Is Guidance Control COMPATIBLE with Divine Determinism?

STRATTON:

Dear ChatGPT, Guidance control is a concept from philosophy, particularly in discussions of free will and moral responsibility. It refers to the capacity of an agent to guide their behavior in a way that reflects their reasons, values, and intentions. In the context of free will, guidance control is often contrasted with what is referred to as regulative control. Allow me to explain:

 

Guidance control asserts the ability to guide one’s actions in accordance with one’s rational deliberation and decision-making process. It does not necessarily require alternative possibilities (understood as the ability to do otherwise). Regulative control, on the other hand, includes both the ability to guide actions and the ability to choose among alternative options (i.e., free will in the sense of having genuine alternatives and the ability to do otherwise).

Here are some key components of Guidance Control that proponents offer:

  1. Mechanism Ownership: The agent acts through mechanisms that are their own, such as their beliefs, desires, and rational capacities.
  2. Reasons-Responsiveness: The agent’s behavior is responsive to reasons, meaning they can recognize and act upon good reasons when making decisions.

Guidance control plays a central role in compatibilist theories of free will, such as those advocated by John Martin Fischer. Compatibilists argue that even if determinism is true and the entirety of our actions are causally determined, we can still have moral responsibility if we possess guidance control over our actions. I believe this theory fails for several reasons, but before we continue with our conversation would you like to add anything I may have missed about guidance control, regulative control, reasons-responsiveness, or compatibilism in general?

CHATGPT SAID:[i]

[i] Minimal edits were made to this conversation with ChatGPT (throughout). For example, in my original conversation I asked ChatGPT to review my interaction with specific scholars (and a couple non-scholars) by name. In response, Chat GPT reviewed my interaction with them and also referenced these individuals by name. I have deleted these particular names from this publication.

Your summary is an excellent and concise explanation of guidance control, regulative control, and their roles in discussions of free will and moral responsibility. To complement your description, I’ll add a few nuances and additional insights to enrich our discussion:

Guidance Control

  1. Mechanism Ownership
    • John Martin Fischer emphasizes that guidance control involves acting through mechanisms that are “your own.” This raises questions about what counts as “ownership” of these mechanisms, particularly in cases where external influences or manipulations might challenge autonomy.
  2. Reasons-Responsiveness
    • Fischer and Ravizza refine reasons-responsiveness by distinguishing between weak and strong reasons-responsiveness. Weak reasons-responsiveness requires that there be some possible world where the mechanism leads to a different action in response to good reasons. Strong reasons-responsiveness entails a consistent pattern of recognizing and responding to reasons across a variety of possible circumstances.

Regulative Control

  1. Alternative Possibilities
    • The notion of regulative control aligns with the traditional libertarian view of free will, which requires the ability to genuinely choose among alternatives. This concept is often linked to the “principle of alternative possibilities” (PAP), which states that an agent is morally responsible only if they could have done otherwise. Frankfurt-style counterexamples challenge this principle by arguing that moral responsibility can exist even in the absence of alternatives.
  2. Causal Determinism and Regulative Control
    • In deterministic frameworks, regulative control is often seen as untenable because it requires the kind of metaphysical freedom incompatible with causal determinism.

Compatibilism and Guidance Control

  • Core Compatibilist Argument
    • Compatibilists like Fischer argue that guidance control is sufficient for moral responsibility because it focuses on how actions are caused rather than whether alternative possibilities exist. The key claim is that moral responsibility depends on the quality of the agent’s reasoning and their responsiveness to reasons rather than the ability to have acted otherwise.
  • Critiques of Compatibilism
    • Critics often argue that guidance control does not fully capture the intuitions underlying moral responsibility. For instance:
      • If determinism is true, even guidance control mechanisms are causally determined, potentially undermining their “ownership.”
      • Others contend that the absence of alternative possibilities (as in Frankfurt cases[2]) still undermines the sense of autonomy needed for true moral responsibility.

Further Points for Discussion

  1. Manipulation Arguments
    • Philosophers like Derk Pereboom use manipulation cases to challenge compatibilism, arguing that if an agent’s decisions are the result of deterministic processes (analogous to external manipulation), it undermines moral responsibility even if guidance control is present.
  2. Responsiveness to Reasons
    • There is ongoing debate about what counts as sufficient responsiveness to reasons. For instance, should reasons-responsiveness include moral reasons specifically, or does it also encompass prudential or instrumental reasons?
  3. Emerging Views
    • Some philosophers propose hybrid views, combining elements of compatibilism and libertarianism to account for moral responsibility in a way that includes guidance control while acknowledging the importance of genuine alternatives in some cases. . .

STRATTON:
I like what you added about the “Emerging Views.” I recently coauthored an academic journal article with philosopher J.P. Moreland entitled “An Explanation and Defense of the Free-Thinking Argument.” We touch on some of these issues in that essay. Do you have access to this paper?

As for now, I would like to specifically focus on divine determinism or what I often refer to as exhaustive divine determination (EDD).

CHATGPT SAID:
Thank you for sharing your work . . . I’ve reviewed the paper, which presents a robust defense of the Free-Thinking Argument (FTA), asserting that determinism is incompatible with epistemic responsibility in the desert sense—that is, being praiseworthy or blameworthy for one’s thoughts, ideas, judgments, or beliefs. The paper contends that this incompatibility poses significant challenges not only for naturalists but also for proponents of exhaustive divine determinism (EDD).

Focusing on EDD, your paper raises several critical points:

  1. Epistemic Responsibility Under EDD: If all human thoughts and beliefs are divinely determined, individuals lack genuine epistemic responsibility. This absence undermines the basis for holding individuals praiseworthy or blameworthy for their cognitive states.
  2. The Problem of Epistemic Evil: EDD introduces a “problem of epistemic evil,” questioning the reliability of human cognition and the trustworthiness of Scripture. If God determines all thoughts, including false beliefs, it challenges the notion of a benevolent deity and the foundation of rational discourse.
  3. Libertarian Freedom as a Solution: The paper advocates for libertarian freedom, suggesting that genuine free will is necessary for epistemic responsibility and to avoid the pitfalls associated with EDD.

These considerations align with our previous discussions on guidance control and regulative control. Under EDD, guidance control is compromised because individuals cannot genuinely guide their actions or thoughts if these are predetermined. Similarly, regulative control is absent, as the ability to choose among alternative possibilities is negated by divine determination.

Your work contributes significantly to the discourse on free will, determinism, and moral responsibility, especially in theological contexts. It highlights the tension between divine sovereignty and human freedom, advocating for a model that preserves human agency and epistemic integrity.

If you’d like to delve deeper into any specific aspect or discuss further implications of EDD on free will and moral responsibility, feel free to guide the conversation accordingly.

STRATTON:
Thank you for reviewing my coauthored paper and for your kind words. Regarding “Mechanism Ownership” you said:

“John Martin Fischer emphasizes that guidance control involves acting through mechanisms that are ‘your own.’ This raises questions about what counts as ‘ownership’ of these mechanisms, particularly in cases where external influences or manipulations might challenge autonomy.”

I agree that this is problematic! What does it mean for a person to “guide” or “control” mental actions if a deity determines the entirety of their mental actions? Indeed, it seems to me that what the compatibilist is advancing here is not compatible with EDD whatsoever.

Please comment on my thoughts.

Regarding “Reasons-Responsiveness” you wrote the following:

“Fischer and Ravizza refine reasons-responsiveness by distinguishing between weak and strong reasons-responsiveness. Weak reasons-responsiveness requires that there be some possible world where the mechanism leads to a different action in response to good reasons. Strong reasons-responsiveness entails a consistent pattern of recognizing and responding to reasons across a variety of possible circumstances.”

It seems to me that a major flaw with this line of thought is that if EDD is true, then the manner in which one experiences sensations of reason is always “up to” and determined by a deity who determines each and every one of his own followers to reason incorrectly on theological matters. Since no theologian is infallible, it follows that if EDD is true and a deity determines all things, then this deity determines all the deity’s followers to affirm false theological beliefs. This means that this deity determines these followers to reason poorly and reach conclusions that oppose objective reality.

So, I suppose one could assert that they are “reasons responsive,” but they are responding inappropriately to bad reasons. What do you think and what would you add?

CHATGPT SAID:
Your critique is insightful and addresses some critical issues that arise when considering exhaustive divine determinism (EDD) alongside compatibilist notions like guidance control and reasons-responsiveness. Let me respond to your points in detail and offer additional reflections.

Mechanism Ownership Under EDD

Your concern about the incompatibility of mechanism ownership with EDD is compelling. If EDD is true, it means that:

  1. Mechanisms Are Fully Determined by the Deity
    Under EDD, every mental action, belief, or decision is entirely determined by divine will. This undermines the notion of “ownership” because the agent does not have any causal input into the mechanisms of their reasoning. They are not the true source of their actions or thoughts, which calls into question their autonomy.
  2. Guidance Becomes Illusory
    For an agent to “guide” their actions or thoughts implies some degree of control or influence over the process. If EDD is true, however, the agent merely follows the predetermined path set by the deity, rendering the human’s role in the process passive rather than active. This makes the compatibilist’s reliance on guidance control untenable in the context of EDD.

