I was in my mid-20s living in San Diego. I joined some people from a nearby church and went to a Pride parade to pass out water, give hugs, and hold signs saying “We are sorry the church hasn’t loved you the way Jesus would” (or something along those lines). All of a sudden, I was descended upon by a film crew with a microphone asking me what Jesus had to say about homosexuality. I was not expecting this, but I was giddy to share the love of Christ and talk about how we are all sinners saved by grace and how Jesus never singled out homosexuality as worse than any other type of sexual immorality. In the middle of my sentence (which I had been certain would be received with amazement, tears, and more questions about how to know this Jesus guy), the film crew interrupted me and said, “NOTHING. He said nothing about homosexuality.” And then they walked away without a word, off to find their next “interview.”

 

I sat there dumbfounded. What had just happened? And was it true that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality? And if not, why not?

Spoiler alert: Jesus really doesn’t ever address homosexuality specifically, and in our current sexual climate, this argument is being trotted out regularly to convince people that Jesus, therefore, didn’t really have an opinion on the topic (or He tacitly affirmed it).

Jesus really doesn’t ever address homosexuality specifically, and in our current sexual climate, this argument is being trotted out regularly to convince people that Jesus, therefore, didn’t really have an opinion on the topic (or…Click To Tweet

I have always been drawn to the epistles and Revelation. The Gospels were a little less interesting to me because I couldn’t quite picture Jesus. I knew what the New Testament taught about sexuality, but it had never occurred to me that our theology hadn’t come from Jesus Himself. If your kids are coming to you asking why, here are a few things to help them think through the topic.

  1. Jesus did speak about sex and marriage
    While it is true that Jesus never specifically mentions homosexuality, it doesn’t mean that He had nothing to say about sexuality or marriage. Jesus employs the K.I.S.S. method [1] and consistently points His listeners back to how things were in the beginning, with male and female, united for life, not to be separated (Mark 10:2-9). But some people assume that since He didn’t specifically mention homosexuality that must mean He was at least ambivalent about it. Such a conclusion does not give enough weight to what Jesus did say or why He only addressed certain topics. (For example, He didn’t say anything about bestiality or incest, either. To be consistent with this argument, you’d have to argue that He was on the fence about those things, too.)

The one thing we know He didn’t say was that certain types of sexual immorality were more damnable than any other. After all, sexual sins always involve us sinning against our own bodies (1 Corinthians 6:18). We are all equal at the foot of the cross.

The one thing we know Jesus didn’t say was that certain types of sexual immorality were more damnable than any other. We are all equal at the foot of the cross. #lgbtq #trueequality Click To Tweet

  1. Jesus came specifically for the Jewish people first
    Yes, Jesus came to die for the whole world (John 3:16). An often overlooked part of the Gospels, however, is that He came for the Jewish people (Israel), first. (Matthew 15:24). His entire 3 ½ year ministry was focused on this one demographic (though He never turned a gentile away because of it). In Romans 1, Paul clarifies multiple times: “First for the Jew, then for the Gentile.” So keep in mind that Jesus’s primary message was to Jews — the people who were then tasked with taking the good news to the ends of the earth (Genesis 12:2-3Matthew 28:18-20). [2]This brings me to my next point.
  2. Jesus didn’t reiterate what His audience already knew
    The Jews already knew what the Law said about homosexuality, so they were a step ahead of most gentile cultures. The law of Moses was very specific about sexual morality (Leviticus 18 and 20). It lists every single possible person (or thing) a Jew was prohibited from having sex with. Why was it that specific? Because every single one of those sexual behaviors was happening or even commonplace in the land of Canaan! God warns them not to do any of these things, or they would be destroyed just like the Caananites were (Leviticus 18:28).

When Jesus came to the first-century Jews, they had known for generations what sexuality was intended to be. He didn’t need to reiterate this or go into specifics. This would be like coming to America to spread the message of driving on the right side of the road: your audience already knows it. When do we see homosexuality mentioned in the New Testament? You guessed it: when the author was speaking to a gentile audience who did not have familiarity with God’s laws regarding sexuality.

In summary:    

Jesus did not have to address every different type of sexual immorality to advocate for biblical sexuality. He stuck to original design and even doubles down in Mark 10:5-9. We can do the same with our kids every time they come to us with “But what about [fill in the blank with new sex, gender, or marriage question]?” Just keep pointing them back to God’s original design, and things get a lot simpler. Remind them we are all prone to wander from God’s design. Every single one of us. We are all equal at the foot of the cross as image-bearers struggling to accurately reflect God’s image.

Jesus did not have to address every different type of sexual immorality to advocate for biblical sexuality. Remind your kids that we are all prone to wander from God’s design. Click To Tweet

References:

[1] K.I.S.S. = Keep it simple, stupid! A motto drilled into us by my freshman year biology teacher/coach

[2] Notice that not a single apostle was a gentile.

Recommended Resources: 

Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )

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

The Great Book of Romans by Dr. Frank Turek (Mp4, Mp3, DVD Complete series, STUDENT & INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, COMPLETE Instructor Set)

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

 


Hillary Morgan Ferrer is the founder and President of Mama Bear Apologetics. She feels a burden for providing accessible apologetics resources for busy moms. She is the chief author and editor of the bestselling books  Mama Bear Apologetics: Empowering Your Kids to Challenge Cultural Lies, Mama Bear Apologetics Guide to Sexuality: Empowering Your Kids to Understand and Live Out God’s Design, and the soon to be released Honest Prayers for Mama Bears. Hillary has her master’s degree in biology and loves helping moms to discern truths and lies in both science and culture. She and her husband, John, have been married for 16 years and minister together as an apologetics team. She can never sneak up on anybody because of her chronic hiccups, which you can hear occasionally on the podcast and in interviews.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/448Dz36

I have been writing a series about Pride Month to highlight the truth behind the lives of the LGBTQ+ figures we are commanded to celebrate.  Young Christians considering attending state universities should be aware of the kind of propaganda they will encounter and how to respond in a bold yet loving manner that affirms the free offer of salvation through Christ to all.  These so-called “heroes” lived lives of “activism” and “helping the marginalized.” They are held up as people whom the young should imitate. ASU’s library commands us to “Celebrate” them. ASU is currently the largest state university in the country, weighing in at 180,000 students, so it has a sizable impact for this sex philosophy. Yet when we take an honest look at their lives, we see that they were hypocrites who harmed the very marginalized they claimed to defend. They offer no ideas on how to receive a new heart or find redemption. They lead their followers with promises of liberation, only to march them straight into the utter meaninglessness of “do as I say, not as I do” and imprisonment to sin.

 

Judith Butler is one of the most celebrated intellectuals behind the modern LGBTQ+ movement. A philosopher by trade, Butler has been crowned the patron saint of gender fluidity. She is best known for teaching us that gender isn’t something we are—it’s something we perform. Like a Broadway show, but with less coherence and worse costumes.

But before she denied the existence of objective reality as a mere power relation, Butler was raised in a Jewish home in Cleveland. As a form of discipline, her parents sent her to Hebrew school, hoping, perhaps, that a little theology would straighten her out. It did the opposite. There, she began grilling rabbis with tough philosophical questions: Why can only men read the Torah in services? Who decides what the Torah means? Underneath these lay a deeper question, one that shaped her thinking for decades: Why does God permit evil—especially in light of Jewish suffering?

The Came Hegel

She didn’t find answers that satisfied her. So she turned, instead, to Hegel. From him, she learned that all is one, that distinctions are illusions, and that we are climbing a dialectical staircase toward divinization. Everything is performance (all is one). Even performance is performance. Followed consistently, only the ego and its ideas/desires exist; there is no material world by which to test ideas and define simple concepts like “man and woman.” The psychoanalytic process is no longer about integration into reality but about conforming reality into whatever the ego wants.

Why is there suffering? Suffering is due to social constructs that interfere with individual desires, constructs imposed upon the individual ego by a judgmental society seeking to defend its power structures (this is foreshadowing something to come). And if suffering is constructed, then it can be deconstructed. If reality is imposed, then it can be reimagined. Truth is no longer discovered; it is declared.

If you think you’re a they/them, then you are. That’s all it takes. Just think it—and it is so.

There is no objective reality by which to test this. No external world to provide correction. The scientific method—laughable! Biology—repressive! That old wives’ tale that all human babies come from one biological mother and one biological father—how quaint! Gone is the humility of science and the moral law of God; in their place stands the imagination of the self, armed with a self-contradiction and a moralistic platitude. She even asserts that believing in two sexes is fascism!

The Real Moral Test

But here’s where the rubber meets the road.

For all her public moralism about power, justice, and women’s rights, Butler was strangely silent—indeed, complicit—when it really mattered. When the #MeToo movement urged us to “believe victims,” Butler didn’t. In fact, she did the opposite. She wrote a private, behind-the-scenes letter to the president of NYU defending her close friend and fellow gender theorist, who had been accused by a graduate student of sexual abuse and manipulation.

Let that sink in: Butler, long-time critic of power abuse and patriarchal academia, used her own power to shield an alleged abuser from consequences. She didn’t rush to defend the vulnerable. She rushed to protect the powerful—because that powerful person was one of her own.

This is the same Judith Butler who has built a career decrying systems of oppression, who teaches entire generations that moral hierarchies are tools of domination. But when a real moral test arrived, she flunked it. Not because she misunderstood her theory—but because she lived it out.

She later expressed some regret that maybe she may have defended privilege. Weak. But here’s the thing: before you start thinking “hey, we all make mistakes,” you must remember that isn’t the standard she has imposed on others. She demanded works righteousness conformity to her intersectionality power structure activism. There is no grace and no redemption. She can say “whoops” all she wants, but what this exposes is that in old age, after a lifetime of gender activism, she committing heinous wrongs and has seen no personal transformation.

As the fool said to King Lear: you shouldn’t have grown old until you grew wise.

Sadly, there is no such thing as wisdom for Butler because that requires objective reality, and the ego must deny itself to pursue truth. Wisdow laughs at her claim that “all is performance.”

You see, Butler’s gender theory has no room for integrity, no path to repentance, and no standard of justice beyond power itself. The ego is the highest standard. Her entire worldview boils down to this: “Do what you think is true. Reality is what you say it is.”Which works just fine—until she has more power and decides that you are the problem. Then letters are written to defend her friends.

