Theology and Christian Apologetics Archives | CrossExamined.org

What do these questions have in common: Does God exist? Can God change? Does God know our future? How can a good God allow evil? How do humans know? What does it mean to know? What does it mean to be good? Can we objectively interpret the Bible? The answer: all of these questions are inherently philosophical.

With the recent decision by a very prominent evangelical institution to remove their philosophy department, why should anyone at all care about philosophy? Some would argue that Christians shouldn’t care about philosophy because, as Luther so colorfully put it, philosophy “is the devil’s whore.” In other words, man’s (autonomous) reason cannot be trusted. We only need to preach the gospel and not worry about worldly philosophy. Many in our culture argue that philosophy is mere opinion, worthless, impractical, and a waste of time. The study of philosophy is often seen as useless and a waste of a good education that could have otherwise been helpful in finding a good-paying job. Ironically, the reasons given for such positions are necessarily philosophical. Why? Because philosophy is unavoidable.

I personally found this out when I enrolled at Southern Evangelical Seminary in the fall of 2004. I initially enrolled at SES to study apologetics. I had no idea the impact philosophy would have on me. My first three courses were Intro to Apologetics, Old Testament Survey, and Hamartiology, and Soteriology (Sin and Salvation). None of these courses were inherently philosophical, at least so I thought. Dr. Tom Howe taught Old Testament Survey, and Dr. Norman Geisler taught the other two courses. As it turned out, all these courses were loaded with philosophy.

For example, Dr. Howe demonstrated the role philosophical presuppositions play in arguments marshalled against Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament). Such presuppositions were the product of rationalist thinkers like Descartes, Spinoza, and Hume. Dr. Geisler demonstrated the role philosophy plays in talking about the nature of truth, God’s existence, and miracles. He even showed how our philosophy of man determines our view of the soul and its relationship to the body (which is important for sin and salvation). Later, Dr. Howe demonstrated how integral philosophy is to hermeneutics (interpreting and understanding a text).

I found out that a philosophy course called Metaphysics (the study of being as such) was being offered in January of 2005. I asked Dr. Doug Potter, the SES Registrar if I should take that class. “Yes,” he said, “it’s the foundation of all that we do.” I really didn’t know what that meant, but I took it. As it turns out, from a philosophical standpoint, it really is the foundation for all that we do, whether in biblical studies, language studies, hermeneutics, etc. Philosophy really is unavoidable.

Is Bart Ehrman Right When He Says That Acts Contradicts Paul’s Letters?

4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

Agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman says, “the book of Acts in the New Testament contains historically unreliable information about the life and teachings of Paul.” In his book, Jesus, Interrupted Dr. Ehrman provides five examples of contradictions that exist between Paul’s letters and Acts.

Ehrman writes, “These are just a few of the discrepancies that one can find when one reads Acts horizontally against Paul’s letters. Many more can be discovered. What they show is that Acts cannot be relied upon for completely accurate detail when it describes the mission of the early apostles such as Paul.”

Since these contradictions are the five he handpicked for his book, he must feel like they’re some of the best. If the strongest examples aren’t even really contradictions, then that gives us a good reason to doubt Ehrman, not Luke.

After Paul’s Conversion, Did He Go Directly To Jerusalem To Confer With Those Who Were Apostles Set Before Him?

Leading off, Ehrman quotes Galatians 1:16-20: “I was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!)”

Ehrman then writes: “This emphatic statement that Paul is not lying should give us pause. He is completely clear. He did not consult with others after his conversion, did not see any of the apostles for three years, and even then, he did not see any except Cephas (Peter) and Jesus’ brother James. This makes the account found in the book of Acts very interesting indeed. For according to Acts 9, immediately after Paul converted he spent some time in Damascus “with the disciples”, and when he left the city, he headed directly to Jerusalem, where he met with the apostles of Jesus (Acts 9:19-30). On all counts, Acts seems to be at odds with Paul. Did he spend time with other Christians immediately (Acts) or not (Paul)?“

Let’s read Acts 9:23-25 thoughtfully for ourselves before we take a scholar’s word for it.

“When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night in order to kill him, but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket.“

Just how long of a period is ‘many days’? Looking elsewhere, we read that many days can be as long as 3 years! Take a look at 1 Kings 2:38-39: “And Shimei said to the king, “What you say is good; as my lord the king has said, so will your servant do.” So Shimei lived in Jerusalem many days. But it happened at the end of three years that two of Shimei’s servants ran away to Achish, son of Maacah, king of Gath…

So what about the journey to Arabia? Luke doesn’t mention it, but that doesn’t necessarily contradict Paul’s story in Galatians. This trip may have happened within Luke’s ‘many days’ in Acts 9:23, and Luke either didn’t know about it or didn’t mention it.

But let’s think about this for a moment. If Acts was written by someone with no access to the story of Paul’s conversion, why did he place it on the way to Damascus of all places? Damascus doesn’t even feature prominently in the rest of Acts.

But if Luke is using Galatians, he wouldn’t have put Damascus into his story while leaving out Paul’s trip to Arabia or to the passing of three years. Either Luke is carefully devious to include a small detail like Damascus while being a major blunderer at the same time by leaving out the trip to Arabia. Or, this casual correspondence about Damascus shows that Luke knew about Paul apart from his letter to the Galatians.

Did The Churches In Judea Know Paul?

Regarding Galatians 1:21-22, Ehrman writes: “Here again Paul is quite clear. Sometime after he converted, he went around to various churches in the regions of Syria and Cilicia, but he “was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea” (Galatians 1:21-22). This has struck some scholars as odd. According to the book of Acts, when Paul was earlier persecuting the churches in Christ, it was specifically the Christian churches in “Judea and Samaria” (Acts 8:1-3; 9:1-2). Why is it that Christians in the churches he had formerly persecuted didn’t know what he looked like? Wasn’t he physically present among them as their enemy earlier? According to Acts, yes, according to Paul, no.”

Acts 8:1-3 shows that Paul was persecuting the Jerusalem church, not the whole region of Judea. Acts 8:1 says that the believers in Jerusalem ‘were scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria.’

They very probably would have told the other Christians they met about Paul’s persecutions. That means the Judean Christians would’ve known Paul by his big, bad reputation but not necessarily by sight. This just isn’t all that hard to think through.

Did Paul Go To Athens Alone?

Here’s Ehrman again: “Luke again appears to have gotten some details wrong. When Paul writes his very first letter to the Thessalonians, he indicates that after he had brought them to faith and started a church among them, he traveled to Athens. But he felt concerned about the fledgling new church and so sent his companion Timothy back to see how the Thessalonians were doing. In other words, Timothy accompanied Paul to Athens and then returned to Thessalonica to help build them up in the faith (1 Thessalonians 3:1–2). The book of Acts, however, is equally clear. There we are told that after Paul established the church in Thessalonica, he and Silas and Timothy founded a church in the city of Boroea; the Christians there then “sent Paul away to the coast, but Silas and Timothy remained behind” (17:14–15). Paul proceeded to send instructions that Silas and Timothy should meet up with him when they could. He traveled to Athens alone and met up with his two companions only after leaving the city for Corinth (17:16–8:5). This is another discrepancy hard to resolve: either Timothy went to Athens with Paul (1 Thessalonians), or not (Acts).”

This so-called contradiction is pretty weak sauce. Let’s read 1 Thessalonians 3:1-2 for ourselves: “Therefore when we could bear it no longer, we were willing to be left behind at Athens alone, and we sent Timothy, our brother and God’s coworker in the gospel of Christ, to establish and exhort you in your faith.”

Paul doesn’t tell us how he arrived in Athens, all these verses say is that Timothy was with him in Athens at some point. It also suggests that Paul was in Athens for some time before he sent Timothy back. That’s why he writes, “when we could bear it no longer.”

Now let’s look at Acts 17:14-15. It reads, “Then the brothers immediately sent Paul off on his way to the sea, but Silas and Timothy remained there. Those who conducted Paul brought him as far as Athens, and after receiving a command for Silas and Timothy to come to him as soon as possible, they departed.”

The Book of Acts clearly reports that a word was sent back telling Timothy to join Paul as quickly as possible. 1 Thessalonians 3 says Timothy was in Athens shortly afterward. Um, where exactly is the contradiction here?

How Many Trips Did Paul Make To Jerusalem?

Here’s Bart again: “According to Paul’s account, [the Jerusalem council] was only the second time he had been to Jerusalem (Galatians 1:18; 2:1). According to Acts, it was his third, prolonged trip there (Acts 9, 11, 15). Once again, it appears that the author of Acts has confused some of Paul’s itinerary – possibly intentionally, for his own purposes.”

Here’s what Paul actually writes in Galatians: “Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.” And here is Galatians 2:1: “Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me.”

There’s debate among Pauline scholars about whether or not what’s described in Galatians 2 is the Jerusalem council that we read about in Acts 15. Bart seems to think this is the only possible interpretation. He could very well be correct that it is. But where exactly does Paul say that this was only his second visit?

