God Hapiness Life

Does God Just Want Me to Be Happy?

Along with my regular blog here at seanmcdowell.org, I am now featuring occasional guest posts from some students in the Biola M.A. in Christian Apologetics that I personally had the privilege of teaching. This post is from my friend Ryan Pauly, a high school teacher, who also has an excellent and growing ministry of his own called Coffee House Questions . I simply asked him to write anything on his heart and mind. Check out his ministry and enjoy this post!

 Sean McDowell

Does God Just Want Me to Be Happy?

Ryan Pauly

It is often said that people become teachers so that they don’t have to work over the summer. Although this may be true for some, it wasn’t true for me this past summer. I spent my vacation working at Summit Ministries and traveling to speak at different youth events. While at one of my speaking events, I was approached by a student who wanted to know my thoughts on drinking and smoking weed. His argument was that it was fine to drink and smoke with his friends because it didn’t negatively affect his behavior or control his life.

Instead of beginning by making a biblical argument explaining why those behaviors were wrong, I began by asking him questions. I first asked why he thought that any action was good or morally neutral simply because he didn’t see it negatively affect his life. This seemed to catch him off guard. It might have been because he was looking for me to give reasons as to why these behaviors did have a negative effect on his life and were therefore wrong. He admitted that pastors had used this approach with him before.

Moralistic Therapeutic Deism

Without even knowing it, this student had adopted a form of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism (MTD). One aspect of MTD is the belief that God exists and that the goal of life is to be happy and feel good about oneself. One huge way in which you can tell that someone is following MTD is by the way they respond to sin. When they are committing a sin, they will think that is it an acceptable thing to do as long as they are still happy. They will not look at what God has to say about that sin since they don’t think God really plays a big role in our lives.

Our students use this form of reasoning when arguing for premarital sex as well as drinking and drugs. They hear their pastors, teachers, and parents say that these things are sin and will affect them negatively. Because they don’t immediately see negative effects, they think the behaviors are fine. This leads them to take a non-biblical approach to morality and ethics because their experience causes them to redefine sin. Sin then is defined as something that has harmful consequences on them and others.

The Dominant Religion Today

I believe that MTD has become the dominant religion of youth today as they fall more and more away from founding Christian beliefs. Youth are being exposed through TV, movies, and schools to just living a good life and being happy in oneself. Today, success is seen as being happy and doing well at what you want to do.

So, my goal was to help this student re-evaluate the way that he determined what was ethically right and wrong and return to a biblical view of morality. An action isn’t good because it makes us happy and bad because it affects us negatively. We understand that eating candy feels good but is bad for us. We also know that shots hurt but are good for us. Instead, we need to get back to looking at what God teaches. God doesn’t want us to just be happy; he wants us to be holy. When he realized this point, I was able to look at biblical reasons with this student as to why he shouldn’t be drinking and smoking weed. It is holiness that brings true happiness.

 

 

/by
Arguments Existence Free Will

5 Arguments for The Existence of Free Will

By Evan Minton

Free Will is a topic debated among Christians and even some non-Christians. The Christians who affirm that men have free will in the libertarian sense are Arminians, Molinists, and Open Theists. Christians who deny free will in the libertarian sense generally fall into the Calvinist camp. I have argued elsewhere that libertarian free will is the only true kind of free will that there is. Compatibilism, despite what the name suggests, doesn’t reconcile free will and determinism. Compatibilism, at most, would explain why we feel like we’re free when we make our actions even though we’re determined. Compatibilism would explain why I feel like a free creature despite being the puppet of God, my sinful nature, my desires, or the molecules in my brain ((depending on what kind of determinist you are)). But it doesn’t actually let us affirm the two propositions; (A) Man is determined, and (B) Man is free. Why? Because on compatibilism, man still cannot choose between alternatives. He can only choose what God, his sinful nature, his brain chemistry, or his desires caused him to choose. When placed with the options of choosing A or Non-A, God/Sin Nature/Neurological Processes/my desire will cause me to choose one, and I have no ability whatsoever to choose the opposite of what I chose. I fail to see how this is “free” will in any meaningful sense. Saying that “You’re free to choose what you’re determined to choose” is tantamount to telling a person who’s tied up “You’re free to stay put.”

Libertarian Free Will is the only true free will there is. If you deny that, you might as well deny that we have free will altogether. I believe we do have free will, and I have both philosophical reasons as well as scriptural reasons for holding this belief. Sometimes the philosophical reasons and biblical reasons coalesce (as you will see below). Below, I will list 3 arguments for the truth that man is a free creature. Before I do, let me make sure you understand the definition of “free will” I’ll be employing. As stated, I reject the idea of compatibilism (that determinism and free will can co-exist) because you cannot choose anything except what you were determined to choose. The Free Will that exists in man is libertarian free will.

Libertarian Free Will asserts that:

1: The Man is the origin and cause of his own actions.

2: The Man, in most cases, [1] will have the ability to choose between 2 or more options. And whichever option he chooses, he did not have to make that choice. He could have chosen one of the alternatives. For example, if presented with A and Non-A, man chooses A, but he didn’t have to choose A. He could have chosen Non-A instead. It laid within his power to choose Non-A. He just didn’t exercise that power.[2]

3: The Man’s choice was undetermined. Nothing internal or external to the man causally determined the man to make the choice he did. His choice was uncaused or undetermined.

Now, what reasons might be given for believing that God has endowed human beings with this kind of free will?

1: The Argument From Moral Accountability

It seems to me that if a man is determined to do what he does, then he cannot be blamed for his own actions. If God causally determined man to sin (as many Calvinists claim), then how can the man be blamed for that sin? Wouldn’t God be the one to blame? After all, God is the one who causally determined the man to do what he did? How does the human being get the blame but God magically gets off the hook? If our sinful nature causally determined us to sin, why blame us? Why not just blame the sinful nature within us? If, as on atheistic determinism, the molecules in motion inside our brains caused us to do what we did, why blame us? Why not blame our brain chemistry? “It’s not my fault! My brain chemistry made me do it!” Causes are always responsible for their effects. If God causally determines people to sin, then God is responsible for our sins. If our sinful nature causally determines us to sin, then our sinful nature is responsible for our sins. If our brain chemistry….you get the point. Whatever caused us to do what we do is ultimately responsible for what we do. This is common sense that determinists of all stripes willfully deny. If we are not the origin and ultimate cause of our actions, then we are not responsible for our actions. Whatever is the origin and ultimate cause, that thing is responsible. And it is that thing that will get the blame.

If I knock a ball off a table, is the ball to blame for falling to the floor? No! Well, who or what is? Obviously, I am. I’m responsible for the ball falling because I’m the one who caused the ball to fall.

At this point, the determinist who affirms compatibilism may respond, “But Man did what he did because he wanted to. He wasn’t forced against his will. His action was in line with his will.” Okay, but why did the man want to do what he did? Many Calvinists say that God causes people to want X and the want then determines them to do X. In this case, the problem is merely kicked upstairs. Man did X because he wanted to do X, but the reason he wanted to do X was that God caused him to want to do X. So, God is still to blame. Determinist Compatibilists who are atheists will substitute the word “God” or “Neurological processes” and make the same argument, but the argument fails on naturalistic determinism for the same reason it fails on divine determinism. From here on, I will only address theological forms of determinism. I only mention naturalistic determinism to point out that it suffers from the same flaw as Calvinism’s.

