Theology and Christian Apologetics Archives | CrossExamined.org

The Bible teaches in a variety of ways that Jesus Christ is God incarnate. In some places, The Bible couldn’t possibly be more explicit, and it boggles the mind how anyone who takes scripture as the inspired word of God could avoid any conclusion other than that Jesus is divine. In other places, it’s more subtle, and you need to be paying close attention to catch Jesus’ claim to divinity or one the epistles claims to divinity. In other words, there are explicit claims (on both Jesus’ and the epistle writers’ part) that Jesus is God, and there are implicit claims that Jesus is God.

When it comes to the more subtle and implicit claims, sometimes the conclusion of Christ’s divinity comes from piecing together biblical teachings about God and Jesus, which wouldn’t seem to say anything about Christ’s divinity when taken in isolation. These scriptural assertions can be used to form syllogistic arguments which result in the conclusion that Jesus is God. In my study of The Bible, I’ve come up with 3 such syllogisms. Let’s look at them below:

SYLLOGISM ONE

1: Yahweh is the only Savior of mankind.

2: Jesus is the Savior of humankind

3: Therefore, either The Bible contradicts itself or Jesus is God.

4: The Bible cannot contradict itself.

5: Therefore, Jesus is God.

This is a logically valid syllogism. This means that if the premises are true, then the conclusions follow. So, are the premises true or are they false? Let’s look at them.

The first premise states that Yahweh is the only Savior of mankind. This premise is backed up by Isaiah 43:11, which says; “I, even I, am The Lord, and apart from me there is no Savior.” This is Yahweh speaking through the prophet Isaiah. He says that He is The Lord and that apart from Him, there is no Savior. If Yahweh didn’t act to initiate our salvation, our souls would be doomed to Hell. No one can save us but God.

What about the second premise? It’s indisputable that Jesus is called our Savior. Titus 2:13 says “while we wait for the blessed hope-the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,” This verse clearly calls Jesus “Our great God and Savior.” That alone should end any debate that Jesus is God. Yet, cultists try to avoid the seemingly obvious conclusion by saying that Paul is referring to two different entities “Our Great God” on the one hand, and “our Savior, Jesus Christ” on the other.[1] Very well. For this argument to work, it doesn’t matter whether “Our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” is referring to God and a merely human or angelic Jesus, or whether both “God” and “Savior” are both being applied to Jesus. Even the cultists will admit that Titus 2:13 undoubtedly calls Jesus our Savior.

1 John 4:14 says “We have seen as testify that The Father has sent His Son to be the Savior of the world.”
In his letter to the Philippians, the apostle Paul is contemplating his impending martyrdom. In Philippians 3, the apostle Paul tells his readers that a relationship with Jesus is far superior to anything else he has obtained in this Earthly life, even to the point of calling all of the goods he’s received “garbage” (verses 1-8). In verses 20-21, Paul says “But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.” (emphasis mine)

In Acts 13:23, Paul also calls Jesus by the title “Savior.”

In fact, not much biblical defense for this premise even needs to be given. Even a casual reading of The New Testament will show even the lousiest exegete that Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead, and this act atoned for our sins. This is what Jesus did to save us. No sect will deny that Jesus is the “Savior” any more than they’ll deny that The Father of Jesus is God.

This brings us to premise 3: Obviously, we’ve got a dichotomy here. If only God is the Savior if there is no savior besides God, and yet Jesus is our Savior, then what are our options? Either The Bible erroneously calls God the savior, or it erroneously calls Jesus the Savior. In other words, maybe The Bible is just plain wrong. On the other hand, perhaps The Bible isn’t wrong. Perhaps Jesus is God. I don’t see a third alternative.

Defense of Premise 4: The Bible cannot contradict itself.

The Bible cannot contradict itself. It is the word of God (2 Timothy 3:16, Proverbs 30:5). The Holy Spirit cannot inspire false teachings. To the person who doesn’t take The Bible as divinely inspired (atheists, agnostics,), this won’t be a problem.But for Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons, who do take The Bible as divinely inspired, this is not an option. But in that case, there’s only one possible alternative: Jesus is God.

SYLLOGISM TWO

1: Only God created the universe.

2: Jesus created the universe.

3: Therefore, either The Bible contradicts itself, or Jesus is God.

4: The Bible cannot contradict itself.

5: Therefore, Jesus is God.

This syllogism takes the same logical form as the previous one, so the validity of the syllogism’s logic shouldn’t be in question. Rather, we need to ask whether or not the premises are true. They are.
The first premise is backed up by The Old Testament. In Isaiah 44:24, God says “This is what the LORD says- your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,” (emphasis mine). In this verse, God says that He spread out the Earth by himself. Other translations render it “I alone spread out the Earth.” In Job 9:8, Job says of God “He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea.” Both of these verses (Isaiah 44:24 and Job 9:8) state that God alone is responsible for the stretching out of the heavens. This is an act of creation, whether you agree with Hugh Ross in that this is referring to the expansion of the fabric of space from The Big Bang point of origin, or whether you interpret this in its ancient near eastern context which would see this as God spreading out a solid dome over the flat Earth. Whether you take the concordist approach (that this is referring to the expansion of space from the big bang) or the non-concordist approach (that this is referring to God setting the solid dome over the Earth), the “stretching out of the heavens” is a creative act, and The Bible says that God is the sole entity responsible for it.

What about the second premise? John 1:1-3 says “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him, nothing was made that has been made”. This prologue to John’s gospel echoes Genesis 1 (“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” – 1:1). In the beginning, prior to the creation of the physical space-time realm, The Word alone existed. He was with God and was God Himself. The text goes on to say that The Word created all things and that nothing came into being except through The Word. John says essentially “If it exists, Jesus made it.” John asserts in so uncertain terms that Jesus is the Creator of everything that exists, everything!

In Colossians 1, the apostle Paul says the same thing: “The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him, all things hold together.”

Premise 2 is pretty well established. The Old Testament says that God created the universe alone! He had no helpers in the act of divine creation! And yet, The New Testament says clearly that Jesus created the universe.

This leads us to premise 3: “Either The Bible Contradicts Itself Or Jesus Is God.” Again, I don’t see a third option. If Jesus isn’t the same being as Yahweh, then either The New Testament is false in saying that Jesus created the universe, or the Old Testament got it wrong when it said Yahweh had no helpers in creation. Of course, there is a second option: Jesus and Yahweh are one in the same (cf. John 10:30).

Premise 4: If you really believe God breathed both testaments, then the former option is not acceptable. God cannot err. The Bible is God’s word. Therefore, The Bible cannot err.

Since the 4 premises are true, then so is the conclusion: 5: Therefore, Jesus is God.[2]

SYLLOGISM THREE

1: Anyone who accepts worship other than Yahweh is a blasphemer.

2: Jesus accepted worship.

3: Therefore, Jesus was either a blasphemer or He was Yahweh.

4: Jesus was not a blasphemer.

5: Therefore, Jesus is Yahweh.

Defense of Premise 1:

Revelation 4:11 says, “You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; For You created all things, And by Your will they exist and were created.” This verse states that God is deserving of worship. In part, it is because we owe our very existence to Him. If God never decided to create us, we wouldn’t exist. We should praise and thank Him for allowing us to come into being and to enjoy a fulfilling relationship in eternity with Him, and even for goods in this lifetime (cf. James 1:17).

That God, and God alone, is worthy of worship is spelled out in the first of The Ten Commandments; “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3). This isn’t an arbitrary command of God. It isn’t, as skeptics of The Bible have said, that God is insecure and needs validation and assurance of His goodness. God is deserving and worthy of worship because of two things: we owe our existence to Him and ergo our praise (see Revelation 4:11), and also because God is what St. Anselm called “The Greatest Conceivable Being.” God is a being of which no greater can be conceived. God is great in every way one can be great, and He is great in those ways to the maximal extent. This is generally stated in Bible passages like 1 Chronicles 16:25 which says “For great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised; He also is to be feared above all gods.” and Jeremiah 10:6 which says “There is none like You, O LORD; You are great, and great is Your name in might.” and Isaiah 43:10 which says “‘You are my witnesses,’ declares the LORD, ‘and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.'” and Psalm 77:13 which says “Your way, O God, is holy; What god is great like our God?”

