A Call To An Intellectual Faith

A Call To An Intellectual Faith

By J. Brian Huffling

I would venture that if you asked people what is meant by ‘faith,’ they would likely say “believing something in spite of the evidence or in the absence of evidence.” However, such has not historically been the view of faith.

Faith has traditionally been understood as trusting a reliable source. For example, while it is possible to prove through historical means that Jesus died, it is not possible to prove through merely historical means that his death atoned for our sins. The former is demonstrable through reason, the latter by faith. This is not meant to say that faith is irrational. On the contrary, when a source is demonstrated to be reliable, we can trust that source even when we cannot prove something through empirical investigation. Jesus and his apostles have been verified to be reliable sources. Their message has been confirmed with miracles, and Jesus’ claims to deity were likewise confirmed via miracles. Given such reliability, we can trust, i.e., have faith in, what they say.

This is in stark contrast to the blind faith that so many in our culture accuse Christians of having. I have been asked on more than one occasion how I can be a philosopher and also a Christian. The answer is simple: Christianity is philosophically rational.

The Problem

However, sometimes Christians don’t help matters. Sometimes people assert that faith is all it takes to be a Christian. In a sense there is a ring of truth to this; however, that is probably misleading. We have to have faith in the right object. Discerning what object should warrant our faith and belief requires reason. Faith alone is not enough, for one can have (blind) faith in anything. To have faith in the traditional sense requires one to have reasons, and thus to have a reasoned faith.

It is sad that some Christians actually believe (blindly) that we should not base our faith on reason, for such supposedly subordinates God’s Word to human reason. However, understanding (let alone believing) the Bible requires one to rationally understand what it says. We cannot even know what the Bible says without using reason.

Some Causes of the Problem

With such notions in mind, our culture has ridiculed Christians for being irrational. Historically this is false, for many of the best minds have been Christians. But there is a very real sense of anti-intellectualism in the church nowadays. This is particularly noticeable to new seminary graduates who are eager to take various positions in church ministry or academia. I cannot begin to count the number of graduates that I know who have been disillusioned by the church’s disinterest in being intellectually fit.

Another problem is pastors. I wish I had a dollar for every time some pastor called for the congregation not to clutter their Christian faith with reason. Sometimes this call is subtle and sometimes it is overt. Many churches I have visited, even lately, have an anti-intellectual air about them, stemming from the person behind the pulpit. Such leads to disastrous consequences.

This can be seen in the gross ignorance of average Christians who don’t know hardly anything about their faith. I have had countless people talk to me about their Christian “faith” who do not even know whether or not they are Protestant, even though they have identified with Christianity for years. The average churchgoer cannot even articulate, let alone defend, such primary doctrines as the Trinity or the Incarnation. Many who have grown up for decades in the Church know next to nothing about the Bible, where certain books are, or have any idea whatsoever about how to interpret or study it. Most Christians cannot have an intelligent conversation about God’s nature regarding whether they think he is temporal, changeable, etc., or that these issues are even debated. Rather than have solid studies on the Bible or theology, most are more interested in 12 step programs, like how to better their lives. Several years ago I made a list of the top 10 books in Christian bookstores. There was maybe one book on theology, several on health and prosperity, and others on fiction. Why is this?

I think at least one problem is pastors. They are not the only problem, but they are our leaders of spirituality, and they definitely share at least some of the blame. (I realize this is a generalization, but I have seen and heard more pastors show off their ignorance as well as a desire for others to do the same than I would like.) In my experience and in talking to others, it appears that one reason that pastors want to downplay reason and intellectual faith is because it is difficult. It actually requires a lot of studying and learning. It is much easier to attack reason as an instrument of paganism or the devil than it is to devote one’s life to the intellectual pursuit. However, pastors have a responsibility to lead their flock in worship and devotion to Christ. A consequence of pastors downplaying reason is apathy and ignorance on the part of the parishioners. The Bible tells us explicitly (and many times implicitly) to worship God with our minds (Matt 22:37).

It is worth noting that when reason is downplayed false teaching is much more likely to abound. Both Mormons and teachers of the Word-Faith Movement downplay the use of reason. What is left is an attempt to judge what is true based on feelings.

Of course, pastors are not the only problem. Each person is responsible for his own mind and faith. It is also true that a church can have a marvelous pastor with uninterested followers. Church and Christianity have been so divorced from intellectualism in many circles lately that people either don’t care to learn or don’t know how. So what is the solution?

Part of the Solution

The anti-intellectualism issue has many causes and requires various solutions. One solution is for parishioners and pastors to realize there is a great need for pastors and church leaders to be educated. Some pastors realize the need, but either can’t afford to do anything about it or do not have the support of the church. We must support our pastors in this area. We should not settle for anything less. Most people would not get their hair done by someone who didn’t have a license and training to do it, so why wouldn’t we want the leaders of our churches who are supposed to lead our families and us in our faith to have an education?

In turn, churches should have programs in place to teach their parishioners the basics of the faith. The average Christian isn’t expected to be a theologian, but he ought to at least understand the basics of the faith. A good way to do this is to have studies on the churches doctrinal statement (if they have one!).

Another part of the solution is to be educated ourselves. This does not necessitate formal training, but it we should take an interest in what we claim to be the most important area of our lives: our faith. This means going to church and Bible studies (taught by trained teachers), reading books, and making it a point to learn what our faith is all about. (See my Recommended Booklist.)

Having a rational faith also allows us to apply it to every area of our lives, such as politics, ethics, and entertainment. This is how we love and worship God with our minds. The difference between humans and other animals is the human mind and the ability to reason. This is how God made us different and more like him. We should, in fact, seek to worship and know him through this important aspect of our nature.

 

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

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2LT9c9y

/by
Pastors Get Scared Sharing Their Faith Too!

Pastors Get Scared Sharing Their Faith Too!

,

By Ryan Leasure

We’ve all felt it. The sense of guilt overwhelmed us. The pastor brings his sermon to a close, but before he concludes, he gives the congregation one final exhortation. Go tell others about Jesus. He says if Jesus was willing to lay down his life for you, the least you can do is proclaim that message to others. Gulp. As you slouch farther down into your seat and wipe the sweat off your forehead, you wonder if you’re a pathetic Christian because you struggle to share your faith.

