Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence

Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

, ,

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

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

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

,

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:

All you need is love

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

/by
Captain America & the Moral Argument

Captain America & the Moral Argument

,

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

/by
Christianity is not a sitting religion

Christianity is not a sitting religion

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

/by
When Is It Time To Leave Gentleness And Respect Behind

When Is It Time To Leave Gentleness And Respect Behind?

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

/by
Did Jesus Even Claim to Be God

Did Jesus Even Claim to Be God?

,

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.‘ 59 So 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, 18 and 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. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching 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.’ 6 Now 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.” 31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” 33 The 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?’ 17 And 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

/by
Why The Apocrypha Isn’t In The Bible

Why The Apocrypha Isn’t In The Bible

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

/by
Worldviews Shaping Culture Can You Name America’s Top 3

Worldviews Shaping Culture: Can You Name America’s Top 3?

By Mikel del Rosario

You’ve got a worldview. Everyone does.

What’s a worldview? It’s everything you believe about what’s real and what really matters in life. Ronald Nash defines it like this in his book, Worldviews In Conflict:

A worldview is a set of presuppositions (or assumptions) which we hold (either consciously or subconsciously) about the basic makeup of our world.

J.P. Moreland observed that there are three major worldviews dominating the debate in our culture today. Here’s a quick rundown of America’s top three:

  1. Historic Christianity

This is the main version of something called ethical monotheism. This is the idea that God’s real; that God created us and gave us a real moral law. And all people everywhere are obligated to obey the moral law—whether they want to or not. Some things, like loving your parents, are really good. Other things, like hurting a little girl for no reason, are really wrong.

The next two represent the major movements of the opposite camp.

  1. Scientific Naturalism

What’s this? Think X-Men. No matter how out there something might seem (like bending metal just by thinking about it), absolutely everything can be boiled down to physical processes (like a genetic mutation). This view says only the physical world is real. You’re pretty much just your brain. And everything you do is just the result of things like your genetics and how you were raised.

Another key idea: Science is the only way we know things. If you can’t measure something in a lab or use science to prove it, you can’t know it. So you can say you know Advil will help with your headache. But you can’t say you actually know God exists.

  1. Postmodern Relativism

For this one, think Oprah. All truth and reality is relative to you or your community: “That’s true for you but not for me.” It’s supposed to be a feel-good, politically correct worldview where no one’s perspective is ever wrong about anything—especially when it comes to spiritual things (unless you happen to think Christianity is actually true).

Another key idea is words don’t really mean anything. You decide what words mean to you. For example, it doesn’t matter if this post is about worldviews. Maybe to you, this article means I’m giving away iPads to everyone who shares this post on Facebook! I’m not.

Really, I’m not.

These two worldviews agree you can’t know things about stuff you can’t see, touch, taste, hear or smell. This directly challenges historic Christianity which teaches that we can know the truth (John 8:32). J.P. Moreland says: “We are in a struggle for the hearts and minds of the American people against scientific naturalism and postmodern relativism…Our religion is a religion that is based on knowledge.”

So, there you have it. The top three worldviews shaping American culture: Christianity, Naturalism, and Postmodernism. Which one most shapes your views?

 

Mikel 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/2LW1rvx

/by
Book Review The Creator Revealed

Book Review: The Creator Revealed

,

By Luke Nix

Introduction

Today I am excited to bring you a review of a book that I have been anticipating for a little over a year and a half. In January 2017 particle physicist and University of Oklahoma professor, Dr. Michael G. Strauss (check out his blog and YouTube channel) and I were talking, and he informed me that he had been working on a book about science and faith for a while. He gave me an overview of the content and even let me in on a sneak peek of the book. After reading through what was already “on paper,” I was incredibly excited to see it published. Dr. Strauss’ goal with “The Creator Revealed: A Physicist Examines the Big Bang, and the Bible” was to provide the scientific, theological, and biblical evidence for the big bang in a non-technical and more conversational tone.

