Theology and Christian Apologetics Archives | CrossExamined.org

Is Hell An Eternal Restraining Order?

Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

Making sense of the existence of a place like Hell is a common struggle for the Christian apologist. Almost immediately, we are placed on the defensive, being asked to justify how a “loving” God could condemn any of his creation to a place of constant, and eternal, torment. I’ve often heard the challenge brought like this: “Isn’t God’s love for us like that of a parent? Can you imagine any loving parent ever wishing, or wanting, such extreme punishment for their own child?”

The answer, of course, is no. No parent would delight in tormenting his children. And neither does God. But just as human parents must sometimes resort to court orders to keep their children away, so too does God employ the equivalent of an eternal “restraining order.” Though not intended this way by the atheist, the analogy to parental love actually works against the challenger’s case, because it makes clear the need for enforced separation to be imposed even in the context of what was originally intended as a loving relationship.

Sometimes Children Victimize Their Parents

Everyday throughout this country, there are parents who are being victimized by their children. In many cases, the children want something that the parent is not able, or willing, to give. Often, the abuse consists of verbal or physical assaults or of some form of theft, and many times the problem is fueled by an underlying drug or alcohol addiction. In many such cases, the abused parents seek assistance from the police and the courts to have their offspring restrained from contacting them. For most, this final step is heartbreaking, but it is often the last resort, the only means by which the parent can safeguard his or her wellbeing. In some, more extreme, cases, the parent’s testimony in court might contribute to a criminal conviction which will land the son or daughter in prison, sometimes for life. The point is simple enough: love has its limits, and there comes a time when separation from an abuser is the only path that is left.

“The point is simple enough: love has its limits, and there comes a time when separation from an abuser is the only path that is left.”

If this causes the offspring pain, that pain is not “intended” by the parent; it is, instead, an unavoidable consequence of the path set in motion by the offender.

How Does This Analogy Apply to God?

Applying this analogy to an eternal setting has its drawbacks. God, of course, cannot be victimized. He has no fear of us, and no need to incarcerate us in order to protect himself. But does he not have the same right to association that we do? When a person uses his or her free will to rebel against God, God is not required to ignore that rebellion. Indeed, if God truly is a perfect being, embodying perfect justice, he could not simply ignore it and remain true to his nature. For God to maintain perfect justice, he must attach an appropriate consequence to violations of his law. On earth, that justice often involves incarcerating the wrongdoer, to both punish the offender and to minimize his ability to continue to use his free will to harm others. Similarly, God makes use of his power to separate those who refuse to accept the gift of life that he offers, an offer, it bears noting, he makes on his terms only

Consider Eternity

For those who have died in rebellion, no further chance is offered them. Eternally “restrained” from fellowship with God, they experience eternity aware of all that they have lost. Consider for a moment what eternal separation from God must be like. Despite the effort by so many to pile up money and toys and success in this world, these things do not make life rich or fulfilling. All the riches and success in the world would mean nothing if a person were utterly alone. No, such things are simply means to an end, an end which always involves relationship with others. That is why solitary confinement is so destructive to the human mind and spirit. In the end, it is human companionship – rich and meaningful relationships – that brings joy in life. Conversely, the loss of such attachments often lead to depression, alcohol and drug use to blunt the pain, and in some cases suicide.

Every relationship on earth, however satisfying, necessarily involves a flawed human being that is not capable of bringing limitless joy. Additionally, while we still draw breath, the possibility of adding new relationships continues. What happens to us, however, at death? What do we encounter when we see more clearly, for the first time, the One who created us, the source of all life, the Being who embodies all perfections? Every person on earth is but a mere shadow of this ultimate Being. When we begin to consider the joy we feel when deeply in love, or conversely the agony brought on by the loss of a loved one, and multiply that experience not by millions or billions, but by infinity itself, we may begin to see why human writers, even divinely inspired ones, cannot quite grasp the horror of the thought. A lake of fire would seem tame by contrast.

But this place of suffering is internal, self-centered, self-focused. An eternity of caring only about oneself, apart and alone and without hope of reunification with the source of joy and love. It is not a place where God inflicts torture, but rather one in which infinite torment awaits on the far side of the abyss. God derives no pleasure when he acts to restrain an unrepentant sinner. Indeed, he provides an alternative – a means of salvation – to all.

For those who refuse His gift, they will have only themselves – literally, and eternally – to blame.

What is Divine Omnipresence?

2. Does God Exist?, Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

The term omnipresence describes the all-presence of God. Omnipresence is a compound word comprised of the word “omni”, meaning “all,” and “presence” which defines a person or being’s location. Thus, “omnipresence” speaks of God’s all-present nature. This means that spatial locations do not limit God. Existing as a transcendent being, God is present in all places at all times. Let’s take a brief look at how omnipresence impacts our understanding of God.

Divine Omnipresence Implies God Is Not Limited by the Physical Realm

First, God’s omnipresent nature implicates that the physical realm does not limit God’s presence. Contrary to popular opinion, God is not limited by the physical sphere. Thomas Aquinas argues that in addition to God’s omnipresent nature, God is the only Being in all existence that exists as pure act.[1] That means everything else, including the laws of nature, are potentialities. God is pure existence.

We will return to the distinction between God’s presence and the physical realm in a moment. But for now, one should understand as the psalmist extolled in his rhetorical question, inquiring, “Where can I go to escape your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence?” (Psa. 139:7, CSB). David continues by saying, “If I live at the eastern horizon or settle at the western limits, even there your hand will lead me; your right hand will hold on to me” (Psa. 139:10, CSB). David teaches that God’s presence is everywhere, at all times and places. Even though the universe is estimated to be some 250 times bigger than what is observed, God is not limited by even the incomprehensible expanse of the universe.

This even impacts dimensional thinking. Physicists claim that the physical universe contains at least 11 dimensions and could escalate to amazingly 28 dimensional realms. If true, this would mean that God would exist in all dimensions and even one beyond. Omnipresence also indicates omnidimensionality.[2] Hugh Ross explains,

“Whoever caused the universe, then, must possess at least one more time dimension (or some attribute, capacity, super-dimension, or supra-dimension that encompasses all the properties of time). To put it another way, God is able to interact with us in ways we interpret (through our time-bound experience of cause and effect) as the result of timelike capacities in the person or essence of God or the existence of other timelike dimensions or properties through which God operates.”[3]

Divine Omnipresence Implies God Is Not Limited by the Spiritual Realm

Second, divine omnipresence also indicates that God is not limited by the spiritual domain. Romans 8:35 says,

“Who can separate us from the love of Christ? Can affliction or distress or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? . . . No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:35, 37–39′; CSB).

Notice that the text states that no angelic or spiritual being could separate a believer from God’s love. Neither death nor life could separate a person from God’s incomparable love. But how is this possible? God’s love is inseparable when the tremendous ability of God to transcend the scope of time, space, and the spiritual domains of heaven and hell is understood. Not even the spiritual domain can separate us from the benevolent, loving presence of God Almighty.

Divine Omnipresence Implies The Special Nature of God’s Essence

Third, God’s omnipresent essence does not indicate that everything in nature is God. Thus, omnipresence does not teach a pantheistic notion of God—that is, the idea that all things are in some way divine. Aquinas contends that “God is in all things by His power” by his presence and essence. [4] In other words, all things are held together by the omnipresent power of God. However, Aquinas distinguishes between God’s essence and the essence of the thing itself.[5] Though the creation is held together by God’s presence and power, that does not indicate that the material thing becomes God. God’s presence is distinct from the physical and spiritual domain.

