is capable of making important decisions like faith, age won’t always cut it.

With this in mind, I agree with the critics to an extent. I get a bit nervous when some adorable little moppet needs water wings to enter the baptismal. Sure, their confession warms the heart, but sometimes I wonder how much they really understand about walking in the Christian faith. Will they stand firm in their youth like Timothy? Or end up like the adult waiting behind them to be rebaptized because they didn’t know what they were getting into at such a young age? It’s not for me to say. What I can say is that the Holy Spirit can move in the young just as much as the old and in-betweens. A child is more than capable of understanding the basics of theology, logic, apologetics, and worldviews to make their own personal informed decision. Sometimes we don’t give the littlest among us enough credit.

  1. “You’re obviously indoctrinating them.”
    Every time I see someone toss out the word indoctrination, my inner Inigo Montoya thinks, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”And for the most part, Montoya is dead on. Indoctrination means that ideas are taught to be accepted uncritically. You don the robe, drink the Kool-Aid, and don’t you dare ask what’s in it. [iv]

The sad part is that a lot of adults wanting to slam Christians with indoctrination charges are reacting from their own or another’s bad experiences, not because they’ve seen how you run your household. They may have had a parent who would throw a fit if they asked a question. Perhaps a pastor accused them of being sinful for having doubts. Some felt that their family’s love depended on them accepting their parent’s faith. Is it any wonder why they’d be skeptical?

Here’s the thing: just because some kids have been bullied into the faith, doesn’t mean all of them have. If kids are allowed to interact with other worldviews, practice critical thinking, explore challenges to the faith, and decided for themselves if they want to accept Christianity, then they are not being indoctrinated, they’re being educated.

If kids are allowed to interact with other worldviews, practice critical thinking, explore challenges to the faith, and decided for themselves, then they are not being indoctrinated, they’re being educated.Click To Tweet

  1. “Only atheists are critical thinkers.”
    This argument trails closely behind the indoctrination challenge and goes something like this: Only atheists are critical thinkers. Why? Because they’re atheists. Christians couldn’t be critical thinkers because if they were, they would be atheists. If this sounds a bit circular to you, that’s because it is.

A lot of the problem stems from the false belief that to think critically, you have to abide by the rules of naturalism. If any evidence is outside of nature (which is where we get the term supernatural) or if evidence points to God, then it has to be tossed aside because you can’t think critically by using it. [v] Talk about linguistic theft!

Folks, if someone thinks that Christians can’t be critical thinkers simply because they accepted Christianity, then they need to acquaint themselves with the real definition of critical thinking and a few people like Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, and George Washington Carver. All were great critical thinkers, scientists, and engineers. And all of them were *spoiler alert* Christians!

  1. “They’re only Christians because you are.”
    Let’s cut to the chase. When someone says that a kid is only a Christian because their parents are, they’re committing what’s called the genetic fallacy. Under the genetic fallacy, a belief can be tossed aside based on where it came from.  Remember when Nathanael in John 1:46 asked if anything good can come from Nazareth? Yeah, his “if it’s from Nazareth it’s bad,” mindset is an example of a genetic fallacy.

Toss in challenge #3, and your kids couldn’t be Christians because of the working of the Holy Spirit, being taught how to evaluate arguments, seeing the philosophical implications of varying worldviews, or evaluating the evidence for and against God. The only reason your kids are Christians is because you are, and that’s bad . . . . bad logic that is.

If kids are only Christians because their parents are, then there wouldn’t be any Christian parents with Muslim kids or atheist parents with Christian kids. Ironically, when the atheist who tweeted this shared that they had Christian parents, they debunked their own argument. [vi] All parents, regardless of their beliefs, shape their child’s worldview. Ultimately, it’s up to the child what they choose to believe.

The Real Issue

For the grand finale, we welcome Captain Obvious to the stage. The biggest reason folks get their boxers in a bunch over a child’s declaration of faith is because *drumroll please* . . . . they picked Christianity. Mamas, this is no mystery. Jesus said that we will be hated because of His name (Matthew 10:22). This includes our children. Sure, the Twitter haters will use the above challenges to dismiss your child’s confession of faith, but deep down, the real issue is that they hate Christianity. Maybe they’ve been hurt in the past, maybe they’ve bought into our culture’s current view that paints Christians as synonymous with Stalin. Regardless of the reason, if your child is a Christian, they will be seen as either a victim or an enemy. Both for which you are to blame.

Like most Twitter trends, the ruckus over my guy’s confession of faith eventually died down. I didn’t engage with the mob much mainly because arguing on Twitter is a lot like getting into a shouting match with your mailbox. Sure, what you’re saying may be true. But to everyone watching, you look like an idiot. When it comes to social media, you gotta know when it’s pointless to cast your pearls. I write this post to encourage you, mamas and papas, out there to carry on your God-commanded duty to be faithful witnesses to your children. The world may hate you for it, but take heart, you were never meant for this world anyway.

I didn’t engage with the mob much mainly because arguing on Twitter is a lot like getting into a shouting match with your mailbox. Sure, what you’re saying may be true. But to everyone watching, you look like an idiot.Click To Tweet

Ps. If you’re interested in what Tweet caused all the fuss, you can find it on my Twitter page, @saltngrace46. It was posted on October 19, 2020.

References:

[i] I didn’t win (I lost to Britney Spears!), which is kind of a bummer because I was looking forward to wearing a dress made from print outs from the comments section. Just kidding. Kinda.

[ii] I mention these examples because they were actually brought up by people in the comments section.

[iii] A few quick links: https://bigthink.com/videos/what-age-is-brain-fully-developedhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ_zEaun-as, https://www.businessinsider.com/age-brain-matures-at-everything-2017-11

[iv] Brainwashing kicks things up a notch by throwing some force into the mix. Think The Manchurian Candidate or Peeta from The Hunger Games.

[v] Another big beef the critics had was that my son couldn’t possibly have looked at all the evidence for the faith. They’re right, he didn’t. Neither have I, or you, or them. There’s just too much of it. However, that doesn’t mean you can’t make a rational decision based on what you have.

[vi] There were also some that would proudly claim how their children were fellow atheists while totally missing that they couldn’t stand up to their own charges.

Recommended Resources:

Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek 

Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

How Can Jesus be the Only Way? Mp4, Mp3, and DVD by Frank Turek

 


Amy Davison is a former Air Force veteran turned Mama Bear Apologist. She graduated from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary with an MA in Christian Apologetics. She and her husband Michael (also former Air Force) have been married for over 17 years and have 4 kids. Amy is the Mama Bear resident expert on sex and sexuality, and she’s especially hoping to have that listed on her Mama Bear business card.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4a5exTV

I used to think I knew how to talk with kids about Jesus to help them establish a lasting faith. It seemed simple enough. Read the Bible. And absolutely, the Bible is where we should begin. Reading the Bible together regularly is the best way to open a dialogue with your kids about Jesus. Everything about Jesus must begin with the Bible because that is how God chose to reveal His truths to us about Himself, the world, and Jesus.

But, that isn’t as simple as it used to be. My parents taught me that the Bible was truth, and that was that, until college, where I first faced atheism as the predominant worldview. (And my faith was shaken – but more on that later). But we didn’t have the internet. I know, I’m ancient.

Kids Today. . .

Today, children are confronted with atheist perspectives at younger and younger ages. In an information age, we must contend for the faith of our children in new ways. Holding fast to the accuracy and inerrancy of the Bible isn’t as simple as because I said so anymore. Starting to talk with kids about Jesus has to begin with why we believe the Bible is the word of God. We have to start to talk with kids about Jesus by establishing the Bible as a credible source.

Establishing the Bible as a credible source proves our faith is based on truth. Without that foundation, religion is simply a preference, as of little importance as a favorite flavor of ice cream. By teaching our children the Bible is a reliable historical document inspired by God, we prepare them to live a life built on the solid rock of Christ. And they will be able to answer many common atheist objections for themselves and others.

Quick Responses on the Reliability of the Bible

The Old Testament is reliable because it was copied carefully and contains accurate predictions. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls verifies that the Bible we have today matches the ancient documents from thousands of years ago.

We also know that Jesus believed the Old Testament was reliable. He quoted from it often in His teaching. So, if the New Testament accounts about Jesus are reliable, the OT is as well.

But is the New Testament really reliable?

Yes! And you don’t have to spend years studying apologetics to be able to demonstrate the reliability of the New Testament to your children.

Many Christian scholars have already done the heavy lifting for you! Just a few of the MANY worth following (click names for NT related content) are Gary HabermasNatasha CrainJ. Warner Wallace of Cold Case ChristianitySean McDowellGreg Koukl and Stand to Reason, and MamaBear Apologetics.

