Theology and Christian Apologetics Archives | CrossExamined.org

Some people see the King James Bible as far superior to other translations. They believe other translations are heretical, full of redactions with verses purposely and vindictively taken out. Any attempt to “modernize” the language is seen as compromising the very Word of God. Some people in this group see the 1611 English King James Version as even far superior to the Greek copies themselves! Some also believe that the Bible that might be on your shelf is actually… New Age.

I know this because I used to be a King James Onlyist. A KJO.

I want to clarify two things. First, I think the King James is a fine version, and I don’t believe that everyone who prefers the King James is a KJO. Second, I understand that there’s a spectrum of beliefs within the KJO community. I’m going to share what I would consider the most common claims people make on why they believe the King James is superior. I still read this version sometimes. If you like it, that’s great. But some elevate it to an idolatrous level. I want people to know this information, especially the ex-new agers. Many are afraid to read a modern version because they’ve been told the KJV is the only true version and have scared them by saying these other versions are New Age when they’re simply not.

In my time as a KJO, I noticed there are spectrums to this position from the extreme where even putting the King James on the floor is a horrendous sin to the more passive. But, in general, this group basically believes that the true word of God is the King James Version of the Bible, and all others are corrupt and are infiltrated by the New Age. Some are so extreme that they believe the English King James corrects the Greek!

In other words, the King James Bible is the Word of God, not the Greek and Hebrew that it was copied from. This is one reason you see extra verses in the King James and don’t see it in your Bibles, but more about that later.

I personally took more of a middle road in the spectrum and used to believe that the King James Bible was the most reliable and complete, and the rest of these other versions were either missing verses or were compromised somehow. I looked down on people who used different versions, which only furthered my misconceptions about how we got the Bible and how it was translated. When I came out of the New Age, one of the first things I did was research how we got the Bible, and I was amazed by what I learned. The fancy word for this is called “Textual Criticism.”

**Here are three main aspects to consider and why other reputable versions are not New Age:**

1.) Conspiracy to Deceive.

One of the arguments from the KJO camp is that there’s a New Age conspiracy to deceive people into preparing the way for the antichrist. This is done by creating other Bible translations that they claim take essential doctrines out of the Bible to deceive millions. They say the deity of Christ is taken out and the Gospel itself. This is demonstrably false. First of all, a conspiracy is a pretty terrible one if virtually everyone knows about it. Second, it’s ironically a conspiratorial mindset someone has to be in even to claim there’s a New Age conspiracy. In other words, many KJOs believe this out of a fear-based mindset rather than a factual one. The misinformation that is out there on this is staggering and only hurts the people that promote this as they seem to take a more “cultish” position on this than an academic one. One of the biggest issues they bring up is that the King James is “complete” because it has verses other Bibles don’t. This brings me to my second point.

2.) Supposed missing verses.

This is one of the most significant claims from this camp. They pride themselves in owning a “complete ” version, while we have these second-class versions that are demonic and belong in the garbage. This was probably the #1 reason I ascribed to the King James as superior. For those that might not know, if you compare the King James and New King James Versions with the newer translations (e.g., the New International Version, English Standard Version, Christian Standard Bible, New Living Translation, etc.), you will see that several verses seem to be missing from the newer translations. We usually see these passages or texts in the footnotes in other versions. Along with these supposed missing verses are many words and phrases that are “missing” from newer translations. Why are these omitted? Are the newer translations taking verses out of the Bible, in a grand New Age conspiracy, as some claim? No. Not at all. When I researched this a long time ago, this part of my research was startling, but in a good way.

I learned that there are no Bible verses. What I mean by that is that the King James translators added the chapters and verses to help the reader navigate the text, and this is not a bad thing. This is helpful. But it’s important to know that the original authors never wrote like this. It was intended to be read as a letter or book. And second, the real game changer is that these newer translations are striving to present what the biblical writers originally wrote correctly, which means leaving out anything that was not part of the original text. In other words, any content that’s supposedly “missing” in newer translations? Is believed by most scholars not to have been in the Bible to begin with.

It’s important to mention that the King James translators in 1611 used the manuscripts they had available to them at the time, and that’s when the King James Version was written. Since then, older manuscripts have been found that don’t have these verses. Over 1,500 years, some words, phrases, and even sentences were added to the Bible, intentionally or accidentally. So “missing verses” are simply not found in some of the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. Also, there’s a fancy word called “expansion of piety.” This is a desire to fiercely protect the sacredness of Jesus, which led people to expand the titles of Jesus, possibly even without meaning. It’s ironic because the accusation is that the modern translations removed them when the actual situation was that they were added. This does NOT downgrade the King James Version. Again, I think it’s a fine translation to use.

3.) This brings me to my last point. Why are there so many translations, then? This is easier to answer than you think! Again to someone who holds a King James only position, it’s because there’s a New Age conspiracy, and all the older manuscripts have been infiltrated and compromised. For them, this only holds more reason why the King James is the most authentic version. The Bible is written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. So all these partial and complete manuscripts we find scattered everywhere are copies, but the good news is that they match. This can be a bit divisive when we talk about it being translated into English because there are so many different ways to translate a word sometimes. For this reason, it’s beneficial to compare translations. I think some versions are to be avoided, such as versions with only one translator or loose paraphrases. An example of this is the Passion Translation or the Message. Because Greek and Hebrew aren’t English, you will have different words translated differently in different versions. The King James Version is a testament to how language can change over time. Following this logic, if the King James truly is the very Word of God, then in another few hundred years, people would practically have to learn another language to read it. Language evolves and changes over time, and this includes English. Nobody speaks Old English today.

For these reasons, there are trustworthy modern translations that are not New Age. They are excellent to read and study and compare to one another.

How To Explain the Trinity to Muslims

Islam, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Sherene Khouri

Islam and Christianity claim to be monotheistic religions. They both believe in one supreme God; however, their concept of the nature of the divine being is different. The Islamic understanding affirms in a strong sense the absolute oneness of God through the doctrine of tawhid (Surah 4:171). Allah is one, and he has no partner, rival, or equal. The Christian understanding, on the other hand, upholds the trinitarian nature of God. “God is one (Deut 6:4), while including in that unity of the Father, who sent his Son; the Son, who is sent: and the Spirit, who is sent by them both.”[i] God is an eternal co-inhering community of equals. While the Qur’an portrays the Trinity in terms of a holy family—Holy God, Holy Mother, and Holy Son (Surah 6:101; 5:116), there is no historical evidence that orthodox Christianity ever described the Trinity in this way. This article discusses the biblical, historical, theological, and philosophical understandings of the Trinity to help Christians explain and discuss the doctrine of the Trinity with their Muslim friends.

The Biblical Explanation

The word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible because this doctrine was formulated in the fourth century during the ecumenical council of Nicene. The later formulation, however, does not mean that this doctrine is fabricated or unbiblical. On the contrary, God being trinitarian in nature is a biblical concept that is deeply rooted in Scripture. For example, the concept of God being a father is not a foreign concept to Jews. It was used in the Old Testament (Exodus 15:2 NIV), and Jesus’s teachings emphasized the personal aspect of the fatherhood of God by using the term “abba” to portray his intimate relationship with God. “[W]hen [Jewish] men addressed God as Father,” as Arthur Wainwright explains, “they would use the more formal ‘abuna’ (our father), but one’s own father would be addressed by using the absolute state of the noun, which is ‘abba’.[ii] Jesus used this term to introduce the Father to the Jews and to explain the Father’s relationship to himself.

God, the Father is distinguished from Jesus (God the Son) in the New Testament. This distinction is clear in Jesus’ prayers before the crucifixion. Jesus prayed to the Father and asked him to “glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you … this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3). Jesus was not praying to himself, but to another person (the Father), distinguishing himself from the Father. In the same way, the Apostle Paul makes a similar distinction between the Father and the Son, explaining that “there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (Eph 4:6). God the Father is not the mediator, but Jesus is the mediator between God and men.

In addition to Jesus being distinguished from the Father, the Holy Spirit is introduced to the divine Godhead in a way that distinguishes him from the Father and the Son. The Spirit is often described in a personal way, which suggests that he is a person, and can speak to men (1 Tim 4:1; Heb 3:7). Jesus tells his disciples about the παράκλητος (paráklētos), who is the third person of the Trinity, whom God will send to dwell with believers after the ascension of Christ. He states, “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me” (John 15:26). Jesus, in this verse, distinguishes between the Father, Himself, and the Holy Spirit.

