Theology and Christian Apologetics Archives | CrossExamined.org

Is truth found in personal perceptions or is it grounded in an independent transcendent reality? Multiple businesses and even churches have used the phrase “perception is reality” when referencing the importance of meeting customer needs. If a customer feels that he or she is not getting the service they expect, then their perception of the received service will lead them away from the business in question. While it is not the intent of this author to endorse or condemn a business or church’s employment of such a phrase, as one who is theologically and philosophically inclined, every statement and concept must be tested. Thus, it must be asked, does a person’s views of a certain activity and/or thought make that belief real or even true?

The phrase found its origin in political strategist Lee Atwater who worked for the George Bush, Sr. political campaign in 1988. Atwater, who died from brain cancer three years after devising the phrase, helped Bush reclaim a 17-point deficit to win the 1988 Presidential election.[1] Atwater held that if one could lead the populace to believe something as true, then that person’s perception of the truth becomes reality to that group. Thus, it mattered less about what was true than what people thought was true.

Others have furthered Atwater’s assessment to claim that perception means more than reality.[2] That is, a person’s belief about what is true matters more than what is actually true. If the statement is understood correctly, then it seems to be a situation in which truth is altered to meet the needs of the one promoting a certain perception. But is this not the same as promoting a falsehood?

This article is not intended to be political. As such, it does not endorse any political party or candidate. The only reason political persons were mentioned is that the phrase found its origin in politics. As previously noted, the article does not intend to disparage anyone who has used the phrase. However, the seeker of truth must ask whether the logic of the phrase holds philosophically, as the philosopher questions everything.

Sure, wars have been fought and political agendas have been set because of the perception of a person or group of people. But do those perceptions automatically ensure that the promoted perception matches reality as it truly exists? Surely, the perceptions of Hitler and radical extremist groups do not match reality. Furthermore, does this not cause the nature of reality to become dependent on what one thinks rather than what actually is? There are quite a few logical problems with the phrase, many more than I assumed when I first started my investigation.

There are two camps in this debate: reality-over-perception (that is, reality holds greater importance than a person’s perception) versus perception-over-reality (that a person’s perception of truth matters more than what exists in space and time). The reality-over-perception theory is seemingly the preferable viewpoint. As we examine the debate, let us first define what reality and perception are. Then, we will need to draw distinctions between the two entities before showing why reality, in fact, matters more than perception rather than vice versa. Finally, we will issue a warning of what could come when perceptions are elevated over truth and reality.

The Nature of Reality and Perception

The core issue at hand is what makes something true. Is truth something that is external to a person? Or is truth relative and found within a person’s belief system? This is the crux that forms the primary distinction between the reality-over-perception theory and Atwater’s perception-over-reality theory. What is truth? The answer shapes how one responds to the debate.

Truth (i.e., reality) is best defined by Aristotle who wrote, “To say that what is is not, or that what is not is, is false; but to say that what is is, and what is not is not, is true; and therefore also he who says that a thing is or is not will say either what is true or what is false.”[3] In other words, truth is that which corresponds with external realities. Thus, truth is transcendent. It exists outside of a person’s opinion and desire. If a person claims that the sky is red when the wavelengths match the color that is identified as blue, then it cannot be said that the person is speaking the truth. Comparably, a student who claims that 5 + 5 = 15 is most assuredly wrong despite their convictions to the otherwise.

In contrast, perception is how a person perceives reality through the lens of their sense experience. Philosophically, this includes a concept known as the qualia, which is defined as “the aspects of your sensations—the way things look, feel, smell, taste, and sound.”[4] A person’s qualia may differ according to their experience of reality. For instance, some Protestants cheer the work of Martin Luther as he led the Protestant Reformation of the 1500s. In stark contrast, some Catholics abhor his work, believing that he unnecessarily split the church. The beliefs of each group impacted the perception of their qualia and vice versa.

Why the Transcendent Nature of Reality Trumps Perception

To recap, truth is a transcendent reality that exists beyond the scope of a person’s experience, while a person’s perception is how an individual or group interprets their qualia. However, reality, by necessity, supersedes individual perception because of the nature of truth.

Previously, the color of the sky was given as an example. Some may argue that a person with regular vision may see colors to one degree, whereas those who are color blind perceive the color in a different hue. Thus, it may appear that each person’s qualia is different. The argument is not as strong as taken at first glance, because even though the color is perceived differently, the wavelength of the color in question remains the same. So, even if one person’s qualia led the person to believe that a color is purple when in fact it is blue, the wavelength of the color in question is the same even though perceived differently.

Another example given concerned the Protestant Reformation. While some Protestants and Catholics view the work of Luther and the Reformation differently, the common transcendent reality was that Luther and other Reformers led the movement in the 16^th century. A person’s perception of the event does not change the historical realities found in Luther’s work and other Reformers of the time.

Lastly, you have probably heard the philosophical puzzle of a tree in a forest. If a tree fell in the wilderness, would it make a sound even if no one was present to hear it? Because of the workings of physics, soundwaves are created when vibrations are passed through mediums such as air or water. Thus, the crashing of a felled tree would create the vibrations necessary to create a sound regardless of how few hearers are there to audibly receive the vibrations. Even if no one is present, the actualized vibrations would create the potential for hearing. As these exercises show, reality is not dependent on personal perception. Instead, a person’s perceptions are based upon the external reality experienced.

The Consequences of Elevating Perception Over Reality

If people begin elevating perception over reality, then the basis by which science and historical studies are conducted are demolished. No one could ever postulate what occurred prior to the present time and no scientific advancements could be made as everything would become personal preference. The healthcare industry would suffer as each person could claim that they do not have a disease even though the evidence suggests that he or she does. Then, the person would not receive the treatment that could cure the disease that he or she does not believe exists.

Theologically, faith matters would then become a matter of self-invention rather than encounters with the divine. Self-deluded cult leaders could then persuade countless individuals to do reprehensible things for the leader. The leader would argue that his perception is true even if reality does not support his claims. People could never be held accountable for crimes, and judges could never convict criminals. In literature, the author’s intent is replaced by the reader’s misconceptions, and so on. Diminishing the external reality of truth creates a slippery slope that leads to a host of problems.

Conclusion

Truth matters. Truth grounds and establishes us. Jesus noted the freeing nature of truth, stating that “the truth will set you free” (John 8:32). [5] It is understood why businesses and churches gravitate toward the phrase. Because these institutions want to create the best experience for their customers, and rightfully so. The intention behind the phrase is justified and understandable. However, the philosophical connotations of the phrase are quite troubling. Therefore, I propose that we should replace the phrase perception is reality with the phrase perception is a personal view of reality. In this way, the nature of truth is not diminished and the importance of the person’s perception of reality is also emphasized. The provider of a service will want to afford the best experience possible for his or her customers. But there is too much at stake to eliminate the value of truth itself.

Footnotes

[1] Simon Kelner, “Perception is Reality: The Facts Won’t Matter in Next Year’s Election,” Independent.co.uk (Oct. 14, 2014),

[2] “Perception is more important than reality. If someone perceives something to be true, it is more important than if it is in fact true. This does not mean that you should be duplicitous or deceitful, but don’t go out of your way to correct a false assumption if it plays to your advantage.” Ivanka Trump, The Trump Card: Playing to Win in Love and Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2009), Kindle.

[3] Aristotle, Metaphysics 1011b25, in Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vols.17, 18, Translated by Hugh Tredennick. (Medford, MA: Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd., 1933, 1989), Logos Bible Software.

[4 ] Edward Feser, Philosophy of Mind (London, UK: Oneworld, 2006), 15.

[5 ] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville, TN: Holman, 2020).

Why God Does Not Need Praise

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

Christians claim that God is a perfect Being. By perfect, of course, we mean that God has every possible attribute in an infinite and complete way. In other words, God possesses everything, lacks nothing and needs…nothing. Why then, the skeptic will often counter, does this Being that needs nothing need praise? Doesn’t God demand that we praise and worship Him? A perfect being shouldn’t want for anything, including the worship of its creation. Right?

The question can be restated in the form of an argument denying that the God of the Bible is perfect. It would go like this:

• A perfect being has no needs and no wants.
• The God of the Bible needs and wants praise and worship.
• Therefore, the God of the Bible is not perfect.

Of course, a non-perfect “God” is a contradiction. This would lead to one of two conclusions: either God does not actually exist or the real God is not the God of the Bible. Either way, the Christian loses.

The value in restating the question lies in the clarification it brings to the skeptic’s assumptions. The syllogism set forth is logical. If in fact the God of the Bible needs and wants praise and worship, he could not rightly be viewed as perfect. The problem with the challenge is not the implied logic; no, the problem is that the assumption about God – that he both needs and desires praise – is false. The God of the Bible has no such desire. Instead, because he is the perfect Being, God rightly expects praise and worship from us lesser, imperfect beings, his creation.

To see why, one must first spend a moment considering what “praise” and “worship” entail. To “praise” is to express approval or admiration. It derives from the verb “to prize,” or in other words, to highly value something. To “worship” derives from “worth” and means to revere or to adore. To “revere” means to regard with awe, an overwhelming feeling of fear or admiration produced by that which is grand, sublime or extremely powerful. These concepts all boil down to the same basic thought: praise and worship are a recognition and expression of awe in the presence of something great.

