Theology and Christian Apologetics Archives | CrossExamined.org

The Resurrection of Jesus: The Evidential Contribution of Luke-Acts

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

Any discussion of the evidence for the resurrection must first ascertain what the original apostolic witnesses claimed and whether those claims are best explained by the resurrection, or by some alternative hypothesis. The contemporary discussion of the case for the resurrection has largely focused around 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, a text believed by many scholars to represent an ancient creedal tradition that Paul had received from the Jerusalem apostles and which he passed on to the believers in Corinth.[i] Paul’s words in verse 11 (“Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed”) also suggest that the message Paul presented to the Corinthians is the same as that proclaimed by the Jerusalem apostles. A popular criticism of this line of argument is that Paul makes no qualitative distinction between his own experience of the risen Jesus and those of the other apostles, using the Greek word ὤφθη to describe both. [ii]Acts 9:1-9 indicates that Paul’s encounter with the risen Jesus, which took place after the ascension, did not involve the sort of physical interactions we read of the apostles having with Jesus following His death in the gospel accounts. On what basis, then, can we be confident that Paul understands the apostles to have had the sort of experiences with Jesus following His resurrection that we read of in the gospels? If we are not able to determine the nature of the claimed experiences of the risen Jesus, it is very difficult to evaluate the rationality of the disciples’ belief that Jesus had risen from the dead. I am not optimistic that this case can be robustly made from the Pauline corpus alone.

It is undeniable that Luke represents the post-resurrection encounters as involving multiple sensory modes. Jesus appears to multiple individuals at once, and those encounters are not merely visual but are also auditory. Jesus engages the disciples in group conversation. The encounters are close-up and involve physical contact. Moreover, Acts indicates that the appearances were spread out over a forty-day time period – thus, the resurrection encounters were not one brief and confusing episode. If, then, it can be shown that Luke was indeed a travelling companion of Paul, it would be quite surprising if his understanding of the apostolic claim concerning the resurrection differed essentially from that of Paul.

There is an additional reason why Luke’s being a travelling companion of Paul is significant in our investigation of the resurrection, and that is that Luke claims to have been present with Paul during Paul’s visit to the Jerusalem church in Acts 21 when “all the elders [including James] were present” (Acts 21:18). Luke was present with Paul during his imprisonment in Caesarea Maritima (for at least two years), during which time he would undoubtedly have had ample access to the many living witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection, since Caesarea is only approximately 120 kilometres from Jerusalem (where many of the witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection resided). Luke’s acquaintance with the Jerusalem apostles thus puts him in a position to know what was being proclaimed concerning the nature and variety of the post-resurrection encounters with Jesus. Luke’s demonstrated care and meticulousness as an historian also provides some reason (though, as we shall see, not our only reason) to think that Luke is sincerely representing what he believes the apostles experienced.

Was Luke a Travelling Companion of Paul?

There are too many lines of evidence for Luke being a travelling companion of Paul to discuss in any detail in the present paper. However, I will list a few examples. First, there are the famous “we” passages, beginning in Acts 16, which are best understood as indicating the author’s presence in the scenes he narrates. Craig Keener observes that the “we” pronouns trail off when Paul travels through Philippi, only to reappear in Acts 20 when Paul passes once again through Philippi. This is suggestive that the author had remained behind in Philippi and subsequently re-joined Paul when Paul returned through Philippi. [iii]

Second, the reliability of the book of Acts is spectacularly well supported by extrabiblical secular sources, and its author demonstrates a knowledge of the world that is best explained by him being a travelling companion of Paul. Perhaps the most convincing category of this sort of evidence are those cases when the book of Acts is accidentally confirmed – that is, a natural question raised by Acts is illuminated in an incidental way by an extrabiblical secular account. To take one example, consider Acts 23:1-5, when Paul, having been apprehended and brought before the Jewish council, was struck on the mouth at the behest of Ananias the high priest. Paul responds by pointing out the hypocrisy of Ananias. To this, those who were standing by said, “Would you revile God’s high priest?” Paul’s response is somewhat odd: “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’” This raises a natural question – why is it that Paul did not realize who the high priest was? This Ananias was the son of Nebedinus (Antiquities 20.5.3), who occupied the office of high priest when Quadratus (Felix’s predecessor) was president of Syria. Josephus reports that he was sent bound to Rome by Quadratus in order to give an account of his actions to Claudius Caesar (Antiquities 20.6.2). As a result of the intercession on their behalf by Agrippa, they were dismissed and returned to Jerusalem. However, Ananias was not restored to his former office of high priest. Ananias was succeeded by Jonathan, as is indicated by the fact that Josephus refers to one called Jonathan occupying the office of high priest during the government of Felix, which would imply that Ananias’ high priesthood was interrupted (Antiquities 20.8.5). Jonathan himself was assassinated inside the temple (Antiquities 20.8.5).

