Theology and Christian Apologetics Archives | CrossExamined.org

Engaging with Muslims

Respectful engagement takes courage and compassion

Let’s talk about respectfully engaging with Muslims. Being an ambassador for Christ means more than just defending what’s true. It also means loving people well. The more we engage with our neighbors, the more we see that religion is a core part of many people’s lives. And getting to know them means getting to know their religion. Beyond only focusing on critique or apologetics, we should also discover what makes each major religion attractive to adherents and converts.

How much do we know about Islam, the second-largest religion in the world? As part of my work with the Hendricks Center on respectfully engaging world religions, I invited Crescent Project founder Fouad Masri to talk about lessons he’s learned engaging with Muslims since 1979. In this post, I’ll share some of what I learned about what makes Islam attractive to Muslims, converts, and key points of connection Christians can use for respectful engagement.

What keeps Muslims faithful to Islam?

Before engaging with Muslims, it’s important to know that there’s a spectrum of practice and belief among Muslims in a variety of branches of Islam. So find out what your Muslim friend actually believes. Some Muslims don’t think much about the five pillars of Islam and may have never studied the teachings of Muhammad. Don’t automatically assume you know what any particular Muslim believes.

One thing that attracts people to Islam is a sense of order amidst chaos. For them, Islam answers questions like “How should I eat?” Answer: “With your right hand, not your left.” Also, many Muslim remain faithful to Islam to avoid feeling like a traitor. Your friend might agree with a point you made about the historicity of Jesus’ divine claim, crucifixion, or resurrection but they could think, “If I agree that Islam is wrong on this one, it might bring shame to my family.”

Many Christians think they understand Islam but need to do some homework to respectfully engage Muslims. Similarly, some Muslims think they understand Christian theology, but reason, “Christians are polytheists who worship three gods: God, Mary, and Jesus. Why should I believe that? Islam has to be right; There’s only one God.” Others come to America and don’t see Christians exhibit God’s love. Instead, they see crime, drunkenness, and drug addiction and think, “Christianity has failed America. I’m sticking with Islam instead of all this chaos.”

What draws converts to Islam?

While engaging with Muslims, you’ll find converts who say Islam is exotic. Many don’t connect with the contemporary worship styles they’ve seen in most evangelical churches. They’re seeking a more ancient, meditative sense of transcendence. But rather than looking into the ancient practices of historic Christianity, the ritualistic structure of Islam grabs their attention. Other converts find Islam’s structure brings them comfort in a diverse, pluralistic society.

But keep in mind, when you’re engaging with Muslims, some are seeking answers to tough questions about God. For example, many Muslims struggle with the problem of evil. They ask the same kinds of questions non-Muslims do: “Does God really exist?” “Does God care?” Some even wonder, “Are there other ways to know about God other than Islam?”

How to engage with Muslims

Masri has been engaging with Muslims for decades and he’s noticed that compassion ministries often open the door for respectful interfaith dialogue. He’s seen how Muslim refugees in Sicily, Greece, and America not only appreciate Christian ministries but directly ask, “Why are you helping us?” This gave them pause, especially since some were raised to see Christians as enemies. He says:

When they see love and kindness, they want to know more… Begin a conversation like, “Oh, you are a Muslim? Oh, you believe in one god?” Then, let them share. And then let the God of Abraham lead them to the knowledge of Christ the Messiah.

There are many ways to engage with Muslims and begin authentic relationships. But practicing hospitality is a great way to quickly create an openness to respectful, spiritual conversations. So compassion is key.

Still, pointing our Muslim friends to Jesus takes courage. Muslims reject the idea that Jesus is divine or ever claimed to be divine. How might a Christian respond to those who challenges the biblical conception of Jesus? I was surprised by Masri’s answer:

Let them read the words of Jesus. I know an imam. Somebody gave him a Bible. He read the words of Jesus: “From their fruit, you shall know them.” He got saved and baptized. The words of Jesus speak for who Jesus is. Many times, we try to explain this with our own power. Let the word speak for itself.

Interestingly, the imam linked his experience of Christian compassion ministries with Jesus’s teaching in Matthew 7:15-20: “Watch out for false prophets…You will recognize them by their fruit…a good tree is not able to bear bad fruit.” I would have never made this connection, but the Holy Spirit had already been at work in his life. While we must be prepared to defend the truth, sometimes people are one Bible verse away from finding a saving relationship with God. This is another thing to keep in mind when engaging with Muslims.

Jesus: A Point of Connection

I’ve found a great place to start when engaging with Muslims is with Jesus. Islam teaches that he is a prophet. Although many Muslims are told that the Bible’s been corrupted, the Qu’ran actually says “none can alter the words of Allah” (Surah 6:34). And Muslims seem to be commanded to accept the Christian Scriptures in Surah 29:46: “Do not argue with the People of the Scripture… Say, ‘We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you…’”

Interestingly, the Qur’an notes that Jesus performed healing miracles (Surah 3:49) but doesn’t include any narrative accounts of those healing miracles. You could ask your Muslim friend, “Do you want to see how Jesus performed healings? It’s in the Bible.” Show them Mark 2:1-12, where Jesus claimed to forgive sins in the context of a healing miracle. Here, Jesus is claiming the divine prerogative to forgive sins. Forgiving the paralytic was very different from anything Jews believed priests, prophets, or even angels could do. The scribal response show they knew that only God can forgive sins. Talk about that and you’re off and running in a conversation on the claims of Jesus.

Engage with Courage and Compassion

While some Muslims find the structure of Islam attractive, potential converts may be attracted to traditions they perceive as exotic. Still, others have spiritual questions that are not fully satisfied by Islam. Compassionate service can begin to create an openness to considering the teachings of Jesus in the Bible. Let’s ask the Lord to help us begin engaging with Muslims with both courage and compassion.

Mikel Del Rosario is a Ph.D. student in New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, Cultural Engagement Manager at the Hendricks Center, and Adjunct Professor of Apologetics and World Religion at William Jessup University.

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

October 2, 2018/by Guest

Book Review: Always Be Ready – A Call To Adventurous Faith

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

Astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross is a well-known voice in the scientific and evangelical Christian communities for his scientific defenses of the Christian worldview. Over the last few decades, he has written incredible books powerfully defending the arguments for God’s existence from the beginning and design of the universe. A few of my favorites have been:

The Creator and the Cosmos

Why The Universe Is The Way It Is

Improbable Planet

The primary focus of these books (and many of his others) have been on developing the arguments, presenting the evidence, and answering challenges from skeptics for the truth of Christianity. All these books contain pastoral elements that show how nature can be used to discover much about God’s character and His purposes for His creation. They all provide Christians with the content to follow Peter’s command in 1 Peter 3:15.

“Always Be Ready: A Call To Adventurous Faith” is Dr. Hugh Ross’ latest apologetics book. Usually, Dr. Ross’ published work focuses on the scientific evidence for the truth of Christianity, but this time he decided to do something different. In this book, he decided to focus on the apologetic influence of the evidences not only in his own life but in the lives of those he’s evangelized. In this book, he takes stories from his decades of scientific research, evangelistic efforts, and pastoral experiences to show to the reader the breadth and depth of what Peter’s command to “always be ready” means. Speaking primarily from his heart for those who are lost without Christ, Dr. Ross presents an engaging, encouraging, and essential book for those who wish to follow Peter’s command to always be ready.