Are you starting to see a theme behind these heroes?

This is what makes her a hero of Pride Month. Not because she offered a path to redemption or renewal. She didn’t. But because she gave the movement a philosophical excuse (albeit a nonsensical one) to cast off all restraint—gender, biology, objectivity, morality—and replace them with the ego and its desires.

What’s the pattern in what these heroes taught and how they live?

  • “Whatever you desire, do that.”
  • “There is no objective moral standard; all is reducible to power.”
  • “And even if there is objective morality, I’ll violate it when it’s personally convenient.”
  • You can be as God, do what you want is the whole of the law.

 

This is an incoherent philosophy on which to build a life. And yet, in our sin, it is the philosophy we all start with. Judith Butler and the LGBTQ+ movement are no different than the rest of us on this point: we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God. And it is also true that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. If any of us is to find redemption, fulfillment, and true authenticity, it is in Christ alone.

This is why Butler matters to the LGBTQ+ movement. She gave it its defining creed: “You are whatever you think you are.” It’s a childish idea dressed up in the language of liberation. But it leads not to freedom, only to hypocrisy from which she cannot escape even in old age—and not to justice, only to self-justification.

She is, in short, the perfect hero for a movement that celebrates “authenticity is however you feel now” without accountability, and identity without objective reality.  Pray with me that those who are caught up in captivity to this philosophy see their need for Christ and turn to him.

You can find the other posts in my Pride Month Heroes series on my Substack, which is drowenanderson.substack.com.

Recommendations: 

Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )

Does Jesus Trump Your Politics by Dr. Frank Turek (mp4 download and DVD)

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek Mp3 and Mp4

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

 


​​Dr. Owen Anderson is a Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Arizona State University, a pastor, and a certified jiu-jitsu instructor. He emphasizes the Christian belief in God, human sin, and redemption through Christ, and he explores these themes in his philosophical commentary on the Book of Job. His recent research addresses issues such as DEIB, antiracism, and academic freedom in secular universities, critiquing the influence of thinkers like Rousseau, Marx, and Freud. Dr. Anderson actively shares his insights through articles, books, online classes, and his Substack.

Do I HAVE to go to church to be a Christian? The weekend is finally here, but instead of resting, I hop on my to-do list and finish Saturday feeling accomplished and exhausted. But, as I set my alarm for the morning, sometimes, I’m tempted not to rise and shine. Can’t I give God the glory, glory from home?

Can I Worship from Home?

Is worshipping from home a legitimate choice? Am I still a Christian if I don’t go to church? Going to church is not a part of salvation. When we add requirements to salvation or Christianity that Jesus did not, we add burdens and weights to the light yoke of Jesus.

“Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than going to a garage makes you an automobile.” – Billy Sunday

We become Christians by hearing the gospel message and trusting in Jesus for our salvation, not by going to church.

“Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.”
Romans 10:9-10 (ESV)

Our works do not save us.

Salvation is a gift from God that we cannot earn. Thank Heavens! I can’t imagine ever being good enough in a single hour to deserve God’s holy righteousness.

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,”
Ephesians 2:8

But, that doesn’t mean you can sleep in on most Sundays and not go to church. That’s because being saved is more than praying some magical prayer. Repenting of your sins and surrendering your life to Christ isn’t something you do once. We all need to choose to carry our cross daily.

As Christians, we are living works of sanctification. Our lives and works on this earth reflect Christ to those who have not yet heard or believed. What we do matters.

“But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”
James 2:18

You don’t need to go to church to be a Christian, but it’s still part of being a Christian.

Yet, our modern idea of church would seem very strange to the apostles. The Bible never tells us to go to a specific building for one hour a week, complain about the air conditioning or worship music, and go home.

The Apostolic Church was a body of believers who did life together. They lived and worked together in community. The early Christians shared their neighbors troubles and were generous with their blessings. They met in homes and were committed to each other as parts of the body of Christ.

We need to go to church as part of covenantal fellowship with a body of believers.

The early church was on mission. They were in the trenches reaching people with the gospel. We need a church body to be as effective as possible in sharing the love of Christ because we are gifted in different ways.

Additionally, we need to belong to a church. My church doesn’t have membership the way most churches used to, but I’ve chosen to commit to this group of people. The people who come to this building every week are family. We support each other and pray for each other.

We need to go to church for others as much as for ourselves.

Generally, western Christians drift in and out of buildings/groups too easily, often without asking ourselves if God has a purpose in my staying in a church that doesn’t perfectly meet my every need?

I’ve learned to be patient in the not perfect, to offer grace when I disagree, to pray for the spiritual growth of the body, and to love those who walk through the door, and love them more like Jesus does.

While I love our worship band, they don’t always play my favorite songs. The pastor’s message is always Biblical and moving, but isn’t always what I think I needed to hear. Yet, the people always are there. I can hug them, say a prayer, ask about their week, bring them a meal.

Do I have to go to church to be a Christian? I’m tired and don’t want to rise and shine. Can’t I give God the glory-glory from home? #Christianity #Church #ChristianLiving Share on X

I’ve seen God use my church body to change me the most when I was serving others through faithful attendance and fellowship.

Lastly, we go to church because it’s part of growing in our walk as Christians.

Through fellowship, we learn to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. Attending a church building, home church, or even a small fellowship group helps us strengthen our relationship with God and our understanding of His word and character. In these difficult times culturally, we need the church family to encourage us as believers to live righteously.

“And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.”
Hebrews 10:24-25

By attending church, we develop relationships that help refine us, with people who challenge us, to reject the sinful thoughts and beliefs of the world.

No, you don’t need to go to church to be a Christian, but we all should to grow as members of the body of Christ.

We all miss Sundays here and there. We don’t attend every pancake breakfast or women’s tea, but church attendance should be a priority. But the more I go, the more I seek God, the more I want to go. You will be blessed and be a blessing as part of a group of people pursuing the great commission of Christ.

Recommended Resources: 

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

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

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

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

 


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

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/45HQtGa

An Age of Mirrors

Ours is an age of mirrors. Addicted to the thought of self, individuals of profound dignity and worth huddle together en masse as they shuffle along the broad road that leads them anywhere but towards life. The sides of the road are lined with mirrors, reflections of this act or that moment or those days. Deceptively effective, the mirrors keep the eyes of the people on themselves as they desperately seek to find deeper meaning in rituals and events made shallow by selfishness. The mirrors control the persons, reducing them to spectators of their own existence. Always primping, endlessly posturing, carefully portraying what they believe is the best face for others to see, the faces in the mirrors present a staged collage of a life that is more prop than substance, more acting than living.

 

Divine Purpose

The woman of God comes into this teeming gaggle of confused souls and, simply by not looking at her mirror but choosing, rather, to look at her Savior, becomes the means to helping others look away from themselves to find themselves. The man of God stands amid this cadre of insecure masculinity and, with a turn of his gaze away from an image that is not real toward the One in whose image he is made, leads others to see their worth in the maker of heaven and earth. This is the countercultural warrior that God calls each of us to be, women and men of God whose eyes are on eternity and whose hearts are filled with divine purpose—showing the world that they can look away from the mirrors and behold the God who is love. Only then will they find the meaning for which they so desperately long.

Hearing the Call

The call of the countercultural warriors sounds forth in the words of Jesus: “Love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength” and “love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:30-31 NKJV). In a beautiful twist of holy irony, the countercultural warriors give themselves fully and without reservation—heart, soul, mind, and strength—to another. To the One and those made in His image. There is no room for self in the complete surrender and devotion of self to God and neighbor. As the Spirit’s refining fire burns ever brighter, the dross of selfishness is consumed as the holy coals of God-exalting selflessness glow white hot within the joyful wake of self-denial and sacrificial devotion.

Embodying Divine Love

It is only when such countercultural warriors arise in humble obedience that the world’s self-destructive inward bent and its vanity disguised as virtue are outed as the soul destroying lies that they are. It is only when countercultural warriors seek to embody divine love—with the courageous hearts of the meek and a towel girded waste with pitcher and bowl deployed in washing the feet of another—only then will they walk in the calling issued forth from the crucified Savior, the risen Lord, the coming King.

Will You Accept His Call?

Will you look away from the mirrors and look up in faith to the only One in whom is life? Will you close your ears to the siren call of selfishness that leads to making shipwreck of life, heeding instead the call of Jesus to find your life by losing it? Will you step into the fray of cultural chaos and become the countercultural warrior God calls you to be?

Recommended Resources:

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Frank Turek (Mp3/ Mp4)

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

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

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

 


T.J. Gentry, D.Min., Ph.D.: Senior Executive Vice President, Assistant Editor, Publisher, and Contributor serves as the Senior Pastor of First Christian Church of West Frankfort, Illinois, the Assistant Vice President of Publishing and Communications, and the Assistant Editor of Bellator Christi Ministries. He formerly served as the Executive Editor of MoralApologetics.com. Dr. Gentry earned his Ph.D. in Theology and Apologetics (Liberty University); Ph.D. in Theology with Missiology (North-West University, South Africa); and Ph.D. in Biblical Studies, Ph.D. in Leadership, and D.Min. in Pastoral Counseling (Carolina University). Additionally, he is the President of Illative House Press (illativehousepress.com), having previously published Pulpit Apologist: The Vital Link between Preaching and Apologetics(Wipf and Stock, 2020) and Absent from the Body, Present with the Lord: Biblical, Theological, and Rational Arguments against Purgatory(Wipf and Stock, 2019).

Dr. Gentry proudly served his country, both enlisted and officer, in the United States Army Chaplain Corps, and he has taught martial arts as a Christian ministry platform since the late 1990s. He is an adjunct professor at Carolina University (carolinau.edu) and Carolina College of Biblical Studies (https://ccbs.edu). He and his wife are blessed with five children and two grandchildren. His daily Bible teaching and devotions can be heard at tjgentry.net.