Divine Omnipresence Implies That God Alone Possesses Omnipresence

Fourth, nothing and no one can possess the omnipresent attribute that God possesses. Aquinas asserts, “To be everywhere primarily and absolutely, is proper to God … But a thing is everywhere absolutely when it does not belong to it to be everywhere accidentally … It belongs therefore to a thing to be everywhere absolutely when, on any supposition, it must be everywhere; and this properly belongs to God alone.”[6] Aquinas goes on to eloquently state, “Therefore to be everywhere primarily and absolutely, belongs to God, and is proper to Him: because whatever number of places be supposed to exist, God must be in all of them, not as to a part of Him, but as to His very self.”[7] Therefore, the claim that people can be God is sheer insanity when considering that people are spatially confined to a singular spatial location. Only God could possess the attribute of omnipresence. No angel or demon, and not even Satan himself, could possess the awesome power of omnipresence. God and God alone is the Omnipresent Being.

Divine Omnipresence Implies That God Is The Perfect Judge

God’s benevolent and just judgment serves as a powerful aspect of God’s omnipresent nature. Since God is always present in every place, that indicates that God sees all that happens in every place at every point in time. Just the sheer immensity of such a task overwhelms my feeble mind.

Understand that this is not just mere philosophical conjecture. The statement is found securely in the context of Scripture. For instance, Solomon conveys that the “eyes of the Lord are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good” (Prov. 15:3, NIV). Because of God’s omnipresent vision, God is able to issue just and fair judgment as God knows all the circumstances of an event while even understanding the internal thought processes of each person involved.

God’s omnipresent judgment should cause a believer to pause before judging their neighbor. Paul asks, “why do you judge your brother or sister? Or you, why do you despise your brother or sister? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God” (Rom. 14:10; CSB). James, agreeing with Paul, writes, “There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?” (James. 4:12, CSB).

Conclusion

God’s omnipresent nature is truly awe-inspiring. God’s omnipresent nature ensures that God can help us at any point in our lives and in any place. It assures that God can be with our friends and families even when we are physically separated from them by hundreds of miles. God’s omnipresent nature also guarantees that nothing can separate us from God’s loving presence, not even death. With a firm grasp of God’s omnipresent nature, we should be led to live our lives with courage and faith rather than fear and doubt. If we have a personal relationship with God, then we are never alone.

Footnotes

[1] Aquinas, Summa Theologica 1.q8.a4.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica 1.q8.a3.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Hugh Ross, Beyond the Cosmos: What Recent Discoveries in Astrophysics Reveal about the Glory and Love of God (Colorado Springs, Colo.: NavPress, 1999), 33–34.

[6] “First, because it was shown above that there is some first being, whom we call God; and that this first being must be pure act, without the admixture of any potentiality, for the reason that, absolutely, potentiality is posterior to act. Now everything which is in any way changed, is in some way in potentiality. Hence it is evident that it is impossible for God to be in any way changeable.” Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I.q9.a1, in A Summa of the Summa: The Essential Philosophical Passages of St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, ed. Peter Kreeft (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990), 105.

[7] That is, God is not limited by any dimension.

Can Moral Guilt Feelings Ever Be Objective?

Atheism, Culture CrossExamined, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bobby Conway

The feeling of moral guilt is a universal experience – that inward gnaw or inner ouch that we have done something wrong. It is that feeling a line has been crossed, a law has been broken, which leaves one wondering if we are genuinely guilty. But are these feelings just that—feelings? A mere subjective experience? A cognitive disrupt? A snafu?

**Are Guilt Feelings only Guilt Feelings?**

Well, that depends. A person can feel guilty and not be guilty, i.e., pseudo guilt, while a person can also be guilty and not feel guilty. This may be the result of an anesthetized conscience, one’s moral ignorance, some level of psychopathy, or whatever the case may be. In the event we feel guilty, how can we know if our feelings are objective? The answer is surprisingly simple. We should look for a corresponding link between our feelings of guilt and our moral actions. For example, if Steve feels guilty for robbing a local bank that he never did, then he’s not experiencing objective guilt, but from a bad case of pseudo guilt. However, if Steve feels guilty for robbing a bank because he did, then his feelings of guilt are objective in that his feelings correspond to reality. In other words, there’s a corresponding link. An objective match. The reason Steve feels guilty is because he is guilty.

Unfortunately, some people wrongly relegate our feelings to the subjective department, while claiming only reason is objectively dependable. That’s not only wrong. It’s naïve, really naïve.

Just as our reason can provide logically informative thoughts that are either true or false, objective, or subjective, so to our feelings can provide emotionally informative thoughts that are also either true or false, objective, or subjective. Therefore, it’s patently false to assume all our feelings are subjective and can’t provide objective intel. Just as it’s patently false to assume that our reason provides only true thoughts and is always objective.

It’s patently false to assume all our feelings are subjective and can’t provide objective intel. Just as it’s patently false to assume that our reason provides only true thoughts and is always objective.

Feelings Aren’t All Bad

While our feelings certainly can mislead us, they also have the capacity to capture our attention and rightfully so. And this is especially true relating to feelings of guilt. From the Christian worldview perspective, our feelings of guilt are God’s way of grabbing our attention. Like a check engine light, these feelings are meant to alert us to the objective fact that we have failed to make good on our moral obligations. That we have offended our Moral Lawgiver. That we have fractured our relationship with him and need moral repair. But fortunately, God has not left us without a remedy. There’s a way to unload our guilt. And that way is through Christ. Via his atonement, believers can both acknowledge their moral trespass and ask for forgiveness and subsequently experience both forgiveness for their objectively morally guilty action, while also expecting to have their feelings of guilt soothed on account of Christ’s atoning love and grace.

Five Reasons Why 30% of Students Aren’t Dropping Out of Church

Apologetics for Parents, Culture CrossExamined, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Jason Jimenez

As American culture grows increasingly more secular, churches are no longer carrying the kind of authority and influence they once had. Church is no longer a top priority for the bulk of young Americans, and a growing number of Christians don’t see the need to put down roots in a church.

However, it may surprise you that there’s still a dedicated population of young people who say church is a top priority, and that faith is the single-most important thing in their lives. This is promising—and is something we should get excited about.

So, instead of another report about the horrible and depressing findings about Millennials (Gen Y) and Plurals (Gen Z)—I thought it important to share with you five encouraging findings that explains why 30% of young Christians remain committed to church.

Reason Number One: They Have Personal Relationship with Jesus

Most young people who were raised in the church, either never made a genuine profession of faith, or were never discipled by adult Christians. However, this 30% of active Christians in the church have a bona fide relationship with Jesus. To this group, Christianity is a relationship, not a religion. They didn’t just go to church because their parents did. They keep going to church because they desire to grow in their faith with other like-minded Christians.

Reason Number Two: They Desire to Learn the Bible

These young Christians have a big appetite to learn what they believe and to do what the Bible says to do. A great verse that speaks to this is James 1:22, which reads, “Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says” (NIV). This group of young people is not looking to be deceived, but rather perceive the will of the Lord for their lives. And they know the Bible has the answers they can trust.

Reason Number Three: They were Raised by Parents Who Value Church

As a pastor, and a father of four, my wife and I have seen firsthand the impact the church has had in our children’s lives. When parents make church a priority, it instills in their children to never give it up. For these young Christians, church has not just been a great resource, but a place they call home. For them, church is a place they have come to trust and rely on to speak truth into their lives, and help them develop their spiritual gifts. So, kudos to you, mom and dad, for teaching your kids the importance of church!

