Good God Hell

Why Did a “Good” God Create Hell?

By Al Serrato

Many people today accuse God of unfairness.  Since God can foresee the future, they ask, why didn’t He simply never create all those he knows to be destined to spend eternity in Hell?   One skeptic I know put the question like this:

God supposedly knows everything that will happen before you are ever born, so if all your choices are set beforehand, how can they possibly matter? Furthermore, if God knows you will “choose” Hell before he creates you, why does he simply not create you? Personally, I would much prefer nonexistence to eternal torment. Is God deliberately creating people knowing they will end up in Hell? Then I would call him evil. Is he compelled to create people regardless of what he sees in their future? Then he doesn’t have free will, which would certainly be an interesting interpretation, but one I doubt many people share. Is there some other explanation? If so, I can’t think of it.

This challenge has a bit of intuitive appeal.  It seems to put God in a box, as it were, trapped between being “evil” for choosing to create rebellious creatures or lacking free will, by being unable to do otherwise.  Let’s take a closer look at the two horns of this apparent dilemma.

To the Christian, “evil” is the label we give to words, thoughts or actions that deviate from God’s perfect will.  If we were created robots, there would be no evil in the world; we would operate exactly in accordance with God’s desires.  But in creating man, God did something quite different. He gave us “free will,” the capacity to rebel against him in our thoughts, words, and actions. And rebel we did.  God “foresaw” this development, but only in a manner of speaking – a manner focused upon the waywe think.  This is because God is not bound by time. For him, there is no future to “foresee.”  There is only an eternal present.  All times – whether past, present or future – are accessible to him in this eternal present. Thus, at the moment of creation, God was aware that man would rebel, that he was rebelling, and that he had rebelled. He was aware of the acts and the consequences, the motivations, and the ultimate end, of everyone.  Consistent with his nature for perfect fairness, he created a means by which man – though in rebellion and deserving punishment – could nonetheless find reunification with him.  But in implementing this scheme, he did not force this choice upon us. He gives us the means to salvation but remains content in allowing us to choose which path we will follow.

Those who use their free will to turn toward him – more precisely, to accept his free gift of salvation – will find a welcoming father, ready to do the work needed to restore us. Those who use their free will to turn away from God – to reject his gift – will find that this choice too is honored.  Expecting God not to create those in this latter category would have two significant effects: it would show that God’s provision of free will is really a fiction, since only those who choose to do his will are actually created, and two, it would mean that Hell is a place of evil.  But Hell is a place – or perhaps more precisely a condition – which was created by God to serve a purpose. Since God does not create evil – i.e. he does not act against his own nature – then Hell cannot be a place of evil. Like a human prison, it may be inhabited by those bent on doing evil, but the place itself – and the confinement it effectuates – is actually a good, just as separating hardened criminals from society is a net positive for both the evil-doer and the society that is victimized.

Some will be tempted to argue that God should have forced this choice upon us anyway. Isn’t it better to be forced to love God than to spend eternity in Hell? Only, I suppose, if one believes it is better to be a robot than a thinking, self-aware and self-directed being.  There is no middle ground. Either free will is something real – with consequences attendant to the choices we make – or it’s a fiction.  One cannot have it both ways.

To recap: God is not trapped in an either/or dilemma. God is not “evil” for having created, because in the end, he treats his creation fairly, giving each what he or she deserves.  Since he values free will enough to have given it to us, he apparently intends to make that gift real by allowing some to reject him. Likewise, God is not lacking in free will, because he is not “compelled” to create against his will. Since Hell is not a place for eternal torture, but an appropriate destination for all rebellious human beings, God does not violate his own nature – does not engage in “evil” – when he separates himself from some of his creation.

What this challenge brings into focus is not some internal inconsistency in our conception of God. No, what it highlights is just how different our thinking is as compared to God’s. For like the skeptic, many would view the decision to create nothing all – neither good nor bad people – to be a better – a more noble – alternative.  Yet God sees things quite a bit differently, it seems.

In the end, that he views things differently should not really surprise us. Our judgment as to right and wrong, good and evil, has been corrupted by our rebellion. Since we all share this fallen nature,  we should realize that we are not in the best position to render judgment as to the way eternal things “ought to be.” We wouldn’t ask a group of incarcerated rapists for guidance on issues of sexual mores; nor would we consult death row inmates for advice on how best to treat one another. Perhaps, in the same way, God has little need to consult with us to determine what ultimate “fairness” demands.

No, the Creator of the universe may occupy a slightly better position to judge matters eternal. We might be wise to heed him, rather than try to ensnare him in a “logical” trap.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2yXda71

/by
Free Will Critics

Responding To Free Will Critics

By Evan Minton

My article “5 Arguments For The Existence Of Free Will” became very popular. Tim Stratton liked it so much that he featured it as a guest post on his blog FreeThinkingMinistires.com, Martin Glynn specifically asked me to post it to The Society Of Evangelical Arminians’ website, and Jairo Izquierdo published it as a guest post on CrossExamined.org. In the case of the latter, several comments came flooding in as pushback to the things I said in the article. This isn’t surprising given how popular CrossExamined.org is as an apologetics ministry. Instead of responding to the comments specifically and getting into long back-and-forth conversations with people, I thought it would be more edifying if I actually made a response article addressing a few of those rebuttals.

To the readers of this site, I will assume you have already read “5 Arguments For The Existence Of Free Will“, and the following content will assume that background knowledge. If you haven’t read it, go read that first. Moreover, I’ll address these rebuttals according to each specific argument that the rebuttal is aimed towards.

The Argument From True Love 

Rebuttal: You Can’t Choose Who You Fall In Love With.

Andy Ryan wrote “You can talk about ‘love freely given’ but does anyone believe they have a choice over who they love? It’s pretty much something that just happens. Many people wish they could stop loving someone they love or regain a love they’ve lost. But in vain. So I don’t get how you connect love to free will.” 

The problem with this response is that it’s equivocating “love” with “infatuation”. I’ve pointed out in other blog posts that love is not an emotion. It’s not a feeling. Love is an action or series of actions aimed at the wellbeing of the one being loved. You can choose who you love if love is an action or series of actions rather than a feeling. Obviously, you can’t control how you feel. If that were the case, I’d never feel worried, angry, or sad a single day in my entire life. When someone I love dies, I’d choose to just be giddy rather than heartbroken. While you can’t control how you feel, you can control how you act.

The idea that love is action and not an emotion is grounded in scripture. Let’s turn to one of the most famous passages on love; 1 Corinthians 13.

“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.” – 1 Corinthians 13:4-8

This passage is a description of not just love, but perfect love. Go up and read the passage again very carefully. I want you to notice something. There isn’t much talk of warm, fuzzy feelings in this passage.

Kindness is not a feeling. Kindness is an action. If I buy you a house, it doesn’t matter how I feel about you. My action was a kindness towards you. My choice to buy you a house was just that: a choice. You can have very bitter feelings towards someone and will yourself to do something nice for them. Kindness does not have to be associated with feelings.

What about patience? Well, that might seem like an emotion, but in reality, patience itself is an action. I might be irritated that someone is taking a long time in doing something they said they were going to do for me, but I can choose to not to express my agitation. I can conceal it, and say “Take your time. There’s no hurry.”. An impatient person would say “What is taking you so long? Get on with it already!” I may be experiencing a feeling of impatience, but I can still express the action of patience. A friend and I may both be waiting on another friend to pick us up to take us to dinner, and I may say “What is taking him so long? He should have been here 20 minutes ago! This is going to screw up my whole schedule.” while my friend next to me may be experiencing the same emotion but keeps his impatient emotion to himself. So, although we’re both feeling the same emotion, I choose to express impatience while he chooses to express patience. When my future wife takes a long time in the bathroom getting ready, I may be irritated at that, but what will I express? Patience or impatience? The choice is up to me.

