A Deeper Understanding Of Christ's Love Through Suffering

A Deeper Understanding Of Christ’s Love Through Suffering

, ,

By Luke Nix

Introduction

How can you helplessly watch as a child dies from agonizing cancer? Doesn’t the love you feel tell you that that suffering is evil and a God who is all loving and all powerful would rescue that child? How can God be all loving and all powerful if He allows such a child to suffer and die?

This is a challenge that is often raised by atheists to reject the God of the Bible. But today, I am not going to answer the atheist who raises the challenge as an armchair hypothetical that they have never experienced; instead I want to speak to the person who either has experienced this tragedy or is in the middle of it, and it causes them to be skeptical of the goodness and even existence of God.

This Is What Love Feels Like

But could God have a purpose for the pain that you feel? Before I get to that, please watch this tribute to those who have cared for a loved one at the end of their life: This Is What Love Feels Like, by dc Talk, inspired by Toby McKeehan‘s experience:

Knowing Love Through Suffering

Jesus knew the suffering that would take Him to His physical limits, yet He persisted and conquered: This was His love for you as He suffering the torture of crucifixion. If you have been taken to your limits through the suffering of a loved one, you know this love.

Without the suffering of a loved one, we would not know this love for someone else that takes us to our limits (and live to tell of it), what love truly feels like. Without the suffering of a loved one, we would not have the privilege of getting a trace of understanding of the depth of Christ’s love for us that took Him to the end of His physical limits. Caring for a spouse, parent, or child as they leave this world has to be one of the most painful experiences, and we do not escape it unchanged by the suffering it has caused. We are wounded, but we can use those wounds to heal. We can become the wounded healer (see my post “The Wounded Healer: Finding Ultimate Purpose In Your Suffering” for more on this concept). And just as we are alive today to be wounded healers, Jesus conquered death through His bodily resurrection to be the Ultimate Wounded Healer that we point to.

While it is a privilege to experience what this kind of love feels like (though it comes at a great cost, just like it did for Christ), our experience only scratches the surface of the love that Christ has. And our experience is only one person (or maybe a few people in extremely tragic situations) at a time. But Jesus’ love, as He suffered death, was not just for you or just for a few people, it was for every person (John 3:16).

Conclusion

We must not forget that our suffering in this life will come to an end. It is finite, and this finite suffering is not worth comparing to the infinite glory that will one day be revealed in us (Romans 8:18) and can be revealed in others to enjoy with us if we are willing to be used by God to be wounded healers. Do not be discouraged. Our perfect God has a purpose for your suffering. Without Him, your experience is a gratuitous pain with no purpose or meaning. But because God exists and Christ is resurrected from the dead, your experience is both purposeful and meaningful. Through your experience, God has blessed you with a deeper understanding of His love for you, and now He gives you the privilege to speak hope, life, love, meaning, and purpose to the brokenhearted suffering and struggling the same as you are.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2RFk6Ql

/by
Emotional Doubt and How to Combat It

Emotional Doubt and How to Combat It

By Brian Chilton

In a recent class at Liberty University, it was noted how 80% of a person’s doubts do not stem from intellectual problems with Christianity, but rather from emotional doubt. Emotional doubt is a problem for every person, but it seems to be a tougher concept for men to combat. The reason is that most men abstain from talking about their emotions. Many will suppress the emotional doubt and ignore it. However, such actions do not eliminate the doubt. Emotional doubt may address issues concerning the loss of a loved one, an unanswered prayer, or frustrations in life for which one blames God.

Interestingly, emotional doubt can be combated by a form of biblical cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Some may claim, “Hold up, Brian! You are talking that psychology mumbo-jumbo! What good is cognitive therapy?” Actually, cognitive behavioral therapy is quite a good practice. Paul argues the following:

“Don’t worry about anything, but in everything, through prayer and petition with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus. Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable—if there is any moral excellence and if there is anything praiseworthy—dwell on these things” (Php. 4:6-8).[1]

The believer should focus on those things that build up one’s faith and not on worry and fears which cause anxiety. CBT does just that. Using CBT to combat emotional doubt is quite effective. CBT can also combat depression and anxiety. Biblical CBT follows three steps.

  1. Identify your lies. First, recognize the doubts and fears you tell yourself. You may say, “I am going to certainly fail this test even though I have studied hard for it. I am too dumb to pass it.” Realize that the statements do not correspond with reality. If you have studied hard for the test, then you have learned the information which will be on the test. You are certainly not too dumb to learn the material.
  2. Remove your lies by arguing against it and give reasons for your optimism. Second, argue against the lies you are telling yourself with a positive, encouraging case. You may tell yourself that if you fail the test that it would be the worst thing in the world. In this case, remind yourself that you have studied the material and have learned the material quite well. Even if the worst should happen and you fail the test, it is not the end of the world. As bad as it may be, it is not as bad as you’re making it out to be.
  3. Replace your lies with the truth of God’s word. Third and finally, replace your lies with the truth of God’s word. Realize that “I am able to do all things through him (Christ) who strengthens me” (Php. 4:13, brackets mine). Realize that “all things work together for the good of those who love God, who are called according to his purpose” (Rom. 8:28). With these truths in mind, the doubts and anxieties begin to lose their grip.

CBT is a biblical practice that all believers need to practice. For too long, we have allowed the devil to steal our joy and hope. Often, we are our own worst enemies as we feel too frightened to take a chance on something for playing the “what if” game. Stop letting fear and anxiety steal the thunder from the grace that God has given you. Always keep in mind that “God has not given us a spirit of fear, but one of power, love, and sound judgment” (2 Tim. 1:9).