More specifically, it is an entailment from The Bible passages asserting God’s omnipotence (e.g Job 42:2, Jeremiah 32:17, Matthew 19:26), omniscience (Job 21:22, Psalm 139:1-4, Proverbs 15:3, Isaiah 40:13-1, Hebrews 4:13), omnipresence (Jeremiah 23:24, 1 Kings 8:27, Psalm 139:7-10, Acts 17:27), omnibenevolence (e.g John 3:16) which logically flows from his moral perfection (Deuteronomy 32:4).

So, the reason worship is a moral obligation is that we owe it to God. Why? Because He is literally the greatest thing in the universe! To direct our utmost adoration to anything else would be evil. God, being morally perfect, wills for us to direct our utmost devotion to the summum bonum (the highest good). It just so happens to be Him. If something else were the summum bonum, He would will we worship that, but He is the Greatest Conceivable Being. On top of that, we owe our very existence to Him. That we can enjoy anything is thanks to the creative act of God. Therefore, it is the hight of blasphemy for anyone other than the Greatest Conceivable Being who is our Creator to acclaim worship for Himself. As preachers frequently say: “Everyone worships something,” and that’s true. Everyone has something in their number-1-adoration-spot. The Greatest Being deserves that spot. It’s immoral for anything else to occupy that pedestal. This is why Paul and Peter freaked out when people tried to pay them homage (e.g. Acts 10:25-26).

Defense Of Premise 2:

Jesus definitely received worship, and unlike Paul and Peter, he never rebuked anyone for it. Even when Jesus was a baby, he received worshiped. As soon as the Magi laid eyes on the infant Christ, “they bowed down and worshiped Him” (Matthew 2:11). Of course, one may object that Jesus, being a baby, had no ability to rebuke the Magi for worshipping him. Therefore, this instance proves nothing. I agree, so let’s fast forward to Jesus’ adulthood. In the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, Jesus received worship: “So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, crying out, ‘Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel!’” (Matthew 21:9; John 12:13). The gospels of Matthew and John do not record a single word of rebuke out of Jesus’ mouth for this. Hosanna is a plea for salvation and an expression of adoration. This is definitely a form of worship.

But perhaps the most startling example is found in John 20, where St. Thomas falls to his knees and cries out “My Lord and my God!”. Jesus never says “Don’t call me God, you fool! I’m merely a man just like you!” instead he says “Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who believe but have not seen”. No rebuke, no warning. Jesus acts as if being called God and being bowed to is totally normal.

Defense Of Premise 3

Once again, we reach a dichotomy. Since only God is worthy of worship and Jesus received worship happily, it follows that either Jesus was blaspheming or He was simply accepting what was rightfully His. Which one is it? This leads us to premise 4:

Defense of Four: Jesus was not a blasphemer.

How do we know whether or not Jesus was blaspheming? If God raised Jesus from the dead, then He put His stamp of approval on everything Jesus said and did. He agreed with Jesus’ teachings and conduct. God would not have raised a liar or a lunatic. For the cultists who believe The Bible is God’s Word, one need only point out that The Bible teaches that Jesus rose from the dead.
This blog post isn’t intended to convince skeptics of The Bible, but believers of The Bible who deny the deity of Christ. When trying to convince atheists, agnostics, Muslims, or other non-Christians that Jesus is God, I take a different tactic. First, I apply the criteria of authenticity to sayings of Jesus in the gospels that entail that Jesus believed that He was divine. I do this, for example, in my blog post “A Quick Case For Jesus’ Divine Self-Understanding.” Then, I argue that if Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead, then that means that Jesus was telling the truth. After all, the God of Israel would never resurrect a heretic and a blasphemer. So if Jesus rose from the dead, then God put His stamp of approval on Jesus’ teachings, including his teachings that He is divine. Obviously, the resurrection would be a miracle (i.e. an act of God). Atheists are right in claiming that science has proven resurrections don’t happen naturally. The more scientific knowledge we gain, the more we can be sure that a dead corpse isn’t just going to spontaneously regenerate. That only helps the Christian’s cause, as it keeps anyone from saying that if Jesus truly came back to life, there was some natural explanation behind it. If a corpse returns to life (especially one in as bad a shape as Jesus’), you can be sure that a miracle has taken place. Of course, that only raises another question: how do we know Jesus rose from the dead, apart from presupposing The Bible’s inspiration. Here is where I apply “The Minimal Facts Approach” which utilize the aforementioned “criteria of authenticity” mentioned above in examining both the New Testament documents as well as extra-biblical documents. I give a brief presentation of The Minimal Facts argument in my blog post “A Quick Case For Jesus’ Resurrection,” but I go into more depth in “The Minimal Facts Case For Jesus’ Resurrection PART 1” and “The Minimal Facts Case For Jesus’ Resurrection, PART 2”. This Easter, I’ll have an entire 10 part blog post series giving an exhaustive treatment of the subject.

However, since this is aimed, not at people who disbelieve The Bible, but people who believe The Bible (Christadelphians, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc.), then merely pointing out that The Bible teaches that God resurrected Jesus will be sufficient. You can simply quote the latter parts of the gospel and leave it at that.

Five: Therefore, Jesus is Yahweh

Given the truth of the premises, the conclusion follows.

CONCLUSION

For an argument to be successful, it must meet three criteria. It must have valid logic (i.e., it must follow the rules of inference such as modus ponens, modus tollens, hypothetical syllogism, disjunctive syllogism, etc.), it must have true premises, and it must have evidence to demonstrate the truth of the premises. If an argument meets these three criteria, then one is justified in believing the conclusion.

In order to refute an argument, one must either show that the argument’s conclusion doesn’t follow even if all the premises were true (i.e. the logic is invalid), or that at least one of the premises is false. There is no other way to refute an argument. For cultists to deny the deity of Jesus, I ask this question: which premise(s) of each of these arguments do you reject, and why do you reject it?

Notes

[1] For an explanation of why this maneuver doesn’t work, see James White’s book The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering The Heart Of Christian Belief.

[2] Oneness Pentecostals and other modalists use this exact same argument but come to a slightly different conclusion. They are correct in inferring from these two sets of scripture passages that Jesus is God, but that doesn’t at all entail that Jesus and The Father are the same person. The doctrine of The Trinity does not insert that The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are different Gods who all worked together in creating the universe. Rather, the Trinity states that there is only one God but that this God consists of 3 persons (The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit). This argument supports the conclusion that Jesus is God and is of the same divine essence as His father, but it doesn’t prove that there is no distinction in their personhood. To make that conclusion is to beg the question in favor of modalism. Trinitarians and modalists both agree that Jesus and His Father are God (the same God). We just disagree on whether God consists of a plurality of persons or not. So, modalists should certainly use this argument to defend Christ’s deity, but they need to stop using it against Trinitarians.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2orQ7Ox

February 28, 2018/by Guest

Bart Ehrman & the God of Christmas

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

By Tim Stratton

One of the most well-known New Testament scholars to graduate from Moody Bible Institute is Bart Ehrman. He has a powerful influence on many young minds today as he is a professor at the University of North Carolina and has written many bestsellers about Jesus. What is surprising, however, is that Ehrman is not a Christian! In fact, he has made claims suggesting that he is a happy agnostic who leans toward atheism.

Although I think Ehrman is wrong to “lean toward atheism,” I do respect him. In fact, I would venture to say that he knows the Bible far better than the vast majority of professing Christians found behind the doors of the church today. Although I believe his “reasons” for becoming an agnostic/atheist are philosophically weak,[1] I do believe that Ehrman is fair and charitable most of the time.

In fact, although it is popular to see many internet atheists today claiming that Jesus never existed, Ehrman shows them the foolishness of their ways. This became apparent during a question and answer session when a “Jesus myther” claimed that he did not see any evidence for a historical Jesus. Here is Ehrman’s fantastic response:

“Well, I do. I mean, that’s why I wrote the book. I HAVE A WHOLE BOOK ON IT! There is a lot of evidence; there is so much evidence [for the existence of Jesus]!