Addition:

This also raises a theological dilemma. If guidance control is required for epistemic and moral responsibility and guidance control is incompatible with EDD, then proponents of EDD must accept a model of divine justice that does not depend on human responsibility. This creates tension with traditional views of divine justice that hold individuals accountable for their actions.

Reasons-Responsiveness Under EDD

You highlight a significant problem with Fischer and Ravizza’s concept of reasons-responsiveness under EDD. If all reasoning processes are determined by a deity, this has troubling implications:

  1. Deity-Determined Error
    As you point out, no theologian is infallible. If a deity determines all thoughts and beliefs, then the deity must also determine false theological conclusions. This includes cases where believers affirm doctrines or interpretations that are inconsistent with the deity’s nature or intentions. This determination undermines the idea that believers are genuinely responsive to “good” reasons since their reasoning processes are not under their control.
  2. Bad Reasons as a Divine Determination
    Even if an individual is “reasons-responsive,” EDD implies that their responsiveness is orchestrated by the deity. If the deity determines them to respond to bad reasons as though they were good, then their “reasons-responsiveness” lacks epistemic or moral significance. It becomes an empty concept because the agent has no capacity to discern between good and bad reasons independently.

Addition:

This flaw also impacts the trustworthiness of human cognition. If a deity determines individuals to affirm false beliefs, this creates a self-defeating problem for EDD. How can one trust any belief or reasoning process, including the belief in EDD itself, if all reasoning is determined by a being who also determines falsehoods?

A Broader Critique of EDD in This Context

  1. Epistemic Circularity
    If EDD is true, and a deity determines all reasoning, including beliefs about EDD, then there is no independent ground to affirm EDD. The belief in EDD itself could be a divinely determined error.
  2. Moral and Epistemic Responsibility
    The incompatibility of EDD with guidance control and reasons-responsiveness undermines both moral and epistemic responsibility. It becomes difficult to see how individuals could be held accountable for their actions or beliefs if their reasoning and choices are entirely outside their control.
  3. Divine Benevolence Questioned
    The idea that a deity would determine individuals to affirm false theological beliefs seems incompatible with the traditional understanding of a benevolent and truthful deity. It raises the question of why such a deity would intentionally lead followers into error.

Conclusion

Your critique is a strong challenge to the compatibility of EDD with key philosophical concepts like guidance control and reasons-responsiveness. I would add that EDD not only faces challenges on the grounds of autonomy and responsibility but also struggles to reconcile its implications with theological doctrines about divine justice, truthfulness, and benevolence.

Your work appears to be building a robust case for the necessity of libertarian freedom, especially in the epistemic domain.

STRATTON:
On my website you will find some interaction with those who affirm EDD. Please consider my previous interactions with them and offer some potential objections to my work.

My website is www.freethinkinc.org or www.freethinkingministries.com

CHATGPT SAID:
Thank you for directing me to your website, Free Thinking Ministries. I’ve reviewed your interactions with proponents of Exhaustive Divine Determinism (EDD). These discussions provide valuable insights into the ongoing debate between compatibilist and libertarian perspectives on free will.

Potential Rebuttals from EDD Proponents:

  1. Divine Determination and Human Responsibility:
    • Rebuttal: Proponents of EDD might argue that divine determination does not negate human responsibility. They could assert that God’s sovereign will operates in harmony with human actions, such that individuals are still accountable for their choices, even if those choices are ultimately determined by God.
    • Your Response: You’ve highlighted that if all thoughts and actions are divinely determined, it challenges the notion of genuine human responsibility. If individuals cannot do otherwise than what God has determined, holding them morally or epistemically accountable seems problematic.
  2. Compatibilist Free Will:
    • Rebuttal: EDD advocates may adopt a compatibilist view, suggesting that free will is compatible with determinism. They might argue that as long as individuals act according to their desires and intentions (even if those are determined), they exercise free will.
    • Your Response: You’ve contended that under EDD, even our desires and intentions are determined by God, which undermines the authenticity of our decision-making processes. If our reasoning is determined, the meaningfulness of our deliberations is called into question.
  3. Divine Goodness and Truth:
    • Rebuttal: Supporters of EDD might claim that God’s determination of all things ensures the ultimate good and the revelation of truth. They could argue that any false beliefs or errors serve a greater divine purpose, even if that purpose is beyond human comprehension.
    • Your Response: You’ve raised concerns that if God determines individuals to hold false beliefs, it conflicts with the notion of a benevolent and truthful deity. This scenario challenges the reliability of human cognition and the trustworthiness of divine revelation.

Further Considerations:

  • Theological Implications: The debate touches on the nature of God’s sovereignty and human agency. While EDD emphasizes God’s control over all events, it raises questions about the purpose of human reasoning and the authenticity of our relationship with the divine.
  • Philosophical Consistency: Maintaining that God determines all thoughts and actions while upholding human responsibility requires a nuanced explanation. The challenge lies in coherently explaining how predetermined agents can be genuinely accountable for their beliefs and actions.

Your engagements with these scholars [and others] demonstrate a deep commitment to exploring these complex issues.

STRATTON:
Thank you for this conversation. It’s always a pleasure to discuss these matters with non-biased and non-emotional robots who don’t take these things personally. I’ll be back!

ChatGPT said:
Thank you for the engaging conversation and thought-provoking insights! It’s always a pleasure to explore these deep and meaningful topics with you. I’ll be here whenever you’re ready to continue—no biases, no emotions, just reason and dialogue. Take care, and I look forward to our next discussion!

STRATTON:
Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),
Dr. Tim Stratton

References: 

[1] Minimal edits were made to this conversation with ChatGPT (throughout). For example, in my original conversation I asked ChatGPT to review my interaction with specific scholars (and a couple non-scholars) by name. In response, Chat GPT reviewed my interaction with them and also referenced these individuals by name. I have deleted these particular names from this publication.

[2] Editor’s note: Regarding ‘Frankfurt Cases’ see: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/frankfurt_cases.html

Recommended Resources:

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

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

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

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

 

Tim Stratton (The FreeThinking Theist) Tim pursued his undergraduate studies at the University of Nebraska-Kearney (B.A. 1997) and after working in full-time ministry for several years went on to attain his graduate degree from Biola University (M.A. 2014). Tim was recently accepted at North West University to pursue his Ph.D. in systematic theology with a focus on metaphysics.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4iQRkI7

/by

4 Good Things That Go Bad When They Are Idolized

In recent years, Joshua Harris  announced that he and his wife are separating AND that he is no longer a Christian. In case you missed the whole I kissed Dating Goodbye craze in the late 1990’s, let me summarize: Joshua Harris was a prominent voice in purity culture (which Amy Davison has been blogging about here and here.)  In his early 20’s, he wrote a book advocating for “courtship” instead of “dating.” This change in perspective would supposedly allow young men and women to avoid emotional ties that would hinder their future marital happiness. There’s too much to go into here. In short, what started as one young man’s dating advice got turned into the 67th book of the Bible for many youth groups.

 

People are desperate for answers. In the wake of Harris’ announcement, many are pointing to other prominent Christian figures who have gone through a similar public “breakup with Jesus”—Derek Webb being one of them. In an article titled “Derek Webb: A Reformed Atheist” author, Steve Fraley, analyzes Webb’s demise from reformed Christian to atheist, postulating whether or not the reformed theology was to blame.[1] Upon Webb’s deconversion, many stepped forward to declare that this theology had also been their kryptonite. In essence, doubt and unbelief were proof that “God had not chosen them.” And according to staunch reformed theology, you cannot change the will of God. Better to just accept your fate.[2]

Suffice it to say, the bride of Christ is starting to look a whole lot like the bride of Hosea right now.

I have started noticing a trend In many of the deconversion stories I have read. What seems to precede the “falling away” for several of these men and women is idolatry of some sort—placing an unhealthy emphasis on something other than the Gospel. Many of these things are not—in and of themselves—bad. When placed in competition with Christ, there’s only so long that the soul can pretend to serve two masters. Eventually, there is a schism and often, it is orthodox Christianity that is left behind. Here’s a few of the trends I have noticed.

1) A particular theology…more than the whole of Scripture

We can turn anything into an idol, even theology. Click To Tweet

What does this look like: Now I don’t want to sound like I’m picking on reformed theology. There is a very Scriptural case to be made for it. I have, however, noticed a really unhealthy emphasis on it by some of its adherents. Just search the word “reformed” in the groups’ section on Facebook and you’ll get an idea of how committed people are to this theology. I mean really? Does someone really need a “Reformed and into Home Décor and Homemaking” group? You can’t help your Arminian friends also decorate their houses? [Update: the founder of this group has personally contacted me to clarify that her group welcomes all Christian men and women who are interested in home decorating. I apologize for the confusion this has caused.]