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

It’s Saturday morning, and as you’re getting some cleaning done (and by “cleaning,” I mean binge-watching The Great British Baking Show on Netflix in your pajamas), you hear the dreaded knock on your door and peer out. Judging from their conservative clothes and the Watchtower magazines in hand, you quickly conclude you’re about to engage with some Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs). You now have two choices: you can either ignore the knocking and pretend you aren’t home (but really, what kind of message does that send to your kids?), or you can answer the door. My hope is that after you’ve read our [Mama Bear Apoloetics] articles on the Jehovah’s Witnesses (here and here), you will feel confident enough to engage in a conversation with them, but we also want to give you a bit more help in case you aren’t quite there yet. I know it can be daunting!

Why are we preparing for this conversation?

Did you know that Jehovah’s Witnesses prepare to talk to you? It’s true! They have classes at their weekly meetings to help develop their communication skills, and there is also written and online information available to them about how to engage with people about their faith. They also read a book called Reasoning from the Scriptures, which gives them answers to potential challenges like, “We are already Christians here,” “I’m not interested,” or even, “I’m a Muslim.”[1]

Isn’t that wonderful? Don’t you wish you had practical lessons like that available at your own church? (Awesome if you do! If you don’t, Mama Bear has got you covered!) Just think of this as the opportunity to be a missionary without having to leave your house! Moms are probably the busiest people on the planet, so we may not have time to quit everything and minister to a remote jungle tribe in Africa, but we can all be missionaries right where we are. As Hillary Short said in her Playground Apologetics series, “Wherever you are, that’s where God needs you!”

So, back to the JW classes…what do they learn at these classes? They are taught 1 Timothy 2:3-4Acts 20:20, and 1 Peter 2:21 to encourage their members towards meaningful conversations with others about their beliefs. We should, too! Knowing that they are prepared before they knock on our doors tells us that we need to be prepared before we answer the door. It’s no fun getting steamrolled, overwhelmed, or tongue-tied.

One of the tips I found on the JW Website was that “Once the conversation has started, look for an opportunity to introduce the good news, but do not be in a hurry. Allow the conversation to develop naturally.”[2] The first section of the JW book, Reasoning from the Scriptures, gives all sorts of recommendations for topics to talk about first, from the crime in your neighborhood to how we all want our children to be happy.[3] (Sounds like a great opportunity to get to know your JW neighbors!)

Getting Started

Jehovah’s Witnesses will ease themselves into the conversation by getting to know you. You should do the same thing! Just like Paul did in Acts 17, aim for common ground. Ask them how long they’ve been outside, and if it’s hot, offer them a glass of water. Take an interest in who they are. This will likely catch them off-guard since many times either no one answers the door or, if the door is answered, it’s quickly closed in their faces. Rude! Don’t be that person.

So, what should you say when they start presenting their “Good News?” Nothing . . . at first. The first thing you should do is listen closely to what they have to say. Take note of any Scripture they cite. If it seems like the conversation is going somewhere, offer them a chair and sit with them. This is your opportunity to show them that not all Christians are hostile toward JWs. They may have never met someone like that. This is your chance to be the light. If they give you a copy of The Watchtower Magazine or Awake!, it would be gracious to accept it (but you don’t have to keep it forever).

The number one thing NOT to do

Once you’ve heard what they have to say, you may want to take a moment to think about how you will respond. One thing you should NOT do is tell them that they belong to a cult or that their worldview is built on heresies. They will leave faster than you can say “Charles Taze Russell.”

Whatever you do, don’t just blurt out that they belong to a cult or that their worldview is built on heresies. They’ll leave faster than you can say ‘Charles Taze Russell.’ Click To Tweet

Not only will they leave, but your particular house will be basically “blacklisted” for the next several months or even years. While that might sound appealing to you, remember, we should not treat ministry like some people treat jury duty. This is not something we are trying to weasel out of (though I’m still not sure why some people don’t want to be on a jury!). Being a missionary to the people whom God has put in our lives is part of being a Christian! Your goal is for them to want to come back and talk further. Search your heart. If your goal is to “trigger” them so that they never want to come back, maybe talk to the Lord about that…

What SHOULD we do?

What I want to do here is give you some ideas about how to respond to a few of the key things they are likely to bring up. This way, you can practice a little beforehand, and you’ll be prepared when the conversation happens. (And, we’ll give you hints on things that will stop the conversation and get your house blacklisted, which again, is not the goal.)

This article really covers two different phases: the relationship-building stage and the established relationship stage.

Phase 1: JWs at your Front Door

During the first stage, you should be extra careful not to come on too strong or try to “evangelize” them too quickly. They won’t come back. Don’t start talking about the Trinity in your first conversation. My friend and former JW, Cynthia, said that the word “Trinity” actually signals something called “thought-stopping” for JWs, and they’ll just stop listening to everything you say. It triggers them to go silent. It also might cause your house to be effectively “blacklisted,” which means they won’t be coming back to your house any time soon. (That’s not to say they will never come back, but it will most certainly be months or even years before they do.) That’s not what you want if you’re going to try to reach them. Instead, save topics like the Trinity and deity of Christ for later conversations, when you have an established relationship.

Why is saying ‘Trinity’ not a good idea at the first meeting with a Jehovah’s Witness? Click To Tweet

Cynthia said that one thing they are taught is that they are the teachers, so if the person they are talking with seems to be trying to teach them, they are likely to walk away from the conversation and not come back. In other words, tread lightly, go slowly, be patient, and be a student.

So, what should you talk about at your doorstep? Cynthia suggested that front-door topics be something that gets the JW thinking. Here’s why. Have you ever had a pebble in your shoe? It’s subtle, and it might not even bother you enough to take your shoe off to get it out at first, but eventually, you’ve had enough, and you need to get it out. Be the pebble in their shoe. For example:

  • Ask them how they know that the Watch Tower Society teaches the truth.Ask them what steps they took to determine if the Watch Tower Society was telling the truth. Listen to what they say. They likely have not done any independent research into their own religion. This isn’t a question designed to trap them, but a question to get them thinking about why they believe what they believe, which I think all believers of anything should do.
  • You could also ask them what it means to call their organization “the truth.”You could then ask them to read John 14:6 where Jesus says that He is the way, the truth, and the life. Ask them what they think this verse means. If Jesus is truth, how could an organization created by a man (Charles Taze Russell) be truth?
  • Ask them when their church was founded. Ask them if God was without a witness before the start of their church because they claim that they are the only true witnesses of Jehovah. If He was without a witness for thousands of years, did God truly care for His people?

Front door conversations are likely going to be pretty short, so quick questions like the ones I mentioned above would be appropriate. Often, it is good to schedule a follow-up meeting, which will give you time to research anything that they said that made you go “hmmm…” But, what about when you have known the JW for a long time?

Phase 2: The Established Relationship

Once you have an established relationship with a Jehovah’s Witness (I’m not talking about just a few conversations, but several), you can start to venture into deeper territory. (Remember, if you start addressing the deity of Jesus and the Trinity too soon, you will lose them, and they won’t come back, and our goal as missionaries isn’t to scare them off!)

Think of it this way: you normally don’t talk about religion and politics on the first (or even second or third) time meeting someone, do you? Why do you think those topics come up so regularly at Thanksgiving dinner, when the family all gets together? It’s because relationship and (ideally) mutual love and respect are common prerequisites for those types of conversations. Those kinds of conversations are like the “deep end” of a pool. You wouldn’t throw a child into the deep end if they have never learned how to swim, right? No, first, you give them floaties and let them wade in the shallow end. Then, you guide them into the deeper end of the pool, slowly and cautiously. As they begin to understand how swimming works and have a healthy respect for water, they gain more confidence and trust. Then, and only then, will they begin to swim on their own.

So, when you have a JW at your door, it’s like your opportunity to give them floaties. Take it slow. Once you trust each other and have a solid relationship, then you can begin to talk about the topics below. If you’re there, and you’re ready, well, shoot… let’s dive in and talk about Jesus!

Jesus

Remember, not all concepts of “Jesus” are created equal. Do not assume that when you say “Jesus” and when they say “Jesus,” you are referring to the same person.

Remember, not all concepts of ‘Jesus’ are created equal. Do not assume that when you say ‘Jesus’ and when they say ‘Jesus,’ you are referring to the same person.Click To Tweet

The JW version of Jesus is very different from that of mainstream Christianity. This is where clarifying terms can be helpful. Make sure you know who they are talking about. Ask questions. You may remember this from my previous articles, but keep in mind that they do not believe in the Trinity, and they do not believe that Jesus is God. When you ask questions, be prepared for answers like these:

  • Jesus is just another created being (Michael the Archangel, to be more specific).Jehovah’s Witnesses might tell you that Jesus is not God. They may not directly come out and say that Jesus was Michael, so be prepared if they don’t. They will likely use Scripture to support their views (such as, Colossians 1:16 and John 14:28). Remember, JWs use their own version of the Bible, called the New World Translation. Be on the lookout for language that demotes Jesus from the Godhead. In my last article, we tackled Colossians 1:16, so I won’t address it here, but let’s talk about John 14:28John 14:28 says, “the Father is greater than I,” something that makes JWs believe that Jesus is less than the Father. Don’t fall for this!

Response: Ask them what they think the context is for Jesus making this statement. Ask them if you can read Philippians 2:2-6 together. In this passage, Jesus talks about how he took on the form of a servant but was also in the form of God. See if they understand the implications (i.e., He was God, but He was serving). Ask them if you could also read Hebrews 2:9 together. This passage describes how Christ was made lower than the angels but now crowned with glory so that He could usher in God’s grace through His death and resurrection. Discuss the implications of Hebrews 2:9 (i.e., Jesus is God who became flesh so that He could serve us by dying on the cross and rising again). Both of these passages should help explain that Jesus, God the Son, is not lower than God but is God.

  • Jesus only had “divine qualities” but was not himself divine.This is where it’s helpful to know what their Bible says (New World Translation or NWT) versus other Bible versions. Colossians 2:9 in the NWT says, “It is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.” My Bible, which is the New American Standard, says, “For in Him all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form.” See how those two verses say something different? In the NWT, “divine quality” replaces the word “Deity.” The text has been changed in the NWT because Jehovah’s Witnesses do not want it to appear like Jesus is God, but that he simply had “godlike qualities.”[4]
  • Jesus is only partially sufficient for salvation.According to JWs, salvation is only available through works and faith in Christ is not enough for salvation. They will agree that the Bible says eternal life is a gift from God through Jesus Christ (which is consistent with Ephesians 2:8-9). So how can it be both a free gift and based on works? It seems like they are speaking through two sides of their mouth. For JWs, salvation is a gift, but works are required, as well. Ron Rhodes explains, “Bordering on playing semantics games, Jehovah’s Witnesses affirm that while good works do not earn salvation, they are nevertheless prerequisites for salvation.”[5] One might think of it like applying for a scholarship. Applying for a scholarship doesn’t earn you a scholarship, but it is a prerequisite for the scholarship. The scholarship is a free gift, but to receive it, one must do certain things to become eligible.