It’s not that you don’t want to either — you really do. But you’re scared. You’re scared of people will think you’re that weird Jesus person who’s out of touch with reality. You’re afraid the friendship will end or that you’ll make everything awkward. Have you ever felt this way? Have you ever started a conversation with good intentions to talk about Jesus only to back out later? If so, you’re not alone.

Pastors Get Scared Sharing Their Faith Too

I say you’re not alone because I’ve done the same. I’m a pastor. I have a seminary degree. I’ve studied the Bible a lot. Yet, at the same time, I get scared too. Do all my neighbors know about my Christian faith? Not even close. I’ve had intentions to share my faith, but my intentions often times fail to deliver the goods.

When I was younger, I owned a t-shirt and a hat that said “No Fear.” I wore them together so if anyone ever doubted my bravery after looking at my shirt, they could lift their eyes to my hat and have any lingering doubt removed. Wearing that slogan, however, only demonstrated my fear. It’s a lot like the kid who’s the first to say “Ewwww” when someone asks if they pick their boogers. The emphatic rejection often times reveals the opposite.

I’m fearful of how people will perceive me. And in my experience, just about everyone else is in the same boat. The Bible has a phrase for this — the fear of man.

Advice On Sharing Your Faith

While I struggle with the fear of man, God’s been kind to grow me in this area. I’m far from perfect, don’t get me wrong. Yet, sharing Jesus with non-Christians isn’t as daunting as it once was. And it doesn’t have to be a daunting task for you either if you abide by these principles.

Pray

Pray for your lost friends and neighbors consistently. Remember, God is the one who ultimately transforms people’s hearts and lives. Also, pray that God will give you a greater love for them because love compels us to share the Gospel more than anything else. And pray for boldness to share the Gospel despite the fear of rejection.

Personally, I find that when I pray for people to receive Christ, God gives me opportunities to share the Gospel with them in a natural way. Jesus says in Matthew 7 that when we ask God for good things — and evangelism opportunities are good — He will be faithful to give them to us.

Avoid Jesus-Juking

A Jesus-juke is when you try to smuggle Jesus into the conversation at any cost. For example, your non-Christian friend might say, “I’ve had a rough day.” To which you reply, “you know who had a rough day? Jesus, when he died on the cross for your sins.” If you want to make things awkward with your friend, Jesus-juking is the way to go.

As I think about evangelism, I think a lot of us feel as if we need to take this kind of approach. Sure, we won’t be as blatantly awkward, but we feel as if we need to look for any crack in the door in order to slip a Jesus foot through it. In my experience, forcing Jesus unnaturally never works.

Build Relationships

The days of door-to-door evangelism are long gone. Most people won’t even answer their door anymore, let alone talk with you for fifteen minutes on their front porch. We need a new strategy — one that will be effective. That strategy is cultivating relationships with non-Christians. Invite them into your home. Have dinner together. Have your kids play together at the park. Build a relationship with that person so that they know you care. And as you converse, ease into faith conversations.

As opposed to Jesus-juking, talk about Jesus at natural times. Perhaps they will bring up a difficult situation in their life. Express genuine compassion for them, and then ask them if they’ve ever wondered why this world is so broken? This could potentially lead to a conversation about Jesus dealing with our brokenness. You get the idea, but don’t feel as if you have to force Jesus into every conversation.

Be Ready To Give An Answer

One of the greatest fears we have when it comes to sharing our faith is that we’re afraid we’ll be asked hard questions we don’t know how to answer. For some, this might cause more fear than making things awkward. How do we fix this?

I would encourage you to know what you believe and why you believe it. This, of course, requires a bit of perspiration on your part because no one learns everything they need to know overnight. Read the Scriptures. Go through theology books. Think about the objections others have toward Christianity, and do your best to find the answers. You won’t ever know it all, but you can do your best. Peter says, “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Pet. 3:15).

You’re Not Alone

If you struggle to share your faith, you’re not alone. You’re not a pathetic Christian either. We all struggle. Pastors struggle. We’re in this together. Yet, by God’s grace, you can grow in effectiveness, though you will need to be intentional in your efforts. No one ever becomes an effective witness by accident. Just like anything else in your life, if you wish to excel, you need to plan to excel. Think about something you are really good at. Now think about how that happened. Chances are, you put a lot of thought and energy into excelling in that area. I would urge you to do the same with evangelism.

You’ll mess up along the way. You’ll chicken out again. It’s ok. God is gracious. He’ll give you more opportunities.

 

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/2OBGzvR

/by
Was Jesus’ Death and Resurrection Copied from Krishna_

Was Jesus’ Death and Resurrection Copied from Krishna?

,

By Mikel Del Rosario

Copied From Krishna?

What would you say if someone told you the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ death and resurrection were copied from earlier pagan stories? Over 100 years ago, a guy named Kersey Graves talked about Jesus and Krishna. He said Jesus wasn’t unique among religious figures. Fans of his work were convinced the Hindu figure Krishna wasn’t just a dying and rising god but a crucified savior, too.

Maybe you haven’t heard this exact challenge about Jesus and Krishna before. But the idea that Jesus’ story was ripped off older pagan myths comes up over and over again in conversations about world religious literature.

I teach a World Religion course at William Jessup University and recently got a chance to collaborate on this topic with my friend Daniel Lee, who is currently studying Christian Apologetics under another friend from my Biola days, Dr. Sean McDowell.

In this post, we’ll show you how comparing the story of Krishna with the biblical accounts of Jesus show that Jesus’ death and resurrection wasn’t copied from Hinduism. First, we’ll compare the story of Jesus’ death to the story of Krishna’s death. Was Jesus’ death copied from Krishna? Then, we’ll compare the idea of resurrection in each of these stories. Was Krishna really a crucified Savior?

Was Jesus’ death copied from Krishna?

Let’s compare Jesus and Krishna. In The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors, Graves wrote that Krishna was crucified between two thieves (p. 140). But no Hindu text says Krishna was crucified at all! Still, some wonder if there’s a parallel between the way Jesus and Krishna died. They’ve heard that long before Jesus’ death, there was an old Indian myth about the Hindu god Krishna being pierced and resurrected. Really?