The book is relatively short (126 pages, not counting the appendices) compared to other works on this topic, and the seventeen chapters are bite-sized. This review will be my usual chapter-by-chapter summary followed by my thoughts (as if the first line above didn’t give you an indication). Before we get to the review, check out this interview with Dr. Strauss about science and faith and his experience with scientists and students:

                                       

Now, on to the book review…

Chapter 1: An Important Question

Strauss begins his book with a discussion of the importance, for the Christian, of seriously and critically investigating the beginning of the universe. He explains that since God created the universe, it accurately reveals His character and His glory (Psalms 19:1). An investigation of the universe will present evidence for its Creator and the proper worldview. Those who are presented with this evidence should follow it where it leads. If evidence for God is presented by the creation, then it follows that the investigator should believe that God exists.

The reigning model among scientists is the general big bang model. Many scientists claim to hold to this model due to the evidence that the creation has presented to them for its truth. Strauss explains that if some form of the big bang model does accurately explain the beginning of the universe, it has great implications for the discussion of God’s existence, His character, and whether someone should follow Christ. Thus it is imperative that the Christian approach this topic with an open and evangelistic mindset that is committed to not only the inerrant truth and authority of God’s Word but also the truth revealed by God’s actions (His creation). With this, Strauss transitions into a description of the general big bang model and some of the evidence that convinced even atheistic scientists that it accurately describes the beginning of our universe.

Creator Revealed 1

Part 1: The Big Bang Reveals God’s Character

Chapter 2: The Big Bang

While many Christians have heard of the big bang model for the creation of the universe, there are some dire misconceptions of it that prevent an accurate assessment of the scientific and biblical evidence for it. Strauss begins by correcting these misconceptions, including the ideas that the big bang was an explosion of preexisting matter and that it was an explosion at all. He explains that the big bang merely posits that the universe began from literally “no thing” some time ago in the finite past.

Strauss uses an analogy to the game of Mouse Trap to explain how we can reasonably conclude how the universe formed. Beginning with the proper setup of the elaborate trap and knowing how the laws of physics operate, without ever turning the crank, we can still accurately imagine how the process will unfold to finally trap the mice. Likewise, we can begin with the most fundamental particles of the universe and the laws of physics and use computers to “imagine” how the process will unfold to create a universe. As these computer simulations go through the process, we see that they generate what we observe in the universe today, thus it is reasonable to believe that the big bang model that they simulate accurately represents the beginning conditions of our universe and the elapse of time since that beginning.

Chapter 3: How Do You Know?

Many Christians raise many challenges to the idea of the big bang that question the certainty of the conclusion and that conclusion’s compatibility with the Bible. Strauss will address the biblical challenges later, but in this chapter, he addresses the strength of the observational and theoretical case. He begins by explaining how we can know the events of the past even though no person was “there” to observe them (a common objection). For instance, observing the presence of a snakeskin on the ground is evidence that a snake had shed its skin, even though no one was present to witness this past event. Just as if a snake shed its skin in the past, we would expect to find a snakeskin, if the big bang happened, we would expect to find certain features as we observe the universe.

Before getting into the observations and to keep things interesting, Strauss notes that at the time the evidence for the big bang starting coming in, scientists were perfectly satisfied with the current beginningless model of the universe at the time because it did not require any kind of Creator at all. However, when the evidence for a beginning of the universe started being discovered, it caused a huge philosophical uproar in the scientific community. Strauss describes the observations of the expansion of the universe, the radiation present throughout the universe, and the relative abundances of the elements. All the observations pointed strongly enough to the universe having a beginning. However, on top of that, theoretical physicists over the last century (including Einstein and Hawking) have done work that has been found accurate in their precise predictions of observations, and others have done work that solidifies the necessity of a beginning based upon both observation and theory. The beginning of the universe has been (reluctantly) accepted due to the certainty level demanded by the evidence even in the context of a philosophical presupposition against God’s existence.

