TEN Problems with the Canaanite Objection

TEN Problems with the Canaanite Objection

By Tim Stratton

“Then they devoted all in the city to destruction, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys, with the edge of the sword” (Joshua 6:21).

Why would God command the execution of all the Canaanites (along with the children) in the Old Testament? Many think this is one of the biggest objections to Christianity; however, when thinking logically, we can see that this is not an objection to Christian theism at all. We must recognize the real objection; at most, this is only an objection to Biblical inerrancy, as the “Canaanite objection” does absolutely nothing to disprove the existence of God or the resurrection of Jesus. These two things must be invalidated before “Mere Christianity” (as C.S. Lewis put it) is discredited.

With that said, however, is this even a good objection against Biblical inerrancy? I think not. Why? Perhaps God had perfectly good reasons for issuing these “divine commands” (if He really issued them at all).

A quick study of the Canaanite tribes reveals a totally wicked culture, that if existed today, the world would decry. The Canaanites would brutally torture and sacrifice their babies to idols by slowly burning them alive (this sounds worse than ISIS Muslims today)! Eric Lyons noted the following:

 Their “cultic practice was barbarous and thoroughly licentious” (Unger, 1954, p. 175). Their “deities…had no moral character whatever,” which “must have brought out the worst traits in their devotees and entailed many of the most demoralizing practices of the time,” including sensuous nudity, orgiastic nature-worship, snake worship, and even child sacrifice (Unger, p. 175; cf. Albright, 1940, p. 214). As Moses wrote, the inhabitants of Canaan would “burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods” (Deuteronomy 12:30). The Canaanite nations were anything but “innocent.” In truth, “[t]hese Canaanite cults were utterly immoral, decadent, and corrupt, dangerously contaminating and thoroughly justifying the divine command to destroy their devotees” (Unger, 1988). They were so nefarious that God said they defiled the land and the land could stomach them no longer—“the land vomited out its inhabitants” (Leviticus 18:25).

These tribes inhabited the land that God gave to the Israelites. Therefore, not only were the Canaanites suffering God’s judgment for their wicked ways, the land was also restored to Israel. These tribes were to be utterly demolished as nation states! The Canaanites were ripe for God’s judgment, and justice would be served via the Israelites.

Here is what many skeptics miss: The Canaanites, seeing the advancing armies of Israel could have chosen to “get the heck out of Dodge,” and no one would have been killed! To underscore this point, we see no Bible verse in which God commands pursuing the Canaanites, or “hunting them down to the ends of the earth.”

Utterly Destroy?

Moreover, the Israelites did not literally “utterly destroy” all the Canaanites! Only the Canaanites who chose to stay and fight the Israelites were to be killed. In fact, it is quite possible that there were no Canaanite women or children killed at all. The Bible makes zero references to the actualkilling of Canaanite non-combatants, which supports the notion that it was only the Canaanite soldiers, who stayed to fight the Israelite armies, who were exterminated.

Speaking of Biblical affirmation, the Bible reports that Canaanite people were still alive after the conquest of the land in question:

“Thus Joshua struck all the land, the hill country and the Negev and the lowland and the slopes and all their kings. He left no survivor, but he utterly destroyed all who breathed, just as the LORD, the God of Israel, had commanded… Thus Joshua took all that land: the hill country and all the Negev, all that land of Goshen, the lowland, the Arabah, the hill country of Israel and its lowland” (Joshua 10:40; 11:16).

Joshua reports that God commanded “utter destruction,” and that he had followed that command “to the T” (Joshua 11:12, 15, 20); however, if we read the text further, we find that Joshua did not take all of the land (Joshua 13:1-5), and that many of the people who were supposedly either annihilated or removed from the land were, in fact, still living there (Joshua 13:13). The author is clear that the people of Anakim had been “utterly destroyed,” (Joshua 11:21-22); however, if we continue reading, we find Caleb asking for permission to drive out the people of Anakim (Joshua 14:12-15; 15:13-19).

Moreover, the book of Judges records that “the Canaanites persisted in living in that land” (Judg. 1:21) and “they did not drive [the Canaanites] out completely” (Judg. 1:28). This gives us good reason to conclude that modern readers might be making a hermeneutical error in trying to read ancient text through modern lenses. This is corroborated by the words of Moses regarding a future generation of Israelites, He says Israel “will be utterly destroyed” (Deut. 4:26). Now, the nation of Israel has experienced some great defeats in the past; however, the nation of Israel has not been “utterly destroyed” at all. In fact, the nation of Israel thrives today.

After considering all of the text and seeing that the Canaanites continued to survive, this either proves the Israelites disobeyed this supposed “command of genocide,” or this was likely figurative language not to be taken literally (i.e., I hope the Huskers KILL and wipe out the badgers and wolverines next year on the field), or, it proves my point – this battle was not about people; it was about taking control of the land.

What Does Evil Prove? 

Another problem the skeptic has when referencing the Canaanite Objection as evidence against God, is that it actually proves the existence of God! That is to say, if an atheist thinks the “Canaanite problem” is a good refutation of theism, they are actually refuting atheism. If they claim that the Israelites actions were really wrong (objectively), they are inadvertently providing evidence that God exists! Examine the Moral Argument:

1- If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2- Objective moral values and duties do exist

3- Therefore, God exists.

If atheists object to the “Canaanite problem” and proclaim it was objectively wrong to drive the Canaanites from the land, they are offering evidence supporting premise (2) of the Moral Argument. Therefore, God exists! If they do not think it was really wrong, then they have no grounds to complain.

To Whom is God Accountable?

On the other hand, and for the sake of argument, what if the Bible is supposed to be taken literally in this passage in question and God did actually command the Israelites to kill all Canaanites? Would God be guilty of sin? This raises several questions. For instance: is it objectively wrong for God to issue commands to us, that we are obligated to follow, but that He is not?[1] Moreover, is it objectively wrong for God to issue a law that we ought to follow, and then, tell us to do something different in a specific situation?

When we stop to intellectually consider this (as opposed to emotionally) things become clear. For example, I live in the great state of Nebraska (Go Big Red!), and the lawmakers that govern this state have issued the command: “Thou shall not drive over 75 mph on the interstate!” Now, I have to be honest, I do not like this command (I wish the speed limit were at least 90 mph); however, I am obligated to drive according to the laws of the State of Nebraska, independent of whether I agree with them or not. If I do not drive according to these laws (which are issued to help Nebraskans flourish), I will suffer consequences that the lawmaking minds of Nebraska have issued as well.

The same lawmakers have the ability to issue commands to certain individuals in extreme circumstances. For instance, the Nebraska State Patrol is allowed to drive much faster than the speed limit, when they are in pursuit of those who have broken the law. Moreover, thankfully, those who drive ambulances and fire engines can drive much faster than the speed limit if they need to. Are Nebraska’s lawmakers morally wrong or evil for issuing different commands to different people in extreme situations? Not at all! In fact, I think they would be wrong to tell State Troopers that if they were chasing bad guys who were driving 100 mph, that they still had to drive 75 mph while in pursuit. It would be wrong and just plain silly.