We have to establish that the New Testament is reliable because it is through the text we come to know the real, historical Jesus.

And that brings us back to the Bible. We have to teach our children sound doctrine and theology. It’s not helpful to ask WWJD (What would Jesus do?) if we don’t know what He would do! As Christians and parents, we have to know what Jesus did and said and how that relates to what we believe.

So, as you read the Bible together, talk to kids about Jesus by using some critical reading skills.

  • What did Jesus do here?
  • Is there any religious or historical context we need to understand for this passage?
  • What did Jesus say?
  • Who was His audience?
  • What did Jesus mean by what he said? How can we know that?
  • What did the disciples think or ask about the situation?
  • Are there other Bible passages that relate to this topic?
  • Does Jesus appear in the Old Testament? If so, where? (Spoiler alert – He totally does!)

What if you don’t feel prepared to talk to kids about Jesus? It’s okay to learn alongside your kids! You don’t have to be an expert to get them thinking. You just have to be one step ahead to help someone follow along. And there are so many great resources available to you!

Books can be great resources to open conversations or to explain complicated concepts.

Any parent can be prepared to answer most of the primary questions about Jesus or the main atheist objections to Jesus with one easy to use resource, Talking with Your Kids about Jesus by Natasha Crain.

I was on the launch team for this book and it is AMAZING! I’ve already seen my daughter’s faith grow through the conversations we’ve had while reading this book.

Talking With Your Kids About Jesus

First, Talking with Your Kids About Jesus is like an apologetics 101. If you’ve never even dipped a toe into the waters of apologetics, this is where to start. While all about Jesus, the way Natasha explains each subject, she addresses many basic defenses for Christianity as a whole as well. It really is a great entry into learning how to defend our faith from the world’s skepticism.

The book is broken into 30 brief chapters. I can easily read one or two sitting in the doctor’s waiting room.

Some of the topics Natasha covers are:

  • Is Jesus real?
  • Was Jesus the Jewish Messiah?
  • Is Jesus God? Did he claim to be?
  • Is Jesus the only way to salvation?
  • Is Hell real?
  • Why did Jesus have to die and what was the purpose of His death?
  • What evidence do we have for the empty tomb and Resurrection?

Each chapter begins with a relatable situation that identifies the main question she will answer. Then she gives a basic survey of the evidence and information we have on that topic. The information is well-organized so it is easy for busy parents to digest. I love how each chapter ends with real examples showing ways to talk with your kids.

Natasha’s writing style is totally relatable as a woman and mom. Her funny and poignant anecdotes make the lessons very accessible.

I only wish I had this book years ago for my own faith! TWYKAJ truly covers almost every objection to Jesus I’ve ever heard and clarifies the primary beliefs of the Christian faith.

I would recommend TWYKAJ for anyone, but the conversations are going to be the most impactful if your children are old enough to understand the concepts, ages 7 and up would be my best estimate. My daughter is 9 and grasps the basics of each chapter. Make sure to tailor your resources to the age of your kiddos.

Your Kids Can Handle More Than You Realize

But don’t underestimate them. They spend all week at school being taught complicated history lessons and challenging math or science concepts, but are coloring pictures in Sunday School, singing songs about the Arky Arky.

Our kids can handle much more than we expect. Plus, there are amazing resources available for any age level.

A couple years ago, I started my daughter’s apologetic’s journey with a set of picture books. They use fictional stories to explain the creation of the universe, objective morality, and the resurrection of Christ.

And she loves the Cold Case Christianity for Kids books. God’s Crime Scene for Kids is all about the creation and fine-tuning of the universe, while Cold Case Christianity for Kids focuses on examining Jesus like a detective.

How important is it to talk with kids about Jesus? Crucial. Remember how I first encountered real atheism in college? I heard objections to Christianity that I’d never heard before. And because I had never heard them, they sounded very damning of Christianity.

When I learned there are more discrepancies between copies of the New Testament than there are words, I didn’t know how to keep believing it was true. So I walked away from living like it was true for most of the next two decades. But God never let me go. He kept coming after me until I turned my heart back to Him.

Thankfully, it was then I found apologetics and discovered answers for all my questions. I learned those text discrepancies can be accounted for through copy errors. We can easily reconstruct the original text from the thousands of copies we have. Not a single error affects any important Christian belief or doctrine. Apologetics totally rebuilt the foundation of my faith.

But, I don’t want my daughter to spend time lost in the wilderness of rebellion like I did. I want her to have the answers to all the questions now. And know that we have answers for almost every question.

She doesn’t need to doubt God’s love or Jesus’s existence like I did. She can know Jesus clearly and deeply from the beginning. She’ll still have to choose to follow Him for herself, but she will have a solid foundation.

If you want your children to have a real faith that will withstand the challenges of life and atheist objections, you need to have these kinds of conversations with your kids about Jesus. And you might be surprised at how much they will inform and bolster your faith as well.

Recommended Resources: 

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)        

How Can Jesus be the Only Way? Mp4, Mp3, and DVD by Frank Turek

Defending Absolutes in a Relativistic World (Mp3) by Frank Turek

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

 


Jennifer DeFrates is a former English and Social Studies teacher turned homeschool mom and Christian blogger at Heavennotharvard.com and theMamapologist.com. Jennifer is a 2x CIA graduate (the Cross-Examined Instructors Academy) and volunteers with Mama Bear Apologetics. She has a passion for discipleship through apologetics. Her action figure would come with coffee and a stack of books. She is also the reluctant ringleader of a small menagerie in rural Alabama.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/49PVw7w

 

There are a lot of things that are true but are hard to believe, but the fact that the Creator of our universe has pooped in a diaper is a big one. I mean, really think about that. And if your first reaction is to think that the opening line of this post sounds crass (which is a natural reaction given Who we are talking about), you are only reinforcing the point I’m about to make:

Our all-powerful almighty God entered into this broken and dangerous world as a helpless baby. The One we worship above all else fed at His mother’s breasts and, yes, even pooped in His diaper. Although the song “Away in a Manger” suggests our Savior didn’t cry, I just don’t buy it. He was fully human. He cried, and His earthly parents most assuredly had sleepless nights just like you and I. The Creator who hung all the stars and planets into the cosmos endured the messy and painful experience of birth and just eight days later, circumcision! Our sovereign God chose to be born to a regular family in the small and insignificant town of Bethlehem. What greater example of humility could we ever even conceive of? Humbly our Lord, Creator of all things, became a man.

What exactly do we mean by “humble”?

Humility is a culturally-approved trait. For the most part, we all agree that to be humble is a good thing, and to be arrogant is a bad thing. Naturally, this provides a fantastic opportunity for the enemy to step in and engage in a little “linguistic Grinching,” (normally known as “linguistic theft” during non-holiday seasons). This is a sneaky little tactic in which a word is covertly stolen to be used with a new meaning to make the new meaning more acceptable. Since humility is a character trait that Christians are to emulate (Colossians 3:12), we mustn’t become deceived into accepting a different meaning. Let’s first seek a biblical definition of “humble” and then we can take a look at how the word has been redefined.

The words “humble” and “humility” are littered all over the pages of Scripture. While the Bible doesn’t give us an explicit dictionary definition, it does give us plenty of context to present what humility looks like. Some examples are:

We should also examine what character traits directly oppose “humility”:

Humbling ourselves involves gaining a more accurate view of ourselves. We must recognize our own sinfulness and submit ourselves to God for purification.Click To Tweet

And we must follow God and learn from Him. We must not be haughty or conceited. We must not be confident in our own righteousness nor try to exalt ourselves above others. This is what it means to be humble according to God’s Word. But I am seeing an unrelenting attempt to redefine the word and much of that attempt seems to be coming from leaders within the Progressive Christian movement.

How the Linguistic Grinch Stole “Humble”

Be on the lookout for using “humility” to replace or imply “uncertainty.” When the word “humble” is misused, those who wish to emulate humility could become misguided. Let’s take a look at three examples of linguistic theft where either the word “humble” has become synonymous with the word “uncertain,” or the word “arrogance” has become synonymous with “certainty.” And as is the Mama Bear way, with each quote we will need to “chew and spit” and discern truth from the lies.