In the Bible, the Holy Spirit is not portrayed as a mere state or power because He acts in his distinct personhood. He grieves (Ephesian 4:30), speaks (Mark 13:11-12), teaches (John 14:26), leads (Rom 8:14), and cries (Gal 4:6). Additionally, the Johannine writings call the Spirit παράκλητος (paraklētos), which means the “one who helps, advocates, or comforts someone on behalf of another.”[iii] A “something/someone” who speaks, leads, teaches, and advocates cannot be a mere state or power. On the contrary, he is the One who gives power; therefore, he is a person.

God is revealed in the Bible as one divine being, yet there are distinctions (persons). He was not revealed as a single divine being, as traditionally had been conceived. God is one being in one sense and three persons in a different sense. He is one God who created the universe in one sense and three persons who share the same essence in a different sense.[iv] There are three persons denominated: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who deserve to be called God, and yet there is but one God. The scene of the baptism depicts a clear picture of God as Trinity. When Jesus was in the water, “the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased’” (Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32). This scene shows that the Christian God is one divine being in three persons.

The prologue of the Gospel of John has the strongest argument for the Trinity. John says in the first verse of the book: “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Here is an indication of the divinity of the Word. There is a clue that the Son is distinct from the Father, yet there is fellowship between them. As Wayne Grudem suggests, “the preposition pros (“with”) does not connote merely physical proximity to the Father but an intimacy of fellowship as well.”[v]

Jesus is described as the word and the spirit of God in the Qur’an (Surah 4:171) as well. Most Muslims believe that the word of God is eternal; however, they do not believe that Jesus is eternal with God.

A Historical Explanation

Believing in the trinitarian God does not mean believing in three separate gods but believing in one divine being who is revealed in three persons. Since the doctrine of tawḥid implements numerical meaning, it is hard for Muslims to understand the word Trinity in a non-numerical sense—a metaphysical sense. This is the reason that pushed the Christian Arab apologists to use the word اقنوم (pl. اقانيم) (Uqnoum, pl. Aqanim) to convey the idea of the Greek word ὑπόστασις (hypostasis). The word Aqanim is never used in the Arabic language, except in the doctrine of the Trinity to covey the idea of the divine persons and illuminate the similarities with the concept of the human person. According to Imad Shehadeh, who is a leading contemporary scholar on the subject of the Trinity in Jordan, “the only benefit from using this word [Uqnoum] in Arabic language is to distance the word ‘person’ from God and substitute it with a foreign and an unknown word that conveys its meaning.”[vi] In other words, dedicating a special terminology to the divine Person indicates a special meaning and illuminates the confusion with the human/physical meaning of the word person. In my opinion, this term should be used in conversation with Muslims to avoid the tritheism confusion that might arise from the human concept of a human being as individual consciousness. The divine Aqanim (persons) are three in a way that does not apply to human persons and cannot be read off from human experience apart from revelation.

A Philosophical Explanation

Muslims believe that Allah is an eternal divine being and the creator of the world. In other words, there was no time before Allah, there was nothing that existed before him, and there was no time in history when Allah did not exist. However, this explanation does not make Allah the greatest conceived being because it does not show the relational nature of Allah before creating the universe. Allah has to be relational in nature because he listens, communicates, and receives worship. This is to say that Allah has a relationship with his creation, he did not create the world and left it to face its own destiny. However, if Allah is truly unipersonal and relational with his creation, what about his relationality before the creation? Who was Allah hearing, seeing, and watching before the creation of the cosmos? To whom was he showing kindness and love? All these divine attributes/names require either otherness in the inner being of Allah or another person/creation external to him. Before creation, there could not have been co-communion, mutual recognition, or altruism in Allah because there is no external differentiation to him or internal diversity in him. This limitation makes Allah dependent on his creation. He needs it in order to be the Hearer (as-Sami’), the Seer (al-Baṣir), the Kind (al-Laṭif), the Watcher (ar-Raqib), and the Loving (al-Wadud.) These attributes were disabled before creation. They were not actualized until Allah created the cosmos.

In Christianity, this problem does not exist because of the doctrine of the Trinity. God lives eternally in an intra-relationship (not alone) within himself, and in an inter-relationship with humanity after creation. The three Aqanim are united by their common divinity or whole generic essence. “The persons are also unified by their joint redemptive purpose and work,” says Cornelius Plantinga, “Their knowledge and love are directed, not only to their creatures but also primordially and archetypally to each other. The Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father. . . The Trinity is thus a zestful community or divine light, love, joy, mutuality, and verve.”[vii] The divine richness is understood in terms of relationality, with a communion of unity among the three Aqanim. The terms Father and Son are relational terms. One cannot be a parent without having a child and vice versa. Hence, by referring to God as Father, Christians conceive God as being eternally in relation to Himself; this relationship of fatherhood is, in the eternal sense, with the Son.[viii] God is not three separate persons/beings, such as in human person/individual. Instead, He is a unity in diversity.

The belief that God is one divine being and three Aqanim is not self-contradictory because the supposition that “God is either one or three” is logically fallacious. This belief represents the false dichotomy or, what is called, a false dilemma or the black/white fallacy. This fallacy occurs when only two choices are presented yet more exist.[ix] Suggesting that God is either one or three, ignores the option that Christianity presents. The Trinity is a divine, transcendent community of three divine Aqanim: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Theologians tend to be very careful about how to use analogies to explain the Trinity because many of the analogies that were historically used conveyed a form of modalism or tritheism. The following analogy is not meant to be literal, but it is intended to answer the question: “how can God be one and three without any contradiction?” Every man/woman is made as one human being and one person. Beethoven, for instance, is a human being because he belongs to the human race, and he is a unique person because of his musical skills, talents, DNA, personality… etc. His personhood is what makes him unique from Mozart or other musicians. He is a human being in one sense and a unique musician/person in another sense. In other words, he is both without a contradiction. In like manner, Christians believe that the Trinity is not a self-contradictory argument because while God is a divine being, He is also three Aqanim. He is a divine being in one sense because He belongs to the divine realm (not to the human race), and he is three Aqanim—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—in a different sense because He belongs to his own realm Sui generis, where nothing is like him. It would be considered a contradiction if God is one divine being and three persons in the same sense.

Bibliography

Athanasius. Ad Antiochenos 6. Accessed April 30, 2020, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2818.htm.

Erickson, Millard. Introducing Christian Doctrine. 3^rd ed. MI: Baker Academic, 2015.

Holland, Richard, jr. and Benjamin K. Forrest. Good Arguments: Making Your Case in Writing and Public Speaking. Baker Academic, 2017.

McCall, Thomas H. “Relational Trinity: Creedal Perspective.” In Two views on the Doctrine of the Trinity. Edited by Sexton, Jason S. MI: Zondervan, 2014.

Plantinga, Cornelius, jr. “Social Trinity and Tritheism.” In Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement: Philosophical and Theological Essays. Edited by Ronald J. Feenstra and Cornelius Plantinga Jr. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989.

Shehadeh, Imad. Al-Ab wa al-Ibn wa al-Roh al-Qudus Ilah wahid … Amin: Dharoret al-Ta’adudiyah fi al-Wahidaniyah al-Ilahiyah [The father and the Son and the Holy Spirit On God …Amin: the Necessity of the multiplicity in the divine oneness]. Al-Matin, Lebanon: Dar al-Manhal, 2009.

Wainwright, Arthur. W. The Trinity in the New Testament. London, UK: S. P. C. K., 1975

Footnotes

[i] “Trinity,” s.v. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, (Baker Academics, 2017).

[ii] Arthur W. Wainwright, The Trinity in the New Testament (London, UK: S. P. C. K., 1975), 45.

[iii] “παράκλητος (paraklētos),” s.v. Lexham Theological Wordbook, (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press), 2014.

[iv] Athanasius. Ad Antiochenos 6, accessed April 30, 020,

[v] Millard Erickson, Introducing Christian Doctrine, 3^rd ed., (MI: Baker Academic, 2015), 112.

[vi] Imad Shehadeh, al-Ab wa al-Ibn wa al-Roh al-Qudus Ilah wahid … Amin: Dharoret al-Ta’adudiyah fi al-Wahidaniyah al-Ilahiyah [The father and the Son and the Holy Spirit On God …Amin: the Necessity of the multiplicity in the divine oneness], (al-Matin, Lebanon: Dar al-Manhal, 2009), 31. The original Arabic renders as: “الفائدة الوحيدة في استخدام هذه الكلمة في اللغة العربية هي ابعاد كلمة ’الشخص’ عن الله واستبدالها بكلمة اجنبية غير معروفة في معناها.”