When thinking this through, did God really do something wrong if He issued such commands to the Israelites to annihilate the Canaanites? God has the right (as the Ultimate Lawgiver) to give commands to certain individuals in extreme situations. We see this all the time in our government today.

I would ask those who think the supposed “Canaanite objection” is a problem for Christians, to please explain to me exactly who God sinned against if He did indeed issue these commands to the Israelites? If things are objectively wrong, they are wrong in reference to a higher standard. So, if God really did issue commands to kill people, what higher standard did God sin against? Is God accountable to someone? If this question is not answered, the objection has no teeth in its bite and does not make logical sense.

God’s Middle Knowledge

God, by definition, is omniscient. This means He knows the truth-value to any and all propositions. This includes counter-factual truths in the subjunctive mood and this means God possesses what theologians and philosophers refer to as “middle knowledge.” God is the standard of logic and rationality, and he is perfectly intelligent. Given this property, God makes the most intelligent decision in every scenario and situation. This means that God would know what would happen, if he did not issue the commands to destroy the Canaanites. Perhaps God knew that if they were not driven from the land and destroyed, Israel would not have become a nation, and Jesus would not have been born to save the world.

Moreover, God would have known how wicked the Canaanites were, and known with absolute certainty that none of them would have worshipped him, if given the opportunity. We could conduct thought experiment after thought experiment regarding an omniscient being (who would know the truth-value to counter-factual propositions) that would lead to Him knowing that issuing the commands to the Israelites to drive the wicked Canaanites from their land, and even kill them, would be the best thing to do in that specific situation.

Finite humans, who are not perfectly intelligent, are simply not in a position to know if the omniscient, divine command from God is the best decision or not because we have no idea what counter factual would have happened, if God did not issue these commands. An omniscient God, however, would be in such an epistemic position to know these things with perfect certainty and issue commands accordingly.

How We Know

According to Divine Command Morality, if God commands us to take the life of another, it would not be wrong. In the absence of this command, it is objectively wrong to murder other humans. How do we know this? God has revealed this to us through His commands and the Law of Christ — to love everyone from our neighbors (Mark 12:31) to our enemies (Matthew 5:44). This law and these commands have been historically validated via the resurrection of Jesus, as it is God’s seal of approval of everything Jesus said, taught, and exemplified.

God does not order Himself to do things. He acts in accords with his omniscient nature. He is what the laws of logic are grounded in (“The Logos”)and He is perfectly intelligent. A statement is true when it corresponds to reality. God is the ultimate standard of reality, as He exists necessarily and eternally with no beginning, and all other things are contingent upon God and depend upon Him for their existence (Colossians 1:15-20). Therefore, God is the ground of logic, the standard of truth, and we depend on Him for our existence. As William Lane Craig points out, “We ought to depend on the one who depends on no one.” That gives Him the right to tell us how to live, and to tell us what to do, even if we do not subjectively appreciate the commands (just like I don’t like the speed limit)!

It is important to remember that God is not obligated by his nature to extend human life. God is the author, giver, inventor, and creator of life. It is His to decide how we ought to live, and He has the right to issue commands that He knows are best (even if they don’t always make sense to us). God gives us life and He has the right to take it when He chooses and by whatever means He chooses. Be that as it may, some continue to object and claim that if God did command the Israelites to kill the Canaanite children, that it would have been objectively wrong for God to issue such commands no matter what. Is this really the case? My former professor, Dr. Clay Jones (who does not think these passages are hyperbole), made the following comments on the issue:

“One of the key issues that we need to point out regarding the killing of Canaanite children is that it isn’t always wrong to kill the innocent. Copan makes this point in his book (“Is God a Moral Monster?“) and uses the potential shooting down of Flight 93 as an example. . . . Also, God is every bit as just for allowing a child to be taken quickly by the sword as He is for allowing them to be taken slowly by cancer. Further, if God knew that these children, when they grew up, would commit similar sins, then He does no wrong by taking their lives early.”[2]

After contemplating these comments from Clay Jones, consider the atomic bombs the U.S. dropped on Japan to win WWII. We killed many innocent Japanese civilians, although millions of lives were saved in the process! With historical examples like these in mind, it is clear that sometimes — in extremely rare circumstances — it is actually good, and the right thing to do, for leaders to issue commands that will have collateral damage and take innocent life.

Conclusion

This essay provides several logical arguments against the “Canaanite objection.” I have answered this objection based on logic and critical thinking. One may have an emotional revulsion against these answers, but an emotional revulsion is not an intellectual objection and it does not logically lead to the conclusion that atheism is true, or that Christianity is false. The supposed “problems” of God committing genocide in the Old Testament are not insurmountable problems by any means, and ultimately, not a good reason to reject Christianity. In summary, remember theseTEN key points:

1- Objections like these do not refute Christian theism; this objection is simply an argument against Biblical inerrancy (a non-essential doctrine) nothing more.[3]

2- The Canaanites were wicked (on par with ISIS) and ripe for judgment.

3- The battle was primarily about the land as there was no command to “hunt the Canaanites down to the ends of the earth.”

4- The Bible is clear that all of the Canaanites were not executed.

5- These commands could well have been figurative speech (i.e., “our football team is going to kill your team!”)[4]

6- Objections like these support premise (2) of the moral argument for God’s existence (Therefore, God exists).

7- Lawmakers have the ability to issue different commands to certain individuals in extreme circumstances.

8- If God really did issue these commands to kill people, whom did God sin against? Who is He accountable to?

9- Given God’s property of omniscience and perfect intelligence, God makes the best decision in every scenario and situation. God would know what would happen if He did not issue the commands to destroy the Canaanites.

10- Flight 93 and WWII atomic bomb examples demonstrate that it is not always wrong to issue commands where innocent lives are taken.

Stay reasonable (Philippians 4:5),

Tim Stratton

NOTES

*Please read this related article from my colleague, Shannon Eugene Byrd, shining additional light on the subject of the Canaanite Objection.

[1] I call this the “Bedtime Fallacy,” as this is equivalent to saying parents are wrong to command their children to go to bed at 9 PM, but they retain the right to stay up past midnight.

[2] Clay Jones was my professor in my “God & Evil class” and I wrote a paper on the Canaanite Objection. Dr. Jones wrote this to me in response to my paper.

[3] Read more regarding this topic in my article, “An Ignorant Objection to the Moral Argument.”

[4] Trevor Ray Slone personally informed me that God’s curse on Canaan (Noah’s grandson) in Genesis 9:25-27 gives further credence to the view that God did not intend to “utterly destroy” all of Canaan’s decedents (the Canaanites). God, in that curse, repeatedly indicates that Canaan’s decedents would be servants of God’s people. It is therefore logically impossible for God to decree that all of the Canaanites be destroyed, for how could they be servants if they were “utterly destroyed?”