It does sound curious when you put it that way. After all, Christians link Isaiah 53:5 to Jesus’ death by crucifixion: “But he was pierced for our transgressions…with his wounds we are healed” (Compare this with 1 Peter 2:24). But here’s the thing: All things can seem similar if you ignore the differences!

Read for yourself what the Indian epic-poem called the Mahabharata (Book 16: Mausala Parva) says about Krishna. He wasn’t crucified. Instead, he got shot in a hunting accident!

“The hunter, mistaking [Krishna]…for a deer, pierced him at the heel with a shaft and quickly came to that spot for capturing his prey. Coming up, Jara [the hunter] beheld a man dressed in yellow robes, rapt in Yoga and endued with many arms. Regarding himself an offender, and filled with fear, he touched the feet of [Krishna, who] comforted him and then ascended upwards…When he reached Heaven [he] met the deities…”

Yes, Krishna was pierced. But he was pierced by an arrow when he got shot in the foot! Krishna wasn’t crucified. And he certainly wasn’t crucified between two thieves!

So was Jesus’ death by crucifixion copied from Krishna? Nope. Turns out, there’s no crucifixion in the Krishna story at all. We just don’t see a meaningful parallel between Jesus and Krishna in this regard. What about Graves’ idea that Krishna was a resurrected savior?

Was Jesus’ resurrection copied from Krishna?

We could be wrong about this, but it’s not clear that Krishna actually died when Jara shot him in the foot. If he didn’t really die, he couldn’t have been raised from the dead. But let’s give Graves the benefit of the doubt and say Krishna died when he got shot in the foot and somehow came back to life right after getting shot.

There’s still no meaningful parallel with Jesus’ resurrection. According to the earliest Christian sources, Jesus was buried and his tomb was discovered empty by his women followers three days later. Over a period of 40 days, he convinced individuals and groups that God raised him from the dead before ascending to heaven. This is totally different from the Krishna story.

But more importantly, Christians link Jesus’ death and resurrection with the possibility of forgiveness of sin and eternal life. In contrast, no Hindu text links the Krishna scene to the possibility of human beings attaining forgiveness of sins or attaining eternal life. In what sense, then, was Krishna a savior?

So was Jesus’ resurrection copied from Krishna? No. It’s not clear that Krishna was resurrected in the myth and no Hindus link Krishna’s hunting accident with forgiveness of sins or eternal life.

Jesus and Krishna: No Meaningful Parallel

People who want to force a parallel say Jesus and Krishna were both pieced and raised from the dead. But again, almost anything can seem similar if you ignore the differences! The key point of the Gospel story is that God used Jesus’ resurrection to validate his divine claims. Further, the New Testament links Jesus’ death and resurrection to believers receiving forgiveness of sins and eternal life. Indeed, the Christian significance of this event has no meaningful parallel with the Hindu story of Krishna. As my friend Daniel concludes:

“These stories and implications are about as similar as an ant and an elephant.”

Interestingly, the earliest critics of Christianity never said Jesus’ story was ripped off from Hinduism. Right from the get-go, the Apostle Paul acknowledged that Gentiles found the idea of a crucified savior tough to accept (1 Corinthians 1:23), not like it was a common theme in pagan mythology. Even in the second century, the Greek Apologist Justin Martyr made a similar observation in Apology I: Skeptics said the idea of a crucified savior was absolutely crazy (13.4)!

Jesus’ Story Wasn’t Copied from Krishna

Bottom line: Was Krishna crucified? Nope. Not in any Hindu story anywhere. Was Krishna resurrected? Maybe. But despite what Graves insists, Krishna was not a pre-Christian example of a crucified savior. There’s no salvation, forgiveness of sins (or escape from karma for that matter) or hope of eternal life linked to it. Just comparing the stories of Jesus and Krishna shows Graves is wrong on this one. You can be confident that Jesus’ death and resurrection wasn’t copied from Krishna.

 

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

/by
Is There Meaning To Life

Is There Meaning To Life?

,

By Luke Nix 

Introduction 

An interesting TED Talk came across my Facebook feed a few weeks ago. The talk focused on finding meaning in life. More and more people are discovering that pursuing happiness is leading them nowhere. They discover that every time they think that something obtainable or achievable will make them happy, once that has been obtained or achieved, that happiness lasts only for a short time. Then a discovery is made of something else that is greater than what they originally thought would make them happy, and they pursue that. This process repeats numerous times until they reach the top, then they realize that there is nothing left, yet they still feel unfulfilled. This TED Talk attempts to address that problem by positing that instead of pursuing happiness, people should pursue meaning. Here is a link to the talk, and I highly recommend that you watch it in full before continuing with this post: There’s more to life than being happy- Emily Esfahani Smith.

On The Surface

The speaker recognizes the problems that the pursuit of happiness brings: unhappiness, unfulfillment, depression, and suicidal tendencies. The offered solution gives hope to those who are depressed and tired of the pursuit of happiness. From a pragmatic perspective of survival, this talk was quite encouraging and invigorating. However, regardless of the survival advantage that it provides if one believes the claims, if the claims in the talk do not reflect reality (are not true), then the person who believes them has traded the truth for a lie in the name of mere survival- a delusion that is evolutionarily necessary to believe if we wish to win the survival game. If the speaker is presenting a delusion, then, for those who value truth and knowledge as well as survival, the talk is truly as useless as the solution it wishes to supplant. So, for the sake of truth, the claims need to be investigated and analyzed at a deeper level.

I would be curious to know the speaker’s philosophical foundations. Her worldview must be able to support her claims. Here are some questions that I’d like to ask of the speaker in the deeper analysis of the solution she offers:

  1. Do your foundations support your initial conclusion that meaning is better happiness? What objective standard does your worldview feature that would allow such a value judgment?
  2. How do you conclude that “better” should be a person’s pursuit? Again, what is the objective standard?
  3. Can your foundations support meaning that is more than mere Nietzschean game invention? What is the objective standard by which to judge whether an invented meaning is either objectively good or objectively evil?
  4. Do you have a standard to judge what constitutes a better self?
  5. Ultimately, is there an objective goal or purpose by which to judge progress or regress, better or worse, good or evil?

Meaning: Delusion or Game?