Creator Revealed 2

Chapter 4: The Transcendent Creator

But the big bang does not stop at merely providing evidence for the universe having a beginning. The big bang provides evidence of the identity of the Cause of the universe. Strauss explains that as will any good crime mystery story, the perpetrator leaves behind clues as to his or her identity that allows the investigator to accurately identify them. According to Romans 1:20, these clues are not only there but were intentionally left there and are clearly seen by those who investigate the universe. So, even if scientists are philosophically committed against the identity of the Cause of the universe, they will still clearly see clues that point to the attributes (thus the identity) of the Creator. Strauss emphasizes that this is exactly what is happening with the big bang.

The first attribute of the Creator that Strauss shows is demanded of a big bang universe (thus evidenced in our universe) is the transcendence of its cause. If the big bang was the beginning of all energy, space and time, then the cause of the big bang has to exist outside this universe. Strauss explains that this is significant to identifying the Creator because only the Bible explicitly identifies the Creator as acting prior to the beginning of (thus being outside or transcending) the universe. This means that the Creator is not made of anything physical (matter or energy) and is something completely different: spirit, according to John 4:24.

Chapter 5: Design in the Universe

To identify further characteristics of the Cause of the universe, it is important to examine the fine-tuning of various features of the universe for life. Of the hundreds of characteristics that would be examined, Strauss has chosen to describe three to keep from getting too technical and losing the reader. Strauss takes a look at the amount of matter in the universe, the strength of the strong nuclear force, and the formation of carbon. All of these, if their numbers were slightly different, one direction or the other, from what they are, the universe would be not only be devoid of life but would be hostile to life. The fact that these values could have been different, yet are not, indicates that the Cause of the universe intended for the universe to be an eventual home for life.

Creator Revealed 3

Chapter 6: A Plan for Humans

Building upon the finely tuned features described in the previous chapter, Strauss explains that Romans 1:20’s claim that God’s “attributes are clearly seen” is being demonstrated in the scientific literature. Strauss cites the works of several skeptical scientists who explicitly state that the design characteristics of the universe, that have been discovered as a product of modern big bang cosmology, point exclusively to the cause having the intention, forethought, and ultimately a purpose for the universe. Some scientists believe this so strongly, yet they want to deny God as the Creator, that they believe that man (as an intelligent designer with purpose) will eventually be able to reach back in time to create the universe themselves. Even though they refuse to acknowledge God as Creator, His attributes are clearly seen and recognized by these skeptical scientists. This recognition of the intentionality and purpose of the Creator is exactly what the Christian should expect from the correct theory of the universe’s beginning. Big bang cosmology is directly producing the results the Christian expects- that the universe speaks powerfully that it was created intentionally for humanity.

Chapter 7: The Garden of Eden

Continuing on the topic of design for humanity, Strauss zooms in from the level of the universe as a whole to our galaxy, solar system, and planet. He explains how the type, size, and age of the Milky Way Galaxy must be just right for advanced life to not only survive but be even possible. Zooming in closer, to our solar system, Strauss shows the specific characteristics of our sun are unique (and also finely tuned), and he discusses the importance of gaseous giant planets like Saturn and Jupiter for protecting life from cosmic debris. Finally, Strauss looks at some of the characteristics of our planet that make is uniquely suitable for advanced life. Again, in all of these investigations, we see that the creation reveals that is was created with intentionality and purpose.

Chapter 8: Characteristics of the Creator

Summing up the previous chapters, Strauss emphasizes that the Christian not only has the testimony of God’s creation that the big bang is an accurate description of the beginning of the universe, but the Christian also has the incredible alignment between the characteristics demanded of the cause of the big bang and the God of the Bible. These characteristics are not evident only to those who glance at the creation, but it is unmistakable to those who investigate it deeply. The Apostle Paul’s claims about the clarity of the revelation of the Creator through the creation Romans 1:20 is borne out with every new discovery that confirms that the universe had a beginning and was designed for the benefit of humanity.