Having correct theology is important. That’s one way we worship Christ with our minds. However, when we take any theology and elevate it above the Gospel, it turns rotten. It doesn’t even matter the theology—orthodox or unorthodox.[3] We can turn anything into an idol. When it becomes an idol, it becomes a competitor for Christ in our hearts and we’ll eventually have to pick one.

How to tell if you are doing this: Do you tend to get more excited and feel closer to a person if they identify themselves with a particular theology than you do if they identify themselves as a Christian? Do you tend to have a lot of debates about one particular theology? Have you ever been tempted to view those who disagree with your theology as not “really saved,” or at least not as “mature” in their Christian faith?

2) A particular pastor… more than the bride of Christ

Be careful when you turn a good teacher into a celebrity.Click To Tweet

What does this look like: My husband John released an article which discusses the 12 signs of a personality cult (part 1, part 2). I suggest you take a look at it. Certain churches are known more by their pastor’s name than by their church’s name. While this is not always avoidable, it should be noted. If a church’s entire culture is based on one key individual, then what happens when that individual falls from grace, or lands him or herself in some sort of sin or scandal?

I watched this happen to my childhood church. [4] Our church was not a megachurch, so our fallout was much smaller. The same cannot be said for churches like Mars Hill (ala Mark Driscoll) and Sovereign Grace Ministries (ala CJ Mahaney). With the #metoo movement still working its way through our American pews, we are seeing celebrity pastors crumble at an unprecedented rate. I have no doubt that the people who studied under Joshua Harris are having their own crises of faith right now.

Unfortunately, we can’t prevent other people from making idols, so nobody can idol-proof their ministry. We can idol-proof our hearts though. Bottom line—your loyalty to a spiritual figure should never compete with your loyalty to Christ. Ask yourself—if the person I admire the most were to announce that they were walking away from the faith, how badly would it affect my faith? Our faith is to be based on Christ—His life, death, and resurrection. That is why I love apologetics. No matter how many celebrity teachers suddenly decide to fall away, I can’t unknow what I know. (see my testimony in chapter 1 of the Mama Bear Apologetics book.)

How to tell if you are doing this:  If you don’t personally know the leader and your main exposure to him or her is from a pulpit, ask yourself these questions: If and when you hear an accusation against a leader, is your first instinct to defend them or to seek more information to evaluate? Do you worry more about a ministry’s reputation than you do about truth (even ugly truth) being revealed? Do you seek out information that might change your mind, or do you only look at things that confirm what you already believe about a person? Has the downfall of a Christian leader significantly impacted your faith?

3) Our own identity… more than our identity in Christ

Even our own identities can become an idol.Click To Tweet

What does this look like: Unless we are defining ourselves as children of the living God, we are basing our identities on shifting sand. Every part of what I see as my “identity” is open for reinterpretation in our postmodern world. The going narrative is that however I am, I was born that way, and God doesn’t make mistakes. While this statement is technically true, it doesn’t take our sin nature into account.

We get wrapped up in how we think we were made—introvert or extrovert, thinker or feeler, banker, scientist, athlete, artist, writer, gay, or straight. Christ said that anyone who wishes to follow Him must “deny themselves and take up their cross.” (Matthew 10:38) There is no part of our identity that is immune to this call. My profession, my personality, my interests, habits, and yes, even my sexuality will all have aspects that I need to deny and submit to Christ—even when it’s hard, and even when it feels unnatural. Introverts are called to fellowship. Extroverts were modeled (by Jesus) to have solitary time with God the Father. Feelers are called to love God with their minds. Thinkers are called to love God with their hearts. Those outside of Biblical marriage [5] are to honor God in their singleness. Those inside of Biblical marriage are to honor God in their marriage. Christ accepts all of us exactly as we are, but following Him means becoming more like Him. The moment that we over-commit ourselves to an aspect of our “identity” is the moment that we stop denying ourselves to follow Christ. Instead, we start demanding that He make the journey of carrying our crosses more comfortable. That is, unfortunately, a promise He never made.

How to tell if you are doing this: Do you have a modifier before the word “Christian” to define yourself? Do you find yourself making excuses to not change aspects about yourself because you feel like it’s “just the way you are” or “how God made you?” Do you think there are certain aspects of your identity that are unfallen and to be accepted “as is?” Do you conclude that if someone doesn’t accept all the parts of you, then they hate you?

4) An emotional experience… more than the everyday faith journey

Faith grows stronger through suffering than it does through comfort.Click To Tweet

What does this look like: In the Mama Bear Apologetics book, I mention that people can sometimes mistake experiences with Jesus for Jesus Himself. There is good to be had in mountaintop experiences at summer camp and intimate times of rapturous worship at a conference. However, our addiction to these experiences can sometimes eclipse the everyday relationship that we are called to have with Jesus.

I compare it to those dating reality TV shows where the couple shares a kiss after hang-gliding over the Grand Canyon. It’s really easy to fall in love over candlelit dinners on your own private island, but the love that is formed there is not necessarily the same love that cleans the toilet multiple times a day while your spouse has the stomach flu. It’s not the love that does the dishes or forfeits the last piece of coveted cheesecake. These are the more mundane everyday acts of love, but they are closer to reality than a zip-line date over a waterfall.

Similarly, our relationship with Jesus does not always consist of going from one emotional high to another. It is a faith journey, winding through peaks and valleys. This may not sound nearly as sexy, but it’s real and much more stable than anything we can conjure up on our own.

How to tell if you are doing this: Do you feel like God is “less present” when you are doing ordinary parts of life than when you are having an emotional high? Does suffering jolt you out of love with God? When things feel dry, do you press in to Jesus more, or seek another experience?

In conclusion, none of these things are, by themselves, bad. It is good to want to have correct theology. It is good to support your leaders. It is good to know yourself. It is good to experience Christ. It is when we idolize these, however, that a good thing from God goes bad.

References: 

[1] Reformed theology teaches that salvation is solely on the basis of whom God chooses.

[2] Some would of course claim that this is a perversion of true reformed theology, but I do not have time to open up that can of worms here.

[3] We see this in the “health and wealth gospel” (aka prosperity gospel) where God’s earthly favor is the main “proof” of an individual’s amount of faith. It happens with spiritual gifts as well. I’ve seen at least one church elevate “speaking in tongues” to this pedestal. They literally had a huge bulletin board with pictures of members and the dates that the member first started speaking in tongues. Not their date of baptism or private repentance and salvation. Speaking in tongues.

[4] Our pastor started out telling the congregation several times a year that he wanted to run the church in such a way that if he ever had a great falling, that nobody in the congregation’s faith would be rocked because he had sufficiently pointed us to Christ. Ironically, 15 years later, this is exactly what happened. And while I don’t know if many people lost their faith, the church was never the same. And pastor’s decline was preceded by several of the points John makes in his article.

[5] Biblical marriage is defined between one man and one woman for life, with exceptions in the case of unfaithfulness. Matthew 19:3-9

Recommended Resources: 

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

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

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

Reflecting Jesus into a Dark World by Dr. Frank Turek – DVD Complete Series, Video mp4 DOWNLOAD Complete Series, and mp3 audio DOWNLOAD Complete Series

 

Hillary Morgan Ferrer is the founder of Mama Bear Apologetics. She is the chief author and editor of Mama Bear Apologetics: Empowering Your Kids to Challenge Cultural Lies and Mama Bear Apologetics Guide to Sexuality: Empowering Your Kids to Understand and Live Out God’s Design. Hillary has her masters in Biology and has been married to her husband, Dr. John D. Ferrer, for 17 years. Don’t let her cook for you. She’ll burn your house straight to the ground. Image source: Hillary-Morgan-Ferrer-Square-2.jpg (1500×1500)

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

/by

Why It’s Okay to Doubt Your Faith, Part 2

[Editor’s Note: In “Why It’s Okay to Doubt Your Faith, part 1” Miguel Rodriguez raised the question of how should we handle our doubts. He proposes we do Christian apologetics. He then defines “apologetics,” and points out how doubt can be a sign of a living faith. Doubt can be healthy. In this second installment, Miguel offers more practical advice on how to turn your doubt and questions into learning and spiritual growth through Christian apologetics].


Some Arguments for the Truth of Christianity

Today, like in Biblical times, apologist makes use of a multidisciplinary knowledge like cosmology, philosophy, ethics, biology, history and more. Some of those popular classical arguments are:

  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument: Seeks to show that the universe is not eternal, that necessarily had to have a beginning.
  • The Fine Tune Argument: Seeks to show that the universe fine tuning of its constants isn’t do by physical necessity nor chance and that it is by design.
  • The Moral Argument: Seeks to show that if objective moral values and duties exist, then God exist.
  • The Ontological Argument: Seeks to show that God exist in basis of what it means to be God as the maximally great being.
  • The Resurrection Argument: Seeks to show that the best explanation of the historical facts of an empty tomb, the postmortem appearances of Jesus and the sudden disciple\’s belief that Jesus rose are better explain by the hypothesis that Jesus rose from the dead.