Acts 11 says that between Paul’s two journeys, he did go to Jerusalem to bring aid to those harmed by the famine. But why would Paul have mentioned this trip to the Galatians? It had nothing to do with him meeting with the apostles about the Gospel message that he was preaching to the Gentiles.

I’m seeing little reason to think that Bart’s claim that Acts is unreliable is correct. But let’s give him one last shot.

Were The Congregations That Paul Established Made Up Of Both Jews And Gentiles?

Here’s Bart one last time: “According to the book of Acts, the answer is a clear yes. When Paul preaches in Thessalonica, Jews in the synagogue come to faith in Christ, as do non-Jewish Greeks (Acts 17:4). Paul indicates just the opposite. When he writes to this church in Thessalonica, he recalls how he converted them to faith in Christ and speaks of how they “turned to God from idols” (1 Thessalonians 1:9). Only pagans worshiped idols.”

Let’s again look at the actual texts in question. Here’s Acts 17:4: “And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.” And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women.”

And here’s 1 Thessalonians 1:9: “For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God.”

At first, it seems like Ehrman has a point, but there seems to be a bit over-reading going on here. Paul’s audience would understand that the ‘you’ that turned to God from idols is an exaggerated statement. In an epistle written to a group, Paul is referring to one portion of his audience rather than another. Paul tells the Corinthian church that “you are proud.” But he’s not referring to the entire church at Corinth as if they were all celebrating sin within the congregation! (1 Cor. 5:2)

As NT scholar Craig Keener points out, Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians has allusions to ideas that wouldn’t make sense to Gentiles lacking familiarity with Jewish eschatological thought. (1 Thessalonians 4:14-17) Paul also distinguishes believers from Gentiles, whose ways they shouldn’t copy, as if even the Gentile believers understand they’ve switched to a new lifestyle. (1 Thess 4:4-5) These points imply there where at least some Jewish believers in the church who could explain such elements to others.

Plus, when Acts says that Paul reasoned in the synagogues for three weeks, it doesn’t mean that Paul was only there for three weeks. You’ll see why that’s relevant in a moment. In her book Hidden in Plain View, Lydia McGrew points out that there’s a couple of interesting interlocking details in 1 Thessalonians that relate to these texts. In 1 Thessalonians 2:2, Paul says, “but though we had already suffered and been shamefully treated at Philippi, as you know, we had boldness in our God to declare to you the gospel of God in the midst of much conflict.”

We read in Acts 16:19-35 that Paul was mistreated in Philippi. He was beaten and put in jail even though Paul was a Roman citizen and wasn’t given a fair trial. Paul even had the officials from the city come and apologize to him and escort him out. According to Acts, where does Paul go next? Thessalonica. So this was all very fresh to Paul when he arrived there, and you can bet the Thessalonians heard all about it.

So while Luke focuses on the Jewish and God-fearing Greek converts, if he was just copying 1 Thessalonians, he would have made it clear that idol-worshipers were included in their number. And he would have made it more clear that Paul was in town long enough for the Thessalonians to know about his hard work ethic. (1 Thessalonians 2:9) It is interesting to note however that Paul reasoned with the Jews on the Sabbath, so he was probably working in the marketplace for the rest of the week, preaching the Gospel to whoever would have listened. (See Acts 17:17, 18:1-4.) I’m sure this would have included some idol worshipers.

Furthermore, Paul uncharacteristically rails against the Jews in his correspondence: “For you, brothers became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved—so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them at last!” (1 Thess 2:14-16)

Elsewhere Paul prays fervently for his unbelieving Jewish kinsmen. (Rom 10:1) So what gives here?

The Thessalonians would have known the answer to this, as Acts 17:5-9 describes that the Jews spread a rumor that Paul was preaching against Caesar. They sparked a riot with the help of ‘the rabble’ and ran him out of town. They then followed Paul into Berea and used the same harmful tactics there. But as we’ve seen, the book of Acts is independent of 1 Thessalonians, but these details dovetail nicely with each other. The Thessalonians wouldn’t need an explanation of Paul’s indignation, they had witnessed his trouble up close, and one of their own — Jason — was dragged into it.

This goes against Bart’s earlier complaint that Luke’s account and Paul’s letters don’t mesh well. They seem to go together just fine being while remaining independent of each other. Luke perfectly explains why Paul would have spoken so strongly against the Jews to the Thessalonians, as well as why he spoke of his mistreatment in Phillipi.

Conclusion

With Bart’s top 5 examples of contradictions between Paul’s letters and the book of Acts, we’ve seen that his negative case simply is unsubstantiated and fails to give us a reason to distrust Luke as some sort of unreliable, blundering historian who is unconcerned with accuracy. In fact, historians acknowledge that Luke gets many nitty-gritty historical details right about Paul’s journeys, as I list out here.

There is a good reason a renowned classicist like EM Blaiklock remarked that “for accuracy of detail, and for the evocation of atmosphere, Luke stands, in fact, with Thucydides. The Acts of the Apostles is not a shoddy product of pious imagining, but a trustworthy record.”

Systems Engineering in Nature

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Cathryn Buse

Before I had children, I worked as a systems engineer at NASA at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL. Through my career, I met a lot of brilliant scientists and engineers who were committed Christians. But I also encountered a lot of intellectual skepticism to Christianity, especially on the question of God’s existence.

The question of God’s existence is one of the most consistent challenges Christians face. How can we adequately answer that question, especially when the questioner is scientifically minded? One way is through the evidence of design, something known as the “teleological argument.” It simply means where there is design, planning, and order there must be a Designer, Planner, and Organizer behind it. Something designed cannot be explained by just a natural process or material cause; design requires intelligence.

So if there is design in the universe, then there must be a designer. But is there design in the universe?

Atheists say there is not. Before we can adequately answer that, we have to determine what would constitute something being “designed.” It isn’t just that a system looks complicated or has lots of parts. For something to be designed, it requires several well-matched, collocated, and integrated components in order to work, where it would not work if any one of those parts were removed. Something like that would need a designer with intelligence and forethought to select the right components, size them accordingly, and integrate them together so it could function – and ultimately survive and reproduce.

From my background, I like to refer to this as systems engineering in nature. Part of my job at NASA was reviewing the Ares I Upper Stage design to make sure each system would integrate correctly so the vehicle could actually get off the ground. I would be checking for things like if propulsion lines were placed too close to an electronics box because of the extreme cold temperatures of the liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. Or I would make sure the battery boxes were located near a human access point so they could be changed out at the launch pad. I would verify that a valve needing power from the launch tower had a connector on the umbilical plate. One of my favorite projects was making sure the vehicle could be shipped without being damaged. It needs covers, environmental controls, and other ground support equipment, especially since it ships horizontally but sits vertically on the launch pad.

As you can see, a NASA launch vehicle requires lots of systems engineering – and lots of intelligent design! Each system must be designed alongside the other systems so they will function together. If one system changes something, it may have devastating effects on the other systems. It must be a collaborative design effort. A launch vehicle won’t function if only one system is in place while the other systems are being built. The propulsion system must work with the design of the structure, the avionics and software, the thrust vector control system, and the engine. Remove any one component and the vehicle won’t get off the ground – or worse, will have a catastrophic failure.

So the launch vehicle needs all of these systems and their components to be functional and integrated all at the same time in order to work. A successful launch vehicle requires planning, order, and design; it requires intelligence – and many Designers.

Granted, a launch vehicle is obviously man-made. But is there something comparable in nature? If we can show a biological feature that requires systems engineering, then, like that launch vehicle, it could not have been formed by natural or material causes. It must be explained by some intelligent power behind it.

Luckily, you don’t have to be rocket scientist to find design in nature. We can find systems engineering in the interrelationships of the human body organ systems. For example, the circulatory system pumps oxygenated blood from the heart to the other parts of your body so they can do work. The blood stream then returns the oxygen-depleted blood back to the heart. But the circulatory system cannot distribute oxygenated blood by itself. It needs the respiratory system to get the oxygen. Tiny air sacs in the lungs, called alveoli, transfer oxygen from the lungs to the blood vessels. When the deoxygenated blood is returned, the blood cells transfer carbon dioxide and water, the waste products from the cell, back to the alveoli so it can be breathed out. The circulatory system, therefore, is quite useless without the respiratory system.

However, both of these systems are dependent on the nervous system. The hypothalamus section of the brain controls the body’s autonomic functions, life critical functions our body continually does without us thinking about them, like breathing and pumping your heart. Without this part of the brain and the network of nerves running from it through the spinal cord to the organs themselves, our circulatory and respiratory systems could not work.

The circulatory system also depends on the muscular system. The heart is a specific type of muscle made up of a specific cell type that allows it to contract and pump blood around the body. And it even depends on the skeletal system. The bone marrow produces the red and white blood cells and platelets that the heart is busy pumping around our bodies. Without the skeletal system, there would be no blood to pump.