[vii] Cornelius Plantinga jr. “Social Trinity and Tritheism,” in Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement: Philosophical and Theological Essays, ed. Ronald J. Feenstra and Cornelius Plantinga Jr. (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), 31.

[viii] Thomas H. McCall, “Relational Trinity: Creedal Perspective,” in Two views on the Doctrine of the Trinity, Sexton, Jason S. ed., (MI: Zondervan, 2014), 133.

[ix] Richard Holland Jr, and Benjamin K. Forrest. Good Arguments: Making Your Case in Writing and Public Speaking (Baker Academic, 2017), 39.

The Disrespecting Marriage Act

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By John D. Ferrer

Marriage is under fire… again.

The red wave in November might have helped put out the fire, but not when the wave is just a trickle. Unless something wild happens in Arizona and Georgia, the Democrats will retain the Senate majority. Republicans will gain a slight majority in the House of Representatives, but that doesn’t start till January. That leaves a one-month window for a democrat-majority House and Senate to cram everything they can into law before New Year’s. One of those cram jobs is the “Respect for Marriage Act.”[i]

Following Senate majority leader Chuck Shumer, Democrats are expected to pass the “Respect for Marriage Act.” The bill briefly mentions interracial marriages, which no one is disputing. that’s been legal in every state for decades now. That’s not the contentious part. This bill is written in direct opposition to the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act[ii] (1996), and intended to build on the momentum of the Obergfell decision (2015) which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Broadly speaking, the Respect for Marriage act would guarantee that any type of marriage recognized in one state must be recognized in every state. If you stop and think about that, it can get pretty absurd pretty quickly. Here’s the official summary of the bill.

Respect for Marriage Act
This bill provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages. Specifically, the bill repeals and replaces provisions that define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognize any marriage that is valid under state law. (The Supreme Court held that the current provisions were unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor in 2013.) The bill also repeals and replaces provisions that do not require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states with provisions that prohibit the denial of full faith and credit or any right or claim relating to out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. (The Supreme Court held that state laws barring same-sex marriages were unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015; the Court held that state laws barring interracial marriages were unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.) The bill allows the Department of Justice to bring a civil action and establishes a private right of action for violations.

117th Congress, H.R. 8404, 7/19/2022, Summary[iii]

Democrats seem to have a winning issue here though. The “marriage equality” rhetoric plays well to progressives, the LGBT lobby, and many libertarians. That means more publicity, votes, and money. As legislation, the bill already passed the House, and it has the votes to pass in the senate. It should have stalled out in the senate, for missing the 60 votes needed for cloture (ending debate/filibuster). But the 50 democrat votes are now joined by 12 Republicans supporting the bill.

Roy Blunt of Missouri
Richard Burr of North Carolina
Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia
Susan Collins of Maine
Joni Ernst of Iowa
Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming
Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
Rob Portman of Ohio
Mitt Romney of Utah
Dan Sullivan of Alaska
Thom Tillis of North Carolina
Todd Young of Indiana

This means, the Respect for Marriage Act can be put to a final vote, passing with a simple majority (51 votes). It will become the law of the land unless something drastic happens like senate democrats changing their vote, or a state election being overturned.

WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM?

Those 12 republican votes are a little surprising, because republicans have mostly opposed redefining marriage. Plus, an earlier version of the bill raised concerns about religious freedom. The bill looked like it would force people to violate their conscience or their religion. Even the most liberal republicans and RINOs would have to reject that. Remember the cake-baker case[iv]? What about the flower-shop case[v]? Or the wedding-planner case[vi]? Without a doubt, there are left-wing legal teams determined to force Christians to violate their conscience and their religion (not to mention sacrifice free enterprise and freedom of speech). So, no matter what lobbyists may say, religious freedom is a live issue facing active threats.

That, however, was the old version of the bill. A new version[vii] was amended to protect religious freedom, at least for individuals and communities. With that revision in place, those 12 republicans were free to dissent from Republican ranks.

But does it protect religious freedom? A little, but not nearly as much as it may seem. It protects religious freedom at an individual and community level (like churches), but only generally, and only when it doesn’t include the state. It says:

“In General – Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or conscience protection otherwise available to an individual or organization under the [US] Constitution.”

117th Congress H.R. 8404, 7/19/2022, Sec., 6, line 22[viii].

“GENERALLY TRUE” MEANS “OFTEN FALSE.”

One big problem with this amendment is the squishy phrase: “In General.” It refers to a general principle, and since the principle applies only generally, that means many times it doesn’t apply. Simply put, “generally true” means “often false.” In legal terms, squishy words like that tend to become escape clauses. They’re loopholes, so litigious activists can get around basic rights.

Plus, you can’t build much on squishy words. They aren’t absolute, universal, or even easy to clarify. So, it’s not a strong foundation for legal protections. Anyone who’s life and livelihood is on the line (cake-bakers and wedding planners included), they have only a cold reassurance that “maybe federal law will respect your religious freedom.”

Another liability with squishy legal terms is they can squishify and dissolve whatever they touch. Whatever follows from “In General” is only generally true, so there can be exceptions. Would your case be an exception? Who knows? Instead of clear, firm, and absolute statements protecting people’s religious freedoms, this amendment offers only a generality, a great big “Maybe?!” That’s little reassurance for the next small-business owner facing a class-action lawsuit with the full-force of the LGBT-lobby against them. A squishy fortress is no fortress at all.

IT VIOLATES LARGE-SCALE FREEDOMS

Another big problem with the amendment is that there’s not a single word protecting people’s freedom of speech and freedom of conscience in the form of state laws and elections. Voting is free speech. You can’t be legally forced to vote against your conscience. If the people across the state were to vote in favor of a state constitutional amendment or a particular law, that’s an expression of free speech. The Respect for Marriage Act threatens to strike down any competing state-level constitutions or laws, never minding the voice and conscience of the people who voted that legislation into existence.

Suppose for example, Iowans were to pass a law, across the state of Iowa, reflecting their deeply held beliefs about adoption practices and gay couples. If that law ran head-on into the Respect for Marriage Act, then the federal law would have right of way in the collision. The federal law would be violating people’s freedom of speech (in voting) and freedom of religion (in voting their conscience).

IT DISRESPECTS MARRIAGE

Setting aside the shaky amendment, there’s a deeper problem with the Respect for Marriage Act. It’s a glaring misnomer. It’s not respecting marriage at all, not unless we abandon the standing institution of marriage from the start of human history till about five minutes ago. Al Mohler calls it “Orwellian” because it hides a profound disrespect for marriage behind a sneaky politispeak title: “Respect for Marriage Act” (see, Al Mohler, The Briefing[ix], Nov. 17, 2022 – 23:42)

This Act treats marriage as merely a social construct that people can define and redefine at will. It’s as if states can create a new category of marriage, at will. But that framing runs contrary to human history, natural law, not to mention Scripture. Marriage isn’t a social construct, it’s more like a natural law, or even a force-of-nature. It’s built-in. It’s something we discover as a facet of God’s creation. We didn’t create marriage. God did (Genesis 2:19-25; Matthew 19:4-6). It’s also a gracious gift from God. We’re in no place to take God’s gift of marriage and say, “God, you didn’t design it right; here let me fix it up for you.”

Ethically speaking, we’re playing God if we think we have the authority to redefine marriage according to trending fashions. It’s pretty disrespectful towards God and towards marriage, to invent other partnerships that history, nature, and God never called “marriage” and think we have somehow expanded the institution of marriage to include them. We can play around with words all we want, but the institution of marriage precedes us. It’s bigger than us. And it comes from God. So, it isn’t subject to our language games. We can’t redefine marriage any more than we can replace the wings of a plane mid-flight.

IT’S OPEN-ENDED

It’s been said that people should be careful they’re not so open minded that their brains fall out. The same applies to an open definition of marriage. The Respect for Marriage Act fortifies an open view of marriage to where any state can change their definition and all other states would have to accept it, no matter how ridiculous that redefinition may be. Imagine if Utah reinstated polygamy. Or, if Texas lowered the age of marital consent to 12 (no offense Texas). Or, if California approved bigamy (2+ marriages at once). Or New York granted marriage status to any two roommates seeking tax benefits. Or if Florida granted dolphins “person” status so people can marry them. Or if Oregon allowed twelve different people to “identify” as just two people in marriage – every other state would be forced to accept any or all of these arrangements.

