Where is Our Faith?

By Brian Chilton

People are stressed. Sure, that is the understatement of the year. But it’s true. People are stressed for numerous reasons. Political issues, the pandemic, isolation, and financial strain are among many of the catalysts causing distress for individuals. Christians are among those who seem to be distressed the most. But why? I do not claim any super-spirituality for myself by any stretch of the imagination. However, it must be asked, where is our faith? Christians say they have faith. But does faith not especially prove true when things are rough?

This is a question that was posed to the disciples. Let your mind go back to an event preserved in Mark 4:35–41. The time: The first-century, circa AD 28. The place: The Sea of Galilee in Israel. Jesus, fully knowing what would happen, said to the disciples, “Let’s cross over to the other side of the sea” (Mark 4:35).[1] Without causing a stir, the disciples agreed. They were probably excited to perhaps catch a fish or two while they were on the water. Fishermen love to fish. Additionally, the company of disciples had been inundated with large crowds pressing to see and hear from Jesus. This trip was a welcome getaway from the bustling life of ministry; one that led them to act as Jesus’s security guards trying to keep the mobs from overwhelming Jesus.

Tragedy struck what should have been a pleasant trip while they were midway across the sea. A great windstorm came upon them. The power of the wind stirred up the sea causing waves to crash into the boat. The disciples struggled to keep the water out of the boat. They were fighting a losing battle. More water entered the boat than what they could cast out. The disciples thought they were doomed. Worse yet, Jesus was not bothered by their conundrum. He was found lying asleep in the stern of the boat. Distressed people are annoyed by other people who remain calm. Didn’t Jesus care about their plight? How could he remain sleeping? An unnamed disciple, most likely Peter, yelled at Jesus, saying, “Teacher! Don’t you care that we’re going to die?” (Mark 4:38). What was Jesus’s problem, anyway? How dare Jesus remain calm when everything was going haywire?

Jesus responded. When Jesus responds, things happen. He stood up, probably wiping the sleep from his eyes and perhaps cracking his neck, stretched out his arms, and said, “Silence! Be still” (Mark 4:39)! At that, the wind immediately stopped blowing and the sea became tranquil and serene. Terrified out of their wits, the disciples could not believe what they just witnessed. Jesus turned to them with steely eyes and asked, “Why are you still afraid? Do you still have no faith?” (Mark 4:40).

Jesus continues to ask his disciples this question. This time, he asks it of us. Jesus is in heaven, still alive and well after having defeated death and ascending to the right hand of the Father. Here we are today facing our own storms. Yet Jesus’s challenging words remain. Where is our faith? This question challenges at least three areas of our trust in him.

Where is Our Faith in God’s Probity?

Probity is the righteous characteristic of holding strong moral principles, honesty, and decency. God is the absolute good (1 John 1:5). God is the source of goodness (3 John 11). If God is the absolute good and the source of goodness, then God has the best of intentions from even the most difficult of circumstances. People generally want results without putting in the effort. Most preachers want to be like Billy Graham but very few are willing to put in the hours of study and preparation that Dr. Graham did. Many young men want to look like famed bodybuilders, but few want to put in the work to get there. Likewise, people want to be sanctified, but they don’t want to endure the process that God uses to build up his people. Do we trust in the goodness of God?

Where is Our Faith in God’s Power?

The disciples were stunned at the power that Jesus demonstrated. But should they have expected any different from Jesus? Scripture indicates that Jesus was not only the Son of God but that Jesus was also instrumental in creation (Col. 1:16). Before the disciples are criticized for their lack of faith, modern Christians must ask themselves if they still believe in the power of God. If they do, then they will realize that God is greater than any pandemic. They will also realize that God is greater than any political power. The believer should still live responsibility, seeking out the best for those around them. However, one should not be overcome with fear. Do we trust in the power of God?

Where is Our Faith in God’s Promises?

Here is the clincher. Jesus told us that pandemics, wars, and national powers were going to get worse as the timing of Christ’s return hastens. The closer the world gets to the return of Christ, the more chaotic the world becomes. Jesus said, “When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, don’t be alarmed; these things must take place, but it is not yet the end” (Mark 13:7). He goes on to say, “There will be famines, and earthquakes in various places” (Matt. 24:7). Interestingly, some translations add epidemics or pandemics to the list. No matter whether epidemics should be added or not, the pale green horseman of the book of Revelation notes that the world will be plagued by pandemics before the return of Christ (Rev. 6:8). Jesus teaches that all these things are but the “beginning of birth pains” (Mark 13:8). A woman begins to experience labor pains before the baby is eventually born. Likewise, global and national disturbances are but labor pains notifying individuals that Jesus’s return is imminent. God has already laid out his prophetic plans. Do we trust in God’s promises?

Conclusion

Perhaps our lack of faith speaks more to the biblical illiteracy of our times than anything else. Maybe the reason that people have no more trust in God’s plan is that preachers and teachers are not emphasizing the teachings and prophetic message of Jesus. Or it could be that the modern absence of faith in God originates from a trust in self more than a trust in the Savior. No matter the cause, the modern believer needs to realize that pandemics, wars, and disturbances do not take God by surprise. God is working to bring us to a place where pandemics, wars, and disturbances do not exist. Believers have every reason to trust God, especially in times like these.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity – Episode 14 Video DOWNLOAD by Frank Turek (DVD)

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com, the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast, and the author of the Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has served in pastoral ministry for nearly 20 years.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/ujliwpY

/by

How Reason Supports Belief In The Existence of God

,

By Al Serrato

Many atheists today hold the view that faith and reason are opposites.  They view Christians as believing in God “despite the evidence” instead of because of it, and as long as they hold that view, they will not be open to considering the evidence for God’s existence.  In my last post, I discussed the importance of precision in language, so as to convey the correct notion that reason underlies faith, as it underlies all sound thinking.  Skeptics who realize that there is nothing irrational about “having faith” may eventually be open to considering the evidence for the God of the Bible.   

As a picture paints a thousand words, good analogies can go a long way toward making intellectual concepts like this clear.  They can help the listener see that they do in fact rely on “faith” all the time.   Because no one can know all things with complete certainty, a decision to believe that something is true – that it describes the way things really are – is a decision that relies on faith.  We all do it, often intuitively and without much thought because it is simply the way our minds work.
 
Since the specific question at issue when considering God’s existence is whether “someone” is there, analogies that make that point can be helpful.  Of course, the easiest way to know someone is there is to actually see the person.  That would constitute direct evidence.  But you can also know someone is there by deduction or inference.  The footsteps you see in the sand are pretty powerful indicators that someone was recently walking by.  Mail-in your mailbox did not spontaneously appear.  Or imagine being a police officer coming upon the scene of a burglary; you will strongly suspect someone is inside if you see the broken front door lock and hear movement inside. You may be wrong, but it would be rational for you to conclude that someone is there.  If you bring in a police dog that moves to a particular closet in the house, you can be quite sure that someone is behind the door.  Despite lacking direct or conclusive knowledge, you would not dismiss these conclusions as being based “on faith,” but would instead recognize that you are employing reason to form conclusions about things you cannot directly see.

Now at this point, the atheist may say “Okay that makes some sense. I can deduce ‘someone is there’ from circumstantial evidence, but I already know that people exist, so it is no surprise that a particular person might be on the beach, or delivering mail, or hiding in the house.  Now you want me to believe in a God that no one has any direct experience with?”  Yes, in fact, I do.  

While certainly different in magnitude, the universe – like the sand on the beach or the contents of the mailbox – is a canvas upon which evidence of God’s existence can be seen. Ponder for a moment the exquisite order and complexity of the universe, the information embedded in life, the existence of consciousness, morality, music, and math – all these bear witness to the Designer’s hand. They are discrete bits of evidence upon which a comprehensive circumstantial case can be built. Science, in other words, can provide the tools, and furnish the support, for a well-ground belief in the need for a transcendent Creator.