Even the urinary system is necessary for the circulatory system to function. All of the body’s blood is circulated through the kidneys, where waste chemicals and excess water are filtered out. The kidneys then return clean blood back to the bloodstream. And there is even an interrelationship between the circulatory system and the endocrine system. Hormones from the adrenal gland can speed up your heart rate when it senses danger so you can run away quickly. Hormones from the pancreas are used to control blood sugar levels, which can be deadly if not maintained properly.

We know that everything in our body is dependent on blood flow, but it becomes clear that our blood flow is also dependent on everything else in the body! The human body is the epitome of systems engineering design. What does the body sound like? It sounds like that launch vehicle where the propulsion system needs the structural system, the avionics & software system, and the engine before it can ever get off the ground!

Now if the launch vehicle is missing a system, it fails to launch; we are delayed from resupplying astronauts or sending new missions to space until the design can be completed. But if a system is missing from the body, the body cannot live. All these body systems must show up at the same time, in the same place, fully functional and integrated for life to exist. And like the Ares I launch vehicle, its existence cannot be explained by a random, natural process. The human body has been uniquely and perfectly designed. And design requires a Designer.

Modern Pelagianism and Its Failure to Recognize the Power of God

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

Pelagius was a fifth-century British monk who caused a stir during his time. He denied the doctrine of original sin. As such, he believed that no one was truly impacted by sin, but rather chose to do evil rather than good by one’s own free will. Concerning salvation, Pelagius believed that Christ served as a salvific example. Therefore, God’s grace was not necessary to save a person, and neither was the atoning work of the cross. Rather, a person was saved by choosing God. Pelagius held to a doctrine that focused on man rather than God. A derivative of the doctrine is found in what is called semi-Pelagianism, the belief that God bestows grace after a person chooses God. Many have erroneously credited Wesleyanism and Arminianism as adhering to this viewpoint. Both John Wesley and Jacob Arminius believed that God’s grace first moved on a person before the person was given the opportunity to embrace or reject that grace. Semi-Pelagianism held that the person first chose God before God’s grace was granted. There is a nuanced difference between the two perspectives. While the nuance seems small, it holds major implications. Nonetheless, I digress.

Augustine of Hippo confronted Pelagius’s beliefs and noted that the grace of God was essential to overcome a person’s sinful inclinations. While still accepting the person’s freedom of the will, he noted that the grace of God was necessary to bring about a person’s salvation. Rather than emphasizing humanity as did Pelagius, Augustine rested the emphasis on God. In matters of trouble, God’s grace was needed. Augustine writes, “Therefore, also, does grace aid, good men, in the midst of present calamities, so that they are enabled to endure them with a constancy proportioned to their faith” (Augustine, City of God 22.22.4, 501). Even in matters of adopting a true philosophy, God’s grace was required. Augustine notes, “So that even those against whom we are disputing have been compelled to acknowledge, in some fashion, that the grace of God is necessary for the acquisition, not, indeed, of any philosophy, but of the true philosophy” (Augustine, City of God 22.22.4, 501). In Augustinian thought, God’s grace was necessary to overcome the sinful inclinations of human beings. As such, salvation was truly God’s gracious gift to humanity.

The Church recognized the errors of Pelagianism and condemned the view as heretical in 415 at the synod of Jerusalem. It is important to note that despite their differences, Augustine always treated Pelagius with the utmost respect, something from which modern believers could learn. (For a fuller treatment on the issue, see Wyatt Graham’s article “Augustine’s Surprising Treatment of Pelagius” at the Gospel Coalition. It can be found here)

Far too often, people think that they must do things or accomplish certain tasks to earn God’s favor. They think that their efforts politically, socially, or otherwise determine their standing with God, siding with the idea that a person must be x, y, or z to be a Christian. However, such thinking illustrates the adoption of a modern form of the Pelagian heresy. The apostle Paul reminds us, “For you are saved by grace through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God’s gift—not from works so that no one can boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared ahead of time for us to do” (Eph. 2:8–10). Relish in the grace that God has afforded to you. Allow that grace to shine in your life so that others can see Jesus in you. Finally, trust in God’s sovereign plan. For me, the latter is the most difficult, as faith does not come easy to this cynical mind.

Source

Augustine of Hippo. “The City of God.” In St. Augustine’s City of God and Christian Doctrine. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Volume Two. Edited by Philip Schaff. Translated by Marcus Dods. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887.

Postlude

Concerning human freedom, one example of Augustine’s acceptance of human freedom is found in the following quote.

“It is He who, when He foreknew that man would in his turn sin by abandoning God and breaking His law, did not deprive him of the power of free-will, because He at the same time foresaw what good He Himself would bring out of the evil, and how from this mortal race, deservedly and justly condemned, He would by His grace collect, as now He does, a people so numerous, that He thus fills up and repairs the blank made by the fallen angels, and that thus that beloved and heavenly city is not defrauded of the full number of its citizens, but perhaps may even rejoice in a still more overflowing population” (Augustine, City of God 22.1.2, 480).

What Best Explains The Desire for Moral Transformation?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Alex McElroy

The reality of a moral law as well as the implications of immoral decisions is all too apparent. History is rife with the fallout from moral disagreement and disengagement. Embedded within the realm of moral epistemology is the problem of evil. Not only does the problem of evil loom large, but also cannot be reduced to a unilateral issue. Feinberg writes, “There is a final respect in which there is no such thing as the problem of evil. In recent years, philosophers have distinguished between a logical form of the problem of evil and an evidential form. Problems about moral evil, natural evil, the quantity of evil, evil’s intensity, apparently gratuitous evil, animal pain, and the problem of hell can all be posed in either a logical or an evidential form.”[1] Both the Christian and the naturalist must attend to the multifaceted problem of evil. The question is who has more warrant for affirming and addressing the reality of some instance of moral evil? The ontological reality of what is morally right or wrong must be validated without gaps in the epistemic chain of how one comes to know what is truly right or wrong. Additionally, the viability of a worldview must be able to justify the moral facts, knowledge, transformation, and the rationality of morality, by which good and evil are evaluated. Naturalism is incapable of meeting this standard on all fronts but here the focus will be solely on moral transformation. It seems that Christian theism provides a more coherent explanation for achieving moral transformation than naturalism.

Moral Transformation

The Apostle John wrote, “Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is” (1 John 3:2, NKJV). The Apostle Paul wrote, “Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me” (Phil. 3:12). Scripture is rife with the notion that man is imperfect and in need of a process of perfection. This process is a felt reality by men and women of all worldviews. What is equally felt is the understanding that one cannot complete this process of perfection with the faculties present within himself. This is one of several problems with a naturalistic defense of moral transformation. Naturalism also fails to provide a target by which one could determine if transformation has been achieved. Finally, the deterministic nature of naturalism cannot sustain the mechanisms necessary for moral transformation.

Moral Telos

Not only does naturalism lack the means to ground a moral law, it cannot fulfill the desire one has to grow or become more moral. If transformation is the goal there must be a telos, or purpose. Whether transformation has taken place cannot be accurately assessed unless there is a target for one to aim at. Naturalism cannot tell a man where to direct his moral growth; therefore he never knows if he arrives. Baggett and Walls write, “Despite the prodigious efforts of some secularists to retain the category of a human telos, Daniel Dennett assumes that, on naturalism, all ultimate explanations must be mechanistic, so that the teleological, where it occurs, must be explained in mechanistic terms. This is potentially question-begging on his part, but it is also just where the theist would demur and reverse the order.”[2]

Without a goal, naturalistic moral transformation is reduced to moral pragmatism. A constantly shifting goalpost further impacts any process of moral transformation. What some people used to consider morally acceptable two hundred years ago (i.e. slavery) is no longer deemed morally acceptable. While this is a valid and life affirming change, it demonstrates that the moral code written by men and nations is anything but objective. This brings new life to the saying that you cannot hit a moving target. However, Christianity provides a static target and therefore a consistent and unchanging measure by which to judge one’s moral transformation. God Himself is the ontic point of reference for what one means by the term “good”. Therefore, to be more like Him becomes the goal achieved through a lifelong process of sanctification. Malachi 3:6 and Hebrews 13:8 affirm that God the Father and Jesus are unchanging and co-eternal. The Apostle Peter writes, “but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct,because it is written, ‘Be holy, for I am holy’” (1 Peter 1:15-16). Throughout Scripture, the reality of man’s imperfection is reiterated. However, just as often, the notion that man needs to engage in the lifelong process of submitting to the perfecting presence of God is repeated as well.

