NO, THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES HAS NOT BEEN DEBUNKED (PT. 2)

No, The Argument from Miracles Has Not Been Debunked (Pt. 2)

,

By Erik Manning

Is the argument from miracles hopelessly fallacious? Stephen Woodford, AKA ‘Rationality Rules,’ believes so. In his popular YouTube video ‘The Argument From Miracles-Debunked’ Woodford says the argument from miracles commits four major fallacies.

In my last post, I looked at Woodford’s first two objections saw that they didn’t really hold up under scrutiny. I’d recommend giving it a read before continuing in this post. Go ahead; I’ll be right here when you get back.

Alright, now let’s turn to his final two objections and see if they do any better. Oh, and if you want to watch Rationality Rules’ video in full, here you go:

God of The Gaps? 

Here’s Stephen’s 3rd objection:

“a third fallacy that ravishes miraculous assertions – this question is, “how exactly can we distinguish a miracle from an unlikely natural occurrence that we are yet to comprehend?” It’s a very simple question, but it’s a brilliant one (if I do say so myself) – because it forces the proponent to bare their Burden of Proof rather than allowing them to shift it to you by appealing to ignorance. or they simply appeal to ignorance – then guess what – their assertion is unsubstantiated, and therefore their argument is too – meaning that it’s game over; no ifs, no buts, it’s over.”

What Stephen is saying here is the argument from miracles commits the God of the gaps fallacy. The popular atheist website Rational Wiki says the God of the gaps fallacy: “is a logical fallacy that occurs when believers invoke ‘Goddidit’ to account for some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument) explain. This concept resembles what systems theorists refer to as an “explanatory principle.” “God of the gaps” is a bad argument not only on logical grounds but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of “gaps” being filled and the remaining gaps for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting “we don’t know yet” as an alternative that works better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena always remain possible, especially in the future where research may uncover more information.”

There’s a problem with this line of argument, however. As I argued in my previous post, the resurrection of Jesus would strongly imply theism and critics would agree. This is exactly why they attack the evidence. For example, they’ll argue against the historicity of the empty tomb or claim that the disciples’ experienced hallucinations to explain the data.

Since most skeptics clearly get the implications for Jesus’ resurrection, it seems crazy for Woodford to agree with Christians that Jesus was resurrected, but then to say that someday science will have a natural explanation for such an event.

As Christian thinker Michael Jones notes, this kind of reasoning commits the “future humans of the gaps” fallacy. A future human of the gaps argument would say “I don’t know the answer to the evidence we have, but I know that intelligent people in the future will have an answer and that it will confirm my atheistic worldview.” This is just blind faith and question-begging to the extreme.

Furthermore, the argument from miracles isn’t just about plugging God into gaps in our understanding. It just depends on the evidence that we have.

For example, if I were to come home and my back door was kicked in, my house was trashed, and my TV and computer was missing, I’d call the cops. If the police came, assessed the evidence and then accused me of committing a “burglar of the gaps” argument, I wouldn’t accept that. No sane person would.

Some things are clearly caused by agents, and not impersonal, natural causes. If Jesus’ resurrection happened, that would count as one such event. This is why we have to look at the evidence we have and see what best explains the data. We can’t just shrug and say, “we don’t know, but future humans will figure out that it happened naturalistically.”

Are Miracle Stories Just Based On Personal Anecdotes and Appeals to Emotion? 

In the last part of the video, Stephen refers to fake faith healers. He claims that these miracles are just based on personal anecdotes and emotional experiences, and hence reasons that all miracle claims are like these examples.

These objections certainly could explain some so-called faith healings. That said, I’d recommend Woodford check out Dr. Craig Keener’s two-volume work on miracles and see if he still thinks all prayer-healing testimonies are fake. But let’s set that aside for now. If we don’t rule out miracles from the start, we could see if they pass some minimum, religiously-neutral criteria to see if they could be reasonably accepted:

  1. Are they reported from far, far away?
  2. Are they reported a long period of time after the alleged events?
  3. Do they fit the prejudices of those whom they are reported to?
    What happens when we look at the resurrection through this filter?

While there was a messianic expectation during Jesus’ time, no one expected the Messiah to be crucified and resurrected ahead of the general resurrection that was to occur at the end of time. Tom Wright belabors this point in great detail in his magnum opus, The Resurrection of the Son of God.

Not only that, this miracle didn’t pass without inspection. Jesus’ opponents could have produced a body, and yet we read in Matthew and in Justin Martyr that the story given to explain the empty tomb was the disciples’ stole the body. (Matthew 28:12-13, Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. 108) Moreover, the disciples preached the resurrection in the city where Jesus was killed, in front of a hostile audience, within weeks after his death.

For comparison, if you want to start a faith-healing cult, you’re not going to go to Mecca to do it. You might not make it past baggage claim. But the disciples’ risked their necks to proclaim what they believed they witnessed.

For these reasons Jeff Lowder, one of the founders of infidels.org, says: “I remember thinking to myself that if I took the time to investigate the resurrection, I could make anyone who believed it look like a fool. Or so I thought… I was about to discard it as ‘another illogical religious belief,’… yet I found it extremely difficult to deal with as a critic.”

So far from debunking the argument from miracles, I think Woodford’s charges of fallaciousness miss the mark. We can’t excuse ourselves from looking at the evidence for miracle claims; they have to be judged on a case by case basis.

 

Erik Manning is a former atheist turned Christian after an experience with the Holy Spirit. He’s a freelance baseball writer and digital marketing specialist who is passionate about the intersection of evangelism and apologetics.

/by
Responding to NY Times Article Saying the Concept of God is Incoherent

Responding to NY Times Article Saying the Concept of God is Incoherent

By J. Brian Huffling

In a NY Times article titled “A God Problem: Perfect. All-powerful. All-knowing. The idea of the deity most Westerners accept is actually not coherent,” Peter Atterton argues, well, that the concept of God is not coherent. Atterton describes God in the classical sense as his subtitle suggests. He argues that such a view of God is logically incoherent because assuming one attribute, a problem seemingly arises with the others. I will briefly summarize his arguments and respond to them, focusing on his arguments about omniscience.

Atterton’s Argument

Atterton wants to “first consider the attribute of omnipotence.” After considering the cliché question, “Can God make a rock bigger than he can move,” he points to the way Thomas Aquinas’ would answer this question, namely, that such a thing would be a contradiction and even God can’t do what is contradictory (such as making a square circle).

Atterton then moves to question whether it is contradictory for God to create a world in which there was no evil. He avers that it should be possible to do so. So why didn’t God do that? This is basically where he leaves it and moves on to God’s omniscience.

He states,

“Philosophically, this presents us with no less of a conundrum. Leaving aside the highly implausible idea that God knows all the facts in the universe [yes you read that right], no matter how trivial or useless (Saint Jerome thought it was beneath the dignity of God to concern Himself with such base questions as how many fleas are born or die every moment), if God knows all there is to know, then He knows at least as much as we know.”

Atterton believes that if God does, in fact, know what we know; this is a problem. This is the case because we know what lust and envy are; thus, God must know what lust and envy are. However, he says, “one cannot know lust and envy unless one has experienced them. But to have had feelings of lust and envy is to have sinned, in which case, God cannot be morally perfect.” Such can’t be the case, he claims, if God is morally perfect. So God does not know what we know. But then he is not omniscient, “and the concept of God is contradictory. God cannot be both omniscient and morally perfect. Hence, God could not exist.”