Notice the common term in all the questions is “objective.” People can create standards, but those would be “subjective.” If she does not have objective foundations (such as if she holds to naturalism or some form of atheism), then not only can what she presented not even get off the ground (insinuated in my first question), but what she has presented is nothing more than useful fictions or invented games with the existential survival advantage of the person not committing suicide for one more day. Such an “advantage” is not true meaning but rather an evolutionary delusion or Nietzschean game that keeps the person perpetually hanging on to life by a brittle thread (click or tap the links for more on those two options). If meaning is merely a delusion (regardless of its source, really) or a game, it should be rejected.

We all long for meaning, but if our worldview cannot ground or fulfill that desire, then either our worldview must be rejected, or our desire must be rejected.

This means that either we must reject the idea that our lives can have true meaning, or reject the worldviews that necessarily imply that our lives do not have true meaning. Yet, we know that our lives have true meaning, so that leaves us to reject all worldviews that are incompatible with our lives possessing true meaning. These worldviews should be rejected in favor of a worldview that does provide philosophical foundations for meaning, morality, and purpose. Interestingly enough, the speaker almost assumes that her audience agrees with her that their lives can have true meaning, so that would logically lead to necessarily rejecting naturalism and atheism (which she may very well reject but just never mentioned).

Meaning Puts Worldviews to the Test

Now, if we refuse to give up our desire for meaning, what worldview are we to believe that does provide such philosophical foundations and objective standards? Since both naturalism and atheism must be rejected, that leaves some form of theism. But not just any form of theism will do. The only ones available must also have foundations to support the intrinsic value and meaning of the individual and their life (some forms of theism actually do deny the intrinsic value of humans, so they must be discarded, as well). The Judeo-Christian doctrine of the Image of God provides the foundation for humans possessing intrinsic value in these theistic systems. But which one is to be accepted: Judaism or Christianity?

If we go back to the pursuit of happiness and look at all the dark roads that numerous people have gone down throughout history, including ourselves at different times in our lives, we realize the pain and suffering that we have caused others in our selfish pursuits of happiness. We realize that we have violated others’ intrinsic worth to placate our desires, and we know deep down, especially the older we get and the harder we try, that no amount of good that we do in this world will be able to repay the evil we are guilty of committing for our own selfish, hedonistic gains. In seeking to repay the moral debt, we seek justice for those we have wronged. In seeking justice, we are seeking forgiveness and even redemption. But with the realization that we cannot repay the moral debt, we see that finding justice and obtaining forgiveness and redemption are not possible. In this, we have unmet desires for happiness, meaning, and purpose. Forgiveness, justice, and redemption are not just inseparable from each other, they are inseparable from the pursuits of happiness, meaning, and purpose. If it is not possible to right our wrongs (achieve justice), then attaining forgiveness is equally impossible. Thus it is impossible to fulfill our desires for justice, forgiveness, and ultimately, meaning.

What, Then? Conclusion

It is only at the Cross of Jesus Christ that justice, forgiveness, and redemption converge and, for everyone who accepts the gift, is provided. Jesus said, “Come to me all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.” That last part is an invitation to those who have searched for justice, forgiveness, redemption, happiness, purpose, and meaning yet have discovered and accepted the futility of their endeavor. But how do we know that Jesus wasn’t just blowing smoke on that invitation? How can we know that He can fulfill those desires? We can know this because He conquered death and injustice by coming back to life after being unjustly executed on a Roman cross. And we do not have to believe this blindly; all the historical evidence points squarely to the reality of this supernatural event in history. To those in search of meaning: You have been given the subjective evidence of your own desires for meaning, justice, and forgiveness and the objective evidence of the Resurrection. Jesus Christ is alive, and He is calling you to live a meaningful and fulfilling life in Him. In your search of meaning, you can either believe an evolutionary delusion, invent a Nietzschean game, or follow the evidence where it leads. Which option will you choose?

 

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

/by
Securing a Seat in a Secular Society

Securing a Seat in a Secular Society

By Brian Chilton

On this episode of the Bellator Christi Podcast, Brian Chilton discusses what needs to be in a person’s message as one shares the gospel to those who know very little about God, Jesus, or the Bible. Join us today as we delve into Paul’s message to the Athenians delivered at the Areopagus in Athens, Greece from Acts 17:22-34.

Securing a Seat in a Secular Society

Acts 17:22-34

  1. Paul’s secured message included a discussion of their CONNECTION (17:22-23).
  2. Paul’s secured message included a discussion of the CREATOR (17:24-29).
    1. The Creator’s ATTRIBUTES (17:24-26, 28).
    2. The Creator’s ACCEPTANCE (17:27, 29).
  3. Paul’s secured message included a discussion of the CONDITIONS (17:30).
    1. Condition of SIN.
    2. Condition of SALVATION.
  4. Paul’s secured message included a discussion of COGNITION (17:31-34).

Hear:

 

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 in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves in northwestern North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Od72jj

/by
Does The Bible Need Defending_

Does The Bible Need Defending?

By Evan Minton 

Sometimes when someone witnesses to an unbeliever by appealing to arguments and evidence that point to the truth of Christianity, some believers will tell the Christian that The Bible does not need them to defend it. “The Truth does not need to be defended. It is like a lion. All you need to do is let it out of its cage” they will say. A Lion can defend itself. It is ferocious; it has sharp, powerful jaws and razor-sharp claws. Its roar strikes fear into its prey. Its roar carries authority. Why would you need to defend such an animal? You don’t. So these Christians will say that The Bible is the same way. This is supposed to be an argument that Christian Apologetics is a pointless exercise.

There are several problems with this argument.

Regardless of whether scripture actually needs defending, scripture commands us to defend it nevertheless.

The Bible commands us to do apologetics. 1 Peter 3:15 says “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks for the reason for the hope that you have, yet do this with gentleness and respect”. This verse of The Bible is clear and unequivocal. Always be prepared to defend your faith whenever anyone asks you to give the reasons for why you have placed your hope in Jesus Christ. So even if we concede the premise that the Christian faith doesn’t need to be defended, we are still commanded to defend it. Ignoring this command would, therefore, be sinful.

