Christmas Conundrums

Resolving Christmas Conundrums

,

By Evan Minton

Christmas is one of my favorite holidays and has been for as long as I’ve walked this Earth. As a kid, it was because I got a boatload of toys on Christmas morning that I got to play with as Mom and Dad prepared Christmas dinner for us and the rest of my family. As someone who is now a born-again Christian, my primary reason has shifted from getting gifts to praising God for taking on human flesh to begin His mission of redeeming fallen humanity. We all know the story: of how Gabriel appeared to Mary, told her she would become miraculously pregnant with Jesus, how Mary and Joseph traveled to Bethlehem where Jesus would then be born, etc. However, those of us who witness to non-believers will encounter some objections about the reliability of the Christmas narrative.

It is the point of this blog post to wrestle with these challenges to the gospels’ reliability.

1: The Census 

Luke 2:1-3 says “In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to their own town to register.” 

The Bible is clear that Jesus was born when Herod The Great was in power and when Quirinius was governor, but (A) Flavius Josephus says Herod died in A.D 4 and (B) secular history attests that Quirinius didn’t become governor until A.D 6?  Did The Bible get it wrong?

First of all, I think we should give Luke the benefit of the doubt. In The Book Of Acts In The Setting Of Hellenistic History, the classic scholar Dr. Collin J. Hemer shows that archeology proves that the book of Acts got it right in 84 incidental details. The first chapter of Luke and the first chapter of Acts both give us clues that these books are written by the same author (Luke), such as the fact that they’re both addressed to a man named Theophilus and in Acts, the writer alludes “to my former work” (Acts 1:1). This is one piece of internal evidence that Luke and Acts had the same author. Now, if Acts gets it right in 84 different places, then is it really reasonable to suspect that this same writer would be so sloppy in his previous work? In fact, the famed scholar and archeologist Sir William Ramsay once said: “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense…in short, this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians.”[1] Click here to read about some of the things Luke got right in both of his books.  

Secondly, there are proposed solutions which could resolve the issue. One proposed solution has been that there were two different men named Quirinius governing on two different occasions. That possibility isn’t entirely out of the question. After all, we’ve had more than one president whose first name is George. The two-Quirinius explanation would be analogous to George Bush’ presidency in the 90s and George W. Bush’ presidency in the 2000s.

Another proposal is that the Qurinius reigned on two different occasions. As Daryl E Witmer of ChristianAnswers.net explains: “There is good reason to believe that Quirinius was actually twice in a position of command (the Greek expression hegemoneuo in Luke 2:2 which is often translated ‘governor’ really just means ‘to be leading’ or ‘in charge of’) over the province of Syria, which included Judea as a political subdivision. The first time would have been when he was leading military action against the Homonadensians during the period between 12 and 2 B.C. His title may even have been ‘military governor.’ “[2]

Either of these proposals would solve the timing of Quirinius’ governorship. Either there were two governors by this name, or, as seems most likely, Quirinius was the governor on two separate occasions. This latter view is the one that archeologist William Ramsay endorsed.[3]

But what about the census itself? Was this really a practice that the Roman government did?

Here’s a quote from an official governmental order dated AD 104. Gaius Vibius Maximus, Prefect of Egypt [says]:

“Seeing that the time has come for the house to house census, it is necessary to compel all those who for any cause whatsoever are residing out of their provinces to return to their own homes, that they may both carry out the regular order of the census and may also attend diligently to the cultivation of their allotments.”[4]

As you can see, that practice is confirmed by this document. And another papyrus from AD 48 implies that the entire family was involved in the census. Moreover, there have been scholars who argued that Romans were known to occasionally allow a census to be taken according to local customs in order to avoid ticking off the population.

According to ancient Semitic culture, what this means is that Mary and Joseph would have had to trek to the home of their ancestors.

2: The Christmas Star

In Matthew 2:2, the magi appear before King Herod and ask him where the baby Jesus is. They said“Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” The Magi knew how to get to the town Jesus was born because a huge shining star in the sky acted like a celestial GPS system. This incident of the star that guided the magi has baffled historians and astronomers for years. What kind of event could this be? What astronomical phenomenon could have occurred in the universe to have caused a star to shine noticeably bright for the duration of the magis’ journey?

Some Christians have responded to this challenge by asking why it even has to be a literal star at all? Why can’t it just be a supernatural light caused by God? Or why couldn’t it be supernatural light given off by an angel? The problem is that the text specifically calls it a star, or at least some kind of celestial body in this universe. The Greek Word translated as “star” is aster, and according to Hugh Ross, this Greek word can indicate a number of different astronomical bodies, including a star, planet, comet, asteroid, or meteor. If we’re to read the plain meaning of scripture, we should probably conclude that this is a star, planet, meteor, or some other astronomical body rather than an angel or a miracle light. This would be to stick to the hermeneutical principle that The Bible should be interpreted literally unless good reasons can be given to take a term metaphorically.

The astrophysicist Hugh Ross once argued that the star was a recurring nova. He wrote “The brighter novae are rare enough that they could catch the attention of the Magi (who, it seems, were waiting for a sign), yet also dim enough to escape the notice of other observers. And, unlike supernovae, a few novae actually can erupt several times.”[5]

However, he himself said there was “a snag” in this explanation. He said that all the recurring novae that astronomers had observed had a recurrence rate of 10 years or even a century! Nevertheless, Dr. Ross said that believed it was possible for a nova to recur in less than two years. In 2014, new scientific evidence came to light to vindicate Ross. Ross wrote about these findings, saying “Astronomers observed nova M31N 2008-12a recurring within a period of only one year. Following this discovery, a team of four astronomers demonstrated that a certain kind of white dwarf star could exhibit recurring nova eruptions with a period as short as two months. Such a white dwarf star’s rotation rate would need to be close to zero and its mass would need to be 1.38 times the Sun’s mass. It also would need to be accreting mass from a companion star at a rate of 0.00000036 solar masses per year. The team also showed that a one-year nova eruption period requires a white dwarf with a mass = 1.30 solar masses and an accretion rate = 0.00000015 solar masses per year.”[6]

Dr. Ross says that this is a rare occurrence in the Milky Way Galaxy, but that nevertheless, these kinds of white dwarfs exist in a sufficient enough number to make the account of the star of Bethlehem credible.