This review will follow my usual chapter-by-chapter format concluding with my thoughts about the book. Because Dr. Ross tells many stories that are most effective told in his own words, I have left out all spoilers. First, though let me start with a short video of Dr. Ross speaking about the book:

Now, on to the review:

Chapter 1: Ready for What?

In the introductory chapter, Dr. Ross describes the phrase “always be ready” as meaning that someone is to take a defensive stance in different situations to protect or guard. He explains that, though, it is often understood in this context, that “always be ready” is often used in a more positive sense of being ready for an opportunity or experience. He explains that the purpose of this book is to focus on, like with his others, the positive side of being prepared to give a reason for the hope that we have in Christ (1 Peter 3:15)- always on the lookout for the opportunity to give the logical reasons for the hope that we have. Dr. Ross explains that in Peter’s command, there are three distinct parts: the “why,” the “what,” and the “how.” While his other books (many are reviewed on this blog) have focused on the “what” (the content to be defended), this book will focus more on the “how” and “why” of Peter’s command to the Church. The exciting opportunities that we should always be ready for are the situations that God, through His sovereignty, places us in to give the reasons for our hope and positively affect the person’s life for eternity. This book is written to be both a guide for the eager Christian case-maker and a personal testimony of the power of God when our hearts are committed to always be ready.

Chapter 2: Reasons in Review

Even though this book’s focus is on the “how” and “why,” a quick review of the “what” should certainly not be missing. Dr. Ross explains that since many people automatically believe that science argues against the truth of Christianity and the Bible when we present a case for their truth from science, it garners immediate attention and interest. Dr. Ross has found that in his many opportunities to speak with skeptics, four areas of science seem to be the most effective: the beginning of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe and earth, the origin of life, and the origin and advance of humans. Dr. Ross provides a quick overview of the evidence provided by science for what the Bible claims on each of these topics. He concludes the chapter by explaining how the earth is designed for the effective and efficient presentation of the Gospel to all nations of the earth: an encouraging and exciting reason to always be ready for the opportunities God is preparing for us to present the reasons for our Hope in Christ. For more details on the arguments and evidence presented in this chapter, see the books I linked to in the Introduction.

Chapter 3: Readiness in the Early Days

Dr. Ross takes the reader back to the early days of the Church, recorded in the book of Acts to describe was always be ready was like then. In the context of a “great persecution,” the Church thrived and grew. This was nothing but miraculous, the result of God exercising His sovereignty in arranging “chance” encounters with the Apostles and key people who could spread the Gospel most effectively. Dr. Ross describes seven unique instances recorded in Acts that he calls “divine orchestrations.” He argues that while any one of these events may be explainable as a “chance” event, the fact that they all happened in their respective contexts (including rejected opportunities by the Apostles to avoid persecution and numerous changed plans) argues powerfully for intentionality behind their happenings- that intention being the spread of the Gospel and the growth of the Church. Luke (the author of Acts) gives no indication that these divine orchestrations ceased with the early Church, so Dr. Ross reasons that God continues to prepare such encounters for Christians today. Like the Apostles, we must always be ready, intently searching for opportunities to communicate the reasons for the hope that we have in Christ.

Chapter 4: How God Reached Me

Dr. Ross uses his own life to demonstrate that divine orchestrations are common even today. He describes a series of unlikely events, severe challenges, and various circumstances that took place from his preschool years through high school that all seemed to have a singular purpose: His salvation through Jesus Christ. Not only does Dr. Ross testify to God’s purposefulness and sovereignty as he presents his story, he emphasizes the immense power of prayer for those who are unsaved and the great influences people can have on others even if exposure is only for a few minutes, which highlights the need for the Christian to always be ready.

Chapter 5: How God Readied Me

Dr. Ross continues his story. He takes the reader through his investigation of the various religions of the world, his doubts regarding naturalistic explanations for life’s origins, and his discoveries about the amazing congruence of Genesis 1 with what scientists have discovered. He discovered too that Genesis 1 answered the big “enigma” of the history of life. While his previous studies had already convinced him that a God of some kind created and fine-tuned the universe, it was not until he had spent two years testing the scientific, historical, and geographical claims of the Bible that he understood that the God who created and fine-tuned the universe is the God of the Bible. After battling pride and fear and trying to simply act like a Christian (and failing at it miserably), he realized that Christ was calling him to actual salvation and a life of surrender. Once Dr. Ross gave his life to Jesus Christ, his desire to tell those around him was strong but he was unsure how to start the conversations. He discovered that the divine orchestrations in his life did not end at his salvation, rather he became an instrument of divine orchestrations in the salvation of others. Through his willingness to always be ready, God placed him in situations, starting almost immediately following his salvation, to evangelize to others using the knowledge and talents that God had been cultivating in him since he was born.

Chapter 6: Readiness and “the Gift”

Among the spiritual gifts listed in Ephesians 4, evangelism is the one that is said, in the rest of scripture, to be given to every believer. Dr. Ross explains that since everyone has different talents, skills, and circumstances (and different combinations of these) that can all be used in evangelism, so every believer will express this gift differently. Further, Ephesians 4 also speaks of its list of spiritual gifts as being used to equip the Church for evangelism. So, evangelism is not only to be practiced to bring others into the Kingdom, it is to be used to strengthen fellow believers. Dr. Ross explains that his initial hesitancy in evangelizing was due to the fact that his being on the autistic spectrum provided communicative challenges (such as the inability to interpret or even recognize non-verbal communication) that are not identified with effective evangelists. However, this challenge caused him to realize the necessity of the work of the Holy Spirit (it is not the Christian who is responsible for changing the heart), and he realized that God could actually use his “handicap” in the unique circumstances (divine orchestrations) that He placed him in. Dr. Ross learned that evangelism is not just a gift as an ability, but a gift from God that when we engage in it, we are more conformed to the character of Christ.

Chapter 7: Ready for Change

Dr. Ross then described the years that led to a dramatic change in the direction of his life. He talks about several exciting and intense evangelistic opportunities that he experienced while he was excelling in his studies and beginning his fellowship within a local church body. He was seeing how God was using his research, even way beyond Dr. Ross’ direct interaction, to bring people into the Kingdom. He also saw how God was preparing others to come alongside him in ministry. However, there was a point that his scientific career was taking off so strongly that he began to become prideful in his own accomplishments. This is when the most dramatic event happened to him that changed his attitude and the direction of his life into full-time ministry. (Sorry, no spoiler here!)

Chapter 8: Ready for Anything

As Dr. Ross began his full-time ministry, he became active in and led many ministries, including a door-to-door ministry, that saw numerous lives changed for Christ. Those who were involved in this ministry saw the power of Christ working and how God prepares the way for those who are ready. Dr. Ross details several specific experiences that seem to only make sense if God was, in fact, guiding the ministry. Several people (including a skeptic of the effectiveness of his approach), who co-labored with him in his ministry, also gave their accounts of various events and testified to the work of the Holy Spirit. Included in these stories, Dr. Ross recounts when it has been clear that the message of the Gospel was accepted in contrast to cultic groups messages, even when the two groups, going door to door, were doing so in the same neighborhood at the same time. He tells a story of an event that, by all naturalistic mechanisms, should not have taken place, and the person who Dr. Ross spoke with had to convince him that it was a direct intervention by God in an answer to prayer. Dr. Ross demonstrates how effective Christ can make His Body in evangelism if we make the commitment to always be ready.