Exhibit #1:

“Pilgrimage is a metaphor for humility. Pilgrimage encourages us to let go of the need to have final certainty on how we understand the Bible and be less prone to put up walls of division because we are more willing to discuss, explore, and change rather than proclaim, conquer, and defend.” ― Peter Enns

The idea here is that the uncertainty of our beliefs allows us the freedom to journey through our faith with an open mind, which in turn promotes unity rather than division. This pits absolute certainty (which is seen as divisive) against uncertainty (which is seen as humble). I have experienced the process of letting go of false beliefs and allowing God to give me a new worldview. And there are those who, in their pride, are too stubborn to thoughtfully consider a challenge to their firmly held beliefs. So, learning and growing are good things that we can affirm! But does that mean that we are to wander aimlessly changing our beliefs in any direction for our entire lives to remain humble? If in our experience certainty increases with learning, does that necessarily mean we are becoming increasingly prideful and arrogant?

“Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.” ― G.K. Chesterton

Exhibit #2:

“If whatever communities we find ourselves in, we refuse the notion of “I’m right and you’re wrong,” and we come with a posture of humility and healing is our end goal, it changes everything.” ― Esther Joy Goetz

Here, we need to look at the difference between the “notion” of being right or wrong with the haughty attitude of someone who wants to be seen as “right” and humiliate those who they deem are “wrong.” How can anyone discuss or debate anything if they rid themselves of the “notion” of being right or wrong? How could truth vs. falsities ever be established? What we can affirm, though, is the rebuke against anyone who approaches others with arrogance. Having a “posture of humility” should be about one’s heart, not about their beliefs.

Exhibit #3:

“But, certainty is not what we should seek as Christians. It is comforting but diametrically opposed to faith. Certainty is merely hubris and arrogance masquerading as discernment.” ― Ashley Darling (Red Letter Christians)

In this quote, I want to focus on the word “arrogance” because it is pitted against certainty. Since arrogance is the opposite of humility, this is another way the enemy tempts us to embrace uncertainty as somehow virtuous. This quote requires some “chewing and spitting” especially when read in the context of the full article. The reason is that there are some good points made within the article, and we Mama Bears need to be careful not to reject the good along with the bad if we are to use proper discernment. That being said, for this post, I want to bring our attention to the blanket statement that Christians are not to seek certainty.

According to Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” If assurance and conviction are words that biblically define “faith,” it seems obvious to me that God’s Word directly opposes the idea that certainty is “diametrically opposed to faith.” I don’t know about you, but I’m going to go with God on this one.

Why the Linguistic Grinch stole “Humble”

It’s one thing to know what tactics the enemy uses against us. It is another to understand why he uses them and why they are so effective. We need to understand what happens when we uncritically accept new definitions of biblical words, whether due to ignorance, pride, or apathy. Here is why I think linguistic theft of the word “humble” is very dangerous:

Suppose you can convince someone that it is arrogant to become too certain about their theology or beliefs and that it is humble and virtuous to remain uncertain. In that case, that person will likely live with a vague and confused sense of who God is and what he commands of us.

Mama bears, we don’t want that for ourselves or our children. We know that God does not want that for us either. He is a good Father, and He wants us to know Him and to live in peace, not confusion.

Our humble Savior’s gift of certainty

As we celebrate the birth of our Savior, we worship the God who entered our world in perfect humility. God did not have to do it this way. If He truly wanted His creation to journey through mystical spiritualism where questions mattered more than answers, then He could have remained in the spirit realm. Instead, what did He do? The Word became flesh, entering into world history, and providing His people the means to verify His claims objectively. Jesus embodies the Word of God, shows us the way, gives us life, and provides us with objective truth. We can be grounded in the certainty of His love because we can be certain of His claims. And as we draw near to Him, His Spirit transforms our hearts to conform us to His humble image. This is a certainty that does not bring pride and division, but peace and unity to those who love Him. Joy to the world, the Lord is come. Let Earth receive her King!

Recommended Resources:

How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide

Miracles: The Evidence by Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)      

Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Is the Bible Historically Reliable? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, Mp3 Download.

 


Alexa Cramer is a Blog and Podcast Contributor and Video Content Creator with MamaBearApologetics.com. She’s also a homeschool mom of two. She became obsessed with apologetics after a season of doubt that nearly stole her faith. Alexa has a background in film and video and will willingly fight anyone who doesn’t agree that DC Talk is the best band that ever graced the earth.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3OOBhxz

“Historians are biased and choose what they report. As such, history can’t be known.” That’s a typical objection to the ability to know history. If such objections prove that we can’t know history, then we can’t know that Christianity is true since it is known through history and historical claims.

In his prologue, Luke says,

“Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:1-4).

The above passage demonstrates that Luke was writing as an historian. Words such as the ones underlined show his desire to write the truth of the events he wanted to convey. So, if history can’t be known, then we can’t know that Christianity is true. Let’s look at a typical objection.

The Most Popular Objection

Bias is probably the most popular objection to knowing history. It is claimed by some that historians are biased. It is not always clear what the objection is really getting at, but usually it is something like the historian holds certain views that in some way make his reporting subjective or unfair. For example, an historian may be writing about a religious issue and if he is part of that religion he is likely going to be accused of being biased. The disciples are often said to be biased regarding the events of the life of Jesus, particularly his resurrection. Since they knew him and had a vested interest they must have made up the claims of the resurrection.

Ironically, there are many assumptions (i.e. biases) about the nature of bias. It is more often than not used in a negative way and is equated with subjectivity and falsity. But why should this be the case? Why should the notion of either bias or subjectivity be equated with something being false? People could be biased because of evidence. If the disciples really did see Jesus alive after he was dead, then the reason they were biased was because of evidence and proof. But this bias would not be based on any subjectivity since their knowledge was based on objective and empirical evidence. Further, someone could have a subjective view of something and still be correct. There is nothing about being biased or subjective that guarantees that the belief is false. Such is an assumption in itself.

A Wrench in the Works

Consider this popular argument against objectivity:

  1.  To be objective one must be free from bias.
  2.  No one is free from bias.
  3.  Therefore, no one is objective.

 

This is a valid argument, meaning that the conclusion follows from the premises. But is it sound (i.e. is the argument valid and the premises and conclusion true)? Well, if no one is free from bias that means the one making this argument is not free from bias. But statements like “No one is . . .” is a universal statement that applies to everyone everywhere. But aren’t universal statements objective? What else would ‘objective’ mean other than something that is universal and not simply limited to the subjective beliefs of an individual? This whole line of argument is self-defeating. In other words, when using the argument’s criteria, the very argument itself fails. The objector in this case is objective in trying to argue that no one is free from bias and that no one is objective. However, the only way to make such universal statements is for the objector to make objective statements. If they were subjective, then they wouldn’t necessarily be universal. If they weren’t universal, then maybe some people aren’t biased. But this contradicts the argument. Assuming the argument holds water, because no one really denies that people are biased, it shows that one can be biased and objective. (Note, it is not guaranteed that one is going to be objective and biased, just that it’s logically possible. The objection is thus deflated.)

What do you mean “Objective”?

This raises another question that is rarely asked and usually assumed: What does it mean for something to be ‘objective’? By now it should be clear that it can’t mean free from bias since we’ve just seen that a person can be both biased and objective. So being free from bias is not necessary to be objective (in fact I would agree that everyone is biased in a general sense). So what does it mean? Most people think that it means being detached from a given circumstance so that one can see it as an objective outsider. In his fascinating work Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, drawing on other work on this topic (such as Samuel Byrskog’s Story as History—History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History), Richard Bauckham makes the surprising and unfashionable statement:

“A very important point that . . . for Greek and Roman historians, the ideal eyewitness was not the dispassionate observer but one who, as a participant, had been closest to the events and whose direct experience enabled him to understand and interpret the significance of what he had seen” (page 9).

He further notes that many historians wanted someone who was involved in the events in question because that person would have a vested interest. They wanted someone who was involved and really there.

This counters the usual desire or assumed need for detatchment, but it does not say what objectivity is. Objectivity is arriving at conclusions that are based on evidence and principles that have their foundation in external reality. Everyone can use and measure truth claims based on external (objective) reality. Put negatively, it is the opposite of one making conclusions that arise simply out of one’s subjective mind. Such evidence based on reality and the principles that follow is mind-independent. Since reality is objective, that is, everyone can know it (as long as their faculties are working properly), the conclusions based on reality can also be objective. When one uses universal (objective) principles to ascertain the truth of a conclusion, one can be objective. Such principles are the laws of logic (or being). One such law is the law of non-contradiction. It declares that if two statements are mutually exclusive one must be true and the other must be false. For example, Christianity teaches that Jesus died. Islam counters that Jesus did not die. These statements are mutually exclusive—one must be true and the other false since there is no third option. Thus, they are contradictory. (This is contrasted with statements that can both logically be false, such as “Buddhism is true” and “Atheism is true.” Such statements that can both be false are called ‘contrary’.) Regarding this principle and its application to historical objectivity, Maurice Mandelbaum says,

“Our knowledge is objective if, and only if, it is the case that when two persons make contradictory statements concerning the same subject matter, at least one of them must be mistaken” (The Anatomy of Historical Knowledge [Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins, 2019] 150).