Creator Revealed 4

Part 2: A Biblical Beginning

Chapter 9: Mistakes of the Past

For the Christian, nature is not the only source of truth from the Creator. The Bible is the Creator’s written source of truth. Since both sources are from the same Author, when we interpret them, our interpretations cannot be in conflict because the sources themselves are not in conflict. Strauss explains to the reader that the Church has made mistakes in the past regarding interpretation that still make nonbelievers suspicious of the Church today, so it is important that we do not repeat the same mistakes as we search for the proper interpretation of debateable biblical passages. The two interpretive guidelines to always remember are that the passages are written from a particular perspective and that some passages do have multiple reasonable interpretations. While there is only one correct interpretation of these passages, honest disagreement on the correct interpretation can take place without questioning one’s commitment to the Bible as God’s inerrant and authoritative Word. These two guidelines are important in our humble pursuit of truth and will guide Strauss’ investigation of the creation passages and their possible agreement with the big bang.

Chapter 10: Rules of the Game

Before beginning to investigate the creation passages of the Bible, Strauss takes the time to describe three rules of interpretation. He emphasizes that if this step is not done beforehand, then those involved could easily be using different rules of interpretation that will result in very little progress. The rules that he covers are not new and have been used since the beginning of the Church, but since they may not be explicit in the mind of the reader, it is important to lay them out.

Strauss emphasizes the that the goal of interpretation is to discover the meaning that the author of a particular passage intended to communicate to the audience. The first of the rules is to always consider the literary context- the surrounding passages, the book, and the Bible as a whole. Driven by a commitment to biblical inerrancy, this rule requires that no two interpretations of two passages may be in conflict with one another. The second is to understand figurative language and recognize when it may be in use. Forgetting such an important thing can result in all sorts of misunderstandings, even in everyday life. Finally, we must consider the cultural context in which the passage was communicated. Strauss concludes the chapter with an exercise of interpreting 1 Corinthians 11:4-6 using these principles to demonstrate how they are properly applied.

Chapter 11: The Days of Genesis

One of the big questions Christians have about big bang cosmology is whether or not it is compatible with sound exegesis (reading things out of Scripture rather than into Scripture). Essential to this question is the proper meaning of the word interpreted as “day” when used to describe the periods of time of God’s creation. Using the principles and guidelines described in the previous two chapters, Strauss takes the reader through interpreting this word. Of the uses of the word “day” in Genesis 1-2 that do not refer to the days of creation, there are seven instances, four of which are unique in their meanings. Some refer to less than twenty-four hours, and others refer to a lot longer. All of these definitions are considered to be literal interpretations. Because of these possibilities, it is reasonable to consider that the original author used the word literally and that he meant it as a longer period of time.

Many Christians, who strongly oppose even the possibility of this exegetical conclusion, often appeal to the immediate context to undermine this possibility. They propose that “day” in the presence of either a number or “evening and morning” necessitates that “day” is twenty-four. Strauss examines the wider context of Scripture to provide examples of the presence of both of these (one even believed to also be penned by Moses) that do not mean twenty-four hours. The presence of these examples in Scripture undermine the claim that their presence in Genesis 1 exegetically demands a twenty-four interpretation. Another attempt to undermine the long-period-of-time interpretation is God’s comparing the work week to the creation week in Exodus 20:9-11. Strauss points out that the same pattern is applied to a different period of time (years) just a few verses later, so if the application of the pattern necessitates that the compared period of time is twenty-four hours, then it requires that years are also twenty-four hours. But that conclusion is false, so it is also false that the application to the days of Genesis necessitates that they are twenty-four hours. Consequently, while the days of Genesis are periods of time, the Bible does not tell us exactly how long they are.

Strauss has, thus far, shown how big bang cosmology is compatible with an exegetical, historical and literal interpretation of Genesis; thus it is perfectly compatible with Scripture.

Chapter 12: As God Sees It

Even though the Bible does not tell us the details of how long the creation days were or when the universe was initially created, it does provide many incredible details that could have only been known by an eye-witness to the creation. Strauss takes this chapter to describe just a few. He begins his discussion of these details by reminding the reader that for proper exegesis (again, interpreting out of Scripture and not into Scripture) that all of Scripture is told from a perspective. We have to determine where exactly that perspective is in Genesis. Genesis 1:2 tells just precisely where the Spirit of God was, thus the perspective of the rest of the chapter- the surface of planet earth.