Bear in mind, marriage is what it is, regardless of terminology. Every state would have to affirm a lie, accepting as “marriage” what, in reality, is not a marriage. Every state in the union would have to adjust their health codes, family laws, child-protective services, domestic abuse laws, employment ethics, tax codes, health insurance, medical standards, adoption laws, housing and real-estate categories, and everything else impacted by these alternative “marriages”. All that because a federal law is demanding that everyone in every state: “Obey, or else.” Even if we set aside the religious, and ethical problems with this legislation, it’s so monstrously impractical it’s a disaster waiting to happen.

WE ALREADY HAD MARRIAGE EQUALITY

To be clear here, I don’t think society should prevent two mentally-fit unmarried adults from marrying each other. Even if they’re gay, bi-, or trans, they have the same natural right to marry someone of the opposite sex if they want. No one is stopping gay people from participating in their equal right to marry; and marriage is with someone of the opposite sex. That’s what marriage has meant for thousands of years, across all cultures, and all established world religions, to where it’s been a cultural universal and a common-sense admission by everyone everywhere till about 5 minutes ago. It’s redundant to even call it “traditional marriage.” It’s just called marriage. We’ve had to clarify in recent years that we (Christian conservatives) mean the same thing by “marriage” that almost everyone across history has meant by “marriage.” We mean it in the traditional sense. We don’t mean it in the recently revised socially-constructed sense. We’re talking about the long-tested and well-proven institutional bedrock for societies across every remotely successful civilization in history. We’re talking about the sacred social institution whereby women are protected, men are disciplined, and children are raised more effectively than any other family model. Even polygamous cultures treated marriage as one-man plus one woman; they just allowed the wealthier citizens to have more than one marriage at a time.

We already had marriage equality before worldly forces began playing language games with the term “marriage,” and before subversives began launching an open assault on the nuclear family. Not only did we have marriage equality, we had civil protections and privileges for marriage, we had respect for marriage, we even had healthier marriages and stronger families before all this.

If we Christian conservatives were willing to do the hard-work to protect and preserve the better parts of family-friendly faith-based culture, we might not be in this predicament. But there’s no sense in bemoaning past mistakes. we can’t change them. We can however learn from our mistakes, so we don’t have to repeat them.

At this point, the Respect for Marriage act is Exhibit Z in a long line of evidence proving how worldly forces are dead-set on subverting institution marriage and with it the nuclear family. Fellow believers and social conservatives have an upward hill to climb here. But God is still sovereign. And there’s still time for your state representative to take courage and do the right thing. Pray hard folks. Get the word out. And maybe write your local representative and tell them to vote against this Disrespecting Marriage Act.

What follows is the text of the Respect for Marriage Act (HR 8404). Accessed 20 Nov 2022 at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text?r=947&s=6

H. R. 8404

TO REPEAL THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT AND ENSURE RESPECT FOR STATE REGULATION OF MARRIAGE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATE

July 20, 2022

Received; read the first time

July 21, 2022

Read the second time and placed on the calendar

AN ACT

To repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State regulation of marriage, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Respect for Marriage Act”.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SECTION ADDED TO TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE, BY SECTION 2 OF THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT.

Section 1738C of title 28, United States Code, is repealed.

SEC. 3. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT GIVEN TO MARRIAGE EQUALITY.

Chapter 115[x] of title 28, United States Code, as amended by this Act, is further amended by inserting after section 1738B the following:

“§ 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

“(a) In General.—No person acting under color of State law may deny—

“(1) full faith and credit to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals; or

“(2) a right or claim arising from such a marriage on the basis that such marriage would not be recognized under the law of that State on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals.

“(b) Enforcement By Attorney General.—The Attorney General may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against any person who violates subsection (a) for declaratory and injunctive relief.

“(c) Private Right Of Action.—Any person who is harmed by a violation of subsection (a) may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States district court against the person who violated such subsection for declaratory and injunctive relief.

“(d) State Defined.—In this section, the term ‘State’ has the meaning given such term under section 7 of title 1.”.

SEC. 4. MARRIAGE RECOGNITION.

Section 7 of title 1, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

“§ 7. Marriage

“(a) For the purposes of any Federal law, rule, or regulation in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual’s marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State.

“(b) In this section, the term ‘State’ means a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United States.

“(c) For purposes of subsection (a), in determining whether a marriage is valid in a State or the place where entered into, if outside of any State, only the law of the jurisdiction applicable at the time the marriage was entered into may be considered.”.

SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision to any person, entity, government, or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or any amendment made thereby, or the application of such provision to all other persons, entities, governments, or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.

Passed the House of Representatives July 19, 2022.Attest:

Footnotes

[i] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/text

[ii] https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/3396/text

[iii] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404?r=947&s=6

[iv] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-111

[v] https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/2019/91615-2-0.html

[vi] https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2021-10/303-Creative-cert-stage.pdf

[vii] https://www.baldwin.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/KIN22420_1114.pdf

[viii] https://www.baldwin.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/KIN22420_1114.pdf

[ix] https://open.spotify.com/episode/08Prpo2UN4zXtOTROWJBZY

[x] http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title28-chapter115-front&num=0&edition=prelim

Whether Christians Should Study Philosophy

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By JD Kline

Question: I am curious whether Christians should study philosophy.

Answer: At some point, you may have heard it said, “Christians should not study philosophy because the Bible warns believers to beware of philosophy.” Colossians 2:8 describes it as “empty deceit” and of the “traditions of men,” or “worldly” and not of Christ. Some believe the very nature of its discourse will talk its followers right out of belief in God. Therefore, it is believed, that not only is the study of philosophy unbiblical. It leads one to skepticism. I was once told, “All you need is the Bible and the Holy Spirit.” Or “just have faith.”

However, this is not biblically accurate nor is it necessarily true. In the wrong hands, philosophy can be dangerous. But, in my experience, philosophy has brought me into a closer relationship with God. As the giver of wisdom (Proverbs 2:6, James 1:5), I can know Him more deeply and shed whatever intellectual barriers of reluctance obscuring a head-to-heart connection.

God is not anti-philosophy. God says, “Come, now, and let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18). Furthermore, the Scriptures teach us to love the lord, God, with our minds (Luke 10:27); and to destroy lofty arguments raised against the knowledge of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5). The Scriptures, in other words, command us to develop our God-given rational faculties and use it to live our lives wisely in pursuit of Christ. We learn from 1 Peter 3:15 that we are to persuasively answer for the hope that is in us. Believe it or not, this is the task of philosophy. Listen, now, to the voices of our past.

Great Christian Thinkers on the Study of Philosophy

The late Norman Geisler states that “We cannot properly beware of philosophy unless we be aware of philosophy”[i] Furthermore, “God never bypasses the mind on the way to the heart.”[ii]

C.S. Lewis states, “If all the world were Christian, it might not matter if all the world were educated. But a cultural life will exist outside the Church whether it exists inside or not. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.”[iii]

Puritan, Cotton Mather once said, “Ignorance is the Mother not of Devotion but of Heresy.”[iv] This may not be about philosophy, specifically, but it is a charge against the anti-intellectual movement within the Church for all time. Therefore, the Church cannot afford to be ignorant regarding philosophy because philosophy leads to knowledge of God while the snake of heresy lies waiting to prey on the ignorant and twist the spirit of our devotion (truth)– for confusion and lies. Beware of those who try to reason you out of philosophy because their philosophy on Philosophy is philosophically ignorant. In their piety, they lead one not into devotion but heresy. Philosophy is a handmaiden for the truth about God.

The Philosophical Question about the Study of Philosophy

Notice, the very question itself demands the use of what it intends to refute. At its core, “why should Christians study philosophy?” is a philosophical question in nature. To answer a philosophical question, then, would require the use of philosophical reasoning. Therefore, to deny the use of reason would require the use of reason to successfully deny it. That is self-refuting. It is like saying, “never say never,” but only, “The reason we ought not to use reason is that there is no biblical reason for it.” False. In fact, we should study philosophy because philosophy informs readers of the Bible on how to interpret and understand the Bible. Have you ever considered the rules for interpreting literature? Philosophy guides the principles and methods we use of interpreting the Biblical text – a discipline called hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is a philosophical enterprise. We couldn’t do theology, or any of the sciences for that matter, without philosophy. It is foundational to knowledge. Indeed, philosophy permeates every aspect of our lives and how we live it. Even if we don’t realize it, each of us has a philosophy about philosophy and whether Christians ought to study it. So, what is philosophy?

Defining Philosophy

Quite simply, philosophy is the love of wisdom. In other terms, philosophy is learning how to think rightly and logically about what is, such as: what is real, what is true, what is beautiful, and so on. It is the pursuit of truth. Jesus, who is God, is the truth (John 14:7). Therefore, in my view, when one studies philosophy, they are in pursuit of God. What we decide about Him then becomes a matter of faith – to believe or not to believe.