The scientific community is already embarked upon a similar exercise, in the hunt for extraterrestrial intelligence. All around the globe, radio telescopes are probing the distant reaches of space, hoping to pick up the telltale signals of intelligent life. Frequency ranges have been devoted to this pursuit by international agreement, so as to increase the chance that signal pollution from Earth-bound sources does not interfere. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been committed to this effort to find what no one definitively can say exists – life in the cosmos. The effort is called SETI – the Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence.

These are not religious fundamentalists at work; they are highly educated and trained scientists who know what so many in academia refuse to acknowledge – that reason can be employed to conclude that “something is out there.” What are these scientists hoping to find? Because they believe they can distinguish random noise – things naturally occurring – from signals that are specified and complex, they believe they can see the blueprint of intelligence in signals that are not random but instead designed to convey information. They look primarily for mathematical equations, trusting that universal laws will be knowable to any sentient being and will be a means to communicate, even if our spoken languages are different. NASA did something similar with its deep space probes Pioneer and Voyager; information encoded in the universal language of math and music even now hurtle further into the abyss, awaiting, perhaps, discovery by some advanced intelligence.

Now, let’s suppose that these scientists begin receiving a coded message. With effort, they eventually decode the language, finding that it consists of four letters. These four letters are arranged into billions of lines of code, which the scientists ultimately realize constitute a blueprint to build an extremely complex machine – a self-replicating machine with thousands of interdependent parts that must assemble themselves, correct errors as they occur and continue functioning in harmony decade after decade. What if scientists could begin working with this code to make changes and to alter the natural order of things? Would this not be enough to convince even the most skeptical that “something” highly intelligent and incredibly powerful was out there? That we are not alone?

So why aren’t more people convinced. After all, we already are the recipients of such directed intelligence. The four-letter language that codes billions of lines of instructions to build a complex machine is, of course, DNA. In short, while the scientific community remains largely materialistic, that façade is starting to crack, as more is learned about the incredibly information-rich nature of DNA, as well as the fine-tuned nature of the laws of the universe. Such information, and such laws, are not random. While some continue to insist that DNA evolved from lifeless matter, they have no mechanism to explain the beginning of DNA. Even the earliest single celled life form required such massive amounts of information that self-assembly is simply implausible.

We all know it intuitively: information requires a source. This alone does not prove the God of the Bible. But knowing that “something” is out there is not a matter of “faith.” Reason itself demands it.

There are none so blind as those who, despite the evidence, continue to refuse to see.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

God’s Crime Scene: The Case for God’s Existence from the Appearance of Design (mp4 Download Set) by J. Warner Wallace 

God’s Crime Scene: The Case for God’s Existence from the Appearance of Design in Biology DVD Set by J. Warner Wallace 

What is God Like? Look to the Heavens by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4) 

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

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he continues to work. 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

5 Signs Your Church Might be Heading Toward Progressive Christianity

By Alisa Childers

Several years ago, my husband and I began attending a local Evangelical, non-denominational church, and we loved it. We cherished the sense of community we found among the loving and authentic people we met there, and the intelligent, “outside the box” pastor who led our flock with thought-provoking and insightful sermons. Sadly, the church started going off the rails theologically, and after about a year and a half, we made the difficult decision to leave. Today that church is a self-titled “Progressive Christian Community.” 

Back then I had never heard of “Progressive Christianity,” and even now it is difficult to pin down what actually qualifies someone as a Progressive Christian, due to the diversity of beliefs that fall under that designation. However, there are signs—certain phrases and ideas—that seem to be consistent in Progressive circles. Here are 5 danger signs to watch for in your church:

 1. There is a lowered view of the Bible 

One of the main differences between Progressive Christianity and Historic Christianity is its view of the Bible. Historically, Christians have viewed the Bible as the Word of God and authoritative for our lives. Progressive Christianity generally abandons these terms, emphasizing personal belief over the biblical mandate.

Comments you might hear:

  • ​The Bible is a human book…
  • I disagree with the Apostle Paul on that issue…
  • The Bible condones immorality, so we are obligated to reject what it says in certain places…
  • ​The Bible “contains” the word of God…

2. Feelings are emphasized over facts

In Progressive churches, personal experiences, feelings, and opinions tend to be valued above objective truth. As the Bible ceases to be viewed as God’s definitive word, what a person feels to be true becomes the ultimate authority for faith and practice.

Comments you might hear:

  • That Bible verse doesn’t resonate with me…
  • I thought homosexuality was a sin until I met and befriended some gay people…
  • I just can’t believe Jesus would send good people to hell…

3. Essential Christian doctrines are open for re-interpretation

Progressive author John Pavlovitz wrote, “There are no sacred cows [in Progressive Christianity]….Tradition, dogma, and doctrine are all fair game, because all pass through the hands of flawed humanity.” Progressive Christians are often open to re-defining and re-interpreting the Bible on hot-button moral issues like homosexuality and abortion, and also cardinal doctrines such as the virgin conception and the bodily resurrection of Jesus. The only sacred cow is “no sacred cows.” 

Comments you might hear:

  • The resurrection of Jesus doesn’t have to be factual to speak truth…
  • The church’s historic position on sexuality is archaic and needs to be updated within a modern framework…
  • The idea of a literal hell is offensive to non-Christians and needs to be re-interpreted…

​4. Historic terms are re-defined

There are some Progressive Christians who say they affirm doctrines like biblical inspiration, inerrancy, and authority, but they have to do linguistic gymnastics to make those words mean what they want them to mean. I remember asking a Pastor, “Do you believe the Bible is divinely inspired?” He answered confidently, “Yes, of course!” However, I mistakenly assumed that when using the word “inspired,” we both meant the same thing. He clarified months later what he meant—that the Bible is inspired in the same way and on the same level as many other Christian books, songs, and sermons. This, of course, is not how Christians have historically understood the doctrine of divine inspiration.

Another word that tends to get a Progressive make-over is the word “love.” When plucked out of its biblical context, it becomes a catch-all term for everything non-confrontative, pleasant, and affirming.

Comments you might hear:

  • God wouldn’t punish sinners—He is love…
  • Sure, the Bible is authoritative—but we’ve misunderstood it for the first 2,000 years of church history…
  • It’s not our job to talk to anyone about sin—it’s our job to just love them…

​5.  The heart of the gospel message shifts from sin and redemption to social justice

There is no doubt that the Bible commands us to take care of the unfortunate and defend those who are oppressed. This is a very real and profoundly important part of what it means to live out our Christian faith. However, the core message of Christianity—the gospel—is that Jesus died for our sins, was buried and resurrected, and thereby reconciled us to God. This is the message that will truly bring freedom to the oppressed.

Many Progressive Christians today find the concept of God willing His Son to die on the cross to be embarrassing or even appalling. Sometimes referred to as “cosmic child abuse,” the idea of blood atonement is de-emphasized or denied altogether, with social justice and good works enthroned in its place.

Comments you might hear:

  • Sin doesn’t separate us from God—we are made in His image and He called us good…
  • God didn’t actually require a sacrifice for our sins—the first Christians picked up on the pagan practice of animal sacrifice and told the Jesus story in similar terms…
  • We don’t really need to preach the gospel—we just need to show love by bringing justice to the oppressed and provision to the needy…

Conclusion:

Identifying the signs is not always obvious—sometimes they are subtle and mixed with a lot of truth. Progressive Christianity can be persuasive and enticing but carried out to its logical end, it is an assault on the foundational framework of Christianity, leaving it disarmed of its saving power.

We shouldn’t be surprised to find some of these ideas infiltrating our churches. Jesus warned us, “Watch out for false prophets” who “come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves” (Matthew 7:15). So if you spot any of these 5 danger signs in your place of worship, it might be time to pray about finding fellowship in a more biblically faithful church community.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Letters to a Young Progressive by Mike Adams (Book)

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity – Episode 14 Video DOWNLOAD by Frank Turek (DVD)

Alisa Childers is an American singer and songwriter, best known for being in the all-female Christian music group ZOEgirl. She has had a string of top ten radio singles, four studio releases, and received the Dove Award during her time with ZOEgirl. In later years, Alisa found her life-long faith deeply challenged when she started attending what would later identify as a Progressive Christian church. This challenge pushed Alisa toward Christian Apologetics. Today you can read, listen and watch Alisa’s work online as well as purchase her recently published book on Progressive Christianity titled Another Gospel.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/Ijk76DJ

/by

Was the Virgin Birth Story Made Up?