Chapter 9: Ready for the Road

God took Dr. Ross and those who joined in his ministry beyond merely working in the local community to traveling nationally and internationally. He describes speaking trips to (at the time) communist Russia. He describes various challenges that arose from issues with everything from locations to translators. He saw how these challenges were turned, by God, into dramatically multiplied opportunities. These unlikely series events led to the acceptance of the Gospel by numerous attendees to the events, including top Russian government officials and scientists. Dr. Ross describes even more miraculous events that took place during trips to Mongolia and China. Throughout these stories, Dr. Ross emphasizes the role of prayer and consciously always being ready.

Chapter 10: Ready to Fly

“Always being ready” is not limited to just being ready on the ground but in the air, as well. With how often Dr. Ross travels via air, God works out divine orchestrations there as well. He has had numerous conversations on airplanes about evidence for the truth of Christianity with those who are deeply interested. Rarely are the conversations started by him, though; they are usually started by a fellow passenger making simple conversation about their career or seeing what Dr. Ross is either reading or working on with his laptop and wanting more information. These conversations are with both skeptics who are unaware of the evidence for Christianity and with Christians who are struggling with science/faith issues. Dr. Ross has found that these are to be expected and a quiet flight is rarely the case.

Chapter 11: Always Means Always

Dr. Ross has also discovered the extent to which “always” goes. God orchestrates encounters to build His Kingdom through our circumstances even when we do not feel up to it, whether emotionally or physically. Dr. Ross tells stories of God orchestrating apologetic encounters for him in the oddest of circumstances including an inconvenient stop at a supermarket and when he had bypass surgery. Dr. Ross emphasizes that no matter how inconvenient, uncomfortable, or just plain odd the situation, God is always prepared to use it if we commit to always be ready.

Chapter 12: Readiness Together

Through all the stories provided by Dr. Ross in the previous chapters, it is, no doubt, evident that it is important and effective to follow Peter’s command and “always being ready.” But being ready is not something that we cannot prepare for alone; it must be done in the community of the Church. In order for the Church to be a place where the Christian’s faith can be so vibrant that people will ask about its Source, the Church must not be afraid of doubt and tough questions. It is a doubt that drives tough questions that drives the search for answers- answers to questions that skeptics will also ask. Dr. Ross explains that intellectual doubters (and scientists, in particular) are not necessarily opposed to Christianity; they just either haven’t been presented with scientific evidence or have not seriously contemplated the existence of God; this is a ripe mission field. He emphasizes the importance of group leaders in the Church to be open to challenging questions from skeptics during the group meetings; this builds trust and opens spiritual doors for those who are seeking Christ. As questions and challenges are raised, sometimes disagreement upon the correct answer will arise among Christians. Dr. Ross emphasizes that part of “always being ready” includes being ready to deal gently and respectfully, being reconciled to one another as we model the Gospel of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19-20; John 13:35) to unbelievers.

Chapter 13: Readiness and Demeanor

Always being ready not only requires a readiness to give answers to questions but readiness to do so gently and respectfully. Many Christians approach giving answers by placing the questioner on the defensive regarding their claims, but instead of this resulting in an openness to alternative views (the Gospel) the intentions behind the approach are misinterpreted and cause a loss of trust which either results in the conversation abruptly concluding or an emotional “shouting” match to ensue. Dr. Ross encourages taking an approach that will encourage the building of trust between the Christian and the skeptic and help keep emotional barriers (caused by our demeanor) to Christ low. He encourages allowing the skeptic to put us on the defensive; encourage them to ask their tough and honest questions, and when we have the opportunity to ask questions, ask ones that are open-ended and designed to draw out the source of their hesitancy to accept Christ. Always being ready involves not only being prepared in our knowledge but also in a winsome presentation of that knowledge.

Chapter 14: The Readiness Bonus

Always being ready results in much joy as God uses us continually to build His kingdom, but there exists an added bonus that Dr. Ross sees in Scripture but is rarely mentioned. This is that we grow in our faith as we share it and present reasons for it. As we obey Christ’s command of the Great Commision (Matt 28:19), God brings us closer to Him in our knowledge, character, and relationship (Philemon 6). In actively sharing our faith, we discover that even though we are not perfect at presenting it, the Holy Spirit can still draw people to Him. We also discover that the Holy Spirit does not limit His work in only the person we are answering; often others are listening in and their hearts are being ministered to and being prepared by the Holy Spirit to enter the Kingdom. Dr. Ross explains several other biblical bonuses that come with always being ready, including proper responses to fear, doubt, and ridicule. He explains that always being ready is a life-long pursuit; no matter how much we know about God, He is infinite, so there will always be more to learn, and that increased knowledge further prepares for more of what God has in store for us.

Chapter 15: Ready for Action

In the concluding chapter, Dr. Ross calls the reader to action. He tells of several creative ways others have demonstrated their readiness. He reminds the reader that if they commit to follow Peter’s command to always be ready, God will always be ready to use them in any and every situation to build and strengthen the Kingdom.

Reviewer’s Thoughts

“Always Be Ready” was an exciting, engaging and encouraging read. I can never get enough of hearing how God works through the Body of Christ to build His Kingdom. Dr. Ross’ stories not only speak to the power of the Christian always being prepared to give a reason for the hope that we have, but it demonstrates powerfully how God is sovereignly working through those who make the decision to strive for that preparation. It is amazing how God works through the people and the circumstances to bring these Christians in contact with those who hunger for salvation and a personal relationship with their Creator. I not only enjoyed the stories but I garnered much wisdom as to how to cultivate my own preparedness for the use of our Savior. Our God is truly an awesome God with an awesome plan, and it is exciting to see how He works out this plan through the evangelistic efforts of His faithful children. This book serves as a tremendous encouragement to all Christians to wish to see how God uses evidence from His creation to work in the lives of the unbeliever and the believer. The evidence of God’s work presented in this book will, no doubt, bring much joy to the Christian’s heart and get you excited to be used by your Creator and Savior for an eternal purpose. For every Christian who is passionate about completing the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19), “Always Be Ready: A Call To Adventurous Faith” is for you.

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

September 30, 2018/by Guest

Theologies that John Chapter One Combats

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

The Gospel of John has been one of my favorite Gospels since I first started studying the Bible. The Gospel of John is theologically rich as well as historically accurate. One of the important sections of John’s Gospel is found in its opening chapter. John says,

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. All things were created through him, and apart from him, not one thing was created that has been created. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. That light shines in the darkness, and yet the darkness did not overcome it … He was in the world, and the world was created through him, and yet the world did not recognize him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, he gave them the right to be the children of God, to those who believe in his name, who were born, not of natural descent, or of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man, but of God. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:1-5, 10-14a)[1].

The best evidence suggests that John the apostle wrote these words. John bar Zebedee is confirmed as the author both by internal and external evidence (especially by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Polycarp, Clement of Alexandria, and later Eusebius).

John also confirms an additional segment of information in his first letter. He writes, “This one is the antichrist: the one who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; he who confesses the Son has the Father as well” (1 John 2:22-23). That is to say; the truth is that Jesus is the Word as described in John chapter 1. If one denies this truth, then one denies a core fundamental of the faith.