Conclusion

I can go on, but the truth is that much has been written about whether Christians should study philosophy and why. I would be remiss not to direct you to some prominent voices of our own time and allow their work to guide you.

For Further Study

J.P. Moreland. Love Your God with All Your Mind. NavPress; Revised edition (September 4, 2012).

Norm Geisler. Why Christians Should Study Philosophy.

Bibliography

Geisler, Norman. Beware of Philosophy: A Warning to Biblical Scholars. Bastion Books. Matthews, NC. 2012.

Lewis, C.S. Weight of Glory. HarperOne; 1st edition (March 1, 2001). Originally published in 1965.

Moreland, J.P. Love Your God with all Your Mind. NavPress; Revised edition (September 4, 2012).

Potter, Doug. Twelve Things from Dr. G for His Students. Originally posted at https://www.facebook.com/notes/1096515494112261/

Footnotes

[i] Norman Geisler. Beware of Philosophy: A Warning to Biblical Scholars. Bastion Books. Matthews, NC. 2012.

[ii] Doug Potter, Twelve Things from Dr. G for His Students. Originally posted at https://www.facebook.com/notes/1096515494112261/

[iii] C.S. Lewis. Weight of Glory. HarperOne; 1st edition (March 1, 2001). Originally published in 1965.

[iv] J.P. Moreland. Love Your God with all Your Mind. NavPress; Revised edition (September 4, 2012). 16

A Reflection on Giving Thanks

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

Several years ago, I had the privilege of meeting a World War II fighter pilot. Then in his late 80’s, in 1944 he took part in a key battle of the war in the Pacific, a last-ditch effort by the Japanese to repel the American reoccupation of the Philippine Islands. Known as the Battle of Leyte Gulf, it pitted the last remnants of Japanese naval power against a vastly inferior American force, left behind to oversee the American landings while the bulk of American striking power had gone off in search of the enemy. The men who fought that day, on ships and in the air, exhibited much gallantry in facing a determined enemy. Though time had ravaged this man’s body, his mind remained sharp, and before long he was recalling details of that October day those many years ago. As our conversation came to a close, I took a moment to express my thanks for what he did during the war. I thanked him for his service and his courage, and for the opportunity it provided me to live in a more stable and peaceful world.

As I reflected on this later, I realized that his actions in upholding freedom in a war-torn world did not actually involve me. He had done nothing directly for me; I was not yet even born. But I knew that if men and women like him had not risked their lives, and been willing to sacrifice all, I might not ever have been. They had earned my thanks. They, in turn, had people who had come before them, who had done things for them, and to whom heartfelt gratitude would be appropriate. Tracing backward in time, I saw for a moment an endless stream of thanksgiving moving back through the recesses of time to a beginning trapped forever in the mists of forgotten memory.

In that moment, I also saw that my gratitude was personal. It was directed at living, breathing human beings. I did not give thanks to machinery, to the steel that cocooned the pilot in the cockpit of his plane, or to the chemistry that allowed the fuel mixture to propel it forward. Nor did I thank the instruments that provided feedback to him or the gunpowder that charged his weapons. My thanks, appropriately, were directed at people – the ones who forged the steel, who had teased out the secrets of chemistry, who had built the machines and weapons that he used. My gratitude related not to the thing, but to the intelligent source that lay behind it. To a person.

What, I wondered, lies at the beginning of this seemingly endless chain? If gratitude is owed to a person, to whom did the first man and woman, or the first group of humans, give thanks? Evolution? An undirected process that did not have them in mind? And if much of what we are thankful for exists in nature – as part and parcel of the good Earth and all that is on it – to whom does this thanks belong? Giving thanks to inanimate objects is nonsensical, yet the desire to express thanks is universal. We all do it, regardless of to what time or place or culture we belong. I saw in that moment that the whole idea of gratitude, the innate desire to give thanks, presupposes an ultimate source to whom this gratitude is owed.

While the atheist too can give thanks to people who preceded him, how can he make sense of the beginning of this chain of personal thanks? With no one there who created the Earth with all its bounty and splendor, what point is there for gratitude? The Christian worldview, by contrast, does make sense of this. It is right and fitting that we express thanks to those who came before us, for their effort and toil paved the way for the good we now experience. But that chain of causation, the progression of events for which we are thankful, does not begin a month, a year or a even century ago; it continues to a beginning point, and to a source who was both all powerful and yet quite personal.

In the last analysis, it is God – a person – whom we thank for all that is good. Whether he acts directly, or through the things and people he created, it makes sense to express our gratitude to him. And what better time to begin than on this weekend set aside to remember… and to give thanks.

Escaping to Pandora

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

The Oscar-winning blockbuster Avatar is back in theaters in anticipation of the release of a sequel, once again wowing audiences with its 3D special effects. The plot, an allegory about the evils of corporate greed, thrusts a paraplegic space marine – Jake Sully – into a role pivotal to the future of the native population of a lush moon circling a distant star. Inhabiting his hybrid Avatar body on this distant world, Jake is forced to choose between doing his “duty” and protecting aliens to whom he is growing increasingly attached.

What does the film have to do with Christian apologetics? Very little, on the surface. But stories are often the best way to get a point across. With apathy and hostility two common responses to the Christian message, using a popular film to make an apologetics point can be an effective evangelical tool. Perhaps a film like Avatar can make a point about a very controversial topic: how it is a “loving” God can allow people to spend eternity in Hell.

Making this point involves recognizing that Hell is not a place of torture but is instead a place of torment brought on by separation[i] from an infinitely perfect – and therefore infinitely desirable – Being. Life in our current bodies is, in a sense, like living on Jake’s ship. Our bodies, like Jake’s, are quite limited, and not at all suited for life on the “world” – heaven- that is our destination. The ship we inhabit is capable of supporting us, and for providing the means of transition to a fuller life. In the movie, that transition involves a rather arduous conversion. Anyone on board can conceivably master the means of escape, the “pod” that serves as the interface between the ship and the lush garden world, but using the pod requires self-discipline and training. Not everyone will be willing to undergo the rigors of this process.

We are all free to reject the pod training, but if we do that, we have no choice but to stay within the confines of a room in the ship. With nothing much else to do, and no other way to make it to the garden paradise, we remain trapped on the inside, spending eternity thinking about…ourselves. To get out into the new physical world, by contrast, we need to look outside ourselves. We need to be willing to think of others, and to sacrifice. The struggle is worth the effort: on this other world, there is unlimited opportunity to live forever in a perfected body with others that we know and love. The choice is ours: from inside the ship, we are separated and inward looking; we can never unite with those on the new world.

Contrary to what many modern critics of Christianity believe, God is not in the business of punishing people to satisfy some sadistic desire. But this current life on this beautiful planet we call home is not the destination – it is instead merely the ship we inhabit for a time. The journey may at times be arduous, but it was never meant to be the final destination. In the end, God does all the work in transforming us into our Avatars. But we must willingly enter the pod, and begin the process of shedding our old, selfish selves and looking outward. We must take the step. He will not force it upon us. If we do, He offers unlimited rewards. If we don’t, well… we end up with what we are asking for – agonizing separation from the source of all life and goodness, and ultimately complete loneliness.

But for many, despite the rewards, the cost seems too high. They reject the option of loving God, and loving their neighbor, because they prefer to always be “in control.” “No one is going to tell me what to do,” they say, as they adopt the words of Frank Sinatra’s famous song “My Way” as their theme. Instead of submitting to the One who brought them into being, they instead concentrate on loving themselves, a futile and unrewarding task if ever there was one, never realizing that the best way to achieve happiness is to stop seeking it and concentrate on doing good for others instead. Choosing their own pleasure at every turn, they seldom stop to realize what they are giving up along the way. In the end, those who choose to stay on the ship – to stay walled in and to think only of themselves – cannot complain that God did not force them into the pod, and into heaven. They will have only themselves to blame.

A bit strained, admittedly. And probably not too useful to teach doctrine or present the Good News. But a first step, perhaps, in engaging a nonbeliever by talking about something to which they can relate.

Footnotes

[i] https://crossexamined.org/is-hell-torment-or-torture-and-is-there-a-difference/

Jesus is Our Lord, Not Our Mascot.

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Melissa Dougherty

Some churches and people make Jesus a mascot.

I’m sure a few people reading this might be scratching their heads, wondering what I mean by this. Others know exactly what I mean. Here in America, sometimes I think we take for granted that we don’t have to “hurt” to follow Jesus. What I mean by that is that we avoid any sort of struggle to obtain most of our Christian virtues.