I know in the crowds you all run around with it is commonly thought that Jesus did not exist. Let me tell you, once you get outside of your conclave; there is nobody, I mean, this is not even an issue for scholars of antiquity. IT IS NOT AN ISSUE FOR SCHOLARS OF ANTIQUITY!

There is no scholar at any college or university in the western world who teaches classics, ancient history, New Testament, early Christianity – any related field – who doubts that Jesus existed!

Now, that is not evidence, that is not evidence. Just because everybody thinks so doesn’t make it evidence. But, if you want to know about the theory of evolution versus the theory of creationism – and every scholar, at every reputable institution in the world, believes in evolution, it may not be evidence, but if you’ve got a different opinion, you had better have a pretty good piece of evidence yourself.

The reason for thinking that Jesus existed is because he is abundantly attested in early sources. That’s why, and I give the details in my book. Early and independent sources indicate that certainly, Jesus existed. One author that we know about KNEW JESUS’ BROTHER, and knew Jesus’ closest disciple, Peter. He’s an eyewitness to both Jesus’ closest disciple and his brother.

So, I’m sorry. I respect your disbelief, but if you want to go where the evidence goes? I think that atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism because frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world. If that’s what you are going to believe, you just look foolish.”

I could not have stated it better!

The God revealed in the New Testament

Because Ehrman spends so much time in the New Testament (in an attempt to debunk it) he does seem to grasp what it teaches about God’s character. In fact, this past December (right before Christmas) Ehrman offered a lengthy post on his Facebook page that benefits both Christians and atheists. Consider his parting words:

“The God of Christmas is not a God of wrath, judgment, sin, punishment, or vengeance. He is a God of love, who wants the best for people and gives of himself to bring peace, joy, and redemption. That’s a great image of a divine being. This is not a God who is waiting for you to die so he can send you into eternal torment. It is a God who is concerned for you and your world, who wants to solve your problems, heal your wounds, remove your pain, bring you joy, peace, happiness, healing, and wholeness. Can’t we keep that image with us all the time? Can’t we affirm that view of ultimate reality 52 weeks of the year instead of just a few?

I myself do not believe in God. But if I did, that would be the God I would defend, promote, and proclaim. Enough of war! Enough of starvation! Enough of epidemics! Enough of pain! Enough of misery! Enough of abject loneliness! Enough of violence, hatred, narcissism, self-aggrandizement, and suffering of every kind! Give me the God of Christmas, the God of love, the God of an innocent child in a manager, who comes to bring salvation and wholeness to the world, the way it was always meant to be.”

I must admit when I first read these words emotion overcame me as I shouted “AMEN” to Ehrman! He is exactly right about God’s character. The God of Christmas loves all people — including Bart Ehrman and including YOU! God desires a true love relationship with all people and desires the best for all people for eternity (See The Omnibenevolence of God)!

The God revealed by Jesus is the same God who does not want anyone — including Bart Ehrman — to suffer in hell for all eternity. God desires a true love relationship with all people — a “marriage” with each individual (1 Timothy 2:4) — and does not desire anyone to perish (2 Peter 3:9) or be eternally divorced from Him.

However, since true love requires genuine free will, if God desires a true love relationship with all people, He must give all people this freedom to reject His “marriage proposal” or not. When humans use their freedom to love in a backward kind of way, we bring evil and suffering into God’s creation. This is easy to remember because LOVE backward is EVOL.

C.S. Lewis states it well:

God has made it a rule for Himself that He won’t alter people’s character by force. He can and will alter them—but only if the people will let Him. In that way, He has really and truly limited His power. Sometimes we wonder why He has done so, or even wish that He hadn’t. But apparently, He thinks it worth doing. He would rather have a world of free beings, with all its risks, than a world of people who did right like machines because they couldn’t do anything else. The more we succeed in imagining what a world of perfect automatic beings would be like, the more, I think, we shall see His wisdom. (“The Trouble with ‘X,’ God in the Dock)

God is not waiting for you to die so He can send you to hell! No, the opposite is true, God is pleading with you to stop rejecting His love so that you will not be divorced from Him for all eternity (See True Love, Free Will, & the Logic of Hell).

God loves all people, desires the best for all people, and desires all people to love all people all the time! In fact, this seems to be the objective purpose of the human existence — to love all persons and to be loved by all persons (from each person of the Trinity to each person created in the image of God). Jesus made it clear when He summed up the entire Law in two simple and easy to remember commands (Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39):

1- Love God first!

2- Everybody love everybody (from your neighbors to your enemies)!

Ehrman is right; can you imagine what this world would be like if all people actually listened to and followed the teachings of the God of Christmas (aka, Jesus Christ)? If we all followed Jesus’ commands 52 weeks a year, think about the “Peace on Earth and good will toward men” that would follow in the wake of this tsunami of love! It sounds pretty close to heaven to me!

Ultimate Reality

Bart Ehrman does not believe in God, but he says that if he did, he would defend this view of God offered in the New Testament. I encourage him to examine his reasons for his “lack of belief” in God (See Atheism: Lack of Belief or Blind Faith?). I also encourage Ehrman and any others who do not believe in God to consider a plethora of arguments that either deductively concludes the existence of God or point to the probable existence of God. Here are a few to consider as you start your journey:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

The Argument from Contingency

The Moral Argument

The Fine-Tuning Argument

The Ontological Argument

Why God Allows Evil & Suffering (logical problem)

Why God Allows Evil & Suffering (probability version)

The Freethinking Argument

With all of these arguments in mind, why not promote, proclaim, and defend the God of Christmas? After all, even if all of these powerful arguments for the existence of God turned out to be false, if all the world lived according to the teachings of Jesus Christ 52 weeks a year, then we would have a virtual end to war, starvation, epidemics, pain, misery, abject loneliness, violence, hatred, narcissism, self-aggrandizement, and so much suffering!

I think Jesus was on to something!

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Notes

[1] I could be wrong, but from what I have gathered it seems that Ehrman’s reasons for leaning towards atheism are related to his doubts regarding the inerrancy of the Bible and with the problem of evil. I contend that these are not problems at all for Christianity (See Inerrancy Debate and Lex Luthor’s Lousy Logic).

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2EMa9O8

February 27, 2018/by Guest

Simple Tools to Test Truth Claims

1. Does Truth Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian G. Chilton

We live in a day called the information age. This is a time when we are inundated with information. Some information is based on truth, whereas other truth claims are flawed. While it is not a popular assumption to hold: Not every opinion is correct. Not every worldview is truthful. So, how does one know whether a claim is truthful or flawed? You could take detailed courses in logic, which is advised if you are able to do so. However, a few simple tools in your tool belt will help you decipher truth claims. This article will focus on two: the laws of logic and testing truth claims.

Know the Essential Laws of Logic

First, it is important for you to know the essential laws of logic. Let’s focus on five of the more important laws.

Law of Identity: (A = A). The law of identity simply states that something is what it is. Douglas Groothuis compares this to a person saying to another, “You aren’t acting like yourself today.” The person infers the identity of the individual as a particular thing.[1] The claim “An oak is a tree” infers that oaks are identified as trees.

Law of Noncontradiction: (A ≠~A). The law of noncontradiction states that nothing can be what it is not. That is, an oak cannot be a tree and cow’s milk. Either it is a tree, or it is cow’s milk. Thus, a thing cannot be what it is at the same time being what it is not.

Law of Excluded Middle: (A V ~A). The law of excluded middle shows that a claim must either be the thing it claims to be or not. It cannot be both. An oak cannot be milk. Therefore, if a person needs shade in the summer, then the person must decide whether the shade from the oak’s leaves will be beneficial or milk. Since milk does not provide shade, the person must choose the oak. But, perhaps the milk would provide a refreshing beverage, but it cannot be chosen to provide shade.

Law of Bivalence: (A⊕~A)=(A V ~A).[2] The law of bivalence simply notes that one must choose between proposition A or proposition ~A. That is, every truth claim is either true or false. It can’t be both. Therefore, one must choose.