 

/by

Are Humans Sophisticated Carbon-Based Machines?

By Chris Du-Pond

A paramount question that humans ought to consider is what philosophers have labeled the “mind-body problem.” The key point here is this: are humans made of one substance or more? Are humans nothing more than physical matter or do they also incorporate an immaterial mind/soul? These distinct perspectives are known as physicalism and dualism. To answer that question carries profound implications, for if the soul/mind exists, then physicalism is certainly false. It is clear as well that if the mind exists as a disembodiable entity, then it is possible that humans can exist after the physical body dies. In this essay, I will argue that humans are not just physical matter and thus physicalism is false.

The challenge for those who hold to physicalism is to offer a coherent explanation detailing how mind and consciousness can arise from the rearrangement of carbon atoms. If physicalism is true, the humans are just complex rearranged and super-evolved bags of chemicals. This challenge becomes exponentially acute if we attempt to explain the emergence of mental states and consciousness.

Is there a way to ascertain if physicalism is false and that a soul/mind exists independently? Dr. J. P. Moreland believes that—with the use of simple logic and a few clear definitions—we can be reasonably convinced that physicalism is false. What comes from the physical, by means of the physical will be another form of physical matter. There is, however, strong evidence for the existence of the soul/mind independently of the brain/body.

The first step to show that physicalism is false is to define a few key terms to use as clarification tools to decide if the brain and the mind are the same “thing.” Within the realm of dualism, there is what is called substance dualism and property dualism. To understand these views requires the differentiation between substance and property. Property is an attribute or characteristic (squareness, redness, hardness, density). Properties tend to end in “ness” and “ity” in English. Properties are “had” by things. We can speak of the property of being blue, and then we can speak about the object holding that property, for example: “the pen is blue.”

A substance is something that has properties but nothing has it; for example, a pet has a property of being fluffy, of weighing 20 lbs, of being color brown, but nothing “has” the pet. The pet does all the “having.” Substances have properties and can gain or lose properties as well and remain the same substance. A pen can be painted green and lose the blueness property, but still be a pen (same substance).

To make our case against physicalism, we need to understand the nature of identity: Leibnitz’s law of identity posits that if we have a substance (or a property) X and another substance (or property) Y, if X is identical to Y, then whatever is true of X will be true of Y and vice-versa. For example; let X be “Neil Armstrong” and Y be “The first man to walk on the Moon.” If X is identical to Y, then Neil Armstrong is the first man to walk on the Moon. If this is true, then X and Y are the same substance. This is also true of properties. Now, if it can be proven that one thing is true of X that is not true of Y, then they are not the same substance or property. This is extremely important because now we can ask the question: is your consciousness nothing but physical properties of your brain? Are you your brain—and nothing more?

The key premise to test using the law of identity is the following: If there are true things of mental properties that are not true of physical properties, then they can’t be the same thing.

Let’s now review three arguments that show that there are some true things of mental properties that are not true of physical properties:

Argument 1: The property dualist agrees with the physicalist that we are physical substances (brain) but adds that the brain has two types of properties: physical and mental properties (and they are not the same). The brain has physical properties and mental properties. There is one possessor with two kinds of properties. Sensations are mental properties. Sensations can be perceptual sensations and non-perceptual. A sensation is a state of awareness that arrives from a sense organ (for example awareness of color, sound, smell, taste, texture). A non-perceptual sensation does not come from a sense organ (for example, fear, anger, love, anguish). A thought is a mental content that can be expressed in a whole sentence and can be true or false (for example, I can be thinking that “snow is white” but express it in French or Spanish). A belief is a mental content I take to be true (beliefs are not thoughts, for a person can hold a myriad of beliefs but not be thinking about any of them). Desires and acts of the will are also mental properties. The issue here for the physicalist is that these properties happen “inside of us” and there are properties that are true of sensations, thoughts, desires and acts of will that are not true of physical properties and vice versa; for example, thoughts don’t have size or shape. A thought can be true or false, but a feature of the brain or a group of neurons is neither true nor false. A brain state has a physical pattern of electricity, but the pattern is neither true nor false. We can think of a pink elephant and have an awareness of pink, but that awareness is not physical and we can’t find the color pink in the brain for which we experience such awareness. A sensation is pleasurable or not, but no physical property is pleasurable. There are true characteristics of our sensations that are not true of physical properties so they are not the same substance. This demonstrates that physicalism is false, and at least property dualism is true. No amount of information about our bodies can say everything there is to say about our conscious self.

Argument 2: I have the property of being possibly disembodied (the possibility that my “self” exists apart from my body) but my body doesn’t have the property of being possibly disembodied so I am not my body. By contrast, if water is H2O, is there’s anything that could possibly happen to water that couldn’t happen to H2O? No, there is nothing that wouldn’t happen to water that wouldn’t happen to H2O if they are the same thing. Even if life after death is false, surely, humans are at least possibly the kind of thing that can live after death. If that is so, then humans can’t be purely physical objects. There is something true of a human that is not true of the human body: I am possibly disembodiable. This does not prove immortality, but it illustrates that the body is not identical to the self.

Argument 3: The reality of free will. If all you are is a brain (even a conscious brain) and you believe physicalism is true, then all your behaviors are fixed by genes, brain structure, and environmental inputs. Physical objects behave according to natural laws and inputs, including the brain. But free choice requires that you are not simply your body because bodies are governed by physical laws. Free choice requires that humans be more than matter or brains. Matter, chemistry and electrical impulses can’t exercise free agency. But I submit to you that humans have significant freedom and moral responsibility and therefore true free will. In fact, our daily experience highlights the reality of true freedom of the will.

These three arguments show that there are true things about the self that are not true about a material body/brain and therefore physicalism is false.

Note

1.William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, ed., “The Mind-Body Problem”, The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2009), 229.

 

Chris has an M.A. in Apologetics from Biola University and writes on the topic of Apologetics and Theology in Spanish and English at Veritasfidei.org

/by
Robots & Rationality

Robots & Rationality

,

By Tim Stratton

Determinists determined to defend determinism often counter the Freethinking Argument by proclaiming that computers seem to be rational and they do not possess libertarian free will. They state this is sufficient refutation of premise (3) of the Freethinking Argument, and therefore, the conclusions: free will exists, the soul exists, and naturalism is false, do not follow. This article exposes a major problem with this objection and demonstrates that the deductive conclusions of the Freethinking Argument remain unscathed.

Assumptions & Presuppositions

One problem with the “computer objection” is this: simply by stating that computers are, or robots of the future could be, rational in a deterministic universe *assumes* that the determinist making this claim has, at least briefly, transcended their deterministic environment and freely inferred the best explanation (the one we ought to reach) via the process of rationality to correctly conclude that computers are, in fact, rational agents.