In other words, we’re too comfortable.

We own a Bible and go to church and don’t get tortured for it. We praise God in our cars, listening to worship music with the windows down without fear of being imprisoned. Yes, I think we take this for granted. We make Jesus a symbol of our good decisions and a “good luck” charm. I remember a long time ago having lunch with a friend. She said that she had to make sure she went to church that week because she knew she was going to need to do good on an upcoming test. She reasoned that if she wore her cross, went to church and read a few Bible passages, then God would grant her grace. Like a give-and-take.

From time to time, we need perspective on this.

The definition of a mascot is “a person or thing that is supposed to bring good luck or that is used to symbolize a particular event or organization.” I submit that many people make Jesus out to be their mascot, not their God.

Once a week, it’s almost as if Jesus is brought out as a cheerleader to give advice on life’s struggles. Perhaps there’s a sermon about how to manage stress or how to deal with a particular sin. Some will depict Jesus as telling everyone how great they are, that He wants them prosperous and victorious. His main goal? Is to rebuild their confidence. He’ll fix all their problems. Just follow Me, and life will be great! People will then allow Mascot Jesus to reinforce in them what they think God should have us feel like: good and comfortable. He’s a motivational speaker. He tells people everything is just fine, and people are proud to be Christians and followers of this always happy, all-loving, all-tolerant, ‘Cheerleader’ Jesus.

Mascot Jesus is all about cheering us up as if life were like a football game.

But really, He’s put on the sidelines. It’s really about us. He’s just there in case we need Him. Then we get to call the shots and say it’s “God’s will” because this is the form of God that we’ve been taught. Even if there are some who claim to carry His Name, and call themselves Christian, they actually have very little reliance on him as Lord and God. Even then, I wonder if they know what it means to pick up their cross and follow Jesus as He says in the Gospels:

Matthew 16: 24-26: Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?

He’s saying to “count the cost” of following Him, which means it will cost you something to follow Him. This doesn’t mean we live lives that are not happy and comfortable like some extremists. This means we know what we’re signing up for when we become a disciple of Jesus and understand the assignment.

For some, there’s not much evidence that they would have that kind of faith in the way they live. Then there are the Christians who say they do love Jesus, and do live for Him…

As long as He’s doing what they want.

As long as “Mascot Jesus” tells them about the “Goliaths” in their life and how to be the “David” overcoming them, they’re on board. Mascot Jesus makes the Bible about you. Mascot Jesus just wants you to be happy. Submission to this Jesus isn’t even hard. It just means following your feelings and making sure you only read the bits and pieces of Scripture that fit your mosaic of who you want Jesus to be. It seems like a contradiction, but many have redefined Jesus as someone they can both admire and ignore at the same time.

He’s Mascot Jesus. He’s convenient. He’s your cheerleader. He’ll make you feel good.

Praiseworthy? Sure! As long as He is in line with what we’re comfortable with and can be used when it’s convenient. As long as He’s a “Jesus” that’s culturally acceptable. Is He the God of your life, or are you? Do you follow the Jesus of the Holy Bible? Or do you follow Jesus that you’ve made in your own image?

Is Jesus your mascot? Or is He your Sovereign Savior?

Count the cost.

Got Doubts? Stop Doing This!

Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

From working in public apologetics ministry for a few years now, one common mistake I see from Christians struggling with their faith is that they try and prematurely flex their apologetic muscles by spending tons of time listening to atheist YouTubers, podcasts or reading blogs but they don’t get the bulk of the Christian evidences strong under their belt first. When they come across a few things that stump them, they get troubled, anxious, or even set aside their faith altogether. This is falling prey to what the great English logician Richard Whately called “the fallacy of objections.”

Whately defined the fallacy of objections[i] as “showing that there are objections against some plan, theory, or system, and thence inferring that it should be rejected; when that which ought to have been proved is, that there are more, or stronger objections, against the receiving than the rejecting of it.”

I understand that you want to mitigate against your biases by listening to the other side. However, until you yourself can articulate a robust, positive case for Christianity, I don’t recommend that you do that. At all.

If the Bible is correct by describing faith as a “precious” thing (2 Peter 1:1[ii]) and you’re throwing your weak faith into the fires of criticism without understanding the shape of the argumentative landscape first, you’re not being “wise” by trying to minimize your biases, you’re being careless. And no, I’m not saying you should Pascal’s Wager yourself into faith or “lower the epistemic bar”, either. But I will say that you are not performing your duty of inquiry properly and you’re going to end up being another statistic, or worse, if you’re not cautious.

Regarding the Fallacy of Objections, Whately went on to write:

“This is the main, and almost universal Fallacy of anti-christians; and is that of which a young Christian should be first and principally warned. They find numerous ‘objections’ against various parts of Scripture; to some of which no satisfactory answer can be given; and the incautious hearer is apt, while his attention is fixed on these, to forget that there are infinitely more, and stronger objections against the supposition, that the Christian Religion is of human origin; and that where we cannot answer all objections, we are bound, in reason and in candour, to adopt the hypothesis which labours under the least. That the case is as I have stated, I am authorized to assume, from this circumstance,—that no complete and consistent account has ever been given of the manner in which the Christian Religion, supposing it a human contrivance, could have arisen and prevailed as it did. And yet this may obviously be demanded with the utmost fairness of those who deny its divine origin. The Religion exists; that is the phenomenon. Those who will not allow it to have come from God, are bound to solve the phenomenon on some other hypothesis less open to objections. They are not, indeed, called on to prove that it actually did arise in this or that way; but to suggest (consistently with acknowledged facts) some probable way in which it may have arisen, reconcilable with all the circumstances of the case. That infidels have never done this, though they have had 1800 years to try, amounts to a confession, that no such hypothesis can be devised, which will not be open to greater objections than lie against Christianity.”

Richard Whately, Elements of Logic, 9th ed.[iii] (London: Longmans, Green, Reader, & Dyer, 1870), pp. 144-45.

Whately is spot on. The reason why I can read Bart Ehrman books, listen to secular historical Jesus classes online, or watch YouTube counter-apologists and be untroubled isn’t simply because I’m just so biased towards Christianity but because I have, for the most part, firmly in place the bulk of the evidence on the subject. Furthermore, I’m aware that everything doesn’t depend on whether I can answer this or that objection when I happen to stumble on something novel.

For example, over and over again, I have seen arguments against the Gospels be based on an over-reading, an argument from silence, or ignoring the possibility of real, independent access to events etc. I also know that even if I don’t know why Jesus said X or Leviticus says Y, or how to resolve that apparent contradiction, it doesn’t mean that my entire edifice is collapsing. The evidence for Christianity is a lot tougher than that, as Whately indicates. The same kind of thing holds true for many well-established scientific theories. We don’t toss out a good theory based on some counter evidence we don’t quite understand yet.

If you are easily shaken and troubled by pop counter-apologists online (and I don’t care if they have a PhD and have published dozens of books), here’s my advice: Stop listening to them. At least for a season. Learn the positive case for Christianity first. And here I’m not talking about a handful of philosophical arguments for the existence of God and some minimal facts argument for the resurrection.

At this point, I’m sure the skeptics would say that I’m just circling the wagons and saying “indoctrinate” yourself first. But that’s just not true. What I’m saying is this: Don’t act like “if Christianity is true, it can take the heat.” Christianity can take the heat, but an unprepared mind can’t. And investigation of the evidence for Christianity does not mean digging into everything anyone has ever said about or against it and having to give an answer. Skeptics can confidently assert a ton of (ultimately unpersuasive) objections as though they were real problems. But think about your approach to other issues. According to some theories, Jesus was invented by the Romans to pacify the people into being OK with slavery. How thoroughly do you investigate the “hoax” side of that argument? Wouldn’t an good informed atheist who believes in the historicity of Jesus recommend someone uninformed and confused about this issue read a good book or two on the existence of Jesus first before they get too muddled? Of course they would.

Again, once you have the bulk of the Christian evidences in place and you understand what the general argumentative landscape looks like, you don’t need to waste your precious time looking into everything that every dude with an internet connection and some video editing software has said against it. And when you stumble across them, you should be able to see the predictable patterns their arguments fall into.