Reason Number Four: They Have Community In Their Church

The relational aspect of a young person’s faith is huge! Meaningful relationships are a vital part of the success and well-being of young people. Without community, young people are prone to stray from the faith, and get caught up in all sorts of things they will later regret. Thus, one thing we have found with this 30% of churchgoers is their loyalty and accountability to strong community.

Reason Number Five: They Love to Serve

The final contributing factor we’ve discovered that keeps this group engaged in the church is a sense of mission. Serving others at church gives purpose to young people and brings a sense of fulfillment in their lives. I remember one student telling me at one of our Summit sessions that serving others at church helps her draw closer to Christ. I couldn’t agree more!

So, parents, take heart in knowing that there is a remnant of young Christians serving faithfully in their churches; and may we join together in praying that God will use them to reach their generation with the gospel of Jesus Christ!

What Does it Mean to be Unequally Yoked?

Apologetics for Parents, Culture CrossExamined, Theology and Christian Apologetics

Many people see “unequally yoked” in a Bible verse or hear it in conversation and seem to have one of two thoughts come into their mind: (1) Make sure I’m equally yoked with my spouse, or (2) Why does Paul care about anyone’s egg yolks, much less them being equal?

As important as getting good protein matters, this verse definitely doesn’t have anything to do with poultry. And some are surprised to learn that it’s not limited to marriage. I want to help break this down more.

What is a Yoke Anyways?

A yoke is a wooden beam that connects two large animals, like oxen, and helps them work equally and together. They carry the burden of work together. It would be attached to a plow or cart, and they’d pull it simultaneously as partners. Basically, they’re teamed up together. So with that in mind, let’s read the scripture:

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with the devil? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.”
2 Corinthians 6: 14-18 (ESV)

With the description of being “yoked” together, picture the image of the oxen yoked together, and imagine that they’re uneven, that one ox is yoked improperly, and it’s off balance. This causes the cart to go uneven, and the oxen cannot work together. This causes them to go around in circles or stop altogether. I also envision a three-legged race where people have their legs tied together, and they have to work together to get to the finish line, but one person either refuses to move, or they were tied incorrectly, and they can’t work together because of it. One person is just dragging the other like a bag of rocks, trying to progress but can’t.

What is the Context?

As with any passage of Scripture, it’s helpful to know who’s writing, why he’s writing, and whom he’s writing to. Paul is writing this letter to the Corinthian church to defend his authority and denounce people who were twisting truth. There always seemed to be moral issues within the church, and in both letters to the Corinthians, Paul addresses this. In chapter 6, Paul just got done addressing the Corinthian’s belief that Paul “restricts” them.

Paul loved the Corinthians, and he wanted them to know that. In chapter 6 verses 11-13, He says that they feel hurt by him and restricted, but he’s saying, no, I’m not restricting you. He’s saying that they’re restricting themselves, ironically, through their affection to the world and pride within themselves.

This is so familiar, isn’t it? We see this today, too, where people think it’s “unloving” or “judgmental” to even talk about moral restrictions.

With that as a backdrop to the verses about being unequally yoked, we can better understand why Paul would use that as an example. Paul is speaking to the overly broad affections of the Corinthian Christians. They had joined themselves —yoked themselves— to unbelievers, preventing their reconciliation with Paul. Paul is saying not to yoke together in this way because it causes damage to their relationship with God and other believers. The idea of “do not be unequally yoked together” is based on Deuteronomy 22:9, which prohibits yoking together two different animals. It’s talking about joining two things that should not be joined. Like ketchup on ice cream. Or using turpenoid with acrylic paint.

Or like pineapple on pizza. (Fight me.)

Many people use this passage when talking about marrying an unbeliever, which is true, but Paul is talking about much more than just that. It really applies to any environment where we let the world influence our thinking to the point that we compromise our beliefs or syncretize with theirs. In other words, it’s “conforming to the world,” as it says in Romans 12:2.

“Unequally yoked” refers to any environment where we let the world influence our thinking to the point that we compromise our beliefs or syncretize with theirs.

On the other side, some people use this verse to say we should never even be around or have anything to do with people with different beliefs than we do, and that’s just demonstrably false. Jesus didn’t even do this. What Paul is not saying is that we should never associate with unbelievers. The idea is to be in the world but not of the world. We’re not meant to be theological hermits in our religious echo chambers, only associating with people that agree with us. This isn’t biblical and doesn’t follow the biblical command to make disciples in Matthew 28 or to know what we believe and why we believe it, as it says in 1 Peter 3:15. We hide our light under a bush, and Jesus says not to do that, we need to let it shine. This doesn’t mean that if we have a weak conscience or struggle with being impressionable or people pleasers, we need to put ourselves in spiritually dangerous positions. We each need to discern our sensitivities and be wise about them. But that doesn’t mean we need to treat unbelievers with contempt or develop a superiority complex within ourselves by using this verse as an excuse to never associate with people of a different viewpoint or beat Christians over the head if they’re kind or friendly with unbelievers.

That’s simply unbiblical and frankly pretty unhealthy, in my opinion.

I mean, here we are speaking about yokes… some people place an impossible yoke on others, placing a burden that Jesus came to relieve. They use this passage in an extreme way, as a weapon, almost against their fellow brethren. There is no pleasing them. They completely miss the point of the passage.

But isn’t it more loving to share their yoke?

The difference here has a lot to do with boundaries. The Corinthian Christians thought, much like people do today, that it’s “loving” to accept people’s sin along with righteousness, darkness along with light, the devil along with Christ. When Paul says not to be unequally yoked, I’d like to think of it as the first-century version of the coexist or tolerance sticker. Don’t be a coexist sticker. You can’t just add the love of God without renouncing evil.

The best example of the context of what Paul is saying here is to look at the behavior of the Corinthians and see that he’s saying that they thought like worldly people, not like godly people. Because of their unhealthy ungodly associations, it caused them to stumble and sin. Paul is correcting this and trying to reconcile with them.

To be yoked together with someone means that you are in a compromising partnership with them, and you’re compromising your beliefs to do it. It’s a type of syncretism. This is mixing the Christian message with the more culturally accepted beliefs around you and making a hybrid sort of Christianity that seems to work for everyone. But really, it’s for the purpose of not offending those around you. Compare this with what’s called contextualization, which is what we want to do when sharing the gospel in a culturally appropriate way with unbelievers while not sacrificing the truth of the gospel to appease the people and culture.

A Wolf in the Sheep Pen

4. Is the NT True?, Culture CrossExamined, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

The church service at our suburban Cincinnati non-denominational church had barely ended when I started receiving text messages from friends. All of them shared some version of the same question my wife and I were asking each other about the sermon we had just heard from a visiting preacher: “What in the world was that?!” The simple answer was that we had unknowingly let a wolf in the sheep pen.

The sermon was delivered by a man who on the surface was someone we could trust. He was a professor from a reputable Christian university, with master’s degrees in both Divinity and New Testament Studies and a Ph.D. in Philosophy/New Testament Exegesis. He had preached at our church on several occasions over the years. His sermons had never been notably good or bad. But this Sunday morning was different. He had more than a message to deliver.

He had an agenda.

Scripture Twisting

The visiting preacher’s message was based on Ephesians 2:11-22, a text that starts with a “therefore” connecting it to the previous passage. That means it’s sandwiched between Paul’s explanation of Christ’s person and mission at the beginning of Chapter 2, and his clarification in Chapter 3 that the Gospel is also meant for the Gentiles.