Such information is important to know because John chapter 1 combats three modern forms of theology that must be eschewed by the believer who seeks to accept the truth of God’s word. These three false modern doctrines will be described in this article. Note, however, that I realize that there are many good people in the groups I will discuss. Their problem is theological and not necessarily moral. Good people can hold bad theological views.

John 1 Combats Jehovah Witness/Arian Theology. The Jehovah Witness movement was started by one Charles Taze Russell. Their theology is not that original in scope as they borrow from an ancient heresy known as Arianism. Arius of Alexandria (256-336 AD) was a presbyter who formulated the idea that Jesus was not really God, but rather an archangel. Jesus was the first created being according to Arian theology. Arianism was successfully combated by Athanasius of Alexandria (296-373 AD) who stood for the orthodox Christian view that Jesus was God come in the flesh. Athanasius’s victory was not without cost. He was exiled at least three times until it was finally resolved that Athanasius’s view corresponded with biblical truth.

Unfortunately, in today’s fragmented ecclesiastical structure, there is not as much church authority to combat false doctrines such as Arianism. For that reason, Charles Taze Russell’s theology was able to succeed. He developed a very similar doctrine as Arius’s and formulated the Jehovah Witness movement. Yet, John 1 stands opposed to any claim that Jesus was merely an angel. Jesus was God (Jn. 1:1) and not a mere angelic entity. Thus, the Jehovah Witness doctrine finds itself falling short from biblical orthodoxy just as Arius’s view did.

John 1 Combats Mormon Theology. Joseph Smith was born in Sharon, Vermont on December 23, 1805. Smith claimed to have seen an angel by the name of Moroni who supposedly gave Smith a newer testament called the Book of Mormon which describes how the risen Jesus purportedly visited a group of Native Americans known as the Nephites. According to Mormon theology, Jesus was the first spirit-child originating from the Heavenly Father and the Heavenly Mother. However, John 1 greatly combats that idea. Jesus is presented as being co-eternal with the Father. Thus, Jesus was not the first spirit-child. Rather, Jesus was God who existed since from before the beginning of all creation and who came in flesh “and dwelt among us” (Jn. 1:14a).

John 1 Combats New Age Theology. New Age theology holds that each person is his/her own god. Ironically, it seems that false doctrines deescalate the person of Jesus and elevate the human being, whereas orthodoxy elevates the persona of Jesus and deescalates humanity. Nevertheless, John 1 teaches that “all things were created through [Jesus], and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created” (Jn. 1:3). Thus, if “all things” (Gk. panta) really means “all things,” then human beings cannot claim to be any form of god much less their own.

Each Christian must test truth each doctrine they come across philosophically and theologically by God’s word. While we need to remember that we must love each person with whom we come into contact, we cannot accept false doctrines. Stay true to God’s word and the theological power found within its pages. Leave everything else by the wayside.

Notes

[1] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017).

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/2zrCe9e

September 30, 2018/by Guest

Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

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

By Evan Minton

Sometimes, in conversations with atheists, they try to say that “Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence” Are they right?

One problem with this statement is that it could possibly be self-defeating. Think about it, the claim itself, to say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is to make an extraordinary assertion. How does the person know that the statement is true? Think about it. It is a universal statement! Isn’t that extraordinary? Is it a universal principle? If so, that is amazingly important. So, please show us the extraordinary evidence that the statement is true. I’m not sure about this, but the claim could be self-defeating depending on whether the claim is itself an extraordinary claim.

ANY claim, whether they seem extraordinary or not, only requires SUFFICIENT evidence. The amount of proof or evidence needed to establish a fact only needs to be sufficient to warrant belief in it. What type of claim is extraordinary or not could possibly be arguably subjective. People vary on what they find unbelievable. Plus, no criteria are given for what counts as extraordinary evidence. Because no criteria are claimed for what would count as extraordinary evidence, no matter how much evidence and rational argumentation you give for your position, the one who holds the opposite view could just keep moving the bar up. He could just keep shaking his head saying “Nope, not enough evidence. You need to provide more.” So that you could never provide enough evidence to warrant support for the position you believe to be true. Do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? No. They only require sufficient evidence for belief. Of course, you might ask “What counts as sufficient evidence?” To that, I do not know the answer. Although evidence is objective, how much evidence is enough to convince a person seems somewhat subjective. Now, I’m not saying that truth is subjective (opinion based) nor am I saying that evidence is subjective, but rather that what amount of objective evidence to convince someone of something differs from that another. Some people can come to believe something on less evidence than someone else. Although this seems to raise another issue. It seems the same problem arises from saying “Any Claim Requires Sufficient Evidence” as it would if one were to say “Extraordinary Claims Require Evidence.” Someone could just keep shaking their head, raising the bar higher and saying “Nope, this is not sufficient enough evidence required to believe your claim.” What do we do about this?

Well, for one thing, I think that when I provide evidence to back up my claim, if someone is still skeptical I should like to know why. For example, if I give The Kalam Cosmological Argument and provide evidence for the 2 premises of the argument, then why does the person I’m talking to continue to disagree with the conclusion, that “Therefore The Universe Has A Cause” and that the cause is a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, supernatural, personal cause? Is one of the premises of the argument false? If they’re both true, then the conclusion follows logically and necessarily by the laws of logic (in that specific case, modus ponens; if P then Q, P, therefore Q.) As William Lane Craig has said, “skepticism is not a refutation.” If you’re not convinced by my arguments, I’d like to know why. That’s how debate works. You tell me what’s wrong with the logic of the argument or WHY the evidence is not sufficient enough to warrent the belief of the premises of the syllogism. This is how we solve the problem. Someone could NOT just keep shaking their head, raising the bar higher and saying “Nope, this is not sufficient enough evidence required to believe your claim.” If someone did, we would rightfully ask “Why? How am I wrong? Is my logic flawed? Are my facts flawed? Or are both my logic and facts flawed?” Again, skepticism is not a refutation.

Another problem with the atheists using this slogan is that it can be thrown right back at them. The atheists sometimes tout “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” But it seems to me that all physical reality popping into being, uncaused, out of absolutely nothing, having it’s laws of physics fine-tuned to a fantastic degree, and having an immensely complex factory (i.e. the cell) assemble together all by itself in a so-called primordial soup, to be a claim extremely extraordinary. Yet, the atheist tries to cast all the burden of proof on the theist by claiming a position of neutrality (Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief that there is no God) and not give evidence and good reasons to believe his ridiculous view.

Don’t get me wrong, theists do bare the burden of proof when we claim that there is a God, but when atheists claim that there is no God, it is THEM that bare the burden of proof. Anyone who makes a positive truth claim bares the burden to provide reasons to believe that truth claim. Anyone who makes a positive assertion needs to provide reasons to believe that assertion if anyone is going to take him seriously. And if they (the atheists) really believed that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” one has to think on just which view is truly more extraordinary, is it harder to believe that outboard motors and codes can assemble by chance + some supposedly undiscovered natural laws, or is it harder to believe that things look designed because they really were designed? I think the latter is far easier to believe. If something looks, sounds, walks and quacks like a duck, shouldn’t at least part of the burden of proof be on those who are claiming that it isn’t a duck? If things appear to be designed, shouldn’t the atheist put forward some reasons to believe they weren’t designed? I think the answer to that question is; yes.