Atterton ends his article by referencing Blaise Pascal’s rejection of philosophy and taking God’s existence on faith alone. It is not clear to me from this article whether Atterton believes in the existence of God or whether he merely thinks that “the God of the philosophers” doesn’t exist or can’t be proven to exist. It is to the alleged incoherence that I wish to respond.

Response

Atterton does not make too much about God’s omnipotence other than casting doubt on it, so I’m going to focus on his objection to God’s knowledge, which is what he seems to think is a stronger point. My overall critique is that Atterton over-anthropomorphizes God. This is very typical of how people think of God. We usually think that because we do things a certain way, like know, then God must do them the same way too.

For Atterton, if God knows something, then the way in which he knows it must be similar, or the same, with how we know it. We know things passively through experience, such as a thing’s existence. For example, we know of a flea’s existence because we experience fleas and can sense them. We are creatures just like fleas. But should we think God knows in the same way as us?

Atterton references Aquinas regarding God’s omnipotence but doesn’t cite what Aquinas says about the way he believes God knows the world. This either betrays ignorance or negligence. Historically, classical theism (that teaches that God is all-knowing, powerful, etc.) has taught that God is impassible and yet all-knowing, infinite, and perfect. This means that God is not affected in any way, does not learn, for an infinite amount of knowledge cannot be added to, and he cannot gain in perfection.

It also means that God is not passive in his knowledge. As Aquinas teaches in Summa Theologiae part 1 question 14, God’s knowledge is not like ours. And why should it be, he’s not a limited, passible, changeable, material, temporal, finite, contingent human. Rather, he is the unlimited, impassible, unchangeable, immaterial, eternal, infinite, necessary Creator. How this detail escapes Atterton and others who over anthropomorphize God is nothing short of perplexing?

Rather than God’s knowledge being reactive and passive like ours, it is active and causative. We know imperfectly and through the effects of nature. God knows perfectly; not through effects, but through the cause of those effects. Such is surely a more perfect and complete knowledge. God does not have to “look at” something to know it as if the thing exists apart from God’s knowledge or sustaining power. God actively causes all things to exist and sustains those things for as long as they exist. So, contrary to Atterton and Saint Jerome, God not only has knowledge of seemingly trivial things like fleas, God upholds those fleas in existence as their cause of being. They, as contingent being, cannot account even for their own present existence without an efficient cause. God thus knows all of the universe simply by knowing himself as their cause.

Atterton’s “God” is more akin to a view of deism rather than classical theism. Many holds to such a view of God. This view of God that makes him dependent, passible, changeable, etc., sees God more as a creature rather than the Creator.

When it comes to imperfections such as lust, Atterton doesn’t even ask the question if it is possible for God to do such things. (He leaves the question of the incarnation of Jesus out of his discussion.) Rather, God must know lust since he knows what we do, and since we know lust, God must as well. However, we know lust through experience and because we have the capability to be imperfect. Lust is something that humans can do, which is imperfection. However, God is not human. Historically it has been held that such passions as lust are tied to a physical body. Since God does not have a physical body, he can’t lust. Further, lusting would require a change. If God is unchangeable and eternal, then he can’t lust. Further, such would require God to have the potency to lust; however, if such classical attributes of God as simplicity, then he has no potency to become anything other than he is. Finally, again, God does not know via experience, but by being the perfect cause of all contingent being. He thus knows his effects (i.e., the universe) by knowing himself as their perfect cause.

Rather than the concept of the classical view of God being incoherent, Atterton’s own view demonstrates either a complete lack of familiarity with classical theism or simply neglects to inform his readers of such views.

While Atterton’s attempt at killing the traditional concept of God is DOA, the God of the philosophers lives on.

 

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

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Oy0ShT

/by
What Every Apologist Needs to Know About 1 Peter 3:15

What Every Apologist Needs to Know About 1 Peter 3:15

By Mikel Del Rosario

Rules of Engagement

1 Peter 3 is about Apologetics and Cultural Engagement

What should our interactions with people look like as ambassadors of Jesus? Peter talks about both apologetics and cultural engagement in 1 Peter 3—the chapter where you find that famous apologetics memory verse, 1 Peter 3:15 (ESV):

But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.

We need to know what we believe and be prepared to respectfully explain our faith and the hope that we have in Jesus. Peter says this because our faith isn’t just about philosophical ideas. It’s about hope. What’s this hope about? It’s about how people can discover a loving relationship with the God who made everything that exists.

But even apologists can miss the context of this famous Bible verse. And it’s that context that shows us what our engagement should look like as ambassadors of Jesus. What every apologist needs to know about 1 Peter 3:15 is that it appears in a text that is not only about defending the faith. It’s also about the way God wants us to engage. In this post, I’ll share seven key lessons from this passage that should inform the way we operate as ambassadors of Jesus [1].

1. Expect Suffering and Blessing

Apologists talk about an objective standard of goodness, a moral “oughtness” that points us to God. In 1 Peter 3:13, Peter alludes to that outghtness—how the world should work. People should love each other, not hurt each other: “Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good?” Of course, people don’t always choose to do the right thing. That’s why Peter says, “But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed…” (14a).

That’s the first part of the lead-up to our famous apologetics verse—knowing that we’re going to suffer for doing the right thing as ambassadors of Jesus. Jesus was very real about this: “In the world, you will have tribulation” (John 16:33) and “If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you” (John 15:20). So the push-back comes with the territory. But we’re blessed anyway because God sees when we’re being faithful in the midst of the tension. And we care more about his approval than other people think. This idea goes back even to Psalm 1. You also see it in the outcome of Paul’s engagement with the people in Athens (Acts 17).

2. Have No Fear

The second part of the lead-up to our famous apologetics verse says, “Have no fear of them, nor be troubled” (14). People you follow on social media probably show you how troubled Christians respond to what’s going on in the public square. When we’re overwhelmed with fear, we can say things that aren’t helpful and are tough to take back. It’s easy to feel pressure when our faith is challenged. Still, we don’t need to be afraid if our hope and identity are linked to God’s sovereignty in this world[2].

3. Make a Defense

This is where 1 Peter 3:15 comes in. We need to be prepared to engage the culture, make the case for Christianity, and defend the faith. Our ultimate message is a positive one about our hope in Jesus. But there’s a tension between how the gospel challenges our beliefs and actions on the one hand, and the invitation to know and experience God on the other.

Unfortunately, sometimes the “hope” part gets lots in the “challenge” part. New apologists can tend to emphasize what is wrong with society or various belief systems to the virtual exclusion of our hope in Christ. Others seem to portray our hope as only a future thing rather than explaining how that hope can be present in our lives today. Let’s never lose the message of hope in the midst of defending the faith. After all, the faith we defend is good news. And yes, truth matters. But tone matters, too.

4. Be Gentle and Respectful

The rest of Peter’s command tells us how we must defend the faith: “with gentleness and respect.” Not with fear, anger, or resentment. Part of the evidence for our hope should be the way we engage—not like people who feel threatened or get all defensive. There’s a good kind of meekness and humility that goes along with actually loving the people we challenge with Christian truth claims. Before walking into a spiritual conversation, ask God to help you care about the person and minister to them.

5. Prepare to be Slandered

Paul goes on to say, “…having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame” (1 Peter 3:16). It’s no surprise that good behavior bolsters our case, while behaving badly undermines it. This is why holy living is key. Even when we engage with a clear conscience, though, we’re still going to get push-back. People don’t like to question their beliefs. But the challenge is an unavoidable part of our message. Still, the challenge should never drown out the very message of hope we are trying to defend. When they are rude to us, God sees it. When we respond with kindness, God sees it, too. And this is one reason we don’t need to be afraid.