The unmistakable point of this passage is that the Law, which had excluded non-Jews, had been superseded by the grace we receive through Christ’s sacrifice. It’s about Spirit-vs-Law, grace-vs-works. It’s a call to unity wherein Paul was exhorting his readers to recognize that the Gentiles were no longer “foreigners and aliens” but are fellow members of God’s household. He was clarifying a theological point about the unifying nature of salvation and the shared solution to our human rebellion and hostility toward God.

Changing the Subject

Our guest preacher acknowledged all this in passing. But four minutes into his message, things took an insidious turn. His focus subtly shifted from the solution for man’s hostility toward God to the reality of human beings’ hostility toward one another. Suddenly, we were hearing about diversity, inclusion, “minority status,” and the human inclination for conflict.

He had changed the subject. His goal had not been to exegete the passage in question; it had been to deliver a cultural message.

Once the subtle change of subject morphed into the central point, we were treated to a lecture about a lack of diversity in the demographics of typical suburban midwestern community churches like ours. We were warned about Evangelical Christianity’s bent toward a toxic “Christian Nationalism.” These topics were lead-ins to the message he really wanted to deliver. That came when he began reading us letters he had received from his diverse list of friends in response to a query he had offered them: “What do you want white American Christians to understand about Christians like you?

The specter of division is built right into his question. And it didn’t take long for it to bear fruit.

Critiquing People They’ve Never Met

Though he later denied knowing much about Critical Race Theory (CRT) or having any intention of talking about it, the letters he read could have formed a bullet point summary of its tenets. They included the declaration that “it’s not enough for white Christians to be ‘”non-racist,” we need them to be ‘anti-racist,”’ and the demand that “we need white brothers and sisters to not only acknowledge their own racist tendencies, but to also confront and challenge the racism of family, friends, co-workers, and church folk.” We were called on to “reimagine and reinvent systems that make it more difficult for African Americans to realize the American dream.” And we were “comforted” in learning that a woman who had never met a single person in our congregation had assured us, “I do not hate you. I just pray that one day I will be able to wholeheartedly forgive you.”

It isn’t hard to imagine the damage this thirty-minute cultural hand grenade caused when it detonated inside our church. So, it pays to stop at this point and reflect on the claims and assumptions built into these serious accusations and ask how they are in any way related to the text in Ephesians 2:11-22.

They aren’t. And that’s the problem.

Eisegesis -vs- Exegesis

Our visiting preacher wasn’t exegeting the meaning of the text or drawing an application from (ex in Greek) it. He was imposing his own predetermined view into (eis in Greek) the passage. That’s called eisegesis. It’s the opposite of exegesis.

No doubt, racism is a blight on society. We all need to talk about it. But making generalized assumptions about the actions and attitudes of entire groups of people we don’t know, and segregating “white Christians” from “Christians of color,” are not good alternatives for seeing every human as being made in the image of God.

Racism was his topic of choice that day. Unfortunately, the method he used to address it is a microcosm of a trend that is metastasizing inside the church. Our congregation saw it in real-time. But the more dangerous kind of eisegesis happens slowly and insidiously.

Creeping on the Sheep

The tentacles of “wokeness” are slithering into our churches under the guise of social justice, inclusivity, tolerance, and love. But the head of the hydra is the same as it’s always been. It’s the human propensity to interpret God’s word through the lens of self.

One of the main features of our guest preacher’s sermon was the repeated exhortation to accept his point of view based on the experiences of others. Though the logical flaw in that practice is obvious – alternative experiences can make the opposite point – it turns up again and again inside the church.

Unlike the full-frontal assault our congregation faced, the more common approach is subtle. And that’s what makes it so dangerous. Alisa Childers recently exposed it stealthily baked into a wildly popular churchwide youth curriculum. It’s easier to access young minds in their formative stages when parents aren’t in the room.

When Your Guard is Down

Christian colleges are no different. Astute students expect to confront the all-too-typical atheist professor at the State University. They arrive at school with their antennae up. But some choose to avoid that kind of opposition by attending a Christian college. It seems like a safer environment. Parents and students assume the faculty and staff at a Christian school will be the type to critique the culture from a biblical point of view instead of the other way around. So, they enter with their guard down.

But the fences around Christian colleges don’t keep out bad ideas. Remember, our visiting preacher had been a professor at one for many years. How many young minds had been influenced by his eisegetical methods during that time?

Maybe those who engage these issues in these ways are doing so with pure motives. Maybe they’re simply mistaken. We can be charitable and allow that possibility. But that doesn’t mean we have to be passive when it happens. Beware the wolves in sheep’s clothing. They’re not going away. And they’re finding new ways to sneak into the sheep pen.

Would It Have Been Better If God Had Not Created Us?

2. Does God Exist?, Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

There has always been evil and suffering in the world, and how to make sense of it is a principal object of Christian apologetics. Often, the argument is made that God gave us free will, and as a result, people have the liberty to choose to do evil. But this answer does not satisfy the atheist; often, he will challenge God’s goodness, with comments such as the following:

You claim your God is omniscient. When he created the universe, he saw the sufferings which humans would endure as a result of the sin of those original humans. Surely he would have known that it would have been better for those humans to never have been born (in fact, the Bible says this very thing), and surely this all-compassionate deity would have foregone the creation of a universe destined to imperfection in which many of the humans were doomed to eternal suffering…or alternatively only create those humans who will freely choose God, and eliminate the possibility of their suffering.

This challenge has much intuitive appeal. We all rail against the suffering that each of us must face, to varying degrees, as our lives progress. We realize the fragility of our human condition, and how inhospitable this creation seems to be to flesh and blood mortals. It is frightening, indeed, to think of all the ways that our lives can be tragically altered, or ended. But does the harshness of this reality “prove” that God is not “good”?

What do you mean by “Good”?

The first step in responding to this challenge is to get a better idea of what is meant by “good.” Generally speaking, “good” is a measure of quality; how a thing or an idea measures up to a standard of performance. A “good” knife is one that appropriately performs its function, or its intended use. A “good” person is one that lives up to a standard of behavior. But how can one determine what that standard should be? For example, any time two opposing things are in conflict, whether they are teams, or armies or ideas, the quality of the outcome will necessarily be decided from the unique perspective of each of the involved parties. For instance, the American victory in World War II was a “good” outcome for Western democracy, but a decidedly “bad” outcome for those who staked their future fortunes on the Nazis. A good outcome for my favorite baseball team is when the other side loses. In short, and at the risk of sounding flippant, when it comes to conflicting worldviews or ideas, a “win” is the outcome which is good for the winner and bad for the loser.

With this basic distinction in mind, it would seem that, at least preliminarily, answering whether it was “better” to have “foregone the creation of a universe destined to imperfection in which many of the humans were doomed to eternal suffering” would depend on the person being asked. For those spending eternity in heaven with a God of infinite power, who intends to allow us to live eternally and joyfully in his presence, He certainly did the right thing in creating us and in giving us this opportunity. Infinite and eternal joy and fulfillment versus, well, oblivion – that’s not a difficult choice. By contrast, for the person suffering torment in hell, realizing that he will spend eternity aware of, but separated from, this awesome being, it will probably seem “better” that man was never created.

Who decides what’s “better?”