These are some of the arguments and evidence people use to defend the truth of  Christianity.

Which Christianity Miguel?

There are hundreds of Christian denominations, so that’s a really good point. I’ve defined the term apologetics in “Christian Apologetics.” Now let’s define Christian.

With Christian apologetics we mean to defend only the essentials doctrine of Christianity held by orthodox Christians throughout history. We call these essential doctrines dogmas. Doctrines so foundational that to negate even one of them you will no longer be a Christian. Doctrines like the humanity and deity of Jesus, salvation by grace through faith in Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the gospel, human sinfulness and the Trinity. These don’t mean you must never question them or believe them differently. For example, two brothers in Christ believe that salvation was possible by the death and resurrection of Jesus, but they hold different theories to explain how Jesus made this salvation possible. One can accept the penal substitutionary atonement theory while the other the Christus Victor theory. These theories are the doctrines. Doctrines are the explanation and application of the dogmas.

The key here is that the focus of apologetics is the defense of the dogmas – the essentials – not necessarily the different (disputed) doctrines surrounding those dogmas. Apologetics is not the defense of a theological system. Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, and other -ism’s can hold to the same dogmas, yet differ greatly on the doctrines that explain and apply those dogmas.[1] Specifically in the doctrine of salvation. The response a Calvinist has for the relationship of God with evil and suffering is not the same as the Arminian.

We all need to believe in the dogmas. We can differ in the expressions of those dogmas.

The following succinct quote sums it up well.

In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.

 Although these theological debates are important, these is an intramural issue here. Granting that while in the act of debating you are defending a point that is technically an exercise in apologetics, the term has been coined only in its evangelistic and discipleship contexts with a focus on the dogmas of the faith.

In other words, “Christian apologetics” doesn’t normally refer to defending a denomination. Each denomination has their own liturgy, government and dogma’s expression. You can be Catholic, Pentecostal or Reformed and be united in the essentials of the faith.[2] In short, apologetics is the art of presenting arguments and evidence in favor and defense of mere Christianity.

Pitfalls to Avoid While Learning Apologetics

As I mentioned in the beginning, you are entering into a turbulent but exciting phase in your journey faith. In some sense, you’re going to re-discover your faith. You will appreciate the richness and power of your Christian faith so much that you will start to think you need to be rebaptize.

In this process you will learn new things, but equally important, you will unlearn others. Be patient. Discern judiciously. Don’t rush to adopt a new position because it’s new and shiny and don’t throw out what you know because it appears old to you now. And don’t lose your relationship with your Church.

Humbly share what you have learned with your brothers and sister in Christ but remember there might be some friction sometimes. Don’t be pushy. Be patient. It means nothing how much you know if you don’t have genuine love for others (1 Corinthians 13.2).

Above all else, don’t lose your relationship with God for learning about God. Your endeavor will not be fruitful. Never ever leave behind your devotional reading of Scripture, your praying life or any other spiritual disciplines and you will grow in knowledge and spirit. Now, let’s keep fueling the passion to know why you believe what you believe.

Now you know what apologetics is and is not. You’re fired up and ready to dive in into the classical arguments for the existence of God and Christian evidence. I recommend starting with the book On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision by Dr. William L. Craig to get your feet wet.

If you haven’t already, check the links about the popular classical arguments for God’s existence. Those are gorgeous short videos to start familiarizing with the arguments better. No more being ashamed. No more being terrified of witnessing to others. You’re not going to waste more of your time. You no longer are going to have a blind childish faith. As the apostles you will say “[I don’t] follow cleverly devised tales” (1 Peter 1.16). From now on you will have a smart faith.

References:

[1] Editor’s Note: The original author included “Open Theism” in this list. Since Open Theism is more than just a denominational dispute, it was deleted from the list here. The key reason is that Open Theism treats God’s nature as “open” and thus not fully actualized, that sort of “God” is more like a demigod – subject to time, change, error, spatial limitation, finite knowledge, finite power, growth, subjugation, dependencxe, etc. To my knowledge [John Ferrer] There is no Christian denomination, within the realm of historic and orthodox Christianity, that aligns on Open Theism.

[2] Editor’s note” And people from different denominations can discuss and debate different doctrines. That’s just not, normally, what would is called “Christian apologetics.”

Recommended Resources:

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

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek

Macro Evolution? I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be a Darwinist (DVD Set), (MP3 Set) and (mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek

Defending Absolutes in a Relativistic World (Mp3) by Frank Turek

 

Miguel Rodriguez is the founder of Smart Faith, a platform dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith with clarity and confidence. After experiencing a miraculous healing at 14, he developed a passion for knowing God through study and teaching. He now serves as the Director of Christian Education and a Bible teacher at his local church while also working as a freelance email marketer. Living in Orlando, Florida, with his wife and two daughters, Miguel seeks to equip believers with practical and intellectual tools to strengthen their faith. Through Smart Faith, he provides apologetics and self-improvement content to help Christians live with wisdom and integrity.

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

 

/by

Gen Z, Atheism, and The Problem of Evil

Generation Z is the generation born from 1999 to 2015. They are the successors of Gen X (born 1965-1980) and Gen Y, also known as Millennials (b. 1981-1998). The dates are approximations and arbitrary creations of sociologists and scholars studying generational trends. The Barna Group alongside the ministry Impact360 has conducted as study of Gen Z’ers called “Who Is Gen Z.” A short introductory video of their study can be viewed here.

 

Jonathan Morrow, director of Cultural Engagement at Impact360, wrote an article titled “Why Gen Z Is Not Prepared To Follow Jesus In A Post-Everything World” and revealed that only 4% of Gen Z has a Biblical Worldview while atheism is on the rise amongst this generation.

Gen Z and Atheism

One of the things that has come to light in the Barna study is that, “Atheism Doubles Among Generation Z.” As the Barna report reveals:

Enter Generation Z: Born between 1999 and 2015, they are the first truly “post-Christian” generation. More than any other generation before them, Gen Z does not assert a religious identity. They might be drawn to things spiritual, but with a vastly different starting point from previous generations, many of whom received a basic education on the Bible and Christianity. And it shows: The percentage of Gen Z that identifies as atheist is double that of the U.S. adult population.

The percentage of Gen Z’ers to be atheist has more than doubled previous generations: 13% of Generation Z compared to 6% of adults:


Image source: Barna “Atheism Doubles Among Generation Z” (4 Jan 2018)

Gen Z and The Problem of Evil

Why is Gen Z more likely to be atheistic?  Well, Barna asked and they answered:

Teens, along with young adults, are more likely than older Americans to say the problem of evil and suffering is a deal breaker for them. It appears that today’s youth, like so many throughout history, struggle to find a compelling argument for the existence of both evil and a good and loving God.

The problem of evil isn’t a new objection, however. It’s an ancient objection dating all the way back to the Greek philosopher Epicurus who formulated the problem as such:

“Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to; or he cannot and does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is not all powerful. If he can, and he does not want to, he is wicked. But, if God both can and wants to abolish evil, then how comes evil in the world?” [1]

The Problem of Evil and Apologetics

Notice, this is an intellectual objection to the truth of Christianity. Oddly, Christian philosophers, theologians, and apologists have answered this intellectual objection. In fact, they have answered it so convincingly that even professional atheists have admitted that there is not a logical problem of evil that has successfully demonstrated that God doesn’t exist. The late atheist philosopher William Rowe, stated that “Some philosophers have contended that the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the existence of a theistic God. No one, I think, has succeeded in establishing such an extravagant claim.” [2] Consider Paul Draper, agnostic philosopher of religion at Purdue: “I do not see how it is possible to construct a convincing logical argument from evil against theism.” [3]

Christian scholars have gone on to differentiate between two types of intellectual problems of evil: the logical problem (as commented on by Rowe and Draper above) and the evidential problem of evil. I won’t address the difference here (see the videos by Reasonable Faith below as well as the other resources), but just seeing the categorization by Christian scholars shows how extensively they have thought and contemplated the issue of evil.

Intellectual vs. Emotional Evil

While Rowe and Draper are referring to the intellectual problem of evil, evil and suffering has another side: emotional. This is an important distinction we need to make. While one can provide answers to the intellectual problem of evil, it doesn’t mean that we won’t experience evil personally. We still have to grapple and suffer through evil and pain. Some of it is quite horrific. But the emotional experience of pain and suffering is not an argument, but a personal struggle. It is a struggle that the Christian worldview can offer satisfying resources and comfort for someone who is suffering pain and evil. Christianity can speak of the patience and mercy of God. It can mention the future perfection that awaits all who trust in Christ. It can offer the comfort that a redemptive God is working to cause all things to work together for good to those who love Him and are called according to His purpose. It has a “good news” of hope for a broken world. The atheistic worldview denies these luxuries.

Apologetics and the Christian worldview has the intellectual and emotional resources for Gen Z. It just needs to be communicated: which Christian apologetics does. Not just intellectual answers, but deeply personal, psychological, and spiritual answers.

Resources

Books:

Primary Videos:

Other videos:

References:

[1] Attributed to Epicurus in David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779), part 10.

[2] William Rowe, “The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism,” American Philosophical Quarterly 16, no. 4 (1979), pg. 335, ftnt 1, reposted at: https://ia803006.us.archive.org/32/items/RoweTheProblemOfEvil/Rowe_The_Problem_of_Evil.pdf

[3] Paul Draper, “The Argument from Evil,” in Philosophy of Religion: Classic and Contemporary Issues, ed. Paul Copan and Chad Meister (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008), 146.

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 

 

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/4i1f1gM

/by

Why It’s Okay to Doubt Your Christian Faith

  • “Why is there evil and suffering in this world?”
  • “No one naturally can resurrect from the dead after three days. It’s impossible.”
  • “The Bible was written by fallible men thousands of years ago, how can I be sure that what I have is what was written?”
  • “How can I know that Christianity is the one true religion when there are thousands of other religions?”

 

Odds are, you don’t have an answer to these sorts of questions, or worse, they seem persuasive . . . compelling.

You feel some sort of shame to admit this. You have been a Christian for some time now but never knew the answers to these fundamental questions. Now you’re second guessing.

And why not? You already tried to ask your parents, your pastor and/or Bible study teacher of your questions and doubts, but their responses was, well, unsatisfactory (to put it mildly).

  • You need to have faith.
  • Don’t worry about those things, in Heaven we will have all our questions answered. Just believe.
  • (My personal favorite) The Bible is not to understand it, it is to obey it.

This is why you are terrified of witnessing. You are scared to death that someone may ask you a question you can’t answer. Sure, you’ve had positive experiences since you were born again, but these doubts are keeping you up at night, slowly eroding your faith. Now you’re starting to doubt even those positive experiences.

What if I’ve believed something that isn’t true? Maybe it’s all a fairy tale! How would I even know?

You don’t just need sleep. You need answers. Fortunately, there are some solid reasonable answers to your tough questions that will revive and bolster your faith. I’d like to show you, in this blog, that contrary to popular belief, faith is compatible with reason and consistent with reality. I’d like to show you the intellectual side of Christianity. Welcome to the exciting discipline of Christian Apologetics!

Apolo-what?

If you are new to the term, let’s get the first misunderstanding out of the way. No, this is not the course husbands should take, or apologizing for being a Christian. The word apologetics comes from the Greek word apologia which means “to give a verbal defense”. It’s a legal term. It was used when someone responded to an objection or accusation in a court. Dr. William Lane Craig, philosopher and theologian defines apologetics as the branch of Christian theology that seeks to provide justifiable reasons to the truth claims of the Christian faith.

Simply put, apologetics responds the question “Why should I believe Christianity is true?” Apologetics is an intellectual tool for evangelism and discipleship. It helps to remove intellectual objections against the faith for unbelievers and helps to intellectually anchor the faith of the believers.

“Apologetics” isn’t a modern made-up word. It appears 8 times in the Bible. In fact, did you even know that we are commanded in the Bible to give a defense of our faith? Of course not! Bet that not even your parents or Sunday school teacher knew this. 1 Peter 3:15 (NVI) commands us as Christians to defend the faith with gentleness and respect: “Always be prepared to give an answer [apologia] to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.”

This is not something for theology nerds or intellectuals in the church. This commandment is for the whole body of Christ. The fact that the church has largely abandoned this duty is a major reason why young people are leaving Christianity.

The 2016 Pew Research study shows that, and I quote,

“About half of current religious ‘nones’ who were raised in a religion (49%) indicate that a lack of belief led them to move away from religion. This includes many respondents who mention ‘science’ as the reason they do not believe in religious teachings, including one who said ‘I’m a scientist now, and I don’t believe in miracles.’ Others reference ‘common sense,’ ‘logic’ or a ‘lack of evidence’ — or simply say they do not believe in God.”

Some of the reasons why young people were abandoning their faith given in the study were,

  • Learning about evolution when I went away to college.
  • Rational thought makes religion go out the window.
  • Lack of any sort of scientific or specific evidence of a creator.
  • I’m doing a lot more learning, studying, and kind of making decisions myself rather than listening to someone else.

Check a more recent study of the pew research regarding parents and their teens answering if religion is very important in their lives

When there are religious differences between adults and their 13- to 17-year-old children, however, it’s usually the teens who are less religious than the parents. For instance, far fewer teens (24%) than parents (43%) say that religion is very important in their lives.

Less than one of four teens deems their religion very important in their lives. That’s a tragedy. It shouldn’t be this way since there are, in fact, reasonable responses to such doubts and questions. What if I told you, that doubting and questioning your Christian faith might be a positive phase you’re entering into?

Doubts: Sign of a Maturing Faith?

Rethinking one’s worldview is one of the most mentally turbulent phases in anyone’s journey of faith. This gets to the very core of your being, of who you are. While it can be scary, it can also be (and will be) exciting. Because when you doubt, it can be a sign of a maturing faith.

“Isn’t doubt the opposite of belief?”  Doubt is not the opposite of belief. The opposite of belief is nonbelief.

  • Faith is defined as complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
  • Doubt is the voluntary and transitionary suspension of judgement between decisions.
  • Reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for some belief, act, fact, event, etc.
  • Reason is the mediator between doubt as reflection and faith as trust, and these do not contradict.


“But how do I reason correctly?” Awesome question! In an interview with Dr. Dallas Willard by John Ortberg in 2010 about doubt and belief in the Christian life, Willard answers:

“Knowledge grows not only for doubting your belief and believing your doubts, but also from doubting your doubts and believing your beliefs.” (para. 135).

Use this like some sort of mental filter to see which questions and objections (as well as beliefs) are good ones and which are bad. Bad objections usually commit logical fallacies. Good ones don’t.

For example: Only science can give us truth. Is that a true statement? Because if it is, then its false. This truth was not acquired through the scientific method. This is a self-refuting statement.

Another example: faith is belief without or on in spite of evidence. As you already saw above (and will expand a bit more below), this is not true. This is what is called a strawman. Attacking the concept of faith by replacing the definition of what faith really is with an incorrect one.

As you can see, there is no logical contradiction between doubt and faith by definition.

Permission to Doubt

Let’s talk a bit more about what faith really is. “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” (Hebrews 11:1. NIV. Emphasis added). By this definition, biblical faith entails three components:

  • Understanding the content of the Christian faith,
  • Trust, and
  • Assent of the intellect to the truth of some proposition

You can’t have trust in someone or something you do not understand at all nor agree with. For example, some people would never go on a cruise ship vacation because of their fear that the cruise will sink. They do understand that cruise ships are way much safer than before, but since they watch the movie Titanic, they don’t assent intellectually to it.

Biblical faith is not an irrational blind leap into the darkness. The biblical notion of faith requires you to have confidence and assurance in that which you understand and have good reasons to assent to (in this case, the object of faith is God). Therefore, embrace your doubts. Go ahead, doubt your faith, but also doubt your doubts. Question your questions. See if they hold water.

God Wants You To Think

While doing this you’re transitioning from a childish faith to a mature faith. You’re owning your faith. You will know not only what you believe but why you believe it.

Recommended Resources:

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

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek 

Macro Evolution? I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be a Darwinist (DVD Set), (MP3 Set) and (mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek

Defending Absolutes in a Relativistic World (Mp3) by Frank Turek

 

Miguel Rodriguez is the founder of Smart Faith, a platform dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith with clarity and confidence. After experiencing a miraculous healing at 14, he developed a passion for knowing God through study and teaching. He now serves as the Director of Christian Education and a Bible teacher at his local church while also working as a freelance email marketer. Living in Orlando, Florida, with his wife and two daughters, Miguel seeks to equip believers with practical and intellectual tools to strengthen their faith. Through Smart Faith, he provides apologetics and self-improvement content to help Christians live with wisdom and integrity.

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

/by

Can Christianity Really Be The Only Means of Salvation Part II

Many skeptics believe that all religions are basically the same. If there is an afterlife, they surmise, all that will be required for admission is that you live a “good” life and be “sincere” about your beliefs. My last post offered reasons from the observation of nature that should cause the skeptic some concern.

 

In short, it seems to me that a study of nature actually leads to the contrary conclusion: if nature is our guide to knowledge, then the Author of nature seems to be teaching that getting it right is what matters. Sincerely believing that you can defy gravity won’t count for much if you step off the side of a building, no matter how good a life you’ve lived up until then.

Nature is Exclusive

Nature provides many other examples of this lesson. Consider for a moment the way nutrition works. There are a variety of food groups that can provide nourishment, and considerable variety within each food group. Proteins, dairy products, fruits, grains, vegetables – each of these groups has something to add to a person’s total nutrition. When taken in the right balance, a growing child will experience normal development to adulthood, plenty of energy and overall good health. But when essential elements of a good diet are lacking, the child’s health can be severely impacted. Take for instance the disease known as scurvy, brought on by the absence of citrus fruits in a person’s diet. Many an ancient sailor experienced this lesson the hard way, suffering a variety of physical disabilities that led to a painful death.

Notice that nature does not seem to care how a person was raised. If they learned to eat poorly in their childhood, nature does not take that into consideration in attaching a consequence. Nor is nature concerned with how sincere a person is in believing that his diet is good for him. When medical experts of the ’50’s assured their patients that smoking cigarettes was not harmful, that did not make smoking any less of a threat to their health. The examples are endless: the common thread throughout is that the wise person will make use of their acquired knowledge to move beyond what they once believed to be true to conform their beliefs to what is actually true.

Truth Matters

To the thoughtful person then, the proper diet is not decided upon by considering what dishes he grew up on or what food makes him feel “good.” Most people find chocolate to be quite tasty, and it’s known to lift one’s mood. But if chocolate becomes a staple item in place of, say, vegetables, then one’s health will soon decline. This result will occur regardless of how many experts advise it and regardless of how sincerely the person believes that chocolate can take the place of beans or broccoli. Though considerable variation exists, we cannot eat just anything and, if we’re smart, we should concern ourselves with finding that right balance of items that will best sustain good health.

Finding this right balance, of course, can be difficult. There is no shortage of “experts” who will tell you that only they have the answers. Yet try we must, for our health hangs in the balance. It would make little sense for us to throw up our hands in frustration and say that these competing “experts” can’t all be right, so we’ll just keep eating the way we want to, or the way we were raised to, and hope for the best. No, seeking answers and moving closer to “getting it right” are what any thoughtful person should do.

How Ignorance breeds Apathy

How does this relate to apologetics? When dealing with a skeptic, the believer often encounters apathy. Most skeptics just don’t care what Christianity has to say, because they have uncritically accepted the notion that all belief systems are equal. By analogy, they have rejected the idea that some foods are good and some are bad, and replaced it: most people eat what they grew up eating; who are you to say that chocolate isn’t as good as broccoli or fish?; I don’t believe in citrus fruits; you’re so intolerant when you think you know what a healthy diet is? Sound familiar?

Perhaps a discussion of nature might be persuasive, because skeptics often believe that it is only through the study of nature – through science – that any real knowledge can be obtained. That study should lead to the conclusion that nature is quite a harsh professor. It doesn’t grade on a curve and it doesn’t give partial credit for making a good effort. There is an order to life and to nature, and one must live within that order or suffer some very real, and often very nasty, consequences.

A Word of Encouragement

As a Christian, I can take comfort that the Author of nature has provided a rescue plan that makes my choice easy, and my work light. Yes, nature is harsh as a result of man’s rebellion, but I have a rescuer who can and will restore what has been broken. There may be a variety of denominations, and there may be differences in some doctrines, but in the end there is one path to reconnecting with God – it is by placing one’s trust and faith in Jesus and his saving work. Like many who came before me, I can take great comfort in the knowledge that the heavy lifting has been done for me. But where does the naturalist find comfort when studying the workings of nature? And if nature is this harsh in the here and now, why in the world should the skeptic conclude that it will be any different in the hereafter?

No, the wise choice is to discard this foolish notion that all religions are the same and that all paths lead to God. Better answers are out there, but you’ll never find them if you never start looking.

Recommended Resources:

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

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

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

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

 

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.

/by

How to Raise Kids to Research Like a Pro

If you hang around parents long enough you’ll find that there are certain “mommy moments” that we moms all share. Kid running down the street naked? Check (mostly for boy moms…). An embarrassing family secret shared with the entire elevator by your darling little chatterbox? You betcha.

 

And it’s practically a Christian mom rite-of-passage that just when we’re about to switch out the light, your little Einstein suddenly goes final-jeopardy-mode with some obscure theological concept. Sure it’s probably a stalling technique, but one of the blessings we have as moms is pointing them back to the truth of Christ, even as we wrestle them into bed.

The thing is, just giving answers is not enough. Someday they’re going to get hit with a challenge and we aren’t going to be there to help. That’s why a vital part of healthy discipleship is equipping our children with the skills to navigate tough questions on their own.

Fair warning, this isn’t a skill that’s learned by letting them go nuts on the family tablet. Depending on the topic they’re looking up, things can go south quickly. That’s why we at Mama Bear love to help you foster the little question-askers in your lives.

First, before we dive in, if you haven’t read Alexa’s blog How to Respond When Your Child Stumps You with a Question, check it out. We, but the flip side of that coin is preparing our kids to not only know how to research, but to research well. (Because the internet will let anyone with a computer create their own blog! We’re looking at you, flat-earthers 😜)

Second, you’re going to have to adjust these to the age and stage of your child. Bigger kids can and should engage with heavier topics. The littles of the group are going to operate in the “observer” role in the beginning, but give them opportunities to practice these skills with increasing regularity under your guidance.

Ready? Let’s take a look at 5 tips to help your child be an information sleuth!

Tip #1 Research takes time

We live in an Instacart culture. With a few clicks we can have the world delivered to our doorstep. The problem with this luxury of convenience is it’s caused our patience and attention spans to atrophy. Often this means that if the answer to our kid’s question isn’t in the tagline of the first Google article, they just give up and move on. (Like the other night… during our homework session…*face palm*)

Our kids need to know that good research involves more than watching a YouTube short; it takes time, effort, and these crazy things called books. This skill is best passed-on by modeling first, especially when they’re little.

When your child asks a question, instead of immediately popping off with the answer, say, “That’s a great question! How do you think we can research this?” #mamabearapologetics #discipleshipClick To Tweet

When they shrug their shoulders, show them how to look up their question on multiple sources: digital and physical. Show them how to navigate popular websites like Got Questions. Grab a few books off your shelf and show them how to use an index (one you could practice with is our latest book Honest Prayers for Mama Bears). And don’t forget to point out the glorious footnotes. Seriously folks, I may sound like your high school librarian, but footnotes are worth their weight in gold! Don’t let your kid miss them!

This training might sound old-fashioned, but it causes our kids to pause and process what they’ve just heard, rather than falling for the nonsensical appeals of impassioned media starlets. So yes, it’s worth the effort.

Tip #2 Find Trusted Christian Sources

No surprises here, but when it comes to seeking answers to biblical questions, we should head to Scripture first. Translations like Life Application Study Bibles, Apologetics Bibles, and Cultural Background Study Bibles, which contain translator and commentary notes, are beyond helpful in these situations. There are also great ministries that have blogs, podcasts, and articles that address the most common questions believers have. (Check out our updated Recommended Resources Guide.)

But not everything that sports the title of “Christian” is solid. (There are supposed “Christian” witches, after all!) Teach your children to “test” their sources by looking at the background of the ministry. Is this organization tested, proven, transparent, and/or backed by leading philosophers, experts, and apologists? Is what’s being said supported in Scripture? Are disagreements over conclusions given charitably and with evidence? Are those behind the ministry trained, and if so, by whom?

Remember: degrees are nice but that doesn’t mean the person holding them will always speak truth. Which is why we test everything, including our pastors and favorite authors. #mamabearapologeticsClick To Tweet

Tip #3 Read Original Sources

A few days ago, I was reading the outraged opinion of a writer who couldn’t believe that NFL kicker Harrison Butker wanted to make wives the servants of their husbands.[1] The problem? That wasn’t what he said, but the only reason I found that out was because I went to the original source: the transcript of the commencement speech. If you don’t want to read it, you can watch the full speech here.

Today, it’s all too common to take a person’s second-hand perception as truth, rather than reading the original source itself. Don’t let your kiddos fall into this trap. Whenever possible, when a question is asked, go to the source. Take into context the setting, the people with whom it was being spoken to, the motivation behind the teaching, and the present application of objective truth principles today. If reading an article, see where the author got their information, especially when bold claims are made. With a little bit of practice, your little one will start to sound like a nerdy version of Tom Cruise, “Show me the sources!!”

Tip #4 Research the Opposition

There’s a pithy saying about what assuming leads to, which I won’t be sharing here because it’s a little sassy. But take it from me that assuming the motivations, conclusions, or intentions of someone who doesn’t agree with you is a quick way to make a fool of yourself. Sadly, our culture has turned this mistake into the standard form of interaction.

Don’t like someone’s views? No biggie: reduce them to a label and then commence destroying them and everyone remotely like them!

You don’t need a WWJD bracelet to know that’s definitely NOT what Jesus would do! As Christians, we understand that big conclusions about life have a history. Learning that history will help us understand why someone believes what they do, but it doesn’t make that conclusion right. Instead, we need to nurture truth-based empathy in our kids, and we do that by hearing what the other side has to say.

As they learn, have your kids reflect on why a person might come to this conclusion. What (if anything) did they share about their background? How did an experience cause them to question or reject a stance? What philosophical stance do they hold that’s shaping how they view evidence? Once our kids can understand what’s motivating the beliefs of another, then we can help them understand the other person while remaining rooted in truth.

Tip #5 Practice How to Respond

Just like a chess player anticipates the moves of their opponent, so we should anticipate the objections of someone who doesn’t share the biblical worldview. Not so we can slam them with our Bible knowledge but to nurture good discussion should the conversation go that route. It’s also helpful for our own spiritual growth, too!

Kids have a natural ability to speak truth (sometimes too good!) but they’re not so great with tact. That’s why practicing how to discuss the topic with others is key to avoiding awkward conversations. How would you respond to Flora Feminist’s who doesn’t think that the unborn have the same right to life as an adult? What would you say to Nihilist Nick when he denies that the universe was made with telos (purpose)? How would you engage with Social Justice Susie as she defends the Marxist concept of oppressed versus oppressors?

We can’t know everything, but acquainting your child with counter-arguments will help them not be phased when their lunch room evangelism encounter doesn’t end like a Christian Hallmark movie (or a scene from God’s Not Dead).

Practice and Repeat!

Mamas, Satan is going to make you feel like training your kids how to research is boring or unimportant. This is a lie. Don’t let social media or YouTube steal your attention from the fruitful harvest growing within your home. Bring up your children in training and instruction of the Lord.

When they are small, show them how you research a topic and check to make sure the sources are valid. As they grow, help them evaluate the resources they’re using. Watch videos of someone who doesn’t agree with you and evaluate the claims being made. Let them see you wrestle with a question. Show them that there is more than just one page on a search engine. Most of all, make the most of as many opportunities as you can to grow in the knowledge of the Lord.

References: 

[1] https://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/sam-mcdowell/article288517451.html

Recommended Resources: 

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

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

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

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

 

Amy Davison is a former Air Force veteran turned Mama Bear Apologist. She graduated from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary with an MA in Christian Apologetics. She and her husband Michael (also former Air Force) have been married for over 17 years and have 4 kids. Amy is the Mama Bear resident expert on sex and sexuality, and she’s especially hoping to have that listed on her Mama Bear business card.

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

/by

Why I Left The Word Of Faith Movement

When I was about fourteen I started listening to teachers such as Kenneth Copeland, Jesse Duplantis, Jerry Savelle, and Creflo Dollar. I had grown up going to church, albeit a very liberal church, but these guys were different than what I was used to. They had passion, zeal, and spoke with power and authority. They taught very differently than what I had heard before, but they used Scripture to back everything up (well, and some direct revelation from God, so they said).

 

They taught that Jesus had secured our physical healing for this life, that we had power over sickness and the devil, that we could transform our finances through our faith, and that we could even use faith the way God does—the God kind of faith. I really enjoyed listening to these teachers, particularly Copeland and Duplantis. I was even able to meet Duplantis and his wife at a meeting in Charlotte, where I gave him a letter thanking him for teaching the truth. Little did I know at the time that I was being sucked into a heretical mess. Since I did not know much at the time about orthodox theology, much of what was said sounded biblical and right. After having spent over a decade of learning theology in college and seminary (long after I left the movement), I began to realize how dangerous their doctrines really are. Let’s look at some of the main teachings of the Word-Faith movement.

God

While the orthodox, traditional view of God among Christians is that God exists as an immaterial being, one in essence with three persons, Word-Faith teachers state that God is a physical being who lives on a planet called heaven. According to Copeland, God stands around 6’2″ around 200lbs. Not only that, God is the “greatest failure in the Bible” since he lost more than any other being at the fall. Further, God has to use faith to do things, like create. God used the “force of faith” that according to Copeland “is a physical force” that is “perceptible to the touch.” We can use this same faith with our positive confession to bring about realities. Our confession, however, can also bring about sickness, disease, and death.

Jesus

According to Word-Faith teachers, Jesus is not divine. According to Dollar, if he were, he would not have needed any special anointing. Rather, he was adopted by God at his baptism. According to teachers like Copeland, Jesus died spiritually and was reborn in hell before his resurrection. He was the first to be born-again. Regarding this, Copeland makes the scariest, most heretical utterance I have ever heard:

“He [God] said, ‘A born-again man defeated Satan, the firstborn of many brethren defeated him.’ He said, ‘You are the very image and the very copy of that one.’ . . . And I said, ‘Well now you don’t mean, you couldn’t dare mean that I could have done the same thing?’ He said, ‘Oh, yeah, if you’d known that, had the knowledge of the Word of God that He did you could have done the same thing. ‘Cause you’re a reborn man too.’”

—From a sermon titled, “From the Cross to the Throne.”

Jesus did not accomplish his work because of his divinity, according to Copeland, but because he was reborn and had certain knowledge.

Jesus not only secured our salvation, he also secured our physical healing, according to such passages as 1 Peter 2:24 and 3 John 2. He is also our example to live by. But not just for holiness. We need to emulate his faith (through positive confession), attain knowledge (like him), and live the way he lived.

Man

Man is created by God, and so is in the god-class of beings. We are little gods, according to Copeland (and others like Benny Hinn). As already mentioned, man uses his positive confession to activate the force of faith to control his reality and bring about health and prosperity that was secured by Jesus. Man can function like God, since both man and God use the force of faith.

When created, Adam was just like God. After the fall, however, God lost his domain to Satan and had to work with people to covenant with him to get back what he lost (such as Abraham, Moses, etc.). As Robert Bowman says, “Copeland teaches that the true meaning of redemption is the restoration of human nature to godhood.”[1]  On that same page, he cites Copeland’s words:

“Peter said it just as plain, he said we are ‘partakers of the divine nature.’ That nature is life eternal in absolute perfection. And that was imparted, injected into your spirit man, and you have that imparted into you by God, just as same as you imparted into your child the nature of humanity. That child wasn’t born a whale—born a human. Isn’t that true? Well now, you don’t have a human, do you? No, you are one. You don’t have a God in you—you are one”

— Copeland “The Force of Love,” tape #02-0028.[2]

Overall Worries and Evaluation

If you are a Christian of the orthodox sort, then the worries should be obvious. If you are a follower of these teachers, it might not be so obvious. There are more worries and problems than I will address here. I’ll just choose a few.

Regarding God, if he is physical, he is necessarily limited. He can’t be everywhere all at once; he can’t know all things, etc. The Trinity can’t be true since a physical being is a being all to himself. But the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that God is one in being, but exists as three persons. If God the Father is physical, then there are at least two beings that make up the divine nature.

Jesus is taught to be a human with a special anointing and knowledge that allowed him to live the way he did, do miracles, and defeat Satan. The orthodox teaching, however, is that Jesus is completely God, and took on the human nature (without sin).

Finally, man is taught to be a little god, in the class of gods. He can use the force of faith (where did the physical faith that God uses come from?) in the same way God did. According to Copeland, man could have defeated Satan as Jesus did. It did not take God, just being reborn and having certain knowledge.

The Word-Faith teaching has striking similarities with Mormonism: Both teach that God is a physical being, people get direct revelation from God even today, we can become gods just like God, both deny the Trinity, and both downplay the role of reason and stress the spirit as a way of learning.

As you can see, while the positive confession and health and wealth teaching is bad, it does not compare to the heresies of the other teachings. And this is why I left the Word-Faith movement.

References: 

[1] Robert Bowman Jr., Word-Faith Controversy: Understanding the Health and Wealth Gospel, unabridged ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2000), 184.

[2] Bowman 2000, 184.

Recommended Resources: 

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

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

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

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

 

J. Brian Huffling, PH.D. has a BA in History from Lee University, an MA in (3 majors) Apologetics, Philosophy, and Biblical Studies from Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES), and a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from SES. He is the Director of the Ph.D. Program and Associate Professor of Philosophy and Theology at SES. He also teaches courses for Apologia Online Academy. He has previously taught at The Art Institute of Charlotte. He has served in the Marines, Navy, and is currently a reserve chaplain in the Air Force at Maxwell Air Force Base. His hobbies include golf, backyard astronomy, martial arts, and guitar.

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

/by

From Peter to the Christian Apologist

To the Christian Apologist, 1 Peter 3:15-16 is a ‘mandate’ passage, used to demonstrate the reason we all study and become proficient with apologetics.

 

“But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.”
1 Peter 3:15-16 (NIV)

The REAL Reason for doing Apologetics

We tend to focus, however, on verses 15 and 16 and forget to consider the “lead in” context. The real reason we SHOULD do apologetics is actually shown in the second half of verse 14 and the first part of verse 15. If we take time to look there, we might notice a quote that comes straight out of Isaiah 8:12.

“But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.” 15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. “
1 Peter 3:14-15a

Isaiah and Peter were both facing significant persecution. Isaiah wrote, “Fear not what they fear, and don’t be afraid. Set apart the Lord of hosts Himself and let Him be your fear” (Isaiah 8:12).  But Peter, seeing the persecutions looming ahead  for himself and the Christian church he’s writing to, copies Isaiah’s template. But Peter adds a twist, “fear not their fear, neither be troubled; but set apart Christ as Lord in your hearts” (1 Peter 3:14-15a). Theologian Alexander MacLaren describes the significance here.

“Now, if we think for a moment of the Jew’s reverence for the letter of Scripture, and then think again of the Jew’s intense monotheism and dread of putting any creature into the place of God, we shall understand how saturated with the belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ, and how convinced that it was the vital center of all Christian teaching, this Apostle must have been when, without a word of explanation, he took his pen, and, as it were, drew it through ‘Lord God’ in Isaiah’s words, and wrote in capitals over it, ‘Christ as Lord.’[1]

Hallowed be They Name

What does “set apart Christ as Lord” mean in Peter’s letter?  Looking at the term “set apart,” (or “sanctify” in King James language) we see it elsewhere in the New Testament. The first sentence of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:9, says, “Our Father Who art in heaven, hallowed, be thy Name.” The exact same Greek word, used as “set apart,’ and as ‘hallowed,’ is hagiazo.

We set apart sanctify or hallow one who is holy already, when we recognize the holiness, and then honor it. Thus, the plain meaning of Peter’s text is, ‘elevate Christ to the pedestal; the place He deserves in your life, and then; bow down before Him with all reverence and submission. He is due your highest awe and reverence.

“Set apart Christ as Lord in your hearts” is the command. In Scripture the heart is that center node within a person that both affixes and produces your thoughts, words and actions. Remember the verse, “as a man thinks in his heart, so is he,” or when Jesus says “…out of the heart comes the things that defile a man.”  The heart then is the very core of our being. With that in mind, and looking at Peter’s command in the negative sense, he asserts that if we don’t set apart Christ as Lord, you cannot help being afraid of threats and terror, and hence will be inevitably troubled. But, if you do set Christ apart in your heart, then there is no fear that can plague you or render you impotent and ineffective.

MacLaren finishes his narrative with,

“The Apostle comes and says: ‘Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts; and then, and only then, will you be bold.’ The boldness which fronts the certain dangers and calamities and the possible dangers and calamities of this life, without Christ, is not boldness, but foolhardiness.”[2]

The Heartbeat of Christian Apologetics

The first part of my thesis then is: every Christian, not just the Apologist, should not fear . . . and won’t be fearful, if Christ is rightly placed in that singular, hallowed place at the core of your very being – your identity – and is given the reverence due Him. That is the foundation for studying Apologetics. He is the foundation for studying apologetics. Without that solid footing, your efforts to accumulate and dispense Christian apologetic knowledge will yield little for the Kingdom, and will yield nothing of eternal benefit in your own life.

From there, the rest of our referent passage says, “be prepared to give a defense for the hope that is in you, but do so with grace and truth.”  I finish off with this – the second part of my thesis; offering your apologetic truth to another, infused with genuine grace is only possible when the heart has Christ set apart, hallowed and elevated appropriately in the central place, the core, of your heart. His love will then be manifest in your interpersonal connections in the form of grace, truth and love. If not, only ‘a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal’ will be heard.

References: 

[1] Alexander MacLaren, “Hallowing Christ: 1 Pete 3:14, 15,” [Commentary], Blue Letter Bible [website], N.D., accessed 31 Jan 2025 at: https://www.blueletterbible.org/comm/maclaren_alexander/expositions-of-holy-scripture/1-peter/hallowing-christ.cfm

[2] Ibid.

Recommended Resources:

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

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

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

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

 

Dan Hodges has over 40 years of business experience in aerospace, sensor and communications technology. He is a published author and inventor with multiple patent grants in the areas of RADAR systems, telecommunications and intelligence. He had a 26-year career as a military officer and F-16 instructor pilot and likewise has very deep experience in business operations. He has managed more than 400 employees and 16 subsidiary companies simultaneously as an entrepreneur, and has founded and built-out multiple enterprises, both private and publicly traded. He is also the Chairman of two non-profit, ministry-related organizations – CrossExamined and Crossroads Conservation Corp.  Dan holds a Masters in Christian Apologetics from Biola University and both speaks and teaches at churches and schools and via online forums. He currently resides on a family farm in the Blue Ridge mountains with his wife and cultivates apple orchards and edible and medicinal mushrooms.

/by

Can Christianity Really Be The Only Means Of Salvation?

Most skeptics I know feel pretty confident that all religions “say basically the same thing.” If there actually is a God, they’re not particularly worried, because in their view, “being a good person” is really all that matters. As long as you are “sincere” in your beliefs, whether you’re Muslim, Christian, Hindu or a member of your own individual religion, it will turn out fine in the end. Many go so far as to say that they simply “won’t believe” in a God who warns of a narrow path to salvation.

This view has always struck me as particularly odd, coming as it often does from people who subscribe to a view that nature is all there is, and that science is the best way to attain knowledge. It’s odd because neither nature nor science operates in this fashion. Neither cares about the sincerity of one’s views and beliefs, and neither cares about what experiences or life circumstances led them to form the conclusions they now hold about the “way things really are.” What matters, for both nature and science, is whether the person is getting it right. After all, stepping off a cliff will result in a nasty fall, regardless of whether the unfortunate soul knows or cares that there is a cliff in front of him and regardless of how sincerely he believes the cliff is not really there.

Just Follow Your Heart [Attack]

Consider another example from the natural realm. You awake one morning with a crushing weight on your chest. You’re sweating and short of breath, and pain begins to shoot down your arm. It quickly occurs to you that these are the symptoms of a heart attack, so you dial 911 and soon find yourself in route to a hospital. But a surprise awaits you there. You have a choice of several doors. Behind one is a primitive medicine man, ready to bring you comfort and healing with various incantations and potions. Behind another is an ancient herbalist. Knowing what compounds result in what physical effects, he plans on using a variety of roots and extracts to restore health. Behind a third is a hypnotist, who believes that your symptoms are the product of anxiety, and that clearing away some of the baggage of your past will eliminate both your physical and mental pain. And behind the fourth, is a gruff, unfriendly and disinterested surgeon who tells you that your coronary arteries have collapsed and that without a bypass operation, you will soon be dead.

A frightening prospect one hopes never to face. But imagine for a moment what considerations will be going through your mind: the pain is real and intense and growing stronger with each passing moment. You need help, someone who can save you. Before today, you cared very little about healers or hypnotists or herbalists, nor much for surgeons either. Each, you believe, has something to offer, something he or she can contribute, and each is right in his or her own way. But right now, you don’t care what makes the four similar; what matters is what makes them different. Will each be just as effective in saving you, and if not, which one can best deal with the particular problem you are facing?

Sincerity Is Not Enough

In that pivotal moment, you see with crystal clarity that their individual sincerity does not matter. Nor does the confidence that they express that their approach will work. The medicine man may seem more confident than the surgeon, who tells you bluntly what the risks are. But confidence and sincerity don’t guarantee that a person’s views correspond to reality. What matters here is basic: which one actually has the solution to your problem. The herbalist and hypnotist might solve some problems, but your particular problem needs a surgeon. Because nature doesn’t care about what you like or don’t like.

Of course, none of this proves that Christianity is true, or that Jesus Christ is the “surgeon” that you need. But that is not the point. In the scenario I posited, the crushing weight could not be ignored. By contrast, the prospect of death can be ignored, at least for a while. But every thoughtful person knows that it awaits in the end. Here we deal not with possibilities or probabilities, but with dead (excuse the pun) certainty. No matter how hard we try to avoid it, we have a “problem” that we cannot avoid forever.

Christianity explains the source of the problem. Man has rebelled against his Creator and is now paying a price for that rebellion. Eternal separation from God – from the source of all goodness and power and love – is the necessary consequence of that rebellion. But there is a solution, a particular way that God has provided through which we can get right with him. Over the centuries, this belief has offended many, who view it as exclusive, small-minded and unfair. But having a heart attack is “unfair” and so is dying. Reality can be quite harsh at times.

So next time a naturalist tells you that, if there is a God, he will certainly accept “good” people, ask him where in the world he got that notion. Nature itself stands in testimony to the fact that surviving requires more than wishful thinking – it requires that you actually get things right.

Recommended Resources:

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

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

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

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

 

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.

/by