3: Herod’s Slaughter Of Innocent Babies 

Matthew 2 records that King Herod sought to kill all of the babies in Bethlehem who were 2 years old or younger because he believed the prophecies in The Old Testament about the coming of the Messiah (the giant star talked about in the previous subheader being a sign that he had arrived). Historians and scholars of ancient history have doubted whether this incident ever really occurred. Why? Because the only place it’s recorded is in the gospel of Matthew. Surely a person of such prominence as King Herod committing an act as heinous as murdering all of Bethelem’s infants would have been talked about by more people than Matthew, right?. You would expect Josephus or Tacitus to have at least made a passing reference to this event, right?

What are we to do about this objection? Did King Herod’s genocide not occur? Did Matthew make the whole thing up? Lee Strobel brought this objection up in his interview with Archeologist John McCray in his book The Case For Christ. In that interview, McCray responds with the following:

“‘You have to put yourself back in the first century and keep a few things in mind. First, Bethlehem was probably no bigger than Nazareth, so how many babies of that age would there be in a village of five hundred or six hundred people? Not thousands, not hundreds, although certainly a few. ‘Second, Herod the Great was a bloodthirsty king: he killed members of his own family; he executed lots of people who he thought might challenge him. So the fact that he killed some babies in Bethlehem is not going to captivate the attention of people in the Roman world. And third, there was no television, no radio, no newspapers. It would have taken a long time for word of this to get out, especially from such a minor village way in the back hills of nowhere, and historians had much bigger stories to write about.”[7]

So, in other words, Bethelem was extremely tiny so the slaughter wouldn’t have been a major holocaust. Secondly, Herod was known for heinous acts (see the writings of Josephus), and thirdly, it would have taken a long time for this to have circulated. Given the second point, it wouldn’t have probably been of much interest to people outside of Bethelem.

I would add to McRay’s points by pointing out that much of ancient writings have been lost in the sands of time, decayed away. Sometimes portions of these writings survive as citations in other works, such as Thallus’ mention of the darkness at Jesus’ crucifixion quoted in a work by Julius Africanus which was itself quoted by a historian named George Syncellus[8]. Both Thallus’ and Africanus’ works are lost, but both partially survive in Syncellus’ work. That’s one way we know that they didn’t survive; because historians see these authors quoted yet the quoted works are nowhere to be found. So, it may be the case that some other historians did make mention of it, but their works either haven’t been found yet or none of the manuscripts survived to the present day. We just don’t know.

Conclusion 

Archeology and astronomy have helped to shed light on these Christmas Conundrums. We have reason to believe that Matthew and Luke accurately recorded the story of Jesus’ birth.

Notes 

[1] Sir William M. Ramsey, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, Hodder & Stoughton, 1915.

[2] Daryl E. Witmer, “When Did The Luke 2 Census Occur?”, https://christiananswers.net/q-aiia/census-luke2.html 

[3] John McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 155, emphasis added.

[4] William Mitchell Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (London: Forgotten Books, 2012, reprint of 1909 edition), 277.

[5] Hugh Ross, “Astronomy Sheds New Light On The Christmas Star”, December 1, 2014, http://reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/tnrtb/2014/12/01/astronomy-sheds-new-light-on-the-christmas-star 

[6] Ibid.

[7] Strobel, Lee; Strobel, Lee. Case for Christ Movie Edition: Solving the Biggest Mystery of All Time (Case for … Series) (Kindle Locations 2256-2263). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

[8] George Syncellus, quoting Julius Africanus, “History Of The World, Book 3”.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2B4LwGg

/by
God Darwin Evolution

If Evolution is True, Atheism is False

,

By Tim Stratton

Atheists often appeal to evolution in an attempt to explain the primate complexity we observe today without a need for an Intelligent Designer — God! Indeed, many say the reason they affirm atheism is because they believe evolution is true. Since their hypothesis does not include God as a designer, atheists feel justified in affirming that God does not exist and that Christianity is false. With that said, however, if evolution is true, it does nothing to prove that God does not exist or do anything to disprove the historical resurrection of Jesus (the two essential ingredients of “mere Christianity”). Moreover, what atheists fail to comprehend is that by appealing to evolution in an attempt to “prove” atheism, they ultimately prove too much!

Evolution simply means change over time. Most evolutionists and young earth creationists will agree that some things do genuinely change over time (even if they disagree on how much some things change over time). What is important to note is that Darwinian evolution requires a genuine change over dynamic time — at least if one is hoping to explain primate complexity. With that in mind, I contend that if evolution is true, then atheism is false!

Consider this: I believe that some things do genuinely evolve and change over time. In fact, we currently exist in a world in which things are constantly changing right in front of our eyes! That is to say, we exist in an evolving state of affairs (change happens)!

The problem, however, is this: it is logically impossible for a changing state of affairs to be extrapolated into past infinity! In “English” that means that if we currently exist in a changing state of affairs and things are really happening one event after another, then it is impossible for things to happen chronologically in this manner without a first change. If we exist — right now — in a changing state of affairs, then it is impossible to go on and on forever in the past. Logically, there must have been a beginning or a first change.

If there never was a first change, then the present moment — “right now” — would not exist. To help illustrate why the concept of past infinity is incoherent, consider two thought experiments.

Infinite Jumpers & Steppers

First, is it possible for someone, say a superhero with infinite jumping powers, to jump out of an infinitely tall bottomless-pit? Of course not. There is no launching pad or foundation from which to jump. When it comes to things changing over time (evolution), if the hole at ground level represents the present moment and the idea of past infinity means there is no foundation to jump from (a first change over time), then the present moment of change could never be reached. The jumper could never get out of the hole because there is no starting point for him to progress upward. Because the present moment does exist and things do change over time (evolution) it logically follows that a foundation exists for the first change to occur leading to the evolution (change over time) we notice today.