But let’s take it to a deeper level. How does one decide which of two sides is right in claiming that a successful conclusion according to their desires is an objectively “good” outcome. For example, the Nazis deemed victory in Europe a good outcome. Would their victory actually have made Nazi domination of Europe a “good” result? The Nazis would argue that in the period of a few short years they transformed Germany from a beleaguered nation experiencing great suffering because of the Versailles Peace Treaty to an economic powerhouse, a state marked by efficiency and great industry. They sought to expand that “efficiency” to the rest of Europe, what they would claim to be a good result. The Allies countered that their victory was not good simply because their side won. As the victors, they did not simply assert that they were right and then impose punishment on the vanquished. Instead, they tried the Nazi leaders in what is known to history as the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, the purpose of which was to establish that crimes against humanity had been committed. The underlying premise was that the “good” accomplished by the Allies was not a subjective good, i.e. we’re glad we won and you lost, but an objective good, i.e. Nazi officials were guilty of conduct that was objectively evil, and therefore justly punished. The premise of the trials was that such objective knowledge of good was available to us, and not that the might of the victor makes right. But how can this objective assessment be made, if each side can claim that “good” is what suits them? This, of course, is a frequent argument of the theist. While an atheist can be moral, he cannot ground his morality, because only the existence of a transcendent being provides the basis for judging objectively the “good” or “evil” of any conduct under consideration.

“While an atheist can be moral, he cannot ground his morality.”

Without such an objective and transcendent judge, the atheist’s conclusions are mere opinions, mere statements of likes or dislikes. By that standard, the challenger here is left saying that having people end up in hell displeases him. To conclude that allowing anyone to suffer in hell is worse than not creating at all, the atheist must appeal to a standard of good and evil, a standard of goodness. But what is that standard?

Christians can at least make sense of this standard: it is for the Creator to decide. As applied to my World War Two example, which side had objective good on its side is not difficult to determine. Granted, this does not mean that the Allies did no wrong, or where completely free of evil action. No, the law and rules applied to them as much as to the Axis powers and history shows that there were indeed transgressions by the western powers. But only an Allied victory could be deemed an objectively good outcome, one consistent with God’s desires. Contrary to Nazi philosophy, all human beings are made in God’s image and are therefore endowed with God-given rights that no government can justly take from them.

It’s for God to Decide

Returning to the question raised by the challenger, the answer is the same: it is for the Creator to decide. Given his perfect knowledge, He is in a better position to judge which is a better outcome. Indeed, challenging God in this fashion seems rather presumptuous. The Creator of this universe is obviously immensely intelligent and powerful. That we should decide what He should do in creating – how He should go about assigning a value to competing options – makes about as much sense as my dog giving me advice on careers or on moral issues. Without the proper frame of reference, a proper sense of humility should prevent us from telling God how he should have approached His creative work.

In the end, foregoing creation would not have been a “good” solution for the many individuals who responded to God’s gift and are, or will be, experiencing eternity in His presence. When you combine this with the realization that people who are separated from God are separated by their own choice and not simply chosen at random, then it would not be fair to deprive so many of such joy when those who have refused God’s gift have done so of their own volition.

Recommended Resources:

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

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

March 6, 2023/by Guest

Scientism And Secularism

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

All scientific research, discussion, and education is affected by a series of underlying beliefs that include what one grants as sources of knowledge. It is quite common in today’s culture for people to accept “scientism,” which limits sources of knowledge entirely to the sciences to the exclusion of any other claimed knowledge source or places all other sources of knowledge under the authority of the sciences.

Both of these philosophies stifle scientific discovery, places knowledge of anything outside of the natural realm beyond reach and erects seemingly impenetrable barriers in discussions about ultimate reality (including morality, beauty, and theology). This has serious implications in the sciences, education, politics, and basic everyday life. In his book “Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology” Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland aims to demonstrate the dangers of scientism, how it is (unwittingly?) accepted and exercised in culture even by Christians, and provide an alternative philosophy of knowledge that will avoid the dangers, expand humanity’s knowledge of reality in general, and move forward Christians’ internal discussions of theology and the world and give them another tool in their evangelical toolbelts as they provide “…reasons for the hope that [they] have…” (1 Peter 3:15). In this review, I’ll provide some of the key points, several important quotes, and my recommendations.

Key Points:

Strong scientism is the idea that the sciences are the only legitimate sources of knowledge about reality. Other sources of knowledge are not even entertained.
Weak scientism “allows” for other sources of knowledge but holds that science is the ultimate arbiter of truth. Thus it has forced all other knowledge disciplines to reinterpret their findings according to the science of the day. Ultimately it is strong scientism by a “less-threatening” name.
Because there is no other (ultimate) source of knowledge outside the sciences, there is no moral knowledge, historical knowledge, philosophical knowledge, or theological knowledge. This has resulted in the relativism we see in the university and culture today.
Numerous examples of non-scientifically verifiable claims and knowledge do exist.
In fact, the very claim of scientism is one such example, making scientism a self-refuting claim. Thus it is necessarily false and is actually an enemy of science (and knowledge) in the long run.
Science judges philosophy, and philosophy judges science. Depending on which claim must be established before the other can be judged.
Proper order placement of knowledge disciplines has effects on claims about the beginning of the universe, origin of life, existence of mental states, and the existence of objective morality and beauty among many others.
Scientism has stunted the debates surrounding theistic evolution and intelligent design by precluding non-scientific knowledge disciplines from the debates.
There are at least five different models for how science and theology can move forward together in their discovery of what is real and true.

Some Important Quotes:

“In order for science and certain other intellectual disciplines to be possible, we humans must be able to use our reason to go beyond our sense, reach into the world’s deep structure, and grasp, formulate, and verify the theories we form about that deep structure.”

“To the extent that scientism is embraced in our culture, our moral and spiritual claims will be ‘de-cognitivized.’ In other words, our deepest beliefs about life, knowledge, history, and reality will seem to be utterly implausible–not just untrue, but unworthy of rational consideration.”

“These days, if an accepted scientific claim comes into conflict with an accepted nonscientific claim from another discipline (such as theology), which claim must be set aside? In our culture, the scientific claim always wins. Why? Simply because it is scientific. Scientism seems so obvious and pervasive to people that it can be stated without any need to defend it. Appealing to science to back one’s claim is a conversation stopper that settles the issue.”

“The first problem with weak (and strong) scientism is that it diminishes the intellectual authority of other important fields, especially biblical studies and theology.”

“Advocates of weak scientism are confused about the relative cognitive strength of an assumption and a claim that is based on that assumption. Weak scientism believes that a claim based on an assumption has greater warrant than the strength of the assumption itself. In reality, though, the claim is only as good as the assumption upon which it rests. And because the assumptions are not scientific assumptions, but rather philosophical assumptions, philosophy has a kind of primacy over science. Therefore, weak scientism’s claim that science always take precedence over other disciplines is false.”

“…a culture, which has a set of background assumptions–or, a plausibility structure–sets a framework for what people think, which affects how that they are willing to listen, evaluate, feel, and behave. The framework shapes what people consider plausible or implausible.”

“Often, in order to get people to hear the gospel, we have to address solely a person’s private, felt needs and promise that Jesus will change their lives and help them. There’s nothing wrong with this as long as it is rooted in the deeper claim that Christianity is true, is based on solid evidence, and can be known to be true. But scientism has forced the church to offer the gospel simply because it works rather than because it is true and can be known to be such.”

“Classically, freedom meant the power to do what one ought to do…Contemporary freedom has come to be understood as the right to do whatever one wants to do…By undermining moral knowledge, scientism has provided the context for the contemporary view of freedom and, consequently, it has led to moral chaos.”

“It is not enough just to know Scripture; as Christians, we must also understand the systems of thought, practice, and value in our culture that are worldly, and be able to make this clear to fellow Christians and explain how to refute those ungodly systems using both biblical and nonbiblical evidence (cf. 2 Cor. 10:3-5).”