,

By Mikel Del Rosario

Did The Virgin Birth Really Happen?

What would you say if someone asked you if the story of Jesus’ virgin birth was real, or if it was copied from other religions? In this post, you see how to think through a few challenges to the historicity of the Virgin Birth. First, we’ll answer the question “Was the Virgin Birth copied from myths?” Then, we’ll think through the idea that the first Christians just made the whole thing up.

Where should we start when we hear about a supposedly parallel account in some old myth? The first thing to do is check out the myth for yourself and see if there’s really a parallel virginal conception there.

The Virgin Birth wasn’t Copied from Myths

For example, here are the top three stories that tend to come up in my conversations about the virgin birth..and check out my hand-drawn illustrations, too–that’s not stock art!

Horus – No Virgin Birth Story

When Peter Joseph’s conspiracy film, Zeitgeist, came out in 2007, I had a student come up to me after I taught one of my World Religion classes at a local college. As we were walking out to the parking lot together, he told me about this film and wanted to know if the story of Jesus was really based on pagan myths. For example, the video asserted that Jesus’ virgin birth was parallel with the birth of an Egyptian god named Horus. But does the myth itself really say that Horus was born of a virgin?

In Egyptian mythology, Horus’ mother, Isis, was already married to the god Osiris for some time before his conception. But more than this, the best Egyptian account of the myth tells us that that Horus was not born of a virgin. It actually says that Isis “took in his seed and created the heir…Osiris’ son, Horus, stout of heart, justified, son of Isis.”[1] So the idea that the first Christians copied the story of Jesus’ virgin birth from Horus doesn’t work right off the bat. Why? Because there’s no virgin birth story there to copy. In fact, there is no ancient evidence of a story about Horus being born of a virgin.

Mithra – No Virgin Birth Story

But other people have heard something about Jesus’ virgin birth being copied from the story of a god named Mithra. I remember hearing about this one Christmas in 1997, when I was just an undergrad at Biola. Honestly, I had no clue what to think. I wish someone would have encouraged me to see if there were any ancient stories saying that Mithra was literally born of a virgin. Because there aren’t any. Not one.

There are actually a few versions of how Mithra was created, but none of them have anything like Jesus’ virginal conception. For example, in the Roman version, Mithra was born as a full-grown adult coming out of the side of a rock. There’s actually an ancient inscription that says Mithra was “born from the rock.”[2] So, in Mithra’s story, not only is there no virgin, but there’s not even a woman! So, unless you want to call a huge rock a “virgin,” that’s not gonna work. No parallel there.

Caesar Augustus – No Virgin Birth Story

I remember one Christmas, seeing an ABC News special on Jesus where a scholar by the name of John Dominic Crossan compared the story of Jesus’ virginal conception to the idea that the Roman Emperor Caesar Augustus was believed to be the son of Apollo. He was kind of suggesting these stories were “all over Greek and Roman mythology.” But does Augustus’ story actually talk about a virginal conception?

According to the Roman historian Suetonius, Augustus’ mother had already been married for years before a snake suddenly showed up while she was sleeping. She discovered this strange mark on herself and 10 months later, Augustus was born.[3] But again, in this story, there is no virginal conception at all. Augustus’ mom already had a kid with her husband before Augustus was born. He even had an older sister![4]

Checking out the ancient sources for alleged parallels is a good place to start when thinking through the idea that the Virgin Birth was borrowed from pagan mythology. In this case, we can be confident that the story of Jesus’ virgin birth wasn’t copied from Horus, Mithra or Augustus because none of them was said to be born of a literal human virgin in any ancient myth.

But if the virgin birth wasn’t copied, does that mean the church just made the whole thing up? How should we think through the claim that church made up the story of Jesus’ virgin birth?

The Virgin Birth wasn’t Made up by the Church

Here are three reasons why it doesn’t look like the early church made up the story of Jesus’ virgin birth.

The Virgin Birth Raised Suspicions

Making up a fake story about Jesus’ virgin birth wouldn’t make Christianity more attractive to the Jews. It would actually make people suspicious about Jesus. Who was the real dad? Did Mary hook up with a Roman soldier? That kind of thing. Why make it more difficult to accept the Christian message? The ancient church wouldn’t have taught that Jesus was born of a virgin unless they had good reasons for believing he actually was.

The Virgin Birth Wasn’t Emphasied

But other people say the Virgin Birth story would make Christianity seem more attractive–maybe not to the Jews, but to the to Greeks and Romans. They were into emperor worship. They were cool with thinking of their leaders as gods. But that’s just one part of the story.

When we see the gospel preached in the New Testament, the church doesn’t emphasize the Virgin Birth story at all. Why wouldn’t the earliest Christians make more of Jesus’ virgin birth if they invented it to make the faith seem more attractive to the people who weren’t Jewish? Why wouldn’t they talk it up if the made it up?

The Virgin Birth is Different from Myths

People who thought of certain human rulers as gods only thought they were lower gods in the context of polytheism–a belief in many gods. For example, no one thought Caesar Augustus was the one, true God who made the heavens and the earth. More than this, there’s no snake sneaking up on Mary in the gospels accounts. Jesus is just conceived in her womb as miracle of God and the Bible doesn’t say much about how that actually happened.

In the end, it’s pretty unlikely that the first Christians would make up the story of the Virgin Birth because it wouldn’t help advance the Christian cause. If they thought it would help their case, why didn’t they emphasize this story in their preaching? And if the virgin birth was patterned after myths, why doesn’t it look like these myths?

It’s Reasonable to Believe the Virgin Birth Happened

So  the church didn’t get the Virgin Birth story from somewhere else and they didn’t create it out of theological reflection; That means—as unusual as it sounds—the Virgin Birth story must have come from a real event. In other words, if the Virgin Birth wasn’t copied from myths and it wasn’t made up, the remaining option is that the Virgin Birth is real.

If there really is a creator God who made the heavens and the earth, and if Jesus left heaven to come to earth, it’s reasonable to believe that the virgin birth happened.

Notes

[1] The Great Hymn To Osiris From Dynasty 18 (Stela Louvre C 286) Mentions Isis’ Impregnation By Her Brother-Husband, Osiris, In This Myth: “Isis The Powerful…Took In His Seed And Created The Heir, Who Suckled The Child In Solitude…Osiris’ Son, Horus, Stout Of Heart, Justified, Son Of Isis, Heir Of Osiris.” Jan Assmann, Death And Salvation In Ancient Egypt, 24-25.

Françoise Dunand And Christiane Zivie-Coche Explain Horus’ Birth Succinctly In Their Publication With Cornell University Press: “After Having Sexual Intercourse, In The Form Of A Bird, With The Dead God She Restored To Life, [Isis] Gave Birth To A Posthumous Son, Horus.” Gods And Men In Egypt, 39. See Also All About Horus – An Egyptian Copy Of Christ? For More Scholarly Sources Refuting The Zeitgeist Movie’s Claims About Horus.

[2] “Mithra Was Known As The Rock-Born God. The Inscriptions Confirm This Nomenclature: One Even Reads D(Eo) O(Omipotenti) S(Oli) Invi(Cto), Deo Genitori, R(Upe) N(Ato), ‘To The Almighty God Sun Invincible, Generative God, Born From The Rock’. Manfred Clauss, The Roman Cult Of Mithra: The God And His Mysteries, 62-63.