Of course, I would never use the “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” slogan on the atheist anyway because I believe the view is false and the reasons I believe it is false are listed above. But it is true that if you make a certain claim, it’s not unreasonable for someone to ask you to back up that claim with reasons.

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

September 25, 2018/by Guest

Committed Christians Are Now a Minority and Kids Need to Know It

Apologetics for Parents, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Natasha Crain

I grew up in a smallish town in Arizona (about 25,000 people at the time). Almost everyone I knew fit into one of four buckets: 1) committed Christians, 2) nominal Christians, 3) those who didn’t call themselves Christians but accepted “Judeo-Christian” values, and 4) Mormons.

In my view of the world at the time, believing in God—and being a Christian specifically—was the default for most people. There were certainly a few kids who fell into other buckets (atheist or New Age), but they were the exception; there was something different about them.

My beliefs were “normal.”

Oh, how things have changed.

According to Pew Forum research on the religious landscape of America, Christians statistically are still the majority. But those statistics are highly misleading because religious categorization is based on self-identification, and the “Christian” category includes a wide range of beliefs and commitment levels.

The Pew Forum, however, just released an eye-opening new method of categorizing America’s religious beliefs, and it reveals a more realistic picture:

Less than 40% of Americans are “highly religious” (seriously committed to their faith; this includes non-Christian religions such as Judaism and Islam).
About a quarter of the “highly religious” are what researchers call “diversely devout,” meaning they mostly believe in the God of the Bible but hold all kinds of views inconsistent with Christianity, such as reincarnation.

From the publicly available data, I don’t see a way to break down the remaining 30% of highly religious people into those who hold beliefs consistent with historic Christianity, so for our current purpose, we’ll just have to say that committed Christians represent some portion of that 30%.

In other words, a minority.

I’ve noticed lately that my subconscious assumption that this has become the case has had a number of implications for how I talk with my kids. For example, some phrases that have regularly worked their way into our daily conversations are “the world tells us,” or “the world would like us to think,” or “the way the world is.” In other words, I find myself constantly placing an emphasis on making sure my kids know that what they are learning to be true about reality is literally opposite of what the world around them—the majority—believes.

This is so different than how I—and many of you—grew up. We were part of a pack. We moved along without having to think much about our beliefs versus those of “the world.” Our parents didn’t have to coach us on why we were so very different… because we weren’t very different. Sure, there were probably some great differences between our homes in how prominently faith actually played out, but we didn’t readily see that on the playground. We didn’t have social media to make the differences abundantly clear. We didn’t have the internet to give us access to the many who are hostile toward our beliefs.

In a world where your beliefs will constantly rub up against opposing views, however, you need parents who will give it to you straight:

Our entire view of reality is unlike the view most others have. We. Are. Different. And that will affect your life in profound ways.

I don’t say this as a mere suggestion that this is a conversation we should have with our kids at some point. I say this believing it’s a critical part of how we approach our parenting every single day.

It has to become a way of life.

Here’s why. When you raise your kids to understand they have a minority worldview, it does three important things:

1. It sets expectations.

This is, perhaps, the most important function of all.

If kids expect that their views will be like those of others, they will be shocked when they consistently see how different they actually are.

If kids expect that holding a minority worldview won’t result in sometimes being treated poorly by others, they will be wounded by what they weren’t prepared for.

If kids expect that divergent worldviews won’t lead to heated debates about how our society should best function, they will be frustrated by lack of agreement between Christians and nonbelievers.

But when we consistently help them understand that their worldview will clash frequently with the world around them, they will begin to have very different expectations that lead to healthier outcomes.

They will expect to be different, and not be surprised when they don’t fit in.

They will expect that the world will hate them for their beliefs, and understand that has always been part of what it means to be a Christian (John 15:18).

They will expect that divergent worldviews will often affect their relationships with others, and be motivated to learn how to navigate those differences with both truth and love.

Action point: Find ways to regularly compare and contrast what others believe and what Christians believe. Make sure your kids understand how different their beliefs are, and, importantly, the implications of that—it affects how we see where we came from, why we’re here, how to live while we’re here, and where we’re going. It’s no small matter. You can point this out in movies, song lyrics, news stories, things that friends say, things that other parents say, signs you see, billboards, messages on clothing, and much more.

2. It allows us to emphasize that different isn’t (necessarily) wrong.

Humans have a tendency to assume that there is truth in numbers. My twins are in fourth grade and are getting to the age where they notice what their peers do a lot more. They tell me, for example, that everyone else has their own phone, that everyone else gets to go to sleepovers, and that everyone else plays Fortnite. They assume that if the majority gets to do something, then that must be what’s right.

Similarly, when kids eventually see that most people believe something very different about reality than what they do, it’s natural to wonder if their minority view must be wrong. Here’s the conversation we should be having with our kids from the time they are very little: different doesn’t mean wrong.

It doesn’t necessarily mean right, either.

The question we must plant firmly in our kids’ hearts and minds is, What is true? The truth about reality isn’t a popularity contest. It’s a question of which worldview is the best explanation for the world around us.

Action point: Find ways to regularly compare and contrast why others believe what they do and why Christians believe what we do. If we don’t want our kids to assume that different is wrong, they need to have good reason to believe that their different view is right. They need to hear regularly from their parents that Christianity is a worldview based on evidence, and that faith is not blind. If you have kids in the 8-12 range, J. Warner Wallace has three kids books that are amazing for helping them start to think evidentially about their faith: Cold-Case Christianity for Kids,God’s Crime Scene for Kids, and Forensic Faith for Kids (this one JUST came out this month and is a perfect place to start). Even if your kids are a little younger, they can benefit tremendously from reading these with you. My 7-year-old is reading Forensic Faith for Kids and is super excited about doing the corresponding worksheets and watching the videos available for free at www.casemakersacademy.com/forensic-faith/. Honestly, these books should be required reading for every kid in this age range.

3. It fosters worldview vigilance.

Talking regularly about “the world” versus Christianity leads kids to constantly have a worldview radar up. Because they expect to constantly see ideas that clash with the Christian worldview, they become vigilant about sorting everything they see into “consistent with Christianity” or “inconsistent with Christianity.” This is extraordinarily important today, as kids so often quietly absorb secular views into their thinking without even realizing it. But the more they know that most of what they will see and hear will not fit with Christianity, the more they learn to vigilantly separate Christian ideas from others.

Action point: Encourage your kids to spot the “secular wisdom” all around them. These examples are everywhere but they are, of course, never marked with worldview labels. The more you point out examples, the more kids learn to think critically. When this becomes a habit in your family, your kids will see it on their own and show you examples. We were at a store the other day and my 9-year-old son came around the aisle carrying this sign:

He looked at me with a big, disappointed sigh and said, “Mommy. Look. Love is all you need.”

He recognized this as bad secular wisdom as soon as he saw it. I asked him to explain what’s wrong with it, and he said, “there’s no moral setting.” As I pushed him to explain what he meant, he said there’s no context for making this statement. If God doesn’t exist, then what love means is just a matter of personal opinion—and no one has the authority to state that anything is all you need. I concurred and (gently) hit him on the head, saying, “I could claim that love means hitting people on the head in that case!” But if God exists, then He defines what love is. When we follow the greatest commandment—to love God—it informs what it means to follow the second commandment—to love others. It’s no longer up to us to define the word. This sign means nothing outside of a worldview context—a “moral setting” as my son put it.

