19 Essential Bible Verses and Passages on Apologetics

19 Essential Bible Verses and Passages on Apologetics

By Erik Manning

Sometimes you gotta make an apologetic for apologetics.  Often well-meaning Christians spout off pious-sounding platitudes like “faith isn’t based on reason, that’s why it’s called faith,” or “God doesn’t need us to defend him, just preach the gospel.” That sounds spiritual, but it isn’t biblical. That’s not the way Jesus operated, and that’s not the way the early church operated either.

Here I list off some verses and various passages that demonstrate that apologetics is one of the most biblical and spiritual things you can be involved in:

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

This is every apologists’ “go-to” verse when defending the purpose of apologetics, and for a good reason. While not everyone is called to be a full-time minister, (Ephesians 4:11), Peter says that every Christian is called to give a reason for their hope in Christ. , Don’t leave out the “gentleness and respect” part!

  1. Jude 3“Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people.”

Jude was writing to believers who were surrounded by heretics teaching the original “Hyper-Grace” message. In other words, they were saying grace means the moral law goes out the window. Sadly, we see a lot of that message resurfacing today. Jude urged them to be able to defend the original teaching handed down from the apostles. (Romans 6:1-2)

  1. Titus 1:9“He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.”

Paul is giving a checklist of qualifications for pastors. Pastors should not only able to teach sound doctrine but also able to refute those who oppose it. Pastors need apologetics as much as believers — if not more so — since it’s their job to help protect the flock against false teaching.

  1. 2 Timothy 2:24-26“And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.”

Here again, Paul is instructing ministers to be able to not only teach but to also be able to give a gentle answer to those who oppose the truth. We see here that apologetics can play a role in bringing people to repentance.

  1. Jude 22“Be merciful to those who doubt…”

For believers battling intellectual doubts, apologetics can be great mercy and help save their faith. We don’t want to offer pat answers. I know of several believers that can testify that studying apologetics during seasons of doubt saved their faith. We see that principle in action in the ministry of Jesus. That leads me to my next passage:

  1. Luke 7:19-22“When the men came to Jesus, they said, “John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?’” At that very time, Jesus cured many who had diseases, sicknesses, and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind. So he replied to the messengers, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.”

John the Baptist was imprisoned by Herod and was sitting on death row. He previously baptized Jesus and identified him as the Messiah, but now that things were looking grim. John was wondering if he made the greatest life choices. He sent some disciples to get an answer from Jesus, and Jesus didn’t reply with a “just have faith” type of cliché. He pointed to the evidence from his miracles and fulfilled prophecy. Jesus had mercy on doubters. He repeatedly used his miracles as evidence of his identity. (see also John 5:36, John 10:37-38, John 14:11)

  1. Isaiah 48:5“Therefore I told you these things long ago; before they happened, I announced them to you so that you could not say, ‘My images brought them about; my wooden image and metal god ordained them.”

I love this verse because here God throws down the gauntlet. Can your idols predict the future? Can they declare the end from the beginning? Yeah, I didn’t think so. The apostles repeatedly used the argument from fulfilled prophecy in identifying Jesus. Just read the Gospels or any of the sermons in Acts preached to a Jewish audience.

  1. Acts 19:8-10“Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God. But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. This went on for two years so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord.”

Some people in the modern church will tell you that you can’t reason or argue someone into the kingdom of God. They’ll teach that if you’re just a nice person, then people will eventually give you the time of day. That’s not the way Paul operates,d. He proactively went into the synagogues and used his ability to persuade from the Bible that Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah. Acts 17:2-4 says this was his custom.

What really sticks out to me is that when some of the Jews turned on Paul, he set up shop in a lecture hall and had an open forum for the next two years until everyone in the area heard the gospel. Daily discussions indicate that Paul wasn’t just preaching at people; he was having some conversations over spiritual things with whoever was willing. This sounds an awful lot like debates, which leads me to my next (and possibly favorite) passage on apologetics.

  1. Acts 18:27-28“When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers and sisters encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. When he arrived, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed. For he vigorously refuted his Jewish opponents in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah.”

Have you ever watched a great debater, like John Lennox or William Lane Craig and feel like “Wow! I just had church!”? You probably came away feeling strengthened after witnessing the other sides’ arguments fall apart like a Chinese motorcycle while the Christian side came out smelling like a rose, even after tough scrutiny. Luke, by the Holy Spirit, calls this great help to the believer. And I think that’s pretty awesome. Apologetics can help persuade skeptics, but it also builds up the church.

  1. 2 Corinthians 10:5“We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.”

Believers often apply this verse to guarding their own thought life. I’m not at all saying that’s wrong, but that’s not the actual context of the verse. Paul was concerned over the Corinthians being taken up with apostles who were flashy but empty talkers. He was saying that through the wisdom of God, he’d destroy their arguments. (Sounds like Paul would have made it in a lot of YouTube clips a la Ben Shapiro if he were alive today. I can see it now…. Paul of Tarsus DESTROYS and RIPS TO SHREDS religious opponent with LOGIC and FACTS)

Apologetics is a major way of doing spiritual warfare. It’s being able to deconstruct arguments and pretentious arguments that trip people up and keep them out of the kingdom.

  1. Colossians 2:8 “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.” 

CS Lewis famously said “Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy must be answered… The learned life then, is for some, a duty.” We are in a war with the hallow and deceptive philosophies of our time: Relativism, religious pluralism, nihilism, naturalism, scientism, critical theory, Marxism, – you name it, it’s all out there. These things have a major impact on individuals and our society. Our job is to give the world a real alternative.

  1. Luke 1:1-4 “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”

Luke’s not writing fairy tales or folklore here.  He interviewed eyewitnesses. He carefully investigated everything and being meticulous with his research. He’s writing as a historian giving a thorough report so that our confidence in what we believed would be increased.

  1. 2 Peter 1:16“For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.”

Similar to Luke’s prologue, Peter isn’t spinning some pious myths or fables here. His message was based on what he was an eyewitness to.

  1. 1 John 1:1-3 “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us.”

John is encouraging a church that is going through a rough time. Some believers were abandoning their faith in Jesus because of the prevailing Greek philosophy around them that taught that the flesh is bad and spirit is good. Considering Jesus was resurrected in the flesh, this was a big problem. He appeals to them by the truth of Christ that he experienced with his own senses. He wasn’t preaching a spiritual, shadowy Jesus.