[3] “When [Augustus’ Mother] Atia Had Come In The Middle Of The Night To The Solemn Service Of Apollo, She Had Her Litter Set Down In The Temple And Fell Asleep, While The Rest Of The Matrons Also Slept. On A Sudden A Serpent Glided Up To Her And Shortly Went Away. When She Awoke, She Purified Herself, As If After The Embraces Of Her Husband, And At Once There Appeared On Her Body A Mark In Colors Like A Serpent, And She Could Never Get Rid Of It; So That Presently She Ceased Ever To Go To The Public Baths. In The Tenth Month After That Augustus Was Born And Was Therefore Regarded As The Son Of Apollo.” Suetonius “Twelve Caesars” Augustus 94:4, Accessed Online At Http://Penelope.Uchicago.Edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12caesars/Augustus*.Html

[4] Octavia Was Augustus’ Full Sister. Http://Www.Britannica.Com/Ebchecked/Topic/424838/Octavia

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Miracles: The Evidence by Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

Two Miracles You Take With You Everywhere You Go by Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity – Episode 14 Video DOWNLOAD by Frank Turek (DVD)

Mikel Del Rosario helps Christians explain their faith with courage and compassion. He is a doctoral student in the New Testament department at Dallas Theological Seminary. Mikel teaches Christian Apologetics and World Religion at William Jessup University. He is the author of Accessible Apologetics and has published over 20 journal articles on apologetics and cultural engagement with his mentor, Dr. Darrell Bock. Mikel holds an M.A. in Christian Apologetics with highest honors from Biola University and a Master of Theology (Th.M) from Dallas Theological Seminary where he serves as Cultural Engagement Manager at the Hendricks Center and a host of the Table Podcast. Visit his Web site at ApologeticsGuy.com.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/UhIEyN5

/by

When Was the New Testament Considered Scripture? 5 Facts That Point to an Early Canon

,

By Alisa Childers

One of the most common misconceptions about the New Testament canon (the list of books the church recognizes as authoritative) is that early Christians didn’t have any Scripture until hundreds of years after the life of Christ and the Apostles. The church then examined all the books they had and “picked” the ones they thought should go in the canon. However, this is not how it happened.

Most of the earliest Christians were Jews, so they had the Old Testament Scriptures, but concerning the 27 books of the New Testament, there wasn’t an official canon until three or four hundred years later.  That doesn’t mean they didn’t have New Testament Scripture. In fact, the word “canon” does not need to be confined to a formal and final list, but rather reflects “the entire process by which the formation of the church’s sacred writings took place.”[1] Here are 5 facts that point to an early canon:

Fact #1: Early Christians differentiated between canonical and non-canonical books.

Christians divided books into four categories: 

Recognized books: Certain books like the four Gospels, Acts, and the letters of Paul were regarded as canonical by early Christians and were not disputed. In the 4th century, church historian Eusebius noted that this core canon had existed in Christianity for some time.[2]
Disputed books: Other books such as James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, were disputed by some, yet accepted by many.  These books weren’t officially canonized until later.[3]
Rejected books: Some books were acknowledged to be helpful for spiritual growth, but were not regarded as having the same authority as Scripture. Among these books were the Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Paul, and the E​pistle of Barnabas, to name a few.[4]

Heretical books: A few books were never considered for canonical status and were rejected as outright heresy, such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, and the Acts of Andrew and John.[5]

Fact #2: Certain New Testament writings were cited as Scripture not long after they were penned.

The earliest mention of a New Testament book being referred to as Scripture comes from the New Testament itself. That’s as early as it gets! In 1 Timothy 5:18, the Apostle Paul writes:
For the Scripture says: Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain, and, the worker is worthy of his wages. 

The first part of Paul’s quotation comes from Deuteronomy 25:4, but the second part comes from the New Testament—Luke 10:7 to be exact. In other words, Paul quotes Luke’s Gospel and calls it “Scripture.”

Another example comes from 2 Peter 3:15-16, where Peter mentions “all of Paul’s letters,” and warns believers to not be deceived by people who twist them “as they do the other Scriptures.” He obviously believed Paul’s epistles were on equal footing with the Old Testament, and expected this to be uncontroversial among his readers. 

When the original Apostles were still alive, they discipled younger converts. One such convert, Polycarp,  was believed to be a personal disciple of the Apostle John.[6] In the early second century, he wrote a letter to the church at Philippi, referencing the book of Ephesians as “Scripture.”[7]

Fact #3: Church Fathers began to compile lists of New Testament books long before any councils met to finalize the canon.

22 of the 27 books of the New Testament were listed in what is called the Muratorian Fragment, dated from about 180 AD. This list includes everything but Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and possibly 3 John, indicating that the bulk of the New Testament canon was established at an extraordinarily early date. 

The first complete list of the New Testament canon is often attributed to Athanasius, around AD 367, but Dr. Michael Kruger argues that all 27 books were affirmed by church father Origen more than a hundred years before that. This means that most likely by the 3rd century, the complete canon was recognized and in place.

Fact #4: Early Christian manuscripts were intended for public reading. 

Manuscripts of the Greco-Roman world were made to be appreciated as works of art and not necessarily to be read in public. However, early Christian manuscripts were unique in that they were made for functionality, not beauty. Compared with their cultural counterparts, they had fewer lines per page, an exceptionally large number of reader’s aids, and spaces between sections—all of which suggests they were meant for public reading.
In the early church, and even going back to the Old Testament synagogues, almost all the writings that were read in public worship services were Biblical books. (For example, 2nd-century Christian apologist Justin Martyr tells us that in church gatherings, portions of the Old Testament and the Gospels would be read, followed by a sermon.[8] This indicates that the scribes who copied the manuscripts believed them to be Scripture and intended them to be used as such.[9]

Fact #5: Early Christians primarily used a codex rather than a scroll. 

Centuries before it was broadly employed in Greco-Roman culture, early Christians mainly used a codex (similar to a modern book, bound at the spine) rather than a scroll, which was the primary form of a written document in the ancient world. The switch to the codex was sudden, early, and widespread among Christians. This may indicate the church’s need to combine several books into one volume, which only a codex was able to do. Many scholars believe this supports the idea that a canon was beginning to be established as early as the end of the 1st century.[10] 
What did the councils actually do?

The councils that eventually convened to established the canon did just that—they finalized the list of books that were already considered canonical and settled a handful of disputes surrounding the remaining texts. However, the evidence suggests that early Christians had a functioning New Testament core canon long before that.

References

[1] Brevard S. Childs, The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction (SCM, 1984) p. 25

[2] Eusebius, Church History, 3.25.1-2

[3] Ibid., 3:25.3

[4] Ibid., 3.25.4

[5] Ibid., 3.25.6

[6] Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, 32.2; Iranaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3

[7] Polycarp, Epistle to the Phillipians, 12.1

[8] Justin Martyr, The First Apology of Justin, LXVII

[9] Michael J. Kruger, “The Origin and Authority of the New Testament Canon,” Reformed Theological Seminary, 4 August 2016, Lecture #20 (Kruger also notes in his article Were Early Christian Scribes Untrained Amateurs? that this fact is well supported by a number of modern scholars.)

[10] Andreas J. Kostenberger & Michael J. Kruger, The Heresy of Orthodoxy (Crossway, 2010) p. 194-195

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)

 

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/1hUbmE6

/by

Were Jesus’ Temptations Real If He Couldn’t Sin?

,

By Ryan Leasure

Historic Christianity affirms that Jesus Christ, though fully human, is also fully divine. He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end (Rev. 22:13) — the eternal creator of all things (Jn. 1:3). The Nicene Creed (AD 325) declares of Jesus that he is:

With Jesus’ deity established, can we honestly say Jesus could experience genuine temptations? After all, James 1:13 declares that “God cannot be tempted by evil.” Doesn’t this present a bit of a dilemma for the biblical Christian? If Jesus was impeccable, that is, he was unable to sin, to what extent can we say that his temptations really affected him?

On the surface, it seems that Christians can’t take much comfort from Hebrews 4:15, which reads, “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are — yet he did not sin.”

Can we really say he was tempted in every way as we are? I experience temptation all the time and give in to those temptations more than I’d like to admit. That wasn’t a problem for Jesus, though. He couldn’t give in to his temptations. Doesn’t this seem like apples and oranges to you?

While I affirm that Jesus was unable to sin due to being fully divine, in the remaining space, I want to demonstrate that he experienced genuine temptations as a human. And I want to show that we can believe in both truths simultaneously.