Response: First, ask them what they believe. Tell them that almost 200 times in the New Testament, salvation is given through faith alone.[6] You could share Acts 16:31John 11:25Titus 3:5, and Galatians 2:16. After reading these verses with them, ask them if this sounds like what they know about salvation.

Response #2: Ask them if they know the difference between salvation and sanctification? Let them know that you believe that good works are a part of who we are as Christians, but that those works are not required for salvation. Rather, these works are part of sanctification, where we are made increasingly into God’s likeness. Yes, we should do good works because we are followers of Christ, but faith alone is what saves us. Our good works are an outpouring of who we are in Christ.

The Trinity

We talked extensively about what Christians believe about the Trinity here, and we briefly covered what JWs believe here. For this topic, it’s particularly important that you study up because Jehovah’s Witnesses are thoroughly trained on how to respond to this issue. Be warned, though—this topic can be exceptionally tough because it is difficult to explain, even for Christians. When we covered the Trinity in our article about Christianity, I wrote about all of the dangers of our attempts to illustrate the Trinity with analogies (which typically lead to heresies like modalism, which is what Jehovah’s Witnesses tend to think all Christians succumb to when teaching about the Trinity). In other words, you’ll want to be careful when tackling this tricky issue. And again, do not bring this up until you have sufficiently established a trusting relationship!

  • The word “Trinity” is not in the Bible.This one is a pretty common argument against the Trinity by Jehovah’s Witnesses. While this is technically true (the word is never mentioned), the concept of the trinity is well established, as we’ll explain below. The JW might bolster their argument by also noting that the word “Trinity” was developed gradually over centuries and first fully revealed in the 4th Century, and they’ll use the New Encyclopedia Britannica and other sources to support their claims.[7]

Response: If we are ignoring things that aren’t explicitly stated in the Bible, you can respond by mentioning that the word “Jehovah” is not in the original text, either. In fact, it doesn’t appear till the 16th century. It’s a made-up word because scribes were careful to never speak the name of the Lord. To prevent the accidental saying of God’s name (Yahweh – which looked like YHWH) out loud, they added the vowels from Adonai (the Hebrew word for “Lord”) in between the consonants of Yahweh, and . . . well, just watch this short little video. It’s probably easier to watch it rather than to have me try to explain it here.

Ask your JW friend if they know that the Encyclopedia also states that Jehovah is a made-up word. Citing the Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, the Encyclopedia says, “[The word Jehovah] is erroneous, since it took the vowels of adonai (‘my lord’) which were inserted into printed or written texts to prevent any attempt to pronounce the name of God.”

  • The Trinity is pagan.Jehovah’s Witnesses might also tell you that the Trinity is a pagan concept.

o  Response: It’s important to point out to them that the pagans were polytheists not monotheists, which means that they believed in several distinct gods.[8] Clarify that Christians believe in one God with three persons.

o  Counter-Objection: They will probably tell you, “That’s confusing, and God would not want to confuse anyone.”

Counter-Response #1: It is always preferred to use the JW’s own material to answer their objections. So, in this case, cite the Watch Tower Society’s material. According to Reasoning from the Scriptures, the incomprehensibility of God’s eternal nature is defended by saying, “Our minds cannot fully comprehend it. But that is not [a] sound reason for rejecting it” (emphasis added).[9] Ask them why the same logic shouldn’t be applied to the incomprehensibility of the Trinity? (You can further cite Romans 11:33Isaiah 55:8-9, and 1 Corinthians 13:12, which allude to the fact that we won’t understand everything all the time.)

Counter-Response #2: Ask them if we can reasonably expect to understand everything about God? If they say anything remotely close to a “yes,” again cite from Reasoning from the Scriptures: “Should we really expect to understand everything about a Person who is so great that He could bring into existence the universe, with all its intricate design and stupendous size?”[10] According to their own material, we should not expect to understand all the ways of God, and not understanding something is not grounds for rejecting it.

Eschatology [End Times]

JWs believe that only 144,000 people get to Heaven (the “anointed class” or “little flock”), and that those people were already determined by 1935.[11] Any other true believer (a JW) is part of the “great multitude” or “other flock,” and will live in earthly paradise for all of eternity.

  • The “anointed class” is limited to 144,000.When you talk about the anointed class, ask the Jehovah’s Witness if there is anywhere in the Bible where Heaven is explicitly limited to just 144,000. They will likely respond with Revelation 7 and 14 (which both talk about 144,000 people), but they won’t be able to show you a verse that specifically limits those who go to heaven to just 144,000.

Response #1: You could also read 1 John 5:1 to them, which says, “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God.” The word “everyone” would seem to include not just 144,000. Other verses that talk about all who believe (not just the 144,000) include Ephesians 2:19Galatians 3:29James 2:5, and John 12:26.

Response #2: Another interesting question you could ask is whether the anointed class (the 144,000) includes women. They will likely say yes, but then point out that Revelation 14:4 clearly states that the 144,000 are “men who have not been defiled by women.” That seems to indicate that women are not included in the 144,000 mentioned in Scripture.

Response #3: Ask them to read John 10:16. Jesus says, “I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also.” (Here, Jesus is referring to the Gentiles that he is going to bring into the fold.) He continues, “They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.” If we are one flock with one shepherd, why would we be divided in eternity?

New Light

New light is how Jehovah’s Witnesses explain changes in the Watch Tower Society’s views . . . claiming that the “light gets brighter” in order to justify the changes. There’s a pretty good explanation of it in this 16-minute video from Witness for Jesus, an organization created to help JWs and former-JWs think more deeply about the Bible.

Response: Ask the JWs at your door about John 8:12, which says, “When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, ‘I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life.’” Ask them how an organization can claim to have new light when Jesus is the light of the world. Truth doesn’t change.

So, what’s the bottom line?

If you choose to open the door when Jehovah’s Witnesses knock, here’s your list of priorities:

  1. Be kind. JWs are taught that Christians are hostile towards them and they interpret rudeness or hostility as proof that they are being persecuted for God. Find common ground, and don’t degrade or belittle them. Instead, find a way to share the truth with them with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15).
  2. Be prepared. Keep any Watchtower or Reasoning from the Scriptures material available and highlighted for easy finding. In fact, why not have a copy of this article on a shelf next to the door, just in case? Understand a bit of their church’s history, as well as the basics of their beliefs. Even if you are using this knowledge to ask questions, it’s wise to know where they are coming from.
  3. Be patient. Don’t aim for a full exposé on JW heresy on the first visit. The goal is a second visit! Do not expect that every conversation you have will result in a conversion, either. My friend, Chris, once told me that we’re aiming to plant seeds, not weeds. What you say may have an impact, but you may not see it come to fruition during your time with them. That’s why it’s essential that you’re prepared to engage in a fruitful dialogue instead of a judgmental diatribe. You may only get one shot to plant a seed, and you really don’t want to miss out on that opportunity.

For further reading, I definitely recommend Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses by Ron Rhodes (there’s a revised 2009 edition available). It’s a thorough book that walks through the key theological issues that may come up in your conversations with Jehovah’s Witnesses. It’s also accessible in the sense that you don’t have to have a theology degree to understand it.

You may also want to read the Watch Tower Society’s book, Reasoning from the Scriptures, to get a better idea of how Jehovah’s Witnesses prepare to engage in conversations and what they are taught. There is also detailed information about their beliefs on their Website at www.JW.org.

Thank you to former Jehovah’s Witness, Cynthia Velasco Hampton, for reading my JW articles to ensure that what they contained was accurate. Your insight has been invaluable.

References:

[1] Reasoning from the Scriptures (Brooklyn, NY: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., 1985), 16-23.

[2] “Improving Our Skills in the Ministry—Initiating a Conversation in Order to Witness Informally,” https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/202014241 (last accessed August 29, 2018).

[3] Reasoning from the Scriptures (1985), 10-11.

[4] For an excellent and thorough discussion on this point, see Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2009), 283. (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2009), 79-81.

[5] Rhodes 2009, 283.

[6] Ibid., 293.

[7] Watch Tower 1985, 405.

[8] Rhodes 2009, 222.

[9] Watch Tower 1985, 148

[10] Ibid., 149.

[11] “Have No Fear, Little Flock,” https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1995124#h=1:0-12:1082 (last accessed Sept. 30, 2018). This is also a bit more complex than it seems. In 2007, the Watch Tower Society issued a response to a reader, noting, “As time has gone by, some Christians baptized after 1935 have had witness borne to them that they have the heavenly hope. (Romans 8:16, 17) Thus, it appears that we cannot set a specific date for when the calling of Christians to the heavenly hope ends.” [https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20070501/Questions-From-Readers/] In other words, even though many in the church still hold to the 1935 cutoff date, there is an opening for others to be added to the “little flock.”

Recommended Resources: 

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

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

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

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

 


Lindsey Medenwaldt is the Director of Ministry Operations at Mama Bear Apologetics, and she’s our resident worldview and world religion specialist. She has a master’s degree in apologetics and ethics from Denver Seminary, as well as a master’s in public administration and a law degree. She’s the author of Bridge-Building Apologetics (Harvest House, 2024). She’s an editor and author for the Christian Research Journal, an editor for Women in Apologetics, and a member of the Pelican Project. She has also contributed to various writing projects, including a chapter about the Jehovah’s Witnesses to the Popular Handbook of World Religions (Harvest House, 2021). Lindsey and her husband, Jay (who is also an apologist), have been married for 17 years. They live with their daughters in Iowa. In her spare time, Lindsey loves watching British reality television, especially The Great British Baking Show, and she’s an avid reader (Jay and Lindsey have an at-home library of more than 2,500 books!).