The law of non-contradiction is based in the nature of reality. It is not just a principle of thought, but of being. A tree cannot exist and not exist at the same time in the same sense. That would be a contradiction. Such first principles of thought and being arise out of the nature of reality since something can’t simultaneously be and not be. It is not simply a made up principle. In fact it is undeniable since to deny it would require using it.

Thus, if one’s conclusions are based on external and objective reality and evidence, and the principles from such reality, those conclusions can be objective. There is, in a sense, an objective apparatus giving us the possibility of being objective. Again, this is contrasted with something arising only from one’s (subjective) mind rather than from external (objective )reality. There is, therefore, nothing about biases that preclude one from making objective historical statements. Biases do not guarantee subjectivity or falsity.

The Benefit of Bias

Back to Bauckham’s point regarding bias, it is often the case that people are indeed biased, but biased because of the evidence. They have seen so much evidence, that they are convinced that what they are saying is true. This, however, is not subjective bias or assumption, but rather the careful examination of objective reality and the evidence that all can investigate.

When looking at historical questions, such as the resurrection, one should not base his conclusions on notions such as the alleged bias of the ones making claims. Rather, one should examine the evidence for the claims to discover their veracity. We can recognize bias in every area and by all people. However, that alone is not enough to show that a person’s claim is false. To be good and responsible historians and investigators, we must follow the evidence.

(I would like to thank Norman L. Geisler for his direction regarding my MA thesis topic which was on this issue, as well as Thomas A. Howe to whom my thoughts and work are indebted greatly.)

Recommended Resources: 

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (mp4 Download)

The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth mp3 by Frank Turek

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD) 

The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

 


J. Brian Huffling, PH.D. have a BA in History from Lee University, an MA in (3 majors) Apologetics, Philosophy, and Biblical Studies from Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES), and a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from SES. He is the Director of the Ph.D. Program and Associate Professor of Philosophy and Theology at SES. He also teaches courses for Apologia Online Academy. He has previously taught at The Art Institute of Charlotte. He has served in the Marines, Navy, and is currently a reserve chaplain in the Air Force at Maxwell Air Force Base. His hobbies include golf, backyard astronomy, martial arts, and guitar.

“It doesn’t really matter if Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit or by Joseph’s seed. What matters is that Jesus came to earth, died, and was resurrected.”

This is more or less what was said in a conversation I had several years ago with a now self-proclaimed progressive Christian. At the time, he was trying to work out his theology. Today, his words ring with expectancy to be answered. Was Jesus born of a virgin? Does it matter in regard to our faith if He was?

Virgin Birth: Negotiable or Not?

The virgin birth of Jesus Christ has always been considered a non-negotiable core doctrine of Christianity and is mentioned in the earliest creeds. Among Christians, this doctrine wasn’t broadly questioned until a period of history referred to as “the Enlightenment”. Sometimes called “the Age of Reason,” the Enlightenment was an intellectual movement that took place primarily in the 18th century. It has had an incalculable impact on Western culture, profoundly affecting the way people think about philosophy, politics, religion, and science.

As science was given precedent over religion, one of the trends to emerge during the Enlightenment was skepticism towards anything miraculous or supernatural. In other words, believing in the miracles recorded in the Bible such as the virgin birth is superstitious and unscientific, so they must be mythological. This seems to be a popular view among progressive Christians today.

​Does the Bible teach that Jesus was actually born of a virgin? 

The prediction, 700 hundred years before Christ (Isaiah 7:14):

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

The fulfillment (Matthew 1:22-23):

Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel.

Seems pretty simple, right? Isaiah predicted the Virgin Birth and Matthew records that prediction coming true. Not so fast.

A common claim among skeptics is that the word translated “virgin” really just means “young woman” or “maiden,” and there is no reason to assume that Mary was a virgin.

Young Lady, Virgin, or Both?

This reasoning might make sense if we were only reading these Scriptures with a Western, American mindset. With any Scripture, however, we have to look at it through the lens of the culture in which it was written. The Hebrew word in question is almah, which does mean “young woman” or “maiden.” However, in ancient Hebrew culture, all young women of marriageable age were considered to be virgins. Strong’s Online Concordance notes:

There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin.

There is another Hebrew word that specifically means “virgin” (bethulah), but it’s likely that Isaiah preferred almah because he wanted to communicate that the virgin would also be young. Long before the virgin birth was an established doctrine, 70 Hebrew scholars must have agreed, because when they began translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, they translated almah as parthenos, the Greek word for “virgin.” Apparently, they understood exactly what that word meant in context.

Mary herself clearly stated that she was a virgin in Luke 1:34. When the angel told her she would conceive a child, she was perplexed and asked, “But how can this be, since I have not been intimate with a man?”

Does it matter if Jesus was born of a virgin?

As with most core doctrines, the case for the virgin birth of Jesus doesn’t just come down to one or two Bible verses. Scripture teaches that Jesus is fully God and fully human. He literally has two natures. It was necessary for Him to be born of a woman, to fulfill the promise God made to Eve in Genesis 3:15. If Jesus had not been born of a woman, He would not be fully human, and could not have been the promised Messiah.

As I’ve written previously, Scripture teaches that humans inherited a “sin nature” from Adam, and it would seem that sin nature gets passed down through the line of the father (Rom. 5:12, 17, 19). According to Hebrews 7:26, Jesus did not have a sin nature. Also, it’s important to note that Jeremiah prophesied that there would never be a king of Israel who was a descendant of King Jeconiah (Jer. 22:28-30). Matthew 1:12-16 tells us that Joseph was in fact, a descendant of Jeconiah.

If Jesus had been conceived by the seed of Joseph instead of by the Holy Spirit, He would have received a sin nature, and would not be fully God. As a descendant of Jeconiah, He would not have had a right to the throne of Israel, and He could not have been the promised Messiah.

Prophesied by Isaiah and fulfilled by Jesus, the virgin birth allowed for Jesus to be both fully God and fully human, unstained by sin, and God Incarnate. The doctrine of the virgin birth matters because it must be true for salvation to even be possible.

Recommended Resources:

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)      

Reflecting Jesus into a Dark World by Dr. Frank Turek – DVD Complete Series, Video mp4 DOWNLOAD Complete Series, and mp3 audio DOWNLOAD Complete Series

 


Alisa Childers is an American singer and songwriter, best known for being in the all-female Christian music group ZOEgirl. She has had a string of top ten radio singles, four studio releases, and received the Dove Award during her time with ZOEgirl. In later years, Alisa found her life-long faith deeply challenged when she started attending what would later identify as a Progressive Christian church. This challenge pushed Alisa toward Christian Apologetics. Today you can read, listen and watch Alisa’s work online as well as purchase her recently published book on Progressive Christianity titled Another Gospel.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4f3rRZP

It’s common for atheists to be a “Grinch” over the Holidays and exclaim that Jesus is just a “Santa Claus for adults!” When I hear that claim, I immediately respond with a question: “What do you mean by that?”

If one means that children often believe in fictional fairy tales and adults believe in fact-based evidence, then I agree – Jesus is for adults (and actually people of all ages)! But I don’t think that’s the intent behind this claim. I believe the intent of the atheist (“Grinch”) is to convey that little kids believe in a fictional Santa Clause and many adults believe in fiction too – Christianity.

How the Grinch Stole Christ out of Christmas

Well, why think a thing like that, Mr. Grinch? Is belief in Jesus — or belief in God — really no different than belief in Santa? To answer this question, we must first ask if we have any good reason to believe in Santa. What good reasons are there that would lead us to logically conclude, “Therefore, Santa exists”?

Now, I’m not emotionally opposed to the existence of Santa Claus, and my life would not really have to change if Santa really exists, so if there were any evidence pointing to a jolly fat man in the North Pole who flies around with Rudolph giving gifts made by the elves, then I would happily follow that evidence wherever it leads. Even if there were logic-based arguments concluding that Santa PROBABLY exists, I would be very open to the existence of Santa. Come to think of it, Santa Claus would save me a ton of money on Christmas presents! Be that as it may, there is no evidence or any logic-based arguments concluding that Santa Claus exists — or even PROBABLY exists. So, although I am willing to be persuaded, there just doesn’t seem to be any evidence or logical reasons to believe in Santa Claus (sorry kids).

Now perhaps, Mr. Grinch, you’re saying to yourself: “That’s right! There’s no evidence for Santa Claus AND there is no evidence of God or Jesus either! That’s why it’s ridiculous to believe in Santa Claus or God!”