6. Rise Above Evil

In verse 17, Paul says: “For it is better to suffer for doing good if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.” The character we display when we are being treated unfairly matters. Spiritual conversations aren’t very productive when either participant gets mad. Rather than harbor evil thoughts or respond in anger, Christian apologists must rise above evil and show a different way of relating to people who reject our message.

7. Follow Jesus’ Example

All of these lessons are based on the example Jesus gave us. Paul says, “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.” When we suffer, let’s suffer with Jesus’ example in mind. Don’t ever forget how God took the initiative to reach out to us while we had our backs turned to him. Even in this verse, Paul mentions the resurrection.

Conclusion

What every apologist needs to know about 1 Peter 3:15 is that it appears in a text that is not only about defending the faith. 1 Peter 3 is an important cultural engagement text, too. Let’s engage the culture, make the case for Christianity, and defend the faith while remembering the gracious way God treated us before we embraced him and his message.

Notes

[1] I’m indebted to my mentor, Darrell Bock, who helped me think through the context of 1 Peter 3:15 as it applies to dialogical apologetics and cultural engagement.

[2] And, in fact, in all possible worlds.

 

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/2YvQLd3

/by
What Biblical Books are Included in the Earliest Canonical Lists?

What Biblical Books are Included in the Earliest Canonical Lists?

By Ryan Leasure

There are two opposing ways to view the history of the canon. One would be to believe that the church, in its entirety, uniformly accepted all twenty-seven books of the New Testament as canonical from the very beginning. The other would be to suggest that the canon didn’t exist until an arbitrary church vote in the fourth or fifth century.

While either view might fit one’s preconceived agenda, the fact of the matter is that both views are terribly naive. The truth is, neither adequately deals with what history tells us.

I believe there’s a better, more balanced approach to the canon. It’s one that recognizes the canon’s development wasn’t as neat and tidy as some conservative scholars might think. Yet at the same time, it wasn’t a wild free-for-all like some other liberals suggest.

Instead, we find that the church affirmed a majority of the New Testament books at the beginning stages of Christianity. We might call these books the canonical core. Then as time progressed, the church, likewise, affirmed the peripheral books of the canon. To demonstrate this balanced approach, I want to highlight some of the early canonical lists from the first few centuries.

Irenaeus (AD 180)

While earlier church fathers quote New Testament books as Scripture, our first clear canon list comes from the Bishop of Lyons, Irenaeus. While he doesn’t include all twenty-seven books, Irenaeus gives us most of the New Testament. His canon includes:1Michael Kruger, The Canon Revisited, 228.

  • Matthew
  • Mark
  • Luke
  • John
  • Acts
  • Romans
  • 1 Corinthians
  • 2 Corinthians
  • Galatians
  • Ephesians
  • Philippians
  • Colossians
  • 1 Thessalonians
  • 2 Thessalonians
  • 1 Timothy
  • 2 Timothy
  • Titus
  • Hebrews
  • James
  • 1 Peter
  • 1 John
  • 2 John
  • Revelation

While Irenaeus’ list excludes four New Testament books (Philemon, 2 Peter, 3 John, and Jude), his list is impressive nonetheless. He’s clear on the Gospels as evidenced by his famous yet unscientific quote, “It is not possible that the gospels can be either more or fewer than the number they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live and four principle winds.”2Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.11.8.

Moreover, his list contains the entire Pauline corpus (minus Philemon), Revelation, and about half of the shorter general epistles.

Muratorian Fragment (AD 180)

Named after its discoverer, Ludovico Antonio Muratori, this canonical list dating to the later part of the second century also confirms a core group of canonical books. The list includes:

  • Matthew
  • Mark
  • Luke
  • John
  • Acts
  • Romans
  • 1 Corinthians
  • 2 Corinthians
  • Galatians
  • Ephesians
  • Philippians
  • Colossians
  • 1 Thessalonians
  • 2 Thessalonians
  • 1 Timothy
  • 2 Timothy
  • Titus
  • Philemon
  • 1 John
  • 2 John
  • Jude
  • Revelation

Notice the similarity to Irenaeus’ list. Both include the four Gospels, Acts, and the entire Pauline corpus. It also includes 1 and 2 John and Revelation.

It’s worth noting that the Muratorian Canon includes the Apocalypse of Peter but with the caveat, “though some of us are not willing for the latter to be read in church.”3Muratorian Fragment, Line 72. Additionally, the fragment rejects the Shepherd of Hermas because it was written “quite recently, in our own times” and thus not backed by apostolic authority.4Muratorian Fragment, Line 74, 80.

There’s an important observation here. Both Irenaeus and the Muratorian Fragment indicate that the early church agreed on the core New Testament canon. And with that core agreement came an established theology.

Think about it. Almost all of Christian theology can be established using the four Gospels, Acts, Paul’s letters, 1 John, and Revelation. Not to downplay the importance of books like 3 John or Jude, but Christian theology doesn’t hang in the balance without them. This canonical list, then, should give us confidence that the early church agreed on key Christian doctrines (Trinity, creation, fall, salvation through Christ alone, the deity of Christ, etc.).

Eusebius (AD 320)

While much canonical development occurred over the next hundred years — especially with Clement of Alexandria and Origen — we now turn our attention to Eusebius of Caesarea. Known for writing the first church history, Eusebius gives us a canonical list recognized by the church. What’s interesting about his list is that he breaks it down into four distinct categories.5Eusebius, Church History, 3:25.

The Recognized Books

This list includes the books universally received by the church:

  • Matthew
  • Mark
  • Luke
  • John
  • Acts
  • Romans
  • 1 Corinthians
  • 2 Corinthians
  • Galatians
  • Ephesians
  • Philippians
  • Colossians
  • 1 Thessalonians
  • 2 Thessalonians
  • 1 Timothy
  • 2 Timothy
  • Titus
  • Philemon
  • Hebrews
  • 1 Peter
  • 1 John
  • Revelation

Disputed Books

Some disagreement surrounded the following books:

  • James
  • 2 Peter
  • 2 John
  • 3 John
  • Jude

While Eusebius included these books in his disputed list, he makes an important statement about their validity. He writes that these books “are disputed yet known to most.”6Eusebius, Church History, 3.25. In other words, Eusebius indicates that most regarded these books as canonical even if a few were doubtful. Therefore, we shouldn’t think that most were on the fence with respect to these books — just a small minority.

What we find here, then, is the complete New Testament canon when you combine both the recognized and disputed books. The recognized books are essentially the same canonical core from the second century, plus the disputed books which most recognized as canonical.

Spurious Books

These books were ones that early Christians found helpful, but not canonical. They included:

  • Acts of Paul
  • Shepherd of Hermas
  • Revelation of Peter
  • Epistle of Barnabas
  • Didache
  • Gospel of Hebrews

These books would have been considered orthodox in their theology (much like a modern book by an orthodox Christian writer), but they weren’t backed by apostolic authority, and thus not canonical.

Heretical Books

These books were universally rejected by the early church:

  • Gospel of Peter
  • Gospel of Thomas
  • Acts of Andrew
  • Acts of John
  • Gospel of Matthias

Eusebius goes so far to argue that these books “ought not be reckoned even among the spurious books but discarded as impious and absurd.”7Eusebius, Church History, 3:25. His sentiments seem to fly in the face of modern liberal scholars who argue that the Gospel of Thomas is just as credible and authoritative as our four Gospels.

The Canon and Beyond

Following Eusebius, Athanasius gives us our precise twenty-seven book New Testament in his Festal Letter (AD 367). Additionally, regional church Synods at Hippo (AD 393) and Carthage (AD 397) both affirm the twenty-seven book New Testament canon.