In this context the words of George Horne, another 18th apologist, has some sage advice:

In the thirty sections of their pamphlet, they have produced a list of difficulties to be met with in reading the Old and New Testament. Had I been aware of their design, I could have enriched the collection with many more, at least as good, if not a little better. But they have compiled, I dare say, what they deemed the best, and, in their own opinion, presented us with the essence of infidelity in a thumb-phial, the very fumes of which, on drawing the cork, are to strike the bench of bishops dead at once. Let not the unlearned Christian be alarmed, “as though some strange thing had happened to him,” and modern philosophy had discovered arguments to demolish religion, never heard of before. The old ornaments of deism have been “broken off” upon this occasion, “and cast into the fire, and there came out this calf.” These same difficulties have been again and again urged and discussed in public; again and again weighed and considered by learned and sensible men, of the laity as well as the clergy, who have by no means been induced by them to renounce their faith…Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of that kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject. And as people in general, for one reason or another, like short objections better than long answers, in this mode of disputation (if it can be styled such) the odds must ever be against us; and we must be content with those for our friends who have honesty and erudition, candor and patience, to study both sides of the question.—Be it so.

George Horne, Letters on Infidelity

As Horne implies, Christians have answered the same tired objections over and over, yet that won’t stop an “exvangelical” with a TikTok or YouTube account from saying it triumphantly as if no one has ever responded to it before. Furthermore, answering objections often takes a lot longer than a short statement of them, even if the objections themselves are based upon “pertness and ignorance.”

And finally, for goodness’ sakes, stop looking at all apologists as defense attorneys or God’s public relations firm doing “damage control.” This is what many counter-apologists have claimed, but it just poisons the well. Maybe consider that at least some apologists are defending their faith after scrutinizing it for years; they are not just trying to defend their predetermined conclusion and soothe their cognitive biases. Don’t fall for this bulveristic, pseudo-psychoanalytical trash. According to the website Logically Fallacious[iv], bulverism is “the assumption and assertion that an argument is flawed or false because of the arguer’s suspected motives, social identity, or other characteristic associated with the arguer’s identity.”

The more apt parallel for a good apologist is to an investigative journalist, reporting for popular consumption the results of a fair and balanced inquiry. These same skeptics often also seem to think that honesty in investigation requires that we start off in disbelief. In response to that, here’s one last awesome quote from another one of those amazing 18th-century apologists, John Leland:

It is not necessary to a just inquiry into doctrines or facts, that a man should be absolutely indifferent to them before he begins that inquiry, much less that he should actually disbelieve them; as if he must necessarily commence atheist, before he can fairly examine into the proofs of the existence of God. It is sufficient to a candid examination, that a man applieth himself to it with a mind open to conviction, and a disposition to embrace truth on which side soever it shall appear, and to receive the evidence that shall arise in the course of the trial. And if the inquiry relateth to principles in which we have been instructed, then, supposing those principles to be in themselves rational and well founded, it may well happen, that, in inquiring into the grounds of them, a fair examination may be carried on without seeing cause to disbelieve, or doubt of them through the whole course of the enquiry; which in that case will end in a fuller conviction of them than before.

A View of the Principal Deistical Writers, 1837 edition, p. 129

Leland hits the nail on the head. If you listen to many of the counter apologists, it’s as if they’re saying that the Christian is obligated, in the name of fairness and honest examination, to set aside their faith while looking into it and that the questioner should spend most of their time listening to their negative case. (And often they themselves cannot give you a steelman argument for Christianity upon request.) But honest inquiry and the acquisition of knowledge can continue while still following Jesus. Setting aside your faith while you are investigating it would be a crazy thing to do if Christianity is true. Consider that you might have a lot more evidence for Christianity than you may realize that you’re just not recognizing.

Finally, If you don’t know what the evidence looks like, ask me or others and I can recommend some resources. Avail yourself of talkaboutdoubts.com [v]and talk to some scholars and experts 1-on-1. Find a community of apologists more experienced than yourself.

Then you can consider diving into the counter apologists’ material, one resource at a time, one objection at a time, rather than overwhelming yourself. Otherwise, consider that you’re probably being like an overconfident fool who, after learning a few fighting moves, tries to jump in the ring with more experienced fighters. You’re going to look foolish and get hurt.

Now again, lest I be misunderstood, I am speaking to less experienced Christians. For the more seasoned believer, I think that we should let the critics speak. Often they are in a good place to discover flaws in our own reasoning, which may be invisible to us. We ignore them at our peril. I believe in that and practice that.

We should be able to identify who the best critics against our view are and regularly seek out what they have to say. It is wise to step outside your echo chamber and recognize that smart people can argue in good faith and yet disagree with you. But I wouldn’t throw a novice a Bart Ehrman or a Sam Harris book and say “sink or swim, dude.” If one is going to read atheist apologists, one should read them with guidance from people who really do know how to answer them. But our highest priority should be showing the untrained believer how much good evidence there is for Christianity.

Footnotes

[i] https://historicalapologetics.org/richard-whately-the-fallacy-of-objections/

[ii] https://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/2%20Pet%201.1

[iii] http://books.google.com/books?id=eLgIAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA144

[iv] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Bulverism

[v] http://talkaboutdoubts.com/?fbclid=IwAR278dE8CFdCYKbsT-bLD3fsnOPHW6jTq0wyIaqDLqbvQ2Ewh658SaJxHYY

Why Most People Would Rather Be Right Than Find the Truth

1. Does Truth Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Mike Taylor

Can we be honest with each other for a minute and admit that being right feels good?

It makes you feel powerful. When you’re right, it implies that someone else is wrong, which feels like you have a higher social standing than the other person. There’s a moment of elevation that happens in our minds when we feel like we’re right.

Most of the time, the facts don’t matter. We’ll throw out research and data for the sake of feeling right. It doesn’t even necessarily matter if we’re right or not just as long as we feel right.

But why is that?

The Science Behind Why Being Right Feels So Good

When you feel as though you’re right or that you’ve won an argument[i], your brain is flooded with adrenaline and dopamine[ii]. This chemical cocktail causes you to feel like you’re on top of the world. We feel in control, dominant, and powerful. That feeling becomes something we can easily become dependent on for self worth. Before we know it, we’re addicted to being right.

This is why some people poke and prod just to get a reaction out of someone. This is why people jump into an argument on social media to bicker over a point that is essentially meaningless. It’s because they’re addicted to the feeling of being right. And in a world where there are hundreds of micro moments where we can feel right on social media, we find ourselves in a digital buffet of vices that feed our addiction.

This is why the feeling of certainty can also become an addiction. Whenever we feel like what we’re doing is not 100% right or 100% certain, then we start missing our adrenaline and dopamine hits because we’re not feeling like we’re “right”. That’s when we’re likely to switch gears or change directions to find that ever-elusive high.

One study[iii] found that “a rush of dopamine accompanies fresh experiences of any kind.” Dopamine is a neurotransmitter that helps us feel pleasure, and anytime we find something new or feel like we’ve won an argument, that dopamine makes us feel important and victorious.

So we switch from one fleeting moment of feeling right, certain, and confident for the next exciting moment rather than doing the hard work of digging in, pushing through conflict, and dealing with the friction of uncertainty. And we wonder why we don’t see progress in our personal and professional lives – but it’s because we’ve become addicted to chasing “right” rather than the pursuit of what’s true.

How to Overcome the Addiction to Being Right

The first step to overcome the desire to be right is to understand what’s happening in your brain. Whenever you get into an argument with someone, your body is automatically sending signals to release cortisol, which is your stress hormone. Cortisol causes your thinking, reasoning, and compassionate side of your brain to go off-line.

When this happens, you go into what you’ve probably heard referred to as “fight or flight“ mode. Your body is in “lizard brain” and its only goal is to survive. It’s in that moment that we begin the hunt for dopamine through some sort of victory. That’s why most people’s reaction to conflict is to fight.

But if you can understand and harness how your body responds to conflict, then you can start to put measures into place that keep you from doing something that damages a relationship.

For example, one of the most effective things you can do when you’re in an emotionally charged situation is to take yourself out of that situation momentarily. You have to do what could be referred to as “emotionally sobering up”.

Whenever you’re in conflict, your brain naturally becomes emotionally drunk, and it can literally feel intoxicating to attempt to shut down the other person’s argument. But now that you know what’s happening, you can take a step away, take a breath, and give yourself the space you need to make a reasonable and compassionate choice rather than fighting for a dopamine hit.

An effective way to bring your thinking brain back online is to bring yourself to the present moment. Box breathing techniques[iv] are particularly helpful to bring your mind to the present moment. You can also take notice of the objects around you or start counting your fingers and toes. The goal of this is to engage the part of your brain that thinks rationally and compassionately so your survival-mode lizard brain can take a break.