Naturalistsic determinists presuppose they are rational humans while offering a computer as a completely determined rational agent. The question, however, is this: does rationality exist on naturalism? With the proper question in mind, the answer given must be an explanation as to how humans could be rational in a fully physical and causally determined world, not, “Well computers are rational!”

Again, if determinists happen to luckily be right about determinism, then they did not come to this conclusion based on rational deliberation by weighing competing views and then freely choosing to adopt the best explanation from the rules of reason via properly functioning cognitive faculties. No, given determinism, they were forced by chemistry and physics to hold their conclusion whether it is true or not. On naturalism there are no cognitive faculties functioning in a “proper” way according to a design plan which would allow one to freely think and infer what ought to be inferred. Simply offering a computer as a rational entity only sweeps the problem under the rug, but the problem remains as we are not discussing computers, but rather, the designers of computers.

If one is going to assert a certain view of the actual world, then the view offered should entail the ability of the proclaimer to make this rational inference in the same world. After all, one cannot rationally conclude a model of reality which destroys the very method he used to reach the conclusion. Alvin Plantinga notes the circularity involved by the naturalist:

“such a claim is pragmatically circular in that it alleges to give a reason for trusting our noetic equipment, but the reason is itself trustworthy only if those faculties are indeed trustworthy. If I have come to doubt my noetic equipment, I cannot give an argument using that equipment for I will rely on the very equipment in doubt.”[1]

Plantinga quotes Thomas Reed’s perceptive statement to support his case: “If you want to know whether [or not] a man tells the truth, the right way to proceed is not to ask him.” If you have reason to suspect a certain man is a liar, why should you believe this individual when he tells you that he is not a liar? Similarly, if we have reason to suspect we cannot freely think to infer the best explanation, why assume these specific thoughts (which are suspected of being unreliable) are reliable regarding computers?

Moreover, the naturalist who states that he freely thinks determinism is true is similar to one arguing that language does not exist, by using English to express that thought. The proposition itself counts as evidence against that view. If a naturalist is going to assume the ability to rationally argue that computers and robots can be rational in a deterministic and completely physical universe, they must first demonstrate they are not begging any questions by assuming they are rational to reach the conclusion that they are rational.

Until naturalists demonstrate exactly how a determined conclusion, which cannot be otherwise and is caused by nothing but physics and chemistry, can be rationally inferred and affirmed, then the rest of their argument has no teeth in its bite as it is incoherent and built upon unproven assumptions. As I always say, any argument based upon a logical fallacy is no argument at all. That is to say, even if a naturalist’s conclusion happens to be right, they have not offered any reason to think the conclusion is true, or any rational justification to think their causally determined thoughts are reliable or worth considering.

 Conclusion

If all is ultimately determined by nature, then all thoughts — including what humans think about the rationality of computers — cannot be otherwise. We are simply left assuming that our thoughts (which we are not responsible for) regarding computers are good, the best, or true. We do not have a genuine ability to think otherwise or really consider competing hypotheses at all.

Bottom line: if naturalism is true, then there is no such thing as free will, and if there is no free will then there is no freethinking!

Stay reasonable (Philippians 4:5),

Tim Stratton

NOTES

[1] William Lane Craig & JP Moreland note Alvin Plantinga’s claim in Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (page 107).

Resources for Greater Impact: 

reasoninthebalance book

 

Tim pursued his undergraduate studies at the University of Nebraska-Kearney (B.A. 1997) and after working in full-time ministry for several years went on to attain his graduate degree from Biola University (M.A. 2014). Tim was recently accepted at Northwest University to pursue his Ph.D. in systematic theology with a focus on metaphysics.

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

/by

4 Pieces of Wisdom from a Street Level Apologist

By Billy Dyer

One reason I believe in Christianity is because it speaks of reality closer than any other worldview. This isn’t the only or even the main reason, but it is one of the reasons. Even if Christianity is not true (I do not doubt Christianity) I am convinced that atheism is wholly false. That is because atheism contradicts the real world at every turn. I try to point this out to skeptics all the time, and I’ve learned a lot about how to deal with people. Here are four observations I’ve made about our culture.

  1. Understand our culture is hypocritically skeptical about history

    Have you ever noticed that modern man is very skeptical about what happened in history? Of course, he isn’t skeptical at all about the information we have in the Present. As if the present is some sort of infallible guide to truth. To our culture, it seems as if the present contains the whole field of vision for truth. That is, if we believe it today then it must be true. Furthermore, they have the snobbery of believing that ancient man has nothing to teach us. But what I find most interesting is that this skepticism about history only goes back so far. Once you get back to the pre-historic days then somehow history becomes a matter of science, and we all know science is infallible. Therefore, the study of dinosaurs is reliable, but the study of the early church are ransacked with an error.

  2. Realize they have a strong distrust of ancient text

    Modern man just cannot stomach the concept that the Bible has been copied. If it has been copied then assuredly it has to have been corrupted many times over. Admittedly this is a difficult topic to address not due to the evidence being in their favor but because of time. That is, we simply do not have the time, during those moments of objection, to sit down and teach them about textual criticism. At the same time, though, we can use their faith in science to our aide. They do call textual criticism a science. Therefore, we can ask the skeptic, “why should you doubt the science of textual criticism if their data findings conclude that the Biblical text has been preserved?”.

  3. Any sense of sin is virtually lacking

    The Apostles went into the world of pagans to preach the Gospel. It was full of mystical religions which worshipped the dead, conjured up spirits, had ancestor worship, idol worship, gross immorality, etc… But at least they had a concept of moral obligations. That is why the Gospel was called “good news.” For the pagans finally understood they could be truly forgiven for what they knew they had done wrong. I know it may seem weird to think about, but please think about it for a minute. A person can be highly immoral in the Christian sense yet still have an understanding of a moral code. I’ve noticed this in my study on gangs. They are very wicked people. In fact, if women want to enter the gang, they have to allow themselves to be raped by all the members as an initiation rite. Men sometimes have to kill an innocent person or allow themselves to be brutally beaten to show their loyalty. As wicked as this may be they still have a moral code. There are a set of rules that they still abide by. In our day and age, America is forsaking the concept that morals even exist. As apologists, we don’t even have grounds to start on to talk about sin. We have to convince the world that sin, in any sense of the term, even exists first. They do not want to know if they can be acquitted for sin but whether God can be acquitted for creating such a world as this. 