Strauss notes that a confirmation of this perspective is that the sun and moon are described as “the great lights,” yet we know that they are quite puny compared to other lights in the universe. The descriptor of “great” is only true if written from the perspective of the surface of the earth. Now, from this perspective, Genesis 1 describes the initial conditions of earth as formless, empty, dark, and watery. As scientists continue their investigation into the history of our planet and they develop and test theories of planetary formation, they are discovering that the descriptions of formless, empty, dark, and watery are a perfect match for the initial conditions of our planet. This could only have been known by the Creator since there were no human witnesses; this provides powerful confirmation that the Bible is truly inspired by the Creator of the universe.

Chapter 13: The Order of Creation

The other incredible details provided by Genesis 1 about the creation are present in the descriptions of God’s actions on those days. Using the perspective established from Genesis 1:2 and being mindful of the original Hebrew and the context of the passages, Strauss takes the reader through properly interpreting the passages and clearly states the claims of each of the days of creation. He then shows that each of the claimed events has been shown to be accurate by scientists in the appropriate fields. He also demonstrates how presumably problematic passages are resolved when the proper perspective is utilized, and the original Hebrew words are considered.

Not only is the content of Genesis 1 accurate, but the order is accurate as well. The Genesis 1 account of creation, when reading literally and from the correct perspective, provides accurate (though not comprehensive) historical record of the formation of our planet and life. Considering how many different claims are made throughout Genesis 1 about the history of earth that the author could easily have gotten wrong but didn’t, this evidence further solidifies the case that the Bible was inspired by the Creator of the universe. This comes as no surprise to the Christian, for this is exactly what is expect since the Bible and nature have the same source: God.

Creator Revealed 5

Chapter 14: Sin, Death, and the Future

One of the main concerns of Christians who reject big bang cosmology is that it requires that animals died before the fall of humanity. They believe that God created the world perfect with no pain, suffering or death, and Adam’s sin spoiled all that. If this belief is true, then any view that allows for animal death before the fall of Adam and Eve cannot be true. Strauss’ goal in this chapter is not a comprehensive examination of this view but rather a few surface observations that will cause the reader to consider that this is not the best way to interpret the Genesis text.

As with before Strauss takes the reader into the greater context of the whole Bible to help interpret. Staying within Genesis, though, he notes that “very good” is used instead of “perfect;” God increases Eve’s birthing pains, but does not create them; Adam knew what “death” was when God gave him the warning to not eat of the tree (indicating that he may already be familiar with death), and Adam did not physically die in the same twenty-four period that he first disobeyed God. The immediate context certainly does not require that the creation was without suffering and death before Adam’s sin. Additionally, when the context is expanded to the New Testament, the death referred to in the context of sin is almost always spiritual death. Meaning that the death that was a result of the fall of Adam and Eve did not affect non-spiritual beings (such as plants and animals). Plants and animals could have died (physical death) long before sin entered the world (consequence: spiritual death). Since the New Testament describes death that cannot be experienced by plants and animals (spiritual death), the kind of death that they do experience (physical death) is not a theological nor biblical problem for the Christian who affirms that it took place before sin entered the world to bring spiritual death to spiritual beings.

Part 3: Truth Changes Lives

Chapter 15: The Truth Shall Set You Free

Many Christians are so zealous for Christ that they offer stories and evidence that are simply not true. Strauss begins the final part of his book by giving an example of one such story that is often repeated as scientific evidence of the truth of the Bible but is not a true story in the least. He explains that Christians must be careful of repeating such false evidence because it reduces the credibility of the rest of our witness for the Gospel. Strauss explains that some Christians fall victim to false evidences because they are unconsciously fearful that further investigation will bring a crisis of faith. An example of this would be when Christians have been repeatedly told that big bang cosmology is an atheistic theory and they are hesitant to study and accept the evidence because it would mean that Christianity is false. Strauss reminds the reader that there is nothing to fear on such studies (whether it is the big bang or something else) because we serve the God of all truth. And no matter what we find to be true, it will always be compatible with Christianity. Investigating and accepting what is true gives the Christian true reasons that they can provide to the unsaved as evidence of the truth of Christianity.