Removing God, as the ontic point of reference, by whom and to whom humanity is directed has severe implications. The atheist Friedrich Nietzsche who wrote the parable of the madman, where he proclaimed the “Death of God”, which is to say, the death of the idea of God captures this well. Entailed within this belief is the idea that God is no longer a necessary entity for the existence of a moral code. He wrote:

Where has God gone?’ he cried. “I shall tell you. We have killed him – you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left?[3]

Nietzsche recognized that removing God would remove all barriers, which previously contained man’s moral capabilities. Nietzsche asks, “Whither are we moving now?…Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left?” In other words, where does humanity find purpose and through what means can morality remain objective? Without a goal, the game becomes aimless. Therefore, moral transformation can never take place, because without an objective the quest for moral transformation becomes a moral hamster wheel. There is no way to affirm progress even if it does take place.

Means for Moral Transformation

Bertrand Russell wrote:

That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.[4]

The lovely portrait Russell paints notwithstanding, an “accidental collocation of atoms” does not provide the foundation for eventual appeals to objective morality. Accidents cannot produce intent. However, moral values and their counterparts remain steadfast in spite of any one individuals knowledge of them. Additionally, pure naturalism is also pure determinism. Libertarian free will is a necessary prerequisite for making moral decisions.

The free will necessary for human beings to make moral choices is well founded in Christian theism, but the deterministic components of naturalism do not provide an epistemically sound pathway for humans to arrive at moral transformation. Baggett and Walls write,

Meaningful agency is a central piece of the human puzzle, distinguishing us from both animals driven by instinct alone and automatons following their programming. Genuine free will requires, at a minimum, the sort of agency enabling morally significant decisions for which we can be properly ascribed blame or praise. In a naturalistic world, such freedom, we think, is hard to come by.[5]

Naturalism forces humans to rely purely on the aptitudes present within him or herself. What becomes clear as one progresses through life is that in order to achieve moral perfection one would need to have access to someone that exemplified such a standard and has the capability to endue her with the capacity not currently present within herself. Christianity posits such an individual in the person of Jesus Christ. Through faith in Christ, the Holy Spirit is deposited into the life of the Christian, thereby allowing him to be transformed into something that he is not. God does not lock humans into static states of deterministic behavior, but through free will allows individuals to acquiesce to His nature and moral standard. Christianity provides the means for moral transformation.

Conclusion

Most people can identify with the longing to be more moral than one was last year. Christianity provides a purpose for that longing as well as the means through which it may be achieved. Without God, this longing becomes very peculiar and even worth denying. For this reason, Christian theism provides a more coherent explanation for moral knowledge, facts and rationality, as well as for achieving moral transformation than naturalism. Lewis wrote, “If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.”[6] To this one could add, if moral transformation is the goal and no one in this world can achieve it of his or her own volition, then perhaps something or someone otherworldly is needed.

Notes

[1] John Feinberg, The Many Faces of Evil: Theological Systems and the Problems of Evil. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004), 24.

[2] David Baggett and Jerry Walls, God and Cosmos: Moral Truth and Human Meaning. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), 269.

[3] Friedrich Nietzsche (translated with commentary by Walter Kaufmann), The Gay Science: With a Prelude in Rhymes. (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1974), 181.

[4] Bertrand Russell, Mysticism and Logic. (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1917), pp. 47–48.

[5] Baggett, God and Cosmos, 277.

[6] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity. (New York, NY: Harper Collins, 1952), 136.

Do Your Spiritual Conversations Become Frustrating Arguments?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Mikel Del Rosario

We need to bring truth and love together in our apologetics

I once had lunch with actor and filmmaker named Alex Kendrick. He’s best-known for his movies like Fireproof, War Room, and Overcomer. Few people realize what undergirds his ethos of engagement. Afterwards, we recorded an episode of the Table Podcast called “Faith, Work, and Filmmaking,” where he explained how 1 Peter 3:15 became his life verse. He told me this story:

During college, I was talking to someone of the Baha’i faith. They believe there’s a number of ways to get to heaven…I found myself growing in frustration that he couldn’t see what I saw in the gospel. We began arguing and…we both left frustrated.

But the Lord convicted me…when I saw 1 Peter 3:15. “But in your heart, sanctify Christ as Lord.” In other words, set Him apart as more important than anything else. “Always be ready to give an answer to anyone that asks you of the hope that you have, but do this with a gentleness and respect.”

His experience isn’t rare. A lot of Christians aren’t sure how to show both truth and love when talking about faith. I’m a big advocate of seeing apologetics not as a debate but as a conversation. In fact, I wrote a variety of journal articles on dialogical apologetics with my mentor, Darrell Bock. This just means “what apologetics looks like in everyday conversations.”

In this post, let me just mention four guidelines for bringing truth and love together in your spiritual conversations: Engaging in conversational apologetics includes asking good questions, listening to understand, considering our character, and reflecting God’s heart in every encounter. These points came out of discussions we had with apologists like Stand to Reason President Greg Koukl and Staff Apologist Amy Hall.

1. Ask good questions

How can we lovingly begin spiritual conversations? Rather than rushing to explain the evidence for Christian truth claims, it is best to initially let the other person share their views. This allows you to better understand their spiritual concerns. What are their pains and longings? This helps you know how to better connect with them and build trust. On an episode of the Table called “Approaching Spiritual Conversations,” I sat down with Greg Koukl and Amy Hall to discuss how using questions can help you engage in a more personal way. Greg explained:

When I meet somebody… I’m not [immediately] thinking about getting to the gospel. My first step is to gather information…if I hear something that seems like an opportunity, I’m going to use my key question: “What do you mean by that?”

I saw a woman wearing a pentagram…I asked her, “Does that jewelry have religious significance?” Turns out, she was a witch. But she was happy to talk about her jewelry and her Wiccan convictions. How did I find out about that? I just asked a pleasant question about the thing: “What do you mean by that jewelry?” basically. Showing interest in people.

As they’re talking, I’m starting to get a spiritual topography…if there is an opportunity, now I have an idea of where I might go with my next question.

The challenging thing for many people is turning down their truth meter, because a lot of Christians will feel like, “Okay, they just said something I disagree with. Now I have to defend the entire contents of the Christian worldview because they have an opinion different than mine.” And this brings me to my next point: The importance of understanding the person.

2. Listen to Understand

After asking good questions, the next step is to actively listen to the answer with the desire to minister to the person. How did they come to hold their beliefs? Sometimes, we can miss out on the answers to our questions due to internal communication noise. This can include distracting thoughts or merely listening with the intent to refute challenges. My mentor, Darrell Bock, talks about what he calls “triphonics”:

Difficult conversations have three layers to them: There’s what you’re talking about. Then, there’s the filter through which you’re looking at what you’re talking about. And then, there’s the way your identity or your perception of yourself—what’s at stake in what I’m talking about—your perception of that. Oftentimes, people think they’re only talking about the top layer, and they don’t think about the other two layers. But the other two layers are driving what’s happening in the conversations. So, how do you move past the top layer and think about what’s underneath?

There’s a test that I run…[to] tell whether I’m in the right mode or not to advance the conversation: When the person is talking to me, am I paying attention to what they’re saying? Or am I thinking through my response? Usually, if I’m in a combative mode…then [I’ve defaulted to] rebuttal mode in terms of engaging with the person.

One helpful exercise is to repeat the person’s view back to them in order to insure that you are engaging fairly with their view. We need to develop an awareness of factors beyond the subject matter—including worldview filters and identity issues—which may be influencing the discussion. A patient, listening ear can do much to demonstrate courageous, yet compassionate engagement.

3. Consider Your Character

How should we respond when a difficult conversation gets tense? Peter writes, “For it is better to suffer for doing good, if God wills it than for doing evil” (1 Peter 3:17). We shouldn’t react with hostility. The character we display during spiritual conversations needs to match up with the fruit of the Spirit and the way Jesus himself suffered. Think about how your character plays a role in defending the faith. I really like what Amy and Greg told me on the show:

Amy Hall

Character is an apologetic because we are representing Christ. 1 Peter [2:9] says, “We were called so that we can proclaim the excellencies of Him who called us.” That’s sandwiched among behavioral commands and saying, “Prove yourself to be someone with good behavior so that they’ll glorify God” (1 Peter 2:12).

Our character represents Christ…we can show the gospel to them by responding in ways that they don’t deserve. Because that’s how God responded to us.

Every time they’re rude to us, and we respond with grace, we’re giving an apologetic for Jesus’ character that people need to see…[1 Peter 3:15, which says] to give a defense with gentleness and respect, begins with saying sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts. And that’s your obedience to Christ; that’s your character that begins this whole process.

When we respond to them, character is a huge part [of that]. We want to represent Christ; we want to be truthful; we want to be humble. We want to show all the things that make Christ great so they can see who He is…

The key thing you have to remember is the dignity of the human being you’re talking to…we’re speaking to someone who is made in the image of God, no matter how rude they’re being.