A False Equivalence

But is that true? Is the evidence — or lack thereof — for Santa Claus and the evidence for God really the same?

Well, if Santa does exist, we would know what to look for: A big, jolly, white-bearded, fat man in a red suit flying around in a sleigh being pulled by flying reindeer delivering presents to children on Christmas Eve. We would look for his factory full of elves at the North Pole too! So far (as far as I know), this evidence for Santa has never been detected. That in and of itself is not PROOF that Santa does not exist, but once we add to the fact that we have no other positive reasons to believe that Santa exists, then we can safely say that Santa does not exist.

But what about God? If God does exist, what would we expect to find? Do you even know what evidence you should start looking for?

Before stating that there is no evidence for something, Mr. Grinch, make sure you know what kind of evidence there should be if that thing does exist. If the God of the Bible exists, for example, he is not the kind of being you would see flying around in the clouds. He would not be some “sky daddy,” as many internet atheists seem to think. No, if the God of the Bible exists, He would not be some humanoid “Zeus-like being.” God (if He exists) is an immaterial unembodied mind – a “spirit” (John 4:24).

How Christ Saves Christmas, from the Grinch

So, what should we expect to find if Christian theism is true? We would expect to find scientific evidence for the beginning of the space-time universe. We have that! We would expect to find evidence for the fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the big bang so that intelligent life – not to mention matter itself – could exist. We have that! We would expect to have historical data showing that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person of history who was executed by the Roman government. We have that!

In fact, we would expect to be able to make a strong case — via the historical method alone – that Jesus actually rose from the dead. Historians have demonstrated that the resurrection of Jesus is the inference to the best explanation after examining all of the historical facts!

So, the things we would expect to find if Santa exists, do not exist. However, the things we would expect to find if the God of the Bible exists, those things DO exist!

After taking everything into consideration, although it would be irrational to believe in Santa Claus, one is quite coherent believing in the God Jesus revealed. That is to say, we have good reason to celebrate Christmas.

So, the next time Mr. Grinch compares Jesus to Santa Claus, just show him the evidence pointing to the reason for the season.

Have a reasonable (Isaiah 1:18) and Merry Christmas,

Dr. Tim Stratton

Recommended Resources: 

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)      

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

Reflecting Jesus into a Dark World by Dr. Frank Turek – DVD Complete Series, Video mp4 DOWNLOAD Complete Series, and mp3 audio DOWNLOAD Complete Series

How Can Jesus Be the Only Way? (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek

 


Tim Stratton (The FreeThinking Theist) pursued his undergraduate studies at the University of Nebraska-Kearney (B.A. 1997) and after working in full-time ministry for several years went on to attain his graduate degree from Biola University (M.A. 2014). Tim was recently accepted at North West University to pursue his Ph.D. in systematic theology with a focus on metaphysics.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/49fAu1O

If you would consider to dare to know Jesus, I invite you to give Him some serious thought today.

Whether you’re a Christian or not, you probably claim to know Jesus, at least in broad strokes.

In fact, worldwide, no one person has influenced history more than Jesus. The way we even measure history has been using His birth since A.D. 532. While using “BC” (Before Christ) has become less politically correct, the era still changes approximately at His birth.

But which Jesus do you know?

There is only one historical Jesus in reality. But how He is painted, described, even taught can vary wildly.

And sadly, not every person who describes herself as a Christian even knows the real Jesus.

We live in a culture of busy. We don’t have the time to research everything that comes across our screens, so we take for granted (too often) that we can trust the source has done careful, objective research from objective, intelligent sources.

But it’s hard to be objective about Jesus.

He turns everything upside down and asks you to see things His way. His way is generally not the natural way we want to see things. So, meeting Jesus is something we each need to do personally.

No matter where you are, I would love to invite you to take a few minutes thinking about this Jesus fellow in a new way, as a historical person who really lived, was really crucified.

Maybe you’ve heard that Jesus never really existed. This is called the Jesus Myth. 

But a significant majority of experts in ancient history, both atheists and believers, believe Jesus lived and died. We have quite a bit of scholarly evidence to attest to both.

And his body was never found by some people who really, really wanted Him to be dead and stay dead.

That His disciples (who didn’t know his body was missing) could have managed to get past armed guards and roll the stone away without being killed seems highly unlikely.

And the way their lives radically changed following the Resurrection certainly lends credence to their stories of seeing the risen Jesus.

Jesus claimed to be God.

“I and the Father are one” (John 10:30 ESV).

While some of those claims are subtle, His audience would have understood what he was saying.

”Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58)

Which is a reference to a passage in Exodus.

“God said to Moses, ‘I am who I am.’ And he said, ‘Say this to the people of Israel, “I am has sent me to you”’” (Exodus 3:14).

Jesus claimed to be the only way to the Father.

”Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me’” (John 14:6 ).

A pretty audacious claim. As Josh McDowell challenged, He was either a Liar, a Lunatic, or Lord.

Jay Payleitner in The Jesus Dare asks us to consider He was who he said He is. And let that transform us.

If you’ve never considered Jesus, The Jesus Dare is a great place to start as is the Gospel of John.

John is beautifully written and contains a clear picture of the true nature of Jesus.

If you’re not quite ready to dive into the Bible, The Jesus Dare is a good, quick read that clearly walks through who Jesus is and the core messages He preached. The book is designed to introduce seekers to the real Jesus, step by step with a few apologetics concepts thrown in.

Jay Payleitner writes with a sense of humor and a heart for people. He also manages to condense a lot of spiritual guidance and wisdom in a brief text. In some ways, this makes an excellent Christianity 101 for new believers as well as those who are curious about Christ.[1]

And if you’ve spent too much time listening to what other people say about Him, maybe it’s time to know Jesus for yourself.

I had spent too much time just knowing the Sunday school answers. I even had a decent handle on mainstream theology. But it was no good knowing the book without knowing the author.

It’s no good knowing the book if you don’t know the author when it comes to the Bible and Jesus. Will you dare to have a relationship with Him? Click To Tweet

Knowing Bible stories is not the same thing as surrendering my entire life to God and inviting Him into my life, heart, and mind to change me from the inside out.

When you take the risk of really knowing Jesus, you risk never being the same again.

And following Jesus is like taking the road less traveled, it will make all the difference.

Are you curious?

If you’ve never had a moment that everything went from black and white to color, the scales fell from your eyes, and you could see and know God’s love, you’re missing out on a great adventure.

I no longer struggle to fill the gaping void in my soul. Confident in my identity in Christ, I live the truth of how He has transformed me everyday.

Now, I have purpose and passion for people. Before I came to Christ, I was broken, angry, bitter, unable to love.

I couldn’t give away what I didn’t have. But now I am loved, cherished, forgiven, accepted. And can love others with the love of Christ.

Isn’t that worth daring to know Jesus?

References: 

[1] You can also carry The Jesus Dare to offer to those who would dare to know Jesus! If you already know Jesus, I would recommend this book as one to carry in your purse or pocket to share with seeking people you encounter in daily life. It’s a great place to start for anyone curious about who Jesus is and what Christians believe.

Recommended Resources: 

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)     

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)        

How Can Jesus be the Only Way? Mp4, Mp3, and DVD by Frank Turek

 


Jennifer DeFrates is a former English and Social Studies teacher turned homeschool mom and Christian blogger at Heavennotharvard.com and theMamapologist.com. Jennifer is a 2x CIA graduate (the Cross-Examined Instructors Academy) and volunteers with Mama Bear Apologetics. She has a passion for discipleship through apologetics. Her action figure would come with coffee and a stack of books. She is also the reluctant ringleader of a small menagerie in rural Alabama.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3CEunIu

The possible birthplace of three of Jesus’s disciples has been discovered. Or, at least, revised. The city is Bethsaida. Besides being another place-name mentioned in the Bible, this town was also the home to three of the apostles, Peter, Andrew and Philip.

Philip, like Andrew and Peter, was from the town of Bethsaida” (John 1:44).

[Editor’s Note: In 2017, archaeologists began revising theories about the location of the ancient fishing village of Bethsaida. The traditional site of Bethsaida known as, El Tell, is about a mile away from the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee. But what is a fishing village doing a mile away from the water? Well, it was believed that the water levels in that area were higher 2,000 years ago. But, archaeologist Stephen Notley and others found evidence that the water levels there didn’t really change in that time, effectively ruling out el-Tell. Subsequent digs closer to water, uncovered a more likely candidate for Bethsaida at the el-Araj dig site, just a few yards from the share.] Here is a quick video of the discovery:

Reports by the National Geographic echoed these findings, but in a more tempered tone stating that:

“The “lost home of Jesus’ apostles” has just been found, according to a recent Israeli newspaper report. Yet while the actual discovery is not nearly as sensational as many headlines suggest, the new results are adding very interesting fuel to an ongoing debate about the location of one of the most important cities in the New Testament”.