Law of Rational Inference: (A = B, and B = C, then A = C). Coinciding with the previous four, the law of rational inference may be helpful in deciphering truth claims. In this sense, if A is shown to equal B, and B equals C, then naturally it follows that A would equal C. For example, if my son’s father’s name is Brian, and I am my son’s father, then it logically follows that I am Brian, my son’s father.

Know How to Test Truth Claims

A syllogism is a logical construct that has two criteria and one conclusion. The kalam cosmological argument is a syllogism. It has two premises and one conclusion. The argument goes as follows: 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2) The universe had a beginning. 3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. How does one test such arguments such as these? Simply follow three steps.

Define the terms. Terms will either be clear or unclear. Are the terms that used clear? In the case of the Kalam, they are. The term universe refers to the material cosmos. Beginning refers to the origin or starting point of a thing. Cause references the reason for something’s existence. In the case of the kalam, the terms are clear.
Test the premises. Premises, or statements, are either true or false. Do things that begin to exist have a cause? Certainly! Homes have a reason for their existence, to provide shelter. The second statement is also true. It is nearly unanimously agreed that the universe had a beginning, a starting point. Both premises in the Kalam are true.
Evaluate the argument.[3] Arguments are either valid or invalid. If the first statement is true, “Everything that begins to exist has a cause,” and the second statement is also true in that “The universe had a beginning,” then the argument naturally flows to its conclusion that “The universe has a cause.” That Cause can be inferred to be the Creator. The kalam cosmological arguments pass the truth test.

Conclusion

The tools given in this article do not only apply to syllogisms, they apply to any truth claim. The fact is that not everything you hear from others, read online and in the newspapers, or see on television is based on truth. Use these tools, and you will have, what I call, an instant bologna tester. You will be able to decipher truth from fiction. As wonderful as it is to proclaim, Christianity gloriously holds to the test of truth. That being said, the Christian should strive to find the truth, because the “truth will set you free” (Jn. 8:32, CSB).

Notes

[1] Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2011), 48.

[2] The ⊕ symbol refers to exclusive or propositions. In this case, one is forced to choose between A or ~A because both cannot be true.

[3] For further details, see Peter Kreeft, Socratic Logic (South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s, 2014), 26-27.

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 is a full member of the International Society of Christian Apologetics and the Christian Apologetics Alliance. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as the pastor of Huntsville Baptist Church in Yadkinville, North Carolina.

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

February 25, 2018/by Guest

How To Become a Better Apologetics Communicator

Theology and Christian Apologetics

Timothy Fox

So you want to be an apologetics writer or speaker. Or maybe you already are one. How can you be a better communicator? Here are five quick pointers:

Watch Your Language

No, I don’t mean profanity. I mean your vocabulary. If you’re like me, you’re immersed in the apologetics world. You read apologetics books, you listen to apologetics podcasts, you devour all things apologetics. So you’re used to the language, the ideas, the jargon. But your audience may not be. Find ways to communicate without using “insider” language. Always imagine what someone completely new to apologetics would think of your writing or talk. Have an “outsider” review your material (more on this later). And if you absolutely must use special apologetics vocabulary, be sure to carefully – and simply– define your terms.

Hone Your Craft

Did you ever have a teacher who was a genius but terrible at teaching? It’s easy for apologists to fall into the same boat. Knowledge is not enough. Sincerity is not enough. If you want to be an effective Christian apologist, you must hone your craft. Read books or blogs on communication. Attend writing workshops or public speaking conferences. A book that has impacted my writing tremendously is On Writing Well by Howard Zinsser. If you’re a writer, buy a copy. Now. And make sure you proofread! Nothing will bring you from professional to amateur in a reader’s eyes faster than spelling and grammatical mistakes. Give your best in all you do. Hone your craft.

Stay on Target

One of the best pieces of communication advice I’ve ever received is to make one point and make it well. Everything you say should strengthen or reinforce your one point. I’ve read many apologetics articles where I was halfway through and wondered “What was the point again?”

You may have an awesome quote or anecdote. But does it really strengthen your point? If not, remove it. You have an objection that kinda, sorta relates to your topic. Delete it. If you have more to say about a subject, write another article. Stay on target so your audience always knows exactly what your point is. Make one point and make it well.

Get Feedback

I hate criticism. Hate it, hate it, hate it. But getting others’ feedback has improved my writing greatly. Have other people review your material and give their honest opinion. You need someone to tell you “this doesn’t make sense,” “your logic is faulty here,” or “this is worded poorly.” I have apologetics “insiders” check my argumentation and logic and I have “outsiders” make sure my content is understandable and readable. Both are important!

Reach the Head and the Heart

The rise of apologetics is a wonderful thing, showing that there is a place for logical types (such as myself!) within a Church that has been largely feelings-driven. However, we apologists run the risk of being too cold and rationalistic, turning into emotionless “apolo-bots.” But not everyone is like us. Some will never be argued into the kingdom of God through evidence and logic. They want to see that Christianity is good and beautiful, that it meets humanity’s greatest needs and desires.

Apologetics doesn’t need more syllogisms. It needs more stories! There’s a reason why C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton have withstood the test of time. They engaged the imagination to bridge man’s reason and passions. If we apologists truly want to impact the culture, we need to reach both the head and the heart.

Conclusion

These are just some pointers on how to be a better apologetics communicator. It takes work, but stay at it. Keep it simple. Keep it clear. Hone your craft and get feedback. Target both the head and the heart of your audience.

For more advice on being a better apologist, check out Sean McDowell’s articles “Why Apologists Need to ‘Lower the Bar’” and “Why Apologetics Has a Bad Name.”

This article originally appeared at SeanMcDowell.org.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Cf3FBb

February 13, 2018/by Guest

Will There Only Be 144,000 People in Heaven?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian G. Chilton

At our church, we recently began a new series of messages on heaven. After the service, I received a wonderful question from one of our members, Allison Mathews. Allison said that she had heard that only 144,000 people would be in heaven, and wondered if that was true. Some groups, especially among the Jehovah Witnesses, have espoused that only a select group of individuals (that is, 144,000) throughout all of history will be in heaven. Ironically, more than 144,000 Jehovah Witnesses attend Watchtower Bible studies worldwide, so someone is in trouble. While that is said tongue-in-cheek, the number of 144,000 has brought great interest to individuals wondering whom John is referencing, and how many people will be in heaven. This article will identify the 144,000 and discuss the number of people that one can expect to find in heaven as given in the book of Revelation.

Who are the 144,000?

The concept of the 144,000 comes from Revelation 7. John mentions the 144,000 after describing the Lamb of God (i.e., Jesus) opening up a scroll of which no one else is found worthy (Rev. 5:8-14). When the Lamb opens the seven seals of the scroll, a series of judgments come from the unsealing of the scroll, including the infamous Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (Rev. 6:1-8), a group of martyred souls awaiting their vengeance (Rev. 6:9-11), and a massive earthquake (Rev. 12:9-17).

After all these events have completed, four angels standing at the four corners of the earth (symbolically speaking), and the angels hold back the judgments until 144,000 are sealed on the earth. The 144,000 are identified in verse four as those “sealed from every tribe of the Israelites.”[1] There are two primary options for identifying this group.

Metaphorical: The number 12 is symbolic of God’s government (e.g., 12 tribes of Israel and 12 disciples). 12,000 x 12= 144,000. In this case, some hold that 144,000 symbolically represents the entire church, but would not hold a precise numerical value as to the number of individuals in heaven.

Literal: In this view, the 144,000 are redeemed Israelites who are saved during the time of global tribulation after the church has been resurrected. This view is the most plausible and relates best to the text at hand. Therefore, the 144,000 are Jewish individuals who are saved during the time of tribulation and not the number of all heavenly citizens.

How Many People Will Be in Heaven?

If the 144,000 is not a representation of the number of heavenly citizens, then how many people will be in heaven? Interestingly, the number of heavenly citizens is given in the verses following the description of the 144,000. John looks and sees a “vast multitude from every nation, tribe, people, and language, which no one could number, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were clothed in white robes with palm branches in their hands. And they cried out in a loud voice: Salvation belongs to our God, who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb!” (Rev. 7:9-10).