You might ask what took so long to get all twenty-seven books affirmed? There could be a couple of reasons for the delay.

First, the peripheral books were generally shorter and made less of an impact on the church than the core books. It’s not hard for us to see how the church read Romans or Luke more than 3 John. For this reason, peripheral books didn’t circulate around the Roman Empire with the same frequency as the core ones. The truth is, many in the early church probably never read Jude or 3 John.

Another possible reason for the peripheral book’s late acceptance is the persecution of the early church. For example, in AD 303, Emperor Diocletian ordered all Christians to sacrifice to the pagan gods and to hand over all their biblical texts to be burned. It’s easy to see how Christians couldn’t just circulate their books willy-nilly.

Once Constantine legalized Christianity (AD 313); however, Scripture circulation came much easier. And quickly after that, we start finding complete canon lists.

So, did the early church have a neat and tidy agreed-upon canon at the end of the first century? No. But was the canon like the wild-wild West? No again. Instead, the church recognized a core canon from the very early stages, and they came to recognize the peripheral books later once all the books had time to circulate the Empire.

 

Ryan Leasure Holds a Master of Arts from Furman University and a Masters of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He currently serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2OsHxhX

/by
Theres No Need To Apologize

There’s No Need To Apologize

By Alex McElroy

As an apologist, the most common joke I hear from Christians unfamiliar with Apologetics is, “do you go around apologizing to everyone?” In case you are wondering too, no, I don’t. In fact, I believe having a Christian worldview is nothing to apologize for. So, what does an apologist do? We provide credible answers to some of life’s most difficult questions and seek to uphold the Christian worldview through scientific, historical, archaeological, and philosophical evidence.

If you are unfamiliar with the term apologetics or have never heard of an apologist, that is understandable as we constitute a small portion of the total church. That being said, if you want to get your feet wet go read or listen to some of the most notable apologists – Ravi Zacharias, John Lennox, Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. Frank Turek, Dr. Sean McDowell or Jim Warner Wallace. I’m always blessed and enlightened by their robust and well-prepared thoughts and teachings.

Sometimes I do meet Christians who seem to feel as though they have something to apologize for because they are not equipped to answer questions their critics raise. This doesn’t mean an answer doesn’t exist. It just means they haven’t fully thought through the question. This is where apologetics comes in. Furthermore, the questions cannot simply be laid at the feet of the Christian as though they are the only one who needs to provide an answer. Everyone, whether they are Christian, atheist, or pluralist, needs to have a coherent answer to some foundational questions.

Let’s look at 3 of them.

Are There Reasons to Believe That God Exists?

Scientists largely agree that the universe had a definite beginning – meaning it is not eternal. For example, Einstein’s theory of general relativity, the second law of thermodynamics and the radiation afterglow discovered in the early universe are all evidence that the universe had an uncaused first cause. This is also supported by general logic – something cannot come from nothing.

That being the case, there are two options: either something came from nothing or something came from someone. The issue is that there has never been an observed instance where something sprang forth from nothing. Aristotle defined ‘nothing’ as “what rocks dream about”. This leaves us with the other option: something came from someone. This is also supported by general logic – every creation has a creator. If the universe didn’t come from nothing, it had to have a creator, someone that pre-existed the universe and exists outside of the universe…that sounds a lot like God to me.

Is There an Objective Moral Standard?

I’ve talked with many people from many different worldviews. I’ve found that this line of argument seems to be the most overlooked by those that don’t believe in the God of the Bible. I know many atheists, most of whom are great, morally upright people. The issue isn’t that disbelief in God makes you evil, or that belief in God makes someone good. The issue is that in purely naturalistic worldview terms like good and evil are meaningless and at best, purely subjective.

C.S. Lewis, who called himself England’s most reluctant convert wrote, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” Likewise, if objective evil exists, then an objective moral law must exist in order to have a basis upon which to differentiate between good and evil. In order for that law to remain objective, it must originate from a source that transcends those (us) that it governs. The only option here is God. There is no way to arrive at objective moral values from a naturalistic worldview. In the case for morality, it seems there is no reason to apologize for having a Christian worldview.

Does Life Have Meaning?

I like to play basketball. The shoes that I find work best for me are the “Kobe’s” (named for Kobe Bryant). If I go to the store and they have them for $100, I’ll probably buy them if I’m in the market for new shoes. However, if they were to tell me that the cost was $1,000, I would decline because that would not be an accurate assessment of their value. Only two people determine the value of an object – the creator or the purchaser. Value can never objectively be self-determined. If we apply this concept to humans, then the Christian worldview is wholly unique. Only in a Christian worldview are the purchaser and the Creator the same person. We have been redeemed (bought back) by our Creator. In an atheistic framework, we are the culmination of a random, unguided assortment of molecules. How can there be any value in that? This also means that only in a Christian worldview can we even begin to discuss concepts such as intrinsic value and inherent worth.

This understanding of our value is pivotal because without value, there can never be meaning. In other words, if something is of no value or no legitimate value can be attributed to it, then it in effect becomes a meaningless item. So, the fact that humans are given value by a Creator and a purchaser (redeemer) who is in the legitimate position to impute value to us is of utmost importance. Therefore, there is no need to apologize for adherence to a Christian worldview because only in this worldview does life have meaning because we are eternally connected to the One who gives meaning to all things.

 

Alex McElroy is an international speaker, author, blogger, leadership advisor, and the Pastor of Education at New Life Covenant Southeast Church, with over 20,000 members led by Pastor John F. Hannah.  Alex has been serving in both youth and teaching ministries at New Life for over 12 years. In his role, he teaches Discipleship class designed for adults to learn, fellowship, and grow in their faith within a small group setting. Alex also trains hundreds of teachers and ministers to deliver lessons in proper lifestyle, Biblical study, focused preparation, and Apologetics in order to maximize their effectiveness in and for the Kingdom of God.

/by
We live in a beatiful world

We Live In A Beautiful World

,

By Bob Perry

In classical thinking, saying that something is beautiful is not a matter of subjective opinion. It’s a way to identify an objective feature of the world. We don’t construct beauty; we discover it. And we try to mimic it. A lot of ink has gone to a paper discussing this view when it comes to truth and goodness. In fact, Christians make the case that truth and goodness are grounded in the character of God. But there’s more to the story. The ancient philosophers who talked about those also included a third feature with them. They called it beauty. For some reason, we don’t talk the same way about beauty anymore. But don’t be confused. Beauty is in the same category. Classical thinkers have always linked truth, goodness, and beauty together as interdependent, objective features of the world.

The Ancient Idea of Beauty

The ancient Greek philosophers saw beauty in objects that displayed symmetry, order, balance, unity, and proportion. In fact, the Greek word we translated into “beauty” was hora. This is the root from which we have derived the word hour. That’s because beauty includes a sense of timing. It takes into account what we know about the purpose for which the object exists.

Think of a flower. The ancients saw beauty not only in the symmetry of the flower’s petals or the vivid colors it displayed. They also recognized that these properties became most prominent when the flower reached its prime – when it bloomed. In the same way, fruit was most beautiful when it ripened. A mature woman was beautiful – and a young girl was beautiful – each in a way that fulfilled their purpose for that stage of their being. There was no beauty in an older woman trying to look younger than she really was. Nor was it beautiful when a young woman tried to look older than she should.

In other words, the characteristics that made something beautiful were built into the object one was observing. Beauty was dependent on an object’s nature and purpose.

It had nothing to do with an observer’s opinion of it.