While this discovery is not yet definitive, it has generated more discussion about the location of the ancient city of Bethsaida. The discovery was found on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilea as pictured below:

Besides being mentioned in the Bible and the hometown of three disciples, Jesus performs two miracles in Bethsaida. 1. Healing the blind man  (Mark 8:22) and 2. Miraculously feeding of the 5,000 multitude with five loaves and two fish  (Luke 9:16). If this discovery pans out, then this is a major breakthrough in biblical archaeology.

For more on this discovery see:

Recommended Resources: 

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (mp4 Download)

The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth mp3 by Frank Turek

Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)

Cold Case Resurrection Set by J. Warner Wallace (books)   

 


J. Steve Lee has taught Apologetics for over two and a half decades at Prestonwood Christian Academy.  He also has taught World Religions and Philosophy at Mountain View College in Dallas and Collin College in Plano.  With a degree in history and education from the University of North Texas, Steve continued his formal studies at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary with a M.A. in philosophy of religion and has pursued doctoral studies at the University of Texas at Dallas and is finishing his dissertation at South African Theological Seminary.  He has published several articles for the Apologetics Study Bible for Students as well as articles and book reviews in various periodicals including Philosophia Christi, Hope’s Reason: A Journal of Apologetics, and the Areopagus Journal.  Having an abiding love for fantasy fiction, Steve has contributed chapters to two books on literary criticism of Harry Potter: Harry Potter for Nerds and Teaching with Harry Potter.  He even appeared as a guest on the podcast MuggleNet Academia (“Lesson 23: There and Back Again-Chiasmus, Alchemy, and Ring Composition in Harry Potter”).  He is married to his lovely wife, Angela, and has two grown boys, Ethan and Josh.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3V7fyUV

In the mid-1990’s a Theology professor at Duke Divinity School, named Richard Hayes, wrote a book called The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation, A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics. It made waves in the Evangelical world because it was the first time a relatively liberal theological scholar took a definitive stance on the biblical sexual ethic. For decades conservative Christian scholars and pastors have cited Hays’s work in this book as evidence that scripture speaks clearly on issues concerning human sexuality and morality.

There were other, more conservative, names that had come to the same conclusions as Hays prior to and after his book was published. However, the very fact that someone of his pedigree, hailing from such a scholarly institution as Duke University, so unequivocally stood on the orthodox understanding of scriptures concerning sexuality was seen as a sort of ace in the hole against the arguments of affirmation theology.

In his 1996 book Hays said this:

“Thus, in view of the considerable uncertainty surrounding the scientific and experiential evidence, in view of our culture’s present swirling confusion about gender roles, in view of our propensity for self-deception, I think it prudent and necessary to let the univocal testimony of Scripture and the Christian tradition order the life of the church on this painfully controversial matter. We must affirm that the New Testament tells us the truth about ourselves as sinners and as God’s sexual creatures: marriage between man and woman is the normative form for human sexual fulfillment, and homosexuality is one among many tragic signs that we are a broken people, alienated from God’s loving purpose.” (The Moral Vision, pgs. 399-400)

But Wait, There’s More

Recently, however, Richard and his son Christopher, a professor at Fuller Seminary, published a book called The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality within the biblical story. In it, Richard and Christopher lay out an argument for repudiating Richard’s previous work and leaning into affirmation theology. This seismic shift was heralded as a possible inflection point in the Evangelical Church’s defense of the biblical sexual ethic.

The book’s premise relies on understanding that God changes his mind throughout the history of scripture:

“Although these stories (OT stories, particularly Moses) are told as if God is ‘learning on the job,’ the portrait they create is consistent with a recurring image of God throughout the Bible. Even where judgment seems to narrow the scope of blessing, there are signs of the wideness of God’s mercy. God’s plan for the world is broader than some think.” (pg. 48)

God’s changing of mind and widening of his circle of inclusion is used throughout the book to support the claim that the next step in this widening work is through the full inclusion of LGBTQ+ people and their lifestyles:

“Those who do not conform to traditional expectations for sexual orientation should be the next to be explicitly included, as an extension of this ancient and traditional process.” (pg. 4)

In this book review, I will look at what it seems Richard and Cristopher intended to accomplish, the arguments in the book, and, as always, what the book does well and what it does poorly.

Purpose of the Book

Some might believe that the purpose of this book is to change conservative minds, but this is not the case. Richard and his son seek not to change staunch conservatives but to give hope to those in the middle or to the left on the issue of sexual identity and Christianity. The book is also meant to serve as a salve on the wounds of those who have felt alienated by the church’s traditional position on human sexuality. Thus, this is not an academic book, unlike Richard’s first work in 1996, but is, instead, a book focused on empathy, shifting the narrative in the conversation, and extending an olive branch to people either firmly in the affirmation camp or those that are on the fence.

At the outset, Richard and Christopher do not hide the ball as far as that is concerned:

“The reader will find few footnotes” (pg. 4).

“This book also starts from the recognition of the harm that modern conservative Christianity has done by fighting battles that God doesn’t call us to fight” (pg. 5).

“… after I suggested we write this book, he asked me, “who is the intended audience?” And I said, “Maddie.” That’s my daughter, whom we have raised to appreciate the strength that comes from diversity and who can see very clearly that the future will have no patience with debates over human rights for those whose sexual orientation does not conform to ‘traditional’ standards” (pg. 16).

Clearly, this book is not intended to convince me. And it did not, as that was not its aim.

What this book does well

Care for the LGBTQ+ Community to Come to Jesus

The book strikes a tone of love and care for people in the LGBTQ+ community. It shows a care for their eternal souls and is seemingly meant to serve as an apologetic for them to come to faith in Jesus Christ even if they have been hurt by the theology and/or actions of the Church in the past.

“…but the book is also for those who are already convinced that LGBTQ people are just as good as straight people but who are unsure about God and Christianity… To them -perhaps to you- we say: You’re not crazy to think you and yours are created equal and loved equally by God” (pg. 16).

I appreciate the heart of two individuals who desire to see all come to faith in Jesus Christ and seek to remove any unnecessary obstacles from their path. The question becomes though, what is necessary and unnecessary for the gospel? I have often said that homosexuality and LGBTQ lifestyles are the one sin the church has often told people they need to solve prior to coming to the cross of Christ. This is wrong and harmful. In that much, I agree, but going the extra step to affirm certain lifestyles because otherwise it would cost too much for people to follow Jesus, that is a bridge too far.

Jesus himself said we need to count the cost (Luke 14:28-33), so it is not readily apparent that the obstacles of a biblical sexual ethic should be glossed over. That being said, I believe Christopher and Richard’s heart for people not of the faith is on full display throughout the book. They have clearly been impacted by the stories of pain told to them by people in those communities and I resonate with that.

“A gay acquaintance tells the story of when he was first coming to grips with his sexuality as a grade-schooler, and his Sunday school teacher gave the class a coloring sheet with a little messy kid on it and the words, ‘God don’t make no junk.’ Most of the sheets probably wound up in the trash fairly soon, but he hid his under his bed. He would take it out occasionally, when we needed a reminder that he had been created as he was, and he’s never forgotten it. No one forgets when the church manifests the love and joy that God feels toward creation; nor do they forget when it doesn’t” (pg. 36).

“My own experience of participating in a church where gay and lesbian members were a vital part of the congregation’s life and ministry has caused me to stop and reconsider what I wrote before” (pg. 10).

“The more we have listened to friends, to our fellow Christians, and to respected voices in the culture more broadly, the more we have been compelled to recognize a tidal wave of evidence that same-sex attraction and partnering is, for some people, hardwired into their identity. And, at the same time, we recognize that the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit are abundantly present among our LGBTQ friends. That being so, we find ourselves compelled to say, along with Peter, “Who are we that we can block God” (pg. 213-14).

These personal experiences (Christopher shares, at length, multiple experiences of students at Fuller early in the book) seem to be the impetus for such a change of mind. Experience is of seminal importance throughout the book, and reading scripture through the lens of experience seems to be the preferred method. The desire is admirable, the empathy understandable, but the theology and methodology is flawed.

Unity of the Church

Another thing that seems to bother both Christopher and Richard is the division over this issue. In multiple spaces throughout the book, both authors indicate a desire to move beyond these debates and to the more important matters of the law of Christ. They see the fracturing within the church, rightly, as a bad thing. The divisiveness over such issues seems paltry and unnecessary to them.