Some Calvinists believe that Adam had libertarian free will (LFW) and he sinned, from then on, no one was free. Our sinful natures causally determined us all to commit sins of various kinds. In this case, God isn’t on the hook, but neither is a man. You can’t blame a man for sinning on this view. It’s in his nature. Just as it’s in a lion’s nature to kill gazelles. You don’t blame the lion for not choosing a vegan diet, though, do you? If it is in X’s nature to do Y, we generally don’t have any moral outrage at X. We excuse X by saying, “It’s in X’s nature. X can’t help it.” Why do this with animals, but not humans?

Moreover, we generally realize that if a person could not choose other than what they did, they are not culpable. If I knock you over, you don’t hold me accountable if you realized that the reason I knocked you over was that my shoe was untied unbeknownst to me, and I tripped over my shoelace while running, causing me to slam into you and knock you over. If you knew my situation, you would most likely excuse me, yes? Now, on the other hand, if I took my hands and purposefully shoved you down, that would be a different story. You would hold me accountable because you knew I had it within my power to choose; otherwise, I did it on purpose, and the actions’ origin and the ultimate cause was my volition (not something external to me as in the former example).

If a man has no arms and you tell him to hug you, and he doesn’t because he has no arms, you wouldn’t penalize him, would you? No! Why not? Because the man was not able to hug you. Everyone intuitively believes that an “ought” implies a “can,” well, except for determinists who believe God penalizes man for sinning when he wasn’t able to choose otherwise, and penalizes man for not believing in Christ when they believe that man was unable to believe. But even they accept this premise in all other areas of life, just not theology. I could never accuse a Calvi of being consistent.

It seems to me that unless man is free in the libertarian sense, he cannot be held accountable for anything he does.

My argument for free will is as follows:

1: If Men Aren’t Free In A Libertarian Sense, They Cannot Be Held Responsible For Wrongdoing.

2: The Bible teaches that God will hold men accountable for wrongdoing.

3: Therefore, men have Free Will in a libertarian sense.

This is a logically valid argument. The rule of inference this argument goes by is “Modus Tollens.” So, in order for the conclusion to be reached, both premises must be true. I’ve given us good reasons to believe that premise 1 is true. In fact, premise 1 is the only premise in this argument that Calvinists will deny. No Calvinist will deny premise 2. Nevertheless, let me give some of the biblical evidence for 2 anyway.

“Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done.” – Revelation 20:11-13

“So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.” – Romans 14:12

“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.” – 2 Corinthians 5:10

These 3 passages are only a small sampling of passages stating that God will hold man accountable for his actions. Clearly, the second premise is true. It seems then that both premises are true, in which the conclusion follows: 3: Therefore, men have Free Will in a libertarian sense.

2: In Many Places, The Bible Asserts Or Implies That Man Has Free Will 

Free Will is implied throughout The Bible, but there are a few places where it is explicitly evident. For example, in 1 Corinthians 10:13, the apostle Paul wrote: “No temptation has overtaken you, except what is common to man. And God is faithful. He will not allow you to be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation, will provide a way of escape also so that you will be able to endure it.” This is probably the most powerful evidence of libertarian free will, the most explicit example of libertarian free will, and the most difficult-for-determinists-to-get-around passage in the entire Bible. Paul says that the temptation that afflicts his readers isn’t anything unusual, nothing unique to them. He then goes on to say that God is faithful, and won’t allow the temptation to sin to be so overwhelming that it’s impossible for them to resist it. Instead, God will provide “a way of escape” so that they’ll endure it and ergo avoid sinning.

Paul is assuming here that his readers don’t have to sin. Sin is not inevitable. God provides a way out so that we’ll be able to avoid sin. If we do sin, it’s because we refused to take “the way of escape” that God offered. If we don’t sin, it’s because we chose “the way of escape.” This verse presupposes libertarian free will. It presupposes that the listener does not have to sin. He’s faced with A (sin) and Non-A (The Way Of Escape). He can choose either and is responsible for whichever one he chooses. The determinist cannot make sense of this verse. If humans are causally determined to do everything we do, then “the way of escape” was not a possible option for those who sin. “The way of escape” on determinism, was nothing but an illusion! Only if man truly has the power to genuinely choose between alternatives, can we say that “the way of escape” was a possible option for those who sinned.

Paul is essentially saying in 1 Corinthians 10:13 “Look, you don’t have to sin. You don’t have to. God will provide a way out so you’ll be able to endure it. If you choose not to take His way out, it’s your fault, not God’s.”

“See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees, and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess. But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess. This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.” – Deuteronomy 30:15-19

In this passage, Moses was clearly giving the Israelites a choice to serve God or to serve idols. Now, if the Israelites thousands of years ago had a choice, why don’t we have a choice today? In this passage, Moses was saying, “I set before you A and Non-A. I’d prefer it if you chose A”. Sounds like the libertarian free will to me!

“But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.” – Joshua 24:14-15

Joshua is clearly giving the Israelites a choice to serve God or to serve idols. Now, if the Israelites thousands of years ago had a choice, why don’t we have a choice today?

Moreover, on the Calvinist view, God causally determines everything, so we’d have to conclude that the apparent offer to choose between the one true God and pagan gods was insincere. Is God insincere? Surely not! The most reasonable inference is that the Israelites had the legitimate option of choosing A (worshiping the one true God), or Non-A (worshiping idols). And whichever choice they made, they didn’t have to have made and could have chosen otherwise.

Moreover, several passages in The Bible talk about “Freewill offerings” (e.g., Leviticus 22:23, Numbers 29:39, Deuteronomy 12:6, Deuteronomy 16:10, Ezra 8:28). How can you give a “Freewill offering” if you have no free will!?

3: The Argument From True Love

If human beings don’t have libertarian free will, then it is impossible for love to exist. This argument for the existence of free will goes as follows

1: If man’s love isn’t given freely, it isn’t genuine.

2: Man’s love is genuine.

3: Therefore, man loves freely.

This is a logically valid argument as the syllogism takes the form modus tollens. Therefore, in order to affirm the conclusion, we’ll have to affirm that both of the premises are true. So, are the premises true, or are they false? Well, let’s look at them.

Premise 1:

If our love for God and one another weren’t given of our own free will, it would be impossible for our love to be genuine. Instead, we would have an artificial love, a programmed love, a forced love. Love, in order to be genuine, must be freely given. People who give true love must have the freedom to choose not to love. To see the point: imagine it’s the year 3,000 where robotics have been perfected to the point where robots look, sound, and behave 100% identical to real human beings. You go down to “Robot Depot” to buy yourself a wife. You buy this android that looks as beautiful as a supermodel. Based on her looks, you already know she’s got the attractiveness quality. But what of her character? The manual she comes with tells you that you can program her personality anyway you desire. So, you program her to always do whatever you want, to always put your needs above hers, and to always laugh at your jokes, etc. You program her to never leave you for another man. You program her to say “I love you” 20 times a day. You program her to never bother you while watching football. In fact, you program her to be just as into football as you are. You program her to be the perfect wife.

Question: would any of this be meaningful to you? Would you feel loved? No. You would clearly recognize that her love for you is artificial. Every act of kindness, every display of affection, and every “I love you,” was your doing, not hers. You causally determined her to do these things for you. They did not originate within her. All of her acts of love and selflessness would be empty gestures because you caused her to do them, and she had no capability of doing differently.

Similarly, if God causally determined everyone to love Him, praise Him 24/7, to never disobey Him, and to always do good, our actions would be devoid of meaningfulness. The only reason we praise Him is that He programmed us to praise Him. The only reason we abstain from sin is that He programmed us to abstain from it. It would be the same for our “love” for one another. If God causally determines a man to love his wife, I don’t see how that would be any more meaningful than when a little girl causes a Ken doll to show love to a Barbie doll.

I think premise 1 is most certainly true. Even if the Calvinist denies that God causally determines everything, and wants to scribe the determination to the sinful nature or our desires alone, that doesn’t help anything. Suppose in the aforementioned robot-wife illustration that I didn’t causally determine my wife to do all those things, but one of my close friends did. He got me a robot wife and programmed her to do all those things for me because he knows what kind of wife I would like. Even though the programming didn’t come from me, I still wouldn’t feel loved by this robot woman because she was still unable to choose otherwise. So, in a similar way, if my nature, desires, or brain molecules causally determine me to love God and my neighbor, it would be just as meaningless as if God were the One pulling the strings.

Premise 2:

Why think that our love is genuine? Maybe The Calvinist can bite the bullet and say, “Okay, I agree. Without libertarian free will, our love is worthless automata. But so what? Maybe our love is worthless automata?” First of all, I’d like to point out to my readers that I don’t think any Calvinist would deny premise 2. He’s more than likely to go after premise 1. Of course, that raises the question: Why would the Calvinist be reluctant to deny premise 2?

Because the Calvinist, like all Christians, realizes that God is perfect. God is a Maximally Great Being, and as such, has all great-making properties, including omniscience. If God omniscient, then He knows what kind of world would be one where true love could exist. If premise 2 is false, we’re forced to say that God created a loveless world! No one truly loves God; no one truly loves their neighbor! But, The Bible teaches that God wants our love for Him to be genuine. This is why the two greatest commandments are to love God with all of our hearts, souls, strength, and minds, and to love our neighbors as ourselves (see Matthew 22:37-39, Mark 12:30-31, Luke 10:27). God wants us to love Him with all of our hearts, souls, strength, and minds, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. If God did not want us to obey those commands, then why did He give them in the first place? Would God really create a world where love is impossible and then command us to love? That would be a rather stupid thing to do, wouldn’t it? Since God commands us to love Him and each other, that implies that we are able to love Him and one another. Given that only a world of free-will creatures is a world where fulfilling those two commandments is possible, it follows that God would prefer to actualize such a possible world, and since God would prefer such a world, it follows that He would actualize such a world.

Moreover, denial of premise 2 would entail a denial of biblical inerrancy. For The Bible implies that our love for God is real when it says, “We love because He first loved us.” (1 John 4:19). There it is, right in 1 John 4! “We love.” If you deny this premise, then you have to deny that this verse is true!

Conclusion:

Given the truth of the 2 premises, the conclusion follows logically and necessarily. Man loves freely.

4: The Appearance Of Free Will Problem

One of the problems I have with the Young Earth Creationist’s Argument that “The universe is really only 6,000 years old, God just made it look like it was billions of years old” is that it makes God out to be a deceiver. Yes, God had the freedom to make the universe in an advanced state, and He certainly made the wine at Cana in an aged state as it was the best-tasting wine (see John 4), and if the literal reading of Genesis is correct, God made Adam and Eve in adult bodies. BUT would God create Adam and Eve with an appearance of past history? There’s a difference between the appearance of age and past history. As Richard Deem wrote, “Did Adam have an appearance of history? Did he have a navel from a birth that never happened? Were his teeth worn at his creation, even though he had never eaten? Did Adam have calluses on his feet even though he had never walked? The Bible does not address these issues, and since Adam’s body is not available, we have no idea of the answers to these questions. Does the Bible compare Adam’s body to the creation? No! The analogy has no biblical basis and is based upon conjecture alone. Does the wine of Cana have an appearance of history? According to the biblical account, Jesus ordered water pots to be filled with water and, immediately, the water had become wine. Did it have an appearance of history? If the wine had been in wineskins (like the original wine), then one might say that it appeared to have been aged in the wineskins. However, the wine was still in the water pots. It had no appearance of history. Does the Bible compare the wine of Cana to the creation? No! Like Adam’s body, the wine of Cana analogy has no biblical basis and is based upon conjecture alone.”[3] For God to have created a universe like he did, He would have created an appearance of past history. History of millions of years of erosion, a bombardment on the surface of the moon, erosion of the canyons on Mars, starlight reaching us from millions of light-years away, but reaching us in thousands because it was created in-transit, etc. This would make God a deceiver, and The Bible teaches that God cannot lie (see Numbers 23:19, Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18). Since God cannot lie, it follows that He could not have created a universe that appears to have endured through millions of years of history.

Well, it appears the same problem affects Calvinists in the realm of free will. Even Calvinists won’t deny that we appear to have free will. We feel like we have free will. Most of us think our actions are free. It certainly seems like when we make a choice; we could have done otherwise. Calvinists will just deny that this appearance and feeling is real. They will say it’s a delusion or illusion. The problem is that this entails that God created a universe with a deceptive appearance. Everyone is a puppet of His, but He has caused us to believe that our actions are free. He pulls all the strings, but He has implanted in us belief that what we do is done of our own volition, and that we had the power to choose other than what we chose.

In fact, I would not shy away from arguing that belief in free will is a properly basic belief. I think most people innately believe that they’re free, just as they believe objective morality exists, and that the external world exists. It’s only the case that people stop believing in these things when a determinist, relativist, and solipsist respectively talk them out of it. Why would God deceptively form our minds like this? Why would he plant an innate belief in libertarian freedom if that did not reflect reality? It seems to me that if man isn’t truly free, then God is a deceiver, just as God is a deceiver if the starlight hadn’t been traveling for millions of years.

5: The FreeThinking Argument 

This argument originated with apologist Tim Stratton, head of FreeThinking Ministries. The premises of the argument demonstrate both the existence of free will as well as the existence of the soul, and it indirectly points to the existence of God. So it simultaneously slays Calvinism and Atheism, at least if all of the premises are true. Stratton’s argument goes as follows

1- If naturalism is true, the immaterial human soul does not exist.

2- If the soul does not exist, libertarian free will does not exist.

3- If libertarian free will does not exist, rationality and knowledge do not exist.

4- Rationality and knowledge exist.

5- Therefore, libertarian free will exists.

6- Therefore, the soul exists.

7- Therefore, naturalism is false.

8- The best explanation for the existence of the soul is God.

Premises 1 and 2 seems obviously true to me. If Naturalism is true, then we’re just organic robots. If atheism is true, all there is matter, energy, space, and time. There are no “souls” or “spirits.” Most atheists would agree with premise 1. In fact, I’d be shocked if I found one who thought there was a soul inside of his body or thought spirits existed. If this is the case, if we are not souls in bodies, then it follows that we’re just “molecules in motion” as Frank Turek likes to put it. If Naturalism/Atheism is true, we are nothing but automata. All of our movements, feelings, thoughts, and opinions are causally determined by electrochemical processes in our brains, molecules, and atoms bumping about, and other physical processes. “You” are a meat machine. As geneticist Francis Crick put it “Your joys and your sorrows, your memories, and your ambitions, your sense of identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.”[4]

So if atheism is true, we don’t have souls, and if we don’t have souls, we don’t have free will. We’re just “molecules in motion.” What about premise 3? Is it true that “If libertarian free will does not exist, rationality and knowledge do not exist?” I think so! Tim Stratton, in his article “The Freethinking Argument In A Nutshell,” wrote “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.”[5]

Is Premise 4 true? Yes. I think it is. It is clear that human beings do possess rationality and knowledge. To contradict the claim that humans possess rationality and knowledge would be to affirm that humans possess rationality and knowledge. To deny the claim would be to affirm it. Why do I say this? Because the detractor of this premise would be saying that he’s giving us the knowledge to the contrary. Moreover, if one rejects knowledge, why should anyone listen to them? If one denies that he is a rational man, why should we listen to him? Why listen to someone who openly admits that he is irrational?

Given the truth of the 4 premises, steps 5-7 follow. Libertarian free will exists, therefore the soul exists; therefore naturalism is false.

As Stratton will tell you, this argument has 3 deductive conclusions and 1 inductive conclusion. The deductive conclusion is that naturalism is false; the inductive conclusion is an inference that God is the best explanation for why the human soul exists. An atheistic universe with spirits is implausible prima facie. It makes more sense to me to think that if souls exist, immaterial minds, then there was a “Mega Mind” that created all of them. Given that this article is pretty lengthy as it is, I won’t go any further into The FreeThinking Argument’s inductive conclusion than that.

This argument kills 2 birds with 1 stone. Those birds are named Atheism and Calvinism.

For a full, in-depth defense of this argument, check out this 48-minute lecture by Tim Stratton. –> http://freethinkingministries.com/test-video-2/

Conclusion

For these 5 reasons, I believe human beings have libertarian free will. I cannot bring myself to embrace any form of determinism. There are too many reasons both philosophically and exegetically to believe man has free will.

Footnotes 

[1] When I say “most cases,” I mean that there will be some instances in which only one choice will be available for us to choose from. Libertarians aren’t committed to the view that we must always in all circumstances, be able to choose between alternatives. For example, if you jump off a building, clearly your only option is to fall to the ground. If a man snorts cocaine, he is addicted and now can do nothing but snort it unless either God miraculously frees him or rehab rehabilitates him. In the case of jumping off of buildings and additions, man cannot choose Non-A, but man can choose Non-A in many circumstances. Ken Keathley calls these “freedom permitting circumstances.” The circumstance before jumping off the building was a freedom permitting circumstance. The circumstance after you jumped off was not.

[2] This does not apply to salvation. I am not a Pelagian. I believe man is free to either choose to receive Christ or to reject Him, but man must be given this ability by The Holy Spirit. Man must be given what Arminian theologians call “Prevenient Grace.” To see the biblical case for the doctrine of Prevenient Grace, see my blog post “What Biblical Evidence Is There For Prevenient Grace?”  I believe man’s will must be freeD in order for him to come to Christ.

[3] Richard Deem, from the online article “Appearance Of Age — A Young Earth Problem,” http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/appearance.html

[4] Francis Crick, The Astonishing Hypothesis, 1994 cited in Mariano Artigas, The Mind of the Universe: Understanding Science and Religion, Templeton Foundation Press, 2001 p. 11.

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

 

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/2h6DKqx

/by
Modern Thinkers Designe Universe

Modern Thinkers Increasingly Confirm a Designed Universe

,

By Joel Furches

The idea that the universe might bear some marks of design has traditionally been denied in academic circles. Evolutionary Biologist Richard Dawkins has famously stated that:

“The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” [“God’s Utility Function,” Scientific American, November, 1995, p. 85]

And writer Raj Bains points out that:

“Right now, it is raining methane on Titan. The planet Uranus is orbiting the sun sideways, while Venus spins backwards. There are stars exploding, black holes gorging, galaxies colliding. And here we sit, on a planet pock-marked by collisions, rocked by earthquakes, shaken by storms. A planet doomed to be fried in radiation as its magnetic fields collapse, until finally the sun grows into a red giant and leaves nothing of the Earth but dust. Here we sit, glasses on our noses, inhalers in our pockets, braces on our teeth, waiting to die as our heart muscle expires, our cells become cancerous, or a blood vessel just pops, and sometimes in unnatural ways too. Here we sit, and some of us say, behold, look at the order of it all.”

In fact, scientists who have affirmed that the universe might contain marks of design have found themselves the subject of hostility in academic environments. Dr. Jeffrey Schloss, who is the Professor of Biology at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, says:

“…it is absolute professional suicide to be a young earth creationist in a geology department or an anti-evolutionist in a biology department at any institution outside of a few parochial colleges. And it may be just as bad to be an [Intelligent Design] advocate in any science department.” [emphasis added]

And Edge journalist John Brockman writes:

“To date, scientists have held back with regard to engaging the proponents of ‘intelligent design’ on the battlefield of scientific discourse, reasoning being that by simply having a discussion, the ID crowd gains a respectable platform for their views.”

For years, any idea that there might be some kind of “design” in the natural world has been regarded as the domain of religious ideologues and conspiracy nuts – not of any serious scientist. However, there have been a number of prominent figures in technology and science fields who have recently affirmed the idea of a designed reality – whether implicitly or openly.

Take Elon Musk: Musk is the CEO of SpaceX and Tesla, who recently had a conversation on stage at a tech conference in California about video games. Musk made the following statement:

“40 years ago we had Pong – two rectangles and a dot. That’s where we were.

“Now 40 years later we have photorealistic, 3D simulations with millions of people playing simultaneously and it’s getting better every year. And soon we’ll have virtual reality, we’ll have augmented reality.

“If you assume any rate of improvement at all, then the games will become indistinguishable from reality, just indistinguishable.”

Musk went on to say that if, in the future, simulations were indistinguishable from reality, and, that billions of such simulations would be running at any given time, that the chances of any given person is living in the real world is a billion to one. That is to say, any person at this point in time is more likely to be a simulated character inside a simulated world, than they are to be a real person in the physical universe.

Musk is not the only person to chase down that line of thought. Science popularizer Bill Nye, who once stated “You can believe what you want religiously. Religion is one thing, but science, provable science, is something else,” said in answer to the simulation hypothesis: “I think you can argue that whoever has written the simulation – whatever super entity has written the simulation – could make it so sophisticated that even your memories are a result of this being programmed by the simulator or simulatrix,”

Astrophysicist and popular media figure Neil deGrasse Tyson, who once made the statement that “God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time goes on,” hosted a discussion on the simulation hypothesis at the 17th annual Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate this year at New York’s Hayden Planetarium. Interestingly, the discussion wandered into questions previously explored only by theologians: things like “why would a simulator choose to put certain features into the simulation” and “would a simulation allow for such things as resurrection and eternal life.”

In fact, at one point one of the panel suggested that there is no way to know that the world was a simulation unless the programmer were to directly reveal it to humans – like re-ordering the stars to spell out “YOU ARE IN A SIMULATION.” This rings surprisingly close to Lawrence Krauss’ statement about what he would accept as evidence for God.

It must be pointed out that in order for this to even be a discussion, those involved would have to concede some aspects of design in the natural world. If the world could not possibly be the product of design, then it is clear that it is not a simulation. If people such as Tyson are willing to even entertain the concept that the observable world might be a simulation, then they would have to admit that it could be the product of design.

However, the simulation argument is not the only thing in current news that puts forth the possibility of design in the natural world. Recently, world-leading theoretical physicist Michio Kaku made waves by announcing that he had discovered proof of design in the natural world.

Kaku’s evidence comes in the form of String Theory and the Grand Unified Equation which, he says, would “…allow us to unify all the forces of nature, and allow us to read the mind of God.”

Says Kaku:

“All this is pure mathematics. And so the final resolution could be that God is a mathematician. And …the mind of God, we believe, is Cosmic Music – the music of strings, resonating through eleven-dimensional hyperspace.”

Kaku makes a great deal of Supersymmetry and the unification of physics and mathematics in order to explain the functioning of the natural world, such that, even if he was using the term “Mind of God” metaphorically, it could not escape notice that he frames his understanding of the order and functioning of the universe in terms of “mind.”

It is becoming less and less clear in academic and scientific circles that the universe is without order or intent. As science and philosophy advance, discussions about reality cannot avoid the language of design.

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

 

 

/by
God Healing Nabeel Qureshi Christianity

Why Didn’t God Heal Nabeel Qureshi?

,

How does a man facing his own premature death exude an uplifting combination of grace, love and truth? My friend Nabeel Qureshi, who has done that for more than a year, died at age 34 on Saturday. In case you don’t know, Nabeel was a former devout Muslim who became a powerful defender of Christianity after a seven-year process of evaluating the evidence for Christianity with his friend David Wood. His first book, Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus is an international best seller.

Since being diagnosed with stage four stomach cancer last year, Nabeel has shared his thoughts, concerns and prayers through 43 video blogs on his YouTube channel. His last video, recorded from his hospital bed just seven days before his death, is a request for us to use his work and example to love others to the truth.

As you will see in his videos, Nabeel exhibited the love of Christ to the end. He never wavered in his confidence that God could heal him, but recognized that He might not. Nabeel understood that we live in a fallen world, and that God doesn’t promise any of us a long, trouble free life. In fact, Jesus promised more of the opposite. He said that we “will have trouble in this world, but take heart, I’ve overcome the world.”

Nevertheless, while it seems insensitive to ask this while we grieve, people are wondering why didn’t God heal Nabeel. After all, he was a brilliant and charismatic young man taken away from his wife Michelle and daughter Ayah, and the rest of us, far too early. Nabeel had so much more to give to his family and the Kingdom of God that his death seems senseless.

So why didn’t God heal Nabeel?

Tough Questions

Is it because an evil, such as a premature death, proves that there is no God? No, because evil wouldn’t exist unless Good existed, and Good wouldn’t exist unless God existed. Evil doesn’t exist on its own. It only exists as a lack in a good thing. Like cancer. So when we complain about evil we’re actually presupposing Good. An objective standard of Good is a standard that is beyond mere human opinion. That can only be God’s nature. So evil may prove there’s a devil out there, but it can’t disprove God. Instead, evil boomerangs back to show that God actually does exist.

Is it because the Muslim God is the true God, and He punished Nabeel for leaving Him? No, there’s excellent evidence for the Christian view of God (see Nabeel’s book No God but One). Moreover, Muslims who suggest this should be asked, “Why did your God wait until Nabeel had written three best-selling books, made hundreds of hours of videos, and helped bring hundreds of Muslims to Christ? Is his timing off?” Not only that, Nabeel’s work will continue to bring people to Christ, probably in an accelerated manner after his passing.

So why didn’t God heal Nabeel? What purpose could God have for allowing Nabeel to die?

Some might suggest that people like Nabeel who experience tragedy must be worse sinners than others. Jesus refuted that kind of shallow speculation directly in Luke 13, when he said, “I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.” Indeed, we are all sinners who will perish and we need to repent before it’s too late.

Is it because Nabeel didn’t have enough “faith”? People who claim such nonsense don’t know Nabeel or correct theology. Nabeel’s trust in Christ was deep and unwavering. But the larger point is that faith doesn’t guarantee good health and wealth as “Word of Faith” preachers assert. In fact, their self-serving theology can be refuted by one simple observation: Jesus and the apostles weren’t healthy and wealthy. In fact, they suffered and died for their beliefs. Don’t tell me they didn’t have enough faith!

The Ripple Effect

So why didn’t God heal Nabeel? What purpose could God have for allowing Nabeel to die? In answering that question, we need to admit that there can be no ultimate purpose to Nabeel’s death (or any event) if there is no purpose to life. But since God does exist, and the purpose of life is to be reconciled with Him though His son, Jesus, then even tragedies can help achieve that purpose. Perhaps more people will come to know Christ because of Nabeel’s death. It’s impossible for us to know the extent of that right now, but it’s not impossible for God.

We can’t see it fully because every event, good and bad, ripples forward into the future to touch countless other events and people. This ripple effect is also known as the butterfly effect. The idea is that a butterfly flapping its wings in South Africa, for example, could ultimately bring rain to a drought stricken portion of the United States. We can’t trace all of those ripples, but an all powerful God who is outside of time can. In fact, there have been billions of events in history, both good and bad, that helped make you who you are and helped put you where you are.

So we don’t know why God didn’t heal Nabeel, but we know why we don’t know. We’re finite and God is infinite. The good news is God’s character and power guarantees that He will bring good from evil “to those that love Him and are called according to His purpose” (Rom. 8:28). That may happen later in this life. It certainly will spill over into eternal life.

The ripple effect led Jacques Marie Louis Monsabré, a former pastor at Notre Dame in Paris, to trust God even when he couldn’t see any good coming from evil. He said: “If God would concede me His omnipotence for 24 hours, you would see how many changes I would make in the world. But if He gave me His wisdom too, I would leave things as they are.”

Indeed, God will redeem Nabeel’s death for good like he redeemed Nabeel himself. But while Nabeel is now with the Lord, Michele and Ayah remain with us. As Nabeel asked in one of his final videos, please pray for them as well as Nabeel’s loving parents. And If you can help Michele and Ayah financially, would you please do so here?

While we grieve let us be thankful for Nabeel’s eternally significant life. He did more for the Kingdom of God in 34 years than ten thousand people do in 80. And the ripples he created — waves really — will help carry people into Heaven for generations. Blessings to you Brother. See you on the other side.

/by
Nabeel Qureshi Muslim

Remembering Nabeel Qureshi

,

By Brian Chilton

The Christian community lost a wonderful man of God this past Saturday, September 16, 2017. Nabeel Qureshi entered his eternal home after a year-long battle with stomach cancer at the tender age of 34. While Nabeel has left us, he has left behind a wonderful legacy that will impact countless individuals for years to come. How will Nabeel be remembered? I think that he will be remembered in three major ways.

(1) Nabeel Qureshi will be remembered for his miraculous conversion. Nabeel recounts his miraculous conversion in his book Seeking Allah: Finding Jesus. Nabeel was raised in a loving Ahmani Muslim home by his Pakistani-American parents.[1] While attending medical school, Nabeel was challenged by his good friend David Wood to examine the evidence for the Christian faith. Because of the challenges given by Wood and Christian apologist Michael Licona, Nabeel looked into the evidence and was amazed to find that Christianity had a compelling case for authenticity.

After heavy investigation, Nabeel finally came to the point where he laid down a copy of the Bible next to a copy of the Qu’ran and prayed to God to reveal himself. Was he found in Jesus or the writings of the Qu’ran? After that moment, Nabeel had visions and dreams that clearly indicated that the Bible was true and the Jesus was God come to humanity. Nabeel, then, received Christ as his Savior despite the problems that would come from his family and friends because of his decision. Nabeel Qureshi will forever be remembered for his amazing conversion.

(2) Nabeel Qureshi will be remembered for his passion for the lost. Nabeel was highly educated. He received his M.D. from Eastern Virginia Medical School, a M.A. in Christian Apologetics from Biola University, and a masters degree in religion from Duke University. Nabeel was pursuing a Ph.D. from Oxford University before he died. Nabeel had a passion for the lost. He had joined the RZIM team, headed by famed apologist Ravi Zacharias, had frequently lectured to crowds across the globe, and was featured in a few debates in his young career. Zacharias noted that Nabeel was “not just an evangelical; he was passionately evangelistic. He desired to cover the globe with the good news that God’s forgiveness was available to all. I have seldom seen a man with such deep conviction and proportionate passion and gifting. When he spoke, he held audiences spellbound.”[2]

(3) Nabeel Qureshi will be remembered for his desire for love. In the last video Nabeel Qureshi posted before his untimely death, Nabeel said, “I hope my ministry leaves a legacy of love, of peace, of truth, of caring for one another. That is my hope and purpose behind all of this.” Nabeel never intended his ministry to be used as a means to attack Muslims, but rather as a means of exposing the truth of Christianity. Nabeel went on to remind everyone that our God is a God of love. You can find Nabeel’s video below. One would be egregious to use Nabeel’s materials to attack Muslims when his goal was to demonstrate love. May we all be reminded through Nabeel’s life that God is a loving God.

Nabeel Qureshi is a man whom one should never forget. His life and legacy serve as a reminder that life is short and that while one is on earth, God has a purpose and a plan for that person. Join me in praying for Nabeel’s family and that God will be glorified through the loss of his young servant. While I never had a chance to meet Nabeel Qureshi on this side of eternity, I look forward to talking with him when I reach the heavenly home promised to us by Christ Jesus.

Additional Video Lectures by Nabeel Qureshi

“Death and Life in Jesus: 1 Corinthians 15 and the Ailing Christian”

“Can We Know if God is Real?”

“My Journey to Christ”

 

Notes

[1] Kate Shellnut, “Died: Nabeel Qureshi, Author of ‘Seeking Allah: Finding Jesus,’”ChristianityToday.com (September 16, 2017), retrieved September 18, 2017,http://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2017/september/died-nabeel-qureshi-author-seeking-allah-finding-jesus-rzim.html.

[2] Ravi Zacharias, “Ravi Zacharias Remembers His Young Protégé, Nabeel Qureshi,”ChristianityToday.com (September 17, 2017), retrieved September 18, 2017,http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2017/september-web-only/ravi-zacharias-nabeel-qureshi-apologist-rzim.html.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2ykpKO8

 

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
Wrote Letters John

Who Wrote the Letters of John?

,

By Brian Chilton

The website has devoted substantial time in exploring the identity of the authors of the New Testament texts. This journey continues as we explore the three letters attributed to John. Who was the person named John behind these letters?

Author:          The early church nearly unanimously attributed the three letters of John to the apostle John. It was not until modern times that serious attention was given to the idea of two Johns: one the apostle John and the other a different John known as the elder. In 2 and 3 John, the author mentions that he is the elder. Some have also contemplated the idea of a Johannine school that preserved the teachings of John and wrote the letters giving credit to the aged apostle.

The confusion between the apostle and the elder is found in Papias’ statement as preserved by Eusebius which reads:

But I shall not be unwilling to put down, along with my interpretations, whatsoever instructions I received with care at any time from the elders, and stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings – what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord’s disciples, [and] which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.[1]

The view with the best support, however, is that John the apostle and John the elder are the one and same person.

The letters of John, particularly the first letter, bear a remarkable similarity to the Gospel of John. The evidence for apostolic authorship of the Fourth Gospel is quite strong. Thus, the correlation between the Gospel and the letters demonstrate a high probability that John the apostle also authored the letters along with the Gospel.

In addition to the association that John’s Gospel holds with the letters, second-century sources strongly suggest that John the apostle served as a pastor in Ephesus, living up until the rule of Emperor Trajan in AD 98. George Beasley-Murray notes,

“John, the disciple of the Lord, who leaned on his breast, also published the gospel while living at Ephesus in Asia” (Adv. Haer. 3.1, 2). The “disciple” is clearly the apostle John, who is identified with the “beloved disciple” of the Gospel. Irenaeus also acknowledged the authority of the church in Ephesus, since “it was founded by Paul, and John lived there till the time of Trajan” (3.3, 4). This testimony is the more significant in view of Irenaeus’ acquaintance with Polycarp, who was martyred in his old age in a.d. 155.”[2]

In light of the strong ancient evidence, one can claim with confidence that John wrote the letters attributed to him in Ephesus. It is possible that John used an amanuensis to write the Gospel and the first letter and wrote 2 and 3 John with his own hands. Nonetheless, John is clearly the author of all four documents.

Date:   Since one can align the documents attributed to John while also noting that the apostle ministered in Ephesus while living to 98 AD, the Gospel and letters can confidently be pegged to the mid-80s to the mid-90s.

Purpose:         1 John was written to guide Christians into true doctrine while helping them to avoid false beliefs and actions. In 1 John, John focuses on the truth of Christ (1:1-4), the lifestyle of the authentic believer (1:5-2:14), the believer’s relationship with those outside the church (2:15-27), along with a personal exhortation to the believers to love one another and to shine the light of God in their lives (2:28-5:21).

2 John is a more personal letter written to the church of Ephesus. John commands the church to “(1) walk in the truth, (2) obey God’s commandments, (3) love one another, and (4) guard the teachings of Christ and they would not be deceived by the antichrist.”[3] John greets and blesses the believers (1-3), exhorts the believers to love (4-6), warns of false teachers (7-11), and plans a visit to the local churches in the area (12-13).

3 John like 2 John is a personal letter. Whereas 2 John is written to the church, 3 John is written to three individuals: Gaius (1), the one receiving the letter; Diotrephes (9), a troublemaker in the church; and Demetrius (12), the one carrying the letter to Gaius. In 3 John, the apostle greets Gaius (1-2), commends the Gaius for standing for truth (3-4), discusses issues with Gaius (5-12), and discusses his future visit with Gaius (13-14).

The letters of John are quite powerful and important for teaching about the nature of God and of the believer’s stance during difficult times. Everyone would do well to take time to read through John’s Gospel and his three letters. The apostle has some important words for all the church for every generation.

Notes

[1] Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, III, 39.

[2] George R. Beasley-Murray, John, vol. 36, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), lxvi.

[3] CSB Study Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017).

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

 

 

/by
Humorous Bible Translations

Humorous Bible Translation Errors…and What They Mean for Biblical Reliability

,

Jewish and Christian scribes took inordinate care in copying the Bible from one generation to the next. For a variety of reasons, we can have great confidence that our present Bibles have considerable fidelity to the original writings.[1] Hands down, the Bible is the most carefully preserved book from the ancient world.

And yet throughout the history of biblical transmission , there have been some intentional and unintentional changes in the text. Some people think this undermines its reliability, but that is not necessarily the case. While there were certain scribes with doctrinal agendas, the vast majority considered it their duty to copy the scriptures faithfully. And they did so. Typically, when variants are found across different manuscripts, textual scholars can reconstruct the correct reading with a high degree of probability.

According to professor Dan Wallace, one of the leading textual critics in the world, there has not been a single manuscript discovery that has produced an authentic reading of the New Testament that tells a totally different story of Jesus.[2]

The reason for this is the remarkably careful procedures practiced by the scribes. When scribes made a mistake in copying a Biblical book by hand, it would only produce one flawed copy. Later scribes would often catch these mistakes by comparing them against earlier copies to preserve the original reading. Even today, textual scholars can catch copying mistakes by comparing them with other ancient manuscripts.

But this changed with the introduction of the printing press. After the press, a single bad copy could result in hundreds or thousands of defective Bibles. Here’s a few of the most famous (or you might consider them infamous) examples.[3]

1631: Readers were stunned encounter to Exodus 20:13, “Thou shalt commit adultery.” (Instead of, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”)

1653: 1 Corinthians 6:9 read, “Know that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God,” (Instead of, “Know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”)

1763: The final printed text of Psalm 14:1 read, “The fool hath said in his heart, there is a God.” (Editors accidentally inserted the word a for no).

These humorous examples show that despite the utmost care and effort, humans do make mistakes. But they also illustrate how scholars are able to correct such mistakes and still be able to transmit ancient texts with care and precision.

While there have been many intentional and unintentional mistakes throughout the history of biblical transmission, scholars are able to catch the vast majority of these (as we have with the examples above), and transmit the Bible with remarkable accuracy.

If you are not convinced, we invite you to check out the soon-to-be-released update of Evidence that Demands A Verdict. My father first wrote this book chronicling the evidence for the Christian Scriptures, even though, ironically, he began the journey attempting to disprove the Bible. In this updated edition, we have carefully and painstakingly laid out the textual, historical, and literary evidence that the Bible has been preserved with the highest care.

Yes, there have been some mistakes in transmission. But the vast majority of these have been identified and corrected. All things considered, evidence shows that the Bible is the most well-preserved book of antiquity.

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.

[1] See chapters 2-4 in Josh and Sean McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2017).

[2] Ibid., 66.

[3] Lawrence H. Schiffman & Jerry Pattengale, The World’s Greatest Book: The Story of How the Bible Came to Be (Franklin, TN: Worthy Publishing, 2017), 176-177.

 

 

/by
Mathematics God Apologetics

Mathematical Apologetics: Discovering Divine Attributes in Math

,

By Brian Chilton

On today’s podcast, Brian discusses how one discovers the mark of the divine in math. In the book Faith and Learning: A Handbook for Christian Higher Education, edited by David S. Dockery, Jeanette Russ, in her chapter “Christian Scholarship in Math, Physics, and Engineering, provides several ways that math demonstrates the divine attributes of God. Brian discusses the mathematical apologetics that he found in Russ’s work. Such as:

Calculus and Physics: The infinitesimally small and extremely large note the unlimited nature of God (see Dockery, Faith and Learning, 394).

Georg Cantor’s Theory of the Infinite: The nature of the infinite (Dockery, Faith and Learning, 395).

Einstein’s Theory of Relativity: There is no passage of time at the speed of light, which could illustrate God as he is explained as light (1 John 1:5) and that he exists outside the scope of time (Dockery, Faith and Learning, 395).

Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle: The principle shows that God could intervene in the world and that humans play a role in the great, as Russ notes, “cosmic drama” (Dockery, Faith and Learning, 395).

Concept of Unification: This could show that all truth is God’s truth (Dockery, Faith and Learning, 395).

Come join us for this interesting journey into mathematical apologetics as we step into the arena of idea on today’s edition of the Bellator Christi Podcast.

About the Host

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 currently studies 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.

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

 

 

/by
Book Hebrews Authorship

Who Wrote the Book of Hebrews?

,

By Brian Chilton

Throughout the past several weeks, we have been exploring who the authors of the books of the New Testament were. Already we have seen that there are good reasons for supporting the traditional view that the apostles Matthew and John wrote the Gospels attributed to them, John Mark writing the Second Gospel which was a documentation of Simon Peter’s testimony, Dr. Luke as the author of the Third Gospel and Acts after having attributed information from numerous eyewitnesses, and the apostle Paul as the author of all thirteen epistles attributed to him. Now, we examine a more mysterious letter. Let’s look at the Book of Hebrews.

Date: Many scholars believe that Hebrews was written sometime before the destruction of the temple (AD 70). More likely than not, the epistle was written sometime during the reign of Emperor Nero (AD 64-68).[1]

Purpose: The book of Hebrews exalts Jesus and shows that he is superior to the sacrifices of old. The term “kreitton” (literally, “more excellent” or “better”) permeates the book. The book of Hebrews ties together the Old and New Testaments better than any other in the New Testament.

Author: Here is the million-dollar question; Who wrote the book of Hebrews? Many early church leaders believed Paul to have been the author. Origen is often quoted as saying in reference to the book of Hebrews’ authorship that “in truth, only God knows.” However, a further investigation of Origen’s writings will demonstrate that he believed Paul to have been the author.[2] But was Paul the author? It’s possible, but not certain.

Unlike the thirteen letters attributed to Paul,[3] Hebrews nowhere identifies Paul nor anyone else as its author. There is one certainty pertaining to the author of Hebrews and that is that the author was someone who was known in the ranks of Paul’s cohorts. The author knew Timothy and referred to him as “our brother” (Hebrews 13:23, CSB) rather than “my son” as Paul did in (1 Timothy 1:2). Thus, it would seem as though the writer is a cohort of Paul, perhaps even a second-generation Christian as the writer notes that “salvation had its beginning when it was spoken of by the Lord, and it was confirmed to us by those who heard him” (Hebrews 2:3). Scholars have proposed Luke, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Apollos, Timothy, Philip, Peter, Silas, Jude, and Aristion as the authors.

Because the author is a second-generation Christian, I do not think Barnabas, Peter, Silas or Jude (if referencing the Lord’s brother) would be candidates. Because the author references Timothy as a brother, I do not think Timothy is a likely candidate either. I used to think Barnabas was the author, but since Barnabas was an early Christian and the author of Hebrews is a second-generation Christian, I no longer think that is the case. In all likelihood, I believe Luke to have been the author of the book. In the end, though, God knows. The author, whomever it may be, had the backing of the apostle Paul and that is why the book was established as canonical as far as apostolic authority is concerned.

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 a Ph.D. student at Liberty University in the Theology and Apologetics program. 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.

[1] CSB Study Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017), 1946.

[2] Origen writes, “However, some one hard pressed by this argument may have recourse to the opinion of those who reject this Epistle as not being Paul’s; against whom I must at some other time use other arguments to prove that it is Paul’s.” Origen, A Letter from Origen to Africanus, 9.

[3] See Brian Chilton, “Did Paul Write All Thirteen Letters Attributed to Him?,”BellatorChristi.com (July 17, 2017), retrieved August 1, 2017,https://bellatorchristi.com/2017/07/17/did-paul-write-all-thirteen-letters-attributed-to-him/.

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

 

 

/by
Gospel John New Testament Author

Who Wrote the Gospel of John?

,

By Brian Chilton

For the past few weeks, we have investigated the authors of the Gospels and the book of Acts. In this article, we examine the evidence for the Gospel of John. Who wrote the Fourth Gospel? As we have in previous articles, this article will look at the proposed author, the internal and external evidences for authorship, the dating, and the location and intended audience for the Fourth Gospel.

Proposed Author by Tradition:       Church tradition claims that John the apostle wrote the Fourth Gospel while pastoring as an aged man in Ephesus. Does the evidence back up this assumption?

Internal Evidence:    Internally, as the other Gospels, the author is unnamed. However, a clear reading of the Fourth Gospel denotes that the one named the beloved disciple, or the disciple whom Jesus loved, is also the author of the book. The phrase “the disciple whom Jesus loved” appears 5 times in the Fourth Gospel. This disciple holds a prominent role even to the point that Peter asks about the beloved disciple’s ministry in John 21., son of Zebedee, meets this criterion as well as James, the brother of John. We know that James, son of Zebedee, died in the 40s AD (Acts 12:1-5). The beloved Jesus appears with Peter in 13:23-24; 18:15-16; 20:2-9; and in chapter 21. John is also found with Peter in Luke 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3-4; 8:14-25; and Galatians 2:9. So, only John meets the criteria needed for the Fourth Gospel’s authorship. The question of Peter in John 21 indicates that the author was aged and reflecting back on his life with Jesus and the apostles.

External Evidence:   Referencing the Fourth Gospel’s author, early church father Irenaeus (c. 130-202 AD) writes,

Further, they teach that John, the disciple of the Lord, indicated the first Ogdoad, expressing themselves in these words: John, the disciple of the Lord, wishing to set forth the origin of all things, so as to explain how the Father produced the whole, lays down a certain principle,—that, namely, which was first-begotten by God, which Being he has termed both the only-begotten Son and God, in whom the Father, after a seminal manner, brought forth all things. [1] 

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 AD), as quoted by the church historian Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 263-339 AD) denotes the following:

Again, in the same books Clement has set down a tradition which he had received from the elders before him, in regard to the order of the Gospels, to the following effect. He says that the Gospels containing the genealogies were written first, and that the Gospel according to Mark was composed in the following circumstances:—

Peter having preached the word publicly at Rome, and by the Spirit proclaimed the Gospel, those who were present, who were numerous, entreated Mark, inasmuch as he had attended him from an early period, and remembered what had been said, to write down what had been spoken. On his composing the Gospel, he handed it to those who had made the request to him; which coming to Peter’s knowledge, he neither hindered nor encouraged. But John, the last of all, seeing that what was corporeal was set forth in the Gospels, on the entreaty of his intimate friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.[2]

Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35-108 AD) quotes John’s Gospel quite frequently as he writes an epistle to the Antiochians. Ignatius’s quotation of the Fourth Gospel illustrates that the book was viewed in a positive light and authoritative. Ignatius is noted as a disciple of John the apostle along with Polycarp. The Marytrdom of St. Ignatius notes the following:

Wherefore, with great alacrity and joy, through his desire to suffer, he came down from Antioch to Seleucia, from which place he set sail. And after a great deal of suffering he came to Smyrna, where he disembarked with great joy, and hastened to see the holy Polycarp, [formerly] his fellow-disciple, and [now] bishop of Smyrna. For they had both, in old times, been disciples of St. John the Apostle. Being then brought to him, and having communicated to him some spiritual gifts, and glorying in his bonds, he entreated of him to labour along with him for the fulfilment of his desire; earnestly indeed asking this of the whole Church (for the cities and Churches of Asia had welcomed6 the holy man through their bishops, and presbyters, and deacons, all hastening to meet him, if by any means they might receive from him some spiritual gift), but above all, the holy Polycarp, that, by means of the wild beasts, he soon disappearing from this world, might be manifested before the face of Christ.[3]

Much more could be given as far as external evidence. However, the presented information should suffice for our purposes.

Date:   Evidence suggests that John’s Gospel was the last to be written at some point after 70 AD. It appears that John may have been written in the mid-80s to early 90s as he may have served as pastor of the church of Ephesus.

Location and Audience:       John’s testimony is preserved while serving in Ephesus in Asia Minor. Thus, he writes to the people of that area, but also to the future generations of the church. Perhaps this is why Clement of Alexandria calls it a “spiritual gospel.”

Conclusion:    I believe that John the apostle authored the Gospel by dictation. That is to say, John most likely provided the material to an amanuensis. The amanuensis documented the aged apostle’s words and added the addendum to the Fourth Gospel and the title “the disciple whom Jesus loved” in reference to the apostle. I think the evidence is quite strong for John the son of Zebedee authoring the Fourth Gospel. Claims to the contrary[4] bring more questions than answers. Such as, why do the other Gospels not elevate the other suggested candidates to a higher light? How is it that John is an inner circle disciple in the other Gospels and is missing in prestige in the Fourth Gospel if John is not the author?[5] To reiterate, I believe an amanuensis was employed in the Gospel’s formation. But the use of an amanuensis does not negate the apostle’s hand in writing. So, for those who erroneously claim that the apostle could not have formed a document such as this, such an argument is dispelled if an amanuensis is employed. It is still quite possible with the knowledge obtained by Jesus and his earlier employment that John, son of Zebedee, could have written the entire Gospel by hand. But, I prefer to think that an amanuensis was employed.

Notes

[1] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies, 1.8.5.” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 328.

[2] Clement of Alexandria, “Fragments of Clemens Alexandrinus,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. William Wilson, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 580.

[3] Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds., “The Martyrdom of Ignatius,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 130.

[4] Ben Witherington, III holds that Lazarus was the author of the Fourth Gospel.

[5] For instance, it seems clear that the beloved disciple was one who was prominently known. John the apostle holds such a status.

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 currently working on his Ph.D. 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/2wVQNSb

 

 

/by