Recognizing Beauty

design in a Chambered Nautilus Shell
Photo by Pixabay

Scientists uncover evidence of this kind of beauty everywhere in nature. We see it in “eerie proportional coincidences” like the “Golden Number,” Phi (1.618), and the “Golden Triangle” derived from it. The ratio shows up in commonly-accepted shapes of rectangles used to frame pictures and in the triangle-faced sides of the Great Pyramids. Humans design things using these proportions because they make them look pleasing to the eye. The mathematician Fibonacci derived his infamous Fibonacci Sequence from it.

But this ratio also shows up in nature all on its own. The radius of a spiraling Chambered Nautilus shell expands in relation to it. The similarly appealing geometry of flower petals — and the radiating pattern of combs in a honey bee hive — grow by the same proportions. These kinds of forms and patterns appear so often in nature; we use them to our benefit … and for our pleasure.

Leveraging Beauty

In their book, A Meaningful World, Benjamin Wiker and Jonathan Witt show how “the arts and sciences reveal the genius of nature.” One of the examples they use to demonstrate this is the Periodic Table of Elements. That table, we all learned about in junior high school is a snapshot of nature’s beauty. The chemists who developed it did so by finding “elegant mathematical relationships between atomic weights of elements and the properties of elements.” Doing so drove them to predict the existence of elements we didn’t even know to exist. It was the beauty that led them to fill the table in.

Resonant Beauty

The same type of patterns and relationships that led to the Periodic Table bring meaning and transcendence to our lives. Consider the relationship between mathematics and music, for instance. We can describe musical harmony using mathematical equations. But it works because it resonates with our souls.

The philosopher Leibniz described music as “the pleasure the human mind experiences from counting without being aware that it is counting.” But music has a way of moving more than just our feet to the beat of a song. It stirs our emotions. Tradition has it that when Handel was composing his epic Messiah, one of his servants walked in on him while he was writing the famous “Hallelujah Chorus.” The composer was weeping.

Handel is said to have remarked, “I do believe I’ve seen the gates of Heaven.”

Beauty Inspires Us

The beauty of a rainbow inspires us
Photo by Frans Van Heerden

The God-glorifying nature of music is just one of the many ways beauty is manifested in our world. The symmetry, form, and vivid colors of a butterfly enchant us. We marvel at the complexion and immensity of a rainbow, or at the power and majesty of a grand landscape.

These things elicit involuntary reactions in us when we experience them. They can take our breath away. They can make our feet start tapping. They can bring us to tears. They are the kinds of things that add richness and depth to our lives.

Reproducing Beauty

We discover beauty in our world and then try to reproduce it in the things we create. And we long to create things because we are made in the image of the ultimate Creator. Part of what it means to be “made in the image of God” is that we attempt to mimic Him. And when we’re successful, the results are stunning.

Today, we are beginning to use the digital capabilities we have discovered in biology to revolutionize our computers. We design airplanes based on the features we see in birds. We write literature and poetry that elevates our aspirations and invokes the divine. We paint landscapes to reflect the majesty of the world we live in.

We build cathedrals that point to the heavens.

And that’s the point.

Beauty Transcends Us

This all makes sense inside the Christian worldview because beauty is just another form of truth. And like truth itself, we don’t make it up. It draws us in. The character of God is the common reality that explains the trinity of truth, goodness, and beauty. They are the essence, character, and reflection of Him.

Beauty is not subjective. It’s part of the fabric of the universe. It inspires us to think outside ourselves.

 

Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and the culture at truehorizon.org. He is a Contributing Writer for the Christian Research Journal and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of military and commercial flying experience. He has a B.S., Aerospace Engineering from the U. S. Naval Academy, and a M.A., Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown sons.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/30TeZzO

/by
4 Questions Everyone Investigating The Case For Christianity Should Ask Themselves

4 Questions Everyone Investigating the Case for Christianity Should Ask Themselves

,

By Evan Minton

When it comes to investigating the evidences and arguments for and against worldviews, we need to realize that we human beings are not mere thinking machines; only considering the facts and logic, and generating conclusions based on hard, cold rationality. We’re not perfect, and one of the effects of the fall said by theologians is said to be “The Noetic Effect,” that the sin nature affects our ability to reason properly. Sin doesn’t completely debilitate us from reasoning. If that were the claim, it would be self-refuting in nature for we could ask, “Did you use your reason to come to the conclusion that you cannot trust reason?”

Nevertheless, we need to be aware that biases, emotional like or dislike of implications, and other things can lead us away from the truth. None of us is immune, whether we are Christian or Non-Christian, and each one of us needs to do deep introspection when we’re evaluating competing systems of thought. In this blog post, I will mention 5 questions we need to pose to ourselves and meditate upon when it comes to evaluating whether Christianity is true or false.

Question 1: If I Knew Beyond a Reasonable Doubt That Christianity Were True, Would I Follow Christ? 

The first thing you need to decide is whether or not if Christianity were demonstrated to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, you’d become one of Christ’s followers. If you knew God existed, would you worship Him? Would you try to live the life that God wants you to live? Would you give up anything in your life that He considers sin? If you hesitate or if your answer is no, then your problem is not with regards to the strength of the evidence for Christianity or lack thereof, your problem is either emotional or moral. In other words, you simply don’t want Christianity to be true. If Christianity were true, then you would have to repent or else face judgment. Rather than live life in open rebellion against God knowing that Hell awaits, they comfort themselves by talking themselves into believing that The Bible is nothing but a book a fairy tales. It’s much easier to live your life in sin if you can convince yourself that there isn’t someone who’s going to hold you accountable beyond the grave.

If Christianity is true, then several implications follow. It means that if you’re living in sin, you’ll have to repent. Jesus said that if you even look at a woman with lust, you’ve committed adultery in your heart (Matthew 5:28), and adultery is one of the things God said not to do (Exodus 20:14). If you like to spend your evenings downloading and looking at pornography, you’ll have to get that out of your life or answer to God for it (2 Corinthians 5:10). But porn watchers don’t want to do that. Watching porn is fun! It’s exciting! Porn watchers don’t want to give up porn because they enjoy it too much. Others may want to sleep around, bouncing from woman to woman.

According to Hebrews 13:4, this is a no-no. If someone engaged in this behavior doesn’t repent, they’ll be facing judgment. Romans 1:26-28, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and 1 Timothy 1:9-11 prohibit homosexual relationships. Some people don’t want Christianity to be true because it means they’ll have to stop having sex with their same-sex partner. 2 Corinthians 6:14 prohibits a believer marrying an unbeliever. Some people may not want Christianity to be true because they know that if it is, they need to become Christians, or else they face Hell, and if they’re Christians themselves, they’ll be prohibited from marrying their boyfriend or girlfriend who is also an unbeliever.

For many people, it’s a purely intellectual issue. Merely being presented with the evidence for Christianity, as I’ve done in several posts on this blog and as I’ve done in my books, will be sufficient to persuade them to become Christians. For others, they will talk themselves out of any argument, no matter how compelling it otherwise would be. They have to. Their autonomy is at stake.

This is why the Christian Apologist and Oxford mathematician John Lennox said: “If religion is a fairy tale for people afraid of the dark, then atheism is a fairy tale for those afraid of the light.”[1] Lennox was echoing the words of Jesus; “This is the verdict; that light has come into the world, but people loved the darkness rather than the light for their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light and will come nowhere near the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.” (John 3:19-20).

Ask yourself, am I suppressing the truth in my unrighteousness? Is my love of sin overriding my love for finding the truth? Do I love truth when it enlightens me, but hate it when it convicts me?[2]

Love of sin is not the only non-intellectual “reason” you might have for rejecting Christ. Perhaps, like Charles Darwin,[3] you know that if Christianity is true, someone you loved who died as a non-believer is in Hell. If you can convince yourself there is no God, and there is no Hell, you don’t need to walk around with that uncomfortable thought. But, our feelings do not determine truth. How you feel about Christian doctrine is irrelevant to whether or not it’s true.