Greg Koukl

Proverbs [15:1] says, “A harsh word stirs up anger, but a gentle answer turns away wrath.” … You don’t want to be poking people in the eye in the way you’re communicating…

Here’s the deal: If I get mad, I’m gonna lose. What if I don’t get mad and they get mad. Well, then I’m still going to lose. If anybody gets mad, then we’re going to lose. That is, we are not going to be able to have the positive impact as ambassadors for Christ we want to have.

Sometimes, it’s not our fault; they get mad. It’s the message’s fault. And we have – we live with that. But we want to try to avoid anything that makes them unnecessarily angry. We want to maneuver in a way – with the kind of grace that’s appropriate to the message of grace that we’re communicating.

So true. Spiritual conversations aren’t very productive when either person gets angry. Rather than respond in anger, let’s reflect God’s heart and model a different way of relating to people who reject our message. When we demonstrate a Christ-like character, it could very well be the most effective way to overcome negative Christian stereotypes.

Think about the stereotype some people have that “Christian” equals “intolerant, homophobic bigot.” One way we can work to deflate this stereotype for the sake of the Christian message getting a hearing is to engage in such a way that if a person hears this charge against Christians, they might pause and say, “I don’t know about that. The Christians I know don’t seem like that to me at all.”

I always like to say that our apologetic arguments or explanations of the faith are not heard in a vacuum. They come in this wrapper called “your life.” A quiet confidence in the truth of Christianity and a character that matches Jesus’ example carries a persuasive force that just refuting arguments won’t match.

4. Reflect God’s Heart

We should reflect God’s heart for all people. This means presenting the Christian message as a positive one. One the one hand, there’s a tension between how the gospel challenges our beliefs and actions. On the other hand, it also includes an invitation to know and experience God in a personal way. Unfortunately, some people just emphasize what is wrong with society and end up minimizing our hope in Christ. Others want to talk about this hope as only a future thing, instead of something you can have in your life right now.

Christian hope should result in humble engagement and genuine love for the people we challenge with the gospel message. Reflecting God’s heart means engaging difficult spiritual conversations with gentleness and respect rather than with fear, anger, or resentment. Before entering a difficult spiritual conversation, ask God to help you reflect his heart as your minister to your conversation partner.

This was the example of Jesus. Peter wrote, “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit” (1 Peter 3:18). Indeed, God took the initiative to reach out to us before we embraced him or his message. Let’s navigate difficult spiritual conversations while remembering the gracious way God treated us.

The “How” of Apologetics Matters

Remember that conversation Alex Kendrick had with a Baha’i student during his college days? He told me: “I could articulate the faith, and I was ready to defend it, but there wasn’t the meekness or the gentleness the Scripture talks about.” He ended up communicating an attitude like, “You’re crazy because you don’t see my way.” This is a bad way to engage that seems easy to fall into. But today, Alex tells everyone that “truth and love should go together,” and he says, “now, I try to incorporate a very loving but truthful approach.”

We must help Christians understand what influences popular ideas about God, Jesus, and the Bible and equip them to engage the culture and defend the truth. At the same time, we must also help believers understand the importance of reflecting God’s loving character at all times. Our character in spiritual conversations should match the way God took the initiative to pursue us before we ever embraced him or his message. Engaging in conversational apologetics includes asking good questions, listening to understand, considering our character, and reflecting God’s heart in every encounter.

Is it Unbiblical to Argue for God?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Doug Potter

In my earliest days of attempting to do apologetics, I was confronted in the church with the objection that relying on philosophy, particularly arguments for the existence of God, was not only unwise, it was unbiblical. Upon inquiring why, they attempted to persuade by pointing me to the Apostle Paul, who seems to discourage the use of philosophy. In I Corinthians, Paul wrote:

And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified…and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men but on the power of God. (1 Corinthians 2:1-5)

Hence, well-meaning believers expected me to toss out my human arguments for God’s existence and focus on the truths of Scripture, even if we must just presuppose them to be true. At least then, they reasoned, you will have the confidence that the Holy Spirit’s power is in your teaching and gospel presentation. Furthermore, they thought it wise, like Paul, to avoid the weak human reason relied on by the so-called wise men of his day which are like the philosophers of our day. After all, he wrote in Colossians:

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. (Colossians 2:8)

Rhetorically these well-meaning believers asked, does that not close the case on using philosophy in ministry?

I have since learned, to the contrary, this often-spoken objection fails in three ways.

First, it not only misses the mark of correct biblical interpretation but approaches the kind of sophistry the apostle Paul was trying to avoid in Corinth. Second, it reveals an inadequate understanding of the Apostles’ overall apologetic method found in Scripture, which allows and anticipates the use of good philosophy. Third, it fails to see that while no one in the Bible gives a deductive argument for the existence of God, it does anticipate their use by providing reasons for the existence of God.

Biblical Interpretation

To properly understand any text, one must understand the context. For any ancient text that means learning about the history, culture, language, words, and grammar of the text. When it comes to the above passage in First Corinthians, just knowing the historical context fixes the above misinterpretation.

The apostle Paul arrived in Corinth in 49 BC, just after the Isthmian games had concluded. He would have observed a Roman colony steeped in the second sophistry movement (1^st Cent. AD). The first sophistry movement (5^th Cent. BC) grew out of classic Greek philosophy, relied on rhetoric, arguments of persuasion, effective communication, and regardless of success, at least considered the pursuit of truth a worthy endeavor. This first movement declined over the next three centuries. The second movement never revived what the first movement held dear and instead degenerated to persuasion to win admiration and disciples for their schools in hopes of taking down their competition.[1] The truth, for them, was irrelevant. Dio Chrysostom (c. 40 – c. 115 AD) arrived in Corinth about 40 years after Paul and observed:

So, when the time of the Isthmian games arrived, and everybody was at the Isthmus…That was the time when one could hear crowds of wretched sophists around Poseidon’s temple shouting and reviling one another, and their disciples, as they were called, fighting with one another, many writers reading aloud their stupid works, many poets reciting their poems while others applauded them, many jugglers showing their tricks, many fortunetellers interpreting fortunes, lawyers innumerable perverting judgment, and peddlers not a few peddling whatever they happened to have. (Discourses 8.5-10)

Paul was observant of the culture in which he reasoned and preached the gospel (Acts 17:22). He likely decided to lay aside his rhetorical skills and persuasiveness of speech (all of which he used in his letters) so as not to confuse the messenger and message with the “debaters of this age” (1 Corinthians 1:20). This way, he might be heard, the power of the gospel clear, and the signs of a true apostle (2 Corinthians 12:12) evident. In doing so, Paul in no way discounted or denied the existence of a good philosophy that allows arguments and persuasion to precede the truth of the gospel.

To suggest that Paul would permanently jettison good reason and argument is to approach the stupidity of the sophists of his day.

The passage from Colossians, likewise, has a context of dealing with some “one.” This is a term Paul uses for specific false teachers (Galatians 1:7) even though the false teacher is unnamed. Paul also is using the two parallel substantives “[the] philosophy and empty deception” which most likely suggests some close association between the words. Hence, Paul is not discounting all philosophy, but “philosophy” that is deceitful or runs counter to Christ. Indeed, Paul affirms earlier in this letter that in Christ is “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:3). Paul’s use of the term “philosophy” like others in his day, is broader (then it is used today) and can be applied to any system of thought including religion and division within.[2] Hence, Paul cannot be refereeing to all philosophy, but a philosophy from a false teacher that is according to the tradition of men which is against Christ. In other words, bad philosophy.

As C.S. Lewis persuasively preached in a 1939 sermon on the brink of a second world war: “To be ignorant and simple now — not to be able to meet the enemies on their own ground — would be to throw down our weapons, and the betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.”

The Apostle Paul’s Apologetic Method

Paul was a first-century apostle fixed on the proclamation of the gospel (1 Corinthians 2:2; 15:3-7). But such, many times was preceded or followed up by intense argumentation, reason, and evidence. Most who Paul met to preach the gospel either believed that there was one and only one God (the Jews) or believed there were many gods (the Greco-Roman Pagans). To the Jews he could appeal to the Hebrew Scripture to argue and reason from fulfilled prophecy that Jesus was the Christ and His appearances that proved the one true God raised him from the dead. Indeed, Acts is replete with descriptions of Paul’s defense (apologetic) of the gospel that involved “reasoning” (Acts 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8, 9; 26:23) and “persuasion” (Acts 17:4; 19:26; 18:24). To the Pagans he could appeal to creation as to why there was only one God and the claim of Christ to be the Son of God, his death, burial, and appearances as evidence and proof for the miracle of the resurrection (Acts 14:15-17; 17:22-34). Paul lays out in Romans his understanding of Pagans: why they know the true God from creation (not Scripture) but because of their sin have exchanged this truth for a lie:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened…Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator. (Romans 1:18-25)

Even though Paul held that Pagans had exchanged knowledge of the true God for a lie, he still appealed to the reason for the true God from creation (Acts 14:15-17; 17:22-34) before giving the gospel to them.

Biblical Reasons for the Existence of God

I read a book that said nowhere does the Bible give reasons for God’s existence. His existence is just assumed everywhere. While I agreed that there are no deductive arguments for God’s existence to be found in Scripture, I do not agree that the Bible merely assumes His existence everywhere. Indeed, the fact that the Bible and Jesus say creation had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; Mark 10:6), implicitly entails a cosmological reason for there to be a Beginner of Creation. The Psalmist poetically declares a teleological reason for God to be, “The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands” (Psalm 19:1f). And the apostle Paul implies a moral law Writer if every human has a “law written in their hearts” (Romans 2:14-15). Rhetorically I ask, does this not open the case to use reasons for God’s existence?

As shown above, the Apostle Paul does not negate the application of reason in philosophy. Therefore, such can be done in at least two ways. First, to use philosophy for proving the existence and nature of God. Second, to illustrate the consistency of revealed doctrines in Scripture and argue against false doctrine. Hence, human reason and evidence can support faith and the preaching of the gospel. No passage illustrates this better than First Peter 3:15:

Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense [apologetic] to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.

Luke explains to the faithful his method and reason for writing his Gospel,

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:2-4)

Indeed, we must acknowledge that faith is more certain than human reason when the authority is God himself since there is no higher authority. Hence, faith can be supported by reason and evidence, but it is never based on reason and evidence. As the professor, Norman Geisler, often taught, “apologetics can show that Christianity is true, but it can never be the basis for anyone to believe in Jesus Christ.” This must be left to the internal work of the Holy Spirit in a person’s life.

Hence, I agree that anywhere the Bible prohibits the use of philosophy, I will be the first to stop and obey. However, I am certain that the Bible nowhere prohibits Christians from using any valid and sound demonstration for God’s existence and any other truth that is evident to us or established apart from Scripture. As God not only inspired the Bible as His word, he also created the world, including rational human beings, who know, judge, and reason, and therefore can be persuaded by the truth. For anyone to limit you or me in ministry to the truth that is only found in the Bible, is to be cut off from all the truth God has revealed in and through and by creation.

Reference

[1] Bruce W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth (Eerdmans, 2001), chapter 2.

[2] Douglas J. Moo, The Letter to the Colossians and to Philemon (Eerdmans, 2008), 185f.

How Should The Church Engage Those With Same-Sex Attraction Or Gender Dysphoria?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

How should the church engage those who experience same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria? In response, I want to highlight seven basic principles that the church must embrace.

Affirm The Divine Image

Genesis 1 is clear that everyone, without qualification, is made in God’s’s image. That is to say; whether someone is attracted to the opposite sex or the same sex, they are equally image-bearers of God. The same goes for individuals who experience gender dysphoria. One’s’s feelings or attractions in no way mitigates against this universal status.

As Christians, we should enthusiastically embrace this truth. Nobody — not the government, the church, or anyone else — can bestow a higher status on each person than God already has. Moreover, not only did God create all people in his image, he thought so much of his people that he paid a steep price for their redemption by shedding his own blood for their sins.

Acknowledge Our Collective Sinfulness

While God created everything good, we all possess a sin nature because of the fall. David acknowledges that he inherited this sin nature from the time of his birth (Ps. 51:5). Romans 3:23, likewise, affirms that we have all sinned and fallen short of God’s glory. And lest we think we’re just a little sinful, Scripture paints a much gloomier picture than this. Sin pervades our entire being (Rom. 8:7-8).

One of the ramifications of our fallenness is that we have a tendency to minimize our own sins while maximizing the sins of others. Yet, Jesus clearly condemns this hypocrisy (Mt. 7:1-5). Instead, we must take a realistic assessment of our own hearts. And when we do, we realize that if it weren’t for the grace of God, we would all die in our sins.

All that to say, just because we may not experience homosexual or transgender temptations doesn’t mean that our sin isn’t just as wicked. Lusting after other women, harboring bitterness, lashing out in anger, and spreading gossip are all acts of rebellion against God. It’s’s unbiblical to treat others as if they have a log in their eye and pretend we only have a speck. When we do this, we’re being judgmental hypocrites.

Know Jesus’s Universal Expectation

Jesus preached “Repent and believe the gospel” (Mk. 1:15). To claim Christ as Lord, one must abide by these words. Unfortunately, many have watered down this message by excluding repentance.

Yet, Jesus never suggested that we could follow him without turning from our sins. Elsewhere, he states, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me” (Mk. 8:34). In other words, whether you self-identify as gay, transgender, or as straight, Jesus demands that you deny yourself daily. And the reason we are called to deny ourselves is because we don’t actually own ourselves. We belong to Jesus. Not only did he make us, he bought us with his blood.

The very message of repentance and denying oneself daily implies that ongoing temptations and struggles will persist throughout the Christian life. But the true sign of a Christian is that they recognize their temptations as contrary to the will of God, repent if they succumb to those temptations, and seek to obey Jesus moving forward.

Recognize That Holiness Is The Goal

First, Peter 1:16 states, “You shall be holy, for I (God) am holy.” Holiness is the calling for all believers. But this raises the question: “What does holiness look life for those with same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria?” Does holiness mean they will stop being attracted to members of the same sex or that their gender dysphoria will disappear?

I believe holiness can manifest itself in different ways for people with these struggles. One way is living a celibate lifestyle. British pastor Sam Allbery, and author of Is God Anti-Gay? Has chosen this path. Even though Allberry continues to experience same-sex attraction, he knows that pursuing those attractions would be sinful and so chooses to remain celibate. It’s noteworthy that Jesus indicated that celibacy was the only alternative to marriage (Mt. 19:10-12).

Others have chosen to marry persons of the opposite sex and start families despite ongoing same-sex attractions. Rebecca McLaughlin, author of Confronting Christianity, has chosen this path. In her book, Rebecca acknowledges she still experiences same-sex attractions but knows that pursuing those attractions would be disobedience. She even admits to still dealing with temptations towards members of the same sex. But she has chosen to deny herself to follow Jesus.

And sometimes, people stop being attracted to members of the same-sex altogether. We must acknowledge that this doesn’t happen in most cases, but for people like Rosaria Butterfield, it has. Rosaria details this transformation in her book Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Paul lists several lifestyles that will not inherit the kingdom of God — one of which was “men who practice homosexuality.” But in verse 11, he asserts, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ by the Spirit of our God.” I take this to mean that there were people in the Corinthian church who used to practice homosexuality but turned from that lifestyle upon conversion.

I don’t believe this means that the struggles and temptations completely go away. Anyone with a half-decent understanding of biblical theology knows that Christians continue to struggle as we await future glory (Rom. 8:20-23). This is certainly true of me. So we should have realistic expectations that those who experience same-sex attractions and gender dysphoria will often continue to struggle as they face temptations the rest of their lives.

Therefore, the goal for the same-sex attracted person isn’t that they become “straight.” The goal is that they be holy as God is holy. And we should have enough room in our understanding of sanctification to know that this will look different for different people.

Be People Of Love

One of the surest signs of a Christian is their love for others (Jn. 13:35). It is never appropriate for us to be condescending or harsh (Prov. 15:1). Unfortunately, many of us have really missed the mark on this one. While not all the criticism is fair, we haven’t always been known as people who demonstrate the love of Christ towards the LGBTQ community.

As we think about Christ, he was the most loving person to ever live. And we’re told that he was full of both grace and truth (Jn. 1:14). Biblical love perfectly balances these two.

We read in 1 Corinthians 13:6 that love “does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.” Therefore, it is not loving to affirm homosexuality or transgenderism in the same way that it’s not loving to affirm a woman’s anorexia and encourage her to get liposuction because she feels overweight. The loving thing to do is to gently speak the truth to her and remind her that her feelings are deceiving her. In the same way, Christians must speak the truth in love to those who experience same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria (Eph. 4:15). It is not loving to encourage a lifestyle that does not promote spiritual flourishing.

But while we speak the truth, we must do so with a spirit of gentleness. Paul reminds us in Galatians 6:1-2, “Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. . . . Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.” No one should beat anyone over the head with a Bible. No one should “come down hard” on another. Doing so contradicts the clear commands of Scripture.

Bearing one another’s burdens requires a great deal of empathy. It requires putting oneself in someone else’s shoes in an attempt to understand the challenges they face. It requires having conversations with those who experience different temptations than us and seeing that person as a fellow human being who bears God’s image.

And if we approach people with a spirit of gentleness, we will make it easier for them to share their struggles with us. Imagine how hard it must be for people to open up about their same-sex attraction when people in the church speak about their struggle so harshly. Empathizing doesn’t mean accepting sin. But it does mean being gentle. After all, Jesus was “gentle and lowly in heart” (Mt. 11:29).

Be Like Their Family

For many who experience same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria, celibacy may seem like the only real option for them. While God has changed people’s orientation, and while many have gotten married despite ongoing same-sex attraction, celibacy is the most realistic option for many. But with singleness, comes the fear of loneliness. And we must understand that loneliness is one of the greatest struggles single people deal with — same-sex attracted or not.

But this shouldn’t be. If the church lived out its mission, nobody would ever be lonely. Unfortunately, we have idolized the family with the minivan at the expense of our single brothers and sisters. This is wrong. The church should champion singleness. After all, Jesus himself was single. Paul champions singleness in 1 Corinthians 7. He goes so far as to say that singles are an incredible gift to the church.

Jesus declared in Mark 10:29-30, “Truly I tell you, no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much as this present age.”

Sam Allberry writes, “The gospel can be relationally costly. But it is also relationally generous. What we leave behind does not compare to what we receive back from Jesus.” ¹

As churches, we must do a better job of inviting singles into our families. No single should be alone on holidays. No single should eat Sunday lunches by themselves. If we say we want to help same-sex attracted people, we need to do everything we can to make sure they feel like they’re part of our family.

Find Our Identity In Christ

You’ll notice I haven’t labeled anyone as “gay” or “lesbian” in this blog series. Instead, I use the phrase “same-sex attracted.” It’s a bit tedious, but I want to make it clear that nobody is defined by their sexuality. This message, though, runs counter to our sexed-up culture. The culture says you are your sexuality. And that not expressing yourself sexually is unhealthy.

Of course, when we buy the narrative that our identity is wrapped up in our sexuality, then not embracing one’s sexual desires seems untenable. Celibacy seems so “old-fashioned.” But when we understand that our identity is rooted much deeper than our physical attractions, we realize that we don’t have to embrace those attractions to live a fulfilling life.

Our relationship with Christ supersedes everything. And because I am in Christ, and Christ is in me, then no matter what earthly relationships I experience, my identity remains unshakeable. Jesus is clear that our familial relationships will pass away in eternity (Mt. 22:30). But our relationship with Christ remains forever.

Concluding Thoughts

My hope is that God has used these articles in your life for good. If you’re someone who experiences same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria, I hope you will see that Jesus offers you so much more than this world has to offer. He is so much more fulfilling and satisfying than any earthly relationship. People will disappoint. Jesus will never let you down. I also hope you will see that your attractions or feelings don’t disqualify you from faithful Christianity. More important is how you respond to those feelings. And my prayer is that you will find a healthy local church that will be your family and encourage you in your daily walk with Jesus.

If you’re someone who agrees with me that God has designed marriage and sexuality to exist within a heterosexual marriage, I hope you will see there are good reasons for believing what you believe. I also hope that you’ll see yourself as a fellow sinner who daily relies on the grace of God.

Can We Know Anything for Sure?

1. Does Truth Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Doug Potter

The following is an excerpt for our Why Trust the God of the Bible? Ebook.

Many today fail to see the importance of grounding their reasoning process in reality in spite of the fact that whatever is not based on reality is un-reality, in other words, unreal. The slippery slope of subjectivism and relativism is the result of such “reasoning” manufactured in the imaginations of the mind rather than in reality, on Truth. This distinction is especially important for Christians who desire to share their reasonable faith. Sadly, subjectivism has crept its way into the church with the assumption that we do not need to defend our faith with reason; we only need the Bible.

Despite the claims of subjectivism and “blind” faith, one of the most fundamental observations anyone can make of physical reality is that it changes, and yet something about it remains the same. This observation is the first step in a complete apologetic for Christianity. What remains the same in this physical piece of reality is its essence. What changes are called accidental properties. We can observe anything in reality, natural or man-made, for example a real tree, and see that it changes over time—grows larger, develops branches, colorful leaves, etc.—and yet it remains the same tree such that it is distinguishable from all the other trees. Its change is accounted for by the principles of actuality (act) and potentiality (potency) that are present in all created things. Actuality is the existence of some thing. Potentiality accounts for the capacity of some thing to change or become other than what it is. Change could be substantial, in that I could destroy the tree, and it could no longer exist. Or it could be accidental, such as cutting off a limb. The change could be internal, such as its growing a new limb, or the change could be external if I cut the tree down.

Everything in the world that we experience is a composition of form (actuality)—or what something is—and matter (potentiality to change) that individuates the form to be this thing and not that thing. For example, a cat is a cat because of its form or catness (what it is), and its matter individuates it to be this cat as opposed to that cat. Matter, as used here, should not be equated with physical matter, and form should not be equated with the shape of something. Instead, these are principles found in things or substances. As already explained, there are things essential and accidental to a particular substance. Something essential cannot be removed without changing what it is. Something accidental could be otherwise and would not change what something is. For example, it is essential to the nature of a cat that it be an animal nature. If that is changed or removed somehow, it ceases to be a cat. But it is accidental if the size and color of the cat change. Despite the change, it stays a cat. Such a description is possible for every created thing, from the smallest subatomic particle to the largest galaxies.

We come to know reality in an act of existence, in other words, by its actual existence. This knowing relates to its form (essence) and its matter (potential to change). The form of something is related to its actuality. Again, form is what something is (i.e., an essence). For example, a cat has the form of catness, and a dog has the form of dogness. Matter is related to the individual potentiality (to change). It is that which individuates an essence to be this cat or that cat. The form of a substance is immaterial. The matter of a substance is what individuates the essence to be a particular thing that gives it extension in space, which is limited to its form. We can say a dog is not a cat because of their different form or essence. We can say this cat is not that cat because of their different matter or individuation of matter.

The Process of Knowing

The soul is the substantial form of the human body. The way in which we know something is by its form, which is united to matter. We know things via our five senses. Since the form of a substance is immaterial, it is able to enter our mind, and we are able to know the thing, know the form extracted (in our mind) from its matter, as it is in itself. Contrary to what some philosophers have proposed throughout history, the form that enters the mind is not a different substance or copy of the substance that comes to exist in the mind of the knower. Rather, the same form that is united with matter unites with the mind of the knower; in a sense, the knower and the thing known become one.

Once the form enters our minds, in an act of existence, our internal senses combine all the available external sensitive input. Our intellect is able to extract the universal catness, for example, from the particular cat. We are able to form mental images (phantasms) of particulars by using the internal senses combined with other intellective powers such as remembrance and the abstracted universal. We are able to make judgments and form concepts and ideas about the known thing. All of this and much more happens effortlessly, almost without awareness.

This process of knowing can be applied to sensible reality and to the interpretation of any text or spoken word. We come to know a written or spoken word the same way we come to know any other thing in sensible reality. First, the author or speaker has an idea. Meaning exists as form (immaterially) in the mind of the author/speaker. The author/speaker causes a text to exist by imposing form (meaning) upon language (combining it with matter) to create a text or spoken word in sensible reality. The speaker expresses his thought, then the mind of the reader or hearer extracts the form (meaning) from the text or spoken word in reality through the senses, and then the meaning is processed by the intellect. In this way, a reader or hearer is able to know the meaning that is in the text or spoken words.[1]

Why Is This Important?

All humans have the same nature/essence; therefore, all human intellects have the same basic capacities. Since the forms, in reality, are the same as what comes to exist in the human mind, what something is is determined by reality and not the knower. This is what we mean by truth. Truth is that which corresponds to its object, or, more specifically, truth is the conforming of the intellect to reality. Knowledge, meaning, and the intended purpose of all things are grounded in reality and are objectively verifiable. This explanation supports all human endeavors in the sciences and humanities and particularly makes Christian apologetics, theology, and ethics worthy endeavors.

This unity of existence between intellect and reality is the basis for the two extremely important great apologetic goals: to demonstrate the existence of God and to demonstrate the historical truth that God raised Jesus of Nazareth from the dead.

Reference

[1] For a fuller treatment of epistemology, consider Frederick Wilhelmsen’s Man’s Knowledge of Reality: An Introduction to Thomistic Epistemology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1956).

How to Build a More Discerning, Less Naïve, and Better Culturally Engaged Church

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Natasha Crain

In my last article, Christian Naivety is Harming the Church’s Engagement with Today’s Culture; I identified four ways that I’ve seen many Christians respond with naivety to calls for discernment in today’s world. At the end, I asked, “How do we fix this?” and said my answer would be the subject of my next article. This is that article. Since this is a follow-up, please be sure to read my last post before this one for context.

Let me start by saying that the title of this article is a rather sweeping proposition. Obviously, this is a single article, the issues are complex, and I’m not claiming that what I write here is a complete answer to all the problems we have. But I want to offer what I see as some key levers needed to drive change in how Christians engage with today’s culture.

In my years as a marketing executive, I came to deeply appreciate one particular model that people in the marketing field have used for over one hundred years (in various shapes and forms). It’s a simple funnel that describes the psychological stages people go through before committing to an action:

Though this originates in marketing, I’ve noticed many times in the last few years how this model applies to so much in the area of ministry as well. As such, I’m going to use it as a framework for my current subject. If we want to move more Christians to the bottom of the funnel—the action point of being more discerning, less naïve, and better culturally engaged—here are the key levers I see at the awareness, interest, and desire points leading there.

Grow awareness of worldview differences by addressing biblical illiteracy.

Every time there’s a heated discussion on social media about some issue of discernment (calling out sin, the intersection of morality and politics, etc.), you can count about 5 seconds before a Christian drops a comment reminding everyone involved that Jesus says not to judge.

Or that Christians just need to “love” people (however, the person defines that).

Nothing to me represents a bigger lack of biblical literacy than when people make those two culturally popular comments, completely lacking in context and understanding of what the Bible says on these subjects.

Now, if research showed that Christians read their Bibles consistently and deeply and we were still seeing pervasive comments that suggest a lack of understanding, I would be writing here about the need for more guidance in Bible study. Guidance is surely important too, but the research shows many Christians aren’t even reading the Bible in the first place.

A study by LifeWay Research, for example, found that only 45 percent of those who regularly attend church read the Bible more than once a week. Almost 1 in 5 churchgoers say they never read the Bible, and that’s about the same number who read it every day.

If a person doesn’t realize that their understanding of the Bible lacks appropriate context and depth, they end up navigating the stormy cultural waters in whatever way happens to make sense to them based on what they think the Bible says. Ironically, without an accurate biblical anchor, their Christian views get completely watered down by the cultural waves…and discernment no longer functions effectively. They’re less able to engage effectively with culture because they aren’t even fully aware of how a biblical and secular worldview really differ.

A less naïve, more discerning church must start with deeper biblical literacy. This should be a top priority for churches everywhere.

Grow interest in cultural engagement by addressing (lack of) conviction.

Even if a person gains a better understanding of what the Bible says on relevant cultural topics (the awareness I just addressed), it doesn’t mean they’ll be interested enough to become culturally engaged. There could be many reasons for that, but there’s one that’s especially problematic: a lack of conviction that Christianity is objectively (and exclusively) true.

Pew Research shows that 65 percent of Christians believe many religions can lead to eternal life. This, of course, is another example of pervasive biblical illiteracy; the Bible clearly claims that only through Jesus is there eternal life (see Chapter 7, “Did Jesus Teach That He’s the Only Way to God?” in Talking with Your Kids about Jesus for more on this). If a person believes that Christianity is one of many worldviews that ultimately leads to the same truth, they aren’t going to be all that interested in standing up for what they perceive to be just one of those so-called “truths.”

A church filled with Christians who lack conviction that Christianity is the one true worldview is a church filled with Christians who will never care enough to challenge a non-Christian culture.

This is why there’s a desperate need for apologetics in the church today (apologetics is the study of why there’s good reason to believe Christianity is true and how to defend the faith against various challenges). Christians need to understand: 1) the evidence for God’s existence (see chapters 1-6 in Talking with Your Kids about God); 2) why multiple religions cannot be true (see chapter 10 in Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side); 3) the evidence for the resurrection (i.e., the truth test for Christianity as the one true religion—see part 4 of Talking with Your Kids about Jesus); and 4) the evidence for the reliability of the Bible (see part 4 in Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side).

Knowing why there’s good reason to believe Christianity is objectively true—and why that truth makes an eternal difference—is a critically important step toward building a church that cares enough to stand for truth.

Grow desired or engagement by destigmatizing the relationship between politics and religion.

Let’s now say that we have a person who is aware of what the Bible says on today’s hot topics, and they’re interested in engaging culture because they’re convicted that the Bible offers the one true picture of reality.

That doesn’t mean they’ll actually do something.

Marketers are well aware that awareness and interest do not always lead to a strong desire to do something because there’s often some kind of barrier. There are a lot of barriers I could list here with respect to cultural engagement, but a major one I’ve seen is the prevailing stigma about mixing politics and religion.

Just saying the words “politics” and “religion” in the same sentence immediately puts people on the defensive. Unfortunately, many pastors and Christian leaders have emphasized a generic dichotomy between the two areas, and over time the stigma of mixing them has grown. Consequently, when important cultural concerns arise—such as the ideology of the Black Lives Matter organization (which I discussed in the last couple of posts)—many Christians automatically bucket those questions into the “don’t touch this” category of “politics and religion,” as if it’s their Christian duty to stay out of it. Meanwhile, people start burning Bibles as part of BLM protests, and Christians are surprised! If you paid attention to their underlying ideology in weeks leading up to this, it’s not surprising at all.

We need to be able to think in more nuanced ways about the interaction of politics and religion if we’re ever going to have a more culturally engaged church that isn’t taken by naive surprise as hostility to Christianity increases.

Here are a few quick things I think we should be able to all agree on:

While some “political” issues are worldview neutral (e.g., local zoning laws), many are not (e.g., abortion or religious freedom laws).
When we’re talking about issues where biblical morality conflicts with secular morality, someone’s morality will be legislated; legislation based on a secular worldview isn’t the “neutral” option.
Acknowledging that there are political issues that involve the moral direction of our country and that Christians should care enough to be engaged in such areas, is not the same as saying one political party or the other represents Christianity. It’s also not the same as saying that we’re looking to a political leader to be our savior, or that we think we’ll eventually build an earthly utopia. These are often the strawmen people try to knock down when claiming Christians shouldn’t mix their faith with politics.
There are also many political areas where Christians can legitimately disagree. For example, we should all agree that God cares for would-be immigrants, but we may have very different policy opinions on how best to process immigration in this country. Identifying where grey exists is important for maintaining charitable conversation among Christians while uniting on issues that should be more black-and-white for anyone with a Christian worldview.

In short, we need to quit ending culturally relevant conversations before they begin by perpetuating the idea that politics and religion shouldn’t mix. Of course, they should, in some cases.

In all three of these areas, there is much that any pastor could do in a church through sermons, groups, studies, initiatives, and more. But that doesn’t mean others can’t make a significant impact as well. For example, you can:

Use social media to share biblically-sound articles that educate others about cultural issues from a Christian worldview. (I do my best to share a variety of such articles from my author Facebook page—you can follow me there if you don’t already.)
Take the time to engage in a thoughtful dialog when you see Christians make comments online that lack biblical understanding. It’s worth the time even if the person you initially respond to doesn’t seem to appreciate it—remember that others are reading too. If a comment is best addressed privately, do it that way. But resist the urge to just be silent because that’s the easy thing to do.
Lead a Bible study (online or in person, through your church or on your own).
Lead a book study that addresses current cultural questions from a biblical worldview.
Start a group to learn apologetics. (If you’re interested in starting a group specifically for parents and grandparents, we give you all you need to get going with Grassroots Apologetics for Parents. You can start an in-person or online chapter!)
Encourage your pastor to address more of these questions in sermons.
Work with your church to invite subject matter experts to provide training. Many of these experts are currently offering training online. For example, the Life Training Institute a 4-day Zoom event next week that anyone can sign up for: How to Survive Being Pro-Life on Campus in a Cancel Culture. Many apologetics speakers are also offering remote sessions right now. The Center for Biblical Unity is offering trainings on a biblical approach to current racial questions. So much is available!
Commit to the serious discipleship of your kids. They are literally the future. Training them in the same ways I’ve mentioned here for adults is just as important.

With more discernment from biblical literacy, more interest from conviction, and more willingness to engage by removing the “politics vs. religion” barrier, we can shape a better culturally engaged church. Perhaps one of the positives that will come from the chaos of this year will be a wider recognition that these things are so desperately needed in the body of Christ.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

After Paul’s Conversion, Did He Go Directly To Jerusalem To Confer With Those Who Were Apostles Set Before Him?

Did The Churches In Judea Know Paul?

Did Paul Go To Athens Alone?

How Many Trips Did Paul Make To Jerusalem?

Were The Congregations That Paul Established Made Up Of Both Jews And Gentiles?

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Source

Postlude

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Moral Transformation

Moral Telos

Means for Moral Transformation

Conclusion

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

1. Ask good questions

2. Listen to Understand

3. Consider Your Character

4. Reflect God’s Heart

The “How” of Apologetics Matters

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Biblical Interpretation

The Apostle Paul’s Apologetic Method

Biblical Reasons for the Existence of God

Reference

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Affirm The Divine Image

Acknowledge Our Collective Sinfulness

Know Jesus’s Universal Expectation

Recognize That Holiness Is The Goal

Be People Of Love

Be Like Their Family

Find Our Identity In Christ

Concluding Thoughts

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Process of Knowing

Why Is This Important?

Reference

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Grow awareness of worldview differences by addressing biblical illiteracy.

Grow interest in cultural engagement by addressing (lack of) conviction.

Grow desired or engagement by destigmatizing the relationship between politics and religion.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

**Grow awareness of worldview differences by addressing biblical illiteracy.**

**Grow interest in cultural engagement by addressing (lack of) conviction.**

**Grow desired or engagement by destigmatizing the relationship between politics and religion.**