So, how many people will be in heaven? Only God knows. It is a number greater than any person could count. The citizenship of heaven will include men and women who are white and black, Jews and Arabs, Americans and Russians, Iraqis and Iranians, North and South Americans, Africans and Asians, Europeans and Oceanians. Heavenly citizens will transcend from points across time itself! As Cordie Bridgewater poetically wrote in her classic hymn, “How beautiful heaven must be, sweet home of the happy and free; fair heaven of rest for the weary, how beautiful heaven must be.”[2]

Notes

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

[2] Cordie Bridgewater, How Beautiful Heaven Must Be, https://hymnary.org/text/we_read_of_a_place_thats_called_heaven, retrieved January 22, 2018.

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 a student of the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian is a full member of the International Society of Christian Apologetics and the Christian Apologetics Alliance. Brian has been in the ministry for over 14 years and serves as the pastor of Huntsville Baptist Church in Yadkinville, North Carolina.

Blog Original Source: http://bit.ly/2FZP2Ef

February 11, 2018/by Guest

Debating Atheists Biological Information

Can Science Explain Morality? No!

Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Sean McDowell

Human beings have a universal belief in right and wrong. As C.S. Lewis has observed, moral codes from cultures throughout world history vary over what specific behavior they consider moral, but there is an underlying agreement that objective moral values and duties exists.

As my father and I state in the introduction of the updated Evidence that Demands a Verdict, any adequate worldview must be able to explain this feature of reality.

Science and Morality

In his book The Moral Landscape, atheist Sam Harris claims science can provide a basis for objective morality. But in his recent book Stealing from God, my friend Frank Turek has written a piercing response:

“Science might be able to tell you if an action may hurt someone—like giving a man cyanide will kill him—but science can’t tell you whether or not you ought to hurt someone. Who said it’s wrong to hurt people? Sam Harris? Is his nature the standard of good?”[1]

In other words, science is a descriptive discipline, but morality is a prescriptive discipline. Science can describe how things work, but it can never tell us how we ought to behave.

Another popular explanation for morality is evolution.

Evolution and Morality

A few years ago, I participated in a public debate on the question of God and morality. My opponent argued that evolution explains morality better than God. But this explanation also fails too. Frank Beckwith and Greg Koukl offer two reasons:

First, evolution doesn’t explain what it’s meant to explain. It can only account for preprogrammed behavior, not moral choices. Moral choices, by their nature, are made by free agents. They are not determined by internal mechanics. Second, the Darwinist explanation reduces morality to mere descriptions of behavior. The morality that evolution needs to account for, however, entails much more than conduct. Minimally, it involves motive and intent as well. Both are nonphysical elements that can’t, even in principle, evolve in a Darwinian sense. Further, this assessment of morality, being descriptive only, ignores the most important moral question of all: Why should I be moral tomorrow? Evolution cannot answer that question. Morality dictates what future behavior ought to be. Darwinism can only attempt to describe why humans acted in a certain way in the past.[2]

Science and evolution simply cannot adequately explain the origin of right and wrong. They are both incapable of offering a robust account for why humans have moral obligations.

And yet theism offers a much more natural explanation. Think about it: Valuable human beings don’t come from purposeless, random processes in nature. Rather, they come from a personal, good God. God Himself is the source for right and wrong, and we ought to follow His guidance because He is the one who created us.

Even those who don’t believe in God, still believe in objective morality, because the moral law is written on their hearts (See Romans 2:14-16). Belief in objective morality is ultimately inescapable.

Science can explain many things. But it will never be able to adequately account for morality. To explain real right and wrong we need a source beyond human efforts – namely, God.

Reference:

[1] Frank Turek, Stealing from God (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2014), 100.

[2] Greg Koukl and Francis Beckwith, Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 164.

Sean McDowell, Ph.D. is a professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University, best-selling author, popular speaker, part-time high school teacher, and the Resident Scholar for Summit Ministries, California. Follow him on Twitter: @sean_mcdowell and his blog: seanmcdowell.org.

February 6, 2018/by Sean Mcdowell

Book Review: Welcome to College

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix.

Introduction

With today’s culture ever-increasingly becoming hostile to the Christian worldview, it is vitally important that we prepare our children for the challenges they will encounter to what they believe. Jonathan Morrow wrote a book several years ago that focuses specifically on a Christian’s journey through college. He recently updated this volume with the latest popular challenges that a Christ-follower will likely encounter on campus. “Welcome to College: A Christ-Follower’s Guide for the Journey” is 350 pages in length, but those are divided into 43 short chapters that are easily read in very short sessions. Because of the number of chapters and their short length, this review will not follow the usual chapter-by-chapter summary format of my other reviews (I don’t want to give away the whole book). Rather I will focus on several of the key points made throughout the book that I found particularly important, then I will conclude with my thoughts of the book (you will not want to skip them).

Book Introduction

Morrow begins by congratulating the student on their tackling of a whole new world. He encourages them to enthusiastically dive into their studies and use the most of their time to learn and build relationships. He cautions though that it is important to realize that ideas and worldviews, particularly the Christian worldview, will be challenged and even opposed, so it is important to know what they believe and why they believe it.

From there Morrow spends the next ten chapters discussing the fact that everyone has a worldview, the importance of following evidence where it leads regarding the truth of a worldview, what faith truly is, how we can know things to be true and the distinction between knowing your faith to be true and showing it to be true. In discussing these, he sets up the student to critically evaluate claims made, evidence provided, and address basic challenges to one’s even making a claim to know anything.

Intellectual Challenges in College

Intellectual challenges to the Christian worldview abound in college. Everyone from the professors to the students will present their own reasons for rejecting Christianity. These reasons range from the amount of evil in the world to the supposed scientific inaccuracies in the Bible, to the idea that Jesus was either a copy-cat myth or that there are so many versions of Jesus/Christianity that it is impossible to know which one is true. The historicity of the Resurrection and the reliability of the Gospels will be constantly under attack. Morrow takes each of these issues and presents the cherry-picked facts that seem to ground these objections. He dives into the philosophical foundations of science and the facts of history surrounding the historical Jesus (his life, death, and Resurrection). Along with the highly selected evidence, he also presents the rest of the evidence that, not only explains those few facts that seem to justify skepticism but the rest of the evidence that demonstrates that the skeptical conclusions are not only ultimately unfounded but actually provide powerful support for the truth of Christian claims.

Doubt in College

Doubt is a powerful tool against the Christian entering college. Whether that doubt is intellectual or emotional, from professors or friends, it can wreak havoc on a student’s faith. However, doubt is not incompatible with the Christian life. The idea that Christians are not allowed to doubt is a myth perpetuated by a secular culture in an effort to finally sever the Christian from his beliefs. Morrow explains this important truth: it is okay for the Christian to doubt; doubt often leads to further investigation into the evidence, and further investigation into the evidence will demonstrate a more solid ground for our Christian beliefs. While investigation takes place, the doubt will also cause the student to need to rely personally on God more through prayer and a humble and thankful attitude. These are necessary to connect the head to the heart when doubt is present in college.

Practical and Cultural Challenges in College

About halfway through the book, Morrow shifts from more intellectual challenges to practical challenges. He offers advice covering everything from the overwhelming school work requirements to budgeting issues to dating. He explains how a Christian’s worldview can inform how to deal with these challenges in a successful way. For many Christian students just entering college, they in for many shocks. I’ve covered only a few of the intellectual and practical ones that he addresses, but he also takes a considerable amount of the book to discuss cultural differences and the unique challenges and pressures that will be encountered. Once again, Morrow uses the Christian worldview to help inform the student on how to respond to the pressures of the newly discovered independence from mom and dad. Cultural views of sex (including gender and same-sex relationships), alcohol consumption, the value of human beings, and the purpose of individuals legislating morality, abortion, and technology use and addiction are discussed. Morrow explains not only how the Christian worldview informs these decisions but how the student can articulate his or her decisions and defend them in the most respectful and graceful ways. Throughout this part of the book (and the previous part), Morrow constantly reminds the student that they are called by God for a purpose, and they need to focus on and make their decisions based upon that purpose.