Ultimately, it seems one of the goals of their book is to encourage people to let go of division and arguments so we can move forward much like the early church did with food sacrificed to idols.

“The repetitive arguments about the same set of verses, and the meaning of specific words, have reached an impasse; they are superficial and boring” (pg. 2).

They find exegetical arguments counterproductive to the unity of the church on these issues and thus, they do not make many, if any, throughout the book:

“We believe that this debate should no longer focus on the endlessly repeated exegetical arguments about half a dozen isolated texts that forbid or disapprove of same-sex relations. (The regularly cited texts are Gen 19:1-9, Lev 18:22, 20:13, 1 Cor. 6:9-11, 1 Tim. 1:10, and Rom 1:18-32). In this book we have not revisited them. It is relatively clear that these texts view homosexual sex negatively, even if they do not envisage covenanted same-sex partnerships as we know them today. But drawing conclusions based only on these passages would be like basing a biblical theology of slavery on Exod. 21:2 (which assumes one can buy a slave) and 1 Pet 2:18 (which tells slaves to be subject to their masters), or a theology of immigration on Ezek 44:9’s exclusion of foreigners from the sanctuary” (pg. 206-207).

“As a practical matter, it is difficult to see how strong differences over same-sex marriages could be maintained within an individual congregation, or even in some cases within an individual denomination. But it is not impossible to imagine that different Christian congregations might hold different norms and practices on this question while still acknowledging one another as members of the one body of Christ – just as Catholic and Protestant churches already do with respect to their different standards on clerical celibacy and women’s ordination” (pg. 216).

While there are certainly issues with these assertions, and certainly I do not agree that exegetical arguments concerning what is and is not a sin are pedantic in any way, I can appreciate the heart for unity behind the words. But unity in sin should not be the goal. This leads us to what this book does poorly.

What this Book does poorly

The entire argument is incredibly flawed

The most glaring issue with this book is that the argument is blatantly flawed. In fact, in arguing for the widening of God’s mercy to be extended to a certain group both Hays men fail in properly defining the word mercy and why mercy is needed in the first place. Not only that, but both men indicate that the passages of scripture outlawing such sexual activity do, in fact, say and mean what Richard claimed they did in 1996.

At one point Richard Hays quotes long passages from his previous work and then concludes said section with this statement:

“As a judgment about what these very few biblical texts say, that statement still seems to me to be correct” (pg. 8).

So, it is not that the interpretation of said scriptures are incorrect, but that God has simply changed his mind and widened his mercy beyond these passages. In other words, because of God’s ever-expanding mercy these passages no longer carry moral weight for how we view sexuality.

How do we know this to be true? Well, basically, because it seems to be true according to Richard and Christopher Hays and that if it isn’t true then our position is “harming” people:

“This book also starts from the recognition of the harm that modern conservative Christianity has done by fighting battles that God doesn’t call us to fight” (pg. 5).

“Any religious tradition that makes its peace with harming people is to be feared” (pg. 5).

These statements of seeming theological fact are devoid of scripture and devoid of clarification. For instance, who is to say that fighting the battle against sexual sin is a battle that God doesn’t call us to fight either personally or societally?

If the passages themselves retain their meaning (as Richard seems to believe) then it would be paramount to explain how 1 Corinthians 6:18 or 2 Timothy 2:22 mesh with this perspective as well as Ephesians 5:1-13. It certainly seems, from these and other scriptures, that the declaration that Christians ought not fight battles against sexual immorality of this kind is not based in proper hermeneutics.

Adding to that is the question of harm. What does it mean for a religious tradition to “harm people?” How has conservatism done so? Could it not also be the case that affirmation into sin could harm people even if said affirmation feels good and freeing to them in the moment? These are questions that Richard and Christopher never ask.

As for proper exegesis of specific texts, it seems that both Hays see these academic exercises as unnecessary. There is a “deeper logic” of the biblical story in their minds, but this logic is based on nothing other than experience and emotion as far as I can tell and makes leaps based on how one perceives certain threads of scripture and God’s changing of mind through the Old and New Testaments.

“Exegetical debates can become red herrings and distract us from the character of God” (pg. 12).

This is a particularly troubling quote as it assumes that one can adequately understand the character of God without proper exegesis. How do we KNOW God’s character at all without debating the proper exegesis of certain passages? It would seem we can import our idea of what God SHOULD be like, but we may never arrive at who he truly is without it.

For an answer to how God moves in history according to the Hays men a quote from the middle of the book will help the reader:

“Paradoxically, such conservatism proceeds as if God were dead, or were at least done with the world. If God were done with us, then we could simply add up the sum of the texts and arrive at the right answer, once and for all. (This, I’m afraid, is not too far from what Moral Vision did in regard to homosexuality, although it seems to me that my father was always uneasy about the answers” (pg. 92).

Many assumptions are made in this text. One, that conservatism proceeds as if God were dead. Nothing could be further from the truth. To understand what they mean by this, one has to grasp their argument that God changes and widens his scope of acceptance throughout history.

“The idea that God does not foresee and control everything, and feels pity and regret even concerning his past judgments, is troubling for some theological views, but if we take the Bible seriously, it is hard to deny” (pg. 86).

I may agree this seems to be a problem if one embraces [classical theism], but it is not a problem if one embraces middle knowledge or even open theism.[1] Whether the Hays duo are Open Theists I do not know (though much of their argumentation hints that this may be the case). I believe a robust understanding of God’s middle knowledge makes sense of the passages alluding to God’s changing of mind. Also, even if one is a theological determinist there are certain exegetical tools at one’s disposal to explain how an unchanging God might seem to “change his mind.”

Of course, it is ridiculous to say conservatism proceeds as if God were dead. Conservatism proceeds as if God were actively conforming us and others to his good, pleasing and perfect will (Romans 12).

There are many literary devices one might use to explain God’s interaction with humanity over time. For instance, when Jonah finally agrees to preach to Ninevah and the people repent God relents of his promised destruction. The question: did God really change his mind; it seems as if he did.

But the lesson of Jonah is that God is perfectly consistent. He will relent from deserving punishment if repentance occurs regardless of who the people are and how we feel about them (Jonah 4:2). God WOULD have destroyed Ninevah had they not repented but he relented because they repented. Since God knows all things then he knew they would repent but for them to repent they must hear of God’s impending judgement, thus, God sends Jonah. Does this point to fickleness on God’s part or a change of heart or character? No, exactly the opposite. God knows how we will respond based on his foreknowledge of our decisions and he knows how he would have responded if we had done otherwise.

But no such robust discussion on God’s character occurs in this book. The underlying assumption of the book is that human sexuality is as innate as race and thus “sexual minorities” are just as relevant to the expanding of God’s inclusion as the inclusion of Samaritans and gentiles:

[Block quote] “A reader working through the whole book of Isaiah has heard earlier that ‘[The LORD] will assemble the outcasts of Israel’ (11:12). Now, God is going to gather more – not just the outcasts of Israel, but other nations as well. God is going to enlarge the tent. Those who were once forcibly excluded from it are now meant to be ushered in” (pg.105).

“It bears repeating: Scripture reflects that God’s grace and mercy towards the whole world was always broader than one might expect. It also says that God may change his mind and his approaches to the world to broaden it further. So, faithfulness to God means sometimes doing the same” (pg. 108).

“A constant theme of these stories is that Jesus does not reject Israel’s scriptures; instead, like the prophets before him, he insists on reinterpreting them in light of the conviction that love and mercy lie at the root of God’s purposes . . . Here we should pause to reflect: Should this contrast of perspectives inform the church’s present conflicts over sexuality?” (pg. 151).

The theological gymnastics employed to reach these conclusions throughout the book are phenomenal. At one point they state that human sexuality has become a Romans 14 issue:

“The ‘strong’ ones today are the liberated advocates of unconditional affirmation of same-sex unions; they are tempted to ‘despise’ the ‘weak,’ narrow-minded, rule-following conservatives who would impose limits on their freedom. And the ‘weak’ ones today are the devout, strict followers of what they understand to be God’s law given in scripture; they are tempted to ‘pass judgment’ on the sinful laxity of the ‘strong’ who condone same-sex unions” (pg. 200).

What is their basis for this? Well, it is their reading of the “stories of scripture” through the lens of emotional harm rather than fleshly and spiritual harm.

Logical Leaps in Correlation

“The stories we’ve summarized in the foregoing chapters disclose a deeper logic, a narrative pattern in which God’s grace and mercy regularly overflow the prohibitions and restrictions that exclude and condemn fixed classes of human beings – even when those prohibitions were explicitly attributed to God in earlier biblical texts” (pg. 207).