  4. We must learn the language of our audience

    Not too many Bible students have had the opportunity to study this out, so I am just going to mention it here. But the New Testament authors actually took words from the contemporary culture and redefined them to fit what they were teaching. I think this is brilliant because it builds a bridge of understanding. That is, we can take a concept that they do understand simply help show them the fuller truth of the nugget they seem to already agree with. This is why I try to stay away from using Christian-Eze language when talking to non-church going people. That is a language that is virtually only understood by Church people (atonement, propitiation, justification, sanctification). Don’t get me wrong. We shouldn’t ignore the concepts. I am only imploring you to speak of the concepts using words that make sense to your audience. If you cannot translate your theology into the common man’s vernacular, then you are too confused about theology to teach it. So instead of saying God “justifies” us, we can say God acquits us. When speaking of “God’s wrath” I often use the illustration of a bounty hunter. We are criminals who are being tracked down by the bounty hunter known as God’s wrath, and He always catches his victim. But God has provided a means of payment to satisfy this bounty hunter, and it is only through Jesus. Another word to stay away from is “faith” When our culture hears faith they think of a blind leap in the dark or believing in spite of the evidence. Instead, I like the word trust because our audience understands it and it actually better defines the Greek word.

If you keep these four things in mind, it will help you to know your audience and present the case for Christ better.

For more articles like 4 Pieces of Wisdom from a Street Level Apologist visit Billy’s website: Dyerthoughts.com 

Billy Dyer is a CrossExamined Instructor Academy Graduate.

/by
Don’t Expect Your Kids to Care What the Bible Says Unless...

Don’t Expect Your Kids to Care What the Bible Says Unless You’ve Given Them Reason to Believe It’s True

,

By Natasha Crain

A mom left a comment on one of my older posts the other day that said, “It sounds like you are teaching your kids to question the Bible. We should never teach our kids to question the Bible!”

To that I say…Of course we should.

Let’s not get confused, however, by what it means to “question” the Bible. To ask questions about something doesn’t mean to doubt it by default. Neither default acceptance nor default rejection is the response of a critical thinker.

To encourage our kids to question the Bible means to encourage them to examine it fully so they can determine its truth value for themselves.

This is a spiritual process so sorely lacking in most kids’ (and adults’) lives today.

Our kids learn a selection of key Bible stories throughout their childhood, but what do they learn about the Bible–why they should even believe those stories?

Typically, next to nothing.

Yet, parents and church leaders spend years preaching to kids from the Bible, assuming those kids should and will accept it at face value. It takes just a few skeptics to throw darts at that face value before kids make the point of this “atheist pig”:

Don’t expect your kids to care what the Bible says unless you’ve taken the time to help them understand why there’s good reason to believe it’s true.

In Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side, I wrote 8 chapters to help you do just that. Of course, there are many other possible topics to address on the Bible’s veracity, but I selected these because they are the most pertinent and the most frequently attacked by skeptics.

Here’s an overview of these 8 key questions you should be teaching your kids to ask of the Bible.

1. How were the books in the Bible selected?

Skeptics claim: In the first centuries after Jesus, there were many rival versions of Christianity, but the representative writings were suppressed by those in power. Our New Testament books represent the version of Christianity that happened to win over time. The winning books weren’t picked until some 300 years after Jesus’ death, and they won because they found political favor at the time.

Kids need to understand: That there were many early Christian writings, how the early church leaders sifted through those writings over time, and how the books of our Bible today were eventually deemed authoritative.

This is explained in Chapter 25 of my book.

2. Why were books left out of the Bible?

Skeptics claim: There are many “gospels” missing from the Bible which give equally valid but completely different views of Jesus than the one we have. If these books had made it into the Bible, Christianity would mean something very different today.

Kids need to understand: Why the mere existence of dozens of early Christian writings that never made it into the Bible says absolutely nothing. The question they need to be able to confidently answer is whether or not any of those writings can legitimately claim spiritual authority by way of connection to Jesus and His apostles.

This is explained in Chapter 26 of my book.

3. How do we know we can trust the Bible’s authors?

Skeptics claim: The gospels were written decades after Jesus lived by anonymous authors based on growing legends and unreliable oral history.

Kids need to understand: Why we can be confident that the gospels are based on reliable, eyewitness testimony.

This is explained in Chapter 27 of my book.

4. How do we know the Bible we have today says what the authors originally wrote?

Skeptics claim: The Bible has been copied, edited, copied, edited, copied, edited, etc. so many times since the original authors wrote their content that we have no way of even knowing what the books we have should say. (See the quote on the image at the top of this post from one actor making this claim.)

Kids need to understand: Why thousands of copies of early manuscripts and hundreds of thousands of differences between them actually don’t undermine what we know about Christianity.

This is explained in Chapter 28 of my book.

5. Does the Bible have errors and contradictions?

Skeptics claim: The Bible is filled with hundreds of errors and contradictions, clearly demonstrating it’s not the Word of God. (See bibviz.com as one example of this claim.)

Kids need to understand: How to evaluate alleged errors and contradictions (with special consideration of the alleged contradictions in the Gospels).

This is explained in Chapter 29 of my book.

6. Does the Bible support slavery?

Skeptics claim: God’s laws about slavery in the Old Testament show that, far from being a perfect moral Being, He actually supported this terrible institution–even sex slavery (see Exodus 21:7-11).

Kids need to understand: The issue of slavery in the Old Testament is very complex and requires an appropriate understanding of biblical context, culture, and history.

This is explained in Chapter 30 of my book.

7. Does the Bible support rape?

Skeptics claim: The Bible approves of rape.

Kids need to understand: The meaning of biblical laws on rape (Deuteronomy 22:23-29) and the biblical context for three key passages often used to support skeptics’ claims in this area (treatment of female war captives, treatment of the Midianite virgins, and treatment of the women of Jabesh-gilead).

This is explained in Chapter 31 of my book.

8. Does the Bible support human sacrifice?

Skeptics claim: God may explicitly condemn human sacrifice in the Bible, but He violates His own prohibition multiple times.

Kids need to understand: The theological background of God’s command for Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, the nature of child sacrifices of kings, Jepthah’s vow, the consecration of firstborn males, and Jesus’ death on the cross.

This is explained in Chapter 32 of my book.

So should you teach your kids to ask these and other questions about the Bible? Absolutely. If you don’t, skeptics will. And soon your kids won’t care what the Bible says any more than the “atheist pig”.

Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side is available from your local Barnes & Noble and Christian book retailers, as well as ChristianBook.com, BarnesandNoble.com, and Amazon.com.

For more articles like Don’t Expect Your Kids to Care What the Bible Says Unless You’ve Given Them Reason to Believe It’s True visit Natasha’s site ChristianMomThoughts.com

/by
7 Questions from “Who is God”

7 Questions from “Who is God”

By Brian Chilton

This past Sunday, the third episode of Morgan Freeman’s show The Story of God as aired on the National Geographic Channel. The third episode dealt with how God is understood to be in various cultures and religions. Again, I am profoundly surprised at how well this show has been made. The show has not attacked any particular worldview, as I feared that it would. Rather, the show has taken a fairly neutral position while evaluating some major topics. This episode was no different. The third episode dealt with the issue “Who is God?” This article will seek to answer 7 questions that were raised during the show from a Christian perspective.

  1. Is there one God or several gods?

By sheer necessity, there is only one ultimate uncaused cause. If there were several gods or goddesses, one would have to ask “How did such a number of gods arise?” It seems to me that one would be forced to accept a first uncaused cause. While it is possible to accept a multiplicity of gods and goddesses, it makes better sense to accept that only one God exists. Why? Well, I think Thomas Aquinas answers this well. Aquinas states,

 “When the existence of a cause is demonstrated from an effect, this effect takes the place of the definition of the cause in proof of the cause’s existence. This is especially the case in regard to God, because, in order to prove the existence of anything, it is necessary to accept as a middle term the meaning of the word, and not its essence, for the question of its essence follows on the question of its existence. Now the names given to God are derived from His effects; consequently, in demonstrating the existence of God from His effects, we make take for the middle term the meaning of the word ‘God.’”[1]

From sheer necessity, only one God must exist. Thus, God could manifest himself in several ways, but in the end, there is but only one God.

  1. How does one connect to God?

If by connecting, one means relating to God, then one can connect with God in various ways. Morgan Freeman is right when he notes that it is sometimes difficult to relate to a transcendent God. However, God has given us means to relate to him. One way people connect with God is through prayer. Prayer is a means by which we can communicate with God and a way that God communicates with us.[2] Another way a person connects to God is through the written Word of God. The Scriptures are God’s revelation to all humanity. A third way a person can connect with God is through the intellect. A person can connect with God by learning more about God. Fourth, a person can connect with God through nature. As the psalmist notes, “the heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork” (Psalm 19:1).[3] Lastly, a person can ultimately connect with God through a relationship with Christ. When one receives Christ, the Bible tells us that the believer is filled with the Holy Spirit of God (John 14:15ff).

  1. Has God revealed himself to several people throughout the world?

There is but only one ultimate truth. However, this is not to say that God has not been trying to reveal himself to various peoples throughout the world. Solomon writes that God “has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man’s heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end” (Ecclesiastes 3:11). So, I am not saying that all religions are the same. Such is not logically possible. However, I feel it is quite possible that God has been trying to reveal himself throughout all of history. Ultimately, the full revelation came through Jesus of Nazareth, the “only begotten Son of God” (John 3:16).

  1. How do we know what’s divine?

Only God is truly divine in the purest sense. However, human beings are made in the image of God (Genesis 1-2). Thus, human beings bear the mark of divinity (although we are not divine). But in fact, all things bear the mark of God in reality because “All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made” (John 1:3). So, only one person is truly divine (God), yet all things bear the imprint of the divine as God created all things.

  1. Can we imagine God?

In a way, yes. In a way, no. I think Norman Geisler puts it best. Geisler notes that “Although God can be apprehended, He cannot be comprehended.”[4] Paul writes, “For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away” (1 Corinthians 13:9). Thus, we cannot say that we know everything about God. If we could, we would be God.

  1. Does God indwell us?

We all bear the image of God (Genesis 1:26). However, God indwells each person who receives Christ as Savior. This person is known as the Holy Spirit.

  1. Can we experience God?

Yes! Absolutely we can! We experience the blessings of God every day. However, the only way to fully experience God is through a relationship with Christ Jesus. See also the answer to the second question.[5]

Much more could be said about God. In reality, the third episode of Freeman’s documentary as well as this article has focused more upon how humanity knows God. Such a knowledge of God is called revelation. God has revealed himself both through natural revelation (available to all) and special revelation (delivered to those of faith). If a person has not experienced God, it is highly advised that the person seek God and ask God to reveal himself.

Notes

[1] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I.2.2., in Thomas Aquinas, Summa of the Summa, Peter Kreeft, ed., Fathers of the Dominican Province, trans (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990), 59.

[2] Some individuals have argued that God does not communicate with a person through prayer. With all due respect, I have found such arguments greatly lacking. God has spoken to a vast array of individuals in the Bible through the means of prayer (e.g. Habakkuk, Job, Elijah, Isaiah, and so on). To claim that God cannot speak to a person in prayer discredits the power and personal nature of God. However, I agree that one should always “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1) to ensure that one is truly hearing from God.

[3] Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture comes from the English Standard Version (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001).

[4] Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology: In One Volume (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2011), 529.

[5] Also, check out the discipleship program Experiencing God by Henry Blackaby, Richard Blackaby, and Claude V. King.

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as a pastor in northwestern North Carolina.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2x7KBnT
/by
4 Informal Logical Fallacies & Biblical Examples

4 Informal Logical Fallacies & Biblical Examples

By Billy Dyer

Is logic foreign to the New Testament? Is it a field of study we should reserve for the philosophers and let the theologians be by themselves? Of course not! Logic is logic and works in every field of reality. If God is the God of Truth, then we should expect to see Him, the inventor of logic, using logic. Humans didn’t invent logic, we simply use it, name it, and study it. Today I want to look at a few examples of Informal Logical Fallacies and how the Bible actually uses these principles correctly.

The Law of Non-Contradiction

  • It states, “Two contradictory statements cannot possibly be true at the same time and in the same relationship.”
  • For example, you couldn’t say, “The Earth is round and not round.”
  • This law is fundamental to thinking. You cannot have a conversation without it. We all use it intuitively. If someone denies this law, then you can point out they are actually using it right now. What do I mean? If I were to say, “There is a Law of Non-Contradiction,” and someone said, “No there is not” then they would be contradicting me to say there is none!!!
  • 1st John 2:4 says, “The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” John states it is a contradiction to profess to know Christ and yet not obey him. You cannot do both at the same time.

Hasty Generalization

  • This law points out the fallacy when we jump to a conclusion without sufficient data. We extrapolate from a small sample to create a general rule.
  • People/Organizations formulate rules or policies from accidental or exceptional situations.
  • For example…When the youth group has an overnighter, and someone breaks a window. The Church will then make a rule that we can never have another overnighter because they are destructive to the Church building.
  • Biblical Example…Someone reads a story of God destroying Sodom/Gomorrah and concludes He is a wrathful and mean God. They did not collect enough data to balance God’s characteristics.

Dicto Simpliciter

  • If hasty generalizations go from a small sample to a general rule dicto simpliciter is when you presume that what is true in general, under normal circumstances, is true under all circumstances without exception.
  • For example…The speed limit on the highway is 65 mph in Maryland. But police cars exceed that speed all the time. Well, they are not under normal circumstances if they are chasing an armed robber or responding to a call for help.
  • Biblical Example…I read an article a few years ago which denied that Enoch and Elijah were translated directly to heaven. What was their basis? Romans 5:12 which says, “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.” Their reasoning was this; If death spread to all men, then Enoch & Elijah couldn’t have circumvented death. The author was guilty of the dicto simpliciter fallacy for the Bible clearly says that a whole group of people are going to escape physical death if they are Christians when the Lord returns.

The Reductive Fallacy

  • This fallacy occurs when we attempt to reduce a complex entity to only one of its many aspects
  • Keywords that are generally used for this fallacy are “just,” “only,” “merely,” “simply,” “nothing but.”
  • For example…”Man is just an animal” or “Music is nothing but sound waves.” These states hold truth but not the whole truth. Man is more than just an animal and music is more than sound waves. My burp is a sound wave, but it surely isn’t music.
  • Biblical Example…Have you ever heard someone say, “God is love”? Would you agree or disagree? I guess as is we could agree with the statement but I might disagree with the intent behind the statement. When people use this phrase most of the time what they are really attempting to say is that “God is only love.” But God is also Holy. There is a balance to His nature (Romans 11:22).

The Church needs to be wary of using logical fallacies in our theology. If we want good theology, we need to use good logic. Can you think of better biblical examples than what I used?

For more articles like 4 Informal Logical Fallacies & Biblical Examples go to Billy’s website at DyerThoughts.com

/by
Evolution and the “Convictions of a Monkey’s Mind”

Evolution and the “Convictions of a Monkey’s Mind”

,

By Tim Stratton

In my last article, I made the case that evolution cannot account for human rationality unless it could explain genuine free will. In the Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism, I argued that free will cannot be explained if naturalism is true. It follows that naturalistic evolution cannot account for the ability humans possess to rationally affirm knowledge claims.

My Freethinking Argument stands strong on its own, but Alvin Plantinga has made a separate case supporting my argument. He argues that if evolution is true, then naturalism is probably false. To be clear, Plantinga is not making a case against evolution; rather, he argues that naturalism and evolution are most likely incompatible. This argument is called the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism(EAAN).[1]

I will not offer the EAAN in its entirely (Plantinga summarizes it here), but one of the key ideas behind this argument is that evolution is not guaranteed to select for truth. Natural selection is a cause of evolution. Organisms that are best able to survive and reproduce are selected for, however, true beliefs do not necessarily increase the likelihood of survival. If it could be demonstrated that (at least sometimes) false beliefs can enhance survivability, then we have good reason to believe that naturalistic evolution cannot guarantee that our thoughts correspond with reality. Darwin himself seemed to have lost sleep over this idea:

With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has always been developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy… Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?[2]

Darwin may have realized the problem of combining naturalism with evolutionary theory; that is to say, if evolution is a non-teleological and a non-rational process, it challenges our confidence that we can form true beliefs that lead to rational conclusions. Naturalistic evolution (as opposed to some form of theistic evolution) presupposes that our cognitive faculties developed as they did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. The theory of evolution affirms that natural selection does not select for beliefs unless they benefit the chances of survival and/or reproduction. Beliefs only have to lead to a survival advantage even if they are completely false.

The biologist and atheist, Lewis Wolpert, confirmed Plantinga’s case, albeit inadvertently, in a debate with William Lane Craig. In his first speech, he affirmed that although he believes theism is false, he acknowledges there are evolutionary advantages and survival benefits to those holding theistic beliefs.[3] It follows from this admission that evolution selects for survival, not for true beliefs (since he assumes theism is false). Consequently, why should Wolpert trust his evolved belief that theism is false? He is reasoning in circles.

Mormonism is a good example of false beliefs contributing to the survival and reproductive benefits. After all, Mormonism teaches morality and human flourishing as well as having as many children as possible to populate future planets that they will rule.[4] Those holding the belief that Mormonism is true also believe they have a moral responsibility to reproduce.

Consider the other side of the coin: a belief in atheism could actually hinder human survival (even if atheism were true — which it is not). If one believes atheistic naturalism is true, then one ought to logically reach the conclusion that life is objectively meaningless.[5] There would be no foundation for objective meaning, value, or purpose in life if God and soul do not exist. What’s the point of surviving? Moreover, there would be no objective grounding for moral values and duties.[6] If nothing really matters, then human flourishing and survival do not really matter either. Therefore, atheistic beliefs do not logically lead to survival benefits.

Many atheists want to reject the idea that evolution does not select for true beliefs but then they turn around and affirm Plantinga’s key premise when objecting to the Moral Argument for God’s existence. They will exclaim that objective moral values and duties do not really exist, but humans have evolved to hold this false belief to survive and flourish.

There are two major problems here. First, if the atheist agrees with Plantinga — that evolution is aimed at survival and not truth — then how does he know his beliefs about anything are true, including his evolved belief that God does not exist? Second, it does not logically follow from this that God does not exist or that objective moral values and duties do not exist. After all, God could have intelligently designed the initial conditions of the big bang to guarantee that our comprehension of objective moral values and duties would be realized via evolution. I am not arguing that this is how God “wrote the law on our hearts” (Romans 2:15), but simply stating that this would not be a problem for an omniscient and omnipotent God.

In conclusion, let me be clear: my Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism stands on its own two feet, even if Plantinga’s argument fails. With that said, if the EAAN passes (and I think it does), it adds strength to the Freethinking Argument as it reaches similar conclusions for different reasons. As Plantinga has noted, “[Evolution] doesn’t give a hoot about whether your beliefs are true or false!”[7] If this is true, then we cannot know our beliefs are true. All we are left with is question-begging assumptions that our evolved and causally determined beliefs correspond with reality. Therefore, naturalistic evolution fails to explain free will, rationality, and knowledge.

Notes

[1] Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2011

[2] Charles Darwin to W. Graham, July 3, 1881, in The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, ed. Francis Darwin (1897; repr., Boston: Elibron, 2005)

[3] Wolpert, Lewis, in a debate with William Lane Craig, http://youtu.be/kzhczra3o4o

[4] “We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring.” Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 2:48, quoted in Achieving a Celestial Marriage Student Manual, 1976, p.132)

[5] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, Page 72

[6] William Lane Craig, “On Guard,” (David C. Cook, Colorado Springs, CO 2008) Pg. 127

[7] Alvin Plantinga discussing the EAAN on “Closer to the Truth” http://youtu.be/xpw9UsdbvW8

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2N50feu

/by

Wisdom in Evangelism

By Ryan Pauly

I recently had the opportunity to attend the AMP Conference here in Southern California hosted by Reasons to Believe. It was a wonderful weekend with presentations from Jeff Vines, Sarah Sumner, Sean McDowell, J. Warner Wallace, Fazale Rana, Hugh Ross, Mary Jo Sharp, Abdu Murray, John Njoroge, and Mark Mittelberg. Each of the speakers approached the weekend’s theme from a unique way with topics including: conversations that count, intolerance, the science of Genesis, the problem of evil, Islam, and reaching people in a secular world.

The thing that immediately caught my attention was that the speakers were preparing the audience to have wisdom in evangelism, yet they were teaching apologetics. It is the same reason that J. Warner Wallace says, “In this day and age, evangelism is spelled A-P-O-L-O-G-E-T-I-C-S.” Our culture is at a point where we have to take a different tactic in the way we approach evangelism. People are being exposed to different religions today like never before, and this is causing people to ask questions. I was talking to my dad over the weekend and I asked him how much he knew about other religions while growing up. He grew up in a very small town where everyone he spent time with went to the same church and the same school. He said that he grew up in a bubble where he wasn’t exposed to other world religions and different belief systems. There was no reason to question his beliefs.