The Apostle Paul said in his second letter to the church in Corinth “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5). This is what apologetics is all about. We need to “demolish arguments” like the problem of evil & suffering, the hiddenness of God, supposed contradictions people think they have found in scripture, or simply the claim “There is no evidence for God’s existence.” These are arguments that set “itself up against the knowledge of God” that we need to “demolish.” If we do, then we might be able to “take every thought captive and make it obedient to Christ.”

In Philippians 1:7 Paul speaks of his mission as “defending and confirming the gospel.” Then he says in Philippians 1:16, “I am put here for the defense of the gospel.” This implies that God placed Paul on this planet to be a defender of the Christian faith, which he was. When you read Acts 17, you see that when Paul and his companions had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue (Acts 17:1), and then it says that as was his custom, he “reasoned with them from the Scriptures …” (verse 2), “explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead.” (verse 3) and then after he explained and proved to the Jews that the Messiah had to suffer and rise, “Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and quite a few prominent women.” This is important because often you will hear some Christians say that no one comes to faith through arguments. But we have an example of some of the people coming to faith after hearing Paul’s arguments. Acts 17:4 refutes that notion.

Then several verses later, Paul was in Athens witnessing to the Athenians. And Acts 17:17 says “he reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there.” Other translations say he “disputed” with them, or he “debated” them. Now, he was able to reason from the scriptures with the Jews, but he couldn’t do that with the Athenians. Why? Because the Athenians didn’t accept the Jewish scriptures as divinely inspired. So he appealed to natural revelation instead (see Acts 17:22-31).

Jude 3 says, “Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.” The people Jude addressed had been assaulted by false teachers, and he needed to encourage them to protect (literally agonize for) the faith as it had been revealed through Christ. Jude makes a significant statement about our attitude in verse 22, which we “have mercy on some, who are doubting.”

So, does The Bible need defending? I think the answer to the question is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter whether God, or The Bible, or Christianity needs defending. The Bible commands us to defend it.

Rational People Naturally Desire Reasons Before They Believe Something.

God created humans to reason as part of his image (Genesis 1:26-27, Genesis 9:6). It is by reasoning that humans are distinguished from “brute beasts” (Jude 10). God calls upon his people to use reason (see Isaiah 1:18) to discern truth from error (1 John 4:6) and right from wrong (Hebrews 5:14). The primary standard of rationality is that it should cough up an epistemological warrant for belief.

As Norman Geisler put it in his article “The Need For Apologetics.”

“People rightly refuse to believe without evidence. Since God created humans as rational beings, he expects them to live rationally, to look before they leap. This does not mean there is no room for faith. But God wants us to take a step of faith in the light of the evidence, rather than to leap in the dark. Evidence of truth should precede faith. No rational person steps into an elevator without some reason to believe it will hold him up. No reasonable person gets on an airplane that is missing part of one wing and smells of smoke in the cabin. People deal in two dimensions of belief: belief that and belief in. Belief that gives the evidence and rational basis for confidence needed to establish belief in. Once belief that is established, one can place faith in it. Thus, the rational person wants evidence that God exists before he places his faith in God. Rational unbelievers want evidence that Jesus is the Son of God before they place their trust in him.” – Norman Geisler (emphasis in original)

So, I don’t think it’s sufficient to just give an unbeliever a Bible and walk away and “let the truth defend itself.” For one reason, there are many holy books out there claiming to be “the truth.” The rational unbeliever is going to want you to give some reasons for him to think that The Bible should be believed instead of, say, The Koran, or the Hindu scriptures, or the Buddhist scriptures. He may ask you why you disbelieve in all of the other gods of all of the other religions but not the God of The Bible. That’s not too much to ask. And fortunately, we Christians can meet that challenge if we do our homework. If you simply quote The Bible, you’ll rightly be accused of circular reasoning.

You Can Make The Same Argument About Preaching The Gospel

If The Bible can defend itself, why can’t it preach itself? Why can’t we just leave it up to the non-Christian to go to their local bookstore or library, purchase a Bible, read it, and just hope for the best? Why can’t we do that? Well, because, like defending the gospel, scripture calls us to “Make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19). We’re called to preach the gospel to a dark and dying world. We’re called to spread the good news. Does God need us to preach the gospel for Him? No. Probably not. But we’re called to do it anyway. And we’re called to do Christian Apologetics also (see 1 Peter 3:15).

In Conclusion

The Bible, God, Christianity may not need defending. But that’s irrelevant because God commands us to “Always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks for a reason for the hope that you have,” (1 Peter 3:15). We are called to defend our faith against the attacks of unbelievers. When someone asks us why we believe what we believe, scripture commands us to give them reasons. Moreover, people need evidence to determine whether The Bible even is the word of God. How do we know the Bible is God’s revelation to us, as opposed to the Qur’an or the Book of Mormon? One must appeal to evidence to determine this. No Christian would accept a Muslim’s statement that, “the Qur’an is alive and powerful and sharper than a two-edged sword.” We would demand evidence that the Qu’ran is God’s Word. As Norman Geisler put it in his article “Why We Need Apologetics”; the analogy of a lion is misleading. The only reason a lion’s roar has authority is that we have good evidence of what a lion can do. But if you were just born yesterday or came from another planet, would you be fearful of this big lion? Probably not. You might try to go pet it and have your alien arm ripped off.

In addition to all of this, you could make a parallel argument about evangelism in general. Why did Billy Graham hold all of those crusades? Why did he travel all around the world preaching to people? Why didn’t he just leave it up to the non-believer to go to their local bookstores, buy a Bible, read it, and hope for the best? If The Bible can defend itself, why can’t the gospel preach itself?

I’ll end this blog post with a quote from John Calvin. As a Molinist, I feel weird quoting him to make my point, but he’s dead on accurate here. He said “Even a dog barks when its master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God’s truth is attacked and yet would remain silent.”

Like Calvin, I cannot help but bark when I see skeptics attack Christianity.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2mGGk6e

/by
The Gay Agenda & the Wrong Side of Hate

The Gay Agenda & the Wrong Side of Hate

,

By Brady Cone

Protestors. Death threats. Misleading newspaper articles. In the days leading up to a talk I was doing on campus at North Carolina State University last year, the environment consistently became increasingly hostile. I was simply speaking about my story of struggling with sexuality issues, and how God’s overwhelming grace had rescued my soul. Why the hostility from the LGBT community on campus? It was because my very existence is a threat to the foundation on which they have built their lives, their identities, and ultimately their value and hope. Which is why they feel so threatened by anyone who dares to say they could live any other way.