One of the most damaging aspects of the book are logical leaps made without argument. The Hays duo consistently make claims of harm without defining what it means to harm someone with theology and how affirming uncomfortable or upsetting truth could be harmful even if upsetting.

“To say it one more time, our vision is this: The biblical narratives throughout the Old Testament and the New trace a trajectory of mercy that leads us to welcome sexual minorities no longer as ‘strangers and aliens’ but as “fellow citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God.’ Full stop” (pg. 207).

But this trajectory of mercy does not include affirmation of sinful behaviors in any sense. There is no acceptance of the worship of idols, there is no acceptance of fornication, of theft, of bearing false witness or greed. In fact, where mercy is extended in scripture, by Jesus or otherwise, with it comes an expectation of life change and repentance. From the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8) to the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) there is not a single example of God’s mercy widening so far as to include explicitly listed sins against God such as sexual immorality, something that Richard Hays even indicates is still considered sin if one simply reads scripture for what it says:

“It is relatively clear that these texts view homosexual sex negatively, even if they do not envisage covenanted same-sex partnerships as we know them today” (pg. 206).

The idea that Christians overcame slavery despite its supposed affirmation in scripture is leaned on as proof in the book as well:

“We could fill a whole book with discussion of such examples, but the general point is clear: Christians across time have found the Spirit-led freedom to set aside biblical laws and teachings they deem unjust, irrelevant, or inconsistent with the broader divine will. It is not hard to see how the prohibition of same-sex relations could fall into the same category” (pg. 212-213).

But even if that were the case, this is not a story of the broadening of mercy but of the restricting of behavior based on a better understanding of God’s ultimately revealed character in the scriptures and the Imago Dei held by each human through exegesis. Time and again the same leaps in reasoning are used to justify the newly held position.

God opening up worship to Eunuchs – embracing “sexual minorities”

God including gentiles in the promise – embracing “sexual minorities”

God embracing Samaritans in the covenantal promise of Christ – embracing “sexual minorities”

On this last example they do not go into detail on John 4 when Jesus does open up the plan of inclusion to Samaria but at the same time tells the woman at the well that the Samaritans are wrong, that she is in sin, and that future worshipers will worship in spirit and TRUTH.

[Block quote] “There is a powerful analogy, a metaphorical correspondence, between the embrace of LGBTQ people and God’s previously unexpected embrace of foreigners, eunuchs, “tax collectors and sinners,” gentiles, and people with conflicting convictions about food laws and calendrical observances” (pg 214).

But the issue with the above quote is that being a foreigner and eunuch is not inherently sinful and that God does not embrace “tax collectors and sinners” without changing them. Zacchaeus changes his lifestyle (Luke 19), so does the woman caught in adultery. The embrace of mercy is not without the expectation of shedding the shackles of sin even if it is a sin that we hold closely within our own constructed identity. It seems the Hays men confuse conversion with sanctification.

Unnecessary Political digs at conservatives throughout

A more minor issue with the book is the random and sudden inclusion of progressive political stances strewn throughout. Gun control, immigration and other politically conservative positions receive unnecessary blows as the arguments are made:

“These deaths, he says (Garry Wills) are an ‘offering, out of devotion to our Moloch, our god. The gun is our Moloch. We sacrifice children to him daily.’ Most people are capable of understanding the statistics about gun deaths, and the many things we could do to reduce them, but alas, they are sure that the Second Amendment means free access to all sorts of firearms. When we grit our teeth in the face of the death of children, we sacrifice them to false gods” (pg. 67).

Perhaps the above quote might be correct even if I disagree, but it is either tone-deaf, disingenuous, or both to include something about Moloch and guns without touching on abortion even once. This would be enough to make one think that perhaps this is simply an ideological work rather than a theological one. This is just one example.

There is no limiting principle

The final issue I want to highlight with this book is that even if the argument worked for same-sex relationships it does not seem that Richard and Christopher are content to stop there. They seem to employ a sort of Motte and Bailey technique of argumentation as they argue for same-sex unions specifically on occasions but then incorporate the entire gambit of sexual ideology (LGBTQ) throughout the book as well.

“Does Luke’s account of the Jerusalem Council offer a model for how the church today might address controversial issues concerning inclusion of sexual minorities?… If the church today looks to the council as a pattern – and if it decides that same-sex unions are no longer to be automatically classified as ‘porneia’ – we would need to ask what analogous transformative guidance the church would offer to its members of differing sexual orientations. . .  One reasonable suggestion is that same-sex relationships should aspire to the same standard of monogamous covenant fidelity that the church has long commended and prescribed for heterosexual marriage. And, at the same time, the church should be no less careful to uphold the same standard consistently for its members of heterosexual orientation” (pgs. 186-87).

To argue simply for same-sex inclusion might be one thing (though, I still believe their argument fails). But it seems they have their sights set not simply on this but on the entire progressive sexuality gambit. The constant use of terms like sexual minorities and LGBTQ leaves no guard rails to sexual behavior. Would pedophilia be off limits? Bestiality? Incest? One is left to wonder. Exactly how far does God’s mercy widen in this arena?

“As for the rest of us, when it comes to respecting other people, it’s not plausible to hold our nose at something as important as who people love most and still present ourselves as their friend, or their ‘brother (or sister) in Christ.’ Most people are not interested in that kind of grudging acceptance” (pg. 11, emphasis mine).

Would Richard and Christopher Hays really say it is never plausible to do this? If that is the case, then I suppose we must be open to polyamory, pedophilia and more? After all, who are we to “hold our nose at something as important as who people love most and present ourselves as their friend?” There is no limiting principle offered throughout the book. Only, the continuous and seemingly never-ending widening of God’s mercy in acceptance of previously outlined sin so long as the sin can be seen as an identity marker for a minority group.

“We believe that welcoming people of different sexualities is an act of faithfulness to God’s merciful purposes. Let’s not make God’s offer of grace a lie” (pg. 220-21, emphasis mine).

Conservative Christians would agree with the above statement, but Hays and Hays intimate that welcoming equals affirming. Of course, God’s grace is not a lie. Of course, it extends to all people regardless of their sexual past or their proclivities, but it does not follow then that these sexual sins are not sins and it does not follow that they are worthy of full acceptance and affirmation. Finally, what exactly is meant by “different sexualities”? This is not simply a call for including homosexual “marriage” but opens the door to a wide variety of sexual aberrations. Where does it end?

Conclusion

As the authors say:

“This book is therefore not just an argument about the meaning of the Bible in the past, but an invitation to readers to make new meaning in the present by listening to the Spirit and joining God now in saying, ‘I will gather others to them/besides those already gathered’ (Isa 56:8)” (pg. 221).

Clearly, this book is not about what the Bible means but simply what Christopher and Richard Hays believe God’s character SHOULD be based on their own experiences and feelings:

“The more we have listened to friends, to our fellow Christians, and to respected voices in the culture more broadly, the more we have been compelled to recognize a tidal wave of evidence that same-sex attraction and partnering is, for some people, hardwired into their identity. And, at the same time, we recognize that the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit are abundantly present among our LGBTQ friends. That being so, we find ourselves compelled to say, along with Peter, ‘Who are we that we can block God’ (pg. 213-14).

Because they have been influenced by people whom they love, who live sexually impure lifestyles, they seem to embrace the conclusion they desire and read the scripture through that. There is a reason exegesis is ignored in this book because, to come to the conclusion they desired, they could not practice it. Instead, they practice eisegetical approaches to narratives throughout scripture.

This book fails in academics, fails in rhetoric, and fails in discipleship. It is a net negative for the church and while the arguments should be understood, the book as a whole should be rejected as it is unreasonable, unbiblical, and illogical. I give this book a 4 out of 10.

References: 

[1] Editor’s Note: The author said, “theological determinism” here. But, the deeper more robust contrast here is with Classical Theism as that (traditionally understood) contrasts with both (1) Molinism and middle knowledge as well as (2) Open Theism. Classical theists can vary in how they relate to the doctrine of “theological determinism,” though they all agree that God foreordains everything in some sense, even if they can disagree about whether that is “compatible” with human free will.

Recommended Resources: 

Does Love and Tolerance Equal Affirmation? (DVD) (Mp4)  by Dr. Frank Turek

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) Book, DVD Set, Mp4 Download by Frank Turek

4 P’s & 4 Q’s: Quick Case FOR Natural Marriage & AGAINST Same-Sex Marriage (DVD) by Dr. Frank Turek

 


Josh Klein is a Pastor from Omaha, Nebraska with over a decade of ministry experience. He graduated with an MDiv from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his spare time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married for 12 years to Sharalee Klein and they have three young children.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3YTS3zM