Another effective way to bring yourself out of your emotions is to simply read something that isn’t emotionally charged. Take 15 minutes and read a boring article about something you’re mildly interested in. Read part of a chapter in that book you’ve been neglecting. Count to 100 backwards while you brush your teeth. Whatever it takes, do not ruminate on the situation, and don’t formulate potential responses.

Ruminating and dwelling on conflict only feeds your brain‘s desire to be right. Then, whenever you see the person you’ve been in conflict with, all of those built-up scenarios and emotions will overflow on them (and not in the way you pictured it in your mind when you were ruminating) and you’ll be right back in the same unhealthy conflict.

Once you’ve given yourself some space and brought your thinking brain back online, start thinking empathetically. In other words, put yourself in the other person’s shoes without defaulting to putting your desires over theirs.

Think about why they’re so adamant about their position. Chances are, they have a good reason. What were their expectations that were not met? What were your expectations that weren’t met? These unmet expectations are at the heart of all of our conflict, so getting down to that will do wonders for driving healthy conversations going forward.

Next time you feel the need to be right, remember it’s probably your brain craving the comfort of another hit of dopamine. Instead of giving into the craving, give yourself room to sober up emotionally, bring yourself back to the present moment so you’re thinking rationally again, then let empathy drive your thinking going forward.

If you do these things, you’ll find that conflict actually becomes productive, the truth becomes more apparent, and everyone will be better off for it – including you.

Footnotes

[i] https://www.mikeptaylor.com/personal-growth/how-to-win-an-argument/

[ii] https://hbr.org/2013/02/break-your-addiction-to-being

[iii] https://brainworldmagazine.com/the-importance-of-novelty/

[iv] https://www.webmd.com/balance/what-is-box-breathing

Tweets Against Christianity

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Tim Stratton

Scott Clifton is a Hollywood actor who has gained fame as a soap opera star (One Life to Live, General Hospital, and The Bold and the Beautiful). He has also gained the respect of both sides of the aisle in the “God vs. atheism” debate.

Clifton is an ardent, but philosophically inclined atheist who goes by the moniker “Theoretical BS” (TBS). He recently tweeted out an argument against Christianity that left the Church scrambling. Indeed, many Christians did not know how to respond to Clifton’s logically deductive argument. Moreover, and sadly, many Christians who did respond to his tweet, provided reason to place one’s face in one’s palm.

Consider TBS’s tweet raised against the knowledge of God:

I must admit, Clifton provided a good argument for all to consider. It is based upon premises that many Christians affirm. Indeed, Theoretical BS was on his A-game to craft this argument, which, at the least, exposes the inconsistency of many churchgoers.

This led my friend Benjamin Watkins, who is also an avid atheist on Twitter, to Tweet the following:

To be clear, we are “born sick” and offered the cure. Each person is free to take the “red medicine” Christ offers, or to reject his love and grace. With that said, I was disheartened to see the lack of good responses from my fellow Christians on Twitter. I saw Calvinists suggesting that the first premise is false, and that “ought does NOT imply can.”

That’s a horrible move!

Discussing Premise (1)

Think about it: if someone says, “You really ought to fly like Superman and save the woman trapped on the 50th floor of a burning skyscraper.” You would look at him as if he were an idiot. Since you cannot fly like Superman, it makes no sense to say “you ought to fly like superman.” Now, if someone tells the trained lifeguard, “You ought to save the child struggling to keep her head above water in the 3-foot,” we know exactly why that makes sense — because the lifeguard has been trained and *CAN* help the child before she drowns.

Moreover, if you were in a boat and your wife said, “You really ought to walk on water,” you would not take her seriously because you can’t walk on water. However, if Jesus commanded you to get out of the boat and walk on water with Him, the reason why it would make sense for you to get out of the boat and run toward Him is because He would use His divine power to make it possible for you to walk on water. Thus, if Jesus says that you *ought* to walk on water, then it follows that you *can* walk on water.

Yes, the first premise of Clifton’s argument is intuitively obvious and true: “ought implies can.” To deny this premise makes Christians look foolish.

Discussing Premise (2)

Some Christians were trying to reject the second premise: “If Christianity is true, we ought to live without sin.”

Oh my! Whatever you do, do not reject premise (2). Think of all the commands to live a holy life and to avoid sin. Here is a small sampling:

Galatians 5:19-21
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 13:14
But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts.

Hebrews 12:1
Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us . . .

1 Thessalonians 5:22
abstain from every form of evil.

2 Corinthians 7:1
Therefore, since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God.

1 Peter 1:15-16
But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.”

John 8:11
And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

This list could go on and on, but TBS’s second premise is supported via ample biblical data. Christians ought to avoid sin.

Discussing Premise (3)

Some might try to reject Premise (3) which reads: “From (1) and (2), if Christianity is true, we can live without sin.”

I agree with TBS. That is to say, regenerated Christ-followers can live without sin. Indeed, with the first two premises supported, it makes no sense to deny (3). We can avoid sin. That is to say, through God’s love, grace, and regenerating power, all Christians can live a holy life.

Discussing Premise (4)

This leaves only one premise remaining before we reach the dreaded death-blow of a deductive conclusion, “Therefore, Christianity is not true.” The fourth premise reads as follows:

“We cannot live without sin.”

I was shocked to see so many Christians in the Twitter-verse accept this premise. Indeed, many Calvinists (who affirm exhaustive divine determinism) advance this premise because if God determines all things, then when God determines a Calvinist to cheat on his wife (for example), it is impossible for the Calvinist to do otherwise. I was screaming at my iPhone as I was scrolling through the comments. Indeed, here’s a counter-factual:

Because of the lack of proper responses, IF I had hair, I WOULD have pulled it out!

I could not take it any longer. So, finally, I tweeted my own reply:

Only three “likes”? What’s up with that?

Anyway, because the Apostle Paul rejects the fourth premise, so do I. Indeed, based upon Paul’s words in his first letter to the Corinthians, it is possible for a Christian to avoid any sin. Consider this important passage of Scripture:

1 Corinthians 10:13

No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

Consider this awesome promise: every time you are tempted to sin, God provides a “way of escape” so that you do not have to sin. Thus, when you sin, do not say that “the devil made me do it,” and whatever you do, do not say that “God determined me to commit this sin.” No! That response is downright blasphemous. Instead, take responsibility for your actions. You chose to fall into temptation, but you did not have to. You could have done otherwise and taken the way of escape God provided.

This also means that you possess libertarian freedom.

Now, some might respond and say that no one has ever gone the rest of his life free from sin. Really? Is that true? What about the guy who only had five minutes left to live and he spent every remaining second of those five minutes praying and praising God? It seems that this person avoided sin for the “rest of his life.”

So, if it is possible for a Christian to resist temptation for five minutes, is it possible for ten minutes? If not, why not? Is it possible for 24 hours? If not, why not? Is it possible for for a week, a month, a year, or fifty years? If not, why not?

It seems that if one grants that a regenerate Christ follower does possess the power to “take the way of escape” for the last five minutes of his life, then asserting that it would be impossible to refrain from sin for any longer period of time is just plain arbitrary and ad hoc. Indeed, if Paul is right, and in every circumstance when we are tempted to sin God also provides a way of escape so that we do not have to sin, then it is possible (it is not impossible) that a Christian who has been transformed by God’s amazing grace can live the rest of his life always choosing the way of escape God provides (again, by His grace).

Discussing the Conclusion

In conclusion, TBS’s conclusion does not follow. This is the case because the fourth premise is false. Therefore, not only does the conclusion not follow, the cumulative case of arguments for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity suggest the exact opposite of what his failed argument concludes:

Therefore, Christianity is probably true!

Thus, it makes great sense to choose to put your faith in Christ alone.

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Dr. Tim Stratton

Here are three main aspects to consider and why other reputable versions are not New Age:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Biblical Explanation

A Historical Explanation

A Philosophical Explanation

Bibliography

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM?

“GENERALLY TRUE” MEANS “OFTEN FALSE.”

IT VIOLATES LARGE-SCALE FREEDOMS

IT DISRESPECTS MARRIAGE

IT’S OPEN-ENDED

WE ALREADY HAD MARRIAGE EQUALITY

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Great Christian Thinkers on the Study of Philosophy

The Philosophical Question about the Study of Philosophy

Defining Philosophy

Conclusion

For Further Study

Bibliography

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Science Behind Why Being Right Feels So Good

How to Overcome the Addiction to Being Right

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Discussing Premise (1)

Discussing Premise (2)

Discussing Premise (3)

Discussing Premise (4)

Discussing the Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

**Here are three main aspects to consider and why other reputable versions are not New Age:**