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

Most non-believers will tell you that man is basically “good.” When he acts against that basic goodness, it’s the result of disease, such as alcoholism, drug addiction, or some form of mental illness. These, in turn, stem from a failure of society to reach out and provide the right kind of assistance and services. If only we as a society could do more, spend more, provide more, we could eventually create the kind of utopia that “good” people populate.

 

Christianity, by contrast, teaches a much different worldview. Long ago, the first man and woman exercised their free will to rebel against God, and in so doing created a rift between man and God that continues to this day. Though man has a certain inherent goodness, because he bears the image of God, he is at present broken, corrupted, and fallen, and he manifests that fallen nature in a way that we see quite starkly. Christians have a name for this manifestation – sin. It afflicts and motivates all of us, and no one can escape its pull. Not without divine help, anyway.

Worldviews Shape Our Response to the Gospel

These contrasting worldviews cannot both be correct. And depending on which view you accept, your response to the good news of the Gospel will be different. “Good” people who simply need more education and more refinement don’t need a Savior; they can do just fine on their own, and with a little help from society. But fallen and corrupted people, even well-intentioned ones, are not going to be able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Their nature, constantly at war with the good that is within them, needs to be recast – remade in the image of the God who made them and left them here.

Is there a way to “prove” which view is correct? How can we reliably determine what man is like in his natural state? First, we need to get our minds around what we mean by terms like “good” or “evil.” I would suggest a simple definition: what we recognize as “good” in other people is the product of an intentional effort at selflessness. Whether it’s sacrificial love, working for charity or simply a random act of kindness – what we experience as “good” is an act directed to the benefit of the other. By contrast, what we see as evil is an act directed at satisfying within oneself a base or selfish end. The quests for power, for recognition, for material wealth, for dominance – all these things drive people to ignore the harm inflicted as they climb over those who stand in their way.

But, What About the Babies?!

Now, with this basic concept in mind, what can we see from examining man in his most primitive state? I don’t mean primitive as in caveman, but as in newborn. Spend even a little time with infants and toddlers, and you’ll see some basic features emerge. Each views himself as the center of the universe and expects his parents and the other kids around him to treat him accordingly. With each passing month, the willfulness of the child’s behavior becomes increasingly apparent: from every fiber of his being, he is shouting, “I want things my way!” Whether it’s food or drink, when and how he wants it, his mother’s attention, or his playmate’s toys, a developing child’s “me-focus” is readily on display. And if his will is thwarted, there is no resort to reason – a temper tantrum is the predictable result.

Now, some might object that children are innocent and cannot be described as bad or broken, or worse yet, evil. They might point out that children are free from the biases and prejudices that sour many adult relationships. But this objection misses my point. I would not describe children as evil either, because evil implies a level of awareness of the harm one is doing, and a small child does not yet appreciate the consequences of his behavior. But the child’s behavior is reflective of the way his mind operates, and unless a parent applies discipline and training to bend the will to a proper orientation, a spoiled, self-centered adolescent will emerge.

Evil Comes Naturally

Consider: no parents ever have to train their child to give up his positive and sunny disposition and be more critical of others; they don’t need to punish their children for sharing too much and instead teach them to rip their toys out of the hands of their playmates; they don’t need to insist that a child stop thinking so much about what he can do for his parents – “Can’t I wash the dishes or sweep the deck? I really don’t have anything else to do?” No, for every child, the process of “civilizing” is a process of moving from a me-centered selfishness to an other-centered effort to get along.

Children don’t have the insight yet to seek to change their ways, to live more cooperatively and altruistically. Their parents’ job is to teach them – to help them move from their inherent fallenness to a state which is not quite natural to us, a state in which we are intentional about trying to do good. The non-believer can also do good. But by rejecting God as the source of true goodness, he remains in defiance to God. He refuses to see his need for a Savior to finish the job of making him good. He refuses to bend his will to God. It is no coincidence that the Bible speaks of becoming a “slave” to Christ. For in the end, it is only by bending to Him – by dying to ourselves as we look outward to others in order to better serve Him – that we can eventually find the solution to our problem.

Believing that we are basically good flies in the face of the reality of what we truly are. It stands in the way of our crying out for the Savior who alone has the power to restore us. Observing children in their natural condition can help give us a better picture of ours.

This is one of the few lessons that we should allow our children to teach us.

Recommended Resources:

If God, Why Evil? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek 

Why Doesn’t God Intervene More? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

Why does God allow Bad Things to Happen to Good People? (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek 

Relief From the Worst Pain You’ll Ever Experience (DVD) (MP3) (Mp4 Download) by Gary Habermas 

 


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

A key argument in Alex O’Connor’s debate with David Wood is the distinction Alex draws (in his first rebuttal) between “proskuneo” (Gk: προσκυνέω) worship and “latreuo” (Gk: λατρεύω) worship.

Both proskuneo worship and latreuo worship are biblical terms used to describe worship or service to God, but they carry different shades of meaning. Proskuneo means to physically bow down, or prostrate oneself in order to show reverence. Latreuo means to serve or honour in a religious or sacrificial sense. In Romans 12:1 for example, Paul tells us to offer our bodies as a living sacrifice as latreuo to God).

The crux of Alex’s argument is that, on these two senses of worship, Jesus never receives latreuo worship in the way that only God does, and there is nothing special about the fact that the worship Jesus does receive is proskuneo; because other mortals also received proskuneo in the Greek Old Testament, or example, Esau from Jacob in Genesis 33, and Joseph from his brothers in Genesis 42.[1]

In his second rebuttal, Alex explains that this distinction argument is supported by James D.G Dunn, who writes:

It is noticeable that in each case the object of the verb [latreuo], the one who is (to be) served/worshipped, is God. Apart from one or two references to false worship (Acts 7:42; Rom 1:25), the reference is always to the cultic service/worship of God (Luke 1:74, 2:37; Acts 7:7, 42; 24:14; 26:7; 27:23; Rom. 1:9; Phil. 3:3; 2 Tim. 1:3; Heb. 8:5; 9:9; 9:14; 10:2 and 12:28, 13:10; Rev. 7:15; and 22:3). In no case in the New Testament is there talk of offering cultic worship [latreuo/λατρεύω] to Jesus.[2]

And so, Alex’s argument is that Jesus only receives the proskuneo kind of “worship” and not latreuo kind. This is a problem because proskuneo worship doesn’t determine whether Jesus thought of himself as God or whether he claimed to be God.

Two disclaimers

What Alex doesn’t mention in the debate is what Dunn writes in the same section: “more typically in the New Testament, [proskuneo] is used of the worship (prostration) due to God, and to God alone.”[3]

So at least according to Dunn, proskuneo as directed towards Jesus in the New Testament carries weight in determining whether Jesus thought of himself as God or whether he claimed to be God.

Further, it might be helpful to note that Dunn lists other Greek words for worship or reverence in the New Testament, which might be applied to either God alone, or to God as well as Jesus of Nazareth.[4] Proskuneo and Latreuo are not the only ones.

Two points in response to Alex

There are two points of response which show that Alex’s argument about the distinction between proskuneo and latreuo is underwhelming.

  1. It shouldn’t surprise us that Jesus of Nazareth received proskuneo (and not latreuo), because he was in physical form. Latreuo worship is sacrificially offered to the non-physical God, but Jesus of Nazareth was physically God-incarnate (as David argued in this debate!). With Jesus standing right before them, of course the disciples offered proskuneo When I finally see the God-man face-to-face one day, I already know that I’m going to fall before him in proskuneo worship.
  2. You’ve got to read in context. As Dunn states, proskuneo worship in the New Testament is typically “due to God, and to God alone.”[5] In fact, in Rev. 22:8, an angel rejects proskuneo worship from John and tells him to offer it to God. A simple, face-value reading of the New Testament, and even of the gospels alone, reveals that the authors thought that Jesus was God. Proskuneo worship of Jesus doesn’t detract from this, rather, it adds to it. Once again, as Dunn says, proskuneo is typically given to God alone in the New Testament (see Rev. 22:9; also see in the gospels in John 4:23-24 and Matt. 4:10/Luke 4:8). So, as Jesus of Nazareth receives proskuneo worship, the reader is drawn to see his ontology as more-than-human.

Review Alex O’Connor’s Argument

In summary, Alex’s leveraging of James Dunn’s argument has three faults. First, Alex cherry-picks from Dunn for his own purposes, and doesn’t expound on what Dunn says about proskuneo.

Second, it is of absolutely no surprise that the physical God-man receives proskuneo, because falling on your knees before Jesus is an appropriate act of worship.

Thirdly, the New Testament has a particular reverence for the word proskuneo, even if the Old Testament applies it more loosely. And so Jesus receiving the proskuneo of worship does not detract from his ontological divine nature, but rather points to it.

Let’s continue to pray that Alex would see Jesus for who he reality is. Pray that Alex would put Jesus in his rightful place.

References: 

[1] [Editor’s note: The Greek Old Testament is known as the Septuagint or LXX for short.]

[2] James D.G. Dunn, Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? The New Testament Evidence (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010), 13.

[3] Ibid., 10.

[4] These additional words are Sebomai/σέβομαι and Epikaleo/ἐπικαλέω. See Dunn, 15-17.

[5] See footnote 2.

Recommended Resources: 

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

When Reason Isn’t the Reason for Unbelief by Dr. Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

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

 


Sean Redfearn is a former Community Youth Worker who now works for Christian Concern in Central London, UK. He completed an MA in Religion at King’s College London, is in the process of completing the MA Philosophy program at Southern Evangelical Seminary, and is a 2022 CrossExamined Instructor Academy graduate. Passionate about Jesus, he is grateful for the impact that apologetics has had on his faith.