Reviewer’s Thoughts

This book is one resource that I wish I had before I began my journey. Because of circumstances that were happening in my life during my transition from high-school (homeschool) to college, I was already in an intellectual and emotional crisis of faith. While I had been informed of some of the challenges that college would present, I was not given as much instruction or preparation to deal with them as I wished that I had. This book is one of my most highly recommended books for those who look forward to attending college. Parents, take note: Because of the fact that it covers intellectual, emotional, practical, spiritual, and cultural challenges students will face in college, “Welcome To College: A Christ-Follower’s Guide for the Journey” is one of the most important books that your college-bound teen can read. The way that Morrow laid out the book, with its bite-sized yet in-depth chapters and the “Big Ideas” sections at the end of each chapter, he makes it extremely easy for teens to comprehend the content and for parents to engage the material and help train their children for the challenges that lie ahead. College is a whole new world for our kids, and we need to train them and prepare them with the resources that God has given us; if you have made it this far through this review, it is safe to consider that Morrow’s book is now one of the resources God has provided you. Take this opportunity, pray for guidance, and equip your child for the journey that God is preparing to take them on.

Notes

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2GG09Ds

February 5, 2018/by Guest

Are Religious Discussions Important?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

An old adage claims that the two worst conversations to have with a person involve religion and politics. Since people hold deep emotional feelings pertaining to these two issues, the logic of the cliché claims that the two topics must be avoided. However, these two topics are arguably the most important topics that one could discuss. I will leave the issue of politics with the pundits. Nevertheless, political policy affects everyone in the nation to which it is given. On a larger scale, religion is an issue that deals with life’s most important questions. Does God exist? Is there an afterlife? How does one get to heaven? Did Jesus of Nazareth exist? Did Jesus rise from the dead on Easter Sunday?

I have heard people make the claim that religious conversations should be avoided because they are worthless. Statements such as “All people want to do when talking religion is to force their opinions on others” indicate a disdain for the topic. For some, it could include a disregard for religion itself. So, is the discussion of religion important? Let’s consider three aspects that religion covers.

Religious conversations are important as they discusscritical shapers of a worldview.

Why does it matter what a person believes, that is, accepts as truth? It actually matters a great deal. Everyone has a religion of some sort. The person’s religion may or may not be part of an organized religious system of thought. But, the person still has a religion because the term religion is understood as a systematized, personal belief. How one views God, the world, and humanity becomes part of that person’s religious belief. These beliefs are actually shapers of the person’s worldview.

Individuals have been moved to do great good by their religious beliefs. Countless individuals have given of themselves, sometimes even their lives, to serve other people because of their belief that God loves all people and wants to love all people. Consider missionary Jim Elliot who gave his life to share the gospel with the Huaorani people of Ecuador. Why did he share gifts and his beliefs with the Huaorani? Because he believed that God loves everyone. Elliot’s worldview was shaped by the religious shapers of his belief system.

In stark contrast, others such as Adolf Hitler[1]—who was influenced by a bizarre conflation of New Age ideology, mixed with the beliefs of atheist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche[2], and the biology of Charles Darwin—and Joseph Stalin—who was influenced Karl Marx and his atheism—were led to do great harm because of their worldview. Hitler and Stalin’s worldview were shaped by their religious beliefs. Ideas truly matter!

Religious conversations are important as they diagnose claims of truth.

Everyone has an opinion, but is every opinion based on truth? Do we take seriously the claims of the Flat Earthers in that the world is flat, and that the population’s acceptance of a round earth is part of a greater conspiracy? It seems that there are conspiracy theories for everything nowadays. While it is important to respect each person, it is not wise to accept all opinions as truth.

Some people reject the idea of a spiritual existence beyond the scope of the body that awaits the return of Christ. However, if a person accepts the authority of the Bible and Jesus’s teachings, then it is difficult to accept his teachings to Martha after Lazarus’s death, saying, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me, even if he dies, will live. Everyone who lives and believes in me will never die” (John 11:25-26a).[3] How could this be true if there is no survival of the soul after death? Or, what of Jesus’s promise to the criminal on the cross where he says, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise” (John 11:43). If Jesus is true, then ideas of soul death or soul sleep cannot. Intellectual discussions of religious belief, when done properly, can diagnose truth claims according to theological, philosophical, historical, and biblical evidences.

Religious conversations are important as they dissect conversational spiritual status.

Not all religious conversations will end with good results. Nevertheless, a person can gauge one’s spiritual status during conversations of religion. I heard the story of a pastor who spoke with a young man who took a lax view of sin and theology. The pastor asked the young man if he and his girlfriend were engaged in premarital sexual relations. The young man admitted that they were. The young man’s rejection of ethical and theological standards said more about his spiritual state than the veracity of the ethical and theological truths being discussed. Religious conversations may lead to deep discussions, or it may lead to revealing spiritual conditions. If a person is found to be in a lost or spiritually weak state, one knows how to pray for the person in question.

Conclusion

If God exists, Jesus is risen, the Bible is God’s revelation to humanity, and if salvation is found in Christ’s work on the cross; then religious discussions are the most important conversations that we can have. In the end, I really don’t think that people who accuse religion as being unimportant truly mean what they say. I feel that the people making this claim do not desire to be obtrusive or combative. However, it has been my experience that with proper training and in-depth contemplation, religious conversations do not need to be hostile or combative. Hot-button issues only become hostile if we allow it. Emotional outbursts do more to show the shallowness of a person’s worldview than to dismiss logical and evidential claims. Sometimes, all one needs to do is, as Greg Koukl suggests, leave a stone in someone’s shoe.

Notes

[1] See an interesting expose on Hitler’s anti-Christian sentiments at Ray Comfort, “Was Adolf Hitler a Christian?,” CBN.com, http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/churchhistory/godandhitler/

[2] See “Michael Kalish, “Friedrich Nietzsche’s Influence on Hitler’s Mein Kampf,” UCSB.edu (2004), http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/133p/133p04papers/MKalishNietzNazi046.htm.

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

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

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2DWEg4T

February 5, 2018/by Guest

The Identity Argument for the Soul

Substance Dualism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Evan Minton

C.S Lewis once wrote “You don’t have a soul, you are a soul. You have a body“.[1] Most Christians believe that we are not merely physical bodies, but that we are immaterial entities that live inside our bodies. We are embodied spirits. This view is known as Substance Dualism. The Bible very clearly teaches substance dualism (see, for example, 1 Samuel 28, 2 Corinthians 5:6-8, Philippians 1:20-22, 2 Corinthians 12:2-4), so if you believe the Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant, then you ought to be a substance dualist. However, how would you demonstrate the reality of the soul to someone who doesn’t believe The Bible is divinely inspired? Quoting passages to prove that souls exist would do little good when talking to an atheist or an agnostic.

Fortunately, there are philosophical arguments we can draw on for the existence of the soul. One such argument is The FreeThinking Argument which I briefly surveyed in my blog post “5 Arguments For The Existence Of Free Will”. However, another argument reasons to the soul’s existence from the law of identity. This logical principle states that if you’re considering two objects, and every single property both objects have are in common, and there is literally nothing to distinguish the two, the most logical inference is that they are one in the same. That is to say, the two things really aren’t two things after all, but one thing. On the other hand, if the two things do have at least one property that distinguishes them, then the two things are totally separate entities.

In syllogistic form, the argument goes like this:

1: If the mind is identical to the brain, then whatever is true of the brain is true of the mind and vice versa.
2: There are things true of the mind that are not true of the brain.
3: Therefore, the mind and brain are not identical.

This is a logically valid argument. The conclusion follows from the premises by the rule of modus ponens. In order for the conclusion to be justifiably reached, we must affirm that both premises are true. What reasons can be given in defense of these premises?

Premise 1: If The Mind Is Identical To The Brain, Then Whatever Is True Of The Mind Is True Of The Brain and Vice Versa.

The premise rests on the law of identity. The physicalist (i.e the person who believes that people don’t have souls) must prove that when one is talking about the “brain” and when one is talking about the “mind”, they are talking about the same object. In order for them to really be one in the same, any property that the brain has, the mind must have. Any property the mind has, the brain must have. If physicalism is true, the brain must have properties A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and the mind must have properties A, B, C, D, E, F, G. Moreover, there must be no property or properties, H, I, and/or J which exists in one but not in the other. For if properties H or I can be found in one but not in the other, then this shows that they are different entities.