Question 2: What Evidence Would I Expect There to Be If Christianity Is True and Is This Expectation Reasonable? 

The second question you need to ask yourself is how what kind of evidence you would expect to find if Christianity were true? What kind of evidence are you looking for that would lead you to say there is or is not any evidence?

For me, a universe with an ex nihilo beginning that is impeccably fine-tuned to permit life to exist on both the cosmic and local levels, the existence of the moral law, the modal possibility of the existence of a Maximally Great Being, and five historical facts about Jesus’ death and what happened afterward and the fact that only the resurrection can account for all five of those facts is exactly what I would expect if Christianity were true.

If Christianity were false, the universe should have always existed, the possibility of biological life should be way more probable, we should have no moral law written on our hearts, a Maximally Great Great Being should be conceptually incoherent, and Jesus’ tomb should have remained occupied with all of his disciples moving on with their lives as they did before they even met Jesus. But we don’t live in that kind of world.[4]

However, that’s just me. What kind of evidence are you looking for? If you say “there’s no evidence,” you must either have not encountered the aforementioned evidence, or else they don’t fit your definition of evidence. Moreover, is what kind of evidence you’re looking for reasonable to expect if the Christian worldview is true?
Perhaps your epistemology is too restrictive. There are those who hold to a view called Scientism. This view asserts that the only truth that can be known is what can be tested by science. If this view is true, then supernatural entities like God, angels, demons, souls, et al. cannot be known since they cannot be tested by science. Although, I do think that science can provide evidence in a premise in a philosophical argument for God’s existence (e.g. The Kalam’s premise that “The universe began to exist”).

If scientism is your epistemology, then it’s no wonder why you aren’t convinced by philosophical arguments for God’s existence or the historical evidence for Jesus’ divine self-understanding and resurrection from the dead. This is because philosophy and history aren’t scientific enterprises. Science is great, and it has provided us with much knowledge of our world over the past several centuries. However, it is fallacious to say that science is the only path towards truth. Think about it. Can the statement “Only science can provide knowledge” subject to scientific testing? Can you put the claim “Only what science can establish as true is true” underneath a microscope or a super collider? No! These are philosophical statements not subject to scientific testing. Since they cannot be verified through science, and only that which can be verified through science can be known, then the epistemology of scientism cannot be known! Scientism is self-refuting. It collapses under its own criterion.

Question 3: Am I Setting Too High of a Standard of Proof? 

How much evidence is enough evidence? You need to reflect on whether or not you’re setting the bar too high. Are you a skeptic or a hyper-skeptic? What’s the difference? I’ll never forget a Facebook post my friend Luke Nix made several years ago. He said, “Hyper-Skepticism is having to drink an entire carton of milk before concluding that the milk is bad and should have been thrown out after the first sip.” 

The fact is that the vast majority of the conclusions we reach, even in our daily lives, are based on probability, not absolute certainty. I don’t even have 100% certainty that I’m sitting at my desk right now typing up this blog post. It’s possible that I’m just a brain in a vat of chemicals with electrodes hooked up to my brain, and there’s a scientist sending stimulates into my brain to make me experience the sensation of sitting at my desk, typing up a blog post. There is a possibility that that is the case, but that possibility is so unfathomably tiny that I don’t give such a scenario any serious consideration. I am 99% certain that I am not a brain in a vat, but I still can’t get up to 100% certainty.

If you can’t believe with 100% certainty that you are not a brain in a vat of chemicals, yet you still give mental assent to the claim that the external world is real, why wouldn’t you give mental assent to the truth claims of Christianity?

J. Warner Wallace wrote that,

“In legal terms, the line that must be crossed before someone can come to the conclusion that something is evidentially true is called the ‘standard of proof” (the ‘SOP’). The SOP varies depending on the kind of case under consideration. The most rigorous of these criteria is the ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard that is required at criminal trials. But how do we know when we have crossed the line and are ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’? The courts have considered this important issue and have provided us with a definition:

‘Reasonable doubt is defined as follows: It is not a mere possible doubt; because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge.’

This definition is important because it recognizes the difference between reasonable and possible that we discussed earlier. There are, according to the ruling of the court, ‘reasonable doubts,’ ‘possible doubts,’ and ‘imaginary doubts.’ The definition acknowledges something important: every case has unanswered questions that will cause jurors to wonder. All the jurors will have doubts as they come to a decision. We will never remove every possible uncertainty; that’s why the standard is not ‘beyond any doubt.’ Being ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ simply requires us to separate our possible and imaginary doubts from those that are reasonable.”[5]

Question 4: I Find Theological Position X Unreasonable. Is This a Central Tenet of Christianity or Is This Debated Within the Church? Can I Be a Christian and Still Reject X? 

Just can’t bring yourself to believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old? Don’t believe a good God would causally determine people to sin? Don’t think a just God would leave people in eternal conscious torment? It’s possible that these seem unreasonable because they are unreasonable. And guess what? Many Christians would agree with you. Not every position you find a Christian defending is central to the Christian worldview. Some are. You can’t be a Christian and not believe that God exists, that God is one being who consists of three persons (The Doctrine of the Trinity), that we’re sinners in need of salvation, and that Jesus died on the cross and bodily rose from the dead. However, other issues are debatable, such as how to interpret Genesis 1, whether humans have free will or whether God causally determines all things, and whether or not God lets human experience eternal conscious torment or whether God annihilates the condemned from existence (a view known as Annihilationism).

Don’t reject Christianity simply because you find some secondary doctrine unreasonable. I myself find two of the three secondary issues mentioned above unreasonable. That’s why I’m an Evolutionary Creationist and a Molinist rather than a Young Earth Creationist and a Calvinist.

Conclusion

These are 4 questions that everyone who’s investigating the truth claims of Christianity needs to ask themselves. More importantly, you not only need to ask them to yourself; you need to reflect on them. Do introspection. We can be our own worst enemy. Don’t let yourself trip you up! Eternity is at stake!

NOTES

[1] I can’t find a written source for this quote anywhere. Evidently, it was something Lennox uttered publicly in a debate with Stephen Hawking, but this quote was never put into writing.

[2] I’m alluding to a quote attributed to St. Augustine that goes, “We love the truth when it enlightens us, but hate it when it condemns us.” Whether Augustine was the original person to say this is, like so many quotes often attributed to him, debatable. Certainly, someone at some point said it, and I have found it to be one of many true statements about humanity.

[3] Charles Darwin didn’t become an atheist because of his theory of evolution. In fact, Darwin may rightly be called the very first evolutionary creationist. He believed God used evolution to create life. I believe two things caused Darwin to turn away from God, the death of his father and the death of his
daughter, and the doctrine of Hell amplified the power of the former. Darwin wrote “I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the [New Testament] text seems to show that the men who do not believe, & this would include my Father, Brother & almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.” — Charles Darwin, as cited in the online article “The Evolution Of Darwin’s Religious Faith,” October 20, 2016, | By Ted Davis on Reading the Book of Nature – http://biologos.org/blogs/ted-davis-reading-the-book-ofnature/the-evolution-of-darwins-religious-faith#sthash.g2ZJUuV0.dpuf

[4] Check out my book The Case for The One True God: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Historical Case for The God of Christianity, where I go into these arguments and evidence in far more detail, even in more detail than I do in the articles on The Cerebral Faith website, which I linked to in the paragraph this footnote proceeded.