It’s clear that being a Christian (or even holding Christian values) is no longer the default. Whether we like it or not, it’s the reality of the world in which we’re parenting. It’s our job to help our kids swim faithfully against the tide so they can be constantly aware of the waves around them and know how to respond.

Natasha Crain runs her Christian apologetics blog for parents, ChristianMomThoughts.com. She obtained her MBA in Marketing and Statistics from UCLA and obtained a Christian apologetic certificate from the University of Biola. She currently resides in California with her husband Bryan along with her three young children.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2PMb0PI

September 25, 2018/by Guest

Captain America & the Moral Argument

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Joel Furches

The Marvel Movie franchise is arguably the most epic enterprise in movie history. The series has a number of stand-out characters; however, two stand out more than the others. In fact, their differences stand in such firm relief so as to culminate in a film where they were driven toe-to-toe whilst still harboring a slight underlying sense of respect for one to another.

These characters are, of course, Iron Man and Captain America.

When an actor takes the stage, the first question the thespian asks is “what’s my motivation”? The actor seeks to find the one underlying quest that drives all of his or her emotions and actions. In the Marvel universe, most of the characters are driven by the usual things: Thor is driven by his loyalty to the kingdom, family and friends – as is Black Panther. Spider-man is driven by a sense of responsibility undergirded by guilt – as is Hulk. Hawkeye and Widow are driven by duty.

However, in every good piece of fiction, one finds three specific characters – archetypes first outlined by Freud. These three include one character driven largely by self-interests and desire and one driven largely by dedication to principle and self-control. These two are usually at one another’s throats as they represent entirely opposite ends of the emotional spectrum. The third character serves to balance the other two, to keep them from fighting and destroying one another. In any given piece of fiction, one typically finds these three.

In the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the Id – the self-interest – is represented by the narcissistic Tony Stark (Iron Man), whose actions are largely motivated by his own ego and interest in self-glorification. The Super-ego – the character devoted to larger principles – is filled by the super soldier: Steve Rogers (Captain America).

Steve Rogers holds a unique and underappreciated role in the Marvel pantheon. As a man out of time, Rogers is not motivated by loyalty to any person or institution – given that all of the people and institutions that mattered in his life are long expired. The exception, of course, being his best friend with whom his relationship is complicated.

From the moment he graced the screen, Steve was shown to be a God-and-country idealist, who would willingly place his life on the line to stand up against bullies in defense of any cause he felt was just. This selfless dedication is preempted from the moment he willingly took a beating as a fragile teenager, never once backing down despite the impossibility of his winning. As Rogers’ military sponsor predicted, this attitude of selfless dedication to the larger good translated over from his fragile teenage state into the powerful monolith he eventually became. As Steve Rogers eventually wades into the larger world of superheroes and villains, he never once loses the “kid from Brooklyn” humility or morality.

What does all of this have to do with the Moral Argument?

Succinctly, the Moral Argument states that if morality is objective, then there is a God. The full formulation of the argument is a little more involved and nuanced, but it essentially boils down to this.

As a comic character, Captain America is a bit of an anomaly. Many of the iconic superheroes were birthed during the time of the World War. Superman, with his devotion to truth, justice and – yes – the American Way – was the creation of a couple of Jewish kids from Cleveland at the height of the World War. Wonder Woman – a Grecian figure of mythology – nonetheless wore star-spangled colors and an eagle crest. These all have lost their status as American icons as the country has become steadily less nationalistic. But by virtue of his name and costume, Captain America could never escape his status as a symbol of patriotism. His storyline also has him perpetually locked into the mindset of the so-called “greatest generation,” as – with history marching ever forward – he has still only recently stepped out of World War 2.

What this means practically is that writers of both comic and film have to somehow keep him a hero despite his outdated way of thinking. And so, are forced to concede to some standards which remain fixed and admirable, even as everything else changes.

Captain America is the iconic soldier. He puts aside all self-interest and gives his life over to the protection of a cause higher than himself. That Captain America can remain somehow relevant nearly a century after he was first conceived is evidence that there are some underlying standards of right and wrong that prop up society even as everyone disagrees about the particulars.

The argument from Steve Rogers is no home run for proponents of moral absolutism, but nevertheless, it does point to a much more obvious feature which prevails in media from time immemorial. That is to say that, we tell tales of heroes and villains – and have always done so. The tales themselves are built on the unspoken premise that heroism and villainy are actual features of reality. Consequently, there must be some standard against which actions may be judged. This is so instinctual that the viewer of media need not be told which character is hero and villain. They recognize it for themselves.

Morality is like pornography: you recognize it when you see it. It is intuitively obvious – and needs no deep consideration to identify. Deep, analytical thought is only required to find some manner of anchoring morality without appeals to the transcendent.

As a writer and artist, Joel Furches has primarily served the Christian Community by engaging in Apologetics and Christian ministry. Joel is an accomplished journalist, author, and editor, having written for both Christian publications – like Christian Media Magazine – and journalistic organizations – like CBS. Joel also edits academic research papers for universities. Joel does professional editing and reviews for all communities, including the science community. Joel currently has an undergraduate degree in Psychology and a Master’s degree in Education. Joel has worked for a number of years with neglected, abused and troubled youth. This has given him some uncomfortable but valuable insights into the human condition. Joel is on The Mentionables speaking team.

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

September 23, 2018/by Guest

Christianity is not a sitting religion

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Michael Sherrard

Will you go? Will you do more than just learn? Will you act upon your desire to persuade others that Jesus is the messiah? You need to wrestle with this. You need to decide if you are going to be one that takes our Lord’s mercy and grace to others or be one that hoards it for yourself. I am going to plead here for an active style of evangelism. Christianity is a going religion, not a sitting one. We don’t wait for the world to come to us. We go.

We don’t rest upon the grace of Jesus and use it as a cushion for our pews. We don’t cherish the love of God wrapping ourselves in it while we look out our window and watch people freeze to death. We are not the ones who gather on Sunday to have our church leaders stick pacifiers in our mouth and rock us to sleep singing soft easy words into our ear.

Or are we?

It seems some troubling trends exist in the West and weak brand of Christianity has arisen. Is it merely enough to sing about the wonderful cross rather than pick it up? Is it right to jump from church to church seeking one to “feed you” as we neglect those truly hungry? The luxury of prosperity and freedom has made us soft and selfish, I think. We view our religion as an end to itself. Church programs seek to build more church programs as we hire more staff to support them. “Bring the world to us,” we think. And as churches grow in size, the Christian voice becomes fainter and fainter in the West. Our impact is greatly disproportionate to our size. It seems that our religion is for us and our good alone. The rest can go to hell.

But let this not be so any longer. Sin is ruining lives. It is causing much great pain. The world is seeking peace and rest, and they are not finding it. For true rest and peace come from Jesus and Him alone. It is only the forgiveness of sins that brings rest. We know this.

We have witnessed sin tear families apart. We have seen sin hurt our children. We have experienced the deceitful nature of sin. We all have at one time taken sin’s yoke thinking that it brings a light load filled with peace and joy. We all once learned from another master, one who is not gentle or humble and found his yoke very heavy. We have seen firsthand the folly of sin. We have run from Jesus thinking that we would find freedom. We took what we thought to be an easy road only to find that it was filled with step hills, and mud, and hidden roots, and slippery rocks, and a perilous cliff that beckoned us to our death.

Though we have witnessed sin’s power, many have become desensitized to sin’s ruination. Christians can get locked in their own subculture and forget the devastating nature of sin. Those that have faithfully abided in Christ and obeyed his teaching have been blessed and protected from much of the hurt that is out there. It is hard to remember the depth of pain from a previous life when filled with joy and peace. And this is good. I am glad that faithfully following Jesus results in a wellness. I am grateful for joy and peace in Christ and the freedom found therein. Further, I am glad knowing that my holiness protects my children from gratuitous pain. Surely it does not preclude all pain. But following the Lord avoids the worst kind of pain, pain brought forth by your own stupid, foolish sin. In my blessed state, I cannot forget the land from where I was delivered nor those that still remain.

I must go.

Michael C. Sherrard is a pastor, a writer, and a speaker. Booking info and such can be found at michaelcsherrard.com.

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

September 23, 2018/by Guest

When Is It Time To Leave Gentleness And Respect Behind?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Michael Sherrard

I am sickened by Planned Parenthood. They are exploiting women for profit all in the name of equality and empowerment. Selling the body parts of aborted fetus’ should disgust all and bring to mind horrific images of some futuristic dystopia. If you’ve not seen the undercover footage, stop what you are doing and watch it here.

So when does the horror and calamity from ignorant practices require us to take the gloves off? I ask this in apparent contradiction as I am the author of Relational Apologetics: Defending the Christian Faith with Holiness, Respect, and Truth. One might assume my answer. But I think there is a time when gentleness is not an option and respect should not be given. Let me explain.

When one that I love is drowning, gentleness is not my concern. I will use whatever force I need to pull them from the raging waters. When one that I love does something evil, I give no respect to their actions or the thinking that caused them. I will expose them for what they are, and sometimes only harsh language can convey the tragedy and folly of wickedness.

It’s obvious that force and strong language can be used for good and respect for evil actions is not necessary. But it is too easy to miss apply these principles. So let me set a couple of ground rules.

Premeditated violence is not the way of the follower of Jesus. We are not to create a holy army and wage a literal war for we do not merely fight against flesh and blood. A war fought against such would not bring the change we desire. We fight ideas. The battleground is the mind. Guns and swords aren’t much use there. What is useful are stories and art and logic. We must wage a war of ideas and capture our cultures imagination. And in this, we must be aggressive.

Using words to make people feel inferior to us is not the way of the Christian either. We are not to beat people into submission with language. But we can use words to shame people for holding utterly stupid ideas. This is a delicate art. One that must be undergirded by love. In the same way, I make my precious daughter feel silly for being childishly selfish, so too can we use things like sarcasm and mockery to expose ridiculous thinking. When love is felt, words attack ideas and not people. If the church is going to use harsh words, its love must be felt.

When something we love is dangerously close to disaster, our presence must be felt. As a body, we must unite and spur one another onto good works grounded in the love of Christ. We cannot now retreat in the name of turning the other cheek. Nor can we storm the gates with hate in our hearts. Wisdom and humility must be our generals, and our Lord must be our Lord. It is easy now to respond to the current cultural crisis for our name’s sake, our own well being. But let us gladly lay down our lives for the good of this world and the glory of God. Let us seek the renewal of our culture. And let us use the tactics that are necessary but also worthy of our calling.

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/2OaoQv2

September 18, 2018/by Guest

Did Jesus Even Claim to Be God?

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By J. Brian Huffling

I sat down with some Jehovah’s Witnesses who were visiting with me. The elder who was leading our study stated that Jesus never claimed to be God. Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that Jesus is a created being. Liberal “Christians” argue that Jesus never claimed to be God. Many other groups say the same. If such is the case, then Christians have some explaining to do as they teach that Jesus is God. But did he ever claim this title for himself? Let’s look at what he actually said.

I am going to argue that, yes, Jesus, in fact, did claim to be God. This can be seen by the fact that he claimed to be identical with God in various ways.

Jesus Claimed to Be Identical with God

Jesus made statements about himself that were expressly made of Yahweh in the Old Testament. Let’s look at the OT claims and then Jesus’ claims.

“I AM”

One of the clearest passages of Jesus claiming to be God is his claiming to be Yahweh as being the great I AM of Exodus 3:14.

OT Claim: “God said to Moses, ‘I am who I am.’” The designation “I am” was solely reserved for Yahweh and was recognizes by the Jews as such. (Exodus 3:14)

Jesus Claim: “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.‘ ⁵⁹So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple” (John 8:58-58). Clearly, the Jews understood Jesus to be making himself equal with God. That’s why they wanted to kill him.

First and the Last

OT Claim: “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last; besides me, there is no god.’” (Isaiah 44:6)

Jesus’ Claim: “When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, ‘Fear not, I am the first and the last, ¹⁸and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.’” (Note for Jehovah’s Witnesses: This can’t be Jehovah since for them Jehovah never died.)

Having the Glory of God

Jesus claimed to have the glory that only God had.

OT Claim: “I am the Lord; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.”

Jesus’ Claim: “And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.”

His Acceptance of Worship

The OT and NT also forbade the worship of any other being, idol or otherwise (Exodus 20:1-4; Deut. 5:6-9; Acts 14:15; Rev. 22:8-9). However, Jesus accepted worship on several occasions and never reprimanded anyone else for it (Matt. 14:33; Matt. 20:28; John 9:38; John 20:28). In this last example, Thomas explicitly calls Jesus God and Jesus didn’t correct him.

He Claimed to Have Authority and Equality with God

Throughout Matthew 5 Jesus claims his words have the same authority as God. Repeatedly he says regarding the OT, “You have heard it said, but I say to you . . .” (See 5:22, 28, 32)

In the baptismal formula he gave at the Great Commission, he claimed equality with the Father and Spirit: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. ¹⁹Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ²⁰teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matt. 28:18-20)

He claimed to be able to forgive sins, which only God could do: “And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, ‘Son, your sins are forgiven.’ ⁶Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, ^{7 ‘}Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?’” (Mark 2:5-7)

Perhaps the clearest passage is John 10:30-33: Jesus claimed to be one with the Father. “I and the Father are one.” ³¹The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. ³²Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” ³³The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

Objections to Jesus Being God

Objection: Some will object that Jesus can’t be God. God, they say, is infinite and unlimited; however, Jesus claimed to be limited in various ways. For example, in Matthew 24:36 Jesus said, referring to his second coming, “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”

Response: We have to understand that Jesus did in fact claim (and prove) to be God. The traditional Christian teaching is that Jesus had two natures even though he was just one person. One nature was his divine nature that he shares with the Father and Spirit. The other is his human nature. Sometimes he refers to his divine nature, such as having glory with God, being the first and the last, etc. However, sometimes he refers to his human nature. When we ask questions about his ability to do something or know something we have to be clear as to whether we are talking about his divine or human nature. In this verse, Jesus is referring to his limited human nature. This does not deny his divine nature.

Objection: Jesus also said “The Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28)

Response: The same basic answer is used here. The Father is greater in office while not being greater in nature, that is, in Jesus’ divine nature. Of course, the Father is greater than Jesus’ human nature. An illustration may make this clearer. The President of the United States is greater than me. However, he is only greater in office. We are both of the same nature.