Being raised on a farm in Nebraska, I grew up experiencing nothing but same-sex attraction. By the time I was in my teens I identified as gay. As with anyone else who is gay, I felt like “I was just born this way.” I grew up during a time when our culture was undergoing a major shift, and LGBT people were becoming more and more accepted. As I was confused and trying to figure out what to do with the feelings I was having; the culture was screaming at us, “if you have same-sex attraction, you were born with it, and you need to be gay to be happy and healthy.” That’s the narrative which was fed to me. I would go on to accept that dogma because I thought I had no other choice.

But then I came to know Jesus and my whole world changed! I later walked away from my homosexual life. I knew that if I was going to live out a faith based on God’s Word, I had to surrender to ALL of God’s Word, not just the parts that were easy, convenient, or made sense. Walking away from my LGBT life didn’t always make sense, because it felt to the depth of my soul that “this is just the way I am!” But, over the years God chipped away at my gay identity and started to untwist what my heart had twisted.

I still struggle occasionally. Once in a while, I catch a glimpse of a guy who I find attractive, and I have to repent. With that said, however, my life, and my attractions are so different now than they were a decade ago. God shined His light in my heart to show me places where I was looking to men to find value and wholeness. He showed me the idolatry in my heart. Now, I have instead been able to find wholeness in Christ. The further I have been away from that community/lifestyle/identity, the less normal/natural it seems. I am now in a healthy relationship with a woman which is leading towards marriage. And it’s all from God’s grace! That’s what sanctification does.

It is a fact that even if we were born with same-sex desires, we still have a choice in how we live our lives — we have free will! Through the power of the Holy Spirit, we can wake up every morning and choose to live a life that is pure, holy, and pleasing to God — no matter what attractions, temptations, and desires we have — or not! So in that sense, it does not matter if one is born gay or not.

What am I Free to Choose?

I am always discerning in how I use the word choice, and so should all Christians. I didn’t choose to have same-sex attraction. Nor could I just choose to turn it off. It is only after I chose to stop resisting the Holy Spirit and chose to surrender my life to Christ that I gained God’s power to make hard choices — free choices — to deny my flesh and take the way of escape God promises to provide when we face temptation (1 Corinthians 10:13).

Romans 8:26-27 states, “Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.” The current belief of the LGBT community and secular society at large is that “gay people are born gay.” That is used as justification of their lifestyle, and justification of not only acceptance but forced celebration.

After living in the gay community, leaving it, and now being in a ministry where I have helped hundreds of people work through their own wrestling of same-sex attraction and faith, I adamantly do not believe that we are “born gay.” That debate, however, is for another day. The scope of this article is to show that even if I am wrong about being “born that way,” it simply does not matter and is irrelevant.

What does matter is that I once was, and no longer am gay? Not only I but thousands like me! It does not mean that a switch is flipped, and all the same-sex attraction goes away. It does not even mean that you can “pray away the gay.” It means that over the course of our lifetime, God sanctifies us, shows us the idols we are serving, and through ongoing sanctification, He untwists what our sinful hearts have twisted. Which means we can find our wholeness through Him, instead of acquiring it through the idolatry of another person. I’ve seen the idolatry in my own heart, and the hundreds of others who I have ministered to. But, there is true freedom is choosing to submit to Christ, instead of the things of the world!

There are no studies proving that people are born gay. Some people have bought into the rhetoric and claim that there are studies that “prove” it, however, every time I ask to see these supposed “proofs” these same people have never provided anything but assertions. And even if we were born gay, it is still irrelevant. After all, the Bible makes it clear that we are all born into sin. We are all born with sinful inclinations and a deceitful heart. So why is there such strong rhetoric, claiming that people who feel gay have no choice but to act gay? It is because the entire narrative pushing the gay agenda in our culture relies on it.

Brady Cone Exists! 

The LGBT community tries to claim that people like me don’t exist — but we do! Thousands of us. They try to claim we don’t exist because our mere existence completely derails their entire narrative. Their narrative and agenda rely on convincing people that some have no choice but to be or act gay, just like white people are born white and black people are born black. But, the fact that people like me change shows that they are wrong and illustrates that sexuality is fluid, controllable, and cannot be put on the same level as other aspects of our personhood such as race.

The push of not only equality—but forced acceptance, relies on them making their sexuality a part of who they are—a piece of them which is central to their humanity. Which is why they feel so threatened by someone like me. My very existence—proving that people with same-sex attraction don’t have to live as gay—pulls the rug out from under every piece of justification they have in their push for equality, acceptance, and forced celebration.

I have lived through such a unique time in our culture. Growing up wrestling with gay feelings and attractions, I felt extremely rejected by those around me. But a mere 15 to 20 years later, the rejection comes from our culture for merely choosing to not live as a gay man. Our culture claims that how I live is dangerous. They claim it is irresponsible, dangerous, and outright cruel to expect people to deny themselves from the feelings of what comes natural to them. However, it is only cruel if sex and romantic relationships are central to our humanity. But they are not. So what is more dangerous? A culture which claims “sex and romantic relationships with whoever you please is central to your humanity, and without it you are not complete” or a faith in which our savior Jesus comes along and says, “I have set you free because everything you need for your humanity and your eternity is freely given by me.”

Back to North Carolina

Throughout sharing my story of wrestling with sexuality—and how God’s love and grace are sufficient for every one of us—the back of the room was filled with hundreds of protestors holding up signs. Throughout the question and answer session, LGBT members of the audience and the protestors tried to cause disturbances and ridicule me. One person went as far as saying they wished I had pulled the trigger on the gun back when I had almost committed suicide as a hurting 13-year-old boy.

But there was one student that night, whose heart was open to the message of God’s love and grace. His name was Levi, and he was one of the protestors in the back of the room. As he stood there holding his sign with his fellow LGBT comrades, something was stirring in his heart. He stood there, watching his community respond to me with such vicious hatred—all while I responded to them with tenderness and grace.

As he stood there, a thought was racing through his head. He kept thinking, “I’m standing on the wrong side of hate.”