[5] J. Warner Wallace, Cold-Case Christianity, Kindle Locations 2163-2195, David C Cook.

 

Evan Minton is a Christian Apologist and blogger at Cerebral Faith (www.cerebralfaith.blogspot.com). He is the author of “Inference To The One True God” and “A Hellacious Doctrine.” He has engaged in several debates which can be viewed on Cerebral Faith’s “My Debates” section. Mr. Minton lives in South Carolina, USA.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2YUBdAL

/by
Faith and Doubt – How to Honor God in the Midst of Your Doubts

Faith and Doubt – How to Honor God in the Midst of Your Doubts

By Mikel Del Rosario

[This publication although it was not written recently, its content seems to us to be current and necessary to continue sharing, so we are publishing it on our site today]

Today, I’m pleased to feature an exclusive guest post by my friend, Dena Jackson, who is working hard to bring accessible apologetics training to our local area. Dena recently graduated with an M.A. in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. She currently trains college students at Bayside Church, where she also coordinated the 2010 Apologetics Conference featuring J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig.

Dena Jackson Talks About Faith and Doubt

How do you deal with your doubts about God and Christianity? Many of us have been taught to rebuke, bury, or pretend they’re not there. We know doubts dishonor God, so we suppress them and tout a cheery line of faith. When people ask us to answer the very questions that disturb us, we hastily encourage them to “just have faith!” We believe this is the way to glorify God.

But this may not be the best way to deal with our doubts. One of my favorite Bible stories is of a man who brings his demon-possessed boy to Jesus. The man says “if you can do anything, take pity on us and help us” (Mark 9). Jesus replies, “‘If you can?’”

Alarm bells were probably going off in the crowd surrounding Jesus. “He just said if!” That one word exposed this man’s doubts. “Quick, cover! Say, if you choose!”Jesus was clearly disappointed with this man’s doubt. Yet he does not banish the man from his presence until he could muster up faith, or at least hide his doubts. Rather, Jesus tells him that everything is possible for one who believes.

Here, Jesus reveals the true nature of the situation. This man, half doubting, half desperately hoping that Jesus can help him out, approaches Jesus and begs him to do what he can. Jesus tells the man that the question is not if He can heal the man’s son. There is no “if” about that. The question is whether the man knows Jesus can heal his son. The issue was not with Jesus. It was with the man.

This is the case with us and all our doubts about God. When we doubt God’s goodness, it is not because God is not good. It is because we lack understanding. When we doubt that God is real, it is not because of a lack of evidence. It is because there is something blocking us from seeing all the evidence. At a fundamental level, I think many of us hide our doubts from God because we are worried that our doubt reveals some deficiency in God.  Not so. It reveals a deficiency in us. That is why we need to admit it to God like every other deficiency so that he can help us with it. Understanding this is pivotal.

Jesus reveals that the problem is in the man. The man’s response should be ours as well. He cries out “I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!” He confesses both his faith and his doubt. Does God like it when we doubt him? Probably not. But God is a God of truth, and He loves honesty.

Any confession of faith in the midst of doubt is extremely glorifying to God. It is easy to have faith when everything makes sense. It is difficult and painful to trust God and live for Him when things don’t seem to add up.

When you doubt, be honest. Lay bare your thoughts before God. The deficiency is in you, not in God. Show that you believe that by presenting your doubts to God and asking him to help you understand.

Let our response in the midst of doubt be:

God, this does not make sense! I do not understand, but I want to. I know what the Bible says about you, but certain things I experience and have learned don’t match up with it. Help me. You are a God of truth. You are not afraid of questions. You promise that those who seek you will find you. God, I am seeking. I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!

Dealing with doubt? Check out these resources on faith and doubt:

 

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/2xKOKPa

/by
Give Credit Where Credit Is Due

Give Credit Where Credit Is Due

,

By Alex McElroy

I’ve never been much of an artist. I do, however, have great respect for those that possess the skill and patience to create a masterpiece. In fact, I admire anyone that can draw anything beyond a stick figure. I remember when I was growing up, my brother would draw figures from comic books, and my best drawings would pale in comparison. My wife is an amazing artist as well, and I now see similar talents in my daughter. I have to give credit where credit is due.

Often when you are in the presence of a great work of art or anything that has been finely made, you stand in awe. However, we are not simply in awe of what was made but that someone was able to conceive of and make it. The magnificence of the ceiling in the Sistine Chapel is not the details in the design of what has been painted but in the fact that Michelangelo had the ability to paint such details.

To not give credit to Michelangelo is a lesser example of not giving credit to the designer of everything… including Michelangelo. We also see evidence of design in ourselves, on the earth and in the universe. We all see it, but we don’t all give credit to whom it is due. To acknowledge a work of art while ignoring the artist is disrespectful. To benefit from the works of the ultimate artist and not give Him credit is to worship the creation while ignoring the Creator. We have a purpose precisely because the ultimate designer has purposefully designed us.

Credit for making

When we see elements of design, we always understand that a designer initiated the process. In 1953 Francis Crick helped discover DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), the molecular building blocks of life. DNA is the most complex system of message every composed. There are five levels of information transmission (statistics, cosyntics, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics). The highest level, apobetics, involves requests with an expectation of a response. DNA is information at the highest level. In other words, there is a clear design to DNA. To assume that this level of information could be achieved randomly or as a result of impersonal, non-communicative physical forces seems illogical. It seems, in that case, we would not be giving credit to whom it is due.

In Life Itself, Francis Crick proposed that some form of primordial life was shipped to the earth billions of years ago in spaceships—by supposedly ‘more evolved’ (therefore advanced) alien beings. Unfortunately, that theory still begs the question – who created the aliens? When it comes to how we’re made, maybe there is someone else we should be giving credit to.

Credit for morality

When we are trying to understand objective truths, it is helpful to note that they usually exist through their opposite. For example, we know what left is because we know what right is. Almost everyone agrees that true evil does exist. This implies that true good must exist. For those that don’t believe in God, where do you root this idea of objective good? C.S. Lewis, who was an atheist and called himself ‘England’s most reluctant convert,’ wrote, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?”

If moral values originate from humans, they will fluctuate with the whims and preferences of humans – thereby making them subjective. If there is objective evil, then there is an objective moral law. If that is true, then there is an objective moral law-giver – God. And He deserves the credit for the moral standard that we seek to live by.

Credit for meaning

If we are the product of time plus matter plus chance, then life has no meaning. However, everything about how we live and the fact that we are able to live points to the fact that life does have meaning. It behooves us to give credit to the source of that meaning.

The worldview we espouse will, by and large, determine our understanding of the meaning of life itself. This is important because if life has no ultimate purpose, then neither do you or I. In that case; there would be no purpose to fulfill, assignment to complete, or reason to exist. Once you are clear about your origin, you can gain clarity on your purpose. Once you gain clarity on your purpose, you gain clarity on where you’re going. That clarity comes from determining what is true and by giving credit to the source of all truth.

 

Alex McElroy is an international speaker, author, blogger, leadership advisor, and the Pastor of Education at New Life Covenant Southeast Church, with over 20,000 members led by Pastor John F. Hannah. Alex has been serving in both youth and teaching ministries at New Life for over 12 years. In his role, he teaches Discipleship class designed for adults to learn, fellowship, and grow in their faith within a small group setting. Alex also trains hundreds of teachers and ministers to deliver lessons in proper lifestyle, Biblical study, focused preparation, and Apologetics in order to maximize their effectiveness in and for the Kingdom of God.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2XCLosh

/by
No, the argument from miracles has not been debunked

No, the argument from miracles has not been debunked (Pt. 1)

,

By Erik Manning

Is the argument from miracles full of fallacies? Popular atheist YouTuber ‘Rationality Rules’ argues that’s the case. Rather than examining miracles on a report-by-report basis, he opts to say that the case for miracles is doomed from the start. This reasoning follows the tradition of the famous 18th-century philosopher David Hume.