As much as we want to protect the youth today and keep them in a bubble as long as we can, it has become an impossible task. Young people are being exposed to materialistic philosophy, the sexual culture, and every worldview you can think of whether it is from TV shows or social media. This is causing them to ask questions, and to be effective in reaching them we need to have answers. We as Christians have to be open to use different ways to reach our culture. It is possible that someone only needs a simple Gospel presentation to see the truth of Christianity, maybe your testimony will help them see the Gospel, or maybe you will have to discuss philosophy and science in order to break down the walls. I’m not saying that apologetics is the only answer, and apologetics doesn’t save anyone. It is only one of many tools that the Holy Spirit can use to bring people to God. I believe that in order to be prepared, we need to know the answers. We need to have every tool ready and know how to use each one so the next time we are in a conversation the Holy Spirit can use anything necessary to help the person see the Gospel.

The problem for many Christians is that they know the Gospel message and they know their testimony, but many don’t know how to answer some of the difficult questions. Are you ready to respond when someone says they won’t believe in a God approves of slavery, genocide, and the oppression of women? Do you have an answer when someone says that Muslims are going to heaven because they worship the same God as Christians? Can you explain why a student should believe in creation after their teacher has lectured on the “truth” of Darwinian evolution? What do you say when your son or daughter comes home from college and tells you how the resurrection is a myth created by the early church based on pagan gods?

These are the questions being asked by people today; especially the youth. In order to do evangelism well and be wise in our interaction with non-Christians, we need to be prepared to use whatever is needed to help them come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, and that includes knowing the answers to the tough questions.

Ryan Pauly is a CrossExamined Instructor Academy Graduate and a student at BIOLA University.

For more articles like: Wisdom in Evangelism visit Ryan’s site at CoffeeHouseQuestions.com

Resources for Greater Impact: 

/by
The Apologist's Secret Weapon

The Apologist’s Secret Weapon

By Michael Sherrard

It was pride that changed angels into devils; it is humility that makes men as angels. —SAINT AUGUSTINE

The Limits of Our Knowledge

You don’t know everything. Nobody knows everything. Not even your condescending, skeptical coworker or classmate who has made you feel intellectually inferior for believing in God. So fear not. A lack of knowledge puts you in the same boat as everyone else. We all have our limitations. It is good and comforting to know this.

Realizing that you are not responsible to know every answer to every question a skeptic might ask should be a huge relief. It is not a burden the Christian need carry. Many of us never attempt to defend our faith because we fear not having an answer. Hear me: it is just fine not to have an answer. There is absolutely no shame in saying, “I don’t know. You raise an interesting question.” Understand that a person’s eternity is not dependent on your knowledge.

Not only is it a relief for you to understand that “I don’t know” is an option, others will appreciate your honesty in admitting your lack of knowledge. We like humble people, and in a day of glory-seeking pontificators, your honesty and humility will be greatly appreciated. It shows people that you aren’t out to win at all costs. It shows people that you value them more than the argument. It shows that you respect them enough to concede to a good point and allow them to look smart. Because, let’s be honest, one of the reasons we get angry in arguments is because we feel the other person doesn’t respect us and is making us look dumb for believing what we do. So when you can say, “I don’t know. Good point,” it shows the other person that although you disagree with him, you don’t think he is an idiot. Such humility goes a long way toward developing healthy conversation and lasting relationships, which are both more likely to produce fruit than firing facts back and forth.

A Credible Lack of Knowledge

Admitting that you don’t know everything also protects your credibility. This may seem backward because we usually think credibility is found in having answers. However, respect and credibility are lost faster by offering wrong answers to questions in the attempt to win an argument than by humbly admitting there are some things you do not know. The ability to concede in an argument will guard your reputation and allow you to maintain the respect of the other person despite your lack of knowledge. It is important to understand that much of what a person thinks about what you say is affected by what they think about you.

I learned this truth as a result of having an ongoing friendship with a person who didn’t believe in Jesus. My skeptic friend and I frequently had conversations about faith, but I remember one day better than others because it changed the nature of our conversations. We were engaged in a typical back-and-forth argument, and there came a point in our conversation when I didn’t have a good answer to one of his points. I hated it. First, I am competitive, and beyond that, I just like to be right. So I had to practice the humility of shutting up and saying, “Good point. Let me think about that.”

My friend’s countenance softened, and his expression was worth the price of my humility. It was as if a burden was taken from him. His tone softened and the rest of our talk was very pleasant. In that moment, my humility allowed him to feel respected, to know that I was not out to get him and to know that I recognized his intelligence. Backing down was the best thing I did in that conversation.

The Power of Humility

By reflecting on this situation and my own natural hatred of backing down, I have come to understand one of the reasons we don’t admit it when we know we have no answer.1 We think that if we lose one argument, we lose the entire battle, and our friend’s soul will be lost forever. We believe the lie that our one moment of yielding will be all the proof the skeptic needs to maintain his rejection of God. But this is simply not true. In fact, our humble “I don’t know” can become a bridge that enables us to lead someone to Christ.

Humility disarms. It brings down the other person’s defenses. When someone’s guard is down they are more likely to see through their emotions and consider what you are saying. Sometimes all it takes is a small crack in the skeptic’s intellectual bastion for the light of the gospel to dispel the darkness of unbelief. Humility that disarms and brings respect may be the light that allows someone to see Christ.

I have found that my humility brings out the humility in others, and humility is essential to coming to Christ. The proud do not see God. When I am humble enough to admit that I don’t know something, or I am able to admit that the other person has made a good point, it affords them the opportunity to do the same. And then, their humility and lack of defenses make them more open to hear the truth of the gospel and respond to it in a positive manner.

The Humble Apologist

I know that many of us like to think we know everything and some of us actually believe that we do. But this attitude is of no use. It must be thrown away. Pride must be killed before it has a chance to grow into a monster that causes people to reject Christ. Arrogance, self-importance, and smugness have no place in the heart, mind, or conversations of Christ’s disciples. Therefore, be diligent in destroying the pride that is likely to surface in conversations about your faith.

Be grateful that the fate of a person’s soul is not contingent on your knowledge. Realize that in God’s grace and providence you are but a small part of His divine plan in drawing people to Himself. This is not an excuse to be lazy and not expand our knowledge, but it is a crucial understanding to have nonetheless. So start practicing humility in your conversations and do not be afraid to say, “I don’t know.”

 

Michael C. Sherrard is a pastor, author of Relational Apologetics, and the Director of Ratio Christi College Prep. RCCP is an organization that seeks to equip the church for effective evangelism by teaching high school students apologetics, fundamental Christian doctrine, and biblical evangelism.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2P9TMza

/by