We have all heard about the “Dark Ages” between 500 AD and 1500 AD.  Some common descriptions include:

  • “There was a time when religion ruled the world. It is known as the Dark Ages.”[1] – Ruth Hurmence Green (1915-1981, a notable atheist with the publication of her book The Born Again Skeptic’s Guide to the Bible).
  • Joseph Lewis in An Atheist Manifesto claims that “If you do not want to stop the wheels of progress; if you do not want to go back to the Dark Ages; if you do not want to live again under tyranny, then you must guard your liberty, and you must not let the church get control of your government. If you do, you will lose the greatest legacy ever bequeathed to the human race—intellectual freedom.”
  • Jeffrey Taylor, a correspondent for Atlantic Monthly and NPR’s All Things Considered states on com, “There is a reason the Middle Ages in Europe were long referred to as the Dark Ages; the millennium of theocratic rule that ended only with the Renaissance (that is, with Europe’s turn away from God toward humankind) was a violent time.”
  • Even as recently as Catherine Nixey’s book The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World states emphatically that “This is a book about the Christian destruction of the classical world. The Christian assault was not the only one – fire, flood, invasion, and time itself all played their part – but this book focuses on Christianity’s assault in particular” (xxxv). (See below for several extensive reviews and critiques of Nixey’s book.)
  • The diagram below, which has circulated on the internet, claims to demonstrate that the Middle Ages caused a tremendous hole in learning and advancement caused by Christianity.
  • Anne Fremantle in her study of medieval philosophers, The Age of Belief (1954), wrote: “of a dark, dismal patch, a sort of dull and dirty chunk of some ten centuries.”
  • Voltaire, the French Enlightenment writer, historian, and philosopher, who attacked the church, described the period as one when “barbarism, superstition, and ignorance covered the face of the world.”
  • Rousseau declared that the era following the fall of Rome caused “Europe [to] relapse into the barbarism of the earliest ages.  The people of this part of the world . . . lived some centuries ago in a condition worse than ignorance.”
  • The great Roman historian Edward Gibbon called the fall of Rome the “triumph of barbarism and religion.” The famed scientist Carl Sagan also attributes a millennium gap [during the Middle Ages as] a poignant lost opportunity for the human species.”

Some other memes likewise blame Christianity for the so-called “Dark Ages” stunted growth.

Unfortunately, this derision of the Middle Ages as a “darkened period” continues into contemporary descriptions.  Such perpetrators include Bertrand Russell, Charles Van Doren, and William Manchester.

One Among Many Myths About Christianity

Like the myth that the church hindered science, or that everyone in the middle ages believed the earth was flat, or that Galileo was thrown in jail for promoting the heliocentric model of the universe (which you can read about in my previous posts linked); the term “dark ages” is a pejorative term to deride the period as backwards, ignorant, and dismal.  Given that the Christian church was the most influential institution in the Middle Ages, to reference that period as the “Dark Ages” is, in essence, to slander Christianity.  Who, in their right mind, wants to associate themselves with “incessant warfare, corruption, lawlessness, obsession with strange myths, and an almost impenetrable mindlessness” as Manchester does in his A World Lit Only by Fire.

The Problem with This Myth

The problem with this myth is that it is so contrary to the facts.  If the “dark ages” were so unproductive and backward, how does one explain the proliferation of inventions and developments during this time period?  A simple listing of inventions, discoveries and developments demonstrates that the Middle Ages were anything but dark:

  • The collar and harness for horses and oxen enabled them to draw very heavy wagons, with increases in speed
  • The 8th century invention of iron horseshoes protecting the feet of horses by greatly improving their traction in difficult conditions
  • The swivel axel (9th century) was made large transport carts much more maneuverable
  • The invention of the horse-drawn furrow plow increased food production
  • The watermill was invented in the Middle Ages
  • The mechanical manufacturing of paper instead of being done by hand and foot
  • Wind power was harnessed to mill, grind, and pump water
  • Eyeglasses were invented in 1284 in northern Italy
  • The mechanical clock, a 13th-century invention, for centuries existed only in Medieval Europe
  • The blast furnace (12th century)
  • Spinning wheel (13th century)
  • The agricultural revolution of the three-field system
  • Chimneys (12th century)
  • Universities (1088 AD) [2]
  • Quarantine (14th century)
  • Musical Notation (11th century)
  • Western Harmony
  • Local Self-Government
  • Chartered Towns

Also, perpetuated about the “dark ages” is the loss of literary concern.  Stephen Greenblatt in The New Yorker (promoting his book The Swervedeclares that:

It is possible for a whole culture to turn away from reading and writing. As the empire crumbled and Christianity became ascendant, as cities decayed, trade declined, and an anxious populace scanned the horizon for barbarian armies, the ancient system of education fell apart. What began as downsizing went on to wholesale abandonment. Schools closed, libraries and academies shut their doors, professional grammarians and teachers of rhetoric found themselves out of work, scribes were no longer given manuscripts to copy. There were more important things to worry about than the fate of books.

In truth, the Middle Ages “did have a thriving literary and intellectual culture in which monks played a crucial, creative, and engaged role.” (source). Here is a small list of literary, historical, and philosophical masterpieces written during the so-called “Dark Ages”:

  • Alexiad, Anna Comnena
  • Beowulf
  • Caedmon’s Hymn
  • Book of the Civilized Man, Daniel of Beccles
  • The Canterbury Tales, Geoffrey Chaucer
  • Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius
  • Decameron, Giovanni Boccaccio
  • The Dialogue, Catherine of Siena
  • La divina commedia (The Divine Comedy), Dante Alighieri
  • First Grammatical Treatise, 12th-century work on Old Norse phonology
  • Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (The Ecclesiastical History of the English People), the Venerable Bede
  • The Lais of Marie de France, Marie de France
  • Mabinogion, various Welsh authors
  • Il milione (The Travels of Marco Polo), Marco Polo
  • Le Morte d’Arthur, Sir Thomas Malory
  • Poem of the Cid, anonymous Spanish author
  • Proslogium, Anselm of Canterbury
  • Queste del Saint Graal (The Quest of the Holy Grail), anonymous French author
  • Revelations of Divine Love, Julian of Norwich
  • Sic et Non, Abelard
  • Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, anonymous English author
  • The Song of Roland, anonymous French author
  • Spiritual Exercises, Gertrude the Great
  • Summa Theologiae, Thomas Aquinas
  • The Tale of Igor’s Campaign, anonymous Russian author
  • Tirant lo Blanc, Joanot Martorell
  • The Travels of Sir John Mandeville, John Mandeville
  • Troilus and Criseyde, Geoffrey Chaucer
  • Yvain: The Knight of the Lion, Chrétien de Troyes

A host of others can be mentioned but just check out this wikipedia article on “Medieval Literature.”

Ad Hominem

The fact of the matter is the term “dark ages” is a form of the ad hominem argument.  In short, it’s name-calling.  Until one can demonstrate that the middle ages was backward and made no technological, societal, or intellectual advancement (which is not possible given the prolific advancement during this time as shown above), the term “Dark Ages” is just a term of derision, void of any substance.

One more telling point to demonstrate that the Middle Ages were much more advanced than even our current modern and contemporary age. In the Middle Ages, a peculiar institution fell into disfavor but tragically was revived in the modern era: slavery.  This very fact shows that the Modern Age is [arguably] much darker than the Middle Ages ever were. While slavery never disappeared, it was nothing like the transatlantic slave trade or modern slavery.

As Anthony Esolen, professor of English at Providence College says at the end of the video below:

“Instead of the ‘Dark Ages’ as it is popularly called.  The Middles Ages might better be described as the “Brilliant Ages.’”

Additional Resources on the Middle Ages

Quick Quotes from the Experts:

  • “Nevertheless, serious historians have known for decades that these claims [that the Middle Ages were dark] are a complete fraud.  Even the respectable encyclopedias and dictionaries now define the Dark Ages as a myth. The Columbia Encyclopedia rejects the term, nothing that ‘medieval civilization is no longer thought to have been so dim.’ Britannica disdains the name Dark Ages as ‘pejorative.’ And Wikipedia defines the Dark Ages as a ‘supposed period of intellectual darkness after the Fall of Rome.’ These views are easily verified.” (Rodney Stark, How the West Won. ISI Books, 2014)
  • “Let’s set the record straight. From 962 to 1321, Europe enjoyed one of the most magnificent flourishings of culture the world has ever seen.  In some ways, it was the most magnificent.  And this was not despite the fact that the daily tolling of the church bells provided the rhythm of men’s lives, but because of it.” (Anthony Esolen, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization, p.132)
  • “It’s not hard to kick this nonsense to pieces, especially since the people presenting it know next to nothing about history and have simply picked up these strange ideas from websites and popular books. The assertions collapse as soon as you hit them with hard evidence. I love to totally stump these propagators by asking them to present me with the name of one – just one – scientist burned, persecuted, or oppressed for their science in the Middle Ages. They always fail to come up with any.” (Tim O’Neill “The Dark Age Myth: An Atheist Reviews ‘God’s Philosophers’” Strange Notions)
  • “Western civilization was created in medieval Europe. The forms of thought and action which we take for granted in modern Europe and America, which we have exported to other substantial portions of the globe, and from which indeed we cannot escape, were implanted in the mentalities of our ancestors in the struggles of the medieval centuries.” (Cambridge University historian George Holmes’ Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval Europe)

Books:

Articles:

Videos:

Book Reviews:

  1. The Swerve: How The World Became Modern by Stephen Greenblatt

Greenblatt’s Pulitzer Prize winning (and National Book Award, MLA book award, amongst others) The Swerve (2011) tells “a literary detective story about an intrepid Florentine bibliophile named Poggio Braccionlini, who, in 1417, stumbled upon a 500-year-old copy of [Lucretian’s] De Rerum Natura [On the Nature of Things] in a German monastery and set the poem free from centuries of neglect to work its intellectual magic on the world.” (source) While the literary side of the story is commendable (Greenblatt is a Shakespearean expert), it is the historical matter that is problematic. Greenblatt’s view of the Middle Ages continues to it as a dark and shallow intellectual vacuum in which the Renaissance (and later the Enlightenment) overcame its backward and regressive mentality.  Greenblatt declares in his The New Yorker article “The Answer Man: An Ancient Poem was Discovered – and the World Swerved”:

“Theology provided an explanation for the chaos of the Dark Ages: human beings were by nature corrupt. Inheritors of the sin of Adam and Eve, they richly deserved every miserable catastrophe that befell them. God cared about human beings, just as a father cared about his wayward children, and the sign of that care was anger. It was only through pain and punishment that a small number could find the narrow gate to salvation. A hatred of pleasure-seeking, a vision of God’s providential rage, and an obsession with the afterlife: these were death knells of everything Lucretius represented.”