 

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. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as a pastor in northwestern North Carolina.

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

/by
Colossians 2:8 Does Not Condemn Philosophy

Colossians 2:8 Does Not Condemn Philosophy

By Evan Minton 

Some well-meaning but very misinformed Christians discourage the study of philosophy on the basis of a verse in Colossians chapter 2. In Colossians 2:8, the apostle Paul wrote: “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits[a] of the world, and not according to Christ.” This verse has become the chief proof-text for anti-philosophy Christians. In fact, even the famous reformed preacher John MacArthur argued against philosophy using this text. In The MacArthur Study Bible, he wrote “You know what philosophers are? They’re doodlers with words instead of pencils. They just make a whole lot of verbal squiggles. Colossians 2:8 says this: ‘Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy.’” Unfortunately, this verse has been majorly misinterpreted.

Keep The Text In Its Context

When you look at the verse in context, what you find is that Paul wasn’t saying “Philosophy is bad”, but rather, he was warning his readers to be on the lookout for bad philosophies.

To really understand what Paul is talking about in this verse, one needs to move beyond the verse itself. One needs to read it in context. That means both the immediate context (the verses before and after it) and its cultural context. Moyer Hubbard of Equip.org writes “Looking now at Colossians and the specific context of chapter 2, we find Paul addressing a local assembly that had been infiltrated by a form of false teaching that threatened to undermine the gospel he preached. Paul does not give us enough information to identify precisely what sect or ‘philosophy’ he is describing. There are some clues, however, that suggest that it was perhaps a syncretistic hybrid of Jewish mystical practices and popular pagan folk-belief: he mentions the observance of special days, including the Sabbath (v.16); visionary experience and the worship of angels (v.18); submission to the “elemental spirits of the world” (v.20);6 and abstinence (vv.21,23). Paul clearly is attacking a peculiar form of religious speculation, but it is impossible to identify it with any of the major schools of philosophy known to us from the Greco-Roman world. In fact, it is important to keep in mind that the Greek word philosophia (and its Latin cognate) had a variety of meanings in this period, and, depending on the context, might be translated ‘religion,’ ‘speculation,’ or ‘investigation.'”[1]

We gain more information on this incorrect philosophy by taking into account how Paul describes it in the 8th verse of Colossians 2: Paul says that it’s founded on “human traditions and the elemental powers of the world, and not on Christ.” The key phrase here is “[based] not on Christ.” Paul was targeting “philosophical” speculations that oppose the truths of Christ.

Moreover, I think the phrase “human traditions,” gives us a clue that this ungodly speculation was Jewish in nature. The phrase “human traditions” appears in only one other place; Mark 7:8, where Jesus condemns the Pharisees as those who reject “the commands of God and hold to human traditions” (cf. Galatians 1:14). Paul uses the term “elemental spirits of the world” similarly in referring to the Galatians’ doing the Torah stuff in Galatians 4:3. As Hubbard commented, “That Paul could refer to this syncretistic Jewish speculation as a ‘philosophy’ is in keeping with how Hellenistic Jews of the period sometimes referred to their faith.”[2] He said that because extra-biblical Jewish writers of the time called their theological beliefs “philosophies”. For example, the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus calls Judaism and its multiple sects as “philosophies”[3] (those sects being the Essenes, Sadducees, and Pharisees)[4]

4 Maccabees refers to Judaism as “our philosophy…teaching temperance, self-control, courage” (5.22‑23). Therefore, it very well could be the case that Colossians 2:8 is referring to Judaism and the Judaisers, employing their terminology when referring to their beliefs. If that is the case, then one cannot use Colossians 2:8 to condemn the study of philosophy as a whole, for Paul is merely warning against philosophical systems that oppose the gospel, in this case; the philosophy of the Judaisers.

Dissing Philosophy Is Logically Self-Refuting

Besides the exegetical fallacies in taking Colossians 2:8, there is a logical problem as well; namely, it’s self-refuting. In any attempt you make to formulate arguments against philosophy, you will be reasoning philosophically about philosophy. Yet if you’re reasoning philosophically about philosophy, you’re engaging in the very thing Paul (allegedly) told us not to do; philosophy! This is why Christians who say “I don’t need philosophy” are frequently met with the retort “Really? That’s a nice philosophy.” and “You shouldn’t do philosophy” with “Is that your philosophy?” Are we to believe that The Holy Spirit would inspire Paul to teach self-refuting…. philosophies?

Conclusion
The Apostle Paul was not anti-philosophy. Those who argue that he was, do so by ripping Colossians 2:8 out of context. Moreover, to say you shouldn’t do philosophy and then proceed to give any arguments for it is self-refuting, as you’re doing philosophy.

I’ll end this blog post with a quote from Dr. William Lane Craig: “the man who claims to have no need for philosophy is the one most apt to be fooled by it”[5]

Notes

[1] “Is Colossians 2:8 A Warning Against Philosophy?” – by Moyer Hubbard, http://www.equip.org/article/is-colossians-28-a-warning-against-philosophy/

[2] ibid.

[3] Flavius Josephus Against Apion 2.47.

[4] Flavius Josephus Antiquities 18.11.

[5] https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/hawking-and-mlodinow-philosophical-undertakers

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2RFw7oL

/by
What I Learned About Faith While Thinking I Had Cancer This Week

What I Learned About Faith While Thinking I Had Cancer This Week

By Natasha Crain

A few days ago I felt a rather large, firm lump on my body.

My first reaction was, “What on Earth is that?”… followed closely by, “Oh my gosh. This could be it.”

Honestly, I started to panic. I know I’m at a higher risk for certain types of cancer and I imagined the worst.

My doctor wasn’t able to get me in for five days. I spent that five days consumed by Google research—diagnosing myself, guessing what stage cancer it would be if I had it, and looking at 5-year survival rates for the various stages. Every time the kids were occupied, I would quickly grab my phone to Google something new about the size, shape, and texture of my unwelcome lump.

I eventually concluded that there was a pretty good chance it actually wasn’t cancer given the characteristics of the lump. I was still scared, but the more logical side of me believed it was more likely than not to be benign. When the morning of my appointment rolled around, I went in with the hope of reassurance.

That didn’t happen.

The doctor said he was “pretty” confident it wasn’t cancerous. I asked him if “pretty” confident meant something more like 51 percent or 90 percent, thinking he would say 90 percent. He replied, “More like 51 percent.”

The words hung in the air for what seemed an eternity. This is just as likely to go either way. 

The doctor gave me an urgent referral for the various tests needed to determine what was going on later that day. I went home and had some very dark moments.

Fear consumed me. I prayed with desperate, tear-covered pleas for health.

I felt absolutely nothing back from God.

Just a menacing silence.

And at that moment, the voices of so many skeptics filled my head…

Why would God be so hidden at a time like this? Is He really there?

As an apologist—someone who knows well the evidence for God’s existence and the truth of Christianity—I knew what I would say to someone else asking that question. I could talk all about evidence and the philosophical reasons for divine hiddenness.

But at that moment, I didn’t want any more evidence. I didn’t want to make a case to myself for the truth of Christianity. I didn’t want to weigh facts to see what was most reasonable.

I wanted an experience.

I wanted a feeling.

I wanted to be overcome with the presence of God, with a feeling of peace, or with a supernaturally-given reassurance that I was going to be OK.

None of those things happened. And in that darkest of moments, I understood more than ever why experience so often trumps evidence… for both skeptics and Christians.

When Experience Trumps Evidence for Skeptics

Christian apologist Sean McDowell and the “Friendly Atheist” blogger Hemant Mehta were recently on the Unbelievable podcast by Justin Brierley. It was a fascinating discussion on what both Christians and atheists get wrong about the other side. You can watch it here on YouTube or listen through the podcast. I thought Sean was brilliant, and his gracious but pointed comments and questions revealed many of the inconsistencies in Mehta’s worldview.

But one thing stood out to me more than any other. Someone asked what it would take to change each of their minds about what they believe. Mehta (and I’m paraphrasing) said that he’s heard all the kinds of evidence that Christians offer and there’s really no evidence that could be convincing…outside of a personal experience.

This was absolutely intriguing to me. He had spent much of the discussion explaining how he doesn’t believe because there’s no evidence for God’s existence, but when pressed on what would change his convictions, he acknowledged that there’s no objective evidence—evidence outside himself—that would change his mind. It would have to be a personal experience (and he said he would question even that).

His comment made me reflect on years of hearing from skeptics through my blog. Though the reason for unbelief is almost always framed as “lack of evidence,” the comments typically come sandwiched with a list of experiential issues:

I’ve never experienced God doing anything in my life even when I desperately needed it.

God never answered my prayers when I was a Christian.

If God exists, he wouldn’t have let my daughter be born with this disability.

I used to be a Christian, but when I was losing faith I cried out to God for a sign, and nothing happened.

Truthfully, I’ve always mentally responded to such statements with, “but these things, logically speaking, don’t mean God doesn’t exist…we have to look at the objective evidence for the whole picture of reality.” And that’s true.

But I can now better understand that experience can be so powerfully negative that we can become closed to considering any evidence outside of ourselves. We naturally trust our interpretation of our experiences over our interpretation of things like the complexity of DNA.

When Experience Trumps Evidence for Christians

People who are passionate about apologetics often lament the fact that so many Christians don’t understand the need for it in today’s world. What we hear all the time from church-goers is that they already believe, so they don’t need all this “evidence stuff.”

As someone who writes and speaks frequently about all the important reasons why we desperately need this “evidence stuff” to be known in the church today, that’s very frustrating. And it can be even more frustrating when Christians say they don’t need it because they have experiences instead:

They’ve felt God’s presence, so they know He’s there.

They see God in their spouse and kids.

They know God is there from that still, small voice inside.

They see God in the beauty of the mountains.

Why do I say frustrating? Let me put on my apologist hat: because experiences are subjective. In a world that is increasingly hostile to the idea that Christianity is true, Christians need to be able to point to something outside of themselves as evidence for their beliefs. If your child says they don’t feel God, and you say you do, how helpful can your personal experience be to them? But when you can point to the objective evidence for God’s existence in the world around them, the historical evidence for the resurrection, and the evidence for the reliability of the Bible, you’re able to ground their faith in something you can mutually access.

However, just as powerfully negative experiences can trump evidence for atheists, powerfully positive experiences can trump evidence for Christians. What they’ve experienced has felt so certain that the value of outside evidence seems to pale in comparison.

What, Then, Is the Value of Objective Evidence for Anyone?

Through this brief ordeal, I’ve understood more than ever that nearly everyone trusts, by default, their experiences more than objective evidence. And frankly, it’s experience that we desperately want. Fine-tuning arguments schmarguments. We would all rather take a powerful feeling of God’s presence any day.

What, then, is the value of apologetics?

A lot. But I’ll stick with three points.

  1. For those who have had powerfully negative experiences, apologetics remains a way to compare our subjective experiences to the objective evidence for the truth about reality… when we’re not grieving. Apologetics may be of very little use for most people in desperate times, but that doesn’t negate the longer term need. When we teach our kids to build a faith based on evidence, it doesn’t mean that when difficult times come they will necessarily resort to a simple response of, “No matter how I feel while pondering if I have cancer, I know Christianity is true!” I certainly didn’t. But it does mean that over the longer term they will have the tools needed to assess their personal experiences in light of objective evidence. Ultimately, confidence in the truth of Christianity—grounded in good evidence—gives people well-justified eternal hope that brings perspective to our (often tragic) negative experiences.
  2. Similarly, for those who have had powerfully positive experiences, apologetics provides a needed check against reality. Having hope without good reason is a delusion. We shouldn’t be content to assume God is there only because we had a powerful feeling while the praise band played. It’s also safe to assume that no one will live an entire life of powerful positive experiences—every Christian goes through times when God seems far. When powerful positive experiences become more distant, it’s easy to doubt their validity. Learning apologetics helps keep us grounded when the experiential highs wear off.
  3. For those who haven’t had particularly powerful positive experiences, apologetics provides conviction instead of a feeling that the lack of an experience means a lack of God’s existence. When I was a teenager, I went to a youth conference where the speaker stirred up a lot of emotions and many kids in the room were crying. I wasn’t. My youth leader pulled me aside and said, “Natasha, I noticed you aren’t as emotional as the others here. Are you sure you’re close to God?” I’ll never forget that assumption that closeness to God equals a highly emotional experience. If that’s the expectation, and you don’t experience God as you would like, you can quickly assume He just might not be there. When we teach our kids the objective evidence for the truth of Christianity, however, they gain a conviction of their beliefs and realize faith isn’t about waiting for a certain experience to happen.

I eventually got in for all the testing to determine what the lump was all about. It was the longest few hours of my life but ended with the best possible news: it was nothing but a common benign cyst that required no further testing or procedures. I was free to walk out.

I got to my car and cried tears of relief.

And now here I am, back to life as normal… but I want to acknowledge that there are many who don’t get this good news. I have several friends with cancer right now. They are living with the day-to-day uncertainties that consume your every waking second. I almost didn’t write this post because it seems too easy to write when you are no longer in the circumstance. I hope it will be taken in the spirit in which it was intended, however: a simple reflection on something I learned during a (relatively) few moments of desperation.

 

Natasha Crain administra su blog de apologética cristiana para padres, ChristianMomThoughts.com. Obtuvo su MBA en Marketing y Estadísticas en UCLA y consiguió un certificado de apologética cristiana de la Universidad de Biola. Actualmente reside en California con su esposo Bryan junto con sus tres pequeños hijos.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2QG02f7

/by
“How Would You Respond to This”

“How Would You Respond to This?”

,

By Timothy Fox

Once people discover that you’re a Christian thinker, they often start coming to you with all of the objections they hear:

“The Bible is hopelessly corrupt.”

“Jesus never existed.”

“Science disproves God.”

Your friends will offer you the objections and ask, “How would you respond to this?” And here is what I always say: “I wouldn’t.” I never respond to objections.

But wait, aren’t I an apologist? Isn’t it my responsibility to provide an answer to people’s objections? Not necessarily. Let me explain.

Offense and Defense

The same way that a football team has an offensive line and a defensive line, apologetics can be divided into offense – giving arguments for the truthfulness of Christianity – and defense – responding to objections against Christianity. So, when someone raises an objection to Christianity, they are trying to put you on defense. And while arguing against other religions and worldviews does take a lot of study, defensive apologetics is a whole lot easier. Here’s why: It isn’t your job to respond to a skeptic’s objection. It’s the skeptic’s job to defend the objection. So in reality, you aren’t on defense, the skeptic is!

Let’s look back at the objections above and ask some simple questions to deflate them:

Skeptic: “The Bible is hopelessly corrupt.”

Me: “Really? How do you know that?”

Now instead of me defending the reliability of the Bible, I’ve turned the tables and put the skeptic on defense. How does he know the Bible is hopelessly corrupt? What does he know about the transmission of the biblical texts?

Skeptic: “Jesus never existed.”

Me: “Why do you think that?”

Jesus mythicism is popular on the internet, but it’s a joke in scholarly circles. So force the skeptic to back up his claims. If Jesus isn’t real, who invented him and why? What do real historians think about this?

Skeptic: “Science disproves God.”

Me: “How exactly does science disprove God?”

Sure, you could have given a lecture on how science points us to a divine Creator, through the cosmological, fine-tuning, and design arguments. But why should you do all the heavy lifting? That’s the skeptic’s job! Let the skeptic try to make a scientific case against God’s existence, and if he can’t, then show how science actually provides evidence for God’s existence. That’s much more impactful.

Defending objections to Christianity is simple once you realize that it isn’t your job to defend against the objection; it’s the skeptic’s job to defend the objection itself.

Now, is it always this easy? Of course not. You may come across a very knowledgeable skeptic with a really tough objection that can’t be easily questioned away. But you can still keep your cool: “Wow, that’s an interesting objection and I’ve never thought of that before. I’ll look into it and get back to you.” Then you do your homework and resolve to never get stumped by the same question twice. But more often than not, some simple questions are all it takes to deflate a skeptic who hasn’t thought very much about his objections to Christianity.

Conclusion

Evangelizing and engaging in spiritual conversations can be very intimidating, especially when people have such a wide range of beliefs and may even be outright hostile to Christianity. But Jesus commanded his followers to go out and make disciples (Matt. 28:19). And when the tough objections come, we are called to defend our faith (1 Pet. 3:15). However, you don’t need hours and hours of study before you can begin sharing the gospel and defending your faith. Sometimes all it takes is a few simple questions.

To learn more about the tactical approach to engaging in spiritual conversations, check out Tactics by Greg Koukl. It’s the #1 book I recommend to anyone interested in apologetics. Seriously, buy it now.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Rns5B9

/by
Why the pulpit must be political

Why the pulpit must be political

,

By Michael Sherrard 

With all that is going on in the world, my church doesn’t need to be entertained. They need to be trained. We are not in a time of peace. While we creatively plan the stage design for our next sermon series, another group is setting the stage for our removal from society.

Now, of course, it is right to be creative in church. I’m not saying otherwise. But the pulpit doesn’t belong to entertainers. Pastors are not merely MC’s. They are watchmen. And when the enemy is before us, the watchman better not be blinded by his own stage lights while his people are attacked.

Rather than be caught defenseless, pastors must equip their people to engage a culture that is becoming increasingly hostile toward Christianity. And so, the pulpit must be political. Yes, I know that Christ’s kingdom is not of this world. Let’s get that out of the way. I already hear your objection: “We should care more about salvation than society.” Sure, I agree. It is better to lose the world than your soul. But if you think that society can go to hell as long as people don’t, you’ve fallen for an old trick and you’ve misunderstood the nature of the gospel.

A politically silent pulpit is one that is catering to the secularist’s agenda: “Keep your religious beliefs private. They are not wanted in society. They are no good to us.” And for some reason, we’ve bought into the propaganda of those that want to fashion a society after their own values. Somehow they have convinced us that the only good beliefs for society are the beliefs of atheists. But beliefs that are true are true for all and are good for all. It does not matter where they come from. And if the Christian message contains truth, the application of that truth is far-reaching. It does not end at the capital steps.

Christianity is an all-encompassing worldview. Meaning, it is a set of true beliefs that affect all of life. The gospel itself has implications that go beyond ones eternal destination. We see this truth in Paul’s ethics. Pauline ethics might be summed up this way: because Christ humbled himself and died on a cross, so should you be humble and willfully offer up your life for the good of others (Phil 2:1-11). Our faith manifests itself in ways that benefit others if it is a real faith. You must repress your hope in God to keep it private. I doubt you disagree with this.

So why are politics off limits? Why is it right for us to sit back and allow harmful policies be legislated? Why shouldn’t we expose candidates that seek to preserve the right to kill babies? Why do we think we have to let atheists run our country? Are Christian teachings not good? Do they not promote human flourishing? Why do we think a Christian influence equals a theocracy? How have we become so simple minded about our civil responsibility? Pastors we have failed our people. If it is not our job to instruct the people of God on these things, whose job is it?

When politics are ignored in the pulpit the message to the world and the church is clear: Christianity is irrelevant. It tells the world that what we care about is our little club, and it tells those in the club not to worry about what goes on outside. Subsequently, many in the church find it impossible to find fulfillment in life because life itself is apparently not worth redeeming. This leads to self-indulgence and things like “church shopping.” We use the church as a commodity to meet our needs. We consume the church rather than be the church. And the body of Christ becomes a glutton for the work of others instead of being a vessel passing out the common grace of our Lord.

Even though we know that the only way to find life is to give it away, we have sold a product that says otherwise. Let us change that. We understand that we are to seek the good of others. We understand that Christ did not redeem us for irrelevance, but to be agents of renewal. Therefore, let us turn our attention again to society and utilize all the tools at our disposal. As we eagerly await the Kingdom to come, let us not neglect the land we have been given. Let us be political.

 

Michael C. Sherrard is a pastor, the director of Ratio Christi College Prep, and the author of Relational Apologetics. Booking info and such can be found at michaelcsherrard.com.

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

/by
Dealing with the “Who Created God” Objection

Dealing with the “Who Created God” Objection

,

By J. Brian Huffling

It never fails. Offer an argument for God’s existence and almost invariably you will hear, “Well, who created God?” With some arguments, this may be a legitimate objection. I have argued elsewhere that philosophical proofs for God’s existence are more powerful than scientific ones. This objection is one instance where I think one can see the advantage of the philosophical arguments. For example, the usual intelligent design arguments do not necessitate that the designer be an infinite, uncreated being. Thus, the objection considered here would be relevant. But it is not relevant for certain philosophical proofs. These proofs argue either from logic or metaphysics that a being exists that is not caused and has no beginning. Arguments like the 5 Ways of Thomas Aquinas and the ontological argument from Anselm are such arguments. Consider the first of the 5 Ways:

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. (Summa Theologiae, I. q.2 a3)

The point I am trying to make is not whether the argument is sound, but rather to show that the argument does not allow the objection, “Who created God?” The conclusion of the argument is that there exists a being that is not put into motion (caused) by anything else. So the objection “Who created God” is asking “What caused the uncaused cause?” It’s a nonsensical objection that betrays the objector as either not paying attention to the argument or not understanding it. (For the rest of the 5 Ways, click here.)

The objection is usually offered to the Kalam argument which says “Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause.” The objection is often phrased, “If everything has a cause then why doesn’t God?” The attentive reader will note that the argument does not say everything has a cause, but that all things that have a beginning have a cause. In fact, no argument that I have ever heard says that everything needs a cause. Gottfried Leibniz’s argument from the principle of sufficient reason says that everything has to have a sufficient reason for its existence, but a necessary being is its own sufficient reason since a necessary being does not have a cause. In fact, a necessary being cannot have a cause, or it wouldn’t be a necessary being!

God as the uncaused cause does not require a cause and the “Who created God” objection does nothing except betray the objector’s ignorance of the logic of the (philosophical) argument. The next time someone asks you who created God, all that is needed is to ask the question, “Based on the argument I gave, the conclusion is that a being exists that is uncaused and is the cause of all other being. Why would an uncaused cause need a cause? One can argue that the argument is unsound for some reason, but if the argument is sound the objection is irrelevant.”

That is, of course, if you are using the philosophical type of arguments that are not susceptible to the objection. Since the scientific arguments are susceptible to this objection and at least some of the philosophical ones are not, the latter are more powerful and provide a fuller picture of God.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2P4JsW0

/by
Does Modern Science Disprove Miracles

Does Modern Science Disprove Miracles?

,

By Ryan Leasure

Back in less civilized times, people believed lightning storms meant the gods were upset with them. An eclipse indicated God was about to bring judgment. Lack of rain meant the people needed to get right with their god.

But we’ve moved on from all that right? After all, science explains everything we need to know about these so-called “acts of God.” Science explains lightning, eclipses, and droughts. We know these aren’t divine acts — or miracles — because science says so.

Or so the skeptic says. In fact, ever since the eighteenth-century philosopher David Hume gave his argument against miracles, skeptics have recycled his argument with fervor. His argument can be summarized as follows: A miracle is a violation of natural law, but a natural law can never be violated.

In other words, Hume denied that miracles are possible from the outset. He argued, a priori, that no amount of evidence would ever persuade him that a miracle actually occurred because natural law always occurs. In sum, science disproves miracles. But is this a reasonable position? Should Christians stop believing in the possibility of miracles?

If God Created The Universe…

Let’s suppose one day a friend of yours argues that it’s impossible for LeBron James to dunk on a five-foot hoop. He’s adamant that it can’t be done because he’s never seen it happen. You’ve never seen LeBron dunk on a five-foot hoop either, but you’ve watched countless games where he’s dunked on a ten-foot hoop with ease. So you try to reason with your friend by asking him, “If LeBron can easily dunk on a ten-foot hoop, don’t you think dunking on a five-foot hoop would be a breeze for him?”

The same kind of argument can be made for the possibility of miracles. You see, God already performed the greatest miracle imaginable when he created the universe out of nothing. He spoke and everything came into existence — including the laws of nature. Who’s to say that God couldn’t intervene in his creation and overpower those laws he established? That would be child’s play for him.

After all, we overpower the laws of nature all the time. Airplanes overpower the law of gravity. When I hit the brakes on my car, I overpower the laws of physics by bringing me to an abrupt halt instead of continuing in motion. And when my kid throws a ball to me, I catch it instead of letting gravity take it to the ground.

Now if you and I can intervene with the laws of nature, don’t you think God could do the same? Couldn’t he cause someone to stand on water instead of sinking? Couldn’t he calm the storm, heal the sick, or even raise the dead? If he created the universe out of nothing, these smaller miracles would be a walk in the park by comparison.

The Question Of Miracles Is Philosophical, Not Scientific

Science tells you what will happen — all things being equal — but it cannot account for someone intervening within the laws of nature. In other words, science will tell you that the ball will drop to the ground because of gravity, but science cannot account for me stopping it from hitting the ground. That is, it can’t account for an intelligent agent overpowering the laws of nature.

In this way, the question of miracles is not so much about science. Rather, it’s a question of philosophy. More specifically, it’s a question of whether miracles are possible or not? David Hume’s philosophical view said no. He rejected the possibility of miracles and stated that no amount of evidence would ever persuade him otherwise.

Theists, on the other hand, believe that since God created the universe, miracles are possible. And why wouldn’t they be? C. S. Lewis famously argued:

If we admit God, must we admit miracles? Indeed, indeed, you have no security against it. That is the bargain.1

What About Evidence?

I’ve heard on more than one occasion skeptics claim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. On the surface, this sounds legitimate, but ultimately it’s an unreasonable claim. Usually, what the skeptic means is that he needs to see another miracle to prove that a miracle happened. Yet, miracles, by definition, are rare occurrences. If they happened repeatedly to verify other miracles, then it’s no longer miracles we’re talking about. We’re talking about natural law.

I would argue that extraordinary claims only require ordinary evidence. Let me give you an example. Suppose I told you I owned a dog. What kind of evidence would it take to prove to you that I owned a dog? Maybe you’d want to see some pictures or a video. Perhaps you’d want to come to my house and see it for yourself just to make sure.

Now, suppose I told you I owned a flying pig — an extraordinary claim no doubt. What kind of evidence would you need to believe my claim? The same evidence you needed for my dog — ordinary evidence for the extraordinary claim.

Now I’m not suggesting we believe every miracle claim out there. No, we should investigate each claim to determine if the claims are valid or not. We should ask questions such as: Is there credible eye-witness testimony? Are there multiple, independent eye-witnesses? Do the eye-witnesses have anything to gain or lose by making up this claim? Is the evidence compelling? Etc.

When it comes to the miracle accounts in the Gospels, this is what we find. We have eye-witness testimony, multiple sources with nothing to gain but persecution, all the while recording these events in writing within a generation. As far as ancient historiography goes, this is as good as it gets. These events are attested to extremely well by ancient standards.

Why Not More Miracles?

I sympathize with the person who wonders why we don’t see miracles happening today. It can be difficult to believe in them if you’ve never seen one yourself. Again, I would remind us that if we did see them frequently, they’d cease being miracles because they are, by definition, rare events.

I would also point out that miracles didn’t happen all the time in the Bible either. The Bible covers a period of about 1500 years from beginning to end. Yet, we find an overwhelming majority of the miracles in three small windows of time, and in each instance, the miracles authenticated new revelation God was giving to his people.

For example, several miracles occurred during the time of Moses as God gave the Law to his people. During the time of the prophets — especially Elijah and Elisha — God performed dozens of miracles as well. And during the time of Jesus and his apostles, God performed miracles to authenticate their ministries.

Since God isn’t giving any more written revelation at this point, we shouldn’t be surprised that we don’t see miracles on a regular basis. This doesn’t mean, however, that miracles don’t happen today, as many credible reports attest to modern-day miracles. 

Science Doesn’t Disprove Miracles

According to Barna Research, two out of every five US adults say they’ve experienced a miracle. That’s roughly 94 million miracle claims in the US alone. And lest we think it’s simply uneducated who believe this, 55 percent of all US physicians have seen medical results they would consider miraculous.

In order for the skeptic to be right, every last one of these claims, and every other miracle claim in the history of humanity has to be false. Yet, if God created the universe out of nothing — as the scientific data suggests — then his ability to perform miracles is unquestionable. Rather than disproving miracles, it looks like science actually proves they’re possible.

 

Ryan Leasure Holds a M.A. from Furman University and a M.Div. 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/2IyVlRJ

/by
Daddy, Can I Kill It

Daddy, Can I Kill It?

,

If your back was turned when your child asked, “Daddy (or Mommy), can I kill it?”  What would be your first question?

What is it?

A spider?  Sure.  Your baby sister?  No.

Many of the problems in our culture stem from the fact that many people fail to correctly answer the question, “What is it?”  What is the nature of the thing in question?

This applies in everything from abortion to Senate confirmation hearings, which, come to think of it, are really about the same thing. What is the nature of the Constitution?  What is the nature of the unborn?  What is the nature of sex?

It seems to me that the Left’s answers to these “What is it?” questions are wrong.  And their wrong answers lead to wrongdoing.

What is the nature of the Constitution? 

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land that expresses the will of the people, and, at the same time, protects the people from an overreaching government.  It can only be changed through the amendment process (that’s why the amendment process is in there!).  The will of the people should not be overruled by rogue judges who merely disagree with what the people have decided (that’s what overreaching governments do).

But the Left doesn’t care about the will of the people.  They want judges who will impose Leftist policy preferences and will fight any judge who isn’t a Leftist legislator.   That’s why they came out against Judge Kavanaugh immediately after he was announced back in July.  It had nothing to do with any alleged sexual misconduct.  This is about abortion.

Abortion is not, and never has been, in the Constitution. In 1973 seven unelected judges overruled the will of the people in all fifty states by inventing a right to abortion through their Roe vs. Wade opinion.

The Left knows that if a case rises to the Court that challenges Roe vs. Wade, a judge like Brett Kavanaugh might actually read the Constitution and join others to overturn Roe.  That would put the question of abortion back to the states where people could actually vote on it.  (Overturning Roe vs. Wade wouldn’t outlaw abortion—it would just return the issue to the states and allow the people in each state to vote on it.)

What is the nature of the unborn?

Why are Leftists afraid to allow people to vote on abortion?  Because democracy and truth is the enemy of their pro-abortion position. An informed public might correctly answer the question, “What is the nature of the unborn?” and vote to restrict or outlaw abortion.  Indeed, anyone who has ever seen a sonogram knows there’s an actual baby in there.  It’s not just “a blob of tissue,” but a genetically unique human being from the moment of conception.   That’s a scientific fact.

But for the science-denying Left, the nature of the unborn doesn’t matter.  Power matters.  Their wrong answer about the nature of the unborn leads them to think it’s justified to use power to commit wrongdoing to get what they want.  After all, once you’ve convinced yourself that it’s justified to kill the unborn, how hard is it to convince yourself that it’s justified to kill the reputation and candidacy of a conservative judge?

Daddy, can I kill it?  Why not?  It’s in my way.

What is the nature of sex?

And then there’s sex, from which all of this derives. For the Left, sex is like a religion and a militant one at that.  Anyone who questions their sexual dogma will be branded a heretic, as I was.  In the name of “inclusion, tolerance, and diversity,” you will be excluded and not tolerated for holding a diverse view.

The Left’s views on sex are not only contradictory on so many levels, but their wrong view on the nature of sex also leads to personal and societal destruction.  For the past fifty years Leftists in academia, the media, and Hollywood, have been cheering on casual sex as if the nature of sex itself is merely physical.  It’s little more than a sport.  It’s a competition where you’re urged to throw off all restraint and constantly pursue sexual conquest, especially when it’s outside of marriage.

So why are Leftists now outraged to hear that some teenage boy may have actually pursued sexual conquest as if it were merely a sport?  They create and champion an environment that amps youth up to “score” sexually and are then shocked when a youth may have actually gone too far in attempting to do so.

The Left has helped create the very problem they’re now selectively incensed about.  (I say “selectively” because who on the Left voted to remove Bill Clinton for the sexual sins he committed, not allegedly as a drunken teenager, but known sins he committed as President of the United States?)

They’ve done the very thing C.S. Lewis observed about those who undermine virtue.  Lewis wrote, “In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”

In fact, the Left has castrated the proper view of sex itself. A moment’s reflection should convince anyone that sex is far more than just physical. If sex is just physical, then why is it worse if someone rapes you than if someone physically assaults you? Why are people more traumatized over sex than almost anything else? Why do we consider the uncorroborated word of Dr. Ford so seriously, even when all of the supposed witnesses deny it happened?

Because deep in our hearts we know that sex isn’t just a sport or physical activity to be taken lightly as the Left has been advertising for so long.  It’s much more than physical.  There are spiritual, emotional, reproductive, psychological, and moral aspects to sex, which means the consequences can be either wonderful or devastating.

Sex is like fire:  if you keep it in your fireplace, it will warm you.  But if you get it anywhere else in your house, it will burn your house down.  If you have sex with someone, then everything changes dramatically forever.

Regardless of how this confirmation process turns out, there are more foundational issues we must address personally and as a country.  Are we going to continue to lie to ourselves about the nature of the Constitution, the nature of the unborn, and the nature of sex?  If so, we’re not only going to continue killing our vulnerable children; we’re going to continue killing our vulnerable country.

 

Dr. Frank Turek (D.Min.) is an award-winning author and frequent college speaker who hosts a weekly TV show on DirectTV and a radio program that airs on 186 stations around the nation.  His books include I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist and Stealing from God:  Why atheists need God to make their case

/by
Did Jesus Appeal To Evidence When Reaching Out To Skeptics

Did Jesus Appeal To Evidence When Reaching Out To Skeptics?

,

By Wintery Knight

Investigation in progress.

From Eric Chabot of Ratio Christi – Ohio State University.

He lists eight ways that Jesus makes his case.

Here’s one of the ways:

Jesus Appealed to Evidence

Jesus knew He could not show up on the scene and not offer any evidence for His Messiahship. In his book On Jesus, Douglas Groothuis notes that Jesus appealed to evidence to confirm His claims. John the Baptist, who was languishing in prison after challenging Herod, sent messengers to ask Jesus the question: “Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?” (Matt. 11:3). This may seem an odd question from a man the Gospels present as the prophetic forerunner of Jesus and as the one who had proclaimed Jesus to be the Messiah. Jesus, however, did not rebuke John’s question. He did not say, “You must have faith; suppress your doubts.” Instead, Jesus recounted the distinctive features of His ministry:

“Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me.” (Matt. 11:4-6; see also Luke 7:22).

Even in the Messiah Apocalypse, which is dated between 100 and 80 B.C.E mentions a similar theme as seen in Matt.11: 4-6: “He [God] frees the captives, makes the blind see, and makes the bent over stand straight…for he will heal the sick, revive the dead, and give good news to the humble and the poor he will satisfy, the abandoned he will lead, and the hungry he will make rich.”

Jesus’ works of healing and teaching are meant to serve as positive evidence of His messianic identity, because they fulfill the messianic predictions of the Hebrew Scriptures. What Jesus claimed is this:

If one does certain kinds of actions (the acts cited above), then one is the Messiah.

I am doing those kinds of actions.

Therefore, I am the Messiah.

And:

The Miracles of Jesus

In the Bible, miracles have a distinctive purpose: they are used for three reasons:
1. To glorify the nature of God (John 2:11; 11:40)
2. To accredit certain persons as the spokesmen for God (Acts 2:22; Heb. 2:3–4)
3.To provide evidence for belief in God (John 6:2, 14; 20:30–31). (3)

Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council, the Sanhedrin, told Jesus, “‘Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him’ ” (Jn. 3:1–2). In Acts, Peter told the crowd that Jesus had been “accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him” (Acts 2:22).

In Matthew 12:38-39, Jesus says, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of Jonah the prophet.” In this Scripture, God confirmed the Messianic claim when Jesus said the sign that would confirm his Messiahship was to be the resurrection.

It is important to note that not all witnesses to a miracle believe. Jesus did not do His miracles for entertainment. They were done to evoke a response. So perhaps Paul Moser is right on target in what he calls “kardiatheology” – a theology that is aimed at one’s motivational heart (including one’s will) rather than just at one’s mind or one’s emotions. In other words, God is very interested in moral transformation.

We see Jesus’ frustration when His miracles did not bring the correct response from his audience. “Even after Jesus had done all these miraculous signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him” (John 12:37). Jesus himself said of some, “They will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead” (Luke 16:31). One result, though not the purpose, of miracles is condemnation of the unbeliever (cf. John 12:31, 37). (4)

I am forever pointing this out to people. Jesus didn’t get people to follow him because he was nice. And he didn’t just talk to people who agreed with him. He even promised “a wicked generation” his resurrection as evidence for his claims. He called his resurrection “the sign of Jonah”, and it was meant for people who were looking for a “sign”. This is the way we should be – using whatever evidence we can dig up from science, history, law, and even the social sciences (when arguing moral issues).

Read the rest here. Surprise! Jesus loves to convince people, and not just by quoting the Bible to people who already accept the Bible, either. His goal was not to make people accept his claims because of their feelings, but because of the evidence, he offered them.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2PXLO94

/by