A Spirit-Filled Human

I contend that the reason Jesus could not sin and the reason he did not sin are for different reasons. I believe Jesus could not sin because he is the second person of the Triune God who is incapable of sinning (Js. 1:13). The reason he didn’t sin, however, was because, as a human, he was filled and empowered by the Spirit. That is, Jesus lived his life on earth fundamentally as a human and relied on the Spirit to perfectly obey his Father. Let me give you a few texts of Scripture to support this claim:

And the Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon [the Messiah], the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD (Isa. 11:2).

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me (the Messiah) because the LORD has anointed me to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound (Isa. 61:1).

And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee, and a report about him went out through all the surrounding country (Lk. 4:14).

But if it is by the Spirit of God that I (Jesus) cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you (Mt. 12:28).

How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him (Acts 10:38).

I believe this small sample size of texts demonstrates that Jesus lived his earthly life fundamentally as a human. If, in the incarnation, Jesus lived primarily as deity, the filling of the Holy Spirit would have been both redundant and unnecessary for his mission.

Jesus’ Sinlessness Illustrated

A few years back, daredevil Nik Wallenda tightrope across Niagara Falls on national television. As I watched Wallenda make the successful 1,800-foot journey across the falls, I remember feeling nervous for him, but I wasn’t worried he was going to die. Why? Because the television producers forced him to wear a safety harness to ensure he wouldn’t fall to his death while the entire world watched.

Now, could Wallenda have died on his walk across the tightrope? No, the safety harness protected him from falling. But, how did Wallenda make it across the tightrope? He balanced himself and walked across. The harness didn’t help him one bit. You see, the reason he could not have died and the reason he made it across are for two completely different reasons.

In the same way, Jesus could not have sinned because he was fully divine. This was his safety harness if you will. But Jesus didn’t sin because he perfectly obeyed the Father as a human in the power of the Holy Spirit. That is to say, he experienced genuine temptations, but never once did he give into them.

The Extent Of Jesus’ Temptations

Some still object and say Jesus’ temptations were of a lesser nature than ours. After all, he didn’t have a sin nature. He didn’t battle the same kind of internal temptations we do. This much is true. But it doesn’t mean his temptations were less severe than ours.

Think about it. Whatever internal temptations Jesus didn’t experience, he more than made for up it by going toe-to-toe with Satan. Satan gave Jesus his best shot. He knew what was at stake during Jesus’ life. If he could get Jesus to sin, he wins. Game over. You and I probably won’t ever get Satan’s full onslaught like Jesus did.

Also, consider the fact that you and I often break in the face of temptation. Whether we’re tempted to lust, lash out in anger, or grow impatient, we typically can only handle so much before we eventually give in. The temptation builds and builds until we can’t withstand any longer, and we snap. Jesus, on the other hand, saw temptations all the way through to the very end, and even as the pressure built, he never once sinned. He stood firm in the face of the most intense feelings of temptation — something we often don’t get to because we cave earlier.

Consider, as an illustration, the world’s strongest man. He picks up a twig, holds it by both ends, and snaps it with ease. Next, he picks up an iron bar and attempts to do the same. He bends with every bit of force he can muster for a few minutes, but the bar remains unscathed. As you think about twig and the iron bar, which of the two-faced more intense pressure from the world’s strongest man? The iron bar, of course.

Well, we’re like the twig, and Jesus is like the bar. We snap before we can feel the full force of the temptation. Jesus, however, experiences the full force of the temptation and never once snaps. It seems naive, therefore, to suggest that we face more difficult temptations than he did.

Why This Is Important

When God the Son took on human flesh — or emptied himself according to Philippians 2 — he set out to live as much like a human as was possible for him to do. This means he couldn’t conjure his divine powers every time he got himself in a quandary. For example, when Satan tempted Jesus to turn the stones into bread, he tempted him to rely on his deity instead of his humanity in that situation.

Think about the problem we’d have if every time Jesus faced a difficult situation, he simply performed a miracle to make his life easier. If he healed himself every time he got sick, or if he teleported to Jerusalem instead of taking the long journey just like everyone else, in no real sense could he be one of us and represent us as our high priest before the Father (Heb. 4:15). Jesus, however, can be our faithful high priest because he lived his life on earth fundamentally as a human (Heb. 2:17-18). And as a human, he perfectly obeyed his Father because he was filled completely with the Spirit.

So, could Jesus have sinned? No. He was God. But did he experience genuine temptations as a human? Yes. Both are true at the same time.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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

Cold Case Resurrection Set by J. Warner Wallace (books)

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity – Episode 14 Video DOWNLOAD by Frank Turek (DVD)

Ryan Leasure holds a Master of Arts from Furman University and a Masters of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Currently, he’s a Doctor of Ministry candidate at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He also serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/2hb3hrr

/by

Why Jesus Never Apologized

,

By Brian Chilton

During a time of devotions, I came across a text written by A. W. Tozer. Tozer inquires, “Did you ever notice that our Lord Jesus Christ, when He walked the earth, never apologized? He never got up in the morning and said, ‘I’m sorry, boys. Yesterday when I was talking, I misspoke Myself, and I said this, but I meant that’” (Tozer, AOG II, 139–140). When the text is first read, one may think that Tozer implied that Jesus was obstinate and irritating. Such thoughts bring to mind that one person that everyone tries to avoid. You know the person, the one who always thinks that he/she is right and never apologizes when he or she is clearly in the wrong. However, this is not the point behind Tozer’s teaching. Tozer clarifies his intention when saying that Jesus never apologized because he never did anything that required an apology. How is this possible? It was only possible because Jesus was perfect. Tozer notes, “He was wisdom divinely incarnated in the voice of a man. And when He spoke, He said it right the first time. He never had to apologize” (Tozer, AOG II, 139–140). Jesus never had to apologize because he was perfect in all that he said and did.

Simon Peter taught this very thing. The amazing thing is that Simon Peter knew Jesus perhaps better than anyone. He walked, talked, and even lived with Jesus for 3 ½ years. He knew Jesus in public and in private. Yet he was still able to write the following about Jesus:

21 For you were called to this, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. 22 He did not commit sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth; 23 when he was insulted, he did not insult in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten but entrusted himself to the one who judges justly. 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree; so that, having died to sins, we might live for righteousness. By his wounds, you have been healed. 25 For you were like sheep going astray, but you have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls (1 Pet. 2:21–25, CSB).

Did you catch Peter’s teaching on Jesus’s perfection? He said that Jesus committed no sin and never said anything deceitful (1 Pet. 2:22). If a person thinks someone perfect, all one needs to do is to contact those who have lived with the person in question. My wife will quickly tell you how imperfect I am if asked. But this is not so with Simon Peter and the early disciples on their views of Jesus. Tozer is right in his assessment of Jesus. There are four ways that one can see how Jesus’s perfection negates any need for him to apologize.

Jesus never apologized for his suffering because he left us a perfect standard (1 Pet. 2:21, 23)

Jesus knew the difficulties he would face. But he willingly faced the sufferings of life so that he could serve as the perfect standard. Suffering is not something that someone should pursue. If a medicine is available to keep one from suffering, one should take it. However, when suffering comes, God can bring something good out of it. Notice that Peter said that Jesus did not threaten people when something did not go his way—a far cry from modern behaviors. He never had to apologize for a word falsely spoken, unlike yours truly. Everything Jesus said and did was intentional. While we all have role models we like to follow, Jesus is the best standard because he is the perfect standard. He knows the sufferings you endure because he has been there. He can identify with your suffering more than anyone ever could because he is the perfect standard. He suffered but never sinned.

Jesus never apologized for his actions because he was perfectly sinless (1 Pet. 2:22)

As Tozer previously noted, Jesus never apologized for something dumb that he did. He never had to express regret for a word misspoken. It was not as if Jesus would not have apologized and sought reconciliation if he were in the wrong. Jesus was humble. He was not obtuse in his manner of conduct. Rather, Jesus lived a perfect life that never required him to apologize. An important application for our lives can be found at this juncture. God’s actions are planned. God is doing something in your life with great intentionality. God never needs to apologize because his actions will bring forth an ultimate good. The good that God brings will be far greater than what we can contemplate. Thus, while things in the present may not make sense to us, we need to remember that God’s thoughts are far higher than ours (Isa. 55:8). Joseph could have easily thought that God had forsaken him when he was forsaken by his brothers, left for dead, before being sold as a slave. While in Egypt, he found himself imprisoned after being falsely accused of a crime that he did not commit. However, God elevated him to a status that would eventually allow him to save the lives of the very ones who enslaved him. God is bringing together a focused plan. The question is, do we trust God with our present and future?

Jesus never apologized for his death because he was the perfect sacrifice (1 Pet. 2:24)

When Jesus told his disciples that he would go to the cross, Peter abhorred the idea. He said that he would never allow someone to hurt Jesus. Peter, acting like a big brother to Jesus, wanted to protect his Savior at all costs, at least at that time. Jesus rebuked Peter, saying, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me because you’re not thinking about God’s concerns but human concerns” (Matt. 16:23, CSB). When reading the text in its totality, one discovers that Peter went from being called blessed after noting that Jesus was the Son of God to being called the Prince of Darkness in a matter of moments. That is what sticking your foot in your mouth will do for you. Even then, Jesus was calling out the spirit of darkness that tried to invade Peter’s thinking. The pandemic has surfaced the great instability of the modern psyche. The forces of darkness want you to be scared. They want you to think that all is lost. But remember, what people mean for evil, God intends for good (Gen. 50:20). The question is, do you trust God with your thinking?

Jesus never apologized for his leadership because he was a perfect Shepherd (1 Pet. 2:25)

One of the titles I have most appreciated is that of a pastor. The title relates to the role of a shepherd as its roots connect back to the concept of an overseer of grass-fed animals. Pastors impact their congregants. While many try to emulate the spiritual walk of their pastors or perhaps another person who has influenced their life, the ultimate role model is Jesus himself. When we try to become like another person, we adopt their bad practices. But with Jesus, he never had to apologize for bad leadership tactics. Jesus’s disciples were dismayed as they had hoped for a military leader who would take back Israel from Roman hands. However, Jesus was something greater than a military leader. He was, is, and forever will be the King of the Universe. Nations come, and nations go. Rulers rise and fall. But understand, Jesus will reign forever. Reading the comments from many Christians’ social media accounts, I am struck by the wonder that believers have not changed since the first century. Some seemingly indicate a preference for Jesus to serve as a political or military ruler, standing ready to blast away anyone with whom they find disagreement. However, Jesus’s leadership style has not changed. He will not apologize for his leadership style because he has come to seek and save the lost, not become our political pawn. He is a servant leader. He rules by compassion and grace. Modern believers must ask themselves, do they want a political hero, or do they want a divine King?

Conclusion

Jesus never had to apologize for anything he did because everything he did was perfect. Jesus holds the answers to the problems we face. As I read the writings of the NT, I am reminded how far from God’s mark we have become. The Christian life is about faith. It always has been and always will be. Faith is trust in a person. It does not indicate that a person believes something for which there is no evidence. That is a false definition of faith that has led to the very anti-intellectualism that harms the mission of the church. Rather, biblical faith is much more difficult. Biblical faith requires that one trusts God with the things that make sense and especially the things that do not. Jesus does not have to apologize because he is perfect. But we are anything but perfect. Do we trust the plan that Jesus has for us? Do we trust in his perfect mission? If you are looking for something for which you can be thankful, be thankful that you have a perfect Savior.

Sources

Tozer, A. W. Attributes of God. Volume Two. Camp Hill, PA: Christian, 2003.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity – Episode 14 Video DOWNLOAD by Frank Turek (DVD)

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

Cold Case Resurrection Set by J. Warner Wallace (books)

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com, the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast, and the author of the Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has served as a pastor in pastoral ministry for nearly 20 years.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/ghb0OPg

/by

9 Famous Thinkers Who Said They’d Rather Go To Hell Than Worship God

,

By Erik Manning

C.S. Lewis famously remarked that “the gates of hell are locked from the inside.” In other words, the residents of the damned are there based on personal preference. It’s not because they’d rather be in heaven but only lacked sufficient information. 

Echoing Lewis, Christian philosopher Dallas Williard wrote that hell isn’t “an ‘oops’ or a slip. One does not miss heaven by a hair, but by a constant effort to avoid and escape God.” 

But are these famous Christian thinkers correct? Doesn’t it seem crazy that anyone would prefer hell? Based on the statements of many influential skeptics and atheists, the answer might surprise you. Many hardheartedly reject the Biblical picture of God. If such a being existed, they are emphatic about their preference for hell over spending eternity with such a God. 

Let’s take a look at some notable examples: 

Mark Twain, who is considered to be the father of American literature: 

“I am plenty safe enough in his hands; I am not in danger from that kind of Deity. The one that I want to keep out of the reach of is the caricature of him which one finds in the Bible. We (that one and I) could never respect each other, never get along together. I have met this superior a hundred times in fact I amount to that myself.” (Personal correspondence to his wife 7/17/1889)

John Shelby Spong, author, liberal theologian:

“(The God of the Bible is) a God I cannot respect, much less worship, a deity whose needs and prejudices are at least as large as my own.” (Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism)

Desmond Tutu, civil rights activist, liberal Anglican cleric: 

“I would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven. No, I would say sorry… I would much rather go to the other place.” (Archbishop Tutu ‘would not worship a homophobic God’, BBC News)

Kingsley Amos, novelist, poet: 

“I’m an atheist, yes. But it’s more that I hate Him”, explaining his view of God to Yevgeni Yevtushenko. (God Meets the Old Devil, The Independent)

Dan Barker, Founder of Freedom from Religion Foundation, said in a debate with Justin Bass: 

“Even if Jesus did exist, even if I agreed with [Dr. Bass] 100%, yep, he rose from the dead, yep, there’s a God, yep, I don’t deny any of that, does not mean that he is my Lord. If he did exist…I will go happily to hell. It would be worse of a hell for me to bow down before a Lord…regardless of the legend and historicity issue…Even if I agreed 100%, I would still reject that Being as a Lord of my life because I’m better than that…I cannot accept Jesus as Lord…You’re much freer to live and enjoy your life unshackled from the demands…” (The Bible and Beer Consortium, Jesus of Nazareth: Lord or Legend? / Dr. Justin Bass and Dan Barker)

Donald Fagen, lead singer of the band Steely Dan: 

When asked about the meaning of his song titled Godwacker, Fagen said, “It’s about an elite squad of assassins whose sole assignment is to find a way into heaven and take out God. If the Deity actually existed, what sane person wouldn’t consider this to be justifiable homicide?” (Eminent Hipsters by Donald Fagen)

Zora Neale Hurston, folklorist, anthropologist, and author of Their Eyes Were Watching God: 

“All gods who receive homage are cruel. All gods dispense suffering without reason. Otherwise, they would not be worshiped. Through indiscriminate suffering men know fear, and fear is the most divine emotion. It is the stones for altars and the beginning of wisdom. Half gods are worshipped in wine and flowers. Real gods require blood.” 

JS Mill, philosopher. Mill is considered to be one of the most influential thinkers in the history of classical liberalism: 

“Whatever power such a being may have over me, there is one thing which he shall not do: he shall not compel me to worship him. I will call no being good, who is not what I mean when I apply the epithet to my fellow-creatures; and if such a being can sentence me to hell for not so calling him, to hell I will go.” (An Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy, p 103)

William Ernest Henley, poet, in his famous poem “Invictus”: 

Beyond this place of wrath and tears

Looms but the Horror of the shade,

And yet the menace of the years

Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,

How charged with punishments the scroll,

I am the master of my fate:

I am the captain of my soul.

Henley is quoting Matthew 7:14 and is pretty brazenly saying he is the captain of his soul, not God. 

GOD GIVES PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT – EVEN HELL IF THEY CHOOSE IT

Revelation 16:9 talks about how the wicked respond to God’s wrath: “They were scorched by the fierce heat, and they cursed the name of God who had power over these plagues. They did not repent and give him glory.”