Levi slipped out as soon as the event was over and went back to his dorm room. That same week he reached out to his old youth pastor from high school and a couple of Christian friends. When I first heard from him months later, he had left the gay community, and said goodbye to his gay identity. He was thriving in his relationship with the Lord. At that moment, in that room, God had shined the light of His truth in Levi’s heart, as He had done in mine over a decade ago. Levi discovered that his sexuality was not central to his humanity, nor could it provide him with any type of wholeness. Only Christ could do that.

Today, Levi is walking in freedom, which was bought for him on the cross. He has found peace and joy, and the freedom to deny himself and chooses to live a life that is pure, holy, and in line with God’s Word. Levi and I are the people Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 6:11, while speaking of homosexuals he states “that is what some of you were,” (emphasis added) “But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

 

Brady Cone was a college student at Chadron State and living a homosexual lifestyle. He had struggled with these issues since a young age and thought he was trapped in that lifestyle. Coming to know Christ changed everything for Brady! Jesus gave him another choice: a life of holiness through Christ. Brady says that leaving behind a world of homosexuality was the most difficult thing that he has have ever done, but through it, God has given him new life and freedom in ways he never dreamed. Brady’s goal is to share his testimony and discuss the power of the Gospel in his life. In turn, he hopes to provide discipleship, insight, and written material to equip the church in discussing these matters.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2O4tv20

/by
I am Special-

I am Special?

By Michael Sherrard

There isn’t any reason to think that I am special, but I do. And we all do. That is of course unless life has beaten us up and cruel people have convinced us otherwise. But I am special. I know this. I’ve known this for quite some time.

It this a dream? Am I delusional or just simply arrogant? Perhaps, but don’t you think the same about yourself? Haven’t you thought for quite some time that your life is important? That there is a purpose. That you matter. That your story is a great story worth telling and more yet to be written. Well, I agree. Your life is a beautiful story. You matter. You have a purpose. You are a masterpiece.

But why do we think this? Why are all humans captured by the idea that ours is a meaningful and beautiful life?

This is the issue of our time. So much of the fighting today centers around what does it mean to be human. Are we valuable? Why are we valuable? What makes life worth living?

There used to be agreement on this issue. The United States was built on the shared understanding that mankind was made by the Creator and instilled with rights that cannot be taken away because of our inherent and equal worth. But as the western world has more and more embraced naturalistic explanations for life, the rug has been pulled out human value. No longer is human life inherently valuable because we are uniquely made in God’s image. No, humans are now viewed by many as the end result of a long line of unguided genetic mutations. We came to be by accident. And accidents don’t have inherent value. They have accidental value, a value that comes from some found usefulness.

And there is a difference. Christianity has long taught that humans are valuable because of what they are, human. Secularism teaches that you are valuable because of what you can do and become. This is no small difference.

Hear:

 

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/2mvLxO3

/by
You Gotta Be More Specific

You Gotta Be More Specific

,

By Brent Hardaway

A blogger named MarkCC demonstrates a few common misunderstandings regarding Intelligent Design (ID).

First, we need to clarify some terms, as there is some jargon given in the post that the reader may not be familiar with.

Specified Event – The phrase “Go Take Out the Trash” is a specified arrangement of letters. The jumbled letter sequence “smets qwoand nduams iba” is not specified, as it is not a pattern that is recognizable. How this relates to the ID is that if you come to the dining room table and see some Alpha-Bits arranged in the first sequence (even if not perfectly straight), you’d assume that your housemate purposely arranged them as communication to someone else, quite possibly you. That would be a specified event. But if you saw the second sequence not perfectly straight, you would be pretty likely to assume that your housemate carelessly spilled some out of the box and didn’t bother to clean it up. That would be non-specified. And applying this to the origin of life, there are many features of life (like DNA and proteins), that exhibit sequences of code that are specific. For example, the work of MIT molecular biologist Robert Sauer came to the conclusion that for a protein chain that was 92 amino acids long, only 1 in 10^63 could perform some function in cellular life.[1] So language and proteins are pretty similar in that letters/amino acids form chains of readable sentences/working proteins.

Universal Probability Bound – What if we could spill some Alpha-Bits every second? Wouldn’t we eventually get the phrase regarding the trash? Well, if we were able to spill exactly the same amount, and the odds of a space appearing as often as a letter was equal, it would happen about once every 1.14 Octillion years.[2] So even if I live to be 100, it’s absurd to think I would ever achieve that sequence by randomly spilling Alpha-Bits. I’d have an astronomically far greater chance of winning the lottery. There are only so many “rolls of the dice,” in such cases. So, in other words, beyond a certain point, we have to rule out blind luck as an explanation and attribute an improbable event to design guided by some intelligence. That would be the “Universal Probability Bound.” Dembski suggests that this should be any odds around 1 in 10^150. This is what he calls the number of “probabilistic resources.” This is based on the number of possible events in the universe. And when he says “events,” he’s using the most minimal definition possible. It is the maximum number of times that all the elementary particles in the universe could have reacted with energy!

Now on to the post –

“Here’s the fundamental dishonesty: None of those numbers have *anything* to do with what he’s supposedly trying to prove. He’s trying to create a formal-sounding version of the big-number problem by throwing together a bunch of fancy-sounding numbers, multiplying them together, and claiming that they somehow suddenly have meaning. But they don’t. It’s actually remarkably easy to show what utter nonsense this is. I’ll do a fancy one first, and a trivial one second.”

Rather, MarkCC has not understood Dembski’s argument. As the second example is easier to understand, we’ll start with that one.

“Grab two decks of distinguishable cards. Shuffle them together, and lay them out for a game of spider solitaire. What’s the probability of that particular lay of cards? 104! , or, very roughly, something larger than 1×10166. Is god personally arranging my cards every time I play spider? Anyone who’s ever taken any class on probability *knows* this stuff.”

The blogger has missed Dembski’s point. Yes, the odds of ANY one sequence with two decks of cards is 1 in 10^166, but what Dembski is looking for is a SPECIFIC sequence. To put it another way, what MarkCC must do to falsify Dembski’s point is either to 1) Predict a specific sequence of 104 cards or 2) Shuffle the cards randomly twice, and get them in the same sequence each time. The odds of that happening are indeed 1 in 10^166, but the percent chance of getting another result is 99.9999999999%, carried out to 164 decimal places. In other words, a non-specific sequence is virtually certain, and a specific one is virtually impossible.