Second, suppose a man walks up the steps to your front porch and rings the doorbell. You answer the door and ask if you can help him. He states, “I have just walked an infinite number of steps and finally completed them right here on your front porch.” Of course, you do not believe him, yet he insists that he has accomplished this feat. You ask for proof and he invites you to join him on a journey to retrace his infinite number of steps. He tells you that once the two of you reach this infinite point, you will then follow those same footsteps all the way back to your front door. You adamantly reject his offer because you realize that if you were to retrace an infinite amount of steps you will never get back home! In fact, you will never turn around to begin your journey home!

Consider the steps involved . . . you would take one step, then a second step, then a third step. Eventually, you would take a millionth step, and eventually a billionth step, and then a trillionth step. Whatever step you were currently taking you could always take one more and count it — never reaching actual infinity. Whenever you decide to turn around to come back home you will be on a countable step. So, if you do ever make it back home, your steps would not be infinite.

Just as it would be logically impossible for you to retrace all the steps this pedestrian claims to have made, it is just as impossible for this pedestrian to traverse an actual infinite amount of steps ending on your front porch. A rational person will know that one who makes such a claim is either delusional or deceptive. The “stepper” must have taken a first step.

Change over time (evolution) has the same problem. If a first change occurred, then it logically follows that a first change resulted from an unchanging, eternal, and beginningless state of affairs. Think of this as a frozen/static state where nothing happens and nothing has ever happened logically prior to the first change (I know this is hard to imagine). This might not seem like a “big deal” but the implications are enormous! This is the case because if things are not changing in a frozen/static state, then nothing would ever happen. This is because if things are not evolving, emerging, decaying, growing, or becoming unstable (which are words implying change over time), then these things would never be able to cause the first change. Change over time cannot account for things starting to change over time. That is to say, if nothing is happening, then nothing can describe or account for the first change that resulted from a static, frozen, and unchanging state! UNLESS…

… a volitional agent existed in this static state who had the power to act.

Other than a volitional agent, what else could cause a change from an unchanging state of affairs? At the least, a volitional agent with the power to act could exist in a static state and then cause something to happen. That is to say, if nothing is happening, but a volitional agent with free will exists in this static state, then this volitional agent can freely choose to act and cause the first change. This is what Aristotle meant by the “Unmoved Mover.”

Volitional agents are personal types of “things” or rather, “beings.” If a being is personal in nature, then this being is the kind of “thing” in which you can have a personal relationship — that is, at least if you are a person! Thus, if you are a person, then it is at least possible that you can have a personal relationship with this unmoved mover!

An Argument from Change Over Time

We can summarize this entire argument in a step-by-step syllogism:

1- Things change over time (evolution).

2- A changing state of affairs cannot be past infinite.

3- Therefore, a first change resulted from an unchanging state of affairs.

4- Only a volitional agent can cause a change from an unchanging state of affairs.

5- Volitional agents are personal.

6- Therefore, this personal agent existed in an unchanging state of affairs.

7- Anything existing in an unchanging state of affairs never began to exist and is eternal with no beginning.

8- Therefore, the cause of the first change (and ultimately the change of affairs in which we find ourselves) is a personal agent who is eternal with no beginning and was in a changeless state of affairs logically prior to causing the first change.

This final deductive conclusion should be eye-opening! Why should this get one’s attention? Because this personal agent who caused things to start evolving and changing over time is God! The Bible does not just note the possibility of having a personal relationship with the Unmoved Mover — God — it explains exactly how you and I can know God personally through Jesus Christ!

Bottom line: If you believe that things actually do evolve and change over time, then you should reject atheism!

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Tim Stratton

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2j7eSMT

 

/by
Christianity Superstition

Is Christianity a Form of Superstition?

By Al Serrato

Superstition is as old as man. An incomplete picture of why things work the way they do fuels the imagination to conjure up hidden forces at work behind the scenes. Pull back the curtain and perhaps one will find an “all-powerful” being at work pulling the strings. Accessing – and eventually perhaps cajoling or influencing that being – can easily become the basis for a religious belief system.

Does Christianity fall into this same category? Some unbelievers, observing the behavior of professional athletes, might believe that superstition is at play. Praying and acknowledging one’s deity, they assume, is a way of seeking to influence the outcome of the contest. For some, it seems like a cheap – and silly – trick.

But this is not what Christian players are doing when they acknowledge God, nor is it what a mature devotion to Christianity would include.

Some non-believers who consider this behavior will ask themselves a very basic question: will becoming a Christian “improve” my life? Is it a ticket to greater wealth and prosperity, better relationships, a future filled with every type of goodness and blessing? For many, this seems too good to be true, but they pursue it hoping for the best; for others, it appears to be a shell game or cheap con, and they reject it without ever considering what it really entails.

The nutshell answer is: probably yes. In most cases for most people, developing a relationship with God in which you accept His gift and then living a life that reflects His will, as best you can achieve it, will improve your life in some important and significant ways. But having a “better” life is a by-product of belief and not the main point of devoting one’s life to Jesus.

If prosperity or other rewards become the main point, Christianity begins to be marketed as a product, a method of achieving some desirable end. A person identifies a need in his or her life and Christianity fills that need, the way any product might do. But this is not the message of Christianity. The Bible is not a “how to” manual on achieving financial or worldly success. It does not promise riches in the here and now, nor an end to all hardship… nor a victory in every football contest. Quite the opposite, in fact, as the early fathers of the church, and their followers could have attested. (Except of course for the football part.)

In short, Christianity tells the story of man’s broken relationship with his Creator. It claims to speak the truth about the nature of God and of this broken relationship and what is needed to fix it. The Old Testament provides the backdrop as God prepares a people to serve as the vehicle for redemption. Jesus comes – not to make my life profitable or more fulfilling in some modern sense or to help me nail down a spot in the Super Bowl- but to fulfill the ancient prophecies, to give His life as ransom for us, and to thereby restoring our relationship with the Father.

Christianity should be assessed on its merits – are its claims true? – not on what it can achieve for you. The Apostle Paul said as much when he said that we are to be pitied as fools if Christ did not rise from the dead. Everything rests on that truth claim. Once we see that Christ did rise, and we place our trust in Him, He will do a work in us and will eventually welcome us into His Kingdom. But Paul himself remained physically afflicted, and there is no reason to believe that by following Christ, our problems will disappear.

We will, however, look at them differently, and by living Biblical values, we will probably have a better life than we might otherwise have had – and certainly a more fulfilling one.

 

Original Blog Post: http://bit.ly/2ABUIBT

 

/by
Josephus Gospels John Baptist

Why Do Josephus And The Gospels Contradict Each Other About John The Baptist?

,

By Evan Minton

The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus was born in A.D 37. In about A.D 90, he wrote his book “Antiquities Of The Jews” in which he writes a history of the Jewish people. In this work, he mentions several individuals who appear in The New Testament such as Jesus, James’, the brother of Jesus, Caiaphas, King Herod the Great, and John The Baptist, among several others. With regards to John The Baptist, Josephus says that King Herod (Antipas) killed him, just as The New Testament does. Josephus writes “Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and was a very just punishment for what he did against John called the Baptist. For Herod had him killed, although he was a good man and had urged the Jews to exert themselves to virtue, both as to justice toward one another and reverence towards God, and having done so join together in washing. …. And when others massed about him, for they were very greatly moved by his words, Herod, who feared that such strong influence over the people might carry to a revolt — for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise — believed it much better to move now than later have it raise a rebellion and engage him in actions he would regret. And so John, out of Herod’s suspiciousness, was sent in chains to Machaerus, the fort previously mentioned, and there put to death; but it was the opinion of the Jews that out of retribution for John God willed the destruction of the army so as to afflict Herod.” (Antiquities 18.5.2 116-119)

Josephus said that the reason Herod killed John The Baptist was that Herod feared that John might lead a rebellion against him, and ergo overthrow him. However, this is not what The Bible says. Read Matthew’s account of John’s death in chapter 14. Matthew says that the reason Herod had John killed was that John was speaking out against Herod Antipas’ marriage because it was unlawful under The Old Testament law. Herodias had divorced her husband and married Herod Antipas. Now, this would have been fine if Herod’s brother had died, but since he was still alive, this was considered adultery. Matthew 14 says that it wasn’t Herod’s idea to have John killed, but that he was instead backed into a corner by promising Herodias’ daughter Salome that if she danced for him, he would give her anything she asked for. She danced, and, at the nudging of her mother, asked for John The Baptist’s head delivered on a platter.

So which is it? Who’s right? Is Josephus right or is Matthew right? Well, we might say; “Well, since The Bible is God’s word, it cannot err. So we must conclude that it was Matthew who is right and Josephus who is wrong”. Of course, this answer won’t suffice for the non-believer who doesn’t believe that The Bible is inspired.

Luke 8, I believe, provides us with the answer. Didn’t you ever wonder how would Matthew have gotten this information in the first place? After all, this happened in the privacy of Herod’s home. None of the disciples were there. Jesus wasn’t there. How did Matthew know what was going on behind closed doors? Luke 8:1-3 says “After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; Joanna the wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.” (emphasis mine)

Luke tells us that one of Jesus’ followers had a family member who was the manager of Herod’s household. This would provide a plausible explanation for how Matthew could have known what was happening at Herod’s birthday party. Chuza told Joanna about this incident, and then Joanna told Jesus and the disciples. Matthew would then have this information to later record in his gospel.

What we can conclude, then, is that Matthew is right because he had better source information than Josephus! Matthew was actually told by someone who had a family member who worked for Herod Antipas why Herod Antipas had John The Baptist killed. Josephus was only speculating on Herod Antipas’ motive based on what appeared to be the case to him.

Now, one may object “But couldn’t Luke have simply made this Joanna person up simply to give us an explanation for how they knew about Herod’s motives?” My answer: No. It’s unlikely that Luke made up Joanna or lied about her husband working for Herod Antipas simply to answer the question of how they knew Herod Antipas’ motive. For one thing, this small detail isn’t mentioned in the context of Herod Antipas’ party. Herod Antipas’ party isn’t even mentioned in Luke 7, 8, or 9. If Luke provided this small detail simply to solve the problem, why didn’t he do it in the context of the party? Moreover, scholars have made good arguments that Luke’s gospel was written sometime in the 50s’ A.D when all of the eyewitnesses were still around and could have corrected Luke if he were making this up. Though it’s beyond the scope of this blog post to get into dating arguments. Thirdly, this is what New Testament scholars Tim and Lydia McGrew would call “Undesigned Coincidences”. An undesigned coincidence is when one gospel says something that raises a question, but another gospel mentions an incidental little detail that answers it. From what I recall, Luke never talks about Herod Antipas’ banquet. Matthew does, but Luke doesn’t. Matthew raised a question (i.e “how would he have known what went on at Antipas’ place?”) but Luke answered it (i.e “One of Jesus’ followers had a husband who was his household manager”).

 

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/2AOjnEe

/by
Ten Divine Attributes Messiah

Ten Divine Attributes of the Messiah

,

By Brian Chilton

Mark Lowry wrote a beautiful song called Mary, Did You Know. The song features questions that Mark would ask Mary if he had the chance. One of the lines inquires, “Mary, did you know . . . that when you kissed your little baby, you’ve kissed the face of God?”. We are in the season of Advent which anticipates the arrival of Christmas. Although the date of Christ’s birth is debated among scholars, Christmas is a time when we celebrate the birth of Christ, no matter the actual date.

Throughout the millennia, Christians have recognized that Jesus is the incarnate Son of God. However, may have sought to dispute the claim, holding that Jesus was merely a good man but not God. Groups like Jehovah Witnesses translate their own versions of Scripture, attempting to write off the divine claims made about Christ. Yet, it is impossible not to see the multiple divine attributes of Jesus throughout the pages of Scripture.

A thorough examination of Scripture indicates that Jesus holds multiple divine attributes normally ascribed to God. At least ten Messianic divine attributes are found in Scripture.[1]

  1. The Messiah holds the divine attribute of life (Jn. 1:4; 14:6).

The divine attribute of life describes the ability to provide life, even eternal life. This kind of life can only be given by one who oneself is eternal.

  • “In him was life, and that life was the light of men” (Jn. 1:4).[2]
  • “Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will also know my Father. From now on you do know him and have seen him” (Jn. 14:6).
  1. The Messiah holds the divine attribute of self-existence (Jn. 5:26; Heb. 7:16).

This means that Christ was uncreated and exists by himself alone, an attribute that only God could hold.

  • “For just as the Father has life in himself, so also he has granted to the Son to have life in himself” (Jn. 5:26).
  • “. . . who did not become a priest based on a legal regulation about physical descent but based on the power of an indestructible life” (Heb. 7:16).
  1. The Messiah holds the divine attribute of immutability (Heb. 13:8).

Immutability means that one is unchangeable. While finite beings can and do change, a necessary infinite being does not.

  • “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Heb. 13:8).
  1. The Messiah holds the divine attribute of truth (Jn. 14:6; Rev. 3:7).

Titus 1:2 notes that God cannot lie. It is not that God chooses not to lie, but rather that he cannot because it goes against his nature. To claim that God is truth means that God’s essence is sheer truth and possesses no falsehood. Scripture notes that Jesus holds this attribute.

  • “Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will also know my Father. From now on you do know him and have seen him” (Jn. 14:6).
  • “Write to the angel of the church in Philadelphia: Thus says the Holy One, the true one, the one who has the key of David, who opens and no one will close, and who closes and no one opens” (Rev. 3:7).
  1. The Messiah holds the divine attribute of love (1 Jn. 3:16).

God is understood to be omnibenevolent; that is, all-loving. In God, there is no hate if he can be said to be absolute love. Theologians understand that God’s wrath is rooted in God’s love and his holiness. Scripture notes that Jesus holds the divine attribute of love.

  • “This is how we have come to know love: He laid down his life for us. We should also lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters” (1 Jn. 3:16). See also John 3:16.
  1. The Messiah holds the divine attribute of holiness (Lk. 1:35; Jn. 6:69; Heb. 7:26).

God is absolutely holy. Absolute holiness is an all-encompassing purity, in which no evil is possessed. In other words, God is the absolute good. Scripture claims that Jesus holds this divine attribute of holiness which is necessary if he is to redeem humanity from their sin.

  • “The angel replied to her: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore, the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God” (Lk. 1:35).
  • “We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God” (Jn. 6:69).
  • “For this is the kind of high priest we need: holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens” (Heb. 7:26).
  1. The Messiah holds the divine attribute of eternity as seen in this passage and in Jn. 1:1.

God is understood to be eternal. He has no beginning and no end. The Messiah is said to hold the same eternal attribute.

  • “Bethlehem Ephrathah, you are small among the clans of Judah; one will come from you to be ruler over Israel for me. His origin is from antiquity, from ancient times” (Mic. 5:2).
  • “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (Jn. 1:1).
  1. The Messiah holds the divine attribute of omnipresence (Mt. 28:20; Eph. 1:23).

Omnipresence is the divine ability of God to be everywhere at all times. While Jesus did become monopresent during his time on earth, he is said to have the divine attribute of omnipresence in his eternal state.

  • “And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Mt. 28:20).
  • “And he subjected everything under his feet and appointed him as head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of the one who fills all things in every way” (Eph. 1:22-23).
  1. The Messiah holds the divine attribute of omniscience (Mt. 9:4; Jn. 2:24, 25; Acts 1:24; 1 Cor. 4:5; Col. 2:3).

Omniscience is the divine attribute of God to know all things. This is an extremely deep concept as God knows all things that could be by his natural knowledge, all things that will be by his free knowledge, and all things that would be by his middle knowledge. Jesus is omniscient.

  • “Perceiving their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why are you thinking evil things in your hearts?” (Mt. 9:4-5).
  • “Jesus, however, would not entrust himself to them, since he knew them all and because he did not need anyone to testify about man; for he himself knew what was in man” (Jn. 2:24-25).
  • “Then they prayed, “You, Lord, know everyone’s hearts; show which of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry that Judas left to go where he belongs” (Acts 1:24-25).
  • “So don’t judge anything prematurely, before the Lord comes, who will both bring to light what is hidden in darkness and reveal the intentions of the hearts. And then praise will come to each one from God” (1 Cor. 4:5).
  • “In him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3).
  1. The Messiah holds the divine attribute of omnipotence (Mt. 28:18; Rev. 1:8).

Omnipotence is the divine attribute of God that indicates God’s complete power. God has complete authority and ultimate strength. Jesus holds the same attribute.

  • “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth” (Mt. 28:18).
  • “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “the one who is, who was, and who is to come, the Almighty” (Rev. 1:8).

As I have learned from several of my professors at Liberty University, biblical theology must shape our systematic theology. From Scripture, one can clearly see that Jesus is God incarnate. It is unquestionable. That is why I hold that one must accept the divine aspect of Jesus to truly be part of the orthodox Christian faith.

Gary Habermas Explains the High Christology of the Early Historical NT Texts

Lee Strobel on Jesus’s Self-Identification with God

Notes

[1] Many of these references were found in Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1907), 309.

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

 

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

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2kMBy9n

/by
Christians Soul Biblical Reasons

Should Christians Reject the Soul for Biblical Reasons?

By Jacobus Erasmus

Question

Dear Dr. Erasmus,

Tim Stratton shared your post, Objections to the Existence of the Soul, to the UK Apologetics and Evangelism Facebook group, of which I am a member. In that group, there is a very knowledgeable Christian who does not seem to believe in the existence of a soul yet says he is not a strict materialist or physicalist. I’m sending you a discussion he had with Lenny Esposito in which Lenny posted about atheism’s weakness regarding the lack of a soul and he took exception to it (click here).

So whilst I am a dualist, I do not know how to respond to his assertions. If you have time, I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Kind regards,

David

Jacobus’s Response

Thank you for the email, David. When trying to come to a conclusion about the existence of the soul, the Christian must explore the issue from three perspectives, namely, from (1) a theological perspective (what does the Bible say about the soul?), (2) a philosophical perspective (are there good philosophical arguments for/against the soul?), and (3) a scientific perspective (what does science say about the mind?).

Now, your friend seems to address the theological perspective only and does not engage with any philosophical arguments in favour of the soul. He also fails to recognise that most philosophers of mind agree that science (or neuroscience) cannot address the physicalism-dualism debate. Since science studies the physical, it cannot, by its nature, disprove the immaterial. Moreover, both the physicalist and the dualist agree that there is a strong correlation between the mind and the brain. Thus, the fact that Alzheimer’s disease affects the mind in no way supports physicalism; a correlation relationship is not an identity relationship.

It seems, then, that Jocelyn is more concerned about whether Scripture teaches that humans have souls. He thinks that the Bible does not teach or imply that we have souls. How does he arrive at this conclusion? Simply by analysing the various meanings of the Hebrew and Greek words for “soul” and “spirit”. The problem with this approach is that is confuses words with concepts. The same concept may be expressed in various ways with various words. For example, the concept of the Trinity is expressed in the Bible even though the Bible does not use the exact words “the Trinity”. Hence, we are not merely interested in the meaning of the word for “spirit” but we are mainly interested in whether the concept of dualism is explicit or implicit in Scripture.

Now, it seems that the concept that human beings comprise both material and immaterial parts (or are made up of matter/body and spirit/soul) is made clear throughout the Bible:

First, souls do exist because God Himself is a soul or spirit and so too are the angelic beings. Thus, the existence of souls is not impossible according to Scripture.

Second, in 1 Samuel 28, Saul instructs a medium to call the deceased Samuel from Sheol so that Saul could talk to him. Interestingly, the medium does as she is told, and Saul speaks with Samuel’s spirit.

Third, Paul believed that we, as human beings, can exist without our bodies. For example, Paul writes:

“So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight. Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord” (2 Corinthians 5:6-8 ESV).

“…as it is my eager expectation and hope that I will not be at all ashamed, but that with full courage now as always Christ will be honored in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell” (Philippians 1:20-22 ESV).

“I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter.” (2 Corinthians 12:2-4)

Fourth, while on the cross, Jesus said to the thief beside him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). Jesus could not have meant that the thief’s body was going to be in paradise, since a grave is no paradise. Rather, Jesus must have meant that the theif’s soul/spirit will experience joy once his body dies.

Fifth, the disciples believed that spirits exist because they thought that Jesus was a spirit when they saw him walking on water (Matthew 14:26; Mark 6:49).

Sixth, Jesus distinguished between the body and soul and treated them as two different parts of a human: “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell”
(Matthew 10:28).

Finally, Jesus’ human body obviously had a soul/spirit, since it was animated with Jesus’ spirit. Consequently, according to Scripture, a human can comprise both matter/body and soul/spirit.

It is very difficult to align the above passages with monism or physicalism. These passages, I believe, clearly imply the concept of dualism.

Kind regards,

Jacobus Erasmus, Ph.D

Postdoctoral researcher

www.JacobusErasmus.com

https://www.facebook.com/DrJacobusErasmus

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2nJ1x2z

 

/by
Being Good Apologist

Being A Good Apologist Is More Than Knowing The Right Answers

By Evan Minton

1 Peter 3:15 says to “Always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that you have, yet do so with gentleness and respect” and 2 Corinthians 10:5 says “We demolish argument and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ.” These two verses are the primary verses that make Christian Apologetics a precedent for the follower of Christ. We are to give the unbelievers reasons to believe Christianity is true and we are to demolish every argument that tries to show it isn’t. However, being a good apologist is more than just knowing the right answers to peoples’ objections and questions, and knowing how to make a case for Christianity. To be a good apologist, you must know more than “If this person says X, then I’ll respond with Y”. Giving a defense to anyone who asks is not like giving the answer to a mathematical equation.

Being a good apologist means being a good communicator, and that involves utilizing certain skills. Not everyone has these skills, but thankfully, if you know what skills you need, you can train yourself in these areas. Now, what are these skills you need?

The Accordion Tactic
You can learn the evidence for The Minimal Facts Case For Jesus’ Resurrection, or the evidence behind the premises of The Kalam Cosmological Argument, and you may even be able to do a good talk on this at your church. But can you relay these arguments in 5 minutes or less? In evangelism encounters, sometimes that’s all the time we have to talk with this person. Or even we do have more time to talk to them, not everyone wants to listen to your monologue for 45 minutes. If you want it to be a dialogue, you need to be able to compress your presentation of the arguments for God’s existence and the resurrection to 5 minutes or less. This skill comes in handy not just in one on one evangelism, but even in internet conversations. With some people, if a comment becomes way too lengthy, they’ll lose interest and comment ‘TL;DR” which means “Too long, didn’t read”.

This isn’t easy. I’ve struggled with brevity my entire apologetics career, but this is a practice that I keep practicing and practicing on. I do believe I’m getting better. With regards to my 6 favorite arguments, I can expand them like an accordion to do a 45-minute talk, or I can compress them to explain an argument to a friend in the time it takes to listen to a song. Compare my treatment of The Kalam Cosmological Argument, Fine-Tuning Argument, Local Fine-Tuning Argument, etc. in my book Inference To The One True God: Why I Believe In Jesus Instead Of Other Gods with my treatment of them in part 6 and part 7of my blog series on the problem of evil. The former is when my apologetic accordion is expanded. The latter is when my apologetic accordion is contracted. Learn this skill of playing the apologetic accordion and you’ll be able to defend the faith no matter how much or how little time you’re allotted. Oh, and, having a monkey wearing a fez isn’t required. Don’t worry about that.

Learn To Listen
At the National Conference On Christian Apologetics, Dr. Ray Civero gave a talk called “Turning Skeptics Into Seekers”. In this talk, one of his points is that we need to listen to what the other person is saying, and we need to listen not merely to respond to the argument, but to understand the argument. Listen to understand, don’t listen to respond. If you’re not paying attention to what the non-Christian is saying regarding his objections to Christianity, you will most likely (1) Attack a straw man in your response, (2) give the unbeliever the impression that you don’t care what he has to say, (3) Give the unbeliever that you just like to listen to yourself talk, and (4) turn him off to anything you have to say. (5) You will be like two ships passing in the night. In other words, you’ll be talking past each other.

Be like Ray Civero’s character Ike The Investigator. Ike doesn’t listen to anticipate. Ike listens to understand. Ike doesn’t listen to his opponent’s position trying to find some way to tear it apart. Ike listens to understand where the other person is coming from, to understand what the other person is actually saying.

Jesus said, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Luke 6:31). I can’t tell you how often I’ve been frustrated with a non-Christian when I’ve explained something over and over, as clearly and concisely as I possibly could, mustering all of my effort to get them to understand what it was that I was actually saying, just to have them attack a straw man for the umpteenth time in their response to me. For example, there have been conversations where I bent over backwards trying to get the non-Christian to realize that The Minimal Facts Case For Jesus’ Resurrection isn’t question-begging, it doesn’t “cite The Bible to prove The Bible”, but instead treats The New Testament documents like a historian would treat any document claiming to be telling history (e.g A letter written by George Washington, a biography of Abraham Lincoln, Josephus’ writings). Christian and Non-Christian historians alike arrive at the minimal facts by applying the standard historical methodology to the text (e.g the principle of multiple attestation, the principle of embarrassment). It isn’t a circular argument.

Yet, no matter how I strain to get the other person to see the point, they still just don’t get it. If he wants to disagree with my arguments, that’s fine. If he wants to say he doesn’t think the resurrection is the best inference to the minimal facts, that’s fine. I don’t loathe debate, I loathe having to repeat myself and draw a hundred maps with the result of the other person still not understanding the argument. Why don’t they understand the argument? I can only guess that they’re simply skimming my comments. They’re too eager to respond to my comment so they don’t stop and actually try to understand what it is that I’m actually saying.

I think we’ve all been guilty of this at least a few times, Christian and non-Christian alike. However, we need to guard against it. James 1:19 says “Be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry.” If we’re to obey the golden rule and James 1:19, and if we’re to have a fruitful dialogue, then we need to be good listeners.

Have The Patience Of A Saint
There are jobs where having a short fuse is a handicap inherent to the job itself: being a cop, being a lawyer, working in retail, and being a Christian Apologist. Because in all of these, you’re going to come against people who will really try your patience. You need to have a pretty long fuse or else you’ll fail the task you’re trying to do.

If you’re going to be a Christian Apologist, you need to have thick skin, because there will be people who ridicule you, demean you, insult you, and slander you. It can be tempting to respond in kind, but The Bible tells us “Always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that you have, yet do so with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15, emphasis mine). I know of some apologists (won’t name names) who obey the first half of this verse, but not the second. They give a defense for the hope they have alright, but they make total donkeys out of themselves while doing it. If you don’t give a defense with gentleness and respect, you have failed to fully obey 1 Peter 3:15.

2 Timothy 2:24-26 says “The Lord’s servant must not quarrel, but be gentle towards all, able to teach, patient, in gentleness correcting those who oppose him: perhaps God may give them repentance leading to a full knowledge of the truth, and they may recover themselves out of the devil’s snare, having been taken captive by him to his will.”

Conclusion 
These are a few of the most important skills you need to master to be a good Christian Apologist. Simply having the answers is not enough. That would be like saying you can be a police officer if you have a uniform, a badge, and a gun. While those definitely are necessary conditions to being a cop, they are not sufficient conditions. Likewise, being well read in the apologetic literature is a necessary condition to being an apologist, but not a sufficient condition. You need people skills!

Suggested reading:
“The Open Minded Christian: How To Deal Charitably With Fellow Sinners” – by Richard Bushey
“Tactics: A Game Plan For Defending Your Christian Convictions” by Greg Koukl
“Arguing With Friends: Keeping Your Friends And Your Convictions” by Paul Buller

 

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/2AsAA82

/by

Who Is Jesus, According to Other Religions?

,

People trying to discover the truth about God would be wise to take a hard look at Jesus before looking anywhere else. While that may sound like a bold assertion in and of itself, it really isn’t when you consider Jesus is the one religious leader who is most frequently mentioned by religious groups, whether or not they happen to be Christian. Every major religious movement considers Jesus to be an important religious figure. Every movement makes some effort to account for His existence and teaching. This ought to give seekers a reason to pause and consider the life of Jesus seriously.

Judaism
While we recognize Judaism pre-existed (and gave birth to) Christianity, Judaism has also had over two-thousand years to consider and respond to the claims of Christ. Much has been written about Jesus from a Jewish perspective, most interestingly by those early Jews who described Jesus in the centuries immediately following His life. Ancient Jewish believers (as recorded by the Talmud and the Toledot Yeshu) described Jesus in the following way:

READ MORE

/by
% Common Answers Kids God

God Behaving Badly? – Introduction

By Timothy Fox

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

– Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Christians maintain that God is all-good, all-loving, and the ultimate standard of morality. However, many atheists hold the opposite view of God, evidenced by Dawkins’ infamous rant above. They claim that God is a moral monster who committed or commanded many immoral actions in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament.

The purpose of this series, God Behaving Badly? is to respond to these claims. But before examining any specific instances of God’s supposed immoral behavior, we first need to define what we mean by immoral.

Objective vs. Subjective Morality

For an action to be called immoral, it must be contrary to some moral code. So what is this moral code that the atheist is accusing God of breaking? If it is his own personal opinion on how people should act, then who cares what the atheist thinks? It’s tantamount to him saying “I don’t like what God did in the Old Testament.” Well, so what? That’s your opinion.

This is known as subjective morality, meaning that every person, or group of people, decides for him- or herself what is right or wrong. I have my moral code, you have your moral code, and there’s no way of judging between them. But is that really how morality works? No. There are certain actions that are really right or wrong for everyone. For example, it is truly good to love and care for a little child and it is truly evil to harm and abuse her. This applies to all people at all times. And this is what is known as objective morality.

Grand Moral Authority

But where does this moral code come from and why must we follow it? We know that human laws come from a human authority, like a ruler or government. And an objective moral law that binds every human being across all of the time requires a grand moral authority who rules over everyone and everything: God.

God is the ultimate standard of right and wrong. Behaviors that align with God’s nature or commands are good and actions that contradict them are evil. This is how we determine right and wrong. So for an atheist to accuse someone of performing a truly immoral act, he is actually providing evidence for God’s existence.

Conclusion

To complain that God has committed immoral acts is also to admit there is an objective moral law. But God is the best explanation of objective morality. Therefore, calling certain actions truly immoral actually provides evidence for God’s existence.

However, a skeptic may instead argue that God has done things in the Old Testament that contradict his all-loving, morally perfect nature. Then we must examine the actual act or command and see if God had a morally-admissible reason for it. The one cited most often is the destruction of the Canaanites, which will be the subject of my next article.

 

This is an edited version of an article that first appeared on The Mentionables blog.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2AA2dwp

/by
God Balance Mercy Justice

Can God Balance Mercy and Justice?

By Al Serrato

In a recent post, I addressed the issue of whether Christ’s death constituted a sacrifice. For many skeptics, Christ’s death, resurrection, and atonement for our sins constitute a major stumbling block. In response to that post, one challenger commented that he could not understand

“why the death of Jesus was that big a deal. He had 6 hours of agony. A terrible way to go, but how many people have similar experiences? And the atheist supposedly bound for hell will experience this kind of agony continually.”

To understand why this challenge lacks substance, one must take a moment to unpack the assumptions embedded within it. The challenger assumes that the process of physical death – more specifically, the manner, length and painfulness of that process – is what “caused” salvation. Noting, correctly, that many human beings have experienced far greater suffering, the skeptic concludes that this sacrifice is not, as he put it, a “big deal.” His conclusion flows from his premise, lending the challenge an appearance of legitimacy, but his premise is in need of more careful examination. Perhaps he has not taken the time to consider actual Christian beliefs, or perhaps he is simply engaging in the straw man fallacy, in which a person intentionally misstates his opponent’s position in order to more easily “defeat” it. Either way, to a careful thinker, the challenge falls flat.

This conclusion should not really come as a surprise. Countless intellectuals have considered the claims of Christianity and have embraced them as true. Many, such as the writer CS Lewis, became believers after many years of committed atheism. That none of these thinkers would find merit in this rather obvious challenge speaks to the fact that he is simply missing the point. None of these believers – nor for that matter the very first followers of Christ – concluded that Jesus won some kind of perverted contest for the “greatest suffering before being murdered,” somehow entitling him to the prize of being “the Savior.”

No, something much different is at play, something that challenges the limits of our philosophy, and of our intellects, to fully grasp. Jesus took the form of man and, during his life on Earth, he emptied himself of key aspects of his divinity. In that form, he experienced temptation – the kind of temptation that demonstrates the existence of free will; the kind of free will that makes expressions of love real and not the product of coercion or control. He did not need to suffer death at all, certainly not death on a cross. He had the means to escape the trap that was being laid for him. But, as he said, no one took his life; he lay it down for his people. By so doing, he stood before the Father to accept that wrath that justice demanded, for the intentional rebellion in which man was engaged. He had no price to pay for himself; his slate was clean before the Father. And because he too was God, he could absorb that wrath not just for one other man, or for a group of men, but for all who ever lived, or would live – infinite power absorbing for all time the infinite wrath of a perfect being.

The challenger to my post concluded:

“No—I disagree that God has balanced perfect justice and perfect mercy. Justice is getting what you deserve. Mercy is getting LESS than what you deserve. Take your pick. And you imagine that God has an infinite wrath? Wow—the dude needs some therapy!”

But this actually proves my point. The challenger is correct: in human terms, it appears contradictory for one to be perfectly just while being perfectly merciful; indeed, how can God give those in rebellion what they deserve while also giving them what they don’t deserve? (Ironically, this challenge actually speaks to the divine origin of these early Christian beliefs: who could have – who would have – come up with a system like this if it weren’t true when adhering to it only promised persecution?) To answer this challenge, one must move from abstract considerations to more specific, factual ones.

  • What do humans “deserve?” They deserve punishment for their rebellion;
  • What is a just punishment for rebellion? Separation from God;
  • How long should that separation endure? For the life of the beings in question (i.e. an eternity in that place of separation, i.e. hell);
  • How can humans beings be given something less than they deserve? By having someone else pay the price for their rebellion;
  • Who can pay that price? Only a man who himself does not owe the same price.

Yes, Christ pays the price. We don’t deserve what he does for us; it is an act of mercy. Justice is satisfied because punishment has been meted out – directly to those who refuse Christ’s gift and remain in their rebellion; indirectly – through Jesus – for those who accept his gift. Jesus has the power and the willingness to absorb God’s just wrath, and having lived as a man, he also has the standing before God to enter the transaction. We need only accept his gift, at which point he will begin the process of refining us – perfecting us – so that we can rejoin with Him and with the Father.

This solution to man’s predicament, available freely for all, elegantly gives us the means to attain what we do not deserve – mercy – while not sacrificing God’s perfect justice.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2BC2Pzj

/by