Imagine an alien were to visit from a faraway galaxy and he asked an Earthling who the current president of the united states is. The Earthling tells the alien that the current president is the former host of the TV show The Apprentice. Furthermore, this Earthling later learns from another person that The Apprentice only had one host prior to Arnold Schwarzenegger, Donald Trump. So, if the current president is the former host of The Apprentice, and the former host of The Apprentice is Donald Trump, then the alien would rightly conclude that the name of the current President is Donald Trump. He also learns that Trump is a Caucasian man and that it was a Caucasian man who previously hosted the television show.

Now suppose that this alien knows nothing of how the U.S government works and doesn’t know that a President can only serve a maximum of 8 years. He comes back 20 years later and asks someone who the current U.S President is and the Earthling tells this alien that the president is an Asian Woman whose previous trade was a movie actress, like Reagan. The alien takes into account the facts learned before, namely “The current president is the former host of The Apprentice“, “The current president is a man”, “the previous host of The Apprentice is a man”, and contrasts them with the new information that the current president is an Asian Woman. This is a distinguishing property. The alien concludes from this that Donald Trump must no longer be the current president and that the current president is an entirely different individual, an individual who did not host The Apprentice.

In the above illustration, the alien never actually saw pictures or videos of both of these U.S Presidents. He simply logically inferred based on the law of identity that Donald Trump was the president during his first visit, but that someone else became president before his second visit.

Donald Trump had properties (A) Prior host of The Apprentice, (B) Is U.S President, (C) is Caucasian, (D) is a man.

Years later, the alien found a person who (E) is U.S President, (F) an Asian woman, (G) was a Hollywood actress, (G) never hosted The Apprentice.

E, F, and G, are incompatible with A, C, and D. On this basis, the alien concludes they aren’t the same person. They do not have 100% of their properties in common.

Or another illustration: suppose your wife called you on the phone and said that she bought a bag of red fruit and set them on the counter. You come home to find red apples sitting on the table. You infer that the apples were the fruit your wife was referring to because (A) apple is a fruit, and (B) the apples are red. Your wife’s description and your observation connect to tell you that what your wife was talking about on the phone and what you’re now seeing with your own eyes are one in the same thing. Now, if you came home and found Granny Smith apples, you would think something is up. Although apples are a type of fruit, there’s a property that distinguishes them from the fruit your wife described on the phone, namely the color. You would infer that either your wife was lying, she’s color blind, or she bought two kinds of fruit and the fruit you’re looking at isn’t the kind she was talking about on the phone. But you would never say that the fruit you’re looking at and the fruit your wife talked about on the phone are the same type of fruit because they do not share 100% of the same properties in common. There is at least one property to distinguish them.

It can be stated simply: If X is identical to Y, then whatever is true of X is true of Y and vice versa. But if something is true of Y that is not true of X, then X is not identical to Y.

Premise 2: There Are Things True Of The Mind That Are Not True Of The Brain.

Now we come to the most crucial premise. Is the mind like the green apples and an Asian woman in the above illustrations? Do they have distinguishing properties that would lead us to conclude that are two distinct entities? I believe they do.

The mind has mental properties, such as the property of feeling sad, happy, angry. The mind thinks “about” things. For example, when I go for walks with my dog, I think “about” God, Jesus, philosophy, science, apologetics, or how lovely the trees in my yard looks. Sometimes I think “about” my childhood. The mind has the property of “aboutness” to it. The mind also has the property of first-person perspective. I know myself more intimately than anyone else in the world. I know first-hand what it’s like to feel my own happiness, my own sadness, my own anger, my own anxiety. I know what it’s like to be me. Moreover, the mind contains these things called beliefs, and beliefs can be either true or false.

What about the brain, that physical organ that sits inside our skulls? Does the brain have these properties? No. The brain is never “about” anything. A neuroscientist could hook me up to a machine that could show in exact detail every physiological phenomenon that are going on inside my brain, and never once will he see any of my thoughts. I could be thinking about Pokemon Battle Strategies, and the neuroscientist wouldn’t be able to point to a group of neurons and tell his colleagues “You see that? Those neurons are about Pokemon Battle Strategies”. He would never be able to locate my knowledge of The Bible or of Natural Theology argument. The neuroscientist couldn’t put his finger on the screen of the machine and say “Here’s The Kalam Cosmological Argument!” Even if they cut open my brain and put every molecule under a microscope, they wouldn’t find any property of “aboutness” anywhere. But if the mind is the brain, and mind is undergoing various thoughts, one ought to be able to locate and discern those thoughts if they can simply know what physical processes are going on in my brain, right?

It is also impossible for someone studying a person’s brain to have that first-person perspective. He could have Bob hooked up to a machine to show all of the physical processes currently going on in his brain. The doctor could then hit Bob’s toe with a hammer. The machine would register a pain signal going from Bob’s foot to his brain, indicating that he is experiencing pain, and the doctor would rightly conclude that Bob is in pain. Nevertheless, the doctor would not know what it is like for Bob to experience that pain. He doesn’t have the first-person perspective of the hammer pain. Now, one may object “But Bob could retaliate and hit the doctor on the foot”. True, but that would only result in the doctor having the first-person experience of his own pain. He still wouldn’t have first-person knowledge of Bob’s pain. The doctor might infer that this is what it was like when he struck Bob. In fact, this seems obvious. We all seem to be able to empathize with someone who is going through physical pain. We say “I’ve been there” or “I know what that’s like”. But this is merely a logical inference linking two independent experiences. We don’t really know what it’s like for that person from their first-person POV. We can only infer what it’s like for them on the basis of what it was like for us.

I can infer what it’s like for Bob to have a toothache on the basis of my own experience of tooth-aches, but I do not and cannot partake in Bob’s firsthand experience of tooth pain. The most advanced technology in the world could only tell you the physiological processes occurring when Bob experiences things, but it would never let you step into Bob’s shoes and have that experience yourself.

Now let’s consider beliefs. Beliefs can be true or false, but brain states cannot be true or false. A brain state is just a brain state. It simply is what it is. A neuroscientist can’t hook me up to an EEG and tell me “You know what you’re doing right now? You’re having a false brain state. Cut it out.” This shows that beliefs and brain states are not identical. The thought I’m having can be true or false, but the electrochemical process that occurs when I’m having the thought cannot be true or false.

So, to sum up:

The Mind’s properties — (1) Aboutness, (2) first-person POV, (3) has beliefs that are true or false.

The Brain — (1*) Lacks aboutness, (2*) can only have physiological processes associated with the 1st person POV observed, (3*) has physical states that cannot be either true or false (they are what they are).

Whatever properties they might have in common, it is indisputable that one has properties the other doesn’t have, thus the second premise is true.

Conclusion: Therefore, The Mind Is Not Identical To The Brain.

Since both premises are true, the conclusion follows by the law of modus ponens.

Objection 1: Whenever Something Occurs In The Mental Life, There Are Neurological Processes Occurring In The Brain That Go Along With It. This Shows That The Mind Is Really Just The Brain.

The primary argument for physicalism is that whenever mental events occur in the mind, there are physical events happening in the brain that occur simultaneously. Take the phenomenon of fear. When you have fear, undoubtedly there is brain activity that is correlated with the experience of fear. Physicalists will also point out that certain mental diseases, like Alzheimer’s, affect the brain, but as a result of affecting the brain, the mind is also affected. People with this dreadful disease lose more and more of their ability to think clearly and remember. Eventually, they even forget who their relatives are. Doesn’t this loss of brain/loss of mind correlation show that the mind is the brain?

I don’t think so. For one thing, it’s important that you don’t miss that my arguments given for premise 2 presuppose that there’s a correlation of events between the brain and the mind. If you re-read those paragraphs again, you’ll see that.

Secondly, this objection doesn’t even address my points that the mind has the property of aboutness and the brain does not (no neuron, cell, or electrical impulse is “about” any of your thoughts), nor it does address my point that even an exhaustive knowledge of the physical process of the brain wouldn’t show you that person’s first-person point of view. This objection refutes neither premise of the argument.