One commenter named Corkscrew notes this, but then goes on to say,

“Of course, this presents two further problems. Firstly, as you’ve mentioned before, the whole concept of specification is complete bollocks. AFAICT it basically boils down to how cool something looks – if it makes Dembski go “whoa…” it’s specified.”

This is actually kind of humorous, as this very statement is itself an example of a specification. I don’t say that because it made me go “Whoa,” but because it’s recognizable as an English sentence. What would Corkscrew think if I said “I can’t tell if a person actually wrote this. Perhaps they’re just random letters generated by a computer”? And as we noted before, written sentences are a valid analogy to the coding required in DNA and proteins.

“Secondly, the whole concept of probabilistic resources is completely borked. It assumes a discrete universe. We do not live in a discrete universe. It assumes that every configuration has effectively the same chance of appearing. This is blatant bull.”

This is true enough – but that is only relevant if the bases that make DNA and the amino acids that makeup proteins are significantly (to an astronomical degree) more likely to group together in ways that make them actually function than not. Corkscrew does not provide any evidence that this is the case. And as we shall see that, in fact, Dembski’s estimation of probabilistic resources available to get life from non-life is far too generous.

Now, let’s move onto his “fancy” example –

“Let’s create an incredibly simplified model of a region of space. Let’s say we have a cube of space, 1 kilometer on a side. Further, let’s suppose that this space contains 1000 particles, and they are all electrons. And further, let’s suppose that each 1mm cube in this cubic kilometer can only have one electron in it.”

He goes on to calculate the number of possible configurations of these particles as 10^5232, way more than Dembski’s probability bound. He asks,

“So what Dembski is saying is that *every* possible configuration of matter in space in the entire universe is impossible without intelligent intervention.”

That isn’t at all what Dembski is saying. In fact, this moves us on to the next point of the ID argument. The number of possible combinations greatly outweigh the possible number of trials. As it relates to life forms, the late astronomer Fred Hoyle calculated that there are 10^40,000 amino acid combinations for the complete set of 2,000 actual known enzyme proteins that exist [3]– and this is just one of many features of life that need to appear. It isn’t that God is necessary to arrange any possible sequence of these amino acids. The problem is there are only 10^150 possible events. If each event was a complete trial arranging different combinations of amino acids, we still wouldn’t come close to finding the very few specific sequences that can form life.

But it’s actually much worse than that for three reasons –

1) Each event is only what one elementary particle does with energy. When molecules form, quite a few particles are involved – and each one would consume at least one event, reducing the number of available trials to form life.

2) In reality, no one believes that a cell or group of proteins came together all at once, but that these things formed via a step-by-step process. But a step-by-step process would take many events. This would also reduce the number of trials.

3) There are plenty of environments, such as the air that you are breathing, or the sun, that are not at all conducive to forming any of the building blocks of life. This reduces the number of trials even further.

Once these misunderstandings have been cleared up, Dembski’s argument stands.

Notes

[1] Meyer, Steven. Darwin’s Doubt, p. 180

[2] The calculation is 27 ^21 = 1.14 * 10^30.

[3] “Hoyle on Evolution” Nature, Nov. 12, 1981 p.105

 

Brent Hardaway is a Financial Analyst living in the Tampa, FL area. Originally from Northern CA, he has a B.S. in Accounting from San Diego State University and a Certificate in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He is an avid baseball and football fan, and enjoys reading and playing golf in his spare time.

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

/by
Why the Right to Privacy Argument for Abortion Fails

Why the Right to Privacy Argument for Abortion Fails

,

By J. Brian Huffling

A common argument used by abortion advocates is: “A woman can do what she wants with her body! Since it is her body that is going through the pregnancy, then she should have the right to terminate the pregnancy.” However, this “argument” fails for a number of reasons.

First, it is not an argument. It is an assertion. An argument is a series of at least two propositions that logically lead to a conclusion. That doesn’t happen here.

Second, there are a myriad of things that a person can’t do in the name of privacy or by appealing to “this is my body.” A person cannot do drugs (excluding marijuana in some places) and simply get away with it, even though it is his body that is affected by the drugs. A person, in most places, cannot prostitute herself, even though it is her body. (Some have actually argued that prostitution should be legal because it empowers women and it is their body.) Examples could be multiplied, but hopefully, the point is clear.

Third, and most importantly, it isn’t her body!!! When deciding to murder a baby in the womb, arguing “It’s my body, so I can do it” is simply asinine (that means incredibly stupid)! If a woman was going to abort herself, that would be suicide. Abortion takes the life of the baby, not the mother. The baby is a separate being with its own DNA, blood type, and gender. The baby is not identical with the mother. So, even if she could do what she wanted with her body, the baby is a different story.

Some will retort that at the moment of abortion (presumably in the first trimester), the fetus is not a human yet. However, this is ludicrous. The only reason to claim this is to justify abortion. What else would it be? The baby is a product of sexual reproduction, which can only reproduce another member of the parents’ species. Two humans cannot sexually reproduce another species. At conception, the baby has all of its needed chromosomes (the same number of fully developed adults). The fetus simply needs time to develop. Two humans can only reproduce humans. The fact that the baby isn’t fully developed doesn’t make it a non-human. Our bodies don’t stop developing until the early twenties as the frontal lobe of the brain is still forming (this is what connects reason and emotion, which explains why teenagers can be very irrational).

One cannot help but wonder why liberals are so concerned with women’s rights while simultaneously willing and even advocating for the outright murder of so many women (female babies). Such advocates are not advocates of love and compassion, but of hatred and murder.

Forgiveness

If you are reading this and have had an abortion, or know someone who has, it is important to know there is forgiveness in Christ. Yes, abortion is wrong. You probably already know that. But it doesn’t mean that you are outside of grace and forgiveness. God’s grace covers even abortion. Know that. Hear the words of John: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all [all!] unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).

As Christians, we should condemn abortion for what it is while also remembering and communicating the grace of Jesus Christ.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2N4yP3W

/by