“Christians must be taught not only what they believe but why they ought to believe it. This will especially involves exposing and undermining scientism, and dealing with issues relating to science and the Bible.”

“The very concept of ‘faith’ has been redefined and has now replaced reason. Today, faith is choosing to believe something in the absence of evidence or reasons for the choice. Faith used to mean a confidence or trust based on what one knows. Given the current definition, ubiquitous throughout the church, we Christians have unintentionally played right into the hands of advocates of scientism. By thinking of faith in this way, we are tacitly implying that we believe in the tenets of Christianity without any evidence or reasons at all.”

Recommendations

The first recommendation I will give is for any Christian involved in scientific research, education, and/or discussions(whether it is internal with other Christians or external in apologetic and evangelistic efforts). Moreland shows not only how we may be allowing some version of scientism to limit our own knowledge, but he also shows how we can identify that it may be limiting others and ways in which we may be able to make others aware so they overcome that foundational barrier and be able to move conversations (and discovery) forward.
My second recommendation is for Christians involved in discussions of morality and politics. Scientism has been a primary driving force for the moral relativism, thus the reliance in politics on who has the most power. As you learn more about scientism and how it came to be the dominant philosophy in culture, you will see how to address moral and political issues at a more foundational and wider reaching level.
My third recommendation is for a more focused audience of my first: those who are involved (either in research, education, or discussion) of origins from a Christian perspective. I often hear Christians claim that we cannot allow our philosophy or theology to interfere with our science. Unfortunately, that is a direct application of weak scientism that needs to be removed from our thinking. This book help you understand how even weak scientism fails and should be abandoned in our discussions of origins.
Finally, a general recommendation for all Christians. As we proclaim (and often defend) the truth of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, scientism (even the weak version) can get in the way of people accepting this historical fact- no matter the strength of the case for the resurrection of Jesus as the best possible explanation, a philosophy of scientism will preclude the person from accepting even the possibility of a supernatural miracle. It is important that we understand where these people are coming from and how to show the inadequacies of such a philosophy.

Are There Colossal Contradictions in the Gospels? A Reply to Rabbi Tovia Singer

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

By Jonathan McLatchie

Rabbi Tovia Singer is an orthodox Jewish rabbi and the founder and director of Outreach Judaism. He is widely known for his counter-missionary polemics and his criticism of the New Testament presentation of Jesus as the Hebrew Messiah (see his two volume set, Let’s Get Biblical: Why doesn’t Judaism accept the Christian Messiah? [i]). In a recent series of videos published on Rabbi Singer’s YouTube channel, he responds to remarks made by Professor R.L. Solberg following their recent debate in Nashville, Tennessee on whether Jesus is the promised Hebrew Messiah. In this and subsequent articles, I want to address some of the claims made by Rabbi Singer in this series of videos that I hold to be in error. In this article, I will address the most recent video in this series, which is provocatively titled, “Colossal contradictions in the Gospels!” In this video, Singer advances two supposed instances of contradiction between the gospel accounts, one relating to the timing of Jesus’ passion, and the other relating to the resurrection. Let us address both in turn.

On What Day Was Jesus Crucified?

In the video, Tovia argues that John has Jesus crucified on the eve of Passover, contrary to the synoptic gospels that have Jesus crucified on the first day of Passover. The motivation for this redaction on John’s part supposedly is that John wanted to have Jesus crucified on the eve of Passover, when the Paschal lambs were being slaughtered, since Jesus is thought by John to be the fulfilment of the imagery associated with the Passover lamb.

Rabbi Singer reads John 19:14 as indicating that it was the day of preparation for Passover. However, this is not a necessary translation of the genitive word for Passover, πάσχα and in fact English translations usually render this expression “day of preparation of the Passover.” In fact, this term (‘day of preparation’) is also used by Mark (15:42), who defines it as the day before the Sabbath. This accords with John 19:31, which says, “Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away.” Verse 42 also indicates the hurriedness of the burial of Jesus in a tomb that was close at hand, since it was the Jewish day of Preparation. Therefore, John concurs with Mark that Jesus’ death took place the day prior to the Sabbath. This is what he means by “preparation.” Though he adds that this Sabbath was a high day, this most probably means that it wasn’t any ordinary Sabbath day, but rather a Sabbath during the feast of unleavened bread — that is to say, it was a particularly special feast day.

Singer also misreads John 18:28, where the Jewish leaders are concerned about entering Pilate’s dwelling, lest they be defiled and thereby become unable to eat the Passover. According to Singer, this undermines the contention that the Passover Seder had already been consumed. Singer apparently misses that, supposing them to be concerned about the Passover Seder, their worry would make no sense since their defilement would expire at sundown (and they could partake of the meal after washing). Therefore, their worry must concern some meal other than the Seder. And, in fact, the initial Seder, or supper, that commences the Passover celebration is not the only ritual meal that is eaten during Passover. There is even another ritual meal, the chagigah (“food offering”), that is consumed during the following day. This is supported by Numbers 28:18-23, in which we read,

18 On the first day there shall be a holy convocation. You shall not do any ordinary work, 19 but offer a food offering, a burnt offering to the LORD: two bulls from the herd, one ram, and seven male lambs a year old; see that they are without blemish; 20 also their grain offering of fine flour mixed with oil; three tenths of an ephah shall you offer for a bull, and two tenths for a ram; 21 a tenth shall you offer for each of the seven lambs; 22 also one male goat for a sin offering, to make atonement for you. 23 You shall offer these besides the burnt offering of the morning, which is for a regular burnt offering.

Verse 18 indicates that the food offering was to be offered on the first day of unleavened bread (which would be the fifteenth of Nisan), the same day — as the Jews reckon days — that the Seder was consumed. Verse 23 indicates that these were to be offered in addition to the regular morning burnt offering, which implies that the Chagigah was eaten during the day time. The first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus indicates multiple times that the Jews used the term “Passover” to refer to the entirety of the feast of unleavened bread:

“As this happened at the time when the feast of unleavened bread was celebrated, which we call the Passover…” Josephus, Antiquities 14.21
“As the Jews were celebrating the feast of unleavened bread, which we call the Passover…” Josephus, Antiquities 18.29
“And, indeed, at the feast of unleavened bread, which was now at hand, and is by the Jews called the Passover…” Josephus, Wars 2.10

Therefore, John’s account in fact dovetails perfectly with Mark’s. The concern of the chief priests could not have been about the initial Passover seder, since their defilement would have expired at sundown and, following washing, they would have been able to partake of the seder in the evening. The seder was already over, having been consumed the previous evening, and they must be concerned about some other meal in Passover, most likely the chagigah.

Rabbi Singer claims that John 13 does not concern a Passover seder. However, this again is false. We read in John 13:1-2:

Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. 2 During supper…

In Greek, the text does not say that the supper was before the feast. Rather, it says that before the feast, Jesus loved his disciples to the end. D.A. Carson notes rightly that “there is nothing in the words themselves to discourage us from taking the clause as an introduction to the footwashing only, and not to the discourses that follow the meal.” [ii]

Indeed, the most natural reading of the reference to the supper in John 13:2, in light of 13:1, is that the last supper was in fact the Passover meal. Craig Blomberg concurs [iii]:

Verse 1 thus stands as a headline over the entire passion narrative (cf. Ridderbos 1997: 452). Because Passover began with a supper-time meal as its most central ritual (and 1 Cor. 11:20 speaks of the Last Supper explicitly as a deipnon), to hear then that the supper was being served (v. 2) would naturally suggest that the Passover had begun (Ridderbos 1997: 455; cf. Michaels 1983: 230; Kleinknecht 1985: 370–371; Burge 2000: 365–367), not that this was some separate supper prior to the Passover (as for Casey 1996: 20–21). If there is still any doubt, as Cullen Story (1989: 317) explains, ‘The presence of Judas, Jesus’ prediction of his betrayal, Judas’ departure from the table (implicit in the Synoptics, explicit in John), the affirmation by Peter of unswerving loyalty to Jesus, and Jesus’ prediction of his denial—all of these circumstances together form solid lines of connection between the meal in John 13 and the Synoptic account of the holy supper.’ Almost certainly, then, John intended his audience to understand that he was beginning to describe events that took place on ‘Maundy Thursday’ night, as part of the Passover meal, just as they would already have learned in the oral kerygma.