Evangelism is not the only place where investigating and accepting the evidence no matter where it leads is a blessing to the Christian. Strauss relates a story of a friend who was an amateur astronomer who knew the evidence for the universe’s antiquity yet he was taught all his life that the Bible only allowed for the universe to be young. This friend experienced a cognitive dissonance that resulted in his worship of God with his mind and heart being stunted. However, when the biblical compatibility of an ancient universe was presented to him, he was able to reconcile the evidence for an ancient universe with the truth of God’s Word. The truth set his mind free and heart free to worship God like never before. Because we serve a God of truth, following the evidence where it leads is nothing to fear, and God will honor you with a closer relationship with Him and a more powerful witness to Jesus Christ.

Creator Revealed 6

Chapter 16: With All Your Mind

Many surveys and statistics show that people lose their childhood faith in the college years. Strauss attests to this in his experience as a college professor. He attributes much of it to a serious lack of the North American church’s willingness to love God with all our minds. Our children are often discouraged from asking tough questions (see the previous chapter). They do not usually get intellectual recognition of their tough questions until they are in an environment where skeptics are all too eager to provide answers. When provided with evidence that contradicts what they have been taught about the first chapters of Genesis, they often reason that God is untrustworthy in the rest of His revelation, including the Gospel. If the Christian student does retain some semblance of faith, it is usually compartmentalized, but that compartmentalization does not last long; God is usually abandoned.

Strauss explains that there is hope, though, through our setting the example and loving God with our minds. We must investigate and follow that evidence (again, see the previous chapter). He provides an example of the results of such an effort. One student went through the process described above all the way to the end of leaving the faith. However, when the truth of what Scripture actually does teach about origins was shown to be fully compatible with the evidence being offered as defeaters by the skeptics he spoke to, his faith was renewed. He realized that God, in fact, was truly trustworthy in what He revealed in Scripture. He followed the evidence and the logical path of trust from Genesis to Jesus. Jesus commands us to love God with all our minds (Mark 12:30), and when we do so, we can be the instrument that Christ uses to bring others back to Him.

Creator Revealed 7

Chapter 17: No God or Know God

In the concluding chapter, Strauss tells the story of an atheist who heard one of his talks covering the content of this book. While the atheist already understood and accepted the big bang as the beginning of the universe, he was never presented with evidence that it also powerfully supported the God of the Bible. After hearing Strauss speak of how the big bang was a theistic theory that was rejected for so long by scientists on that fact alone, he became interested and started investigating the claims of Jesus to be God. After completing his investigation he was convinced that the big bang, indeed, pointed to the God of the Bible as the Creator and that Jesus was who He claimed to be. This atheist surrendered his life to Jesus Christ, and Dr. Strauss has had the joy of watching him grow and become an enthusiastic ambassador of Christ. God spoke clearly to this atheist through His creation, and the Truth changed his life.

Creator Revealed 8

Reviewer’s Thoughts

As I mentioned in the introduction, when I read the sneak preview of the book, I was extremely excited and couldn’t wait for Dr. Strauss to get his book published. This is the most succinct yet non-technical book I have read about the implications of the big bang on Christianity. I love that Strauss presents the basic case for the big bang from both nature and the Bible side-by-side. I loved his focus on Romans 1:20 and his clarifying that the big bang is inherently a theistic theory (it is not an atheistic theory, as many Christians incorrectly believe), and that is what actually caused the majority of the scientific community to reject the clear evidence for so long. I particularly appreciate his dedication to biblical inerrancy as he presents a careful and exegetical case from Scripture. He addresses the most common challenges and questions from Christians to help remove any fear that they are compromising Scripture or God’s character at any point by following the evidence where it leads.

Strauss’ concise descriptions, use of analogies, stories from his life, and the sprinkling of jokes throughout makes a rather dry subject very enjoyable, understandable, and exciting. The length of each chapter and the book as a whole are perfect for those who are curious but do not have the time to devote to the more in-depth and technical works available (although it may spark an interest in pursuing a deeper investigation). With all of these characteristics and the fact that it covers an extremely important evangelistic tool, “The Creator Revealed” is a must-have book for every Christian who is passionate about the Great Commission. This book needs to be in every church library and on the bookshelf of every Christian parent and educator and pastor. Most every Christian knows someone who has dismissed Christ from their lives because they believe that the creation, via the big bang, eliminates the need for the Creator. God has placed you in their life to show them how they have unnecessarily rejected their Savior. Get this book, and prepare yourself to “give [them] a reason for the hope that you have” (1 Peter 3:15).

For more in-depth studies into the big bang and the Bible check out these great books:

 

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

/by
Determining the Apologetic Starting Point

Determining the Apologetic Starting Point

By Brian Chilton

I am fully immersed in a fantastic course describing apologetic methods. I have been engaged in apologetics since 2007. But, I never realized that there were so many various methodologies employed. One of the most off-putting of the methodologies that I have encountered has been one version of a method called presuppositional apologetics. Presuppositional apologetics (PA) holds that one should begin with the assumption that God exists and that the Bible is inspired as one evangelizes a person as opposed to more empirical methods such as classicalism (where one shows evidence for God’s existence and then shows evidence for the Bible’s reliability) or evidentialism (where one provides evidence for God’s existence by showing the evidence for the reliability of the Bible).

At first, I was appalled at the system. I was especially troubled at how some in the PA movement disregarded all empiricist methods. However, after talking with some who hold to the PA methodology, I can see some viability in its use while I readily admit that it is not my preferred method. In reality, all apologetic methodologies may hold a place in the apologist’s toolbelt as he or she seeks to reach different kinds of people in different places in their lives. The starting point is, in many ways, based on three areas.

The Starting Point Depends on the Person’s Assumptions. What does the person assume to be true about God and the Bible? It may be important for the apologist to combat those assumptions before engaging with the evidence. PA can have an influence in this area if the person holds some belief in God. However, if a person goes the route of PA, I personally think Alvin Plantinga’s Reformed Epistemological model works better than the traditional form of PA as found in Cornelius Van Til’s model. Plantinga argues that belief in God is a warranted belief—that is, a belief that is so evident that one can accept the belief without substantial evidence. From there, he builds his apologetic defense for the faith.

Already, some of the readers will say to themselves, “Oh yeah! That makes sense.” Others will say, “Come on! Really?” Thus, this model will not work for some because some people need hardcore evidence to back up the claim that God exists. For those, empirical apologetic models would work best. Quite honestly, PA would not have worked with me when I had doubts about the Bible’s reliability.

The Starting Point Depends on the Person’s Behaviors. Many apologists have noted that a person’s doubts come not so much from intellectual problems, but from emotional issues. If a person’s doubts come from issues of theodicy (i.e., why a loving God would allow evil in the world), then the apologist must first deal with the emotional issues blocking a person’s acceptance of Christian truths. The justification of certain behavioral issues may cause a person to doubt. This will cause different starting points with different people.

The Starting Point Depends on the Person’s Commitment. Does a person commit oneself to historical methods and science? If so, why not share the historical and scientific evidence for the Christian faith? Why argue over the use of the scientific and historical methods if we can use the scientific and historical methods to show the reasons to believe in Christ? It is odd that a person would avoid empirical methodologies if it would have a positive impact on the listener.

The point of the article is simple. Use whatever apologetic methodology that would be most beneficial for the person being evangelized. If a person’s presuppositions are the problem, then use a version of PA. If a person wants to know the empirical reasons to believe in God, use the classical method. If a person wants to know whether there is evidence for the resurrection of Jesus or the reliability of the Bible, use the evidential method. If a person wants to see the overall evidence for Christianity, use the cumulative method (evaluating all the evidence for Christianity and building a case out of the overall evidence). Use the method that would best benefit the person being evangelized. Such is necessary, along with the Holy Spirit’s involvement, for the obstacles to be cleared which stands in their path to faith. So, how does one determine the best apologetic starting point? It is determined by the person being evangelized. But, all in all, I think empirical methods will be more useful than PA methods with most people in society.

 

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/2oDM81c

/by