Following Jonathan’s death, the office of the high priest was not occupied until Ismael, the son of Fabi, was appointed by King Agrippa (Antiquities 20.8.8). The events that are recorded in Acts 23 took place precisely in this interval. Ananias was in Jerusalem and the office of the high priesthood lay vacant. It seems, then, that Ananias acted, by his own authority, in the assumed capacity of the high priest. This, then, illuminates Paul’s words in Acts 23:5: “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest.” Luke doesn’t even take the time to explain the historical backstory in his account of this event. The sources interlock in a way that points to the truth of the narrative we find in Acts.

Another category of evidence, first discovered by William Paley [iv]and more recently developed by Lydia McGrew, [v]is the phenomenon of undesigned coincidences between Acts and the letters of Paul – that is, interlockings between the sources that are best explained by the truth of the narrative in Acts. Consider Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, which was written around 52-53 A.D from Ephesus in Asia Minor (modern day Turkey). We know Paul wrote 1 Corinthians from Ephesus because Paul sends greetings from Aquilla and Priscilla in 1 Corinthians 16:19, whom Paul had met in Corinth (Acts 18:1), and who travelled with Paul as far as Ephesus (Acts 18:26). Paul also makes an allusion to his intention to “stay in Ephesus until Pentecost” (1 Cor 16:8). Corinth, the capital city of Achaia, on the other hand, was across the Aegean sea from Ephesus. Now, consider the following two texts from 1 Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 4:17 we read: “That is why I sent you Timothy…” And in 1 Corinthians 16:10, we read, “When Timothy comes…” From those two incidental texts, it is evident that Timothy had already been dispatched by the time of Paul’s writing, but nonetheless that Paul expected his letter to arrive before Timothy got to Corinth. Given that Ephesus is directly across the Aegean Sea from Achaia (where Corinth is), presumably Paul would have sent his letter directly by boat from Ephesus to Corinth. We therefore can infer that Timothy must have taken some indirect route to Corinth, through Troas and Macedonia. When we turn over to Acts 19:21-22, which concerns Paul’s stay in Ephesus, we read that Timothy (accompanied by Erastus) did in fact take such an indirect overland route to Corinth from Ephesus. This artless dovetailing is best explained by the historical reliability of Acts on this detail. Even if, as I have suggested above, Luke was not present with Paul at this time, this sort of evidence indicates that Luke had reliable access to information concerning Paul’s travels, which suggests he was personally acquainted with Paul.

Of particular interest for our purposes here, a cluster of confirming evidences bear on Luke’s presence with Paul at the Jerusalem church in Acts 21. [vi] If it can be reliably shown that Luke accompanied Paul on his shipwrecked voyage from Caesarea Maritima to Rome in Acts 27, it follows that Luke was almost certainly present with Paul in Jerusalem (where he was arrested) in Acts 21. The report of that voyage notes that they “…sailed along Crete, close to the shore. But soon a tempestuous wind, called the northeaster, struck down from the land.” In confirmation of Luke’s report, there is indeed a well confirmed wind that rides over Crete from the Northeast and which is strongest at this exact time near Passover. [vii] Acts 27:16 describes how the ship was blown off course towards a small island called Cauda. What’s impressive is that the island of Cauda is more than 20 miles west-southwest of where the storm likely struck the travelers in the Bay of Messara. This is precisely where the trajectory of a northeaster should have carried them, and it is not the sort of information someone would have inferred without having been blown there. Ancients found it nearly impossible to properly locate islands this far out. Colin Hemer notes that “In the places where we can compare, Luke fares much better than the encyclopaedist Pliny, who might be regarded as the foremost first-century example of such a source. Pliny places Cauda (Gaudos) opposite Hierapytna, some ninety miles too far east (NH 4.12.61). Even Ptolemy, who offers a reckoning of latitude and longitude, makes a serious dislocation to the northwest, putting Cauda too near the western end of Crete, in a position which would not suit the unstudied narrative of our text (Ptol. Geog. 3.15.8).” [viii]

Given Luke’s presence with Paul in Jerusalem in Acts 21 (and thus his demonstrated interaction with the Jerusalem apostles), we can conclude that Luke was in a position to know what was being claimed by the Jerusalem apostles in regard to the nature of the encounters with the risen Jesus. The next question we must address in our investigation is whether Luke faithfully records what those Jerusalem apostles were teaching concerning the resurrection.

Does Luke Accurately Report the Claimed Experiences of the Apostles?