In considering praise and worship, two things become apparent:

1) To be meaningful, praise and worship must be freely given. They are the human mind’s natural response to witnessing or experiencing something marvelous or amazing. You simply cannot force someone to experience such feelings. As is true of love, such feelings cannot be the result of coercion, for to coerce someone by threat, or by promise of reward, to give praise or to worship would deprive those things of any value or of meaning. One cannot be forced to admire or to feel awe.

2) Praise flows naturally from a recognition of greatness. Millions of people tune into the Olympics to marvel at the great skill and ability on display by the athletes in the arena. While the viewers may not recognize it, while they watch they no doubt feel a sense of awe at what they are witnessing. We have a term for this natural human response: it’s call hero-worship and just about everyone experiences it. From early childhood, most people will gravitate to someone who embodies for them qualities, capacities, or abilities that they admire and esteem. This human response occurs even if the viewer refuses to convey praise to the person they are watching, or where they actually dislike what is on display. For example, a viewer may dislike the Blue Angels for being militaristic, but contemplating the great skill required to control high performance aircraft travelling inches apart at near supersonic speeds would still result in a feeling of awe; the performance of the pilots is no small feat. The mastery of self and jet and the ability to perform generate awe. Similarly, some fans may dislike overpaid baseball players yet still admire the ability required to hit a curving ball travelling toward the batter at 90 miles per hour. In both cases, the viewer can refuse to give praise but the recognition of “greatness” in the performance will evoke a feeling of admiration.

Recognizing what praise and worship involve, it is apparent that no person – certainly not a perfect one – would demand it. It simply does not work this way. Review the pages of the Bible, and you will see that God does not demand praise and worship to fulfill some need of His. Where those concepts are discussed, they are the words and exhortations of other people talking about God. But God does expect our worship and praise. Of course He does, for that is indeed what we should feel when we contemplate Him.

This point bears emphasis. God knows the way things really are. His self-assessment of his infinite perfection is accurate. Such perfection is worthy of praise and awe and reverence from those lesser, limited being which he created. For God to think otherwise would not be humility, but error. Having no limitations, God rightly expects that we view him in the correct way, the only way that conforms to reality. Consequently, whatever attributes a person finds worthy of praise, God possesses these in infinite measure. Getting one’s mind around the immensity of a perfect God – of the utter overwhelming greatness that he possesses – one would necessarily be overcome with awe, fear and reverence. Whether we “like” Him or rebel against Him, our urge to praise and worship Him flow naturally from a recognition of His infinite greatness. If we could see God clearly, without our innate urge to selfishness and rebellion, we would naturally feel infinite “hero worship” for the greatest of all possible beings.

Now add to this the fact that God created us from nothing. He offers us the opportunity for union with Him, the chance to partake in His eternal loving relationship. When we begin to think deeply about the notion of what living eternally in the presence of perfection will be like, we will naturally, as a recognition of the proper order of things, gush praise and worship, and love. This is what the Bible is capturing when it speaks of the need – our need – to give praise and worship to God.

For those looking in from the outside, this will make little sense. They will mock our rituals of prayer, worship and adoration as primitive things, forced upon us by a jealous and angry god. For they do not yet understand. They have closed their minds to Godly things. Think of it this way: a person encounters a scuba diver for the first time. Watching him ascend a set number of feet and then stop for a period may seem quaint. The observer might imagine that the diver is saying prayers to the gods or partaking in some other primitive ritual. But the diver knows better. Understanding the workings of nature – that rising too quickly will result in that dangerous condition known as the bends – he periodically stops his ascent to comply with the natural order of things. It may seem like silly ritual to the uninformed, but to one with actual knowledge of the way things really are, it is indispensable. It is something he must do to remain in sync with the natural order of things.

So too with eternal matters. While our prayers and beliefs and rituals may seem foolish to the secular world, they are in fact a proper recognition of the “worth”ship of God. We bend our knees voluntarily to His sublime excellence, for it too is the natural order of things.

How To ‘Stay Alert’ Until Christ Returns

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Jason Jimenez

According to the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24-25; Mk.13; Lk. 21), Jesus prophesied that the world would grow darker before returning for his Bride, the church.

We see the escalation of deception and confusion consuming the world and the ensuing threats from adversarial countries.

Jesus warned, “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom” (Matt. 24:7). Jesus predicted that his followers would experience intense persecutions and even death for some (Matt. 24:9). Peter prompted his readers that severe persecution would come and that in the “last days scoffers will come, mocking the truth and following their own desires” (2 Pet. 3:3). Paul vigorously wrote that there “will be terrible times in the last days” (2 Tim. 3:1), and in the “last times some will turn away from the true faith” and that they would even “follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from demons” (1 Tim. 4:1).

Thus, it should not surprise us when we see things progressively get darker and more unsettling in our culture.

But although things may seem grim, it doesn’t mean Christians should have a “gloom and doom” outlook on life or ignore the times we live in today.

Quite the reverse.

The Bible explicitly tells us to “be on guard and stay alert” (Mk. 13:33) until Christ returns. That doesn’t sound like someone who is paranoid or shirking their responsibility.

In Matthew 25:14-30, Jesus shares a parable of a master giving a portion of his talents to illustrate the significance of working and waiting for his return. Upon his return, the master found that two of his servants brought profitability to his investment. Unfortunately, the other servant had buried his talent, producing nothing (25:24-25). The master responded, saying, “You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed” (25:26)?

The understanding of the parable is abundantly clear. Jesus has given you specific gifts and talents to invest in for a greater return. You are not to dilly dally or take what the Lord has given you for your selfish gain. You are called to be “salt and light” in the culture and take every opportunity to reinvest what God has given you for his glory and honor.

But perhaps your perspective on life is a bit jaded. Maybe you’re finding it hard to have a “work hard” and “stay ready” mentality as you live day-by-day.

Whatever is tripping you up or causing you to be ineffective in your faith, here are three self-reflective questions to reignite a preparedness in your spirit to live your Christian life with great anticipation.

Do you yearn to be holy like God?

God has not called you to conform to the world but be transformed by his perfect will for your life (Rom. 12:2). And what is God’s will for your life? To be holy as He is holy (see 1 Thess. 4:3; 1 Pet. 1:15-16).

What about you? Are you too wrapped up in the comforts of life that you hardly yearn for the holiness of God?

In his classic book, Pursuit of Holiness, Jerry Bridges expressed this sensible truth, “As we become soft and lazy in our bodies, we tend to become soft and lazy spiritually.”

No doubt, upon reflection, you will uncover lazy streaks in your life, lots of excuses that you’ve made for all the selfish reasons, and “respectable” sins that you’ve justified but now might make you cringe.

But don’t let the weight of your sin drag you down. John wrote, “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 Jn. 2:1-2).

The more diligent you are in confessing sin and pursuing holiness, the more your life will be used for God.

How mature is your faith?

A dear friend once told me, “Salvation is the same for everybody, but Christian growth is different for everybody.”

That is so true.

So, allow me to ask you, how much time do you devote to reading, studying, and memorizing Scripture?

The Bible is like any other subject. You won’t know much about it if you don’t spend time learning from it.

To have a mature faith, you need to be in the Word of God.

Being in the Word of God daily will sharpen your faith and give you the wisdom needed to make wise choices. The Bible promises you that if you grow in your faith, you will not be “ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 1:8).

Paul gave this charge to Timothy, and the same applies to you and me: “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).

Are you living a faithful life?

Every Christian is to walk in faithful obedience to God and fulfill the Great Commission (Mk. 16:15).

A great example of someone in the Bible who lived a faithful life is Daniel. God called Daniel to resist a hostile environment in Babylon and lead a charge against its false idols and worship.

Daniel didn’t refuse the call of God just because he felt out of place or outnumbered. The Bible says that Daniel “resolved not to defile himself” (Dan. 1:8) but remained faithful to God’s law.

Daniel’s bold allegiance to God demonstrates an unrelenting desire not to compromise and give in to worldly pressure. His God-honoring response amid extreme pressure and hostility is the sort of example for you to emulate in the world today.

Those who desire to live faithful lives must be willing to give over their lives for the sake of the gospel.

Is that something you’re willing to do?

Remember, my friend, when you hit your limits and come to your wit’s end, it is God who is faithful and will love you no matter what.

So, as you pursue holiness, maturity, and faithfulness, ask the Holy Spirit to fill your life with more love, passion, conviction, and hunger for him.

The Holy Spirit will do just that if you ask in simple faith.

Undesigned Coincidences in the Scriptures: An Argument for Their Veracity (Part 1) — Old Testament Examples

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Jonathan McLatchie

The principle of undesignedness was first identified by the famed Christian philosopher William Paley (1743-1805), in his book Horae Paulinae. Therein, he highlighted example after example of undesigned integrations between the epistles of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles. The principle of undesignedness refers to cases where two or more sources dovetail with each other in a manner that cannot be attributed to the design of the author. In 1850, J.J. Blunt published his book Undesigned Scriptural Coincidences, in which he took Paley’s argument further, documenting examples in the Old Testament, as well as between the gospels, and between the gospels, Acts, and Josephus. The principle of undesignedness is a forgotten but brilliant argument which can be used to corroborate Biblical history. In this article, I want to consider a few examples of undesigned coincidences in the Old Testament. In a subsequent article, I will discuss examples of undesigned coincidences in the New Testament.