Similarly, Revelation 9:21 says: “The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands nor give up worshiping demons and idols of gold and silver and bronze and stone and wood, which cannot see or hear or walk, nor did they repent of their murders or their sorceries or their sexual immorality or their thefts.”

So according to the Bible, the lost are those who reject God out of the hardness of their own heart, not insufficient information. God gives them what they want: separation from Him. I see no reason to think that this type of brazen rejection here is going to somehow radically change at the time of judgment. It’s sad, but these examples bear out what the Bible and Christian thinkers like Williard and Lewis have said about hell.

In my own experience, I’ve asked skeptics if they would worship God if they had persuasive evidence. The answer has often been a resounding ‘no’.

I have to think that its attitudes like these are why skeptics have set such a high burden of proof when it comes to Christianity.

If we were preaching a God who makes us his comfortable pets and fails to take sin seriously, then I believe we would get far less pushback. But we’re not defending a god that the skeptic would probably worship, because that god doesn’t exist.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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

Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl (Book)

Defending the Faith on Campus by Frank Turek (DVD Set, mp4 Download set and Complete Package)

So the Next Generation will Know by J. Warner Wallace (Book and Participant’s Guide)

Erik Manning is a Reasonable Faith Chapter Director located in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. He’s a former freelance baseball writer and the co-owner of a vintage and handmade decor business with his wife, Dawn. He is passionate about the intersection of apologetics and evangelism.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/7hvYeRe

/by

How Should Christians Disagree About Important Things?

By Richard Land  

This past week the Evangelical world has reverberated with a debate by two of Evangelicaldom’s most illustrious, influential, and popular theologians: John Piper and Wayne Grudem. On October 22, John Piper wrote an article, “Policies, Persons, and Paths to Ruin: Pondering the Implications of the 2020 Elections.” In which he explains why he would not be voting for Biden or Trump and noted in a tweet that “the reasoning really matters.” Piper’s article ignited a firestorm of discussion on social media.

On October 27, Wayne Grudem wrote an in-depth response to Piper, “A Respectful Response to My Friend John Piper about Voting for Trump,” which appeared in The Christian Post.  I won’t try to summarize what they said. They did that themselves, succinctly and with clarity and passion. They were both clearly aware that they were in disagreement about profoundly important issues.

And yet, they were respectful and well-mannered. They did not allow their substantive disagreements to escalate to rancor and to degenerate into personal attacks.

In fact, prior to Grudem publishing his response, he sent a copy to his friend of many years, John Piper, for comments. Piper responded that Grudem “had represented him fairly” and “that he counted me as a dear friend.” Grudem explained that then Piper in a pure “Piperesque” touch “pointed out how I could make one of my arguments stronger.”

Piper and Grudem do have very significant and differing points of view on the issue of the 2020 election (and in the interest of full disclosure, I think Grudem gets by far the better of the argument). You can read these positions for yourselves and draw your own conclusions.

The most important part, however, of this Piper-Grudem debate is that it models how Christian brothers and sisters should be able to debate and discuss substantive and important issues of disagreement (“iron sharpeneth iron,” Prov. 27:17) and do so in a manner that honors Christ. Unfortunately, this model of civility and respect for differing viewpoints is far rarer than it ought to be in today’s Christendom.

Once again, in the interest of full disclosure, I have met both men, but I have a far more developed relationship with Dr. Grudem. I do try to read everything they both write since both are such excellent writers, even though my theological perspective is somewhat different than theirs.

One of the most interesting things about the Piper-Grudem debate is that both men’s theology tells them that God “decreed” or “ordained” who was going to win next Tuesday’s presidential election before the foundation of the world, while I merely believe that He always knew the outcome as a function of His omniscience, not necessarily His omnipotence.

In conclusion, I am extremely grateful to Dr. Piper and Dr. Grudem for providing such an inspiring model of how Christian brothers can disagree in a way that honors our Savior and His Kingdom.

I must confess that I had started to pen a response to Dr. Piper’s piece before I read Dr. Grudem’s response. Alas, my column was not as elevated in tone as Dr. Grudem’s, and so I am grateful to have this positive influence on my attitude.

Finally, let us always remember that even if the candidate we support does not win next Tuesday, God is still on His throne. God may send judgment to America, but God’ church will continue on “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18).

Recommended resources related to the topic:

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (MP3 Set), (mp4 Download Set), and (DVD Set) 

Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl (Book)

Richard Land, D. Phil, Professor of Theology (A.B., 1969; Th.M., 1972; D.Phil., 1980; Honorary D.D., 2009). Prior to becoming the president of Southern Evangelical Seminary in 2013, Richard Land served as the President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. Currently, he serves as the Executive Editor of The Christian Post.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/Ahc0kMQ

/by

Bonhoeffer’s Modern Message For a Postmodern World

,

By Alex McElroy

As long as there have been humans living in groups, there has been conflict. At times, this conflict has escalated to the level of the Holocaust or wars. Without guidance, individuals and countries alike can and have ventured into disappointing methods of diffusing conflicts. Theologians have at times given humanity, and the church specifically, the tools and means to navigate difficulties present in modern society. It is not an option for the Christian to retreat from society because nowhere is Christ more visible than in how His church responds to conflict and those negatively impacted by it. Scripture has also made it clear that although there should be a marked difference in how the Christian lives in the world, he or she is not of the world (John 17:15-16).

When the church, who in practicality is the people, do not actively exhibit what it means to be Christ-like in every facet of society, gaps are formed that the world eventually fills. The modern resurgence of atheism can be largely traced to the disengagement of Christians due to the privatization of their religious lives. Much can be learned from Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who attempted to rouse Christians to be vocal about their beliefs and active because of those beliefs. In response to the church’s tangible detachment from society Dietrich Bonhoeffer promoted Christian engagement with the increasingly secular world.

The Cause for Bonhoeffer’s Theology

Bonheoffer was able to centralize the indispensable message contained within the Gospel by removing the external enclosures in which some had tried and do try to contain it. In examining Eric Metaxas’s biography of Bonhoeffer, Duff notes, “Metaxas betrays one of the most enduring qualities of Bonhoeffer’s theology (that it attracts and challenges a broad spectrum of Christian readers—from theologically liberal to theologically conservative) by claiming Bonhoeffer for conservative evangelicals alone.”[1] Regardless of one’s political alignment or theological bent, it is clear that those presuppositions were not of great concern to Bonhoeffer. His focus was Christ and action. A confident Christian should be an active Christian, undeterred by societal pressures, and unhindered by an overwhelming allegiance to religious rituals.

Many theologians have attempted to illuminate the proper balance between what Christ has already done, and what he calls His church to continue doing. In attempting to find the balance between detachment from the world in order to safeguard against an erosion of spirituality, and an evangelistic engagement with the world, some have landed too far on either end of the pendulum. Knight writes,

Protestants especially have, at times, struggled to articulate the significance of the daily ‘work’ of Christian life alongside the decisive and finished work of Christ. Questions of divine and human agency, formation and practice all recur here, no matter how far they had receded before the polemics of justification against a latent ‘pelagianism’, and failure to attend to the gap between salvation as divine act and as daily passage can unwittingly tend toward cheapened grace, static spirituality and threadbare accounts of sanctification.[2]

Bonhoeffer sought to integrate the variety of focal points present within Protestantism. For Bonheoffer this was not an, ‘either or’ ideology, but a ‘both and’ philosophy. In outlining this religionless Christianity, Bonhoeffer was seeking to remove the weight of unnecessary dogma, if it presented itself, in order to present Christ to the world. Olson notes, “He rejected as unfaithful to the gospel any striving for detached, disengaged piety that viewed Christians as above or better than the rest of humanity.”[3] Therefore in Knight’s analysis of how Bonhoeffer addressed the issue of the inward and outward balance each Christian needs to possess, he writes, “Bonhoeffer’s advocacy of a committed and distinctive form of Christian piety…required the discipline of prayer, confession, worship, and the regular study of the Bible within the fellowship of the church. Yet…the ecclesial formation of the Christian was oriented toward the world.”[4]

Bonhoeffer sought to reattach a detached church from a secular world in a tangible way, which was reeling from the effects of war and Nazism. His writings, with such a high Christology, reflect his devotion to the Christian message and highlight the potential of the church’s impact on society. On June 19, 1932, Bonhoeffer preached a sermon in which he said:

You may suspect that those who are constantly seeking things above may lose contact with the ground under their feet. ‘If he reaches up and raises his head to touch the stars, then his unsure feet will have no foothold, and he will be the plaything of clouds and wind.’ No matter how the individual feels about it, human society suspects with good reason that people with their heads in the clouds like that might be useless extra mouths to feed, instead of using burning hearts and a strong arm to create order and progress here on earth, that they would dream of a better afterlife and would be unfit for the great revolutionary action that each generation must take, smashing old tablets and setting up new and better ones.[5]

It has been said that sometimes a Christian can be so heavenly-minded that he is no earthly good. Bonhoeffer sought to reduce that possibility by calling for the Christian not to get stuck in the clouds, but to be present amongst the people.