I have previously noted that Luke’s demonstrated meticulousness and care as an historian already provide some reason to think that Luke has given an accurate report of what the Jerusalem apostles claimed concerning the resurrection of Jesus. Are there any other reasons? One relevant evidence here is the fact that Luke, like the other three gospels, reports that women were the chief discoverers of the empty tomb. Given that the testimony of women was not highly esteemed in the patriarchal society that was ancient Palestine, this fact is more probable on the hypothesis that Luke is reporting what he really believed happened than on the falsehood of that hypothesis. Josephus writes, “But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex,” (Antiquities 4.8.15). It therefore may be taken as evidence confirmatory of the hypothesis that Luke is telling us what he really believed happened. N.T. Wright concludes, “As historians we are obliged to comment that if these stories had been made up five years later, let alone thirty, forty, or fifty years later, they would never have had Mary Magdalene in this role. To put Mary there is, from the point of view of Christian apologists wanting to explain to a skeptical audience that Jesus really did rise from the dead, like shooting themselves in the foot. But to us as historians this kind of thing is gold dust. The early Christians would never, never have made this up.” [ix]

Caution, however, is warranted here, since there is a tendency among apologists to overstate the evidential significance of this fact. One can reasonably posit alternative explanations for why the gospels report the discovery of the empty tomb by women. Bart Ehrman, for example, points out that “women were particularly well represented in early Christian communities”, and it is therefore somewhat plausible that they invented the oral traditions involving the discovery of the empty tomb. [x]Furthermore, Ehrman notes, “Preparing bodies for burial was commonly the work of women, not men. And so why wouldn’t the stories tell of women who went to prepare the body? Moreover, if, in the stories, they are the ones who went to the tomb to anoint the body, naturally they would be the ones who found the tomb empty.” [xi] Furthermore, women could provide legal testimony under Jewish law if no male witnesses were available. In fact, Josephus appeals to women as his only witnesses of what took place inside Masada or at the battle at Gamala (Jewish War 7.389 and 4.81), though that may likewise be taken as an indication of Josephus reporting truthfully. Another important consideration is the fact that we are told of the woman whom Jesus spoke with at the well of Samaria that “Many Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, ‘He told me all that I ever did,’” (Jn 4:39).

Thus, the fact that the gospels have women as the primary witnesses to the empty tomb does not prove the tomb was empty and care should be taken not to overstate the case. Nevertheless, the reports of the women being the chief discoverers of the empty tomb is antecedently more likely on the assumption that what the gospels report is based in historical fact than on the assumption the authors made it up. Thus, while the testimony of the women may not be sufficient to demonstrate the veracity of the empty tomb reports, it does offer evidence to that effect.

An important point here, often overlooked, is that the accounts in the four gospels of the women discovering the empty tomb are in fact independent. Luke 24:10 says, “Now it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them who told these things to the apostles…” It is often suggested that John 20:1, which reports only Mary Magdalene’s discovery of the empty tomb, conflicts with Luke’s account. However, in John 20:2, we read, “So she [Mary] 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 where they have laid him” [emphasis added]. Mary’s word-choice, in particular the use of οὐκ οἴδαμεν (“we do not know”) indicates, quite incidentally, that there were in fact other women, and John’s report of these words reveals that he also is aware of this fact even though it is not mentioned explicitly. Thus, Luke’s and John’s account of the women discovering the empty tomb appear to be independent of each other.

Matthew and Mark also appear to be independent of Luke when it comes to the women’s discovery of the empty tomb. [xii] Luke indicates in Luke 8:1-3 that some women followed Jesus from Galilee, including Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s household manager. This detail is confirmed by an undesigned coincidence with Matthew 14:1, since it illuminates how the author of Matthew’s gospel might know what Herod had said to his servants, presumably in the privacy of his palace. The names given in Luke’s list are Mary, Joanna, and Susanna, as well as “many others,” (Lk 8:2-3). Mark, describing the women who were “looking on from a distance” at the crucifixion, lists “Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome,” (Mk 14:40). These names overlap only partially with those given in Luke 8. There is no mention in Mark of Joanna or Susanna, and Luke does not mention Mary the mother of James or Salome. It does not appear that Luke added the passage in chapter 8 in order to “put” the women in place earlier in Jesus’ ministry and thus fit his narrative together with Matthew and Mark concerning the women at the cross, because the names are only partially the same. Luke would have presumably included Mary the mother of James, and Salome, and probably left out Susanna if he had fictionalized the verses in chapter 8 on the basis of Mark’s mention of the women at the cross. Luke himself mentions the women who came from Galilee at the cross and burial (23:49, 55) but doesn’t even name any of them there. Both accounts, therefore, confirm apparently independently that there was a group of women who had begun following Jesus in Galilee and who continued to do so and who helped Jesus in concrete ways (“ministering” or “providing”). In Luke 24:6-10, the angels tell the women at the empty tomb, “Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee” (v. 6). This makes it clear that these women really were personally with Jesus in Galilee and heard what He said there. When Luke names various women who brought the disciples news of the empty tomb and the message of the angel (24:10), he names Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Joanna (and says there were other women as well). Once again, he doesn’t seem to be trying to reproduce his own list from chapter 8, for Mary the mother of James was not in that list, and Susanna isn’t mentioned in 24:10. Nor is he reproducing Mark’s list of women at the cross nor Mark’s list of women who came to the tomb (Mk 16:1), since Salome isn’t included in Luke’s list, and Joanna (who is unique to Luke) is not included in Mark’s list. Luke seems to be listing women whom he really knows were present for the events on Easter morning. Evidently, he is not sure about Susanna’s presence or just does not bother to mention her, and he knows that Mary the mother of James was there on Easter morning even though she is not listed in his chapter 8. Thus, this is also an undesigned coincidence internal to Luke, a way in which fairly distant parts of Luke’s own narrative fit together in an apparently casual and non-deliberate way: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and various other women were with Jesus in Galilee and heard there Jesus’ own prediction of his crucifixion and resurrection. They subsequently went with him to Jerusalem and were present at the cross, burial, and empty tomb.

Another category of evidence bearing on the case for the resurrection is the phenomenon of reconcilable variations, so-named by the nineteenth century Anglican scholar Thomas Rawson Birks. [xiii] A reconcilable variation refers to when there exist two accounts of the same event, or at least two accounts that appear to cross over the same territory at some point, and at first blush they seem so divergent that it is almost awkward; but then, on further thought, they turn out to be reconcilable in some natural fashion after all. When two accounts appear at first so divergent that one is not sure they can be reconciled, that is significant evidence for their independence. When they turn out, upon closer inspection or upon learning more information, to be reconcilable without forcing after all, one has almost certainly independent accounts that dovetail.

Multiple instances of reconcilable variation pertain to the resurrection accounts. For example, it is popularly observed that Luke 24:36-49 reports Jesus as having appeared to “the eleven” who were all present together at the time (see vs. 33). This, so the argument goes, does not allow for Thomas’ absence from the group at the time of the appearance (as in John), nor a subsequent appearance to the disciples with Thomas present. Furthermore, John tells us that the appearance to the eleven with Thomas present occurred eight days later, whereas Luke seems to indicate that the ascension took place immediately after the appearance to the eleven. Luke 24:50-51 tell us, “Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them. While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven.” One possible reply is that “the eleven” is being used as a figure of speech, much as “the twelve” is used in that way by Paul (see 1 Cor 15:5). I do not, however, find this approach to be the most convincing, since it seems to be rather ad hoc, and there is no independent evidence that Luke used the term “the eleven” in this way. It also would not explain the apparent immediacy of Jesus’ ascension following the appearance to the eleven, allowing apparently no time for a subsequent appearance to the disciples with Thomas present. In response to this objection, it may be pointed out that, at the end of Luke, there is clear haste and a lack of specificity about time. Indeed, Luke 24:29 states that the men on the road to Emmaus pressed Jesus to stay with them for dinner because it was already evening and the day was “far spent.” We do not know what that means exactly, but it hardly meant three in the afternoon. Jesus then goes in with them; dinner is prepared, however long that took, and they sit down to eat. They recognize him as he breaks bread, and he disappears. They then immediately go back to Jerusalem, a distance of 60 stadia (Lk 24:13), which looks like it was about 10-12 km – that is, about 6 to 7 miles. This walk would take well over an hour, perhaps as long as two hours. They then chat with the disciples for a while and tell their story (vs. 35). Then Jesus appears and shows himself. They give him some food (vs. 42). Only after this does Jesus begin talking to them about the Scriptures, giving them some sort of sermon about how his death was foretold in the Scriptures (vss. 45ff). How long did that take? Jesus then leads them out to Bethany, a mile or two walk (c.f. Jn 11:18). If one tries to put this all on the same evening, it really looks like it would already be dark by that time, making it difficult for them even to witness the ascension into heaven (vs. 51). So even in Luke 24 alone, it does not look like all of this happened in one day. Evidently, Luke is either running out of scroll or in a hurry at that point, and he doesn’t appear to have full knowledge yet of exactly how long Jesus was on earth. Thus, he simply leaves it non-specific and clarifies in Acts 1.

It is also popularly alleged that Matthew has Jesus appear to the disciples only in Galilee (not in Judea), and the gospel of Luke and Acts have Jesus appear to his disciples only in Judea (not in Galilee). I would argue, however, that it is entirely plausible that Jesus’ instruction to remain in Jerusalem (Acts 1:4) was said to the disciples after they had returned to the Jerusalem area from Galilee during the 40 days on which Jesus remained on the earth, perhaps shortly or even immediately prior to the ascension. By all accounts, the ascension occurred from the region of the Mount of Olives near Bethany, so evidently, they went to Galilee and then came back.

Yet a further line of evidence for Luke’s honest reporting of the apostles’ claims concerning the resurrection comes from the principle of restraint. Not one of the gospels provides any details concerning the appearance of Jesus individually to Peter or to his brother James, despite the fact that Paul mentions both in 1 Corinthians 15:5,7. Luke is certainly aware at least of the appearance individually to Peter because he alludes briefly to it in passing in Luke 24:33-34. Why, then, does he not include an account of this appearance? This can be explained if Peter and James had both made it known that they had had an encounter with the risen Lord following the resurrection, but, for whatever reason, neither had made an account of this private meeting available for publication. Indeed, “if the Gospel writers were trying truthfully to record only what they either knew directly or had reliable sources to tell them about, they would have very little to say about such meetings, exactly as we find. But if they felt free to invent dialogue and scenes in order to fill in where information was otherwise missing, why would they not have done so here? Their restraint points to the conclusion that they are truthful, reliable recorders.” [xiv]

Thus, from the aforementioned lines of evidence, taken cumulatively, we can be confident that not only was Luke in a position to know what was being claimed by the apostles concerning the resurrection of Jesus, but Luke accurately records what they reported. What, though, best explains the apostles’ claims to have had encounters with the risen Jesus? It is to this question that I now turn.

What Best Explains the Apostles’ Claim?

When evaluating any claim, three broad categories of explanation must be considered. Those are, (1) the claimant is deliberately deceiving; (2) the claimant is sincerely mistaken; and (3) the claimant is accurately reporting what happened. Those broad explanatory categories are mutually exhaustive (though one can envision scenarios where they are applicable in combination). The various lines of evidence adduced in the previous section of this paper may be brought to bear not only in confirming Luke as a faithful reporter of what the apostles claimed concerning the resurrection, but also in eliminating the first of those hypotheses stated above. Additional lines of evidence may, however, be adduced to further strengthen our case against the first hypothesis. It is beyond doubt that the “apostles passed their lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief of those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of conduct.” [xv] The book of Acts itself speaks of the intense persecution endured by the early Christians, including the martyrdom of James the son of Zebedee (Acts 12:2), the imprisonment of Peter (Acts 12:3-5), the beating of Peter and John (Acts 5:40), and the many sufferings of the apostle Paul for the name of Christ. Since the apostles’ willingness to suffer persecution and even martyrdom is more probable given the sincerity of their belief than otherwise, this may be taken as evidence disconfirming the first hypothesis, that they were deliberately setting out to deceive.

A further line of evidence against the first hypothesis is no known sect of Judaism was expecting the Messiah to be raised from the dead. [xvi] The Sadducees had no belief in the resurrection of the dead and the Pharisees believed only in a general resurrection at the end of time, but had no concept of one man rising to glory and immortality in the middle of history. There was therefore no obvious apologetic motivation for positing that Jesus had been raised from the dead. The crucifixion of Jesus was seen by many Jews, in light of Deuteronomy 21:23, as indicating Jesus’ failure to be the awaited Messiah, and Jews were hardly given to glorifying failed Messiahs. After the failed rebellion of Simon Bar Kochba against Rome (132-135 A.D.), nobody proclaimed that he had risen from the dead.

Other factors that argue against any hypothesis of conspiracy include the speed at which a conspiracy would have needed to get off the ground, as well as the number and variety of individuals who would have needed, against their own interests, to be involved in such a conspiracy. [xvii] This included the eleven, the apostle Paul, at least five or six women, Cleopas and his companion, James the brother of Jesus, Matthias and Barsabbas called Justus (who are both named in Acts 1:23 as fulfilling the requirements of an apostle, i.e. having been witnesses to the resurrection). Being conservative, therefore, and including only those individuals who are specifically named, there would have needed to be at least 23 individuals involved in the conspiracy. It is extremely improbable that all of those individuals had something to gain by asserting that Jesus had risen from the dead and that none of them would have reneged.

What, then, of the second hypothesis, namely, that the apostles were sincerely mistaken? I have already discussed how the multisensory nature of the claimed resurrection experiences is not something about which one might plausibly be honestly mistaken. There exists yet another line of evidence against that hypothesis. Jesus’ resurrection is said in all of the earliest sources to have taken place on the Sunday morning following His death at Passover. This is indicated in all four gospels as well as Paul, who indicates that Christ “was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:4). The evidence from the early church writings as well as the Roman writer Pliny the Younger (10.96.7), the book of Revelation (1:10), the book of Acts (20:7) and Paul (1 Corinthians 16:2) all indicate that early Christian worship took place not on the Sabbath day but on Sunday instead. This almost certainly reflects the apostolic claim that Jesus rose again on the Sunday. But why does Paul indicate that the Christ “was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (this is also indicated in Lk 24:7). The point at which Paul, I would suggest, is driving is that Christ represents the first man to be raised to glory and immortality, similar to the first fruits of the harvest that guarantees that the remainder of the harvest will come (c.f. 1 Corinthians 15:20). Indeed, the feast of first fruits was to be celebrated the day following the first Sabbath following the Passover – that is, the Sunday following Passover (Lev 23:11). Although the Pharisees and Sadducees disagreed over whether the Sabbath in question was the Day of Passover itself or the Sabbath following the Passover, the Sadducees (who took the latter view) were in charge of the temple in the first century and thus that was the view that prevailed in first century Jewish practice. It is quite the coincidence then that the earliest sources consistently indicate that Jesus rose from the dead on the day of first fruits, given its theological import. This sort of coincidence points to design, and thus away from the hypothesis of the apostles being honestly mistaken.

Conclusion

Having argued strongly against the first two explanatory categories, this leaves as the best explanation of the evidence discussed in this paper the one the angels themselves gave the disciples in Luke 24:5-6: “Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen.”

Footnotes:

[i] Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus – A New Historiographical Approach (Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2010), 318-343.

[ii] Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry (New York: Prometheus, 2004), 43-44.

[iii] Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Vol. 1 (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2012), 431.

[iv] William Paley, Horae Paulinae or, the Truth of the Scripture History of St. Paul Evinced (In The Works of William Paley, Vol. 2 [London; Oxford; Cambridge; Liverpool: Longman and Co., 1838].

[v] Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (Tampa, FL: Deward Publishing Company, Ltd, 2017).

[vi] James Smith, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul: With Dissertations on the Life and Writings of St. Luke, and the Ships and Navigation of the Ancients, Fourth Edition, Revised and Corrected (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1880). See also Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Vol. 4 (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2015), 3555-3660.

[vii] R.W. White. “A Meteorological Appraisal of Acts 27:5-26.” The Expository Times 113, no. 12 (September 2002), 403-407.

[viii] Colin Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 331.

[ix] Tom Wright, “Appendix B”, in Anthony Flew, There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (2007) with Roy Abraham Varghese (San Francisco: Harper One), 207.

[x] Bart D. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (New York: HarperOne, 2014), kindle.

[xi] Ibid.

[xii] Lydia McGrew, The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices (Tampa, FL: Deward Publishing Company, Ltd, 2019), 272-282.

[xiii] Thomas Rawson Birks, Horae Evangelicae, or The Internal Evidence of the Gospel History (London: Seeleys, 1852). See also Lydia McGrew, The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices (Tampa, FL: Deward Publishing Company, Ltd, 2019), 316–321.

[xiv] Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (Ohio: DeWard Publishing Company, 2017), chap. 4, Kindle.

[xv] William Paley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity: Volume 1, Reissue Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 15.

[xvi] Tom Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis, Augsburg Fortress, 2003).

[xvii] Lydia McGrew, “Independence, conspiracy, and the resurrection”, Extra Thoughts, August 24th, 2020. http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/08/independence-conspiracy-and-resurrection.html

Resurrection: Fact or Fiction – An Easter Sermon

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bobby Conway

Following Easter Sunday, it didn’t take long for skeptics to fabricate fictitious claims to debunk Christ’s resurrection. It’s easy to understand why. These critics knew that if they could dispel the resurrection, Christianity would crumble. And they weren’t wrong about that. Even Paul indicated, “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile, and you are still in your sins” (1 Corinthians 15:17). The problem is none of the objections raised by skeptics have been able to explain the resurrection away. That’s because they’re flimsy. For a mere sampling, here are three such theories.

First, Some Skeptics claimed, “Jesus’s body was stolen”

This was the first theory to emerge which attempted to deny Christ’s resurrection. But think about it, if Jesus’ body was stolen, don’t you think the thieves would have brought the body to bear once the disciples claimed he’s alive? No doubt, their bluff would’ve been called. And if the disciples stole the body, what motivation would they have to die for a hoax which they created? As we’ve all heard before, “Many will die for what they think to be true, but who will die for what they know to be false?”

“Many will die for what they think to be true, but who will die for what they know to be false?”

Second, some skeptics claimed, “The People Were Hallucinating”

Now we’re getting desperate. Perhaps one could argue in this fashion if there were only a few random encounters. But that’s not the case. In fact, Jesus appeared to his disciples on several different occasions, and one time, even appearing to 500 people at once. To think that a crowd that large collectively believed they set their eyes on the resurrected Christ is seemingly absurd. Adding to this, it’s hard to interpret the radical life change experienced by disciples such as Saul following his encounter with Christ on the Damascus Road, or the transformation of James, the half-brother of Jesus, or Thomas, or even Peter apart from an actual resurrection.

“Hallucination theory doesn’t explain the radical life-change of some Jesus’s harshest critics like Saul the Pharisee and James brother of Jesus?”

Third, some skeptics claimed, “Jesus Merely Passed Out.”

This is known as the “swoon theory.” A view popularized in the 18^th century, which suggested that Jesus never died on the cross, but merely passed out. To cast aspersion on the resurrection, adherents to the swoon theory contend that after Jesus was placed in the tomb and mistaken for dead, he was restored to consciousness at which point he then rolled away the tomb stone and announced, “Check it out, folks, I’m alive.” Are we so naïve as to think after being severely scourged, having his hands and feet nailed to a cross, his head punctured by a crown of thorns, his side stabbed, and his body wrapped in 75 pounds of burial cloth following his death, that Jesus somehow mustered the strength after regaining consciousness to unwrap himself, move a two-ton stone out of the way, bi-pass the guards only to then convince his disciples that he’s alive? I don’t think so. If that did happen, the only place he would’ve been discovered is at the nearest hospital.

The fact is, these desperate attempts to explain away the resurrection show that it’s easier and frankly, even more rational to simply believe the truth than to ascribe to one of these far-fetched fictional theories.

Happy Easter!

Is it Hateful to Say Jesus is the Only Way?

Culture CrossExamined, Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

Is it hateful or arrogant to claim that Jesus is the only way of salvation? Charles Templeton thought so. He argued:

“Christians are a small minority in the world. Approximately four out of every five people on the face of the earth believe in gods other than the Christian God. The more than five billion people who live on earth revere or worship more than three hundred gods. If one includes the animist or tribal religions, the number rises to more than three thousand. Are we to believe that only Christians are right?”[1]

What are we to make of Templeton’s claims? Is it presumptuous to say that Jesus is the one true way of salvation? Or even worse, are Christians guilty of committing “absurd religious chauvinism” as some put it?[2] These common refrains are the fundamental tenets of religious pluralism — the belief that all religions are essentially the same and lead to God.

In a culture that abhors dogmatic truth claims, should Christians heed the warnings of the religious pluralists and stop teaching that Jesus is the only way of salvation? I don’t think so for a couple of reasons. First, religious pluralism is a self-defeating proposition. It crumbles in the face of logical scrutiny. And second, pluralism ignores scientific and historical finding. Let’s explore both in turn.

Religious Pluralism is Self-Defeating

To support their claim, religious pluralists share the parable of the blind men and the elephant. The parable goes something like this:

There were five blind men who all encountered an elephant in a field. The first man grabbed the tail and said, “oh it’s a rope.” The second blind man touched a leg and asserted, “no, it’s a tree.” The third blind man grabbed the trunk and declared, “no, it’s a snake.” The fourth blind man grabbed a tusk and cried, “no, it’s a spear.” The fifth blind man touched its side and exclaimed, “no, it’s a wall.”

The pluralist argues that the blind men are like the different world religions. Each belief system naively thinks their view of reality is the correct one, but, in the end, they’re all misguided. Rather, all the religions are fundamentally the same and will ultimately lead to the same place. No single “right way” exists according to the pluralist.

The Religions Contradict Each Other

While pluralists like to mention that all religions teach essentially the same thing, nothing could be further from the truth. Let’s take, for example, the nature of God in each major religion. Hinduism acknowledges multitudes of gods that are one with creation. Buddhism, while extremely spiritual, does not worship a god. New Age spirituality teaches that each person should see themselves as god. Islam believes in one God, named Allah, who is transcendent above creation. Judaism believes in a transcendent God named Jehovah. Christianity teaches that God is triune in nature, and is both transcendent and immanent in his creation.

Let’s look at one more example — how each religion views Jesus of Nazareth. Hinduism, Buddhism, and New Age all say he was a wise, moral teacher. Islam teaches that he was a prophet, though not divine, and that he didn’t die on a cross. Judaism teaches that he was a false prophet who led many astray and was crucified for blasphemy. Christianity teaches that Jesus was divine, he died on a cross, and he rose again from the dead.

If space permitted me, I could also explain how each of these religions differ on creation, scripture, the nature of humanity, sin, salvation, and eternal life. In other words, these religions have almost nothing in common.

Pluralism Defies Logic

To say all religions teach the same thing commits all kinds of logical fallacies. For example, Christianity teaches that God is a Trinity. God, however, cannot be both a Trinity (Christianity) and not a Trinity (Hinduism, Buddhism, New Age, Islam, and Judaism) at the same time and in the same way.

This would violate the Law of Noncontradiction which teaches that a thing cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same respect. To suggest, therefore, that all religions can be true about the nature of God violates one of the most fundamental laws of logic.

Or consider the nature of Jesus. It cannot be true that Jesus is God (Christianity) and not God (Hinduism, Buddhism, New Age, Islam, and Judaism) at the same time and in the same way. Again, this would violate the Law of Noncontradiction.

Pluralism Makes Exclusive Claims Too

Ironically, pluralists make exclusive claims themselves. In effect, they’re saying that pluralism is true, while all contrary religious claims are false. That is to say, pluralists are guilty of doing the very same thing that they chastise the other religions for doing.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, should we say the pluralists are hateful for saying their view of reality is the right one while all of us naive religious folk are wrong?

Pluralism Ignores Scientific and Historical Facts

Now it’s one thing to say that all the different religions can’t be right. It’s another to claim that one of them is the truth. Strong evidence, though, points in the direction of Christianity.

Scientific Evidence

Consider the origin of the universe. All the scientific data suggests that space, time, and matter, all came into existence simultaneously a finite time ago. Meaning the cause of the universe must be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial.

This fits nicely with the Christian belief that God created the world out of nothing, but it contradicts pantheistic religions such as Hinduism which teach that god is one with the universe — bound by space, time, and material. Additionally, the scientific data that the universe came into existence a finite time ago contradicts Buddhism’s belief in an eternal/cyclical universe.

The scientific evidence leaves the theistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Deism) as possibilities. Yet when we turn our attention to Jesus of Nazareth, Christianity quickly rises to the top.

Historical Evidence

For example, ancient historians are unanimous that Jesus of Nazareth died by crucifixion in the first century. Islam, however, denies that Jesus — a prophet from God — was crucified. Since dozens of independent historical sources confirm Jesus’ death by crucifixion, we can be confident that Islam doesn’t pass the historical test as the one true religion. In fact, Jesus’ crucifixion is so certain that prominent skeptic scholar John Dominic Crossan admits, “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”[3]

With only three viable options remaining, we turn our focus to the resurrection. Did Jesus rise again from the dead? If he did, Christianity is true, while Judaism and Deism are not. And we have lots of reasons to believe Jesus did, in fact, rise again. Let me give you two quick examples.

First, Christians claim that women were the first eye-witnesses to this incredible event. In a culture where nobody took a woman’s word seriously, it’s hard to imagine that Christians would have made up this detail. Since the early Christians would have had no motivation to make up this embarrassing fact, we have good reason to believe that this detail accurately portrays what really happened.

Additionally, Jesus’ closest followers were all willing to die for their belief that he rose again. Don’t you think, at some point, at least one of them would have caved under the threat of crucifixion or beheading and said the entire thing was a hoax? Yet not one of them did. This is telling, especially since those same disciples acted like cowards during Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion.

If Jesus rose again from the dead, that means what he claimed about himself has been vindicated — namely that he is God, and that he is the one true way of salvation.

Is it Hateful to Say Jesus Is the Only Way?

I don’t know anyone who would say that Jesus of Nazareth was hateful. Most actually affirm the exact opposite, he was incredibly moral and loving. Yet it’s this same Jesus who makes the claim that he is “the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

As we ponder the question at hand, consider the following statement by outspoken atheist and famed illusionist Penn Jillette:

“I’ve always said that I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there’s a heaven and a hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life, and you think that it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward—and atheists who think people shouldn’t proselytize and who say just leave me alone and keep your religion to yourself—how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that? I mean, if I believed, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that a truck was coming at you, and you didn’t believe that truck was bearing down on you, there is a certain point where I tackle you. And this is more important than that.”[4]

So is it hateful to tell people Jesus is the only way? I submit to you that it’s the loving thing to do.

Footnotes

[1] Charles Templeton, Farewell to God (Toronto, Ontario: McClelland & Stewart), 27
[2] John Hick and Paul Knitter, eds., The Myth of Christian Uniqueness, (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock), 141
[3] John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991), 145.
[4] Quoted in, Justin Taylor, “How Much Do You Have to Hate Someone to Not Proselytize?” TheGospelCoalition.org, 18 Nov 2009, accessed 20 March 2023 at: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/how-much-do-you-have-to-hate-somebody-to-not-proselytize/

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

Was Luke a Travelling Companion of Paul?

Does Luke Accurately Report the Claimed Experiences of the Apostles?

What Best Explains the Apostles’ Claim?

Conclusion

Footnotes:

Recommended Resources Related to the Topic

First, Some Skeptics claimed, “Jesus’s body was stolen”

Second, some skeptics claimed, “The People Were Hallucinating”

Third, some skeptics claimed, “Jesus Merely Passed Out.”

Recommended Resources Related to the Topic

Religious Pluralism is Self-Defeating

The Religions Contradict Each Other

Pluralism Defies Logic

Pluralism Makes Exclusive Claims Too

Pluralism Ignores Scientific and Historical Facts

Scientific Evidence

Historical Evidence

Is it Hateful to Say Jesus Is the Only Way?

Footnotes

Recommended Resources Related to This Topic

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:

**Are Guilt Feelings only Guilt Feelings?**