Why Does Ahithophel Turn on David?

2 Samuel 15 details the story of King David’s son Absalom conspiring against his own Father. In verses 7-12, we read,

And at the end of four years Absalom said to the king, “Please let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed to the Lord, in Hebron. For your servant vowed a vow while I lived at Geshur in Aram, saying, ‘If the Lord will indeed bring me back to Jerusalem, then I will offer worship to the Lord.’” The king said to him, “Go in peace.” So he arose and went to Hebron. But Absalom sent secret messengers throughout all the tribes of Israel, saying, “As soon as you hear the sound of the trumpet, then say, ‘Absalom is king at Hebron!’” With Absalom went two hundred men from Jerusalem who were invited guests, and they went in their innocence and knew nothing. And while Absalom was offering the sacrifices, he sent for Ahithophel the Gilonite, David’s counselor, from his city Giloh. And the conspiracy grew strong, and the people with Absalom kept increasing.

In verse 12, Absalom sends for Ahithophel, David’s counselor. Who is this man, Ahithophel? According to 2 Samuel 16:23:

Now in those days the counsel that Ahithophel gave was as if one consulted the word of God; so was all the counsel of Ahithophel esteemed, both by David and by Absalom.

Ahithophel, then, was the most trusted adviser to King David. Why, then, did Absalom count on Ahithophel to join him in conspiring against the King?

In 2 Samuel 23, in a completely unrelated part of the text, we have an important clue. Verses 24-39 list the thirty-seven body guards of King David. In verse 39, we have a familiar name – Uriah the Hittite, the husband of Bathsheba. Another individual mentioned is Eliam the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite (verse 34). This means that Ahithophel’s son was a colleague of Uriah the Hittite.

It gets even more interesting when we look over at 2 Samuel 11, in which we read of David’s adultery with Bathsheba and his murder of her husband, Uriah the Hittite. Here is what we read in verses 2-3:

It happened, late one afternoon, when David arose from his couch and was walking on the roof of the king’s house, that he saw from the roof a woman bathing; and the woman was very beautiful. And David sent and inquired about the woman. And one said, “Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?

Thus, it appears that Bathsheba was the granddaughter of Ahithophel, David’s counselor, and her father Eliam himself was among the King’s body guards along with Bathsheba’s husband Uriah. This then explains why Absalom in chapter 15 expected Ahithophel to be ready to conspire against King David and why Ahithophel joined Absalom’s rebellion. He wanted revenge on David for what he had done to Bathsheba and Uriah.

But it gets even more interesting. Flip over to chapter 16 and verses 20-22:

Then Absalom said to Ahithophel, “Give your counsel. What shall we do?” Ahithophel said to Absalom, “Go in to your father’s concubines, whom he has left to keep the house, and all Israel will hear that you have made yourself a stench to your father, and the hands of all who are with you will be strengthened.” So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the roof. And Absalom went in to his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel.

Why do they pitch a tent for Absalom on the roof so that he can sleep with his father’s concubines? It was on the roof that David’s eye first caught Bathsheba bathing, resulting in his adulterous affair and his murder of her husband Uriah. Her grandfather Ahithophel then seeks revenge, and so encourages Absalom to sleep with his father’s concubines on the roof of the palace.

Now, note that it was only by putting together different, seemingly unrelated, parts of the text that we were able to arrive at these explanations. Nowhere in Scripture is it explicitly spelled out that Ahithophel was the grandfather of Bathsheba. Rather, one has to do detective work in order to see beneath the surface what exactly is going on here.

This is not the sort of pattern that one might expect in stories of myth and legend. Rather, it is the hallmark of truth.

Example #2: Hezekiah’s Treasury

For our second example, turn over to Isaiah 38, in which we read of King Hezekiah’s illness and recovery. In Isaiah 39, we have an account of envoys coming from Babylon to congratulate King Hezekiah on his recovery. There is a parallel account of those events in 2 Kings 20 which appear to be textually dependent on Isaiah (or vice versa). Here is the account in Isaiah 39:1-2:

At that time Merodach-baladan the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent envoys with letters and a present to Hezekiah, for he heard that he had been sick and had recovered. And Hezekiah welcomed them gladly. And he showed them his treasure house, the silver, the gold, the spices, the precious oil, his whole armory, all that was found in his storehouses. There was nothing in his house or in all his realm that Hezekiah did not show them.

Thus, we learn, King Hezekiah proudly showed the Babylonian envoys his great riches in his treasure house. Hezekiah’s pride brings upon him a prophecy of judgment. In verses 3-7, we read:

Then Isaiah the prophet came to King Hezekiah, and said to him, “What did these men say? And from where did they come to you?” Hezekiah said, “They have come to me from a far country, from Babylon.” He said, “What have they seen in your house?” Hezekiah answered, “They have seen all that is in my house. There is nothing in my storehouses that I did not show them.” Then Isaiah said to Hezekiah, “Hear the word of the Lord of hosts: Behold, the days are coming, when all that is in your house, and that which your fathers have stored up till this day, shall be carried to Babylon. Nothing shall be left, says the Lord. And some of your own sons, who will come from you, whom you will father, shall be taken away, and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.

King Hezekiah selfishly is relieved at the prophecy, thinking to himself that at least “There will be peace and security in my days” (verse 8).

Both the account of this event that we read in Isaiah and that in 2 Kings imply that Hezekiah fell ill at the time of the invasion by Sennacherib of Judah and before the outcome of that invasion. In both accounts, God promises Hezekiah that he will live and that God will deliver the city from the Assyrians (Isaiah 38:6; 2 Kings 20:6). Thus, the envoys arrived from Babylon after his recovery, and after the danger from Assyria had been averted.

Now let’s consider another text in 2 Kings 18:13-16:

In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and took them. And Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria at Lachish, saying, “I have done wrong; withdraw from me. Whatever you impose on me I will bear.” And the king of Assyria required of Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. And Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the house of the Lord and in the treasuries of the king’s house. At that time Hezekiah stripped the gold from the doors of the temple of the Lord and from the doorposts that Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid and gave it to the king of Assyria.

Wait a minute. So Hezekiah has just made this humiliating tribute to the king of Assyria, having had to offer him “all of the silver that was found in the house of the Lord and in the treasures of the king’s house” and even being reduced to stripping the gold from the doors of the temple and from the doorposts. How then was he able not long after this humiliation to show all of his riches of his treasury to the Babylonian envoys? One could write it off as a contradiction, or we could dig deeper to find the solution – and in so-doing uncover another remarkable undesigned coincidence.

For the solution, let us now turn to 2 Chronicles. 2 Chronicles contains the account of the destruction of Sennacherib’s army by the miraculous intervention of the angel of the Lord (which is also found in Isaiah and 2 Kings albeit in different wording and terminology from the account in 2 Chronicles). After these events, 2 Chronicles throws in a unique detail in 32:23:

And many brought gifts to the Lord to Jerusalem and precious things to Hezekiah king of Judah, so that he was exalted in the sight of all nations from that time onward.

Therein lies our answer. This explains how Hezekiah came to have a full treasury to show off to the Babylonian envoys by the time the Babylonians learned of his recovery. No mention is made of the humiliating tribute to the Assyrians in 2 Chronicles. 2 Kings does mention the humiliating tribute and him showing off his treasury shortly thereafter to the Babylonian envoys, but makes no mention of the gifts that replenished the treasury. Isaiah makes no mention of the tribute or the gifts but mentions his display of his great wealth.

This undesigned coincidence corroborates the historical veracity of these events and also strongly suggests that one of our authors (i.e. either Isaiah or the author of 2 Kings) had access to the court of Hezekiah, and thus knew about the visit of the Babylonian envoys.

Example #3: The Uniformity of Expressive Silence

Another sort of undesignedness can sometimes arise when we examine cases where information is assumed by the author although not explicitly spelled out – this may be called the uniformity of expressive silence – repeated omissions that have a meaning. Here, I give an example of this from the book of Genesis.

Genesis 24 narrates the story of Abraham’s servant’s journey to the city of Nahor in Mesopotamia in search of a wife for Isaac. He encounters “Rebekah, who was born to Bethuel the son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother,” who “came out with her water jar on her shoulder.” Abraham’s servant requests a drink of water from the jar. Rebekah gives him some water and also some for his camels to drink. In verses 22-28, we read what happened next:

When the camels had finished drinking, the man took a gold ring weighing a half shekel, and two bracelets for her arms weighing ten gold shekels, and said, “Please tell me whose daughter you are. Is there room in your father’s house for us to spend the night?” She said to him, “I am the daughter of Bethuel the son of Milcah, whom she bore to Nahor.” She added, “We have plenty of both straw and fodder, and room to spend the night.” The man bowed his head and worshiped the Lord and said, “Blessed be the Lord, the God of my master Abraham, who has not forsaken his steadfast love and his faithfulness toward my master. As for me, the Lord has led me in the way to the house of my master’s kinsmen.” Then the young woman ran and told her mother’s household about these things.

The point to which I wish to draw attention is the consistent insignificance of Bethuel throughout the narrative. Bethuel was the father of Rebekah, and thus it is reasonable to expect that the terms of a marriage contract would be stipulated by him. Indeed, in the case of Laban in Genesis 29 in regards to his disposing of a daughter in marriage – a daughter who, like Rebecca, had brothers (see Genesis 31:1) – the active party throughout the account is the father, Laban.