  1. 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last, of all, he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.”

The central claim of the gospel is Christ has been raised. If Christ isn’t raised, Paul says the whole Christian faith is a bad joke and a waste of time. (1 Corinthians 15:14, 1 Corinthians 15:17) Here Paul passes on a creed he was given by other believers before him that list off a host of resurrection appearances to individuals and groups. This creed has become the linchpin for most arguments for the historicity of the resurrection.

  1. Romans 1:18-20 “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness since what may be known about God is plain to them because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

We know from Paul’s sermon on Mars Hill (Acts 17:21-32) that he appealed to nature and their own moral intuitions.  Here Paul says there’s some revelation freely available to everyone, so much so that they have no excuse. The word excuse is “apologia,” which is the same word we get apologetics from. In other words, unbelievers have no defense for their rejection of God.

  1. Psalm 19:1-4 “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech night after night they reveal knowledge. They have no speech; they use no words; no sound is heard from them. Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.”

This might be the passage that Paul had in mind when he said the truth of God is evident to everyone through creation. The very existence of an orderly, fine-tuned universe created in the finite past speaks volumes, and you really have to plug your ears to say that it came about through purely natural processes.

  1. Colossians 4:5-6“Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.”

As believers, we are to make the most of every opportunity we get with people outside the faith and graciously know how to answer their worldview.

  1. Philippians 1:16 “…I am put here for the defense of the gospel.”

It’s interesting to note here that Paul was writing this letter from prison. He used the words rejoice and joy over and over, and he says he’s there for the defense of the gospel. Even being put in a dirty, dark prison wasn’t going to stop Paul from proclaiming and defending the Gospel with joy. He knew his purpose. It’s always to remind yourself why you are put here.

Bonus: To see apologetics in action, read Mark 12:12-37. Jesus was asked tricky questions from his opponents. Using logic, reason, Scripture, he left his critics speechless. Jesus was an intellectual heavyweight. He didn’t shy away from debate and “just preach the gospel.”

While this list isn’t completely comprehensive, I hope it helps you see the importance of apologetics and gets you motivated to get involved!

 

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.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2IW4qXO

/by
25 Quotes On Tolerance

25 Quotes On Tolerance

By Luke Nix

  1. “Most of what passes for tolerance today is not tolerance at all but actually intellectual cowardice. Those who hide behind that word are often afraid of intelligent engagement and don’t engage or even consider contrary opinions. It’s easier to hurl an insult than to confront the idea and either refute it or be changed by it.” Greg Koukl, Relativism
  1. “Proponents of [this] cultural tolerance will point out that when you fail to endorse a person’s beliefs and behavior, you are, in effect, rejecting the person. [For example], many claim that homosexuality is not merely a sexual act or a natural orientation; it is a state of being—an identity. Many assert that people are born gay, and when you condemn homosexuality, it’s an affront to their personhood and a direct condemnation and discrimination against them as human beings.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance
  1. “[Ironically], Some of the most vocal advocates for tolerance are completely intolerant of those who express their belief in a biblical morality, especially if they do so in the public arena.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance
  1. “Cultural tolerance does not simply require that we give others the freedom to believe or live differently than we do. It has evolved into a demand that we accept, respect, and affirm the rightness of others’ views and behavior–or be labeled intolerant, bigoted, and even hateful.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance
  1. “While we all may have a sense of what is evil and what is good under the philosophy of cultural tolerance, evil and good can only be relative ideals. Without an objective truth—a set of universal moral values—good and evil are defined by the individual, community, or society. Therefore, we have no moral basis by which to judge another person, community, or nation for what they do or don’t do.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance
  1. “We are asked to be tolerant of what everyone else believes, so why aren’t we tolerant of terrorists?…Unless there are objective universal moral values, like those that reside in the character of God, no one really has the right to judge even the worst atrocities of terrorists.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance
  1. “If man is the ultimate authority, then human beings are perfectly justified in defining morals and ethics that fit their own desires, even if those ethics are the ones espoused by Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and the Chinese government—murder, torture, and abuse.” Frank Turek and Norm Geisler, Legislating Morality
  1. “To say we’re intolerant of the person because we disagree with her idea is confused. On this view of tolerance, no idea or behavior can be opposed, regardless of how graciously, without inviting the charge of incivility.” Greg Koukl, Relativism
  1. “Having been influenced to believe it’s up to the individual to create his or her own truth, our young people are naturally uncomfortable with any suggestion that one particular viewpoint is true for everyone.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance
  1. “The height of intolerance is not disagreement, but rather removing from the public square an opportunity for people to disagree.” Jonathan Morrow, Questioning The Bible
  1. “Traditional tolerance values, respects, and accepts the individual without necessarily approving of or participating in that person’ beliefs or behavior.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance
  1. “Like the physical universe, the moral universe is governed by unforgiving laws that we do not have the power to alter.” Frank Turek and Norm Geisler, Legislating Morality
  1. “When we contrast the cultural narrative of truth with the biblical narrative of truth, we can see that cultural tolerance does not actually show respect for others or even demonstrate care for them—it does the opposite.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance
  1. “Truth and traditional tolerance are the necessary balancing ingredients to genuinely love and accept others unconditionally.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance
  1. “By understanding how truth and traditional tolerance work together, we unlock the key to making our children feel loved even when we can’t approve of what they choose and what they do.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance
  1. “To argue that some views are false, immoral, or just plain silly does not violate any meaningful standard of tolerance.” Greg Koukl, Relativism
  1. “True tolerance involves loving people and suffering while they do something we think is absolutely wrong, which is exactly what Christ does for us.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance
  1. “What distinguishes God’s unconditional acceptance from that of our culture is authentic love. His love is intended to make the security, happiness, and welfare of another as important as his own. It is other-focused, not performance-focused. God knows the real truth about us—that we were created in his image—and that truth allows him to separate the person from performance. God unconditionally values us for who we are without always approving of what we do because he separates the value of the person from the acts of the person.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance
  1. “Real love isn’t an unlimited endorsement of just any behavior a person chooses to engage in. Many of those behaviors are inherently and inevitably harmful, and to endorse, approve, and encourage them is not loving; it is cold and uncaring. If we care about another person, we won’t approve behavior that is damaging and destructive to that person’s life.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance
  1. “Truth is our best friend, and it is an inseparable part of what real love is. While cultural tolerance may disguise itself as caring, understanding, and loving, it lacks the moral authority of an authentic love that looks out for the best interest of others. That is another quality of authentic, real love—it is always other-focused.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance
  1. “Our young people need to understand that the reason we have this concept that some things are morally right and others are wrong is not because a church propagates it or even that it is written in a book called the Bible. The moral authority of the Bible isn’t found in its commands and rules. The authority of scripture is derived directly from and founded in the very character and nature of God and represented in the flesh through Jesus Christ. All moral truth resides in and comes from God.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance
  1. “It is important to note that even though the Founders believed the Rights of the people came from God, they did not insist that every citizen believes in God; they simply saw no way to justify those natural moral Rights unless there was a God.” Frank Turek and Norman Geisler, Legislating Morality
  2. “All moral positions impose values. Even the moral position that you should not impose values on others does just that: it imposes values on others. For if we are not to restrain people legally from doing wrong, then we impose on others the effects of the wrongdoing.” Frank Turek and Norman Geisler, Legislating Morality
  3. “We’re living in a society in which people feel no obligation to control their own actions. Instead, we rationalize and justify every aberrant behavior under the umbrella of freedom granted by the First Amendment, never admitting that freedom without reasonable and responsible limits destroys individual lives and ultimately destroys the fabric of a civilized society.” Frank Turek and Norman Geisler, Legislating Morality
  4. “If you find yourself being defensive when we criticize ideas, maybe you’ve bought into the cultural view of tolerance more than you realize…The highest degree of respect you can show somebody is to take their ideas seriously and graciously critique them.” Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

All these quotes can be found in the following books by the cited authors:

 

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2vmjRQ5

/by
Book Review So the Next Generation Will Know by Sean McDowell and J. Warner Wallace

Book Review: So the Next Generation Will Know by Sean McDowell and J. Warner Wallace

By Timothy Fox

You’ve probably seen the statistics and heard the concerns. Young people are leaving the church in greater numbers than ever. While the youth of every generation share many common characteristics, this generation – dubbed Generation Z – faces new and unique challenges thanks to the ubiquity of smartphones and easy access to the Internet. Young Christians are constantly bombarded with differing ideas and worldviews, all that are competing with the faith of their parents. It’s easy to give up and lose hope. But if you love this next generation, you can’t and you won’t. That’s why Sean McDowell and J. Warner Wallace have written So the Next Generation Will Know: Preparing Young Christians for a Challenging World. This book aims to help parents, teachers, and anyone else with a passion for young people to prepare the next generation for the unique challenges they will face.

Content

Next Gen consists of eight chapters divided into two sections. The first section provides a greater understanding of Gen Z and their specific needs. Chapter 1 gives general statistics about Gen Z and why they abandon Christianity. It also explains the critical ingredients to keeping young people connected to the church. Chapter 2 explores the unique characteristics of today’s youth – both positive and negative – and how to leverage them to form meaningful relationships with the young people in our lives.

Chapter 3 focuses on a recurring theme of the book, how imparting truth requires a genuine relationship. It examines obstacles that hinder Gen Z from connecting with others, like consumerism and social media, as well as how to counter them. The chapter ends with ten strategies for connecting with Gen Z, such as engaging in their world and setting appropriate boundaries. Chapter 4 provides ways to equip the next generation with a fully-formed Christian worldview, which includes strengthening your own theological and apologetic foundation first.

The second section of Next Gen offers practical steps to prepare Gen Z for their unique challenges. Young people are not content with simply being given information, but they want to know why it is true and why it is important. This is the main idea of chapter 5 and the principle “two ‘whys’ for every ‘what.’” Chapter 6 explains the difference between teaching and training young people, how training requires a purpose or a goal. And if we give them a challenge, they will rise to it.

Chapter 7 explores specific ways to challenge young people, like taking them on worldview missions trips and teaming with ministries such as Maven Truth (read Tim Stratton’s experience with Maven here). Once you have established a challenge, Chapter 8 outlines how to prepare your young people for it, using things they already encounter in their lives, like pop culture and current events. Finally, the Appendix contains lots of additional resources to help you to train young people.

Assessment

So the Next Generation Will Know is not just another apologetics answer book. Neither is it merely theoretical. Instead, it offers direct instructions to help you equip young people to internalize their Christian faith. While it is a short book – just under 200 pages – it contains plenty of research, statistics, and personal experiences from McDowell and Wallace, both having spent many years working with youth. If you are a parent, teacher, youth worker, or simply someone who has a passion to equip the next generation to stand strong in the Christian faith, So the Next Generation Will Know is the perfect resource for you.

So the Next Generation Will Know releases May 1, 2019. For more information about the book and exclusive pre-order offers, click here.

 

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

/by
Did The Historical Jesus Rise from The Dead

Did The Historical Jesus Rise from The Dead?

,

By Luke Nix

Introduction – Why Is Jesus’ Resurrection So Important?

Those who have followed this blog know that I focus a lot of my writing on defending the compatibility of science with the Christian worldview and that I spend much energy addressing philosophical and logical challenges to some of the finer details of Christian theology that skeptics offer as defeaters for the Christian worldview. However, it is important to remember that the truth of the Christian worldview rests on one, single historical event: the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If Christ has not been raised, then none of the other details of the Christian worldview matter. The Apostle Paul made this very clear in 1 Corinthians 15:

1 Cor 15

While finding answers to the finer points of the Christian worldview can be difficult, if Christ has been raised, then there are answers to every scientific, philosophical, and experiential challenge. Even if we may not know all those answers at any given point in time and even if the answers are different from what we envision or desire, if Christ has been raised, Christianity is true, and we can work out the finer scientific, philosophical, and experiential details later. So, it is important that all skeptics and Christians deal with and be made aware of the evidence for this essential historical event.

In today’s post my goal is not to be comprehensive with the evidence for the Resurrection but to give the skeptic some videos and other resources to begin seriously looking at this claim and to make the Christian aware of resources that they can have to “always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that they have” (1 Peter 3:15).

Is The New Testament a Reliable Source of History?

One of the first concerns of the skeptic is the source of information that we have on the historical Jesus. Some believe that the historical Jesus is different from the Jesus of Christianity. This claim is based on the acceptance of the reliability of different historical sources that make conflicting claims about the historical Jesus.
It is generally recognized that the closer a record is to an event, the more likely its author is to be in the position to know if the claim is true or not, compared to later sources. In this first video, Dr. Gary Habermas traces the creed found in 1 Corinthians 15 to within a few years of the death of Jesus:

It is quite common for people to claim that the gospels cannot be historically reliable; however, when they are put to historiographical tests, it is unreasonable to reject them as reliable. In fact, if the gospels are rejected on historiographical grounds, then all ancient historical sources (and all our knowledge of ancient history) must be rejected as well. This second video explains the historiographical tests:

Dr. Habermas systematically evaluates the different proposed sources for information on the life of the historical Jesus in his book “The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence For The Life of Christ.”

Still, some people claim that the gospels that we have today cannot be the same ones originally written; it is common to hear the transmission of the documents compared to a game of “telephone” where the message changes slightly with every step of the transmission to end up with something completely different from the original message. In this video cold-case homicide detective J. Warner Wallace demonstrates how this analogy does not apply because of the established chain of custody of the accounts:

Wallace also applies tools of a detective to authenticate the gospels as eyewitness accounts. If these tools are unreliable to determine if the gospels are eyewitness accounts, then they are unreliable to determine if any other recorded accounts of any event (including crimes) are from actual eyewitnesses of those events (which would present a huge obstacle to seeing justice served when crimes are committed). His two books that go into the details these tools and how they are applied by detectives are:

Did Jesus’ Resurrection Actually Happen?

Now, establishing the gospels as actual eyewitness accounts does not necessarily establish the truth of the accounts. The content of the accounts must be put to the test. The key claim in the accounts that is important is the claim of the Resurrection of Jesus. In this next video, the facts surrounding the claimed event are put on the table for examination:

With all the facts before us, we must now examine possible explanations for those facts. The most reasonable explanation is the one that consistently explains the largest majority of the facts; while, the least reliable explanations cannot explain any number of the facts on the table. This next video examines the proposed explanations and shows how a physical resurrection is the most reasonable explanation of the facts:

Dr. Habermas presents much more of the detail of the facts and the proposed explanations in his book “The Risen Jesus and Future Hope.”

Is The Story of Jesus Just a Copy of Pagan Myths?

Despite the historical reliability of the data presented, some people try to explain all the data by claiming that the story of Jesus was merely a ripoff of other pagan mythologies. J. Warner Wallace takes a few minutes to show how the stories are not close enough to each other in their content to be related, and he shows that even if they were close in content that the presence of a fictional story does nothing to negate the truth of a historical event, even if they have similar characteristics and even if the fictional story predates the historical event:

Who Was Jesus, Really? 

The evidence demands a verdict. A verdict on the historical claim of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and who Jesus Christ is. We can either follow the evidence where it leads and make the reasonable and logical action of surrendering our lives to Him, or we can ignore the evidence and make the unreasonable and illogical decision to stick our heads in the sand and ignore reality. Ultimately, we all must face the evidence and answer Jesus’ pointed question: “Who do you say that I am?”

The Historical Jesus Did Rise from The Dead- Conclusion

The reality is that no matter what is true about the world we live in, if Jesus Christ has not been raised from the dead, Christianity is false. Since the evidence demonstrates that Jesus Christ has been raised, we can be confident that Christianity is true. Because the Christian has already followed the evidence where it leads regarding the historical claims of Jesus, the Christian is free to follow the evidence regarding any other part of reality, from the timing and mechanism of God’s creation to the interaction between God’s sovereignty and man’s free will to the role of pain, suffering, and evil in this present world.

The undeniable reality is that man is fallen and is evil by nature, and, though we all long for forgiveness and redemption so that we can live a life of objective purpose and ultimate significance, we cannot without the sacrifice of the perfect Son of God and His subsequent victory over death. Christianity is not just a story for people to accept by blind faith; it is the evidentially supported answer to all of our deepest desires and most painful sufferings. Follow the evidence where it leads; accepts the reality of Jesus’ death and Resurrection, and be changed for eternity.

 

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

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

/by
Messianic Prophecy and the Resurrection

Messianic Prophecy and the Resurrection

,

By Brian Chilton

My class and I recently completed a wonderful Ph.D. seminar entitled Issues on Messianic Prophecy with Dr. Randall Price and Dr. Ed Hindson at Liberty University. Unfortunately, messianic prophecy has received less attention than in times past. Even in evangelical circles, hyper-critical views are being taken on the Old Testament which seemingly lessens any apologetic power when considering a future eschatological messiah (Note: I use the capitalized “Messiah” when referring to Jesus and the lower case when referencing the position). However, when keeping the prophecy in context, especially the context of the entire book, it is surprisingly clear that the prophet was speaking about a future blessed Redeemer who would bring forth a new covenant.

At Christmastime, we often ponder the prophecies of Isaiah when contemplating the Messiah’s miraculous birth and the prophecy of Micah when considering his birthplace. But as we approach Easter, did you realize there are prophecies pertaining to Easter? This article will examine a few of those prophecies.

Genesis 3:15

“I will put hostility between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring. He will strike your head, and you will strike his heel” (Gen. 3:15, CSB).

Genesis 3:15 is the earliest messianic prophecy in the Bible. In this prophecy, God speaks to the serpent and notes that there would be hostility between him and the offspring of the woman. She would have an offspring that would crush the serpent’s head and the serpent would strike the offspring’s heel. While this prophecy may not explicitly reference the resurrection, it does so implicitly. The writer of Hebrews notes that through the death of Jesus the power of the devil was destroyed. John also denotes the same in 1 John 3:8. But the ultimate victory over death came by the resurrection of Jesus on the first resurrection morning. For victory to occur, death must be defeated. Jesus did just that.

Psalm 2:7-8

“I will declare the LORD’s decree. He said to me, ‘You are my Son; today I have become your Father.’ Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance and the ends of the earth your possession” (Ps. 2:7-8, CSB).

This prophecy may require a bit of explaining. In Psalm 2, the Messiah is coronated as the ruler of the earth. In verse 2, the psalmist shows that the rulers of the world conspire against Messiah. They conspire to destroy the Holy One of God. However, the Lord laughs from heaven. Verses 7-8 describe a time when the Anointed One’s identity is displayed before all. Paul, in an early sermon summary recorded in Acts, views this as being fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus. After thoroughly reading Psalm 2, I would wholeheartedly concur.

Psalm 16:10-11

“For you will not abandon me to Sheol; you will not allow your faithful one to see decay. You reveal the path of life to me; in your presence is an abundant joy; at your right hand are eternal pleasures” (Ps. 16:10-11, CSB).

Psalm 16 is a psalm of David. In this psalm, David asks for God’s protection using the term shamar which means to keep watch over a person like a shepherd. At the end of the psalm, David notes his confidence in that God would not leave him in the grave. God’s holy one would not see decay. This not only points to David’s confidence in the resurrection but is ultimately fulfilled in the Messiah as is noted by Peter in an early sermon summary in Acts 2:25.

Job 19:25-27

“But I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the end, he will stand on the dust. Even after my skin has been destroyed, yet I will see God in my flesh. I will see him myself; my eyes will look at him, and not as a stranger. My heart longs within me” (Job 19:25-27, CSB).

Job had been met with a horrible fate. He had lost his family, his home, his farm, his family, and his health. Yet despite his suffering, Job was able to proclaim his confidence in the Lord knowing that his Redeemer lives. He placed confidence that he would be resurrected after his inevitable demise. The passage is prophetic in that he realizes that his Redeemer will stand on the dust at the end and would testify on his behalf. This points to a resurrected Redeemer who is Jesus the Messiah.

Isaiah 53:9-12

“He was assigned a grave with the wicked, but he was with a rich man at his death, because he had done no violence and had not spoken deceitfully. Yet the LORD was pleased to crush him severely. When you see him make a guilt offering, he will see his seed, he will prolong his days, and by his hand, the LORD’s pleasure will be accomplished. After his anguish, he will see light and be satisfied. By his knowledge, my righteous servant will justify many, and he will carry their iniquities. Therefore I will give him the many as a portion, and he will receive the mighty as spoil, because he willingly submitted to death, and was counted among the rebels; yet he bore the sin of many and interceded for the rebels” (Isa. 53:9-12, CSB).

Isaiah 53 provides a portrait of the Messiah’s life. It was not until recently that I came to realize that the latter portion of Isaiah 53 prophesies the resurrection of the Anointed One. Notice that the prophet depicts the Suffering Servant sharing a grave with the wicked and buried with a rich man at his death (Is. 53:9). The Servant was crushed which also points to his death. Yet, despite the death suffered by the Servant, he would have his days prolonged. How does one prolong the days of one who has died unless the person is brought back to life? How could the Servant see light and be satisfied without a resurrection? How could he possess a portion among the many and the spoil of the mighty if he is dead in the grave? All of these vividly points to the Messiah’s resurrection.

Some of the prophecies listed are more explicit in referencing the resurrection of the Messiah than others. Nevertheless, all of them point to a Redeemer who would overthrow the powers of Satan and defeat the doom of death. The resurrection of Jesus is not only historically verifiable, but it was also prophetically predicted to happen. Our Savior is one who gives life to all who ask. For, those who call upon the name of the Lord will most assuredly be saved (Ac. 2:21 and Rom. 10:13).

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as the Senior Pastor of Westfield Baptist Church in northwestern North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2UGh8A4

/by
Why was the Head Cloth of Jesus Wrapped to the Side

Why was the Head Cloth of Jesus Wrapped to the Side?

, ,

By Brian Chilton

A friend asked me about a supposed Jewish tradition concerning the head wrapping of Jesus in the tomb. The Gospel of John notes that Peter and John (if the beloved disciple is the writer of the Fourth Gospel which this writer accepts) run to the tomb of Jesus. They investigate the tomb and saw the “napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself” (Jn. 20:7, KJV).

According to a story circulating online which has been passed along in many churches, an ancient Jewish tradition held that when a person had finished their meal, the person would toss their napkin aside if he or she was finished. However, if the person had to leave and was not finished, the person would neatly fold their napkin and place it to the side of their plate indicating that he or she would return. Advocates of this story contend that the folding of the napkin in John 20:7 was Jesus’s way of saying that he was going to leave but would soon return. While the story is heartwarming, one must ask if there any merit to the claim. After investigating the story, unfortunately, I must report that there seems to be no evidence that the story is true. But there is a more remarkable twist that is greater than the supposed tradition. First, here are the reasons why the story seems to be nothing more than an urban legend.

  1. The headcloth was not a napkin. With all due respect to the King James Version, “napkin” may not be the best translation of the term Sudarion indicates a small piece of cloth which could be a towel, a napkin, handkerchief, or a face cloth. Given the context, no one was eating a meal inside the tomb which would exclude the term “napkin.” Sudarion best fits with the idea of a cloth that covered the head of the corpse. The Christian Standard Bible provides a better translation as it says, “the wrapping that had been on his head was not lying with the linen cloths but was folded up in a separate place by itself” (Jn. 20:7, CSB).
  2. The headcloth was rolled and not folded. While the CSB uses the term “folded,” the term entulissō seems to fit better with the notion of being rolled. According to Louw and Nida, entulissō indicates the action “to cause something to be in the shape of a roll.”[1] The term is also used in Revelation 6:14 where the sky is entulissō (i.e., rolled up) like a scroll. The neat folding of the headcloth as implied by the mealtime tradition does not seem to fit the tomb scene even if the tradition did exist as it seems more likely that the head cloth was rolled up like a scroll.
  3. There is no evidence of the Jewish mealtime tradition. The death knell to the mealtime legend (no pun intended) is that there seems to be no evidence that such a Jewish mealtime tradition exists. Granted, there are numerous Jewish traditions in both the written and oral law and it is possible that one could have been overlooked. Nonetheless, this writer could not find anything pertaining to a tradition surrounding a folded napkin.

This so-called Jewish mealtime tradition is one that I have heard but have never investigated until now. The story has no root in any apparent oral or written tradition (at least as far as I could find) and possesses all the earmarks of being nothing more than an urban legend. While this news may be disappointing for some, the genuine story of the rolled head cloth provides greater and deeper meaning to the resurrection of Jesus. Consider the following three truths.

  1. The body was clearly resurrected and not merely resuscitated. Something amazing must have taken place for the rolled head cloth to have been placed in a separate location than the other linens. For Jesus to have been able to escape the grave cloths without disturbing their form while at the same time rolling the cloth that had wrapped his head illustrates that Jesus experienced a greater and far different return to life than what Lazarus or anyone else ever had. Lazarus had to be unbound from the cloths that enclosed his body (Jn. 11:43-44). Jesus was able to return to life and leave behind the cloths without any assistance. Remarkable!
  2. The body would have had to come through the cloths with the head wrapping. The other cloths were lying in the same place and the same form they had when they wrapped the body of Jesus. Yet, here was this head cloth rolled up to the side away from the other cloths. This seems to suggest that the body of Jesus came through the cloths with the head cloth attached. Thus, if a person were to witness the resurrection, it is likely that the eyewitness would see the body arising out from the cloths. Or, it could be that a person would see the body vanish with the cloths sinking in where the body had been with the visible Jesus standing beside them with headcloth in hand. After the resurrection, Jesus rolled up the cloth like a scroll and laid it to the side before exiting the tomb. The resurrection of Jesus was an otherworldly event, unlike anything anyone had before perceived. When Jesus resurrected from the dead, God used a new system of physics for this event—one that linked the spiritual and physical in an amazing new union.
  3. The body of Jesus was wrapped in more than one cloth. While the Shroud of Turin’s authenticity is not necessary to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, some have used the cloths mentioned in John’s Gospel to refute the Shroud. This is not a good practice primarily because John notes the existence of more than one kind of cloth. Since the women were not able to fully embalm the body of Jesus, it is possible that a Shroud covered the body of Jesus along with other wrappings in the tomb. The head cloth and the other linens indicate the plurality of cloths used to bury Jesus’s body. The absence of evidence pertaining to the Shroud is not evidence of absence.

So, while the story of an ancient Jewish tradition linking the folded head cloth with Jesus’s return is most likely an urban legend, the actual story of the wrapped head cloth tells a greater story. Jesus’s resurrection was a spectacular and ethereal event. The power exhibited by the resurrection is greater than any power known to humankind. Paul notes that just as Jesus has risen from the dead, so shall all of those who have trusted Christ (1 Co. 15:23). This indicates that this kind of resurrection will one day be coming to a tomb near you.

Note

[1] Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 704.

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as the Senior Pastor of Westfield Baptist Church in northwestern North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Ixzqw3

/by
16 Bad Atheist Arguments and How to Respond to Them

16 Bad Atheist Arguments and How to Respond to Them

,

By Jeremy Linn

With the NCAA Final Four coming to the Twin Cities this weekend, it seems appropriate to have our own little March Madness Tournament. Instead of college teams, we built a bracket with some of the “top” bad Atheist arguments.

Below we list 16 of these bad arguments and list at least one problem with the argument for each. Much more could be said for each of these arguments, so we present this post with the risk of coming across shallow.  The point of the post, however, is not to give you a thorough response to each argument – It’s to give you ideas for an initial response to them.

For each of the arguments, we give an example question you can ask to better understand where the person who gave the argument is coming from. The goal is to listen and understand, rather than to dominate and tear down.

Now that we have those precursors set, here are the 16 bad Atheist arguments and how to respond to them.

Argument #1: Who created God?

This question is asked under the assumption that God needs a creator. This assumption misrepresents the Christian understanding of God, where God is the necessary cause of all creation.

Question: Why do you think a Christian would say that no one created God?

Argument #2: Jesus never existed

This objection flies against the conclusions of almost all scholars invested into Biblical and Roman history, along with evidence from both the New Testament books and extrabiblical sources.

Question: How did you come to the conclusion that Jesus never existed?

Argument #3: Atheists believe in just one less god than Christians

Some Atheists try to use this argument to show that there is not much of a difference between them and Christians. After all, Christians are “Atheists” for thousands of gods from other religions since they lack belief in those gods!

The problem is, there is a huge difference between a Theist (such as a Christian) and an Atheist. Theists believe in a supreme, personal creator of the Universe. Atheists don’t. This difference has huge implications for how each carries out their lives.

Question: Do you think there are any major differences between Christians and Atheists?

Argument #4: Believing in God is like believing in Santa or leprechauns.

This statement calls God “made up,” equal on the level of something like Santa Claus. But the Christian claims to have evidence for God, and hardly anyone claims to have evidence for a real Santa. The alleged evidence for God cannot be simply dismissed with this silly statement.

Question: Do you think there is any evidence for the existence of God?

Argument #5: The gospels are full of myths

This objection completely ignores the definition of a myth in ancient literature. A myth looks back at the past to understand how something in the present came to be. The gospels were written as a historical narrative, discussing things that were happening at the time.

Question: What do you mean when you use the word “myth”?

Argument #6: Faith is belief without evidence 

This definition of faith is a clear strawman of the Christian position. Most Christians view faith as involving some sort of personal trust. The trust aspect of faith is simply ignored by the “no evidence” definition.

Question: How do you think Christians would typically define “faith”?

Argument #7: There’s no evidence for God

Christians claim to have philosophical arguments for God’s existence. It seems like those arguments could provide at least a tiny bit of evidence for God, even if an Atheist doesn’t consider the evidence close to satisfactory. Atheists who use this phrase are overstating their case.

Question: What type of evidence would you need to see in order to be convinced that there is at least some evidence for God?

Argument #8: God is a maniac slavedriver

The idea here is that God is some sort of dictator who tells us what to do and believe and threatens to send us to hell if we don’t listen. But this characterization of God contrasts from the understanding that God offers a choice for us to escape the “slavery” of sin and to experience life as it was meant to be lived.

Question: Do you think God gives us a choice in how to live our lives?

Argument #9: Science disproves God

This is one of the most broad arguments in the list. There are many fields in science, and some concepts about God are completely unrelated to those fields. What exactly is being said here? There needs to be more detail given before any substantial discussion can take place.

Question: What is one way in which science disproves God?

Argument #10: Stories of Jesus changed like the game of telephone

The story goes… You know the game of telephone? You start with a sentence and then it gets changed after being passed down from person to person? Well, that’s what happened when stories of Jesus were passed from person to person.

This objection does not take into account the communal aspect of oral tradition – people could check their stories against one another. The objection also causes the reliability of all ancient history to be called into question.

Question: How might the way stories were spread in ancient history be different than the game of telephone?

Argument #11: If you grew up somewhere else you would believe something else

This is one of the most common objections to Christianity – if you grew up in a middle eastern country, you would be a Muslim, not a Christian! While this concept does have some truth in it, it packs a load of unsupported assumptions. It also has little effect on the question of if God actually exists or not.

Question: How do you know I believe what I do because where I grew up?

Argument #12: Atheists can be good without believing in God

This statement is true in the sense that people who do not believe in God can make choices that are moral choices. But the statement ignores the grounding of the good – the question of what caused the existence of objective moral duties.

Question: I agree that Atheists can do good things without believing in God. But what caused “good” and “bad” to exist in the first place?

Argument #13: Religion is toxic

The idea here is that religious thought always motivates actions that are bad. One problem with this idea is that “religion” is a broad term. It puts people who follow all kinds of religions under one umbrella, even if the differences between those religions are stark. It also downplays any potentially “good” actions taken under religious motivations.

Question: Are you referring to one specific religion, or are you saying all religions are toxic?

Argument #14: Jesus is just a copy of pagan gods

This argument seems powerful on the surface as Atheists stack up to similar traits between Jesus and pagan gods – “born of a virgin,” “resurrected,” “born on December 25”, etc. But when you dig deeper into the primary sources for the pagan gods, you will find that the traits don’t align with the actual stories of those gods.

Question: Which god is Jesus a copy of, and how do you know that?

Argument #15: The Flying Spaghetti Monster

New Atheists intended to make a point by bringing up this fictional creature – that you could assign the attributes of God to any random thing. But many Atheists who mention the creature now seem to do so in order to mock religious ideas rather than make a substantial point about them. Overall an Atheist who brings the creature up today ends up looking more ridiculous than thoughtful.

Question: What relevance does the Flying Spaghetti Monster have to what you are saying about God?

Argument #16: Christians never agree

The argument goes like this: Since Christians always seem to disagree about everything, it’s clear that God isn’t involved in the whole process. This argument is incredibly broad and immeasurable – it is uncertain how much agreement there would need to be before the objector no longer sees a problem. It also ignores that “mere Christianity” – the divinity, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ – is almost entirely agreed on amongst Christians.

Question: How much agreement would you need to see between Christians in order to no longer consider this objection a problem?

Hopefully, this list gives you a better idea of how to respond to these bad arguments when they come up. We’re hoping that the Final Four also comes to the Twin Cities next year so we can do something like this again. At the very least, this was fun.

 

Jeremy is the co-founder of the ministry Twin Cities Apologetics and is an accountant for a law firm in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He’s also going to Bethel Seminary for a graduate degree in a program called Christian Thought (basically Apologetics!). Outside of Apologetics, Jeremy enjoys sports, playing guitar, and making videos.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2DaNPe5

/by
My Discussion with Dr. Michael Shermer on God and Evil

J. Brian Huffling Discussion with Dr. Michael Shermer on God and Evil

, ,

By J. Brian Huffling

Having seen Dr. Michael Shermer debate many times, I was excited to be able to get a chance to have a discussion with him. Shermer, the founding publisher of Skeptic magazine, accepted Southern Evangelical Seminary‘s invitation to have an informal, but moderated, discussion with me on the topic, “Is the Reality of Evil Good Evidence against the Christian God?” This discussion was the culmination of a mini-conference on the problem of evil at SES. He was a delight to have, and the event was a blast.

My Discussion with Dr. Michael Shermer on God and Evil

I am not going to recount the whole debate. I am simply going to discuss some of the most important points and issues. (For those interested, Michael has a podcast of the debate/issue.)

What is ‘Evil’?

Michael was asked by the moderator, Adam Tucker (his thoughts on the discussion are here), to define what he meant by ‘evil.’ He said that evil is the intentional harm of a sentient being. There is no such thing, he said, of an entity that is evil, such as evil spirits, or anything that is pure evil.

I largely agree. Following Augustine, I hold that evil is simply the privation of good. In other words, evil is the corruption of a good thing. The classic example is blindness in the eye. The eye should have a certain power (sight) that it does not. It is lacking and is corrupted. Thus, it is physically evil. Then there is a moral evil. This happens when a person lacks virtues. Overall, though, Michael and I basically agree on what evil is and that there is no existing thing that is pure evil. For Christians, to exist is to somehow be like God, which is good. Further, following Aquinas, good seeks its perfection. Thus, there is a contradiction with an existing evil. Evil really has no goal or purpose in itself. Thus, an existing thing that is somehow good since it has being (in a sense like God) and that seeks its perfection cannot be pure evil.

At this point, we discussed the problem of evil and what it is exactly.

The Problem of Evil Briefly Stated

There are basically 2 forms of the problem of evil: the deductive form and the inductive form. The deductive form is also called the logical argument from evil and argues that the co-existence of the classical view of God and evil are logically impossible. This is the argument Michael used (from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy):

  1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
  2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
  3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
  4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
  5. Evil exists.
  6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
  7. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

This argument makes several assumptions. The most problematic in my view is that God is morally perfect. Many, if not most, Christian theologians take it for granted that God is morally perfect. However, I would argue that God is not the kind of being to be moral. That is not to say he is not good; he is just not morally good. I have written that God is not a moral being. I have also written that God’s goodness does not depend on what he does, but what he is. How does this relate to the problem of evil? If it is indeed the case that God is not a moral being with obligations to man, it makes all the difference in the world. I will not rewrite the articles above on God, morality, and goodness. I will summarize those positions here as they relate to the problem of evil.

As I said in the debate, J. L. Mackie, a notorious atheist of the twentieth century, said that if one gives up a premise in the problem of evil as just laid out, then the problem doesn’t arise (see The Problem of Evil edited by Adams and Adams, page 1). This is exactly what I said we need to do. There are certain assertions/assumptions that have to be made in order for this argument (the problem of evil) to work. I argue that the assertion that God is a morally perfect being is false. If we take that out of the problem, the problem falls.

I am not suggesting this simply to get out of this argument. There are really good reasons for not thinking that God is a moral being, at least in the sense we normally mean when referring to humans being moral. When we say a person is moral, we mean that he behaves well and as he should. In other words, there is a prescribed way in which men are supposed to behave. If they do, they are moral. If they don’t, they are immoral.

I am arguing that God has no prescribed way in which he should behave. There are no obligations imposing on God. God transcends the category of morality like he transcends time and space. Morality is a created category wrapped up in what it means to be a human. Without created beings to live up to some objective standard that God has created him to live up to, there is no moral law.

If this is correct, then God is not a moral being and thus cannot be a morally perfect being. But this is the linchpin of the logical problem of evil as Michael has argued. Once this assertion is removed, as Mackie says, there simply is no logical problem of evil. There is no contradiction with an omnipotent, omniscient being existing alongside of evil. Thus, the problem of evil does not even arise.

All of this is to say that God has no obligation to how he orchestrates the universe. To say that God is morally obligated means that he has to treat his creation in a certain way. This is the basic thrust of the problem of evil. To put it another way, as Michael did at one point, the problem of evil boils down to this: “If God really does exist I would expect the universe to be different/better.” The assumption here is that God should operate the way we think he should. He doesn’t. The inference is that he doesn’t exist.

Again, if we take away the assumption/assertion that God is morally perfect then the problem of evil not only fails, it never gets off the ground. (Please remember we are talking about the academic/philosophical issue of evil and not the emotional/pastoral concern.)

This is not to say God is not good; he is just not morally good. He is metaphysically good and perfect. Given our definition of evil, this just means God lacks nothing. His existence is perfect and cannot be corrupted.

The story of Job illustrates my point that God is not obligated to treat his creatures in any certain way. In the opening chapters of Job God basically dares Satan to attack Job. God maintains to Satan that Job will not curse him (God). Satan agrees. The only caveat is that Satan cannot touch Job. Job’s family (except his wife) is killed, and he loses all of his many possessions. Yet he does not curse God. God gives Satan another chance, but this time Satan can inflict Job with disease; although he cannot kill him. Job is inflicted with sores and physical issues. Still, he does not curse God.

Job’s friends show up and stay with Job, silent, for a week. For many chapters after this Job’s friends argue about what Job did to bring this judgment upon him. They maintain that God would not do this without some (just) cause. Job maintained his innocence and wanted to take God to court and try him for being unjust.

At the end of the book, God shows up. Does he try to explain to Job why he did what he did? Does he offer a theodicy or defense for his actions? No. He basically asks Job where he was when God made all of the wonders of the world. Job cannot answer and repents. In short, God does not try to get off the hook, as it were. Rather he says, “I’m God, and you are not.”

I think this illustrates my point that God does not have to act in any certain way with his people. He is not unjust in dealing with Job the way he did. However, let’s put a human in the place of God and Satan in this story. If a human did to Job what God and Satan did, we would almost certainly say the human would be unjust. However, we would not, presumably, say that God is unjust. Why? Because he’s God. There is no standard by which to judge him. God transcends morality and yet is still perfectly good.

Philosophy vs. Science

This above point is one that I could not get Michael to acknowledge. He did not want to stray from his scientific position. (By ‘scientific’ I mean the modern sense of the word to refer to the natural sciences like biology and chemistry. This should be contrasted with the historical sense of a discipline’s conclusions being demonstrated via first principles and logic. In this latter sense, philosophy and theology were considered sciences.) This is unfortunate because the issues of God and evil are inherently philosophical. As I have written, natural science alone cannot demonstrate God’s existence. Thus, to adequately deal with the issues of the discussion we have to delve into philosophy. Michael would have none of it.

Michael’s main point here is that if God is not measurable, then we can’t know he exists. As I pointed out this is a category mistake as God is not a material being. Thus, even if he did exist, we could not measure him–which Michael acknowledged.

Throughout the debate, Michael approached the issue from the point of view of natural science. I approached it from philosophy. In short, the questions of God’s existence and evil cannot be decided by natural science since they are not physical things in the natural world to be studied: God is not a being in nature and evil is a description of the nature of being (a philosophical concept).

Michael offered a lot of red herrings. I will not deal with those here as they are, well, red herrings.

Conclusion

The problem of evil is not a problem concerning God’s existence if God is not a moral being. Further, questions of God’s existence and evil are inherently philosophical. If you are interested in this topic, I recommend Brian Davies’ The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil.

 

J. Brian Huffling, PH.D. have 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/2v4rTNa

/by
Twitter suspends account of pro-life movie “Unplanned”, deletes 99% of their followers

Twitter suspends account of pro-life movie “Unplanned”, deletes 99% of their followers

,

By Wintery Knight

Wow, big social media companies like Facebook, Google, Youtube, and Twitter are really ratcheting up their suppression of any accounts that challenge their allies in the Democrat Party. For example, on the weekend Twitter decided to suspend the account of the new pro-life movie “Unplanned.” And then they deleted 99,000 of their followers.

PJ Media reports:

The pro-life movie Unplanned surprised at the box office its opening weekend, taking 5th place with $6.1 million. That didn’t stop Twitter from attacking the film twice in one weekend, however.

The movie’s Twitter account was briefly suspended on Saturday, mere hours after its release on Friday. On Sunday, the account seems to have mysteriously lost 99,000 of its 100,000 followers.

There was a backlash against the suspension of the account. Twitter didn’t provide any rule that was violated, but they reinstated the account – with zero followers. People trying to re-follow the account were prevented from doing so, including the author of the PJ Media article:

I attempted to follow the page, but the same thing happened to me.

However, the movie performed so well at the box office that they are expanding the number of theaters next week to 1,700:

Despite the Twitter suspension and sudden mysterious loss of followers, Unplanned racked up more than $6.1 million at the box office, despite being predicted to take in only $2-3 million. Even more impressive, the film only played on 1,060 screens, earning an average of $5,770 per screen.

On Sunday, the film announced that its distributor, Pure Flix, will add an additional 600 screens for a count of 1,700 screens next week.

The movie also earned an A+ rating from CinemaScore, and it has a 93 percent positive rating on RottenTomatoes.

I’d make sure that you go see it as soon as possible. Remember what happend to the Gosnell movie, last time? The theaters pulled it very early, even though it was doing very well.

This isn’t the first time that Twitter has censored voices critical of their allies in the Democrat Party. Remember when they refused to allow a pro-life election ad from (now Senator) Marsha Blackburn? Or when they censored pro-life ads from the well-known pro-life Susan B. Anthony List group? Or when they said that death threats against conservative Dana Loesch were permissible? They also allowed threats of violence to be made against the pro-life Covington students. They also blocked pro-life ads from Live Action. Basically, they censor anything that makes their pro-abortion allies in the Democrat Party look bad.

I understand that companies make mistakes, but why are all the mistakes made by these big social media companies in favor of their allies in the Democrat Party? Is it because they don’t want their allies in the Democrat Party to lose elections?

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2IbAy8l

/by