Objection: in Matthew 19:17 we read: “And behold, a man came up to him, saying, ‘Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?’ ¹⁷And he said to him, ‘Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good.’” In other words, only God is good, so why are you calling me good?

Response: Notice there is no explicit denial of his deity. He is likely saying, “Do you realize that in calling me good you are calling me God?” However, even if this is not what he is saying, there is no explicit denial of being God, and we have already seen several (select) examples of him claiming to be God.

Conclusion

Above are a few of the many passages where Jesus claims to be equal with God in various ways. The notion that he didn’t claim to be God is simply false. He was also understood to be God by his followers and the Church. Objections to this idea fail when properly examined. Jesus, in fact, claimed to be God.

*I am indebted as a student of Dr. Norman L. Geisler for the above connections and general thought. See for example his Christian Apologetics.

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

September 18, 2018/by Guest

Why The Apocrypha Isn’t In The Bible

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

I’ve had more than a few conversations about the Apocrypha. From my experience, this group of a dozen Jewish books written between the Old and New Testaments (400 BC-AD 50) perplexes most Christians. A couple of reasons exist for this confusion. First, most have never read these books. That is, nobody knows what they say. And second, Catholics include these books in their Bible. Why would they include them in their Bible while Protestants do not?

Because much confusion exists around the Apocrypha, let me give four reasons why I believe the Apocrypha shouldn’t be included in our Bible.

1. THE APOCRYPHA ITSELF INDICATES IT’S NOT SCRIPTURE

The authors of the Apocrypha acknowledge that they aren’t prophets and don’t speak with divine authority like the Old Testament authors. The author of 1 Maccabees writes:

So there was great distress in Israel, the worst since the time when prophets ceased to appear among them (1 Macc. 9:27).

Prophets only existed in their ancient memories. This text, written around 100 BC, refers back to a time when the prophets were in their midst. The logical conclusion is that no prophet existed at this time who could speak from God. First Maccabees 14:41 also says as much:

The Jews and their priests have resolved that Simon should be their leader and high priest forever until a trustworthy prophet should arise.

Again, none of the Jews knew of a prophet who was speaking from God during the time of these events.

Additionally, these books contain theological and historical errors. For example, the Book of Wisdom indicates that God created the world out of preexisting matter (11:17) which contradicts the rest of Scripture’s teaching that God created the world out of nothing. Moreover, the book of Judith incorrectly states Nebuchadnezzar was king of Assyria, when in fact, he was the king of Babylon (1:5).

It’s hard to imagine how the Spirit could inspire documents containing both theological and historical error. When you couple the errors with the authors’ acknowledgment that no prophets existed during this time, we have good reasons to reject the Apocrypha as sacred Scripture.

2. JEWS HAVE NEVER ACCEPTED THE APOCRYPHA AS SCRIPTURE

The Jews don’t believe the Apocrypha belongs in their Bible, and they never have. Josephus, the greatest Jewish historian of the first century, explained:

It is true, our history has been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but has not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers.¹

Josephus’ quote is especially helpful here. He indicates that ever since the reign of Artaxerxes (465-424 BC), the Jewish writings (the Apocrypha) have “not been esteemed of the like authority with the former (the Old Testament) by our forefathers.” In other words, the Jewish consensus was that while these writings might contain some helpful history and content, they don’t belong in the same category as the Old Testament texts.

Rabbinic literature during the first couple of centuries also affirms this distinction. The Babylonian Talmud reports:

After the latter prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi had died, the Holy Spirit departed from Israel.²

Based on this text, the Jews recognized that the Spirit stopped speaking through the prophets after Malachi died. Thus, the Apocryphal documents, which were written after Malachi, are not Spirit-inspired Scripture.

In fact, no early or recent Jewish canon includes the Apocrypha. That the Jews reject these Jewish documents as Scripture is a strong indication that they don’t belong in our Bible.

3. THE NEW TESTAMENT DOESN’T REFER TO THE APOCRYPHA AS SCRIPTURE

When reading the New Testament, you will find hundreds of quotations from the Old Testament. According to one count, Jesus and his apostles quote various portions of the Old Testament as Scripture 295 times.³ Not once, however, do they quote a text from the Apocrypha.

The absence of references to the Apocrypha speaks volumes. After all, if these books were from God, why wouldn’t Jesus or his apostles quote from them? They don’t, because they believed the Old Testament canon was closed, and it didn’t include the Apocrypha.

We see a couple hints of this in the New Testament. Jesus indicates in Luke 24:44 that the Jewish Scripture include, “The Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.” In other words, Jesus breaks down the Jewish canon into three sections — the law, the prophets, and the writings (the Psalms represented the writings). Notice he doesn’t mention the Apocrypha.

Jesus gives another indication of a closed Jewish canon in Luke 11:51. When talking to the Jewish leaders, Jesus says the Jews will be held accountable for all the martyrs from Abel to Zechariah. At first glance, it might appear that Jesus is making an alphabetical list, but that’s not what he’s doing. Remember, his alphabet was different from ours. Instead, Jesus makes a chronological list. Abel was the first martyr in Genesis (the first book), and Zechariah was the last martyr in Chronicles (the last book in the Jewish Bible). Note, the Jewish Bible contains all the same books as our present Old Testament, but their ordering of the books is different.

Again, the New Testament provides strong evidence that the Apocrypha doesn’t belong in our Bible.

4. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DIDN’T DECLARE THE APOCRYPHA WAS SCRIPTURE UNTIL THE REFORMATION

The Roman Catholic Church officially declared that the Apocrypha was canonical at the Council of Trent in 1546. One must ask though if these books were authoritative, why wait over fifteen hundred years to declare their authority? It seems that Rome declared their canonical status as a direct response to the teachings of Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformers who rejected these books and their teachings.

Perhaps the biggest reason these books were even up for discussion is because St. Jerome hesitantly included them in the Latin Vulgate Bible in AD 404. Because this was the official Bible of the Western Church for over a thousand years, it’s not hard to imagine how Christians began to think the Apocrypha was also Scripture.

While Jerome included these books in his Vulgate, he specifically differentiated them from the rest of the Bible. He indicated that these books were “not for the establishing of the authority of the doctrines of the church.”⁴ That is to say, Jerome recognized that these books didn’t carry the same authority as Scripture. Only Scripture establishes Christian doctrine. The Apocrypha doesn’t have authority to do that.

Knowing the origins of their inclusion in the Latin Vulgate and the late declaration of their canonical status is yet another reason to reject these books as Scripture.

NOT SCRIPTURE

Based on these four reasons, we can say with confidence that the Apocrypha doesn’t belong in our Bible. This doesn’t mean, however, that it’s completely useless. The Maccabees, for example, give us some useful history and tell us why Jews celebrate Hanukkah. Some of the books, like Tobit and Susanna, contain entertaining stories. Protestants even sing — albeit unknowingly — Christmas songs based on Apocryphal texts (It Came Upon a Midnight Clear). In other words, the Apocrypha is interesting and contains some historical details. In the end, however, it’s not Scripture and doesn’t belong in the Bible.

Ryan Leasure holds an M.A. from Furman University and an 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/2QjIwOo

September 16, 2018/by Guest