Unfortunately, Greenblatt hasn’t kept up with modern medieval historiography.  Both Jim Hinch, in the Los Angeles Review of Books, and Laura Miles, over at Vox, point at his errors.

  1. Why Stephen Greenblatt Is Wrong — and Why It Matters” by Jim Hinch | Los Angeles Review of BooksDec 1, 2012

Apparently, Lucretian was not as obscure in the Middle Ages as Greenblatt represents.  Hinch writes that “Cambridge classicist Michael Reeve pointed out five years ago in The Cambridge Companion to Lucretius, scholars have long detected ‘Lucretian influence in north-Italian writers of the ninth to eleventh century, in the Paduan pre-humanists about 1300, in Dante, and in Petrarch and Bocaccio.’ Greenblatt cites the Cambridge Companion numerous times in his endnotes. Did he read it?” Obviously not.

Greenblatt’s caricature of the (read the quotes with sarcasm) “Dark Ages” as living life as if God is a cosmic kill joy is puzzling to Hinch as well: “Equally untrue is Greenblatt’s claim that medieval culture was characterized by ‘a hatred of pleasure-seeking, a vision of God’s providential rage and an obsession with the afterlife.’ I know Greenblatt has read Chaucer. He’s quoted from him in numerous books. Has he forgotten the ribald pleasure-seeking in The Canterbury Tales? What about the 13th-century French courtly love epic The Romance of the Rose? The twelfth-century Arthurian romances of Chrétien de Troyes? I find no rage in Dante’s complex vision of human morality and providential grace in the Divine Comedy. Nor do I detect an ounce of asceticism in the ravishing unicorn tapestries in the Cloisters Museum in New York. Or in the rose window in Chartres. Or in the Sainte Chapelle in Paris. Or in the gracious courts of the Alhambra.”

It seems Greenblatt is a good literary scholar, but a terrible Medieval historian, according to Hinch.

  1. Stephen Greenblatt’s The Swerve racked up prizes — and completely misled you about the Middle Ages” by Laura Saetveit Miles | VoxJuly 20, 2016

Laura Saetveit Miles, professor at the University of Bergen in Norway, declares that

The Swerve doesn’t promote the humanities to a broader public so much as it deviously precipitates the decline of the humanities, by dumbing down the complexities of history and religion in a way that sets a deeply unfortunate precedent. If Greenblatt’s story resonates with its many readers, it is surely because it echoes stubborn, made-for-TV representations of medieval “barbarity” that have no business in a nonfiction book, much less one by a Harvard professor.

In a very revealing moment in Miles article on The Swerve she declares the book as dangerous:

“When I finished, I put down The Swerve on the table, and the academic side of my brain kicked back in. I had let myself read it as fiction. Yet it was supposed to be not fiction. When I thought of it as a scholarly book, and thought of all those thousands and thousands of people out there who read it and believed every word because the author is an authority and wins prizes, I realized: This book is dangerous.” [emphasis added]

Why is it dangerous? Because it is worse the Dan Brown’s The DaVinci Code:

“Every page of The Swerve strives to present the Renaissance as an intellectual awakening that triumphs over the oppressive abyss of the Dark Ages. The book pushes the Renaissance as a rebirth of the classical brilliance nearly lost during centuries mired in dullness and pain. (In Greenblatt’s Middle Ages, bored monks literally sit in the dark when not flagellating themselves.)

This invention of modernity relies on a narrative of good guys (Poggio, as well as Lucretius) defeating bad guys and thus bringing forth a glorious transformation. This is dangerous not only because it is inaccurate but, more importantly, because it subscribes to a progressivist model of history that insists on the onward march of society, a model that all too easily excuses the crimes and injustices of modernity.

But history does not fit such cookie-cutter narratives. Having studied medieval culture for nearly two decades, I can instantly recognize the oppressive, dark, ignorant Middle Ages that Greenblatt depicts for 262 pages as, simply, fiction. It’s fiction worse than Dan Brown, because it masquerades as fact.”

  1. Book Review: The Swerve: How the Renaissance Began” byJohn Monfasani | Reviews in History July 2012

John Monfasani, professor of history at the University at Albany, State University of New York damning declares that “Greenblatt has penned an entertaining but wrong-headed belletristic tale.”

  1. A World Lit Only by Fire: the Medieval Mind and the Renaissance by William Manchester

Manchester begins his scathing history of the middle ages by claiming that

“The densest medieval centuries – the six hundred years between, roughly, A.D. 400 and A.D. 1000 – are still widely known as the Dark Ages.” (Manchester, 3) William Manchester does admit that modern historians have abandoned that phrase but the “intellectual life had vanished from Europe” and declares in the very first paragraph of the book: “Nevertheless, if value judgments are made, it is undeniable that most of what is known about the period is unlovely. After the extant fragments have been fitted together, the portrait which emerges is a melange of incessant warfare, corruption, lawlessness, obsession with strange myths, and an almost impenetrable mindlessness.”

The wikipedia entry about the book states that,

“In the book, Manchester scathingly posits, as the title suggests, that the Middle Ages were ten centuries of technological stagnation, short-sightedness, bloodshed, feudalism, and an oppressive Church wedged between the golden ages of the Roman Empire and the Renaissance.”

Technological stagnation

Short-sightedness

Bloodshed

An oppressive church

Between the golden age of Rome and the Renaissance.

Nothing really new about this negative report about the so-called “dark ages.”  The only problem is that other modern historians have dismissed and criticized the book because of its gross errors, misinformation, and out of date understanding of the era.

Jeremy DuQuesnay Adams, professor and Altshuler Distinguished Teaching Professor of Medieval Europe of SMU and Ph.D. from Harvard (Manchester has an BA and MA in English, no training in history or a history degree), grudgingly reviewed the book. In Speculum: A Journal of Medieval Studies, Adams remarked that Manchester’s work contained “some of the most gratuitous errors of fact and eccentricities of judgment this reviewer has read (or heard) in quite some time.” He begins the review by lamenting:

“This is an infuriating book. The present reviewer hoped that it would simply fade away, as its intellectual qualities (too strong a word) deserved. Unfortunately, it has not: one keeps meeting well-intentioned, perfectly intelligent people (including some colleagues in other disciplines – especially the sciences) who have just read this book and want to discuss why anyone would ever become a medievalist.”

Adams goes on to point out that Manchester’s assertions about clothing, diet, and medieval person’s views of time and sense of self ran counter to the conclusions of established historians of the Middle Ages of the 20th-century.

An example of his errors is with the famed Pied Piper. Manchester claims that the Piper of Hamelin was  “was horrible, a psychopath and pederast who, on June 24, 1484, spirited away 130 children in the Saxon village of Hammel and used them in unspeakable ways. Accounts of the aftermath vary. According to some, the victims were never seen again; others told of disembodied little bodies found scattered in the forest underbrush or festooning the branches of trees.”

Over at The Straight Dope we learn that “Manchester doesn’t footnote this passage” and that their own “research suggests that Manchester got some of the details wrong–among other things, he appears to be off about 200 years on the date.”

  1. Review of A World Lit Only by Fire” Kirkus Review, May 20th, 2010.

This review reveals that Manchester, by his own admission, did NOT master any scholarship on the early 16th century, which ” dooms him to retelling the same old stories recounted countless times before.”

In the book’s “Author’s Note”, Manchester says, “It is, after all, a slight work, with no scholarly pretensions. All the sources are secondary, and few are new; I have not mastered recent scholarship on the early sixteenth century.

So, Manchester, who has no formal training in history, not a medievalist, admits to not using primary sources as well as not mastering any recent scholarship of the early 16th century, has penned a propaganda piece (at best) of the middle ages. Again, another myth that the middle ages were dark.

  1. The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World by Catherine Nixey

The Darkening Age by Catherine Nixey is one of the latest publications (2017) propagating the dark ages myth.  Nixey studied classics at Cambridge and taught the subject for several years before becoming a journalist on the arts desk at the Times (UK). Her book, The Darkening Age, no surprise, focuses on “the Christian destruction of the classical world” (xxxv).  Her prologue characterizes Christians as “destroyers, . . . marauding bands of bearded, black-robed zealots” whose “ . . . attacks were primitive, thuggish, and very effective.” She goes on to say that “these men moved in packs—later in swarms of as many as five hundred—and when they descended utter destruction followed” (xix).

Some of the reviews and reactions to Nixey’s book can be listed:

  • The esteemed historian of Late Antiquity of Oxford University, Dame Averil Cameroncalls Nixey’s book “a travesty” condemning it as “overstated and unbalanced.”
  • Lecturer of Medieval history at Exeter University, Dr. Levi Roach, stated that Nixey’s book “does not seek to present a balanced picture (…) this is a book of generalizations. (…) Nixey (…) is unwilling to see shades of grey” in his evaluation at Literary Review titled “At Cross Purposes.” He goes on to state in the article that, “to characterize late-antique Christians as ‘thugs’, as Nixey repeatedly does, it perhaps defensible, to call them ‘primitive’ and ‘stupid’, as she also does, is not. All to often Christians are cast as the aggressors, even when, as Nixey acknowledges more than once, they are responding to prior attacks.” And “Perhaps most worryingly, in embracing this line of argument [i.e., over-generalizing] Nixey ends up endorsing the long-debunked view of the Middle Ages as a period of blind faith and intellectual stagnation (which she again, problematically equates with one another.)”
  • Tim O’Neill, over at his website History for Atheists, give a long, detailed analysis of Nixey’s book and concludes, “Good history books, including good popular history, should give the reader a greater insight into the period and the subject. They should make the reader better informed and, in doing so, make them wiser. They should deepen understanding, so that anything else read on the subject from that point tends to add layers to that depth. Watts’ book [The Final PaganGeneration] does this. O’Donnell’s book [Pagans: The End of Traditional Religion and the Rise of Christianity] does this. Duffy’s book [The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England, 1400-1580] does this. Nixey’s book does not. Anyone reading Nixey’s book is likely to come away thinking they know and understand more but will actually have learned things that would have to be unlearned or corrected later. Nixey’s is not a good history book. It is, as Dame Averil said so pithily, ‘a travesty’.”
  • Review of The Darkening Ageby Catherine Nixey” by Tim O’Neill. History for Atheists November 29, 2017
  • When History Turns Anti-Christian” by Bryan Litfin. The Gospel CoalitionApril 5, 2019
  • Book review, ‘The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World’ by Catherine Nixey” by Joshua Herring. The Acton Institute December 22, 2017
  • Blame the Christians” by Averil Cameron. The Tablet September 21, 2017
  • At Cross Purposes” by Levi Roach. Literary Review November 2017
  • Reactions to and Reviews of Catherine Nixey’s The Darkening Age” by Cornelis Hoogerwerf. What is Written October 22, 2017

References: 

[1] [Editor’s Note: These quotes are presented as is. If any source information is lacking, that’s how it was presented in the original.]

[2] [Editor’s note: The University of Bologna, established in 1088, is widely considered the first and longest-running university in the world. The University of Al-Quaraouiyine in Fez, Morocco, a Muslim institution, is sometimes credited as the first but it’s disputed whether that school was a “university” (marked by free inquiry, freedom of thought, and free speech) before Bologna was established. Nevertheless, it too is a medieval creation. So Steve Lee’s thesis is unchallenged either way.

Recommended Resources: 

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)   

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

Your Most Important Thinking Skill by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, (mp4) download

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

 


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

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3Gsq4BN

For many atheists, no amount of argument will ever convince them that a loving God could consign any of his creation to Hell. I have often encountered this challenge, which usually sounds something like this:

 

“It does not matter how just, kind, and generous they have been with their fellow humans during their lifetime. If they do not accept the gospel of Jesus, they are condemned. No just God would ever judge a man for believing the wrong thing. He would judge them instead by their actions.”

It is difficult, if not impossible, to provide an answer to this challenge that is emotionally satisfying. After all, even for believers, the doctrine of Hell is difficult to accept, as it runs up against our innate inclinations. How easy it is for us to grade our own behavior on a curve, to forgive our transgressions, to lessen our own culpability, to view ourselves as “basically good.” When we see ourselves this way, we naturally conclude that God will see us this way too. It is only by resorting to Scripture – an “outside” view – that we can see clearly that a God who embodies justice must have a place of punishment for those who rebel against him.

Justice Demands It

Consider: Justice, in its most basic sense, involves the notion of rewarding good and punishing evil. We appreciate this intuitively, and even at a very young age. How jarring would it be for a student to be given detention for being attentive in class, or to receive a merit award for cheating on his final exam. No, punishment is meant for bad behavior. But in assessing the proper extent of punishment, we also consider the wrongdoer’s mental state, which of course is reflective of their beliefs. Premeditated murder is worse than manslaughter, and is punished more severely, and a hate crime is a sentencing enhancement that adds more punishment to the underlying crime. In both examples, a person’s beliefs are at play: the premeditated murderer has reflected on his choices before committing the fatal act; a hate crime reflects a belief that the rights of a member of the protected group are especially unworthy of respect. So, considering what a person thinks and believes is indeed relevant to the question of consequences, especially if those beliefs have motivated bad behavior.

But the underlying mistake in the skeptic’s view is even more fundamental. He is wrong to assert that people are condemned for their beliefs, for not accepting the gospel.  They are, instead, condemned for their sinful behavior. Through their thoughts, words and actions, through the exercise of their free will, they repeatedly choose to violate God’s laws.

How should God respond to this?

Can God not just “let it go? Do nothing? After all, he created us this way, didn’t he? But if he simply accepts the repeated violation of his moral law, he could no longer be viewed as “just.” Imagine for a moment how one would view a judge who never imposes a sanction on someone who violates the law, no matter how often or how flagrant the violations are? Why would we expect God to be different? If he embodies perfect justice, and if he created us from nothing and made his law known to us, does it not stand to reason that there will be a consequence imposed on us for choosing to violate that law?

The Underlying Condition

The quoted challenge, then, is a bit like saying that the sick man died of “not believing in the doctor.” No, the person died of a specific underlying condition which a doctor might have been able to cure. So too with eternal punishment. No one is condemned for refusing to believe in Jesus. While Jesus can – and does – provide salvation for those who seek it, there is nothing unjust about not providing salvation to those who refuse to seek it. After all, we don’t normally feel obliged to help someone who has not asked for, and does not want, our assistance. So too the Creator has the right to withhold a gift – i.e. eternity spent in his presence – from those who would trample on the gift, and on the gift-giver.

God Isn’t Impressed

The quoted assertion also demonstrates an unspoken belief that we can impress God with our “kind” or “generous” behavior. On this view, God should be grateful that we have acted in a way that pleased him. This fails to grasp what God is – a perfect being. We cannot impress him. When we behave rightly, after all, we do what we should do. We don’t drag people into court and reward them for not committing crimes. Acting lawfully all of the time is rightly expected of us. By the same token, a person guilty of a serious crime cannot complain that his punishment is unfair, because he had been kind and generous to others in the past.

So, in the end, we find ourselves in a predicament. We use our free will to rebel against our Creator, but we want him to accept this rebellion, and us, with “no questions asked.” When God judges us, he finds us wanting in both our actions and our beliefs. But in his infinite goodness, he also provides the solution to our problem, a bridge that spans the divide that exists between us and him. This point bears emphasis: through his love and mercy, God provides the solution to our problem, if only we are willing to bend the knee and ask for that mercy.

There is nothing unfair in any of this.  In the end, we get what we choose. The bridge back to God, the one enabled by Jesus’ sacrifice when he walked the Earth, costs us nothing to cross, and is available to everyone.

But we must first want to cross it.

Recommended Resources: 

Is Original Sin Unfair? by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

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

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

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

 


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

 

 

 

The human body is a marvelous and complex system. Of special interest is the cellular mechanism of the body. Every 7-10 years, the cells of the body replace themselves, to the point that the body is essentially new every decade.[i]

 

While the DNA remains the same over the course of a person’s life, the cells change at varying rates. A person’s stomach lining replaces itself every few days. The skin’s epidermis replaces itself every 2 to 4 weeks. The body’s hair changes every 6 years for women and 3 years for men. Liver cells rejuvenate every 150 to 500 days. Bones take around 10 years to change.

Philosophically speaking, the materialist has a problem if he decides to claim that the body is all of human existence. If humans are only their bodies, then each person changes completely every decade. However, this poses severe challenges to personhood. The lack of permanence is not feasible for a person’s essence. Thus, an immaterial soul is required to explain the permanence of the human psyche for three reasons.

Defense of the Immaterial Soul from Personal Identity

First, the immaterial soul must exist to verify continued personal identity. Looking back at our lives, it is clear that we look different each decade. I remember looking back at photos from my high school days. Before wearing contact lenses, I donned thick glasses that automatically darkened when in daylight. With a thick bouffant hairstyle, thin moustache, and 80s-style glasses, I looked something like an officer or detective from a 70s television show. I was much like an officer from CHiPs, but without the cool motorcycle.

Though I may be embarrassed by my stylish choices in high school, never would I dare to say that I was not the same person that I am today. Yes, I have changed, grown, and matured over the years. But I maintain the same identity that I did back then. Permanence of personal identity with an ever-changing body is only possible if our identities are held together by an immaterial soul. Without it, there is no guarantee that we will retain our personal identity.

Defense of the Immaterial Soul from Personal Constancy

Second, the immaterial soul is imperative to explain personal constancy. Consider for a moment if the materialist is right in that the body is the only component of personal human identity. That would mean that the person completely changes every decade. Thus, a crime committed in 2015 could not be tried in 2025 because the person is not the same. Since the body has completely changed, the person must have also completely changed if the body is all there is to personal identity. Thus, no one could be held accountable for what was done over time. Additionally, no one could be rewarded for something they accomplished over time.

For some, this may sound absurd. However, the lack of personal constancy is the metaphysical deduction from materialism, when it is allowed to be taken to its ultimate conclusion. The immaterial reality is necessary to account for the constancy of personal identity.

Defense of the Immaterial Soul from Personal Growth

Lastly, if a person did not have an immaterial mind, will, and emotions found in the immaterial soul, then a person would not learn and grow over time. Even brain cells regenerate over time, at least to a degree.[ii] Granted, learning does interact with the brain. However, if personal identity was only found in chemicals and cellular changes, growth could not occur. Yet, a person learns, grows, and develops one’s character over time. This is something that occurs within the immaterial soul. Again, given the changes that occur, a person would always be in a constant state of flux with no consistency or permanence. The soul working with the body is what gives an individual personal identity. This mind-body connection is also known as hylomorphism.[iii]

Conclusion

Since the early days of philosophy, scholars have sought to understand the complex relationship between permanence and change. Materialists often accept change without any sense of permanence, whereas rationalists, such as Parmenides (510 BC) believed that reality is “just being, one single solitary unchanging being. Reality is the One.”[iv] The body is in a constant state of flux. Thus, the only way a person could have a permanent, constant identity is if a person has an immaterial soul, a soul that serves as the form of the body.

References: 

[i] Chris Opfer and Allison Troutner, “Does Your Body Really Renew Itself Every Seven Years?,” HowStuffWorks.com (Sept. 22, 2022), https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/cellular-microscopic/does-body-really-replace-seven-years.htm.

[ii] Tim Newman, “Brain cells keep growing well into our 70s,” MedicalNewsToday.com (April 7, 2018), https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321416.

[iii] Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology: In One Volume (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2011), 636-637, 1221-1222.

[iv] Daniel J. Sullivan, An Introduction to Philosophy: Perennial Principles of the Classical Realist Tradition (Charlotte, NC: TAN, 1957), 20.

Recommended Resources:

The Great Book of Romans by Dr. Frank Turek (Mp4, Mp3, DVD Complete series, STUDENT & INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, COMPLETE Instructor Set)

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

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

Debate: What Best Explains Reality: Atheism or Theism? by Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, and Mp3 

 


Brian G. Chilton earned his Ph.D. in the Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University (with high distinction). He is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast and the founder of Bellator Christi. Brian received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); earned a Certificate in Christian Apologetics from Biola University, and plans to purse philosophical studies in the near future. He is also enrolled in Clinical Pastoral Education to better learn how to empower those around him. Brian is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has served in ministry for over 20 years and currently serves as a clinical hospice chaplain as well as a pastor.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4j530XP