Though Singer appeals to John 13:29 where some speculate that Judas has been charged with getting what they need for the feast, this argument doesn’t work either since the feast of unleavened bread continues for another week, which easily could be the meaning of the phrase ‘the feast’ in this context. One might object to this that, if there were indeed Passover night, the shops would not have remained open. However, as D.A. Carson notes [iv],

One might wonder, on these premises, why Jesus should send Judas out for purchases for a feast still twenty-four hours away. The next day would have left ample time. It is best to think of this taking place on the night of Passover, 15 Nisan. Judas was sent out (so the disciples thought) to purchase what was needed for the Feast, i.e. not the feast of Passover, but the Feast of Unleavened Bread (the ḥagigah), which began that night and lasted for seven days. The next day, still Friday 15 Nisan, was a high feast day; the following day was Sabbath. It might seem best to make necessary purchases (e.g. more unleavened bread) immediately. Purchases on that Thursday evening were in all likelihood possible, though inconvenient. The rabbinic authorities were in dispute on the matter (cf. Mishnah Pesahim 4:5). One could buy necessities even on a Sabbath if it fell before Passover, provided it was done by leaving something in trust rather than paying cash (Mishnah Shabbath 23:1).

Another aspect of John 13:29, curiously omitted by Singer — which actually supports my contention that this meal was in fact the Passover seder — is the disciples’ speculation that Judas had been charged by Jesus to give something to the poor. Carson notes that “it was customary to give alms to the poor on Passover night, the temple gates being left open from midnight on, allowing beggars to congregate there. On any night other than Passover it is hard to imagine why the disciples might have thought Jesus was sending Judas out to give something to the poor: the next day would have done just as well.” [v]

In addition to the foregoing considerations, two undesigned coincidences confirm that the last supper in John 13 is the same meal as spoken of in the synoptic gospels. In the parallel account of the last supper in Luke 22:27, Jesus says, “For who is the greater, one who reclined at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.” What does Jesus mean by this phrase, and to what could he be referring? When we turn over to John 13:4-5, we learn that Jesus on this same occasion gave the disciples an object lesson in servanthood: “[Jesus] laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet…” This act (not reported by Luke) casually dovetails with Jesus’ statement in Luke 22:27 (not reported by John) that, though he is the greatest among them, he nonetheless acts as their servant. One may ask, however, why Jesus washes the disciples’ feet on this particular occasion. Luke 22:24 gives us a detail not supplied by John that provides us with some relevant background: “A dispute also arose among [the disciples], as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest.” Luke, then, reports the occasion that gave rise to Jesus’ object lesson in servanthood, but not the object lesson itself. John reports the object lesson but not the occasion that gave rise to it. The accounts dovetail so casually and artlessly that it supports that these are in fact the same meal, and rooted in historical memory.

The Mary Magdalene Problem

Tovia also gives another alleged discrepancy regarding the resurrection accounts, where he points out that, according to Matthew, the women all met Jesus (Matthew 28:9-10), whereas in John it looks like Mary, in her report to Peter & the disciple whom Jesus loved, has no idea what had happened to Jesus’ body (John 20:1-2). One would predict, supposing those accounts to be both anchored in historical memory, that Mary must have left the larger group of women prior to their encounter with the risen Jesus. Indeed, I can hardly see any other viable way of harmonizing those accounts. But this is precisely what is suggested by a close reading of John 20:2: “So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know (οὐκ οἴδαμεν) where they have laid him.” The use of the plural verb there suggests that she had in fact left the larger group of women and that there had in fact been others with her (which comports with the synoptics). This harmonization is not owed to us by the text, supposing them to be in conflict, but the fact that the only viable harmonization is suggested by a close reading of John suggests that these accounts are in fact based on historical memory, being independent accounts that dovetail.

According to John, Mary Magdalene ran back immediately upon noticing the stone rolled away and surmising or seeing the tomb empty (there may have been one or two other women with her, we don’t know). Notice that Matthew does not say that the angel appeared to Mary Magdalene, but rather that he spoke to the women. Thus, it was the women other than Mary Magdalene who left the tomb together as described in Matthew and, while going to tell the disciples, saw Jesus on the way. Matthew says that plural women left the tomb and that “they” saw Jesus on the way but does not expressly say that Mary Magdalene was with them at that time. Again, he may just not have known that she had left the group already, but he does not explicitly say either way. John knew since he was one of the two disciples (along with Peter) to whom Mary Magdalene reported the empty tomb and missing body of Jesus.

We can pick up Mary Magdalene’s story as reported by John. She ran back to get Peter and John immediately upon seeing the stone rolled away. They came back to the tomb with or slightly ahead of her. By this time the rest of the women have already seen the angels and left. They may even be seeing Jesus on their own route back into the city while Peter, John, and Mary Magdalene are on their way back to the tomb. It must be borne in mind that the old city of Jerusalem was a maze. There is no reason at all to expect that these groups would have run into each other. Mary Magdalene (as explained in John) still believes Jesus is dead at this point. She hangs around after Peter and John have looked at the tomb and left in puzzlement. She peers back into the tomb and the angels reveal themselves to her, but she does not understand. She turns around, grieved, and sees Jesus and has the dialogue with him of which we read in John 20. She then goes back to tell the disciples more about all of this. All this time she is not with the other women. When the other women have seen Jesus, they run and tell at least some of the disciples, though they might have to wait for Peter and John to get back from their tomb visit. Of course, we also do not know for sure that all of the disciples were staying together. The other women may actually have gone to see a different set of them in some different location.

Conclusion

In summary, though the alleged discrepancies offered by Rabbi Singer require some investigation to untangle, closer inspection — and more careful reading of the relevant texts — reveals the arguments to be unfounded. The solutions that I have offered to these challenges are not strained or forced harmonizations, but rather are suggested from within the texts themselves. As the nineteenth century Anglican scholar T.R. Birks once noted, “the very test of historical truth…is found in the substantial unity of the various narratives, their partial diversity, and the reconcilable nature of that diversity, when due allowance is made for the purpose of each writer, and the individual character of their separate works.” [vi]

Footnotes

[i] Tovia Singer, Let’s Get Biblical! Why Doesn’t Judaism Accept the Christian Messiah? Volume 1 (RMBN Publishers, 2014).

[ii] D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 460.

[iii] Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel (England: Apollos, 2001), 187–188.

[iv] D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 475.

[v] Ibid.,

[vi] T.R. Birks, Horae Evangelicae, or The Internal Evidencce of the Gospel History (London: Seeleys, 1852), 269-271.

He Gets Us, But Do We Get Him? The Case for Criticizing False Teachers

Theology and Christian Apologetics

I once got an angry email from a lady who didn’t like the fact that I criticized a false teacher on our I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist podcast. “You shouldn’t criticize other Christians!” she scolded me.

Do you see the problem with this? There she was criticizing me, another Christian, while claiming you ought not criticize other Christians. To paraphrase Elon Musk, if irony could kill, she’d be dead right now.

Jesus Called Out False Teachers

Apparently, she never considered that Jesus spent much of his time criticizing the false teachings and practices of the religious politicians known as the Pharisees whose hearts were far from God. He also warned people who led young believers astray, “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea (Matt. 18:6).”

Paul exposed five false teachers by name in his letters to Timothy. He warned that “the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear” (2 Tim. 4:3). He also told the Romans to “watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naïve people” (Rom 16:17-18). Notice that the people causing divisions are not those defending the truth, but those who are introducing the false teachings.

In fact, every writer of the New Testament warned against false teachers at some point. Peter said that “false teachers” would introduce “destructive heresies” that “promise people freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity” (2 Pet. 2:1,19). John wrote, “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1John 4:1). The writer of Hebrews told us to “not be carried away by strange teachings” (Heb. 13:9). Jude said we need to “contend for the faith” because “ungodly people… pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord” (Jude 3-5). James cautioned us about becoming teachers because teachers will be judged more strictly (James 3:1). And the list goes on.

In one sense the entire Bible is one long warning to avoid false teachings and practices. Yet, somehow, modern people are under the impression that it is a bigger sin to warn people of false teaching than to actually be a false teacher!

I say all this because my friend Natasha Crain has taken a bunch of online heat from some fellow Christians for pointing out 7 problems with the “He Gets Us” Campaign, which included two 30 second commercials during this year’s Super Bowl. When you read Natasha’s piece—which has been shared on social media over 26,000 times—you realize that the “He Gets Us” campaign ironically doesn’t get Jesus.

It’s not just that their 30 second commercials leave out the most important truth about Jesus (that could be forgiven—after all it’s only 30 seconds!). But their website misleads people into thinking that Jesus was just a really good man whose primary mission was to achieve social justice. There’s nothing prominent about Him being God or our Savior.

Social Justice Warrior or Savior of the World?

As Natasha observes, the head of the marketing firm behind the campaign explicitly said, “Ultimately, the goal is inspiration, not recruitment or conversion.” That’s why Jesus isn’t being highlighted as our substitute. He’s merely presented as a good example of “peace and love.” A motivational speaker. A social justice warrior.

But that wasn’t Christ’s mission. How do we know? Because he stated his primary mission explicitly. Here are just a few of several statements by Jesus:

“The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many (Mk. 10:45).”
“The Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Lk. 19:10).
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him” (John 3:16-17).
“Now my soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, ‘Father, save me from this hour’? But for this purpose I came to this hour” (Jn. 12:27).
“Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Luke 24:46)

As Greg Koukl observes in “The Legend of the Social Justice Jesus”, “For Jesus, salvation was not economic prosperity, equal distribution of goods, or sexual liberty without judgment or shame. Instead, salvation came through belief in him, bringing forgiveness of sins and eternal life.”

God didn’t add humanity to his deity and suffer a brutal death to make sure everyone uses the right pronouns. He came to be the ransom who pays for our sins.

Of course, Jesus wants us to love our neighbor, but that’s not a new teaching—it was already the stated policy of Yahweh in the Old Testament (Lev. 19:18). Moreover, love in the Bible doesn’t mean approval as the “He Gets Us” campaign implies. Love seeks what’s best for people, and that requires us to oppose any evil a loved one wants to do. As Paul put it, “Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres” (1 Cor. 13:6-7).

So contrary to the “He Gets Us” campaign, Jesus didn’t come to give some new ethical teaching. He came to be “the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (Jn. 1:29)—the ultimate sacrifice that the Old Testament sacrificial system foreshadowed.

So What’s the Big Deal?

Ok, so “He Gets Us” doesn’t get Him. So what? What’s the big deal?

Natasha writes, “’He Gets Us’ has the potential to actually harm the public understanding of Jesus. People need to know that Jesus is our Savior, not a compassionate buddy.” I would like to amplify and illustrate this excellent point.

“People need to know that Jesus is our Savior, not a compassionate buddy.”
Natasha Crain

Imagine you see a commercial for a place you know nothing about called St. Jude’s. The commercial only speaks of the good food that they serve children. When you go to the website highlighted on the commercial, you only see more about the food. Their mission statement says nothing about St. Jude’s being a hospital or the fact that their mission is to treat and try to heal children with childhood cancer free of charge. They only push the food angle. You come away thinking this is some kind of restaurant that caters to kids.

Who would think that’s an accurate commercial? Of course, they must serve food to the children, but that’s not their primary mission—it’s not why they exist. While a commercial can’t give complete information, it should at least give accurate information.

Instead of informing people, such a commercial would be misinforming people. The people who saw that and the website would first have to unlearn the misinformation fed them before they would be open to learn what St. Jude’s is actually about. And that could be deadly. If you had a child with cancer, you could miss out on having your child cured for free at St. Jude’s hospital because their campaign obscured that life-saving mission.

There is a similar danger to the “He Gets Us” campaign. While there may be some good that comes of it—like spurring conversations about Jesus—it’s outweighed by the fact that many unbelievers will be misled into thinking that Jesus came just to make our lives better here. That his primary mission was to achieve social justice on this earth. People will have to unlearn that false teaching after being led astray by the campaign. They risk missing a free life-saving cure for their sins by the great physician. They risk missing eternal life.

If only Christians would act like Jesus and the apostles to correct the “smooth talk” that “deceives the minds of naïve people.” If only they would “contend for the faith” instead of buying into whatever “their itching ears want to hear.”

Wait, that’s exactly what Natasha has done. And yet some Christians are mad at her! They should go back and read their Bibles. Jesus and the apostles didn’t hold their tongues because their goal wasn’t to be “nice.” Their goal was to love people by warning them of harmful misinformation and replacing it with the truth just like Natasha has done. (For more, click here.)

Sometimes Children Victimize Their Parents

How Does This Analogy Apply to God?

Consider Eternity

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Divine Omnipresence Implies God Is Not Limited by the Physical Realm

Divine Omnipresence Implies God Is Not Limited by the Spiritual Realm

Divine Omnipresence Implies The Special Nature of God’s Essence

Divine Omnipresence Implies That God Alone Possesses Omnipresence

Divine Omnipresence Implies That God Is The Perfect Judge

Conclusion

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Are Guilt Feelings only Guilt Feelings?

Feelings Aren’t All Bad

Recommended Resources Related to This Topic

Reason Number One: They Have Personal Relationship with Jesus

Reason Number Two: They Desire to Learn the Bible

Reason Number Three: They were Raised by Parents Who Value Church

Reason Number Four: They Have Community In Their Church

Reason Number Five: They Love to Serve

Recommended resources related to the topic:

What is a Yoke Anyways?

What is the Context?

But isn’t it more loving to share their yoke?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Scripture Twisting

Changing the Subject

Critiquing People They’ve Never Met

Eisegesis -vs- Exegesis

Creeping on the Sheep

When Your Guard is Down

Recommended resources related to the topic:

What do you mean by “Good”?

Who decides what’s “better?”

It’s for God to Decide

Recommended Resources:

Key Points:

Some Important Quotes:

Recommendations

Recommended resources related to the topic:

On What Day Was Jesus Crucified?

The Mary Magdalene Problem

Conclusion

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Jesus Called Out False Teachers

Social Justice Warrior or Savior of the World?

So What’s the Big Deal?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

**Are Guilt Feelings only Guilt Feelings?**