Thirdly, mental diseases like Alzheimer’s affecting one’s mental life doesn’t necessarily point to the conclusion that they are one in the same. At most, this just shows that the brain and mind can affect or influence one another. In a lecture at the Truth For A New Generation conference in 2012 titled “The Argument For The Soul”, J.P Moreland gave the following illustration. Suppose you’re in a car that has defected doors that won’t open, and the seatbelt can’t be released either. Wouldn’t it be the case that your mobility would be limited by where you can drive the car? Yes. You could go anywhere you wanted to except for places where the car couldn’t fit. Suppose something happened to the steering wheel that caused it to be stuck turned left. In this case, you’d be stuck driving around in circles.

Now suppose that you wreck the car, and you do so in such a way that the seatbelt snaps, the windshield shatters, and you get hurled out of the vehicle. No problems that existed with the vehicle would matter anymore because you’re not inside of it anymore.

In a similar way, while we’re stuck in these earthen vessels, we are mentally limited by our brains and bodies. If the brain is malfunctioning, that’s going to cause our minds to malfunction as well even though our minds are distinct. Now, when the mind (soul) leaves the body, it’s no longer constrained by the physical defects of the brain it depended on. Just as the physical defects of the car didn’t matter once our driver was able to get out.

Philosopher William Lane Craig answered it this way: “Noble Prize winning neurologist Sir John Eccles lecture on the relationship between the mind and the brain. He said that the mind and the brain are like a pianist and his piano. In order to produce music the pianist must have a finely tuned piano, and then he can produce the music. But if the piano is out of tune, even though the musician knows how to play the piece correctly, the music will be discordant, and he will not be able to produce the beautiful music. Similarly, Eccles said, the mind and the brain work together to produce thought. If the brain is malfunctioning or injured or impaired then thought will be impaired; the soul will not be able to think properly. Its instrument will be impaired and so it cannot think correctly.” [2]

So, to conclude: brain-state correlation with mental events doesn’t prove the mind is the brain. It could just mean there’s a two-way relationship of cause and effect between them. There’s a reason my blog’s slogan is “Using the brains that God gave us”. That reason is that I believe we do indeed use our physical brains to think, just a pianist uses a piano to make music.

Objection 2: The Mind-Body Interaction Problem

Some physicalists try to argue that substance dualism is false because of what is known as “The Mind-Body Interaction Problem”. This dilemma stated is that there is no way to explain how an immaterial thing like the soul can cause effects in the brain and body and vice versa. How exactly does this mysterious substance called “The soul” cause effects in my physical brain? What mechanism is there for the soul to cause the brain to cause my fingers to type this sentence? No one can give an answer. I certainly can’t at least.

Now, one could perhaps simply appeal to mystery. As long as we have good grounds for affirming that the soul and brain do indeed interact, we can simply shrug our shoulders at the how.

On the other hand, some actually make a more potent argument than simply saying “You can’t explain how the soul and body interact, so substance dualism must be false.” Some frame the counterargument to substance dualism this way:

(A1) A soul can interact with a body only if the interaction is in virtue of the transference of motion from the soul to the body.

(A2) Transference of motion from a soul to a body is impossible (because a soul does not have motion).

(A3) Therefore, a soul cannot interact with a body.

Dr. Jacobus Erasmus explains that first step asserts that for A to causally interact with B, a transference of motion from A to B has got to happen, such as through a collision or some other kind of impact. Now, many philosophers, (e.g Jonathan Barnes, Joshua Hoffman, and Gary Rosenkrantz), have noted that (A1) presupposes the following erroneous principle:

(A4) For any two objects A and B and some property F, if A causes B to be F, then A is F.

Dr. Jacobus Arasmas explains that “According to (A4), if a soul causes a body to be in motion, then the soul must be in motion. It is, thus, easy to see why (A1) presupposes (A4). Unfortunately, (A4) is demonstrably false. A lump of clay, for example, can be caused to be square by a non-square object, such as a hand or a rolling pin. Or consider the Law of Gravity, according to which two pieces of matter can accelerate toward each other (or gain motion) without motion being transferred from one to the other. Hence, since (A4) is false, (A1) is false.” [3] As any philosopher will tell you, it only takes the falsification of one premise to make an argument worthless. So even if A2 stands, A3 doesn’t follow because A1 is fallacious.

So, although we still don’t know how the mind/soul causes effects in the brain/body, we certainly don’t have any positive reason (as the above syllogism attempts to show) that such an interaction is impossible. As long as the arguments for substance dualism are sound, we can simply leave this issue an open question. Just as if Kirk MacGregor’s argument for middle knowledge is sound, we can leave the issue of how God knows CCFs an open question.

Conclusion

Other objections to the argument could be addressed, but for the sake of keeping this article a reasonable length, I only opted to respond to the two primary objections most frequently brought up by physicalists. Any other objections can be saved for future articles. It seems that the identity argument for the soul is sound, which gives us good extra-biblical grounds for being substance dualists.

Notes

1: C.S Lewis, ChristianQuotes.com, Retrieved December 20th 2017, https://www.christianquotes.info/images/c-s-lewis-quote-soul/#axzz51p9eNMVl

2: William Lane Craig, Defenders 1, Doctrine Of The Last Things (Part 7), November 16th 2009, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-1/s1-the-doctrine-of-the-last-things/the-doctrine-of-the-last-things-part-7/#_ftnref4

3: Dr. Jacobus Arasmus, “Objections To The Existence Of The Soul”, November 20th 2017, http://freethinkingministries.com/objections-to-the-existence-of-the-soul/

Evan Minton is a Christian Apologist and blogger at Cerebral Faith (www.cerebralfaith.blogspot.com). He is the author of “Inference To The One True God” and “A Hellacious Doctrine”. He has engaged in several debates which can be viewed on Cerebral Faith’s “My Debates” section. Mr. Minton lives in South Carolina, USA.

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

January 29, 2018/by Guest

How do Atheists Justify Human Rights?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

Christians and atheists often disagree over politics and human rights. However, while Christians have a foundation for supporting their political positions, atheists unwittingly steal from God in order to argue for some of their political rights, whether it’s abortion, same-sex marriage, government healthcare or whatever.

How so?

By what objective standard are abortion, same-sex marriage, taxpayer-provided health care, and the like, moral rights? There isn’t such a standard in an atheistic universe. If there is no God, all moral questions are matter of human opinion. So atheists must steal the grounds for objective moral rights from God while arguing that God doesn’t exist.

Atheists are caught in a dilemma. If God doesn’t exist, then objective moral rights don’t exist, including all those that atheists support. If God does exist, then objective moral rights exist. But those rights clearly don’t include cutting up babies in the womb, same-sex marriage, and other invented absolutes contrary to every major religion and the “self-evident” natural law.

No matter what side of the political aisle you’re on—no matter how passionate you believe in certain causes or rights—without God they aren’t really rights at all. Human rights amount to no more than your subjective preferences. So atheists can believe in and fight for rights to abortion, same-sex marriage, and taxpayer-provided entitlements, but they can’t justify them as truly being rights. They are their own preferences, not rights.

Want the details including answers to objections? They are in the book and the new Stealing From God online course I’m hosting that beings January 15 (you can start the self-paced version any time after that too). The course includes ten hours of video, and several live video conferences where I’ll be answering questions. Since we limit the size of the live classes to ensure every student has an opportunity to ask questions, you’ll want to sign up soon if you want to be a part of this.

January 13, 2018/by Guest

3 Syllogistic Arguments For Jesus’ Deity

Bart Ehrman & the God of Christmas

The God revealed in the New Testament

Ultimate Reality

Simple Tools to Test Truth Claims

How To Become a Better Apologetics Communicator

Will There Only Be 144,000 People in Heaven?

Can Science Explain Morality? No!

Book Review: Welcome to College

By Luke Nix.

Introduction

Are Religious Discussions Important?

The Identity Argument for the Soul

How do Atheists Justify Human Rights?

QUICK LINKS

FEATURED RESOURCES

SUPPORT CROSSEXAMINED