“It keeps no record of wrongs”. This is also a choice. You may incidentally remember wrongs done to you, but the one who loves will try to forget them. The one who loves will not purposefully keep a list so that he can keep throwing the misdeeds up in the misdeed doer’s face. I have been wronged by some of the people in my life, and while I can remember that I was wrong, I can’t remember very many of the specific wrongs (except when something triggers a memory). I’m trying not to keep a record.

“It does not dishonor others”. Is dishonoring others a feeling? Surely not.

“It does not boast” — regardless of what your emotional state is, you can choose not to brag about things.

“It is not self-seeking” — another action that’s not a feeling. You can choose to seek the good of others instead of your own good.

The only things resembling emotions in this passage would be the parts that say “It is not easily angered” and “rejoices in the truth”. Now, these are emotions. Does this contradict everything I’ve just said? I don’t think so. I don’t think love itself is an emotion, but that doesn’t mean it’s completely isolated from emotions. Love can invoke emotions. I’ve heard testimonies of Christians who have done kind things for their enemies. While initially gritting their teeth in distaste, over time, their continued choice to express love softened their hearts towards their enemies and they actually had emotional feelings towards them. One of my Bible teachers spoke of a man he worked for years ago who made his life Hell. The employer developed cancer and my Bible teacher reluctantly prayed for him over a long period of time. The more he prayed for his boss, the less hard feelings he had towards him. When he learned of his employer’s passing, he said that it actually broke his heart and he burst into tears. I have had similar experiences. Doing love can actually transform your feelings towards someone. This is why I think it’s entirely possible to learn to “love the one you’re with”. This would also explain why so many arranged marriages actually worked out in times past.[1]

In light of this, Jesus’ command in Matthew 5 to love our enemies makes a lot more sense. Jesus isn’t commanding us to have warm and fuzzy feelings towards the people who treat us horribly. Rather, he’s telling us to show them kindness, patience, to avoid dishonoring them, to not boast if you one up them, to seek their well-being. Most of Jesus’ examples of loving your enemies are *drum roll* actions: “ If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.”(verses 39-42).

In conclusion: I can’t control who I become infatuated with, but I can control which woman I show love to. I don’t have to have warm and fuzzy feelings towards someone to love them.

The Argument From Moral Accountability 

Rebuttal: Your Argument doesn’t follow because you haven’t demonstrated that The Bible is true.

In one of KR’s comments, he said: “Your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premises since you haven’t established that what the Bible teaches is actually true. Your 2nd argument suffers from the same problem.” 

My article was primarily aimed at Calvinists, who believe The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant, and ergo true. So, I admit that I presupposed that The Bible was true in most of the arguments I used in my blog post. I wasn’t concerned with refuting atheistic determinists, but determinists who were Christians. The only argument in the blog post that would apply to both Christian and non-Christian determinists was The FreeThinking Argument. I’ve argued with KR in the comment sections of other blog posts on Cross Examined’s website, so I know that he isn’t a Christian. It isn’t surprising that he wouldn’t find the argument from moral accountability compelling since it does presuppose that The Bible is true.

The Appearance Of Free Will Problem

Rebuttal: I Feel Determined?

In the same comment, KR wrote “As for the appearance of free will, it may be the case that we have different experiences. While I certainly feel that I have a self and that this self-performs various actions and has various thoughts, it feels to me that these actions and thoughts are always a reaction to something that happened before. I don’t feel that I decide to perform an action or have a thought ‘ex nihilo'”.

I don’t like responding to arguments when I’m not 100% sure I understand. But I studied this response carefully and I think I know what he’s saying here. I suspect that KR may be misrepresenting what libertarian free will is when he says “I don’t feel that I decide to perform an action or have a thought ex nihilo.” It is a common misconception that libertarian free will asserts that our choices are “random” or “spontaneous”, like the appearance of a particle in the quantum vacuum. No one knows when and where one is going to pop up. I don’t think my choices originate “ex nihilo” either, at least if KR is using that term the way I think he’s using it. Certainly, there are previously existing factors inside and outside of myself that have an influence on my choices, but does this mean that they determine my choices? I would say no. My feeling of hunger may influence me to get up and grab something to eat, but the hunger doesn’t determine me to eat. My urge for sex may influence my decision to have intercourse with someone, but that doesn’t mean I couldn’t have refrained from having sex with that person. Libertarian Free Will (LFW) neither asserts that our choices have no good reasons or motivations behind them. I may choose to eat because I’m hungry or I may choose to refrain from eating because I’m too busy working on a blog post, or maybe I’m in the middle of a fast, or maybe I’m dieting to lose weight. LFW doesn’t assert that our choices are without purpose, just that it laid within our power to choose the opposite of what we actually chose.

Does KR have an accurate understanding of LFW? If not, that might explain why he feels he doesn’t have it. If he thinks of free will as spontaneous actions devoid of any influences or motivations, then it’s no wonder why he doesn’t think he has it. I don’t believe I have that kind of free will either!

The Free Thinking Argument

Rebuttal 1: Computers Do Calculations And They Don’t Have Free Will.

Andy Ryan wrote “You’ve not shown or demonstrated this. Why does the latter follow from the former?” Premise 3 of The Free Thinking Argument states that if libertarian free will does not exist, the rationality and knowledge does not exist. He says I haven’t demonstrated that this premise is true. Why does he think that?

The argument I put forth was a quote from Tim Stratton. Stratton said “Premise (3) is equivalent with ‘if all things are causally determined, then that includes all thoughts and beliefs.’ If our thoughts and beliefs are forced upon us, and we could not have chosen better beliefs, then we are simply left assuming that our determined beliefs are good (let alone true). Therefore, we could never rationally affirm that our beliefs are the inference to the best explanation – we can only assume it. Here is the big problem for the atheistic naturalist: it logically follows that if naturalism is true, then atheists — or anyone else for that matter — cannot possess knowledge. Knowledge is defined as ‘justified true belief.’ One can happen to have true beliefs; however, if they do not possess warrant or justification for a specific belief, their belief does not qualify as a knowledge claim. If one cannot freely infer the best explanation, then one has no justification that their belief really is the best explanation. Without justification, knowledge goes down the drain. All we are left with is question-begging assumptions.”[2]

Andy responded “Why does one have to ‘freely’ infer it? Do computers require free will to make accurate calculations? Evidently not – they seem to get by just fine! Imagine giving two computers sentience. They argue between them over a particular course of action and which option is the best. What’s wrong with describing what they have as ‘knowledge’?”

To hark back to Stratton’s explanation: knowledge is “justified true belief”. In order to have a belief that is both true and justified, one must be able to think freely. In order to think freely, one must have free will. You can’t be a free thinker without free will. In the case of computers, yes, they do mathematical calculations and they always come up with the right answer to the equation, but that’s because there were people who causally determined the computer to have an infallible calculator inside of it. The programmer just as well could have programmed the computer to come up with wrong answers, and the computer wouldn’t know the difference. Or perhaps someone hacked into the computer and infected it with a virus that causally determines it to come up with calculations. If human beings are causally determined, then how do you know that the beliefs you hold to aren’t irrational? How could you keep yourself from committing fallacies? How could you know whether or not the beliefs you were determined to hold are true? They could be true, they could have good reasons for them, but you wouldn’t be able to rationally weigh alternatives. If person 1 is causally determined to believe truth A, if person 1 was causally determined to believe lie B, he was determined to believe B.

Just as a computer will come up with the truth or a lie depending on how it’s wired, so we will come to true or false beliefs depending on how we’re wired. Can it really be said that someone possesses knowledge (i.e justified true belief) when the conclusions they came to were a mere matter of the molecules and chemistry in their brain + their environment? If the atoms in their brains bumped around differently, or if they had lived different lives in different circumstances and environments, their beliefs very well could have been different. What someone believes, on naturalism, depends on happenstance. If what someone believes depends on happenstance, how can that belief be said to be justified? It could, by happenstance, be a true belief, but it would not be a justified true belief. You would just happen to hold to the correct viewpoint.

The same problem affects theological determinism. If God causally determines everything we think, say, and do, then if we believe the correct theological doctrines or not just depends on whatever God decreed we would believe.

William Lane Craig said it well: “There is a sort of dizzying, self-defeating character to determinism. For if one comes to believe that determinism is true, one has to believe that the reason he has come to believe it is simply that he was determined to do so. One has not in fact been able to weigh the arguments pro and con and freely make up one’s mind on that basis. The difference between the person who weighs the arguments for determinism and rejects them and the person who weighs them and accepts them is wholly that one was determined by causal factors outside himself to believe and the other not to believe. When you come to realize that your decision to believe in determinism was itself determined and that even your present realization of that fact right now is likewise determined, a sort of vertigo sets in, for everything that you think, even this very thought itself, is outside your control. Determinism could be true; but it is very hard to see how it could ever be rationally affirmed since its affirmation undermines the rationality of its affirmation.”[3]

Rebuttal 2: What Is A Soul And How Does It Allow For Free Will but Physicalism Doesn’t? 

In that same comment, Andy Ryan said “What exactly is a soul and by what exact mechanism does it make libertarian free will possible where it is otherwise impossible? If one person has a soul and another person doesn’t, how does the soul lead to better or more informed decisions in the first person? If their brains are otherwise working exactly the same, I don’t see the difference.”

Andy is responding to the second premise of The Free Thinking Argument which states that if the soul does not exist, then no one has a libertarian free will. First, souls are immaterial entities that animate the physical bodies of humans and higher animals. It controls the brain and the brain controls the body. When a person dies, the soul leaves the body, leaving it lifeless. A soul isn’t something you have, it’s something you are. A body is what you have.

If people are merely physical organisms, then that means all of our thoughts, feelings, and actions are causally determined by brain chemistry, firing neurons, external environmental conditions and so on. How can free will exist if a man is nothing more than a collection of physical parts? Does a computer have free will? Does an amoeba have free will? Do thunderclouds have free will? No. All of the above react to physical cause and effect because they are purely physical things. I just took a swig of diet coke after typing that last sentence. If humans are purely physical creatures, then I don’t see how we can control what we do any more than my diet coke can control whether or not it fizzes.

Many atheists, like Francis Crick who I quoted in the article, are determinists precisely because they are physicalists. It’s their physicalism that drives them to the conclusion that we are merely organisms reacting to stimuli.  The assertion of premise 2 is that if the soul doesn’t exist, then free will doesn’t exist. I think I’ve done a pretty good job explaining that we have good reason to believe this is true. Now, how does the soul solve the problem? I’m not entirely sure what it is about a soul that gives it the ability to choose between alternatives, but I do know that it makes human beings more than mere physical objects. If I am a soul with a body, then there’s an aspect of me that transcends the natural realm, and that therefore entails that I am not necessarily subject to do whatever my environment and internal brain activity make me do. I have a mind, not just a brain. And while the brain can affect/influence the mind (e.g mental illnesses like schizophrenia), and the reverse is also true (e.g studies have shown that positive thoughts and negative thoughts can shape your brain), it is not the case that my brain makes me do anything.

Conclusion 
I don’t think any of the people in the comment section successfully refuted any of the arguments I put forth in libertarian free will.

By the way, there was a comment left by a person named John B Moore, but I didn’t address it because he didn’t get any rebuttals. All he did was essentially say “Your arguments are no good. You’re wrong”. Not a quote, but that’s the essence of his comment. He didn’t say which of the premises of which of the arguments were not true, nor did he tackle my arguments for the truth of the premises.

Notes

[1] I ‘m not advocating for arranged marriages. I’m just saying that maybe a reason so many of them actually turned out well was that the people realized “This is who I’m going to be stuck with for the rest of my life. I should make every effort to show love to him or her”.

[2] Tim Stratton, “The FreeThinking Argument In A Nutshell”, November 30th 2015, http://freethinkingministries.com/the-freethinking-argument-in-a-nutshell/

[3] William Lane Craig, from the article “Q&A: Molinism VS. Calvinism: Troubled By Calvinists”, – http://www.reasonablefaith.org/molinism-vs-calvinism 

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2ku9IhP

/by
Powerful Evidence Christianity

What is the Most Powerful Evidence for the Christian Faith?

,

For the past three years I have been helping my father update his classic book Evidence that Demands a Verdict. There is no doubt that the evidence for Christianity has grown substantially since the book first released in 1972.

Since I have been working on this book people have been increasingly asking me, “What do you think is the most powerful evidence for the Christian faith?” While I do think the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, the textual evidence for the reliability of the Bible, and the scientific evidence for a designer are persuasive, these are not the most powerful evidences.

So, what is it? At the beginning of Evidence, my father and are clear that we believe there is a more powerful apologetic—a clear, simple presentation of the claims of Christ and who he is, in the power of the Holy Spirit. Here is how my father explains it in the introduction:

For my (Josh’s) philosophical apologetics course at Talbot Theological Seminary, everyone had to write a paper on “The Best Defense of Christianity.” I found myself constantly putting it off and avoiding writing it, not because I didn’t have the material but because I felt I was at odds with what the professor was expecting (an expectation based on the ream of my lecture notes from his class).

Finally, I decided to voice my convictions. I began my paper with the sentence, “Some people say the best offense is a good defense, but I say to you that the best defense is a good offense.” I proceeded by explaining that I felt the best defense of Christianity is a “clear, simple presentation of the claims of Christ and who he is, in the power of the Holy Spirit.”

Then I wrote out the “Four Spiritual Laws” and recorded my testimony of how, on December 19, 1959, at 8:30 p.m., during my second year at the university, I placed my trust in Christ as Savior and Lord. I concluded the paper with a presentation of the evidence for the resurrection.

The professor must have agreed with my approach that the best defense of Christianity is a clear and compelling presentation of the gospel, for he gave me an A.

William Tyndale was right in saying that “a ploughboy with the Bible would know more of God that the most learned ecclesiastic who ignored it.” In other words, an Arkansas farm boy sharing the gospel can be more effective in the long run than a Harvard scholar with his intellectual arguments.

Although it may surprise some people, since my father is known for presenting “evidences” for the faith, he has always lived by this principle. I have seen him present the evidence for Christianity on countless occasions, but his goal is always to bring it back to the gospel. After all, it is the gospel that has the power to set people free.

We hope you enjoy the updated Evidence. But just remember: It’s not the evidence alonethat changes lives. Apologetics is one critical tool God can use to draw people to Him. We are to be ready with an answer for our faith (see 1 Peter 3:15). But when it is all said and done, the most powerful apologetic is a clear and compelling presentation of the gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit.

 

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.

/by
Hypocrisy Christianity Atheism

What Hypocrisy Teaches Us

,

By Al Serrato

Christians are all hypocrites!

How often do apologists for the faith encounter that objection? Yes, there are hypocrites in the church, at least in the sense that none of us can actually and fully live up to what the Christian faith commands.  But more significantly, hypocrisy isn’t about simply failing to live up to the rules; it’s about being duplicitous about it. It’s about celebrating the things we shouldn’t do, about not properly regretting the sins that we commit.  This prevalence of hypocrisy – and the recognition that it is wrong – are actually more consistent with the existence of God than with atheism.

Hypocrisy is not a modern phenomenon. Jesus himself condemned it repeatedly in addressing the religious leaders of his day. They sought power and influence by using their elevated status to suppress and burden people. I would venture to say that every culture in the world, and throughout all periods of time, has recognized, and reviled, hypocrites.  The root of the word provides some explanation: the Greek word from which it derives meant a “stage actor,” a person who is not what he appears to be.  In modern usage it carries, of course, a very negative connotation: “a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs” or “a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.”

So, hypocrisy is not simply failing to live up to a set of expectations; that is inherent in human nature. No, hypocrisy involves something more calculated: a desire to exploit this feigned persona in order to accomplish some other purpose. It is, at its core, deception.

If secular humanism is true, and man is simply an accidental product of evolution, then it stands to reason that those traits which provide the most survival potential would be favored. The basis of hypocrisy is not difficult to understand. Like any form of deception, it confers an advantage on the one who employs it. By promoting virtue, but secretly not bound by it, the hypocrite can – at least in the short run – profit by his behavior. Virtue, of course, involves self-discipline and often self-denial. It is the process of saying no to what I want at present because I recognize that simply wanting it is not a sufficient reason, that competing interests are at stake that must be considered.  But why must they be considered? If the man is the measure of all things, and I am a man, why can I not decide that what is in my immediate best interest is what I should pursue?  Over time, shouldn’t it be the case that we would simply recognize that we all act in our own self-interest? There is, therefore, nothing to revile about hypocrisy, just as we don’t condemn the lion for devouring its prey. It is simply in the “nature” of things.

But virtue persists, as does the recognition that it is a better way – a more noble way – in which to live.  Virtue manifests itself in acts of self-sacrifice, altruism, and concern for others.  While these things tend to benefit a society, they confer little, if any, immediate reward to the one who does them. This, of course, is what makes such conduct virtuous, and worthy of our admiration and respect.  They are difficult to do.

Over time, then, the survival advantage hypocrisy provides should make hypocrisy a staple in society. And since it confers an advantage, it would be valued… and accepted as something that everyone does.  But that is not how we view it. Deep down, we know that such behavior is wrong and worthy of condemnation.  It is wrong because it is inconsistent with truth and honesty, and the way things “ought” to be. And if we are impacted by a hypocrite, we feel it viscerally. It makes us angry.

To borrow from CS Lewis, when we consider hypocrisy, it is hard not to see that it appears to be a law of behavior.  It is not a descriptive law, as in the law of gravity, which describes how a rock will fall if released from a height. It is instead a moral law – a law that says we should not act that way, that acting that way is “wrong” on a very basic level.

But natural selection cannot explain moral laws.  It may explain the evolution of preferences and opinions, perhaps, but not laws that all cultures and all people seem to intuitively recognize.  But if there is a God, by contrast, it begins to make sense. Having left his law written into the fabric of our minds, we should expect to have some sense of right and wrong.  Because this eternal God grounds truth in a transcendental and unchanging way, it makes sense too that this love of virtue is itself timeless and without boundary.

So, the next time you encounter the challenge, it might be worth reminding the skeptic where the hypocrisy challenge actually leads.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2wwunD6

/by

Yes, We Can Make the Case for Christianity with Music

,

At the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, we often talk about the importance of worldview. Each of us, as Christians, ought to allow our Christian beliefs to shape the way we think about every aspect of life, including the way we consider notions of beauty and artistic expression. That’s why I was delighted to hear about a new concept album from Aryn Michelle, a Christian pop and alternative rock artist. Aryn just released a series of songs (in a collection called The Realist Thing) inspired by William Lane Craig’s book, Reasonable Faith. That’s right, an apologetics album of sorts, walking through “several philosophical arguments for the existence of God and the primary evidences for Jesus Christ as his son.” Sounds interesting, right? Aryn agreed to let me interview her about this groundbreaking effort:

J. Warner:
Aryn, I will confess that I was not familiar with your work prior to this collection of songs. I was incredibly impressed with the creativity and quality of the effort, can you tell us something about your musical journey?

Aryn:
I began writing songs when I was fifteen years old. Initially I had hoped that God would use me as a “light in the darkness” in that I would be a believer writing and working in the secular music industry while always maintaining artistry from a Christian perspective. I pursued this goal for almost ten years (and two albums) before I had the revelation that perhaps working within the secular music industry was how I wanted God to use me, but was not necessarily how God had gifted and equipped me. It took me that long to realize that I needed to approach God and ask him how HE wanted to use my life and the giftedness he had given me. I could see that God had brought me up in a background of church music (I’m the daughter of a music minister), and he has given me a heart for the church and for encouraging the people of God. Even when I was not making “Christian” music, followers of Jesus tended to be the ones who responded to my music. About 5 years ago I turned my attention to write explicitly faith-based music in order to encourage believers, dig deep into God’s truth and follow in obedience in using my gifts for God’s calling.

J. Warner:
In your video you mention being in a place in your life as a Christian where you had many questions. Can you tell us a little bit about that and how Christian apologetics literature helped you to answer some of those questions?

Aryn:
Several years ago I approached one of our pastors and asked to meet with him to talk about some struggles I was having. I told him that while I felt confident in my heart about my belief in Jesus, I felt like my head had not caught up with where my heart was. I felt like I had been neglecting the life of the mind in regards to my faith. I didn’t often have intellectual conversations with other believers about difficult questions where philosophy and theology converged. I was frustrated that it felt like no one around me was expressing an interest to seek out the answer to hard questions. He gave me the wise counsel that if I had a thirst for knowledge then I needed to ask God to reveal to me answers and also to seek out that knowledge. To read books, to dig deeper, to go out searching. He suggested a few books to start with and from that point I kept reading and eventually decided to tackle Dr. Craig’s book Reasonable Faith. This book was very helpful on my journey into a deeper life of the mind because it comprehensively covered a good deal of what I was hoping to learn. I want to clearly state that I believe the testimony of the Holy Spirit is the greatest witness one can give, but I was thankful to be able to also articulate philosophical arguments for the existence of God and evidences for Jesus Christ as God’s son after reading that book in particular

J. Warner:
It’s amazing to me that you actually wrote songs about the evidence for theism and Christianity. Can you tell our readers about the evidences that inspired you to write each song?

Aryn:
The album features a prelude and postlude (both entitled “Honesty”) that give the listener my personal perspective and state of mind as I began and concluded this project. Beyond those two songs each one of the songs aligns with a different argument featured in Dr. Craig’s book. “The Realest Things” discusses the ontological argument for the existence of God, summarized in the line “if something could be greater than God, it would be God.” The next song, “The Question,” discusses the cosmological argument when it asks the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” The teleological argument is featured in the song “Order,” where I give examples of intelligent design and fine-tuning in lines such as, “there’s a constant in the pull of gravity, a balance of the forces strong and weak.” Following that is the moral argument for the existence of God in the song “Good” which says, “If there is good, don’t you think there is God?” After that song I transition into two songs dealing with evidences for Jesus Christ as God’s son. The first of those songs, “Miracle Man” explores the miracles and eyewitness accounts of the works of Jesus. The next songs entitled, “The Story of Redemption” explores the self-understanding and resurrection accounts of Jesus. It was obviously a great challenge to condense such rich material into one song a piece for each argument, but my hope is that I’ve tried to grasp a key component of each argument in a memorable way.

J. Warner:
This is such an interesting project in that it has the ability to reach an audience that standard apologetics blogs, book and videos can’t reach. What is your hope for the concept album?

Aryn:
My primary hope for this album is that it can be an equipping tool and encouragement for believers. I wanted to give people a song in their hearts to go along with the deep thoughts in their heads. My hope is that when people are striving to call these arguments to mind that they can use the songs to help them remember and express what these arguments are about. Music is a powerful tool for engaging memory and emotions. I also hope that more artists will strive to create a marriage of creative expression and reason. Sometimes we may be tempted to think that creativity and rationality are mutually exclusive or working against each other, but I know that God has created us with a heart AND a mind to be engaged for service to him.

J. Warner:
This last question cheats a bit and includes a few related questions: Will you be singing these songs in live concert settings, ( and is it difficult to find venues that are open to such an interesting concept)? How can our readers learn more about you and what’s next, now that you’ve tackled Christian apologetics?

Aryn:
I primarily perform these songs in house concerts. For this project in particular I find private house concerts to be the best venues to share the music because it allows me an intimate setting to talk and really communicate the motivation behind the album and also the individual concepts within each song. I have also attended a few apologetics gatherings for students and been able to share the songs in that setting. I also hope to be able to take the music to churches or bible studies who may have an apologetics emphasis. I think the main point is having an environment where discussion and thoughtfulness can thrive. If people would like to stay in touch with me they can find me at my website: www.arynmichelle.com, or on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arynmichelleband.

Aryn’s new album is more than a great idea, it’s a great collection of songs and an excellent example of how a Christian worldview can shape every aspect of someone’s life. Aryn has employed more than God’s gifting to create this project; she’s allowed her Christian worldview to shape and inform the words in every song. The result is excellence in both word and melody. I cannot recommend it more.

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, Christian Case Maker, Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity, Cold-Case Christianity for Kids, God’s Crime Scene, God’s Crime Scene for Kids, and Forensic Faith.

Comment or Subscribe to J. Warner’s Daily Email

/by
Major Reasons People Atheism

4 Major Reasons Why People Become Atheists

By Brian Chilton

The psalmist David wrote, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There’s no God.’ They are corrupt; they do vile deeds. There is no one who does good” (Psalm 14:1, CSB). The psalmist claims that it is irrational for one to deny God’s existence whether it be by atheism or by alternative worldviews. Atheism has become popular in recent years. But, the pressing question is, why? Normally, people become atheists for four major reasons. I was influenced by some of these reasons to become a theist-leaning-agnostic for a period of time. While the atheist will claim to be a “free-thinker,” he or she is often imprisoned by emotionalism rather than reason.

  1. The person desires moral independence. Often the person who becomes an atheist or agnostic wishes to make one’s decisions without anyone telling them otherwise, including God. The person metaphorically wants one’s cake and to eat it, too. The person desires moral independence. One wants to have as much sex, take as many drugs, drink as much alcohol, make as much money (even if it hurts another), without any need for guilt. If there is no God, then the person is free to choose their own morals. By claiming that morality is up to the person, the person claims absolute independence.

Unfortunately for the skeptic, humans are built with a moral code within them. The moral law is transcendent. People realize it is wrong to hurt others unnecessarily. Ironically, the skeptic’s worldview collapses the moment he or she begins to speak about social justice. Social justice means nothing if there is no transcendent morality. Transcendent morality cannot exist if there is no transcendent reality known as God.

  1. The person holds emotive reasoning. That is to say, the skeptic bases one’s decisions on emotions rather than reason and logic. When God does not rescue them from a bad choice, the skeptic becomes angry with God and leaves the faith (if he or she was in an organized religion) or refuses to come to faith (if one was not part of an organized religion). Emotive thinking is especially found in the claim that a good, loving God cannot coexist with a created world full of evil (e.g., the claims of Neil deGrasse Tyson). The skeptic may have been hurt by Christians in church and desired to get back at them by becoming an atheist. The choice is based on emotion rather than reasoning.

The trouble with this mindset is that it does not always consider all the facts. As I have entered doctoral studies, I have read authors who eschew a person “flaming” others. Flaming is the act of blowing up emotionally and irrationally bombarding another without considering all the facts in the discussion, an act that has only increased in recent years. Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, and many others have answered that a good, powerful, and loving God can coexist with a creation that is evil so long as such a God has good reasons for allowing it.

  1. The person desires global unity. That is, the person becomes an atheist, or at least agnostic because one does not want to tell a person of another faith that he or she is wrong. Some skeptics think that they can solve the world’s problems by holding that no religion is true, except their religion of atheism. The skeptic holds that their skepticism will unite people together globally rather than causing a divide. I am not a combative person. As such, this reason led me into agnosticism, at least to the idea that all religions could be true. People who hold this notion desire the love of people rather than the love of God.

Unfortunately, global unity is impossible as it pertains to religious views because all world religions and worldviews hold major differences. In addition, many have the notion that differences in religion cannot be discussed peacefully. However, if Christianity is true, then discussing these issues rise dramatically in importance. Unity should be sought by all believers, but it should not come by sacrificing truth. In reality, all worldviews hold major differences. Each worldview should be tested. It was my investigation and devotion to truth that God used to bring me back to faith. I then understood that Christianity holds good reasons for its authenticity.

  1. The person desires intellectual neutrality. As mentioned earlier, some do not test their beliefs. When the person’s beliefs are challenged, they are left without answers and hold that their previous worldview must not be true. This is the reason why many have left the church. Again, I had the same problem in the early 2000s. My faith was challenged by the Jesus Seminar. I had no way to answer their claims, thereby leaving me defenseless. None of my mentors could provide an answer to their claims. Thus, I naturally assumed that Christianity was false or at least deeply flawed.

A simple investigation using The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel and The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell launched me into the realm of Christian apologetics. I realized that Christianity does hold merit.

These are the four major reasons that individuals become atheists. Nearly all the reasons that people become skeptics are found in these four. Thankfully, answers are found in Jesus of Nazareth.

Video: William Lane Craig gives more reasons as to why people become atheists.

Check out Wintery Knight’s take on this issue and on the impact of these reasons upon former Christian, now an atheist, Dan Barker at http://bit.ly/2vqAnii

 

Brian 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 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 14 years and serves as the pastor of Huntsville Baptist Church in Yadkinville, North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2xI7Ftu

/by
Defining Terms Debate

The Importance of Defining Terms

By Luke Nix

Introduction

A few years ago I listened to the podcast “The Word Nerds“. This podcast helped me gain an appreciation for the power of the English language. In my conversations with people, I have noticed the power of the words themselves. Using the wrong word can cause needless arguments; using a less specific word can cause confusion, and many other effects (I just checked Dictionary.com to make sure I used the right one there) come from using the wrong word.

In righting using the wrong word can cause the affect of people thanking your just dumb. How many times did you have to reread that last sentence before you figured out what I was trying to say? This is probably just more of a lazy-spelling issue, but I had to put it out their.

Defining terms is extremely important in conversations. In normal language, certain words have an accepted definition that is assumed based on the context. If these words did not exist, then you wouldn’t be able to read this post and understand it. However, many words have slightly different meanings to different people. Let’s take the word “period”. I can think of three different definitions right off the top of my head. Most of us can figure that one out pretty quickly.

Words in Debates

Now, let’s take the word “science”. How many definitions for this are you aware of? I pick this one because I was at a debate between William Dembski and Michael Ruse in 2009. The topic was “Is Intelligent Design Science?” I was quite perturbed to see that they were each defining “Intelligent Design” the same, but they were not defining “Science” the same. In order for such a debate to have been fruitful, all the terms in the question up for debate needed to be agreed upon. For example, using his own definition of “science”, Michael Ruse made a compelling case that could not be refuted- as long as William Dembski accepted Ruse’s definition; however, since Dembski did not accept Ruse’s definition, and instead used his own then Ruse’s position could easily be undermined. The same happend when Dembski used his definition of “science” and Ruse refuted him.

Let us examine a more recent debate: William Lane Craig vs. Sam Harris. One of the words that was not clearly defined and accepted by both participants was “objective”. Sam Harris clarified that he was only arguing for a “universal” morality (one that only exists as long as conscious minds exist- he’s referring to humans), while Craig was arguing for morality that exists regardless of whether or not conscious minds exist- he’s also referring to humans. The fact that they were each using different definitions of “objective” caused much confusion for those who did not pick up on the distinction or its significance for the debate (even though Craig pointed out both in his first rebuttal).

Since the purpose of debates is to convince based upon agreed upon information, neither debate accomplish what they had the potential to accomplish. The definitions of “science” (in the first example) and “objective” in the second needed to be debated and agreed upon before any questions containing the words could be debated.

This is quite important when one is discussing religious, political, and other worldview ideas with someone who is opposed. Words that some people take to be universally defined across all wordviews are in for a huge surprise. Many words are not. “God” means one thing to the Christian and means another to the Buddhist or Muslim (Craig mentioned this also in his debate with Harris, but the point was ignored). “Empirical” means one thing to the scientist and means another to the historian.

The Power of Words

Speech is one of the communication methods that God has endowed strictly upon the human race. Speech is performed through many languages which all have numerous words (English alone claims nearly one million words). The power of speech lies in its ability to portray the unseen and the unmeasurable, along with the seen and measurable. It is used to communicate our thoughts, visions, and emotions to other humans. Each word corresponds to something and everything has a corresponding word (for the most part). However, the relationship of words to “things” is not one-to-one. One word may have several definitions (take the word “set” in English; according to Dictionary.com it has 119 definitions), and one definition may correspond to several words (synonyms).

However, the real power of words comes not in just the basic definitions, but in:

  1. The contexts that they alone are used- such as “annihilate” vs “demolish”, synonyms of one another, but not usually used interchangeably. “Demolish” tends to refer to the destruction of a building, and “annihilation” tends to refer to the destruction of a foe or enemy (in philosophy and theology it has an even stronger implication of the cessation of existence).
  2. The level of emotion– “dislike” vs “hate”, synonyms of one another, but “hate” is stronger than “dislike”3. The precision of the description- “break” vs “shatter”, synonyms of one another, but “shatter” paints a more accurate picture of how an object disassembled than “break”
  3. The level of power– “mean” vs “ruthless”, synonyms of one another, but “ruthless” is stronger than “mean”
  4. Intentionality– “push” vs “shove”, synonyms of one another, but “shove” indicates a mischievous “push”6. Size– “hill” vs “mountain”, synonyms, but mountains are larger than hills and on, and on…

Precision of Communication

When precisely defined words are cleverly combined into phrases, sentences, and paragraphs, they can communicate something so vividly, that reader or listener will have a precise understanding in their mind of the concept that was in the mind of the communicator.

Speech has been given to humans to communicate with each other. Different studies have been conducted that have concluded that talking with someone about thoughts in the mind help that person emotionally- which can lead to a more healthy and productive life. With the words of our language, we can precisely describe to people what is on our minds, and they can understand it. The larger vocabulary one utilizes, the more precisely they can describe their inner-most feelings.

There are many books on communication, and how intimately it is related to one’s relationships with friends, family, co-workers, etc. Precise and honest communication allows for fewer “unknowns” between the speaker and the listener. As the level of “unknowns” decreases, the personal connection between the two becomes stronger. Strong communication leads to strong and trusting relationships.

More Words

Many of you already are aware that many times a word may not exist in your vocabulary (or even in the language) that describes precisely what you want to communicate. We are all aware of adjectives and adverbs- those little words that describe (or add precision) other words. As the words mentioned above, adjectives and adverbs have many levels and nuances that will assist us in our description of a specific word (and thus, our thought).

Of course, overuse of these can be really, really, really, really bad and do more to confuse the listener (or reader). That last sentence is almost painful to hear (or read). As you have already figured out, “devastating” could easily replace “really, really, really, really, bad”. Depending on my intended meaning of “bad” I could also have used “frustrating” or “confusing”. Notice, though, that each of those words have their own nuances. One may be chosen over the other, depending on the context.

Other times, thoughts exist that can’t be quickly communicated with a word and some descriptors. We have to futher qualify them with complete sentences. When this is necessary, don’t take the easy way out by ignoring it, just do it. Most questions that someone asks about your point of view will be a “clarifying” question. This is a good time to use these descriptive words to further clarify what you are attempting to communicate.

More Clarification Is Sometimes Necessary

The more precisely we can communicate our thoughts, the more likely we will be to have our point of view understood. Now, “understood” is not synonymous with “accepted” (notice that I specifically stated what “understood” does not mean).

I recently came across a very good example of this advice being taken. A couple years ago, I was working my way through the book “Thrilled to Death” by Archibald Hart. Hart uses the term “anhedonia” a lot because that is the primary topic of the book. At the beginning of the book Hart clearly defines “anhedonia”. He starts by making it clear that there is a “clinical” definition, but he is not using it in that strict sense. He then goes on to describe what exactly he means. This was provided as an answer to his peers who would notice immediately if he were using the word incorrectly. By providing an exact definition of his term, Hart avoided much confusion and possible dismissal of his ideas. In both debates referred to above, if such a courtesy were provided by both parties (it can’t just be one-sided), confusion could have been avoided. Instead, both proceeded with different definitions of their respective words, and debates that were already difficult to follow for some people just increased in difficulty level.

A while back I read the book “No Free Lunch” by William Dembski (chapter 4.9). In it he provided a critique of one of his views from a peer. He went through the critique and responded. (I checked for the other scholar’s further responses and found them here if you are curious). I was quite annoyed by this exchange. The glaring fact that both of them were trying to more specifically define their terms, while the other person complained that they were doing such a thing was unmistakable! We can’t expect to be able to specifically define our terms yet not allow someone else to do the same, and on the flip-side, we can’t demand that the other specifically define their terms while we do not reciprocate said demand.

Another example of this is in the scientific community of biologists. “Evolution” is a broad term. Some want it split into two different terms: “microevolution” and “macro-evolution”. Each one clearly defines a level of evolution in the biological realm. I think that this is quite useful because the separate terms allow scholars (and laymen) to know exactly which type the other is discussing and can engage with less ambiguity. I addressed this issue in more detail here. Sometimes it is necessary to create new words to communicate a newly discovered distinction.

Conclusion

To finally conclude this, words have objective meanings. The fact that they have multiple possible meanings indicates that defining terms is extremely important if we wish for our conversations and debates to be productive. If this is not allowed, then the risk of holding a “strawman” understanding of the other person’s view is increased. When “strawmen” are believed, frustration abounds for both sides. In the future, when someone asks us to clarify our terms, we should patiently oblige them. Most of the time, they are not trying to be devious, they are simply trying to understand. They also ask with the expectation that we are not being devious. We must not abuse language to the point of demanding a different term in the absence of a distinction in definitions, but on the other extreme, we must not demand the same term in the presence of a distinction in definitions.

Over the last several years, I have written many other posts on the importance of clear communication to help keep worldview discussions and debates productive. Here are some of the recommended ones:

Related Posts:

Is Theism Well-Defined Enough to be Scientifically Testable?

Atheism: A Lack of Belief in God

What Is Faith?

Is Faith Emotional or Logical?

Philosophy of Science, Circumstantial Evidence, and Creation

Deconstructionism, The Constitution, and Biblical Interpretation

The Difference Between What A View Asserts and Implies

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2hB3RpP

/by
Events Link Bible

5 Earth-Shattering Events Linked to the Bible

In the recent update to my father’s classic book Evidence that Demands a Verdict, we begin with a chapter on the uniqueness of the Bible. Unquestionably, in comparison to every book ever written, the Bible stands out as unique in a number of areas including authorship, literary genres, translation, geographical production, circulation, survival, and impact. The Bible truly stands in a category of its own.

And yet I was recently reading a new book (which is part of a larger series of books being released this fall as part of the opening of the Museum of the Bible in Washington D.C.) about the Bible’s influence on key historical events. The book is called 99 Earth-Shattering Events Linked to the Bible, and it’s fascinating!

The authors show how the Bible played a core role in scientific discoveries, ancient voyages, the founding of universities, and more. Here are five of my favorite examples:

  1. The Puritans found Harvard. On September 8, 1636, Puritans founded the first institution of higher learning in the American colonies, Harvard University. The purpose was to train pastors to serve their newly founded churches. According to the founders, “One of the next things we longed for and looked after was to advance learning and perpetuate it to posterity; dreading to leave an illiterate ministry to the churches when our present ministers shall lie in the dust.”
  2. A Christian monk helps abolish gladiatorial games. In the 5thcentury A.D., a Christian monk named Telemachus traveled to Rome and attended the gladiatorial games. He was horrified and deeply disturbed at the bloodshed and lack of value for human life, contradicting the biblical command not to murder (Exodus 20:13). He rushed into the arena, appealing for the games to stop, but in an uproar at the disturbance, the crowd stoned him to death. Because of his bold stance, the Roman emperor Honorius abolished the games three days later.
  3. The Magna Carta inspires universal human rights. In the early 1200s, King John signed the Magna Carta in England, which declared for the first time that kings would be subject to the law, and not above it. Although it was not initially successfully, “…it was revised in later years and eventually set a standard, based on the Bible, that laid the foundation for the English system of common law. Today, our modern democratic society continues to reap the benefits.”[1]
  4. Copernicus reveals order in the universe. Copernicus was convinced the natural world designed by a creator (Psalms 19:1-2). He said, “The universe has been wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator.” With the release of his book On the Revolutions, Copernicus challenged the belief that the sun revolves around the earth. He did this not to undermine the church or the university, but to proclaim the truth he had discovered through his scientific work. Copernicus is considered by many to be the founder of modern astronomy.
  5. Johann Sebastian Bach composes breathtaking music. Bach is one of the most influential composers in world history. His  Matthew Passionis considered one of the greatest achievements of western civilization. Bach was both dedicated and inspired by the Bible. In the margins of his Bible, next to 1 Chronicles 25, he wrote, “This chapter is the true foundation of all God-pleasing music.”

These five are only a smidgeon of the influence the Bible has had on world history. It also shaped the development of the Red Cross, motivated the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, inspired the civil rights movement, and much more.

These examples don’t show that the Bible is true, of course. But they do show that the book has shaped more lives and cultures than any book in world history. If you haven’t read it, don’t you think it’s time to personally see why this book has been so influential?

And not only have you read it but have you considered the evidence that the Bible is actually true? The impact of the Bible is surprising to people who are not aware of its impact. Similarly, if you are not familiar with the evidence, I think you will be pleasantly surprised as well.

Notes

[1] Christopher Hudson, editor, 99 Earth-Shattering Events Linked to the Bible(Washington D.C., Museum of the Bible, published by Worthy Publishing Group, 2017), 20.

 

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.

/by
Jesus Problem Evil

Jesus on the Problem of Evil

By Aaron Brake

In Luke 13:1-5 we have Jesus’ clearest teaching on the problem of evil:[1]

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.

Not only is this Jesus’ clearest teaching on the problem of evil but we see Him addressing both moral and natural evil in His response. Notice that Jesus is first questioned regarding an example of what we would call moral evil: the murder of some Galileans by Pilate. In providing an answer, Jesus Himself introduces an example of natural evil: the falling of the tower of Siloam which killed eighteen.

How did Jesus answer the problem of evil presented to Him? His answer is short and to the point: “They weren’t worse sinners, they were just sinners. And unless you repent, you’ll die too.”

D.A. Carson in his book How Long, O Lord? provides several important insights into this passage. It would behoove us as Christians to reflect deeply on these points.

First, Jesus takes it for granted that the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23):

Jesus does not assume that those who suffered under Pilate, or those who were killed in the collapse of the tower, did not deserve their fate. Indeed, the fact that he can tell those contemporaries that unless they repent they too will perish shows that Jesus assumes that all death is in one way or another the result of sin, and therefore deserved.[2]

Second, because death is what we all deserve, it is only God’s mercy that keeps us alive:

Jesus does insist that death by such means is no evidence whatsoever that those who suffer in this way are any more wicked than those who escape such a fate. The assumption seems to be that all deserve to die. If some die under a barbarous governor, and others in a tragic accident, it is not more than they deserve. But that does not mean that others deserve any less. Rather, the implication is that it is only God’s mercy that has kept them alive. There is certainly no moral superiority on their part.[3]

Third, wars and natural disasters are always calls to repentance, and the fact that we question God’s goodness in times of calamity is a reflection of our own depravity and rebellion:

Jesus treats wars and natural disasters not as agenda items in a discussion of the mysterious ways of God, but as incentives to repentance. It is as if he is saying that God uses disaster as a megaphone to call attention to our guilt and destination, to the imminence of his righteous judgment if he sees no repentance. This is an argument developed at great length in Amos 4. Disaster is a call to repentance. Jesus might have added (as he does elsewhere) that peace and tranquility, which we do not deserve, show us God’s goodness and forbearance.

It is a mark of our lostness that we invert these two. We think we deserve the times of blessing and prosperity, and that the times of war and disaster are not only unfair but come perilously close to calling into question God’s goodness or his power—even, perhaps, his very existence. Jesus simply did not see it that way.[4]

Dr. Clay Jones in his class on Why God Allows Evil entertainingly replays the dialogue from Luke 13 like this:[5]

Questioner: Jesus, we have the problem of evil here, the great problem of the ages. People are being killed Jesus. What have you got to say?

Jesus: They weren’t worse sinners, they were just sinners, and unless you repent you’ll die too. Next?

Questioner: Whoa! Jesus, hold on for a minute here! This is the PROBLEM OF EVIL! The question of the ages! Philosophers have debated this forever! People are dying here Jesus! What have you got to say???

Jesus: They weren’t worse sinners, they were just sinners, and unless you repent you’ll die too. Next?

Questioner: No, Jesus, don’t you get it?!? Let me put it to you this way. You see, if God were all-loving, He would want to prevent evil. If God were all-powerful, He could prevent evil…

Jesus: They weren’t worse sinners, they were just sinners, and unless you repent you’ll die too. Next?

Jesus’ answer to the problem of evil is that all fallen, unregenerate sinners born in Adam are worthy of death. Whether we die by murder, accident, or disease isn’t anything more than we deserve. It is only by God’s grace that anyone is saved and it is only by God’s mercy that anyone is kept alive.

What implications does this have for Christian apologetics? At least three:

First, it means that Christian apologists need to take the consequences of sin and reality of human depravity seriously when addressing the problem of evil. Many Christians simply pay lip service to what the Bible has to say about these topics. It’s no wonder then we are often at a loss for words when someone asks, “Why do bad things happen to good people?” A completely biblical, though partial, rejoinder is this: no one is good but God alone! Bad things don’t happen to good people because no one is good. Jesus raised no qualms about our naturally born status as sinners before God, the universal corruption and guilt of humankind, or our need for repentance. He introduced these very issues Himself in addressing the problem of evil. He took it for granted that the wages of sin is death. Christian apologists should do likewise.

Second, when addressing the problem of evil, Christian apologists need to present a theodicy whichminimally includes the biblical teaching of original sin and human depravity. Why God allows evil won’t make sense unless we have the problem of sin clearly before us. J.I. Packer stated,

The subject of sin is vital knowledge…If you have not learned about sin, you cannot understand yourself, or your fellow-men, or the world you live in, or the Christian faith. And you will not be able to make head or tail of the Bible. For the Bible is an exposition of God’s answer to the problem of human sin and unless you have that problem clearly before you, you will keep missing the point of what it says.[6]

The same is true for the problem of evil. The subject of sin is essential because in raising the problem of evil, the skeptic must put forth an anthropodicy (justification of man) by arguing that man is “basically good” and God is unjust for allowing the suffering and evil He does. In response, the theist must show these assumptions to be false, and in their place put forth a theodicy (justification of God) which includes evidencing the depths of human depravity and arguing that God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing the evil that He does. Until we clearly articulate and defend the gravity of sin, as well as the universal corruption and guilt of humankind, many of our answers to the problem of evil will largely remain unpersuasive.[7]

Third, the present moral and natural evils we experience are appropriate segues into our need to practice and preach repentance in light of the final eschatological judgment. Those who experience such evils are not any more deserving. Rather, these disasters serve as warnings to all of us that finaldisaster awaits everyone who remains hardhearted and unrepentant:

So when disaster strikes, let us not wring our hands over the mysterious ways of God but encourage everyone to reflect on their sinful and doomed state in hopes that some will escape the Final Disaster that awaits the ultimately unrepentant.[8]

Notes

[1] I am indebted to Dr. Clay Jones for most of the material and insight presented here, as well as pointing me to the following passage by D.A. Carson.

[2] D.A. Carson, How Long, O Lord?: Reflections on Suffering and Evil (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006), 61.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] This is a loose reconstruction with some additions of my own.

[6] J.I. Packer, God’s Words, 71.

[7] For more on these first two points, I highly recommend reading Clay Jones, “We Don’t Take Human Evil Seriously so We Don’t Understand Why We Suffer” found at http://www.clayjones.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Human-Evil-and-Suffering.pdf.

[8] Clay Jones, “Disaster Is Always a Call to Repentance!” found at http://www.clayjones.net/2011/11/disaster-is-always-a-call-to-repentance.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2fOEhK1

/by

Who Wrote the Book of Jude?

, ,

By Brian Chilton

Over the past few months, we have been examining the authors and background information for the books of the New Testament. For this article, we will examine a little book towards the end of the New Testament known as Jude. What do we know about this book and whom it was that composed it?

Author:          Jude opens the book indicating that he is a “servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James” (vs. 1).[1] The quest for Jude’s identity is intricately linked with the identity of James listed as Jude’s brother. One can easily eliminate James the son of Zebedee because he was martyred early in church history (Acts 12:1-5). The only other viable James is Jesus’ brother. When people at Nazareth were questioning Jesus, they asked, “Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And aren’t his sisters here with us?” (Mark 6:3).

Mark 6:3 highlights a few facts. First, James and Jude were Jesus’ brothers. Second, they were both known by the church. If this is the case, then it stands to reason that Jude would identify himself as James’ brother since James was an influential leader in the Jerusalem church. Therefore, Jude the brother of James and Jesus is the most viable candidate to have authored this little book. Jude humbly designated himself only as the brother of James and a servant of Christ rather than elevate himself as Jesus’ brother.

Date:               Jude is a difficult book to date. Since Jude deals with false teachings that had entered the church, one would think that a later date would be more feasible. However, the book does not discuss Gnosticism outright. Thus, many have postulated a date between AD 65 and 80.  

Purpose:         By Jude’s own admonition, he had desired to write an encouraging letter about the believers’ common salvation to the “loved by God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ” (vs. 1). The beloved of God refers to the recipients who were most likely Jewish believers of the time. However, due to false teachings that had entered the church, Jude felt compelled to write a letter “appealing [them] to contend for the faith that was delivered to the saints once for all” (vs. 3).

Jude’s letter is a polemical letter warning the believers to avoid false teachers. After giving the purpose for his letter in verses 1-4, Jude describes the apostates of the past and present time (vs. 5-11), the apostates’ doom (vs. 12-19), delivers an exhortation (vs. 20-23), before giving his benediction (vs. 24-25).

Connection of Jude with 2 Peter:    Most unique to the book of Jude is its link with 2 Peter. Much of the content of Jude matches that of 2 Peter, including a quotation from the pseudipigraphical book 1 Enoch (vs. 12-13) and an allusion to the apocryphal book the Assumption of Moses. Did Jude borrow from 2 Peter, did Peter borrow for Jude, or did both borrow from a common source?

As shown previously in the article “Who Wrote the Letters of Peter,”[2] Simon Peter is a good candidate to have written 2 Peter. If 2 Peter borrowed from Jude, then the book would have been too late to have been penned by Simon Peter. If Peter is a good candidate for 2 Peter’s authorship, then either Jude borrowed from Peter or both borrowed from a common source. There are less problems stating that Jude borrowed from 2 Peter or that both borrowed from a common source. It is likely that since Jude borrows heavily from the Old Testament and Jewish tradition, he most likely borrowed from Peter’s second letter since it was received by the church in his day.

 Notes

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

[2] Brian Chilton, “Who Wrote the Letters of Peter?,” Bellator Christi.com (August 23, 2017), retrieved September 14, 2017, https://bellatorchristi.com/2017/08/23/who-wrote-the-letters-of-peter/.

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

 

About the Author

Brian 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 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 14 years and serves as the pastor of Huntsville Baptist Church in Yadkinville, North Carolina.

 

 

/by