Contrast this with the case of Bethuel in our current text in Genesis 24. Abraham’s servant had asked her, “Please tell me whose daughter you are. Is there room in your father’s house for us to spend the night?” (verse 23). We are then told, however, that “the young woman ran and told her mother’s household about these things,” (Genesis 24:28). Notice we are not told that she ran to her father’s household (as Rachel did in Genesis 29:12 after meeting Jacob), but rather she ran to her mother’s household. Verse 29 further informs us, “Rebekah had a brother whose name was Laban. Laban ran out toward the man, to the spring.”

After having been invited into the house by Laban, the servant explains the purpose of his visit (verses 34-49). In verse 50, we read, “Then Laban and Bethuel answered and said…” The mention of Bethuel constitutes the only proof that he was alive at the time of this incident. It is agreed that the servant may “take her and go, and let her be the wife of your master’s son, as the Lord has spoken” (verse 51).

The servant then gives gifts, we are told, “to Rebekah” and “to her brother and to her mother,” (verse 53). Curiously, no gifts are given to Bethuel, it would seem. In verse 55, we read, “Her brother and her mother said, ‘Let the young woman remain with us a while, at least ten days; after that she may go.’” It would seem expected that such a proposal would be made by her father. Instead, it is made by her mother and brother. After inquiring of Rebekah, it is decided that she would leave with the servant after all (verses 58-61).

Abraham’s son Isaac marries Rebekah, and together they have a son called Jacob (Genesis 25:26). After Jacob deceives his father Isaac into blessing him rather than Esau, the eldest (Genesis 27), Rebekah counsels Jacob to flee because Esau planned to kill him, Along his journey, he encounters some shepherds and asks them “Do you know Laban the son of Nahor?” (Genesis 29:5). This is strange, because Laban was the son of Bethuel and only the grandson of Nahor. Yet, again, we see Bethuel passed over as an individual considered of no importance among his own family. Bethuel’s own son, therefore, is identified by the name of his grandfather rather than his father.

We cannot state the specific circumstances surrounding Bethuel or explain exactly why he was a man considered of no note. Who knows? Perhaps he was considered incapable of managing his own affairs due to age or imbecility. Whatever the reason, Scripture does not tell us. However, the lack of concurrence in a positive fact but silent presumption of that same fact suggests that the author knew something more than we do about the circumstances than he discloses in his account thereof. It is the sort of pattern we expect in real history, but not the sort of pattern we should expect from works of fiction.

Conclusion

Many further examples could be given in the Old Testament, but I hope that these three examples suffice to show how this argument can be wielded to corroborate Biblical history. In part 2, we will consider examples of undesigned coincidences in the New Testament.

The Pendulum Problem: A Warning of Extreme Beliefs

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Melissa Dougherty

I have a dog and a cat.

Max is my dog whose personality is likened to a lovable, furry, hyperactive toddler. As an anxious dog, nobody is safe from his “watchful” eye. When the doorbell rings, my ferocious dog barks an explosive cry so loud that it vibrates throughout the entire house. His hair stands up, and he aggressively pushes his nose to the door to somehow intimidate his arch nemesis: the poor Amazon delivery dude. “Don’t you hoomans see the problem!? I’m protecting you from the bomb just delivered to our door!” Is a mom walking her baby down the street? A kid riding their bike? Oh, he must inform us about this potential threat by alerting us with all the gusto he can muster because it very well could be an ax murderer, for all we know. Everything is a threat. He must always be on constant exaggerated alert because he feels like this is how he will protect his family.

Dusty is my cat, a seal-point Siamese who is calm and passive and lives for food and sleep. Her personality is like, well… a cat. When someone comes to our door, she pays no mind. She likes routine and comfort. The end.

Like one end of a pendulum to the other, both are polar opposites. Some people can relate in some way to the personality traits Dusty and Max exhibit. I use my pets as an example to show the extreme views that I sometimes see in religion. Some people are highly apathetic, while others are constantly on guard. I know it’s not as black and white as this, but I’m sure many people somewhat understand what I’m talking about. Think of a swinging pendulum. Its weight forces itself from one side to the other, making it the opposite of its previous position. When someone leaves a particular belief system where maybe they’ve been deeply hurt, they want to be so far away from the said belief that they ‘overcorrect’ and go off the rails in the opposite direction.

This is the essence of what I call the “Pendulum Problem.”

Maybe someone had a bad experience in a very legalistic religious setting that was ridgid and cultlike. So they self-heal by distancing themselves from anything that has to do with organized religion, perhaps becoming an atheist or just “spiritual” with a very fluid view of morality and truth. It could also be the opposite, where someone feels they have been deceived by the devil with their spirituality. They become so careful and scared of being deceived again that they become overly cautious, critical, and legalistic in their religious convictions. Personally, I went through both sides of the pendulum to some degree. I went through about a four to five month time period where I demonized almost everything I saw. It was “worldly” and “demonic.” I came across as judgmental… and I really was. I didn’t want to be involved with anything or anyone that seemed remotely new age on any level out of fear. Then there came a time when I didn’t want to be seen as a religious Bible thumper and became too apathetic with few spiritual boundaries. I was in error both times.

So why is this an issue? Because extreme beliefs can create confirmation bias and unhealthy echo chambers. I believe this hinders the effective spread of the Gospel.

As Christians, do we need to have discernment? Yes. But do we need to live in a state of mind that functions more out of fear of deception than a love for the lost? No, we don’t. Do we need to be loving? Yes. But do we need to conform to the world to the point that we’re indistinguishable from it for the sake of peace? No, we don’t.

Another issue is that this goes even deeper than allowing thoughts to swing too far the other way. Our thought-life reflects our actions. I have often observed a fixation with throwing punches against what they came out of and immersing themselves with people and teachers that speak against it. They filter more and more of their worldview through this new paradigm. They can’t tolerate any compromise or nuance of an opposing view. Even if there was some lousy theology in their previous group, they will go to great lengths to defend themselves and be around people they know are “safe.”In this way, they reinforce what they already believe because the only voices they hear are those that are agreeable and never challenge them. A “challenge” is seen as the Amazon delivery man dropping off your new houseshoes, but better run for cover because it might be a false teacher instead. They’re steering clear of otherwise decent people that are more nuanced than they’re comfortable with.

What the Pendulum Problem really is? It’s a theology of experience. The hermeneutic for people in this phase is based on their experience: positive or negative. That’s the lens through which they see the world and define theology and their worldview. That’s another reason why this is a major problem. It’s based on negative history.

So what do we do about this once we recognize the problem? First, It’s valuable to know why we do this and maybe what we can do about it. Have I just been hurt, and this is my way of protecting myself? Am I angry at the people whom I now disagree with? Am I functioning out of hurt? Do I need to forgive? I think it’s important to understand that, to some degree, we’ve all done this or have seen it. Once we can recognize that our interactions with people are imbalanced, we can move forward with healing from this. Second, we do this out of a sense of trying to do the right thing. We want to do what’s right. But sometimes we overcorrect and we need to stabilize. We can function out of hurt kidding ourselves into thinking we’re being protective but it’s actually causing damage. People really do experience hurts, and it’s important to be sensitive to that hurt. I don’t think people actually intend to do this. There are legitimate traumas that they’ve experienced and they need understanding, prayer, and love. Third, Scripture should be our guide and Jesus should be our example. I clearly see a healthy balance when it comes to truth in love.

Is the Law of First Mention a Proper Biblical Hermeneutic?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

Recently, Curtis Evelo (Bellator Christi Podcast co-host) told me about a conversation he had with an individual about biblical interpretation. Apparently, the individual held that the wine that Jesus miraculously brought forth out of water in John 4 was merely unfermented grape juice. When asked why he held this view, he contended that to hold that the wine held fermented content was to argue that Jesus was a sinner because wine is said to be a mocker in Proverbs 20:1. Curtis asked him what this had to do with Jesus’s miraculous transformation of water into wine. The unnamed individual then said that he used the law of first mention. According to the law of first mention, the interpreter first examines the initial place where the term or doctrine is taught in the Scripture. Then, the initial usage of the term and/or doctrine serves as a guideline for interpreting other subsequent passages that teach on the issue.

Let me first say that in all my biblical hermeneutics courses, I have never heard of the law of first mention. I have had some world-class instructors who can read the Bible in its original languages without a translation in hand. To my knowledge, they never mentioned such a law of biblical interpretation. There is simply no good reason to follow the law of first mention for the following reasons. As an aside, the issue concerning the Christian’s use of alcohol is a highly controversial topic. We simply do not have space to deal with the ethical ramifications of alcohol use. For the purposes of this article, we are merely examining the efficacy of the law of first mention, or the lack thereof.

The Law of First Mention Fails to Engage the Individual Text

The first problem with the law of first mention is that the tactic fails to consider the literal interpretation of each biblical text. Considering the topic at hand, earlier texts really do nothing to assist the interpreter with engaging whether a historical event occurred or not. Earlier teachings may assist with understanding the thought process behind a text in question. But it cannot overrule other factors such as social practice and norms, extra-biblical historical events, word studies, and other social matters that come into play. Furthermore, the historical context of the first mention must also be an issue of investigation, as one must remember that the modern interpreter is separated from the biblical times by at least 2,000 years—more like 4–6,000 years from the Old Testament eras. Additionally, the writings of Scripture are not necessarily in chronological order. So, determining when something was first uttered may be far more complex than originally held.