Bonhoeffer’s Relevance in a Postmodern Society

Olson writes, “According to Lyotard, postmodernism is “incredulity towards meta-narratives.”[6] Although Bonhoeffer was addressing the influence of modernity and secularism prevalent in his day, his theology is abundantly relevant in the present postmodern culture. Perhaps being overwhelmed with the range of opinions presented as well as the various mediums through which people view those opinions and ideologies (i.e. television, YouTube, social media, etc.), many have become numb to the idea of truth. It is also possible that many are not able to separate the propositions contained within a particular worldview with the actions of the practitioners of that worldview. With regards to Christianity it is sadly a fact that, at times Christians behave in a less than Christ-like manner. However, this should not dissuade one from adopting the principles of Christianity or from coming to know the person of Jesus Christ in a salvific way. It seems then, that one primary manner through which the postmodern non-religious individual might come to know Jesus is through a relational engagement with someone who already knows Him. It is in this way that Bonhoeffer’s theology is extremely relevant to today’s theologians and to today’s church.

Regarding the issue of how the Christian today can attract her friend to know Jesus, in spite of her own shortcomings or the church more broadly, Bonhoeffer offers the following directive. He writes, “Strict exercise of self-control is an essential feature of the Christian’s life.”[7] It does matter how one lives. Words are often not heard until their truth-value is first felt. In other words, the Christian in a postmodern world needs to demonstrate, by way of love, service and devotion what it looks like and what cost he gladly accepts in his service to Christ. This will affirm to the non-Christian that Christianity is not another metanarrative to be thoughtlessly lumped in with the others. It is a lifestyle in relationship with the truth, and is therefore, the means through which the truth in love is manifested. Bonhoeffer goes on to say, “As brother stands by brother in distress, binding up his wounds and soothing his pain, so let us show our love towards our enemy. There is no deeper distress to be found in the world, no pain more bitter than our enemy’s. Nowhere is service more necessary or more blessed than when we serve our enemies.”[8] This is a Christian reality that is difficult to perfect, but that does not disavow the implications of his sentiment.

If one assumes that truth is relative, which is common in a postmodern world, this notion can only be proven false when an intellectual response is combined with an existential response. In other words, mere facts will often not be enough to convince a skeptic that he should alter his worldview. However, existential experience, which is lived in relationship with someone of another worldview, will often do more to shift the mind of one whose heart has been impacted by another individual. By engaging in all areas of influence within the society, the Christian can increase the truth-value of the Gospel message. Communication is not just verbal, but it is also visible. However, such engagement can pose a risk to a Christian, and it introduces the potential for frustration and heartbreak. No one knew this better than Bonhoeffer, who paid with his life by being hanged, after being accused of conspiring to kill Hitler. Krötke wrote,

Nevertheless, such an action remains a ‘venture’. It cannot ‘take cover’ beneath normalcy or a claim to legal legitimacy. A person who takes this risk upon himself no longer has any security in this world. Such a person is completely thrown back on trusting in the God who in this extraordinary situation has moved the person to stand up against a horrible status quo. For Bonhoeffer, such a risk becomes possible only by placing it into ‘the divine guidance of history.’[9]

Olson notes that postmodern theology “must be done in community. It cannot be an individual enterprise.”[10] Bonhoeffer produced a theology centered on engaging in community with those who are not subservient to the dictates of the church. Engagement precedes indoctrination. In this way Bonhoeffer’s theological emphasis provides tremendous guidance for how the Christian of today can speak, within the context of community, with the non-Christian when she experiences racism, sexism, classism or general despair. Likewise, the Christian can speak to the pain of one who is sick, grieving, loses a job or has been unable to break the bonds of sensuality. Once theology exits the lecture hall and enters the town hall, the Christian and thereby the Gospel will be welcomed to the table. Bonhoeffer writes, “Today we have villains and saints again, in public view…That evil appears in the form of light, of beneficence, of faithfulness, of renewal, that it appears in the form of historical necessity, of social justice, is for the commonsense observer a clear confirmation of its profound evilness.”[11] In other words, the ethicist cannot get out of his own way in trying to undermine the ethics of another man. This is very similar to the postmodern mindset, which often in its assertion refutes those very assertions. For example, to make the claim that there is no truth is in and of itself a claim to truth. Therefore, by making the claim, one refutes the essence of that very same claim and that whole proposition becomes meaningless.

There is truth, and in Christianity, truth is not simply professed in an ethereal sense, but as a person. Jesus is the truth and even the postmodern man must live within the realm of some certainties. Truth should always undergird those certainties and, Bonhoeffer provides a method through which even the most ardent skeptic can be introduced to the truth, which shatters his disbelief that the truth could ever be singular. Bonhoeffer illustrates this well in another sermon, where he said,

Then it says again, ‘but have not love, I am nothing.’ Insight, knowledge, truth without love is nothing – it is not even truth, for truth is God, and God is love. So truth without love is a lie; it is nothing. ‘Speaking the truth in love,’ says Paul in another letter [Eph. 4:15]. Truth just for oneself, truth spoken in enmity and hate is not truth but a lie, for truth brings us into God’s presence, and God is love. Truth is either the clarity of love, or it is nothing.[12]

References

[1] Nancy Duff, “Letters and Papers From Prison” Theology Today, Vol. 69, Issue 4 (Jan. 2013): 533.

[2] M. J. Knight, “Christ Existing in Ordinary: Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Sanctification.” International Journal of Systematic Theology, Vol. 16, Issue 4 (October 2014): 414.

[3] Olson, Journey of Modern Theology, 432.

[4] Knight, Christ Existing in Ordinary, 415.

[5] Isabel Best, The Collected Sermons of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 50.

[6] Olson, Journey of Modern Theology, 503.

[7] Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, 169.

[8] Ibid., 149.

[9] Wolf Krotke, Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Theologians for a Post-Christian World. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2019), 172.

[10] Olson, Journey of Modern Theology, 644.

[11] Clark Elliston, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Ethical Self. (Minneapolis, MI: Fortress Press, 2016), 12.

[12] Bonhoeffer, Sermons of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, 144.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Counter Culture Christian: Is There Truth in Religion? (DVD) by Frank Turek

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD) by Frank Turek

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

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (MP3 Set), (mp4 Download Set), and (DVD Set) 

Alex McElroy is an international speaker, apologist, leadership advisor, author of the book “Blueprint for Bible Basics” and writer for the blog “Relentless Pursuit of Purpose.” He is one of the founding Pastor’s of at Engage Community Church and formerly the Pastor of Education at New Life Covenant Southeast Church, led by Pastor John F. Hannah with 20,000 members. For over 14 years Alex has served in both youth and adult teaching ministries. Alex has also trained hundreds of teachers and ministers so they are equipped to deliver lessons in Biblical study, purpose, leadership, and Apologetics in order to maximize their effectiveness in and for the Kingdom of God. He is a firm believer that everyone is born on purpose with a purpose. He teaches people all over the world to find the purpose God has placed inside of them and to deliver it to the world.

/by