For those of you who aren’t into YouTube, Rationality Rules has had his channel since March of 2017. In that short time, he’s gained over 200k subscribers and has had nearly 15 million views.

There’s a cottage industry of channels similar to his and we shouldn’t underestimate their influence. These are sharp skeptics making entertaining and digestible videos packed with thought-provoking content. As believers, we’d be lazy not to respond to their arguments.

Here’s his video on miracles in full. Here I’ll focus on his main points:

Does the argument from miracles fail to support Theism?

Here’s Rationality Rules first objection to the argument from miracles:

“The vast majority of miracles wouldn’t prove the existence of a god, even if they were indeed true. Or in other words, they don’t support theism. For example, even if it were unimpeachably true that a man called Jesus resurrected, this would not, in the slightest, prove that the universe had a creator! Nor would prove that Jesus turned water into wine; that he healed the blind; that he walked on water; or that he was born of a virgin… all it would prove is that a man called Jesus respawned and that he had terrible lag because it took him three days!…”

While I appreciate the video game reference, this argument against miracles is hardly a “game over” for the Christian. Jesus’ resurrection absolutely supports theism and fits poorly in a naturalistic worldview. For starters, the gospels report that Jesus said that the resurrection would prove his message:

“Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.” He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” (Matthew 12:38-40)

Secondly, the resurrection didn’t happen in a vacuum. Jesus’ preached the kingdom of God and called himself the Son of Man. The Jewish expectation at that time was the Messiah was coming and bringing his kingdom. That’s a historical fact.

The Roman historian Suetonius says this regarding the Jewish revolt against Rome “There had spread over the Orient an old and established belief, that it was fated at that time for men coming from Judea to rule the world.” 

Tacitus also picks up on this prophetic expectation: “…in most, there was a firm persuasion, that in the ancient records of their priests was contained how at this very time the East was to grow powerful, and rules, coming from Judea, were to acquire universal empire…”

The 1st-century Jewish historian Josephus also mentions this hope: “But now, what did most elevate them in undertaking this war was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how “about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth.” 

All three of these ancient historians applied these Jewish predictions to the Roman Emperor Vespasian, including even Josephus, oddly enough. He was, after all, a turncoat from the Jewish side to Rome.

So where did this expectation come from? If you read the prophecies from Daniel 2, 7, and 9, there was an understanding that there would be four great kingdoms before the kingdom of God would come.

Those kingdoms were believed to be Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. During the time of the Roman kingdom, the Son of Man would bring his kingdom and reign over the whole earth. (Daniel 7:13-14) The Messiah would come some 490 years after the rebuilding of Jerusalem, which had been destroyed by the Babylonian Empire.

You can also see this expectation in the New Testament writings. Even John the Baptist had to deny that he was the Christ. (John 1:20) Luke 3:15 says “Everyone was expecting the Messiah to come soon, and eager to know whether or not John was he.” (TLB)

This is also why Paul said things like: “At the right time, Christ died for the ungodly, or “…when the time had fully come, God sent his Son….” (Romans 5:6, Galatians 4:4) And the gospel writers have Jesus repeatedly referring to his appointed hour. (John 2:4, 7:30, 8:20, 12:23-24, Mark 14:41)

These prophecies are extremely fascinating and it would take another blog post to fully unpack their importance, but here’s the point: Jesus’ resurrection wasn’t some anomalous event devoid of spiritual significance. While it wasn’t the way many Jews expected the Messiah to come, the resurrection reportedly happened in an atmosphere charged historical and religious meaning.

Furthermore, his closest followers boldly proclaimed that God raised him. And they didn’t say the resurrection was the work of some generic god, but the God of Israel who performed this amazing sign. (Acts 2:22-24) Jesus’ disciples had the best vantage point to interpret the significance of this event. The one that was raised must have said that it was God who raised him. This is hardly some random miracle.

Let’s turn to Rationality Rule’s second objection:

Is the argument from miracles an argument from personal incredulity?

“The second and perhaps most obvious flaw with miracles is that they almost always commit either an Argument from Ignorance or a Personal Incredulity Fallacy.

To illustrate this, consider the following: Throughout history, there have been numerous accounts of flightless animals raining from the sky – and needless to say, on just about every occasion, someone somewhere has asserted that a miracle has occurred, because, “there’s no other explanation”. 

Now, of course, it’s fair to say that flightless animals don’t just fall from the sky, but one can’t simply assert that a miracle has occurred simply because there’s “no other explanation”… that would be, and is an outrageous Argument from Ignorance! 

It is, in essence, “we don’t know, therefore god”. Anyhow, as it turns out, we now actually do have an adequate explanation (which, by the way, perfectly demonstrates why Arguments from Ignorance are flawed). 

This explanation is, quite simply, a tornado that’s formed over a body of water (otherwise known as a waterspout), that’s then hurled water and aquatic animals over land… it’s is a bizarre phenomenon, incredible even, but it’s not a miracle, because it doesn’t violate the laws of nature. 

Yet, despite the fact that we now know exactly how flightless animals can rain from the sky, many people still assert that the only explanation is divine intervention, because they either don’t personally know about waterspouts, or they don’t understand them, which…is a Personal Incredulity Fallacy.”

Rationality Rules is right about one thing: Nature does some weird things sometimes and we’re not justified in attributing miracles to every gap in our understanding. That would be an argument from ignorance.

But let’s think about it for a moment: When it comes to the resurrection of Jesus, will there ever be a time when scientists discover a law shows that dead people do not stay dead after three days?

Given everything we know, that seems just as likely as discovering new laws that overturn the law of gravity. While there is some personal incredulity that’s unwarranted  — like why flightless animals can at times rain from the sky — some things stubbornly resist our current framework of science. This has caused us to revise our framework when needed, but why can’t there be a case that’s so obstinate that it would resist scientific explanation altogether?

If atheists want to say that that can never possibly happen, that would be an extreme example of begging the question.

This is why many skeptical New Testament scholars (like Gerd Lüdemann and Michael Goulder, for instance) opt to naturalistically explain the specific evidence we have for the resurrection.

In fact, many of Rationality Rules’ fellow skeptical YouTube colleagues would seem to rather put forward arguments against the existence of the historical Jesus altogether. They clearly understand the theistic implications of the resurrection!

The argument from miracles: Not Debunked

Jesus’ resurrection was either natural or supernatural. Based on what we scientifically know today, natural causes isn’t a live option.Therefore, given that Jesus claimed to be divine and those who saw him after his resurrection claimed God raised him, the supernatural explanation is the most plausible one. This is especially true when we consider how poorly naturalistic explanations fare in comparison.

This isn’t an argument from ignorance, it’s just abductive logic — inference to the best explanation. We use this type of reasoning all the time, especially in science, history and in cases of law.

So unless we beg the question against the existence of God, we can’t just rule out miracles from the get-go. Now, Rationality Rules could try and debunk the evidence for the resurrection, but if he does that, he repudiates his second argument against miracles.

But Rationality Rules has two more objections to the argument from miracles. In my next post, we’ll look at them and see if those arguments stick better than his first couple. So far, he’s not off to a promising start.

 

Erik Manning is a former atheist turned Christian after an experience with the Holy Spirit. He’s a freelance baseball writer and digital marketing specialist who is passionate about the intersection of evangelism and apologetics.

/by