The Law of First Mention Fails to Accommodate Theological Complexities

Second, the law of first mention does not consider the theological complexities found in Scripture. Without considering various theological issues, one may adopt all kinds of absurdities. For instance, the first two instances where wine is mentioned in the Bible come in the book of Genesis. The first reference is in Genesis 9:21, where it is said of Noah that “He drank some of the wine, became drunk, and uncovered himself inside the tent” (Gen. 9:21) [1]. Does this then imply that each believer should drink wine, become drunk, and uncover oneself? Certainly not! Obviously, this is not what Curtis’s friend was trying to imply.

The second mention is no better for his cause, for it says, “Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine; he was a priest to God Most High” (Gen. 14:18). This is of no help when trying to understand whether Jesus’s wine was fermented or not. Thus, as one can tell, the law of first mention fails to account for the theological complexities of the text. The first instance serves as a warning of a life that strayed from God, whereas the second shows the gift that Melchizedek gave to Abraham, which may have included fermented wine.

Does this then indicate that everyone should drink wine? Of course not! Because other texts serve as warnings, exhorting individuals to avoid drunkenness (i.e., Prov. 23:20; Isa. 5:22; Gal. 5:19–21; Eph. 5:18). Yet this shows the ineptitude of the law of first mention when used alone. The law of first mention would seem to indicate that everyone should drink wine and get drunk if the case of Noah is used; but as the specified texts suggest, this is not the case.

Finally, the law of first mention fails to account for the gradual betterment of each subsequent covenant. If one accepts the law of first mention, then the old covenants are inherently better than the newer covenants. However, the new covenant in Christ is superior to all previous covenants. The writer of Hebrews states, “By saying a new covenant, he has declared that the first is obsolete. And what is obsolete and growing old is about to pass away” (Heb. 8:13). Not only does the author note that the new covenant is better than the covenants of old, but he also proclaims that the new has made the old obsolete. Therefore, this poses a major difficulty for the law of first mention, as it shows that there may be times when the new supersedes the old. Yes, the new covenant is indeed built upon concepts found in previous covenants. However, the new covenant does not require animal sacrifices, rituals, or the keeping of certain holidays. Rather, it is built upon the sacrifice of Christ himself. The believer is no longer under the law of old. He or she is under the law of grace. The new covenant’s supersession of the old creates a cataclysmic problem for the law of first mention.

The Law of First Mention is Based on a Logical Fallacy

Finally, the law of first mention is seemingly built upon a logical fallacy known as the fallacy of antiquity or the fallacy of tradition. The fallacy of antiquity is a false belief that holds that something must be better if it is older. This is the opposite of what is known as the fallacy of novelty, which holds that something must be better if it is new.

Suppose a person argues that original video games are better than modern video games. If this were so in all cases, then the paddle game Pong would be better than recent sports games, since it is the very first video game developed. However, Pong can in no way match the complexities and graphics found in modern games. For instance, being a football fan, I love the Madden football series. There is no comparison between Pong and the Madden series, as Madden adds realistic graphics, color commentary, and the opportunity to call numerous plays. In contrast, Pong allows you to move a white bar on a black screen to toss a white ball to an opponent who repeats the process. It could be that some aspects of older games are better than newer games. [2] But it is a hard sale to claim that all older games are better than all newer ones.

Another misconception people hold is that times were always better in the 50s and 60s than in modern times. However, one often does not consider the racial tensions of the 50s. If a person was black and lived in some sectors of the South, then the 50s were exponentially worse than modern times. Thus, this view shows the difficulties associated with an appeal to antiquity. The reality is that such a claim is not always true. The law of first things appears to be guilty of the same fallacy. Accepting the first mention of an issue in the Bible as the linchpin for all future references is nothing more than adopting the fallacy of antiquity.

Conclusion

The law of first mention fails as a proper hermeneutic on several fronts. First, it does not adequately handle the hermeneutical complexities of each passage at hand. Second, it fails to examine the theological intricacies throughout the totality of Scripture, especially when concerned with the supremacy of the new covenant over the old. Finally, the law of first mention is built upon the logical fallacy known as the appeal to antiquity. With all this noted, one may still find some benefits in studying the first place where an idea or word is used in Scripture. Some have found it beneficial to examine the first time that the term “light” is used in Genesis. Nevertheless, such a practice should never be used in isolation. It should always accompany linguistic, historical, and theological depths to find authorial intent. The goal of biblical interpretation is to understand what the author is trying to communicate to his/her reader. As such, the law of first mention does not assist in this endeavor and can lead to absurdities if pressed too far.

Footnotes

[1] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville, TN: Holman, 2020).

[2] One case being where old hockey games would allow you to shove a player into his team’s bench and allowed you to shatter the glass if you were to hit the puck just right. But does this indicate that the overall game is better? Probably not.

Daniel Prophesied the Timing Of The Messiah

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

How did Jesus see himself? As we learn about Jesus’ Jewish context in the first century, we find that he made some staggering claims. First of all, Jesus spoke constantly about God’s kingdom. The phrase kingdom of God or kingdom of heaven appears more than 100 times in the Gospels. Jesus begins his ministry in Mark by saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is near.” (Mark 1:15)

Okay, so what’s the big deal about that? And what does Jesus mean when he says the kingdom of God is “near”? Jesus was assuming that his audience would pick up on the ideas he was laying down. When a first century Jew heard the phrase “the kingdom of God,” their minds likely turned to a very specific prophecy in Daniel 2. Let’s provide some context before reading the prophecy. Daniel 2 describes King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of an impressive statue crafted from four precious metals. As the dream unfolds, a large mountain grows from a mysterious stone, destroying the statue.

JESUS AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD

Let’s read the prophecy. Daniel 2:31-35 says:

“You, O king, were watching and behold, there was a single great statue; that statue, which was large and of extraordinary radiance, was standing in front of you, and its appearance was awesome. The head of that statue was made of fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and its thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, and its feet partly of iron and partly of clay. You continued watching until a stone was broken off without hands, and it struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay, and crushed them. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold were crushed to pieces all at the same time, and they were like chaff from the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away so that not a trace of them was found. But the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the entire earth.”

The four parts of the statue represent four pagan empires, beginning with the Babylonians. Nebuchadnezzar is told by Daniel that he is the head of gold. Additionally, he tells him that a second kingdom inferior to Babylon will follow after him, symbolized by silver, and a third kingdom by bronze. Eventually, a fourth kingdom emerges that is initially strong like iron, but gradually weakens, as if it were a mixture of iron and clay. Note that the fifth kingdom — God’s kingdom — occurs during the time of the fourth kingdom (Daniel 2.26-43).

Here’s Daniel 2:44-45:

“And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever. Just as you saw that a stone was broken off from the mountain without hands, and that it crushed the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold, the great God has made known to the king what will take place in the future; so the dream is certain and its interpretation is trustworthy.”

Daniel explains that the four majestic beasts refer to four kings who arise from the earth. (7:17) After the appearance of four beasts, a heavenly “son of man” appears who seems to share divine honors. Then Daniel 7:9, 13-14 says: “I kept looking until thrones were set up, And the Ancient of Days took His seat; His garment was white as snow, And the hair of His head like pure wool. His throne was ablaze with flames, Its wheels were a burning fire….“I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a son of man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, Honor, and a kingdom, So that all the peoples, nations, and populations of all languages Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.”

This Son of Man is the king of the fifth kingdom, God’s eternal kingdom. Think about what Jesus is saying in the Gospels. He speaks of God’s kingdom. Then he declares that he is the Son of Man, the ruler of the kingdom that would come during the Roman Empire. An attentive first century Jew would understand that he is claiming he is the long-awaited Messiah who will end the reign of these beastly kingdoms on earth.

JESUS, THE “CUT OFF” MESSIAH

Jesus applies one more prophecy in Daniel to himself. According to him, the Son of Man must be handed over to the authorities and put to death. (Mark 8.31-32) Where does Jesus get this idea from? In a rather bizarre passage, Daniel 9 describes the Messiah being executed. Here’s Daniel 9:24-27:

“Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the wrongdoing, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for guilt, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy Place. So you are to know and understand that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, until Messiah the Prince, there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with streets and moat, even in times of distress. Then after the sixty-two weeks, the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. And he will confirm a covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come the one who makes desolate, until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, gushes forth on the one who makes desolate.”

There has been much ink spilled over this very difficult section of Scripture. For this video, I’m choosing to limit myself to three reasons why the passage has been interpreted as referring not only to the work of the Messiah, but when he would arrive. In the prophecy, 490 years, or about 70 weeks of time, will pass between Jerusalem’s restoration and the coming of the Messiah. The phrase cut off implies that this Messiah will die. Jesus treats the Son of Man in Daniel 7 and the Messiah in Daniel 9 as one person. Additionally, the prophecy links the death of the Messiah with the destruction of the city and sanctuary, meaning Jerusalem and the Temple . As a result, animal sacrifices will cease. Jesus himself mentions the abomination of desolation coming during his Olivet Discourse and predicts that Jerusalem and the Temple will be destroyed. Let’s now look at the dates for this astonishing prediction.

JESUS CAME RIGHT ON TIME

Many commentators believe that the “sending forth of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” happened when the Persian King Artaxerxes commanded the Temple to be rebuilt in 457 BC. (Ezra 7) From there there’s the seventy weeks of years, which equals 490 years. That’s 33 AD, that’s the year many scholars believe Jesus was crucified! This is when Daniel says Messiah will be cut off. And then by 70 AD the city and sanctuary were destroyed.

You don’t have to trust my math. Let’s look at what the Jewish historian Josephus had to say: “We are convinced…that Daniel spoke with God, for he did not only prophesy about future events, as did the other prophets, but he also determined the time at which these would come to pass.” (Antiquities 10.267-68)

And here’s the French mathematician Blaise Pascal. (You know…the guy who came up with probability theory): “One must be bold to predict the same thing in so many ways. It was necessary that the four idolatrous or pagan monarchies, the end of the kingdom of Judah, and the seventy weeks, should happen at the same time, and all this before the second temple was destroyed.” (Pensees 11.709)

Scholars debate the exact dates of this prophecy, but regardless of how one calculates them, the 490 years between the restoration of Jerusalem and the coming of the Messiah occurred before the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. The prophecy of Daniel has to be fulfilled in the first century.

Summing up, this background from Daniel gives us a glimpse into what many Jewish people in the first century longed for. Their hope was in the coming of God’s kingdom and the messianic Son of Man. Furthermore, this data explains why Josephus, writing after the destruction of the Temple, is so surprised by Daniel’s predictions. It also explains why a first-century Jew like Jesus could describe his own coming death-along with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple-as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. Daniel did more than prophesy that the Messiah would come; he also predicted when he would come, what would happen to him, and what would happen to Jerusalem and its Temple. And it came to pass. During the first century. 2,000 years ago. Jesus of Nazareth, the proclaimer of God’s Kingdom and the Son of Man’s coming, was crucified 490 years after Jerusalem was restored by King Artaxerxes. This is rather stunning. The fulfillment of the prophecy goes to show that Jesus wasn’t a liar or a lunatic. He’s the long-awaited Messiah who came just when Daniel predicted.

No, Martin Luther Was Not a Deconstructionist

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Alisa Childers

This article is in response to this piece from The Gospel Coalition. As a past TGC contributor, as an act of good faith, I did express my concerns directly to TGC before posting my article here.

**Update** The Gospel Coalition was gracious to publish a condensed version of my article on their site.

No, Martin Luther Was Not a Deconstructionist. And neither was Jesus.

Many years ago, my Christian beliefs were challenged intellectually by a progressive Christian pastor. It threw me into deconstruction that took several years to fully come out of. I would find out later that he himself had already deconstructed and had hoped to propel his congregation into deconstruction so he could convert them to progressive Christianity. He was very good at it. In fact, he was almost totally successful. A few of us came back around to a historically Christian understanding of the gospel, but most did not.

Because of this, when “deconstruction stories” started popping up in my social media newsfeed, along with hashtags like #exvangelical and #deconstruction, I paid attention. I’ve been following along… seeking to understand what people mean by those words.

I witnessed a hashtag turn into a movement.

As of today, there are 293,026 posts on Instagram utilizing the hashtag #deconstruction. The vast majority are from people who have either deconverted from Christianity, become progressive Christians, embraced same-sex marriage and relationships, rejected core historic doctrines of the faith,and/or are on a mission to crush the white Christian patriarchy. There are a few photos of deconstructed clothing (apparently this is a thing?) and a scant few sneaky posts from evangelicals attempting (mostly unsuccessfully) to convince the deconstructors that Jesus is the way. A plethora of insults, mockery, and anger are hurled at the church, along with memes stating, “I regret saving myself for marriage,” and “Good morning! It’s a great day to leave your nonaffirming church.”

Online, there are countless deconstruction therapy and counseling sites which will facilitate your deconstruction and reconstruct you with mindfulness or the contemplative practices of progressive Christian favorites like Richard Rohr. There are conferences you can attend, one for which I personally paid good money (for research purposes) to be taught how to break free from toxic religion, reject Christian dogma, and learn to embrace what basically added up to warmed-over Buddhism.

Phil Drysdale, a deconstructed Christian and deconstruction researcher asked people on Instagram to name the accounts that have helped them through their deconstructions. A quick scroll reveals that the leaders and guides the vast majority are looking to are accounts/people like Lisa Gungor, Audrey Assad, God is Grey, Jesus Unfollower, Your Favorite Heretics, Jo Luehmann, The Naked Pastor, and a plethora of others dedicated to providing a space for Christians to examine, reinterpret and/or abandon their beliefs. None of these accounts are encouraging Christians to look to Scripture as the authority for truth.

My Kingdom for a Definition

In my book, Another Gospel: A Lifelong Christian Seeks Truth in Response to Progressive Christianity, which chronicles my own deconstruction journey, I define deconstruction this way:

In the context of faith, deconstruction is the process of systematically dissecting and often rejecting the beliefs you grew up with. Sometimes the Christian will deconstruct all the way into atheism. Some remain there, but others experience a reconstruction. But the type of faith they end up embracing almost never resembles the Christianity they formerly knew.

I would add that it rarely retains any vestiges of actual Christianity.

Over the past year or so, it has become common for Christian leaders to begin to refer to deconstruction as something potentially positive. I get it. When I first heard that take, I thought, “Hmmm. That could work. Just deconstruct the false beliefs and line up what you believe with Scripture.” I was operating from the foundational belief that objective truth exists and can be known. But as I continued to study the movement, this understanding of deconstruction became untenable.

That’s because the way the word is most often used in the deconstruction movement has little to do with objective truth, and everything to do with tearing down whatever doctrine someone believes is morally wrong. Take, for example, Melissa Stewart, a former Christian now agnostic/atheist with a TikTok following of over 200k. She describes how lonely and isolated she felt during her own deconstruction, and how discovering the #exvangelical hashtag opened up a whole new world of voices who related with what she was going through. Her TikTok platform now gives her the opportunity to create that type of space for others. In an interview on the Exvangelical Podcast, she commented on the deconstruction/exvangelical online space:

My biggest experiences with it were people talking about what they went through—their stories—and it was very personal and it focused on the human beings who have come out of this, rather than on whether a certain kind of theology is right or wrong.

In my experience studying this movement, I think she nails it on the head. Deconstruction is not about getting your theology right. It’s built upon a postmodern-ish embrace of moral relativism. For example, if your church says a woman can’t be a pastor, the virtuous thing to do would be to leave that church and deconstruct out of that toxic and oppressive doctrine. Deconstructionists do not regard Scripture as being the final authority for morality and theology—they appeal primarily to science, culture, psychology, sociology, and history.

A Life of Its Own

Now, the narrative is evolving. I’m seeing more and more posts, including the previously mentioned Gospel Coalition article, that portray Martin Luther and even Jesus himself as deconstructionists. This, in my view, is inherently irresponsible. If deconstruction means nothing more than changing your mind, or correcting bad ideas, then I can say I deconstructed by switching from AT&T to Verizon. Martin Luther was trying to reform the church to get back to Scripture. This is most certainly not what the deconstructionists are doing. In most cases, the Bible is the first thing to go. And when people put Jesus in the deconstruction camp…it’s unclear whether they mean he deconstructed his own views or he deconstructed the views of others. Either way, it’s seriously problematic. Deconstruction is not an appropriate term to use in these contexts.

It’s as if all of the sudden no one knows what the word means anymore, and they are somehow trying to redeem it or co-opt it to represent something like changing your mind or reforming your faith. Some in the deconstruction movement will argue that the current iteration of deconstruction is not to be conflated with the postmodern philosophy of Jacque Derrida, who is often referred to as the “Father of Deconstruction.” But I’m not convinced. Ultimately, Derrida didn’t believe that words could be pinned down to singular meanings. James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose put it like this: “For Derrida, the speaker’s meaning has no more authority than the hearer’s interpretation and thus intention cannot outweigh impact.”[i]

Of course, for Derrida deconstruction had to do with text and words, not necessarily the dismantling of one’s faith. But it’s only a short jump from deconstructing the text of the Bible (which, I would argue, is typically the first stop on the path to deconstruction as it is manifesting today) to the complete unraveling of one’s orthodox Christian beliefs.

Here’s the irony. If we attempt to completely detach current deconstruction from Derrida and define it subjectively, we are literally deconstructing the word “deconstruction” a la Derrida. Why are we trying to co-opt a word and spin it into a positive? And if the meaning of the word deconstruction signifies any number of different things, at best we will be equivocating. At worst, we will have bought into the assumptions of postmodernism hook, line and sinker.

Matt Chandler is Right

Recent comments by Matt Chandler have made the rounds in which he characterized deconstruction as “the sexy thing to do,” hitting on the almost trendy type of cool factor the word now carries. Aside from giving the deconstructionists endless opportunities to make him the butt of their “Matt Chandler thinks I’m sexy!” jokes and memes, his comments (along with the recent comments by John Cooper of Skillet) have revealed that many Christians are using this one word in profoundly different ways. For example, Relevant magazine claims Chandler and Cooper have a “fundamental misunderstanding” of deconstruction. I disagree. I admit I’ve had a few quibbles with points Matt Chandler has made in recent years. But on this I think he understands something they don’t. He links deconstruction with the postmodernism of Derrida, and in a subsequent Instagram post, commented, “Deconstruction doesn’t mean doubt or theological wrestle or struggling through church hurt.” (All things he said he’s been through and has tons of mercy for.) I think he’s dead right.

We are Christians, and we should be deriving our vocabulary and categories from Scripture. I see nowhere in the Bible where anything like the current movement of deconstruction is promoted or condoned. I propose we leave it with Derrida and instead use biblical words and categories like doubt, reformation, discernment, and even sometimes, (gasp!) apostasy.

Let’s save deconstruction for what it presents itself to be. Here are some characteristics to look for if you think you might be deconstructing:

1. Some type of moral relativism is assumed, whether explicitly or implicitly. If Scripture is your authority, you are not deconstructing. That doesn’t mean you’re not struggling deeply with doubt, seeking healing from church abuse, or have profound confusion over what it means to be a Christian.

2. You are detaching from the body of Christ and seeking only the community of others who are also in deconstruction. If you are working through your doubts and questions in community with other believers, or at least have the intention of doing so, you are not deconstructing. Sometimes this will mean leaving an unbiblical church environment for a time, with the goal of finding a healthy one.

3. You are looking to non-Christian religious philosophies, history, or sociology—rather than Scripture— to determine authentic Christianity. Not that things like history and sociology are without merit, but if you are honestly seeking to derive your religious beliefs from Scripture, you are not deconstructing.

This doesn’t mean there’s no hope if you find yourself in actual deconstruction. Ten years ago, I found myself spiraling into deconstruction, and God in his unfathomable mercy and faithfulness led me out.

Let’s not Deconstruct Deconstruction

As Christians, we tend to protest when progressives and secularists take words and phrases like “love,” “tolerance,’ “biblical inspiration,” and “incarnation” and change the definitions to suit their preferences. Let’s not do the same with deconstruction.

Deconstruction has taken on a life of its own, and now is the time to be extremely careful to define our words accurately. After all, if the word means everything, then it means nothing, yet it carries the potential to suck unsuspecting Christians into a very dangerous vortex of ideas from which they might not return.

A Way To Simplify The Big Picture

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

Being able to make the case for the truth of Christianity means you have to understand it yourself. There are plenty of resources out there that can help you do that. I always try to share the best ones I know about. But right now, I want to offer you a visual tool as a way to simplify the “big picture.” This diagram helps categorize the facts supporting Christian Theism. It’s a way to organize the evidence for Christianity in your mind’s eye.

Confident Christianity

Last year, I developed this model into a book-length summary of the evidence for Christian theism. It is available now in both paperback and Kindle formats. You can order it here:

This book doesn’t make any claims about the theological nuances that are required to understand Christianity in detail. And it doesn’t address denominational differences between Christians. It is a simple summary of the evidence for “Mere Christianity” that we find in the real world. It’s a challenge to skeptics who may have dismissed Christianity as just another blindly-followed religious myth. And it’s an easy-to-read distillation of that evidence for Christians who may never have been exposed to all of it in one place. My goal in writing this book was to provide a basic, “big picture” overview for those who may have never been exposed to apologetics.

What Is Theism?

There are many different views of God. But they fall into three basic categories:

Pantheism— the idea that all of reality actually is Hinduism is an example of a pantheistic religion. Pantheism makes no distinction between God and nature. The entire physical universe is a manifestation of God. Rocks are god. Trees are god. You are god. God is not a person. God is everything.
Deism— the idea that God is separate from the physical world but does not interact with it. God is like “The Force” in Star Wars — a powerful entity who creates the world and then steps back to watch his handiwork. There is no revelation from this God. There are no miracles. God has no further contact with his creation.
Theism— this is a view that there is a creator God who not only forms the physical universe but also stays involved with it. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are theistic religions.

Christianity is a theistic religion. That means we should have evidence for some kind of theistic God who is separate from, but involved in, the universe. This is a God who created, sustains, and interacts with the world. Our diagram is a summary of the evidence for that kind of God.

First Things First – God Exists

I’ve summarized the case for God’s existence into three basic categories: Origins, Ethics, and Life. Here’s what I mean:

If this God exists, we must have evidence for the type of God who is a personal, moral agent. In order to create the physical universe, that God must exist outside of that universe. That means God can’t be part of the matter, energy, space, or time that makes up our world. He must be transcendent and non-physical. But it doesn’t stop there. Theism requires that God is also able to act within the universe he created.

These three foundational categories (origins, ethics, and life) contain all the evidence that explains things we know about our universe:

It is a universe in which we all recognize that real, moral truths exist and that they are constantly being violated
It is an actual, physical thing that came into existence sometime in the finite past
Whatever/whoever caused the beginning of the universe could not have been a part of the physical universe itself
It is designed to allow for, and to sustain, the existence of living things
Some of those living things are personal beings who have moral, mental, and physical attributes

Obviously, there is a lot to each of these topics and I will provide resources to support each of them, but the takeaway is simply that our claim to believe that there is a God is not based on some kind of wishful thinking or irrational hope. It is based on evidence — concrete evidence about the way the world actually is.

Since we have evidence that there is a God and that this God’s attributes must be consistent with the evidence listed above, it follows that one of the theistic religions must be true. In order to determine which of the theistic religions is true, we need more specific information.

Specific Evidence For Christianity

The blue categories at the top of the diagram are what allow us to differentiate Christianity from the other theistic religions. Here, we look at data from archaeology and history. We can also compare the manuscript evidence from each of those religions in order to identify which of them is true. This is where the strength of the case for Christianity shines. No other religion even comes close to having the amount of evidence to support it:

The existence of its primary historical figure — Jesus of Nazareth
The archaeological relics that correlate to its story from the very beginning
A world-changing event — the Resurrection — that is central to its claims
The number of manuscripts that verify Christianity’s authenticity and reliability

That’s the case for Christian Theism in a nutshell. We can be confident that our faith is justified, not because it makes us feel good about ourselves, or because it “works for us,” but because it is actually true!

Now for the hard part.

The Ultimate Apologetic

If you aren’t already familiar with the information above, it won’t seep into your brain through osmosis. You have to be dedicated to familiarizing yourself with it. In the posts that follow, I will give you resources — videos, articles, and books — to help fill in the details of each of these categories of evidence. But remember, you don’t have to become a biblical scholar and master every subject listed above in order to prepare yourself and those you love to use them. Remember, the purpose of True Horizon is to look at the world with a view from 35,000 feet.

You simply have to understand the basics and be willing to go find answers. In the meantime, here are some fundamental things to understand about what this all means and how to use it:

Knowing “facts” gives you confidence to engage with others but, in the cultural climate we live in, citing facts will rarely convince others to change their minds.
Your attitude may go further than your evidence in compelling others to consider what you’re saying.
Asking questions is almost always more effective than making statements.
Telling your story s vastly more interesting than regurgitating practiced arguments.

Finally, always remember that you are not meant to convince people to agree with you. That’s not your job. The Holy Spirit is the one who leads them to the truth. You are not the one who saves them. That’s Jesus’ job.

Your mission is simple: know and speak the truth. “Always be prepared to give a reason for the hope you have” (1 Peter 3:15). You are only meant to train those in your little corner of the world to be prepared to engage people in a winsome way.

That’s your “job.” And when you’ve done it, relax … and let God do His.

Mass Shootings & Pro-Choice Hysteria: Three Questions that Show the Insanity of Modern Moral Outrage

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Adam Tucker

As I sit at my computer thinking about the incomprehensible evil of yet another mass shooting, this time in Uvalde, Texas, the floods of outrage, sadness, fear, and uncertainty grip me as I’m sure they do many of you. Ironically, news of the tragedy broke just minutes before attending the end-of-year ceremonies at my kids’ school. Tears filled my eyes as I watched the boys and girls sing and receive their awards knowing that so many parents will not get to experience such joys after this latest tragedy. I truly cannot imagine.

Yet, while the news coming out of Texas is very disturbing, there is something else I can’t get out of my mind. Just over a week ago, my family and I had the opportunity to take in some of the landmarks in our nation’s capital. As we navigated busy crosswalks and a drizzly day around the National Mall, we began hearing loud music and very angry people shouting over a PA system. Once we reached the front of the White House (the obligatory photo op), we could see the area just below the Washington Monument covered with thousands of people pouring into the streets holding signs and banging drums. Little did we know, this was one of nearly 400 “Bans Off Our Bodies” rallies organized across the country to protest the recently leaked documents from the Supreme Court that point to a possible overturn of Roe v. Wade.

The sadness I feel about the Uvalde school-shooting was equaled by the anger and heartbreak I felt seeing the narcissism, hedonism, and utter foolhardy reasoning occurring at that pro-choice rally.

What is wrong with this scenario? How can we (rightly) mourn the loss of “our most vulnerable” one day and cheer for the death of the unborn (those who are truly our most vulnerable) the next? More to the point, how can we pretend that these utterly contradictory attitudes are sane?

To be frank, we can’t, and we shouldn’t, because such attitudes demonstrate the literal insanity that has taken over modern moral sensibilities and outrage. We can demonstrate this insanity by asking three important questions.

What is a ‘Right’?

No doubt, in the days to come there will be vicious calls for more gun laws, and more debates will occur over the right to bear arms. Likewise, those from the “Bans Off Our Bodies” rally will continue to argue that they have a right to an abortion, and those opposing them will argue the unborn have their own right to life. We constantly hear about gay rights, trans rights, equal rights, etc. This language of “rights” gets thrown around all the time, but what exactly is a right? It will be most helpful to first determine what a right is not.

Rights can’t be merely subjective preferences. If that were the case, then no mass shooter, abortionist, protester, Supreme Court Justice, etc. could, in principle, do anything objectively wrong. At most, we could say their behavior is not our preferred behavior, but why should anyone care about your preferred behavior? In this case, we could not say that anything is actually wrong (or right for that matter). That certainly doesn’t seem correct.

Nor can we conclude that rights are the types of things that apply universally to everything. After all, we don’t put lions on trial for killing a gazelle or even another lion. Hence, there seems to be something specific to human beings regarding rights.

Similarly, rights can’t just be a matter of legislation from some government body. Things like slavery used to be perfectly legal, but we rightly concluded that such behavior is objectively wrong regardless of its legality. Governments are tasked with protecting rights, not granting them. This understanding was foundational to the formulation of America’s founding documents (even if it was inconsistently lived out). It was also understood when even governments themselves, like Nazi Germany for example, were charged with crimes against “humanity” despite the legal grounds in Nazi Germany for killing Jews.

So rights are the kinds of things that aren’t merely opinions. They are not simply based on what is legal, and they seem to apply specifically to human beings. We’re getting closer to understanding what a right is, but what exactly does it mean to be human, and why do humans have these things we call rights?

Why Do Humans Have Rights?

Classically understood, a thing is what it is according to its nature. In other words, all humans are humans because we instantiate a common human nature (in a moderate-realist sense) that makes us a human rather than, say, a dog or a cat. This seems rather obvious, but it is in fact something that has been abandoned in our modern rationale where anyone can “be” anything they want to “be.” In reality, however, we all know this simple fact about natures. No one intentionally goes to the veterinarian rather than a medical doctor when he’s sick. Why? Because he knows the difference between humans and dogs!

Because we can know the natures of things, we can know what constitutes a thing’s good. Correctly understood, “good” is that which fulfills the end or purpose of some thing according to that thing’s nature. To quote Thomas Aquinas, “Good has the nature of an end, and evil, the nature of a contrary.” For example, an eye that doesn’t hear well provides no useful information regarding whether the eye is good or not. An eye that doesn’t see well, however, is an objectively bad eye because it does not fulfill its purpose according to its nature as an eye. Such an understanding turns to moral goodness because humans have a rational nature. We are able both to know what is good for us and choose whether to pursue that good or not. Because the good of our intellects is knowing truth, and the good of our wills is pursuing what the intellect perceives as good, acting contrary to reason just is to act immorally. What does this have to do with rights? We’re getting there.

Notice that this is a completely objective standard of goodness. For example, no matter how much someone wants his eyes to hear, they are simply not the kinds of things meant for hearing. We discover such truths about reality because of our ability to know the natures of things. We do not invent these truths. This understanding of morality is called natural law (based on the good according to our nature as human beings), and it is broadly the basis for our Declaration of Independence and the civil rights movement. As Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. famously wrote in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, “I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’ … To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law.”

This knowledge of natural law gives us the foundation to discover the objective and unchanging human rights to which we’re all entitled based on our shared objective and unchanging human nature. To see why, consider this. Because we are by nature social creatures, we rely on each other for our well-being in various ways (both positively and negatively). As Christian philosopher Dr. Edward Feser observes,

“… we are all obliged to refrain from interfering with others’ attempts to fulfill the various moral obligations placed on them by the natural law; the most basic natural right is the right to do what is good and not to be coerced into doing evil.”

From this understanding we can extrapolate, among other things, the basic rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Of course, this does not mean that we are free to pursue our personal idea of “happiness” without limits. Quite the opposite. We are, after all, naturally directed to pursuing what is actually true and what is actually good. Much like my children having fun on the playground, they are free to play anywhere within the bounds of the playground (their “good” if you will), but they are not free to play in the street. As Feser goes on to say,

“While the very concept of a right entails a certain measure of liberty, that liberty cannot be absolute; for since the point of natural rights is to enable us to realize the ends set for us by nature [our actual good], there cannot, even in principle, be a natural right to do what is contrary to the realization of those ends. In short, there cannot be a natural right to do wrong.”

What are the Implications for Modern Moral Outrage?

Given the knowledge that human rights are based on the natural law thinking outlined above, we can ask our final question: what are the implications of this understanding for the modern moral outrage we see all around us?

While not all of our social ills can be blamed on any one thing, there is one issue that has contributed to societal downfall more than perhaps any other. That issue is sex. Let’s briefly examine this issue in light of our natural law reasoning. We can see that human sexual faculties are directed towards the dual purposes of procreation and emotional bonding with the opposite sex. Intercourse naturally results in children who require the long-term care of a mother and father. Adultery, pornography, promiscuity, homosexual behavior, and many other misdirected sexual behaviors are directly contrary to the good of our sexual faculties. Therefore, such behaviors are necessarily bad for us regardless of someone’s particular feelings or desires (after all, we all have desires on which we ought not act).

Recall the Aquinas quote above, “Good has the nature of an end, and evil, the nature of a contrary.” Since human rights are based in natural law, and natural law shows the necessarily evil nature of the modern sexual revolution, we can see that someone cannot rationally argue for sexual vice by claiming her “rights” are being violated. Why? Because no such rights exist (that is not to say that there needs to be government-enforced laws against every vice). Moreover, if someone wants to simply jettison this natural law reasoning all together, then she is also eliminating the very possibility of objective human rights, in which case, there is no rational argument to be made for keeping “bans off [your] bodies.” You can’t have it both ways.

Feser summarizes the situation well,

“Similarly, in a person or society dominated by sexual vice, it isn’t just moral understanding in matters of sex that would be undermined, but moral understanding in general. For the general idea of human faculties having natural purposes is unlikely to survive when the natural purposes of our sexual faculties, specifically (which are about as obvious as natural purposes can be), are obscured. … The infection is bound to leap from the individual, to the culture at large, to the political sphere. In the Republic, Plato suggests that egalitarian societies tend to become dominated by lust, and have a tendency to degenerate into tyrannies. For souls dominated by lust are least able to restrain their appetites or to tolerate disapproval of them, which leads to general moral breakdown and an increase in the number of individuals with especially disordered and ruthless temperaments.”

We are left with a culture whose moral reasoning is truly insane, having largely been blinded by decades of sexual vice masquerading as sexual freedom. This is how such a culture can in one breath rightly mourn the tragic loss of young lives, and use the next breath to hysterically shout about a “woman’s right to choose” to murder her unborn baby. It truly is a psychosis that must be countered with a generation of well-trained and sober-minded individuals who are prepared to tackle the insanity head-on.

In short, there can be no legitimate moral outrage apart from human rights. And there can be no actual human rights apart from natural law. But natural law shows that things like abortion, homosexual behavior, adultery, pornography, etc. are necessarily bad for us (i.e., evil). Thus, we have no “rights” to such things. These ideas stand or fall together.
The simple fact is, without moral sanity there can be no real social justice. To once more quote Feser’s summation of the issue,

“In reality, there cannot possibly be true social justice without sound sexual morals, because the family is the foundation of social order and the family cannot be healthy without sound sexual morals. The sexual revolution is the cause of millions of children being left fatherless, with the intergenerational poverty and social disorder that that entails. Nor is there any greater manifestation of the deep selfishness that makes social justice impossible than the callous willingness of millions to murder their own children in the womb. Talk about social injustice that ignores the fundamental role of the sexual revolution in fostering such injustice is mere chatter – unserious, sentimental, and prone to make modern people comfortable in their sins rather than telling them what they really need to hear.”

One Last Thought

The astute reader may notice that no Bible verses have been quoted thus far. That may seem like a slap in the face to some, but it is indicative of the common grace and general revelation God has given all of us. A strong case can be made for objective morality apart from any appeal to God or the Bible. On the flip side, the reality of objective morality, based on natural law, can serve as the basis for a strong argument for the existence of God. In turn, such an argument can then lead to a demonstration of the truthfulness of Christianity as a whole.

May wise Christ-followers use the reality of modern moral outrage as a springboard for pointing others to the truth of the Gospel. Ultimate healing of broken homes, broken lives, and evil hearts can only come through the hope and salvation found in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. As we live out the Christian life amidst the insanity around us, let us do so with 2 Tim. 2:24-26 in our minds,

“The Lord’s servant must not quarrel, but must be gentle to everyone, able to teach, and patient, instructing his opponents with gentleness. Perhaps God will grant them repentance leading them to the knowledge of the truth. Then they may come to their senses and escape the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.”

The Nature of Reality and Perception

Why the Transcendent Nature of Reality Trumps Perception

The Consequences of Elevating Perception Over Reality

Conclusion

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Law of First Mention Fails to Engage the Individual Text

The Law of First Mention Fails to Accommodate Theological Complexities

The Law of First Mention is Based on a Logical Fallacy

Conclusion

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

JESUS AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD

JESUS, THE “CUT OFF” MESSIAH

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Confident Christianity

What Is Theism?

First Things First – God Exists

Specific Evidence For Christianity

The Ultimate Apologetic

Recommended resources related to the topic:

What is a ‘Right’?

Why Do Humans Have Rights?

What are the Implications for Modern Moral Outrage?

One Last Thought

Recommended resources related to the topic: