Theology and Christian Apologetics Archives - Page 44 of 96

How to Work through Doubt and Uncertainty

In the guide to Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement from JCGM, it defines uncertainty as meaning doubt. It specifically defines uncertainty of measurement as meaning doubt about the validity of the result of a measurement.

I recently presented at a technical conference on methods of computing measurement uncertainty and was thinking about the applicability of these concepts to other areas of knowledge. We don’t see doubt and uncertainty in science the same as we do in religion. In religion, it is often viewed as a bad thing. But in science, it is often viewed as a good thing. The reason for this is in scientific endeavors; you are trying to achieve an end result – knowledge. In the scientific community, when one realizes that there is uncertainty, that is not the end. You do not just drop everything and realize you can’t go anywhere. That would be antithetical to the human tour de force or spirit. No, when we arrive at some level of doubt or uncertainty, we create a new test, we develop new methods, we try harder, we think smarter. We realize that we want to know something and use our innovative and inventive mind to reach that goal. When we have spent that effort, we end up with more confidence and more certainty in our end goal – knowledge.

But in the religious community for some reason, we think that if we have doubt it is something unpardonable and we must stop doubting. So instead of taking some guidance from the thinking faculties that God gave us (reason), we take our guidance from the pre-enlightenment era. This is a cultural affliction in many believing groups and has caused many to fall away. I have seen it first-hand.

Why has religion not followed up with science in terms of how we behave and respond to uncertainty or doubt?
Why is it that we don’t see uncertainty or doubt in religion as a stepping stone to the next breakthrough in our lives?
Why do we not plunge forward with the resolve that investigating uncertainty and doubt will result in something better, something stronger, or something greater?

I think that this is from the sinful nature of man – slothfulness and fear.

I should note that the scientific community is far from perfect… I have seen this slothfulness and fear time and time again in the scientific community. I’ve seen organizations run tests with no uncertainty analysis and make decisions off faulty data. They didn’t address the doubt or rather uncertainty that they had their measurement. I’ve seen this go sour many times and cost corporations millions of dollars. It’s because people didn’t do the due diligence of finding out what their uncertainties really are. I get it. I really do. It’s difficult to be prudent. It takes a lot of effort to survey the weak points in our systems. Sometimes it takes great humility. It’s hard to put together one’s uncertainties and find out what and where you need to improve

However, I see clients that do the hard work of finding out where there are uncertainties are then address these areas of uncertainty. These corrective actions result in measurement and knowledge that has lower uncertainty and results in moving forward in confidence that they’re making the right decision for their product development. I think it’s time we do the same in the Christian church community.

To do this, we need communities that are able to open up and share the struggles that they’re going through in their relationship with God. It takes asking the hard personal questions.

Do I know the core concepts of Christianity? Write down a core Christian concept without consulting a guide. How did you do?
Can I defend my faith? Look up a common Atheist, Muslim, or Jewish attack on Christianity and answer it without consulting a guide. Afterward find a theological solution and learn it
Why do I think that Christ is God? Describe a historical fact that gives credence to the authenticity of Christ as God without consulting a guide
Are there emotional issues I have that prevent me from Evangelizing? Go and share Christ with someone. If you are too afraid, find out why. Ask why am I scared? Create one action step to work on that “why” and do it.
What emotional issues am I bringing into my faith? Take the survey howwelove.com to find any childhood links that shape how we love and receive love. Anxiety can also drive mad amounts of doubt. This and other mental illnesses can shape very impoverished views of God.
What distortions of Christianity do I believe? Think of our cultural Christianity that did not exist in 1st or 2nd century Christianity. Think of how our country’s wealth shapes our thinking. Are you in the 1% of the world? ~43% of Americans are ( data from ASEC data 2017-2018)
What habitual sins do I need to talk with someone about? Find a close friend, pastor, or counselor to confess and work through sins and emotional baggage.

That only happens in small groups and communities that are showing the love of God because it takes a lot of patience and love to work through other people’s issues (and our own). We need to work on these things if we want to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.”

Yes, it is difficult, but it’s totally worth it.

This week, ask yourself one of the questions above and ask a friend a question. You might be surprised.

Racism, Racial Reconciliation & The Gospel

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Carter Keller

In recent years, America has once again become susceptible to racial prejudice on a cultural scale. It is difficult, however, to determine how widespread racism is in the nation. Especially since those currently in the spotlight, politicians, media, cultural influencers, etc., are constantly making charges of racism at every turn. However, it is undeniable for all of us that, at least, racial suspicion has come back with a vengeance. Often we ask the questions of “How?” and “Why?” and go down rabbit trails of factors such as poverty, institutional racism, white privilege, etc. I am not interested in getting lost in the weeds. I am interested in the core issue, how to fix the core issue, and then moving on to fry bigger fish. I ask you to join me, and our first step, naturally, is to define racism. Once we have done so, we can then discuss the core issue which drives racism and how to solve it.

Racism is the idea where one person or people group is superior to another person or people group based solely on the fact they are a member of this particular group. When we “dig a little deeper,” (to borrow a phrase from Mama Odie), we learn racism is another spawn of a deeper problem: hatred. Hatred takes many forms, and racism is just another rotten incarnation. And yet, this is still not enough. Where does hatred come from? Why does hatred exist in any form?

Without going too far into another topic for another paper, it is undeniably clear God exists. No man can escape him. C.S Lewis presented one of the greatest arguments against atheism in human history when he wrote in The Case for Christianity;

“‎Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course, I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” (C.S Lewis; The Case for Christianity p. 32)

We are able to learn who this God is through the Bible. Among an infinite number of things, He is the Source of Life, Love, Truth, Good, and Peace. If one were to reject God, they reject everything about Him, including Life, Love, Truth, Good, and Peace. When one rejects Life, Love, Truth, Goodness, and Peace, the resulting world will be marked with Death, Hatred, Lies, Evil, and Chaos. Thousands of years ago, we rejected God in the Garden of Eden. Hatred came with sin, and sin separates us from God. When I drop a ball from the top of a building, it is only a natural consequence the ball will fall to the ground due to gravity. Just as falling is the natural consequence of gravity, death and hatred are the natural consequence of sin, as Scripture clearly states, “The wages of sin is death.” (Romans 6:23)

However, God did not want us to be slaves to such a fate! It is possible to be reconciled with God, as 2 Corinthians 5:20-21 states: “Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ since God is making his appeal through us. We plead on Christ’s behalf: “Be reconciled to God.” He made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us so that in him, we might become the righteousness of God.” God made a way through His Son, Jesus, as Scripture declares over and over again:

“For God loved the world in this way: He gave his one and only Son so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)
“A thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I have come so that they may have life and have it in abundance.” (John 10:10)
“Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me, even if he dies, will live.” (John 11:25)
“If you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9).

God wants us to be reconciled to Him in a perfect relationship with Him. God wants humanity to be saved from our fate of death and separation so we can live forever and abundantly with God. It is through faith in Jesus’ death on the cross and resurrection from the dead alone we can be saved. There is no other name under Heaven by which we may be saved, as God has also stated in His Scripture (Acts 4:12).

The Gospel, or Good News, is the truth which tells us we may be reconciled with God the way the Prodigal Son was reconciled with his father in the book of Luke, (Luke 15:11-32). So how, now, shall we live? Once we are reconciled with God, immediately, God indwells us as “temples” walking around the earth (1 Corinthians 6:19). Once we are reconciled with God, we are reconnected to God, and therefore we begin to live as such. Since God is the source of Life, Love, Truth, Good and Peace, in communion with Him, we begin to live our lives spreading Life, Love, Truth, Goodness, and Peace. Since God is love, we as believers and reconciled children who are saved by grace through faith must love our brothers and sisters, neighbors, and even enemies (1 John 4:7-21; Ephesians 2:8-9; Matthew 5:43-47). There is no room for hatred at the feet of Jesus, nor is there room for division at the foot of the Cross, for all of us equally have sinned against God (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:9-11; Romans 3:23).

When we are reconciled with God, we are reconciled with each other. This reconciliation is expressed in its fullness through our actions in fulfillment of Jesus’ words, “Love one another as I have loved you.” (John 13:34-35). And how did Jesus love us? By laying down His life for us. Sacrificing His life as a ransom for our souls in order that we may have His righteousness and perfection placed on us to fulfill His desire where we “may be perfect as [our] heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). There is no special love or any rituals we must perform to be reconciled to one particular group of people. The mission of the Church is to spread the Gospel concerning reconciliation with God (2 Corinthians 5:20-21). When we are reconciled to God, we are able to be reconciled to each other.

Racial reconciliation should not be a special category of reconciliation. Racism and all other forms of hatred are utterly defeated and crushed when we just love each other without any goals, agendas, and without making a point about the skin color of the people in the room. Believe it or not, if we are reaching out to a specific people group because they are a specific people group, (for example, if we engage with a community outreach program just to reach a neighborhood because it is predominantly African-American), this is simply compounding and multiplying the problem. You are still focused on the color of their skin and not on the state of their souls. You are still focused on achieving diversity when, by default, humanity is already diverse because no two people are alike. You are still focused on racial division, and by acknowledging there is something different about them, you are simply exacerbating the issue. Children only learn racism from those who teach about it, and only act as if there is division if others tell them division exists. We do not make “black” friends, or “white” friends, or “red” friends. We just make friends. If we say “blackness” or “whiteness” is a “part of who I am,” then we have misunderstood what God says when He calls us to abide in Him and find our identity in Him and nothing else (John 15:4-5; Exodus 20:3).

Christ did not call us to reconcile the races. He called the one race named Mankind to be reconciled to God, and then be reconciled to each other. If we simply live out the Gospel in our lives, racism will die, hatred will retreat, and Love will win the day. The Gospel of Jesus Christ and the child-like innocence which follows (as Jesus used when talking of how to enter the Kingdom of God) are the only real and lasting cures for racism and its root causes. The Church needs to stop focusing on race. Our primary job is not social justice reform on this side of Heaven, nor is it our job to pursue diversity as a goal to be achieved. Our job is to spread the Gospel to the corners of the Earth and pray the Holy Spirit would move in the hearts of the lost so they would repent and be reconciled to God through Christ. Our only desire should be to see as many people as possible be saved by the blood of Jesus, the Messiah, King of kings, Lord of lords, Prince of peace, the great I AM and Creator, and Sustainer of all things. All other messages, mantras, and ideals fall to the wayside, and they pale in comparison to the glory and freedom of Jesus of Nazareth, risen from the dead, and ascended at the right hand of God. Our priority is the Gospel, and we have no other. We must abandon racial reconciliation as the goal. We must recognize diversity already exists, and abandon the pursuit of what we already have attained. We must embrace our only true mission, the only reconciliation which truly matters in all of human history: the lost sheep with the Shepard, the lost souls to the Creator, and the sinners to the Savior.

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

“Character, not circumstances, makes the man.”

Booker T. Washington

“I know that my Redeemer lives. Thank God I love humanity; complexion doesn’t interest me one single bit.”

George Washington Carver

Scripture references are from the following sources:

2 Corinthians 5:20-21 – English Standard Version (ESV) The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. ESV® Text Edition: 2016. Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.

John 3:16 – Christian Standard Bible (CSB) The Christian Standard Bible. Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible® and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers, all rights reserved.

John 10:10 -Christian Standard Bible (CSB) The Christian Standard Bible. Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible® and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers, all rights reserved.

John 11:35 – Christian Standard Bible (CSB) The Christian Standard Bible. Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible® and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers, all rights reserved.

Romans 10:9 – Christian Standard Bible (CSB) The Christian Standard Bible. Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible® and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers, all rights reserved.

1 John 4:7-21 – Christian Standard Bible (CSB) The Christian Standard Bible. Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible® and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers, all rights reserved.

Romans 3:23 – New International Version (NIV)

Lewis, C.S. The Case for Christianity. Macmillan Company, 1942.

King, Jr., Dr. Martin Luther. Strength to Love. 1963.

Washington, Booker T., “Democracy and Education.” Institute of Arts and Sciences, 3o

September 1896, Brooklyn, NY. Address

The Washington Standard. “George Washington Carver: ‘Thank God I Love Humanity;

Complexion Doesn’t Interest Me One Single Bit.”.” The Washington Standard, 14

July 2016, thewashingtonstandard.com/george-washington-carver-thank-god-love-humanity-complexion-doesnt-interest-one-single-bit/

No, it’s not wrong to argue for God’s existence.

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

There are dozens of arguments for the existence of God. To rattle off just a few: there’s the moral argument, ontological, religious experience, miracles, consciousness, reason, desire, and the families of cosmological arguments and design arguments.

Some Christians say that while these arguments are good for building up the faithful, they’re useless for apologetics and evangelism. After all, we’re not trying to make generic theists. Even the demons believe in God, but that doesn’t give them a saving relationship with Him! (James 2:20) Apologists using these arguments in conversations or debates are barking up the wrong tree at best, and at worst, are being unfaithful to God.

To make the point, these critics will often point to the case of Antony Flew. Flew was a notable philosopher of religion who argued against the existence of God for decades. Near the end of his life, Flew changed his tune. He became a believer in God because of the philosophical and scientific arguments for God. He even wrote a book about it. Here’s a quote that sums up Flew’s conversion:

“I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. I believe that this universe’s intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half-century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science.” There is a God.

Flew’s turnabout sent shockwaves through academic circles and a lot of Christian apologists claimed it as a victory for scientific and philosophical apologetics.

Here’s the rub: Flew never became a Christian. He declared himself to be a deist. Deists, if you don’t know, reject direct revelation and miracles. If this is what successful apologetics looks like, then what’s the point?

Here’s the thing though — For every Antony Flew, you have dozens of people like me. Quick background story: During my teenage years, I was an atheist. But along the course of time, I gradually became convinced God existed. But I wasn’t satisfied with the idea of deism or a generic God. Why?

There are a couple of reasons for that: If God exists, it would be weird if God never communicated with us. And if God was going to communicate with us, he’s not probably going to do it only privately.

The problem with Deism and mysticism

Let’s think about it for a second: Why would a Supreme Being create intelligent beings with the ability for communication and then never speak to them? Not even a ”howdy”? Wouldn’t we expect this God to offer a few words of advice or the occasional helping hand? Deism might explain why there’s a cosmos, consciousness, or the moral law. But it doesn’t offer much of an explanation of God’s silence.

There’s also the problem of God speaking only through private revelation. Anyone could claim that God’s speaking to them, how do we parse that out and see who’s right? It would be spiritual anarchy.

As human beings, we all have the same basic needs and problems in life. It would make more practical sense for God to speak to us about these things publicly and collectively. An all-wise being would talk to us a way that anyone could access and understand. Scripture, or something like it, makes a lot of sense.

It’s this commonsense reasoning that led me to dig up a Bible and start reading. Even though I had issues with the idea of miracles at first, I eventually had an experience with the Holy Spirit and became a Christian. You might say this is just anecdotal, but I’m not the only person to make the jump from ‘generic theism’ to Christianity.

How Natural theology helped lead three former atheists to Jesus

A philosopher’s Journey

Ed Feser taught philosophy of religion for years as a college professor. After going through the arguments semester after semester, he eventually became a philosophical theist. Says Feser:

“I don’t know exactly when everything clicked. There was no single event, but a gradual transformation. As I taught and thought about the arguments for God’s existence, and in particular the cosmological argument, I went from thinking “These arguments are no good” to thinking “These arguments are a little better than they are given credit for” and then to “These arguments are actually kind of interesting.” Eventually, it hit me: “Oh my goodness, these arguments are right after all!” The Road From Atheism

Edward C. Feser is an American philosopher. He is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College in Pasadena, California

But that’s not where the story ends. Feser eventually became a Christian. He didn’t remain a mere philosophical theist. Not content merely knowing that the God of the philosophers existed, Feser continued his journey and eventually met Jesus.

A scientist’s story

Physicist Frank Tipler is another example of someone who became a Christian after looking at different proofs for God. While Feser was impressed with the philosophical reasons for the existence of God, Tipler became a believer based on the evidence from cosmology and physics, his specialty. While many atheists argue that science and reason will lead someone to reject faith, Tipler found the opposite was true. In the intro of his book The Physics of Immortality, he wrote:

“When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.”

Frank Tipler is a mathematical physicist and cosmologist, holding a joint appointment in the Departments of Mathematics and Physics at Tulane University.

So obviously Tipler didn’t stay in the camp of belief in a deistic or generic deity. His discovery left him wanting to know who this Creator and Designer was.

An Oxford Student’s testimony

I could multiply examples, but for the sake of space, I’ll offer just one more. Sarah-Irving Stonebraker is a history professor in Australia. In an article entitled, ‘How Oxford and Peter Singer Drove Me From Atheism to Jesus‘, Sarah outlines her journey.

“I grew up in Australia, in a loving, secular home, and arrived at Sydney University as a critic of “religion.” I didn’t need faith to ground my identity or my values. I knew from the age of eight that I wanted to study history at Cambridge and become a historian. My identity lay in academic achievement, and my secular humanism was based on self-evident truths…

After Cambridge, I was elected to a Junior Research Fellowship at Oxford. There, I attended three guest lectures by world-class philosopher and atheist public intellectual, Peter Singer. Singer recognized that philosophy faces a vexing problem in relation to the issue of human worth. The natural world yields no egalitarian picture of human capacities. What about the child whose disabilities or illness compromises her abilities to reason? Yet, without reference to some set of capacities as the basis of human worth, the intrinsic value of all human beings becomes an ungrounded assertion; a premise which needs to be agreed upon before any conversation can take place.

I remember leaving Singer’s lectures with a strange intellectual vertigo; I was committed to believing that universal human value was more than just a well-meaning conceit of liberalism. But I knew from my own research in the history of European empires and their encounters with indigenous cultures, that societies have always had different conceptions of human worth or lack thereof. The premise of human equality is not a self-evident truth: it is profoundly historically contingent. I began to realize that the implications of my atheism were incompatible with almost every value I held dear … One Sunday, shortly before my 28th birthday, I walked into a church for the first time as someone earnestly seeking God.

Before long I found myself overwhelmed. At last, I was fully known and seen and, I realized, unconditionally loved – perhaps I had a sense of relief from no longer running from God. A friend gave me C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity, and one night, after a couple months of attending church, I knelt in my closet in my apartment and asked Jesus to save me, and to become the Lord of my life”

Dr. Sarah Irving-Stonebraker is Senior Lecturer (in Australia, this is a tenured professor position) in Modern European History at Western Sydney University in Australia, where she teaches in the History and Political Thought major.

So after learning that God existed through the moral argument, Irving-Stonebraker didn’t stop there. She wasn’t content knowing that a generic God existed. The moral argument made her want to find just who this Moral Lawgiver is.

Arguing for God’s existence isn’t fruitless

So what’s my point?

While Antony Flew’s non-conversion might feel like a failure, there are many people like Feser, Tipler, Irving-Stonebraker, and myself who didn’t stop at generic theism. And the writer of Hebrews tells us that belief in God is a necessary precondition to pleasing God. (Hebrews 11:6) The next part is seeking Him. So when someone like William Lane Craig argues for the existence of God, they’re laying some foundational groundwork and we’re wrong to think little of that.

Once you become convinced God is real, then unless you’re apathetic, you’ll want to get to know him personally. And it’s not as if Craig or others like him stop after offering the arguments for God, they almost always then argue for the resurrection.

And as I said before, intuition and common sense tell us that if God exists, he’s not going to remain silent and stand aloof. And if he’s as smart as design arguments show, he’s going to communicate with us in an accessible way. God can and has used these arguments to get past someone’s intellectual hang-ups or blind spots and to take a step towards him. How could that possibly be a bad thing?

Yes, We Do Need to Put God in A Box

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

“You can’t put God in a box.” It’s a popular saying within the Christian community. And it seems reasonable to say. After all, God can do anything He wants to do. Who would question that? I submit that every thinking Christian should question that … because it’s not true. God’s character does put him in a box. And our failure to recognize that creates a false — and therefore dangerous — picture of God. There is a box God needs to be in. And his character defines it.

God Cannot Do Whatever He Wants

God cannot do whatever he wants to do. If you think that sounds sacrilegious, you first have to understand that God cannot do things that are contrary to his nature. Before we can determine if God can do anything he wants to do, we have to first understand what that nature is. There are several elements to God’s nature but here are a few to consider.

God is Logical

God made an orderly universe. He built the laws of logic into our world and made it predictable. This is why we can communicate with one another. It’s the reason we can use science to understand how the world works. If God made the universe that way, it means that he must also be logical. It means that logic is an extension of his character. And that means God cannot do illogical things.

He can’t make a square circle, a married bachelor, or “a rock so big he can’t lift it.” This is an important point to understand as it relates to the rest of his character traits.

God is Omnipotent

God is all-powerful. But having supreme power doesn’t mean God can do anything. It means he can do anything that power can do. Being immeasurably powerful is what allows God to do miracles or create a universe as immense and complex as the one we see around us. But power does not allow God to do illogical, sinful, hateful, or unjust things. That’s an important distinction to make.

God is Goodness

God is pure goodness. He is “the final standard of good and all that God is and does is worthy of approval.” Because he is good, God is willing and able to demonstrate love in all its forms through mercy, patience, and grace. God loves everything he created. And since human beings are the pinnacle of that creation, God loves humanity in a way that we are incapable of comprehending.

God is Just

Justice occurs when someone gets exactly what they deserve. This can be positive or negative. We know that good acts deserve a reward and evil acts deserve punishment. And we know this intuitively. No one had to teach this to us. Even little babies demonstrate that they know it. All of us inherently value — and seek — justice. God is the source and embodiment of that idea. His character demands it. And since his character is morally perfect, any act of rebellion against that moral perfection — no matter how small — deserves to be punished.

God is Eternal and Self-Existent

God is not the type of being who needs a cause for His existence. The fact that anything exists at all means there must be a permanent, unmovable foundation that sustains it. That’s God. He is the foundation of all being. This is why the question, “Who made God?” is such a silly one. God isn’t the type of thing that you make. He upholds all reality at every instant but does not need to be upheld himself.

God is Omnipresent

The fact that God upholds all reality at every instant means that he is present everywhere. Always. He is not limited by time or space. Don’t get this confused with the ideas that God is everything. That’s pantheism. God’s omnipresence means that he is present everywhere in his creation but also distinct from it.

Putting Them All Together

There are plenty of other character traits that theologians use to describe God. If you are interested in digging more deeply into these kinds of topics, I suggest investing in a book on Systematic Theology. But considering the definitions I’ve briefly mentioned here, I doubt that anyone who takes God seriously would find them to be controversial in themselves. Our problems arise when we forget that God exhibits all these character traits simultaneously. All facets of his nature have to work together. He can’t exercise one if it violates another.

Theological Inconsistencies

Focusing on one aspect of God while ignoring another invites us to accept a false view of him. And many Christians unwittingly do this all the time.

“God showed up!”

When they have an emotional experience in worship, it is common to hear some proclaim that “God showed up today!” But God doesn’t “show up” anywhere. He is always everywhere. Don’t confuse the issue. God doesn’t need our praise to show himself. We need to praise him to remind ourselves of our dependence on him.

“God is so good!”

This is a common refrain to hear from someone who has just received good news of some kind. And while it’s great to acknowledge God’s blessings, it’s wrong-thinking to acknowledge them only when things are going our way. God is good regardless of our personal circumstances. It’s easy to express our love for him when things are good. But it’s imperative that we do the same when things are bad.

“Where was God when …?”

On the flip side, we seem to think God has gone missing when catastrophes occur. We assume that God’s omnipotence means he can and should destroy evil forever. But God made the loving decision to create us as free-will beings. He willingly limits his own power to give us the freedom to choose to follow him. And that means that no matter how powerful he is, God has created a world that allows us to make bad choices. The moral evil we witness all around us depends on our actions, not on God’s absence.

“God is love”

This idea is absolutely true. But contrary to the claims of the universalists and inclusivists among us, God is not just love. The idea that “God is love” is true as far as it goes, but there is more to the story. Ultimate goodness and love are different ways of describing God’s moral perfection. Being pure love and goodness means he cannot sin and he cannot lie. And that means he cannot allow moral imperfection into his presence. When our actions violate his moral law, his justice requires that there be consequences for our decisions. God’s character won’t allow him to accept whatever moral choices we make. This is a reality that often gets ignored by those who insist that a loving God would never allow us to be separated from him. The fact that God loves us does not mean he condones anything we do.

The Box God Needs to Be In

These are just a few examples of how our failure to keep God in the proper box leads not only to theological inconsistencies but to a corrupted view of reality itself. That’s what I mean when I say that we have to put God in a box. It’s a box defined by the sum total of all the elements of his character. Isolating our favorite trait is a bad idea because it doesn’t tell the whole story. And, as is always the case, accepting bad ideas leads to bad real-world consequences.

It turns out that we better keep God in a box. And we better understand how that box is defined. It helps us avoid most of the silly, false, and even dangerous ideas that have become all too common among Christians these days. It’s not always an easy thing to do. But being clear-thinking Christian demands that we acknowledge that God puts himself in a box. And we would do well to keep him there.

The Gospel Authors Knew Palestinian Geography

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

By Ryan Leasure

We’re told by skeptics that eye-witnesses didn’t write the Gospels. Not only that, they say the authors wrote from distant lands like Rome, Egypt, Asia Minor, or Greece. They merely heard the stories of Jesus from others who heard the stories of Jesus from others who heard the stories of Jesus — much like the game telephone.

And as so often happens in the game of telephone, the stories got mixed up along the way. So by the time the writers penned the Gospels, they had a distorted view of Jesus, and thus we can’t know what the real Jesus said or did. Or so the argument goes.

But is that really what happened? A little thought experiment might help us answer this question. Pretend you were given the task of writing a biography on a traveling woman from Bolivia named Carla. Yet you weren’t allowed to visit Bolivia. Furthermore, you couldn’t use the internet, encyclopedias, or maps for research. Your resources would be a couple of Americans who had never met Carla themselves but had heard stories about her travels.

As you undertake this project, how accurately do you think you could convey the geography and landscape of her travels? Would you really be able to give precise locations and distances? Would you know which towns had higher or lower elevations? How accurately could you describe the bodies of water she encountered? Chances are, you’d make a lot of mistakes with these details.

Well, as we think about these so-called authors from distant lands, they wouldn’t have had access to sources that could give them specific details of the Israeli landscape. So as they wrote their stories about Jesus, we would expect them to make lots of geographic blunders, much like your story on Carla. But this isn’t what we find.

Geography of Towns and Regions

The Gospel writers display an incredible familiarity with Palestinian geography. And they don’t just get most of the geography right; they get it all right. This would be truly remarkable if they lived in faraway regions and had only heard of Jesus through secondary sources. But it would be expected for eye-witnesses who followed Jesus from town to town.

Consider this list of towns the Gospel writers mention:1

In total, the Gospel authors list twenty-six different towns. Some are prominent like Jerusalem, while others are obscure like Cana.

Not only do the Gospels include towns, they reference general regions as well. Consider this list:2

In total, the Gospels list thirteen different regions. Compare these lists with some of the apocryphal Gospels, which give us almost no geographical details.

The Gospel of Thomas, for example, mentions Judaea once and no other locations. The Gospel of Judas doesn’t even list a single location, and The Gospel of Philip names just Jerusalem, Nazareth, and Jordan.

Of course, the lack of geographical detail is to be expected in these apocryphal works. After all, non-eye-witnesses wrote them from distant regions some 150 years after Jesus. Naturally, people would have heard of Jerusalem (the capital of Israel), Nazareth (Jesus’ hometown), and Jordan (the river where Jesus was baptized). One wouldn’t need to be an eye-witness to have knowledge of these regions. But Cana, Bethany, and Salim? One would have to have special knowledge to know about these places.

Geography of Bodies of Water

Since the writers had an in-depth knowledge of the towns and regions, it should come as no surprise to learn they also knew about the bodies of water. Consider this list:3

It’s interesting to note the numerous references to “the Sea” of Galilee. For a body of water that’s a mere thirteen miles long, it’s odd that an Egyptian or Roman author would call it “the sea.” For them, the Mediterranean qualifies as a sea, not this tiny body of water that’s less than 1/300th the size of Lake Michigan.

Yet we would expect Galilean fishermen — who spent their entire careers on the body of water — to call it “the sea.” What’s even more interesting is that while the three Jewish authors of the Gospels refer to it as “the sea,” the one non-Jewish author (Luke) does not. Instead, he refers to it as “the lake” (Lk. 5:1, 2; 8:22, 23, 33). This makes sense because from a broader gentile perspective, “lake” was a more accurate description.

The authors also know that Bethsaida and Capernaum are close by the Sea of Galilee and that you can go directly from the Sea of Galilee into the hill country. Furthermore, John knew of a small stream called the Kidron and of two pools in Jerusalem. One pool he describes as having five colonnades, which has been verified by archeological evidence. Again, all of these details would be quite remarkable coming from non-eye-witnesses in distant regions.

Geography of Roads

In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus tells the story of a man “going down” from Jerusalem (750 meters above sea level) to Jericho (250 meters below sea level). This was a descent of approximately one kilometer. The writer knew enough to know both Jerusalem and Jericho’s elevations. In fact, all four Gospels describe people “going up” to Jerusalem and “going down” as they left Jerusalem.

In John 2 and 4, leaving Cana (200 meters above sea level) for Capernaum (200 meters below sea level) is described as “going down.” Similarly, Luke describes the travel from Nazareth (350 meters above sea level) to Capernaum (200 meters below sea level) as “going down.”

More impressively, the authors knew the location of a tiny village called Chorazin. In Luke 10:13-15, Jesus chides Chorazin along with Bethsaida and Capernaum for their lack of belief. According to New Testament scholar Peter Williams,

The little-known village of Chorazin is, in fact, on the road to Bethsaida and just a couple of miles north of Capernaum. As far as we know, there was not a single literary source that could have provided this information to a Gospel author.4

The authors also knew that multiple routes existed between Judaea and Galilee — one to avoid Samaria and one right through it. Furthermore, they knew it was short travel from the small villages of Bethany and Bethphage to Jerusalem.

Who Could Know All These Geographical Details?

How could one get all of these obscure details correct? If it’s as the skeptics say, and non-eye-witnesses wrote these accounts from distant places, they got extremely lucky. A more reasonable conclusion, however, is that the writers received detailed information from eye-witnesses or were eye-witnesses themselves. As Peter Williams concludes,

No known sources hold together the particular set of information they (Gospel writers) have, and besides, we would have to suppose that they undertook a level of literary research quite unparalleled in ancient history. If these pieces of information result from hearing, then the reports they heard must have been fairly precise — concerned with stories not merely for their message but also for specific details. Thus it seems that the authors received the information either from their experience or from detailed hearing.5

*For more on this topic, check out Peter Williams’ book Can We Trust the Gospels?

I’m not a Jehovah’s Witness for the same reason I’m not a global warming alarmist

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Wintery Knight

In the summer, a couple of Jehovah’s Witness ladies were going door-to-door, and they stopped by my house while I was out mowing. I decided to talk to them. They asked me why I was an evangelical Protestant rather than a JW. Rather than go into a lot of theology about the Trinity and the Watchtower translation, I decided to just tell them about the false predictions their group has made.

So, let’s just quickly review that using this article from Watchman fellowship, which quotes JW publications:

Initially, the organization taught the “battle of the Great Day of God Almighty” (Armageddon) would end in 1914. Every kingdom of the world would be overthrown in 1914, which was “God’s date” not for the beginning but “for the end” of the time of trouble.

“…we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished by the end of A.D. 1914” (Watchtower founder, Charles Taze Russell, The Time is at Hand, p. 99).

“…the ‘battle of the great day of God Almighty’ (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth’s present rulership, is already commenced” (Ibid., p. 101).

“CAN IT BE DELAYED UNTIL 1914?… our readers are writing to know if there may not be a mistake in the 1914 date. They say that they do not see how present conditions can last so long under the strain. We see no reason for changing the figures – nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God’s dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble” (Watch Tower, 15 July 1894, p. 226).

Clearly, the world did not end in 1914, and it did not end at subsequent JW predictions, either, e.g., 1925, 1975.

So, as the title of the post says that I can’t be a global warming alarmist for the same reason, I can’t be a Jehovah’s Witness: failed predictions.

Here’s an excellent article from Daily Signal by famous black economist Walter Williams, who explains the connection:

As reported in The New York Times (Aug. 1969), Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich warned: “The trouble with almost all environmental problems is that by the time we have enough evidence to convince people, you’re dead. We must realize that unless we’re extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years.”

In 2000, David Viner, a senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia’s climate research unit, predicted that in a few years’ winter snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

In 2004, the U.S. Pentagon warned President George W. Bush that major European cities would be beneath rising seas. Britain will be plunged into a Siberian climate by 2020. In 2008, Al Gore predicted that the polar ice cap would be gone in a mere 10 years. A U.S. Department of Energy study led by the U.S. Navy predicted the Arctic Ocean would experience an ice-free summer by 2016.

In May 2014, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius declared during a joint appearance with Secretary of State John Kerry that “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.”

Peter Gunter, professor at North Texas State University, predicted in the spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness:

Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975, widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China, and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions. … By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.

Ecologist Kenneth Watt’s 1970 prediction was, “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000.” He added, “This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

Williams concludes:

Today’s wild predictions about climate doom are likely to be just as true as yesteryear’s. The major difference is today’s Americans are far more gullible and more likely to spend trillions fighting global warming. And the only result is that we’ll be much poorer and less free.

We have known for decades that the Earth’s temperatures were much warmer during the “Medieval Warming Period,” hundreds of years ago. But some people are just having irrational fears about overpopulation, resource shortages, etc. and so they will promote nonsense to try to scare people into doing what they want. World history is full of pious-sounding attention-seeking hoaxsters who try to scare the gullible masses into giving them money and/or power. It’s not new.

Ambassador at Work – Faith, Vocation, and Apologetics

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Mikel Del Rosario

How do people see you at work? I’ve been thinking about the relationship of your vocational work to spiritual conversations, especially as I reflect on collaborative events I’ve participated in over years, like the National Faith and Work Association Meeting. And here’s the thing: Our apologetic arguments aren’t heard in a vacuum. They’re wrapped in a special packaging called “your life.” In other words, our spiritual conversations are heard in the context of our who we are at work.

Think about it: We spend most of our time at work. And that’s where most of us interact with people who see Christianity differently. Each week, you have the opportunity to break down emotional barriers to the Gospel by the way you work and the way you treat people at work.

In this post, I’ll share two ways your time at work can begin to break down barriers to spiritual conversations with people you see the most. First, your work provides opportunities for building relationships. Second, your job provides opportunities to love your neighbors.

Real Relationships

Building relationships with your co-workers and clients is a great way to break down emotional barriers to spiritual conversations. Part of earning the right to be heard includes doing good work in our vocation. Again, our spiritual conversations, apologetic arguments, and evangelism don’t take place in a vacuum. They are wrapped up in the kind of person you are in the workplace. Walt Larimore, who wrote Workplace Grace along with Bill Peel, says:

“People tend to not want to hear what you say if you are sloppy at work.”

But it’s a lot more than job performance that counts. It’s how you treat people, too.

Neighborly Love

Honoring God with our life includes viewing our work as a ministry—a service to both God and neighbor. This goes beyond the things that we might do outside of our work responsibilities. Although praying for people or leading bible studies after office hours may honor God, we shouldn’t forget that our daily, professional work itself is also a part of our service to the Lord. I like how Greg Forster says that work is “how we serve our neighbors in our everyday activities,” and it “is one of the main ways we reflect the character of Christ” (Theology That Works, 10).

Both competence and character are important traits of a Christian ambassador at work. It’s no surprise that thoughtful acts of kindness—like sharing the recognition for corporate victories with our staff or verbally appreciating our coworkers for their contributions—can play an important part in representing the Gospel. The Lord is pleased by Christian ambassadors who do good, honest work while obeying the Second Greatest Commandant: to love our neighbors as ourselves.

Loving your neighbor often paves the way for open spiritual conversations. In a video series on Workplace Grace, Bill Peel explains:

“When actions and words go together in showing appreciation and respect and honor of the value in another person, that speaks volumes. Obviously, if a person doesn’t feel valued by us they’re not going to value what you believe or what you say.”

So, when someone realizes that we have their best in mind, they may find it easier to open the door to honest conversations about some of the most important things in life. As ambassadors, we must begin to develop a biblical perspective on our work. One of the results of doing so is a better witness for Christ at our places of employment.

At the end of the day, our spiritual conversations are always heard in the context of our lives, including our lives at work. As Christian ambassadors, we need to see the value God sees in our work and the opportunities he’s has placed for us to represent Him well in our places of employment.

Take this week to intentionally build relationships with your coworkers, supervisors, customers, and clients, genuinely loving them through your work. By God’s grace, these simple acts of kindness can help open the door to spiritual conversations and even break down emotional barriers to the Gospel.

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

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/35ver66

October 23, 2019/by Guest

Clearing Up Cosmos: Fact and Fiction in Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Landmark Series

2. Does God Exist?, Atheism, Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Terrell Clemmons

Douglas Ell became an atheist as a youth because of misinformation handed down to him in the name of science. It took him thirty years “to climb out of the atheist hole.” Sadly, Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, the 2014 series brought to you by Neil deGrasse Tyson, Family Guy’s Seth MacFarlane, and a host of like-minded celebrity atheists, served up thirteen dazzling episodes containing similar misinformation. The series mixed, quoting Jay W. Richards, “one-part illuminating discussion of scientific discoveries, one part fanciful, highly speculative narrative, and one-part rigid ideology disguised as the assured results of scientific research.”

If you like science—science done well, that is—you’ll find invaluable help making sense out of Cosmos with The Unofficial Guide to Cosmos: Fact and Fiction in Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Landmark Science Series, an easily readable volume co-authored by Ell, Richards, David Klinghoffer, and Casey Luskin. The Unofficial Guide to Cosmos sorts out, episode by episode, the legitimate science from the liberal doses of materialist philosophy, revised history, and brazen ideology the makers of the series have carelessly (or intentionally?) stirred into the mix. Here’s a sampling:

Materialist Philosophy. Without acknowledging it, Cosmos presupposes a priori the materialist worldview. This should come no surprise. But the makers deceive themselves if they think they’ve dispensed with the religious. Scientific thought, according to Tyson, is the “light” that has “set us free.” And discovering our “long lost cousins” (organisms with similar DNA sequences) can be a “spiritual experience.”

Science History. With respect to history, there are errors of commission, a deceptive retelling of the Giordano Bruno affair, for example, clearly designed to paint Christianity as a mortal enemy of science. And there are errors of omission, such as the utter desacralization of many revered fathers of science (Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, and more), who were men of open Christian piety.

Ideology. In later episodes, Tyson lectures viewers about a dire need to save the planet, and he casts climate dissenters, who are “in the grip of denial,” as either ignorant or evil—this against a backdrop of cheering Nazis, to round out the propaganda package.

An especially insidious error of omission involves the makers’ failure to even hint that a vigorous debate rages today among scientists. “Cosmos has done a wonderful job of recalling how old mistaken ideas were overturned—ideas about geocentrism, stellar composition, continental drift…and more,” writes Luskin. “However, these are all tales from the annals of scientific history. Cosmos presents current scientific thinking as if it were all correct, with everything figured out…Tyson never discusses evidence that challenges the prevailing evolutionary view.” This is inexcusable.

Even scientists sympathetic to the makers’ agenda have pointed out serious flaws. “Cosmos is a fantastic artifact of scientific myth making,” wrote science historian Joseph Martin of Michigan State University. Yet, he defends the series, including the myth making. Why? Luskin parses Martin’s defense: because Martin thinks it’s permissible to lie if the lie helps “promote greater public trust in science.” Martin calls this kind of useful lie a “taradiddle.”

Luskin furthermore puts his finger on the million-dollar question the thinking public should be asking: If the science academy is condoning telling us ‘taradiddles’ to curry our trust in science, why should we blindly trust them when they claim that only their “science” can explain the origin of life and the cosmos?

The Idea That Faith is Caught and Not Taught is False…and It’s Hurting the Next Generation

Apologetics for Parents, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Natasha Crain

As Christians, we have all kinds of pithy sayings that make their way through churches and establish themselves as generally accepted truths. Some end up on bumper stickers, some on wall decals, and some just get repeated so many times that people think they’re actually in the Bible.

There’s a popular one among parents that I keep hearing lately, and each time I hear it, I cringe. Not only is it false, but it’s particularly damaging to the discipleship of the next generation.

It’s the idea that “Faith is caught, not taught.”

When people say this, they’re usually trying to emphasize that faith is a matter of the heart, not a cold belief in a set of facts that someone has taught them. And of course, there’s truth to that sentiment. But nine times out of ten that someone relays this saying to me, there’s an implication that our kids’ spiritual development has little to do with the “intellectual stuff” of apologetics, but rather everything to do with how well we live our faith in front of them (apologetics is the study of why there’s good reason to believe Christianity is true).

This belief is desperately wrong. At best, it results in a passive approach to discipleship. At worst, it’s an excuse for intellectual laziness.

Let’s look at why.

First, we have to clearly understand what faith is.

Faith, in its most basic sense, is trust.

A blind faith is a trust that has little or no justification. For example, imagine that I claimed there’s an invisible unicorn living outside my house. When you ask me what reasons I have for that belief, I tell you, “I don’t need reasons. I just have faith.” In this case, I would be acknowledging that I hold a blind faith in my invisible unicorn—it’s a faith without reason.

At the other end of the faith, spectrum is a person trusting in something they have good reason to believe is true. For example, I’m willing to get on an airplane because I have faith that it will safely get me to where I need to be. I can’t be certain, but I know there is a good reason to place my trust in the process.

Importantly, this means that faith is not a way of knowing something. It’s how you respond to what you know. This is such an important distinction. Atheists often suggest that faith is inferior to science as a way of knowing about the world, but faith isn’t a way of knowing about the world at all. It’s trust that we place in Jesus in response to what we know about the world (and that knowledge comes from many sources).

In short, biblical faith is not blind faith. Biblical faith is trusting in what we have good reason to believe is true, based on the extensive evidence God has given us.

Now that we’ve established an accurate understanding of what faith is, we can see two major problems with the idea that “faith is caught, not taught.”

It emphasizes passing on our trust rather than the reasons for our trust.

If faith is trust, then what this saying effectively states is that our trust is something that should rub off on our kids as they see how we live our lives.

Our trust in Jesus may or may not rub off on our kids, but regardless, that shouldn’t be our primary goal in discipleship.

Instead, we need to pass on the good reasons that should lead to our kids’ trust in Jesus. Otherwise, they’re just borrowing our own trust without knowing the justification for it. That’s a faith that’s waiting to crumble as soon as it’s significantly challenged.

It’s worth a side note here that parents shouldn’t assume a well-lived Christian faith is even desirable to their kids. There are numerous kids who grow up in loving Christian homes, with parents who truly “walk the walk,” but abandon their faith. Why? Those kids might admire the sincerity of their parents’ convictions but feel no desire to “catch” that same faith because they don’t believe it’s built on good reason. Once again, this points back to the need to pass on the reasons for the hope we have (1 Peter 3:15), not simply our own trust.

A deep understanding of the reasons for faith is not something that’s simply “caught.”

Even if we restate the saying as “Reasons for faith are caught, not taught,” it still doesn’t work.

Here are just a few major concepts that will never be passively caught based on how you live out your Christian faith:

What objective evidence is there for the existence of God?

Do science and God contradict one another?

Can all religions point to the same truth?

What historical evidence is there for the resurrection?

Was Christianity copied from pagan religions?

How do we know that the Gospels are based on reliable eye witness testimony?

How do we know that the Bible we have today hasn’t been corrupted in the copying process over hundreds of years?

How can a good God permit so much evil and suffering?

Between my two books, I cover 70 of these critical questions that kids need to understand today. My new book, coming in March, focuses on 30 more questions specifically about Jesus (Talking with Your Kids about Jesus: 30 Conversations Every Christian Parent Must Have). That’s one hundred important questions kids need to understand given the challenges today…and that’s one hundred important questions they won’t grasp deeply just by watching how you live your faith.

These things are taught.

And the need to proactively teach is woven throughout Scripture:

“Only be careful, and watch yourselves closely so that you do not forget the things your eyes have seen or let them fade from your heart as long as you live. Teach them to your children and to their children after them” (Deuteronomy 4:9).

“…he commanded our ancestors to teach their children, so the next generation would know them, even the children yet to be born, and they, in turn, would tell their children” (Psalm 78:5-6).

“Listen, my son, to your father’s instruction and do not forsake your mother’s teaching” (Proverbs 1:8).

“Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4).

There’s good reason the Bible tells us to teach and train and not just keep walking with the Lord while kids look on. Those eyes can’t physically see all that needs to be mentally learned. And as long as Christian parents think all they need to do is model what it looks like to put their trust in Jesus, kids will keep struggling when challenged on the justification for such a life.

Does passing on an understanding of all the good reasons for faith means a child will necessarily follow Jesus? Not at all. But when we’re obedient in our calling to be teachers (not just walkers!), we can be confident that we have given our kids the opportunity to develop their own trust in Jesus and didn’t simply encourage them to borrow our convictions.

A borrowed faith is readily handed back.

What is Truth? A Description of the Nature of Truth in the Gospel of John

1. Does Truth Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

“What is truth?’ said Pilate” (John 18:38). This classic question was asked by Pilate to Jesus during Jesus’s trial. This question does not resonate with Pilate only. In fact, people throughout generations have asked the same. What is truth? What is the nature of truth? Can truth be known?

While Jesus did not answer Pilate’s question during his trial, the nature of truth was already taught in John’s Gospel in three ways. First, one must define what is meant by truth. Aletheia is the Greek term which is translated as truth. It describes something as it exists in reality. So, when Jesus or John describes truth, they are noting the reality of their point of reference. Thus, the term aletheia holds that truth exists and is knowable.

Second, Jesus describes the nature of truth throughout John’s Gospel. Jesus noted that anyone who lived by the truth, desiring to know what was real, would come into the light of God’s glory and his revelation so that his or her works would be shown to be accomplished by God (John 3:21). That is, a person living for the truth acknowledges God’s existence and desires to live for God. Jesus teaches that God desires people to worship him in spirit and truth (John 4:23). Jesus not only noted that truth exists and can be known, but he also taught that the truth brings freedom (John 8:32). Jesus contrasts the truthfulness of God from the lies of the devil (John 8:44). By doing so, Jesus acknowledges the laws of logic by pointing out that truth exists, that the opposite of truth is a lie, and that something cannot both be true and false. Jesus denotes that he is the exclusive way to God the Father because of him being the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). Jesus also teaches about the truthful nature of God’s Holy Spirit (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:7, 13). Jesus prays that the Father would sanctify, or set apart, his children by their devotion to God’s truth (John 17:17). Before Pilate’s epic philosophical question, Jesus had already noted that he came to “testify to the truth” (John 18:37, CSB) and that “Everyone who is of the truth listens to [his] voice” (John 18:37, CSB).

Third, John also acknowledges the existence of truth in his opening epilogue. When discussing the Logos (i.e., the “Word”), John notes how the Logos became flesh. That is, the Wisdom of God became a human being. As a disciple, John states that he was one of those who observed the glory of the incarnate Logos. He also stated that the Logos was sent from the Father and was full of “grace and truth” (John 1:14, CSB). John acknowledges that Jesus spoke the truth in all that he said and done. Furthermore, while Moses gave the law, grace and truth came from Jesus (John 1:17). In the Gospel’s postscript, either John or an editor of the Gospel noted that John was a witness to the events of Christ’s life and that his testimony is verified to be true.

So, what can we know about the truth from John’s Gospel? First, we find that truth does exist. Truth is not personal, but it is objective. Truth is what exists in reality. It is the way things really are and the way things operate. Truth is the opposite of a lie, and something cannot both be true and false. Finally, the Gospel of John notes that true leads to the reality of certain theological truths: 1) God’s existence, 2) a salvific relationship with God through Christ, and 3) redeeming and freeing aspects which bring about transformational living.

To answer Pilate’s question, truth is found in a transcendent, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent reality known as God. This God is the basis for all truth and all reality. For without God, nothing would exist that exists (John 1:3; Col. 1:16–18; Heb. 2:10).

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Scripture references are from the following sources:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The problem with Deism and mysticism

How Natural theology helped lead three former atheists to Jesus

A philosopher’s Journey

A scientist’s story

An Oxford Student’s testimony

Arguing for God’s existence isn’t fruitless

Recommended resources related to the topic:

God Cannot Do Whatever He Wants

God is Logical

God is Omnipotent

God is Goodness

God is Just

God is Eternal and Self-Existent

God is Omnipresent

Putting Them All Together

Theological Inconsistencies

“God showed up!”

“God is so good!”

“Where was God when …?”

“God is love”

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Geography of Towns and Regions

Geography of Bodies of Water

Geography of Roads

Who Could Know All These Geographical Details?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Real Relationships

Neighborly Love

Recommended resources related to the topic:

First, we have to clearly understand what faith is.

It emphasizes passing on our trust rather than the reasons for our trust.

A deep understanding of the reasons for faith is not something that’s simply “caught.”

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic: