Don’t Mix Politics & Religion

“Don’t Mix Politics & Religion!”

,

By Tim Stratton

Complaint:

Dear Tim,

I love you man, but I don’t want my politics and my religion mixed. I look up to you for religious context and commentary because you are an expert in the field. Not politics. That’s just your opinions, and I can get that from every Tom, Dick, and Harry… but not Tim.

– Sean

Tim’s Response:

Thank you for your kind words, Sean. However, in addition to your pleasantries are statements that I encourage you to consider more deeply.

It would be absurd not to have one’s worldview (religion) influence their politics. In fact, one’s worldview ought to do that much (not the other way around). That is to say, if one truly believes that God exists, created humanity on purpose and for a specific purpose and that Jesus revealed how we ought to live, then the laws of politicians will either approximate to the “law above the law” (ultimate reality) or not.

If God does not exist, then humanity was not created on purpose or for a specific purpose. Thus, we would be mere accidents if atheism is true. If humanity is nothing but accidents, then politics are objectively meaningless (along with everything else) as there would be no objective purpose of the existence of humanity (say goodbye to human rights). Thus, on atheism, it would not really be wrong (objectively speaking) if Obama, Trump, Hitler, or Stalin is calling the shots. It is merely one’s irrelevant subjective opinion.

If God exists and Christianity is true, however, then one’s subjective political opinions can be objectively right or objectively wrong.

Politics & Gospel

Additionally, when a Christian claims they do not want their “politics and religion mixed” that is a good indicator that they probably do not understand their own religion for at least two reasons: 1- Jesus got involved in politics. 2- We are commanded to love all people and to share the gospel with the world.

First, consider the fact that Jesus constantly interacted with the Pharisees in the New Testament. The Pharisees were the religious and political rulers of Israel. Matthew 23: 23-24 provides a good example:

23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill, and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy, and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.”

Think about the “more important matters of the law” and modern-day America. Politicians today are more concerned about the consequences of using plastic drinking straws than placing restrictions on abortion (killing innocent human beings) and actually advocate for it in many cases. What do you think Jesus would say to these politicians? Based on His reaction to the political leaders of Israel, do you think Jesus would worry about hurting the feelings of modern-day politicians or those who vote for them? We must not disregard the “more important matters of the law.”

Second, if a Christian does not take politics seriously, then they probably do not take evangelism seriously. Frank Turek shows a satellite image of the Korean peninsula to make this point (See Why Christians Should Be Involved In Politics).

Notice the stark contrast between the north and south. South Korea is filled with light, activity, and productivity. According to Turek, “it is one of the most Christianized countries in the world.” North Korea, on the other hand, stands in polar contrast to their neighbors south of the border. North Korea is dark and seemingly “dead.” Turek accurately describes it as a big “concentration camp.” What is the difference between North and South Korea? One word: POLITICS!

Many South Koreans have heard the gospel of Jesus Christ because there is political freedom to share the gospel. The communistic government of North Korea, on the other hand, does not allow the gospel to be shared — it is a dictatorship. If you are a Christian, Sean, then you know that the gospel message is the most important information a person could ever have access to or possess. If you truly love all people — as Jesus commanded — then you must desire the people who have never heard the gospel to have access to this eternally vital information. Since politics is keeping millions of souls from hearing the gospel, if you truly love and care for all humans, then you should care about politics.

To not care about politics is to not care about people.

The Lesser of Two Evils

If you believe Christianity (your “religion”) is true, you must “mix” it with politics — at least if you are a consistent Christian and strive to love all people. After all, if Christianity corresponds to reality, then the politicians you support and vote for should strive to correspond to reality too. No politician will do this perfectly, but some political views approximate to reality more than others.

Unless Jesus Christ is running for office, all elections are a vote between the lesser of two evils. As Turek notes, if Billy Graham was running against Hitler, it would still be a vote between the lesser of two evils. Obviously, one who strives to be an objectively good person would do anything possible to keep Hitler and his politics out of office. That would include “mixing” politics with religion and sharing his or her views with as many voters as possible.

Bottom line: You kindly refer to me as an “expert” in my field (theology and metaphysics/ultimate reality). If that is true, then this expertise allows me to intelligently provide insight into things that fall under the umbrella of ultimate reality — like some political issues — as an expert too. That is to say, my political opinions are informed from my knowledge of reality. In fact, if one is trained how to think logically, then thinking logically applies to all aspects of life. This includes both religion and politics.

If one’s religion is true and their political view is also objectively good or right, then one’s religion and politics must be “mixed” . . . independent if they realize it or not.

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Tim Stratton

 

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 North-West University to pursue his Ph.D. in systematic theology with a focus on metaphysics.

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

/by
Did the Apostles Really Die as Martyrs_

Did the Apostles Really Die as Martyrs?

,

By Mikel Del Rosario

Evidence That Demands a Verdict

Growing up, I had a lot of questions about the faith. So I went looking for answers.

One of the first apologetics books I discovered on my dad’s shelf was Josh McDowell’s classic work, Evidence that Demands a Verdict. My dad even arranged for me to meet Josh while I was transitioning to high school. But neither one of us knew I’d eventually meet his son, Sean, during our college days at Biola University.

Today, I’m helping get the word out about the newly expanded and updated Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell. I’m especially excited about the new additions to Josh’s classic work.

My Favorite Addition

Probably my favorite addition is an excellent chapter on the martyrdom of the apostles (Chapter 13), summarizing key findings from Sean’s doctoral dissertation at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. His academic work, The Fate of the Apostles, assessed numerous claims and traditions about the martyrdom of the apostles and I’m happy to see his findings presented for a popular audience here.

The martyrdom of the apostles has been an overlooked, but important area in apologetics. Especially since many apologists, myself included, often make a case for the historicity of the resurrection using an argument based on the disciples’ belief that they saw the risen Jesus. Even I say things like, “The disciples wouldn’t die for a lie” and “Liars make poor martyrs.”

The Martyrdom of the Apostles

But how do we know that certain disciples really died as martyrs? What’s the evidence show? In this post, I’ll share Sean’s answers for four questions I asked him about the whole idea of martyrdom and the apostles:

  1. What’s a martyr?
  2. What makes the apostles different from modern martyrs?
  3. Was the Apostle Peter really martyred by being crucified upside down?
  4. Was the Apostle Paul really martyred by being beheaded?

Before I get to the questions, listen to Sean explain why this chapter is his favorite addition to Evidence that Demands a Verdict as well:

Question 1: What makes the apostles different from modern martyrs?

Sean McDowell:

The apostles were eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, we have the earliest account of apostolic belief. It was based on seeing the risen Jesus. That’s repeated in the writings of Paul…Read through Acts and just pay attention to how every single speech focuses on the resurrection.  The apostles say, “We saw the risen Jesus. We were there. We heard him, we touched him, we saw him.”  So their proclamation doesn’t prove that Christianity is true. But it does show they sincerely believe that Jesus rose from the grave. This doesn’t get us all the way to the resurrection, but it’s one pinnacle that shows that these first eyewitnesses really believed it…they all suffered and were willing to die for it. There’s no evidence that any of them recanted, and we have good evidence that some of them actually died as martyrs. That is a night and day difference from a so-called modern-day martyr [who dies for] for something he or she believes.

The apostles were eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus…they all suffered and were willing to die for [their belief].

Question 2: What is a martyr?

Sean McDowell:

A martyr is somebody who’s willing to die, and I would say does [die]…for their belief and proclamation of the Christian faith. When you hear popular arguments for martyrdom, you’ll hear things like, “The apostles refused to recant their belief in Jesus [at the point of death], therefore they really believed it.” Well, Mikel, can I tell you, there are no early sources where, say, Peter is told, “If you just stop proclaiming Jesus, we will not crucify you.”  Those kinds of accounts don’t exist…

[The Jewish historian] Josephus tells us James was put to death roughly in AD 62. Is James a martyr? I would argue that one, the political and the religious factors overlap. So partly James was put to death for political reasons, but it’s also religious reasons.  And we can’t separate those. But I think James qualifies as a martyr. Why?  He was publicly proclaiming a message that was offensive to the Jews, an insult to the Gentiles, about a martyred savior who’d come back from the dead.  He was the leader of the church in Jerusalem, publicly proclaiming this. So if he’s put to death by political and religious forces, you better believe that something tied to his public proclamation of the faith is related to why he put them to death. I think at least he gets the benefit of the doubt there, and thus would qualify at least broadly speaking as a martyr.

Question 3: Was the Apostle Peter really martyred by being crucified upside down?

Sean McDowell:

In John 21, Jesus says to him, “You’ll be taken where you do not want to go. Your hands will be tied, you’ll be dressed by another.” And then in parentheses, the writer of John says, “This is showing how he would die.” Even Bart Ehrman has written, “This was to indicate Peter would die a martyr’s death. If Jesus was the first shepherd, Peter’s the second shepherd who will also lay down his life.” …There’s debate about that. Larry Hurtado says [that] one thing we know for sure about crucifixion is that people were stripped naked for shame. Well, in John 21, “Jesus says to Peter, ‘Somebody else will clothe you.’” So that means, he probably wasn’t being taken to be crucified.  In fact, this author argues that he was burned in the time of Rome described by Tacitus, for the circus that Nero had.

I don’t think we can prove that [but] it doesn’t really matter how he died. What matters is, we have a first-century source, John 21, indicating [Peter] would die as a martyr.  Now, I think there’s good evidence he wasn’t crucified. The earliest record that he was crucified upside down shows up in a book called the Acts of Peter, [at the] end of the second century. Why will Christians say that Peter was crucified upside down?  “Because he didn’t want to be crucified the same way as Jesus.” [But] if you actually read the Acts of Peter, that has nothing to do with it.  It’s making a theological point: The world was turned upside down, and when Peter’s on the cross upside down, he can see the world upside correctly as it is, and his death will help to turn upside right, just as Jesus’s death did.  It’s not until the third and fourth century that church historians take the Acts of Peter as if it’s historical, and then say he was crucified upside down.  So I think at best, we can only say it’s possible. Because there is some precedent of people being crucified upside down. Martin Hengel records this in his book Crucifixion.  But I don’t think we’re historically warranted to say it’s likely or even probable.

Question 4: Was the Apostle Paul really martyred by being beheaded?

Sean McDowell:

For Paul, we have the passage in 2 Timothy that says, “I am being poured out as a drink offering. I fought the good fight, I ran the race.” …but then in 1 Clement 5, there’s a reference to the martyrdom of Paul and the martyrdom of Peter.  And then we have multiple documents in the second century and no contradictory evidence that Paul, in fact, died as a martyr.  Now was he beheaded?  The first explicit document shows up in the Acts of Peter [in the] late 2nd century.  But we know John the Baptist was beheaded.  We know James, son of Zebedee was beheaded.  We know he was a Roman citizen, and that was a common means of death.  So I think we’re very confident he died as a martyr and I would say…it’s reasonable that he was beheaded.

The Evidential Value of the Fate of the Apostles

Skeptics often say, “People die for religious ideas or political causes today. Just because you die for a belief, that doesn’t make it true.” I agree. But what it does mean is that you at least think your beliefs are actually true. As the McDowells observe on page 367:

The willingness of the apostles to suffer and die for their faith does not prove the resurrection is true…But it does show the depth of the apostles’ convictions. They were not liars.

It’s a strongly evidenced historical fact that Jesus’ disciples had real experiences they believed were experiences of the risen Jesus. And they didn’t die for something that somebody told them second or third-hand. They died for their personal testimony that they personally saw the risen Jesus. And they were the only ones to know if they really saw Jesus alive or not!

While there’s no conclusive historical evidence on the details of how exactly Paul or Peter died for their independent testimonies about seeing the risen Jesus, we can be confident that they died as martyrs. Their martyrdom should at least give a person pause and open the door to a fresh conversation on the reasons for the Christian belief in Jesus’ bodily resurrection.

THE TABLE PODCAST

In this episode, Mikel Del Rosario and Dr. Sean McDowell discuss the fate of the Apostles, focusing on the historical evidence of their martyrdom.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2NKMX2u

/by
Where the Evidence Led Me

Where the Evidence Led Me

,

By Terrell Clemmons

A Review of Heretic: One Scientist’s Journey from Darwin to Design, by Matti Leisola & Jonathan

As a student beginning his scientific studies in 1966, Finnish biochemist Matti Leisola used to laugh at Christians who “placed God in the gaps of scientific knowledge,” as the criticism often went. As he saw it, those people lacked the patience and level-headedness that he possessed.

After hearing Francis Schaeffer speak in 1972, though, he realized his concept of truth was naïve. He bought several of Schaeffer’s books and began to study philosophy, a subject he had previously considered of little value. At some point, he realized the god-of-the-gaps criticism cut both ways since a functional atheist could also insert a pat explanation into any knowledge gap. He also came to see another problem that the god-of-the-gaps criticism obscured: materialists seemed to think the proverbial knowledge gap was ever-shrinking, but in practice, the more scientists learned about the natural world, the more they found new and unexpected mysteries opening up. More important, the materialist argument for allowing only material explanations simply presupposed that only material causes exist. What if that presupposition was wrong?

By the mid-1970s, his doubts had become a conviction. “Scientists have no materialist explanation for the origin and complexity of life,” he wrote. “The confident bluffing of the dogmatic materialists notwithstanding, they weren’t even close.” Experimental science, he concluded, seems to point in a different direction.

A quintessential scientist’s memoir, Heretic: One Scientist’s Journey from Darwin to Design contains Leisola’s reflections on both developments in science (including biology, paleontology, genetics, information theory, and ID) and his “long and painstaking” voyage from the naturalistic evolutionary faith to dissent from Darwin. Heretic also details some of the evasions, hatred, suspicions, contempt, fears, power games, and persecutions that unfortunately mark the life of an open Darwin skeptic. And remarkably, it manages to do so with a subtle wit both sharp enough to poke fun at the contortions of materialism and shrewd enough to note the gravely consequential nature of what’s at stake.

Various chapters focus on experiences in academia (“I long ago had come to see that those bent on intimidation think nothing of shutting down debates and marginalizing scientists while paying lip service to the value of academic freedom”); encounters with publishers and broadcaster bias (“unconscious religiosity is all too common in the science community, and the broadcast media ensure that it’s presented as scientific fact day after day”); and “rationalists” behaving irrationally (“Bullies for Darwin; Actually, Several Bullies for Darwin”).

One especially compelling chapter is “The Church Evolves,” which deals with not only the Finnish Lutheran Church’s abject capitulation to Darwinism but also its active opposition to material that challenges Darwin. Even as literature critical of Darwin was forbidden on pain of punishment within Finland’s Soviet bloc neighbors, inside free Finland, church leaders were willfully suppressing the same information. This chapter speaks of trends to which Christians in America should pay attention.

“Criticism of evolutionary theory is a stressful hobby,” observed one reporter about Leisola. “On the other hand,” Leisola responded, “life as a dissenter is rich and exciting.” For the uncertain, he offers a modest invitation:

Take at least that first step on the journey that I began so many decades ago as a young, slightly arrogant scientist committed to modern evolutionary theory. That first step is a modest one, a step through the door of a paradigm and onto an open path whose end point I was unsure of. The first step was the decision simply to follow the evidence wherever it led.

Science- and truth-lovers might also find a delightful first step in Heretic.

—For more about Matti Leisola, see Minority Reporter: A Finnish Bioengineer Touches the Third Rail by Denyse O’Leary.

 

Terrell Clemmons is a freelance writer and blogger on apologetics and matters of faith.

This article was originally published at salvomag.com: http://bit.ly/2Ads4sY

/by
A Deeper Understanding Of Christ's Love Through Suffering

A Deeper Understanding Of Christ’s Love Through Suffering

, ,

By Luke Nix

Introduction

How can you helplessly watch as a child dies from agonizing cancer? Doesn’t the love you feel tell you that that suffering is evil and a God who is all loving and all powerful would rescue that child? How can God be all loving and all powerful if He allows such a child to suffer and die?

This is a challenge that is often raised by atheists to reject the God of the Bible. But today, I am not going to answer the atheist who raises the challenge as an armchair hypothetical that they have never experienced; instead I want to speak to the person who either has experienced this tragedy or is in the middle of it, and it causes them to be skeptical of the goodness and even existence of God.

This Is What Love Feels Like

But could God have a purpose for the pain that you feel? Before I get to that, please watch this tribute to those who have cared for a loved one at the end of their life: This Is What Love Feels Like, by dc Talk, inspired by Toby McKeehan‘s experience:

Knowing Love Through Suffering

Jesus knew the suffering that would take Him to His physical limits, yet He persisted and conquered: This was His love for you as He suffering the torture of crucifixion. If you have been taken to your limits through the suffering of a loved one, you know this love.

Without the suffering of a loved one, we would not know this love for someone else that takes us to our limits (and live to tell of it), what love truly feels like. Without the suffering of a loved one, we would not have the privilege of getting a trace of understanding of the depth of Christ’s love for us that took Him to the end of His physical limits. Caring for a spouse, parent, or child as they leave this world has to be one of the most painful experiences, and we do not escape it unchanged by the suffering it has caused. We are wounded, but we can use those wounds to heal. We can become the wounded healer (see my post “The Wounded Healer: Finding Ultimate Purpose In Your Suffering” for more on this concept). And just as we are alive today to be wounded healers, Jesus conquered death through His bodily resurrection to be the Ultimate Wounded Healer that we point to.

While it is a privilege to experience what this kind of love feels like (though it comes at a great cost, just like it did for Christ), our experience only scratches the surface of the love that Christ has. And our experience is only one person (or maybe a few people in extremely tragic situations) at a time. But Jesus’ love, as He suffered death, was not just for you or just for a few people, it was for every person (John 3:16).

Conclusion

We must not forget that our suffering in this life will come to an end. It is finite, and this finite suffering is not worth comparing to the infinite glory that will one day be revealed in us (Romans 8:18) and can be revealed in others to enjoy with us if we are willing to be used by God to be wounded healers. Do not be discouraged. Our perfect God has a purpose for your suffering. Without Him, your experience is a gratuitous pain with no purpose or meaning. But because God exists and Christ is resurrected from the dead, your experience is both purposeful and meaningful. Through your experience, God has blessed you with a deeper understanding of His love for you, and now He gives you the privilege to speak hope, life, love, meaning, and purpose to the brokenhearted suffering and struggling the same as you are.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2RFk6Ql

/by
Emotional Doubt and How to Combat It

Emotional Doubt and How to Combat It

By Brian Chilton

In a recent class at Liberty University, it was noted how 80% of a person’s doubts do not stem from intellectual problems with Christianity, but rather from emotional doubt. Emotional doubt is a problem for every person, but it seems to be a tougher concept for men to combat. The reason is that most men abstain from talking about their emotions. Many will suppress the emotional doubt and ignore it. However, such actions do not eliminate the doubt. Emotional doubt may address issues concerning the loss of a loved one, an unanswered prayer, or frustrations in life for which one blames God.

Interestingly, emotional doubt can be combated by a form of biblical cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Some may claim, “Hold up, Brian! You are talking that psychology mumbo-jumbo! What good is cognitive therapy?” Actually, cognitive behavioral therapy is quite a good practice. Paul argues the following:

“Don’t worry about anything, but in everything, through prayer and petition with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus. Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable—if there is any moral excellence and if there is anything praiseworthy—dwell on these things” (Php. 4:6-8).[1]

The believer should focus on those things that build up one’s faith and not on worry and fears which cause anxiety. CBT does just that. Using CBT to combat emotional doubt is quite effective. CBT can also combat depression and anxiety. Biblical CBT follows three steps.

  1. Identify your lies. First, recognize the doubts and fears you tell yourself. You may say, “I am going to certainly fail this test even though I have studied hard for it. I am too dumb to pass it.” Realize that the statements do not correspond with reality. If you have studied hard for the test, then you have learned the information which will be on the test. You are certainly not too dumb to learn the material.
  2. Remove your lies by arguing against it and give reasons for your optimism. Second, argue against the lies you are telling yourself with a positive, encouraging case. You may tell yourself that if you fail the test that it would be the worst thing in the world. In this case, remind yourself that you have studied the material and have learned the material quite well. Even if the worst should happen and you fail the test, it is not the end of the world. As bad as it may be, it is not as bad as you’re making it out to be.
  3. Replace your lies with the truth of God’s word. Third and finally, replace your lies with the truth of God’s word. Realize that “I am able to do all things through him (Christ) who strengthens me” (Php. 4:13, brackets mine). Realize that “all things work together for the good of those who love God, who are called according to his purpose” (Rom. 8:28). With these truths in mind, the doubts and anxieties begin to lose their grip.

CBT is a biblical practice that all believers need to practice. For too long, we have allowed the devil to steal our joy and hope. Often, we are our own worst enemies as we feel too frightened to take a chance on something for playing the “what if” game. Stop letting fear and anxiety steal the thunder from the grace that God has given you. Always keep in mind that “God has not given us a spirit of fear, but one of power, love, and sound judgment” (2 Tim. 1:9).

 

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/2PtiUhm

/by
Colossians 2:8 Does Not Condemn Philosophy

Colossians 2:8 Does Not Condemn Philosophy

By Evan Minton 

Some well-meaning but very misinformed Christians discourage the study of philosophy on the basis of a verse in Colossians chapter 2. In Colossians 2:8, the apostle Paul wrote: “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits[a] of the world, and not according to Christ.” This verse has become the chief proof-text for anti-philosophy Christians. In fact, even the famous reformed preacher John MacArthur argued against philosophy using this text. In The MacArthur Study Bible, he wrote “You know what philosophers are? They’re doodlers with words instead of pencils. They just make a whole lot of verbal squiggles. Colossians 2:8 says this: ‘Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy.’” Unfortunately, this verse has been majorly misinterpreted.

Keep The Text In Its Context

When you look at the verse in context, what you find is that Paul wasn’t saying “Philosophy is bad”, but rather, he was warning his readers to be on the lookout for bad philosophies.

To really understand what Paul is talking about in this verse, one needs to move beyond the verse itself. One needs to read it in context. That means both the immediate context (the verses before and after it) and its cultural context. Moyer Hubbard of Equip.org writes “Looking now at Colossians and the specific context of chapter 2, we find Paul addressing a local assembly that had been infiltrated by a form of false teaching that threatened to undermine the gospel he preached. Paul does not give us enough information to identify precisely what sect or ‘philosophy’ he is describing. There are some clues, however, that suggest that it was perhaps a syncretistic hybrid of Jewish mystical practices and popular pagan folk-belief: he mentions the observance of special days, including the Sabbath (v.16); visionary experience and the worship of angels (v.18); submission to the “elemental spirits of the world” (v.20);6 and abstinence (vv.21,23). Paul clearly is attacking a peculiar form of religious speculation, but it is impossible to identify it with any of the major schools of philosophy known to us from the Greco-Roman world. In fact, it is important to keep in mind that the Greek word philosophia (and its Latin cognate) had a variety of meanings in this period, and, depending on the context, might be translated ‘religion,’ ‘speculation,’ or ‘investigation.'”[1]

We gain more information on this incorrect philosophy by taking into account how Paul describes it in the 8th verse of Colossians 2: Paul says that it’s founded on “human traditions and the elemental powers of the world, and not on Christ.” The key phrase here is “[based] not on Christ.” Paul was targeting “philosophical” speculations that oppose the truths of Christ.

Moreover, I think the phrase “human traditions,” gives us a clue that this ungodly speculation was Jewish in nature. The phrase “human traditions” appears in only one other place; Mark 7:8, where Jesus condemns the Pharisees as those who reject “the commands of God and hold to human traditions” (cf. Galatians 1:14). Paul uses the term “elemental spirits of the world” similarly in referring to the Galatians’ doing the Torah stuff in Galatians 4:3. As Hubbard commented, “That Paul could refer to this syncretistic Jewish speculation as a ‘philosophy’ is in keeping with how Hellenistic Jews of the period sometimes referred to their faith.”[2] He said that because extra-biblical Jewish writers of the time called their theological beliefs “philosophies”. For example, the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus calls Judaism and its multiple sects as “philosophies”[3] (those sects being the Essenes, Sadducees, and Pharisees)[4]

4 Maccabees refers to Judaism as “our philosophy…teaching temperance, self-control, courage” (5.22‑23). Therefore, it very well could be the case that Colossians 2:8 is referring to Judaism and the Judaisers, employing their terminology when referring to their beliefs. If that is the case, then one cannot use Colossians 2:8 to condemn the study of philosophy as a whole, for Paul is merely warning against philosophical systems that oppose the gospel, in this case; the philosophy of the Judaisers.

Dissing Philosophy Is Logically Self-Refuting

Besides the exegetical fallacies in taking Colossians 2:8, there is a logical problem as well; namely, it’s self-refuting. In any attempt you make to formulate arguments against philosophy, you will be reasoning philosophically about philosophy. Yet if you’re reasoning philosophically about philosophy, you’re engaging in the very thing Paul (allegedly) told us not to do; philosophy! This is why Christians who say “I don’t need philosophy” are frequently met with the retort “Really? That’s a nice philosophy.” and “You shouldn’t do philosophy” with “Is that your philosophy?” Are we to believe that The Holy Spirit would inspire Paul to teach self-refuting…. philosophies?

Conclusion
The Apostle Paul was not anti-philosophy. Those who argue that he was, do so by ripping Colossians 2:8 out of context. Moreover, to say you shouldn’t do philosophy and then proceed to give any arguments for it is self-refuting, as you’re doing philosophy.

I’ll end this blog post with a quote from Dr. William Lane Craig: “the man who claims to have no need for philosophy is the one most apt to be fooled by it”[5]

Notes

[1] “Is Colossians 2:8 A Warning Against Philosophy?” – by Moyer Hubbard, http://www.equip.org/article/is-colossians-28-a-warning-against-philosophy/

[2] ibid.

[3] Flavius Josephus Against Apion 2.47.

[4] Flavius Josephus Antiquities 18.11.

[5] https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/hawking-and-mlodinow-philosophical-undertakers

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2RFw7oL

/by
What I Learned About Faith While Thinking I Had Cancer This Week

What I Learned About Faith While Thinking I Had Cancer This Week

By Natasha Crain

A few days ago I felt a rather large, firm lump on my body.

My first reaction was, “What on Earth is that?”… followed closely by, “Oh my gosh. This could be it.”

Honestly, I started to panic. I know I’m at a higher risk for certain types of cancer and I imagined the worst.

My doctor wasn’t able to get me in for five days. I spent that five days consumed by Google research—diagnosing myself, guessing what stage cancer it would be if I had it, and looking at 5-year survival rates for the various stages. Every time the kids were occupied, I would quickly grab my phone to Google something new about the size, shape, and texture of my unwelcome lump.

I eventually concluded that there was a pretty good chance it actually wasn’t cancer given the characteristics of the lump. I was still scared, but the more logical side of me believed it was more likely than not to be benign. When the morning of my appointment rolled around, I went in with the hope of reassurance.

That didn’t happen.

The doctor said he was “pretty” confident it wasn’t cancerous. I asked him if “pretty” confident meant something more like 51 percent or 90 percent, thinking he would say 90 percent. He replied, “More like 51 percent.”

The words hung in the air for what seemed an eternity. This is just as likely to go either way. 

The doctor gave me an urgent referral for the various tests needed to determine what was going on later that day. I went home and had some very dark moments.

Fear consumed me. I prayed with desperate, tear-covered pleas for health.

I felt absolutely nothing back from God.

Just a menacing silence.

And at that moment, the voices of so many skeptics filled my head…

Why would God be so hidden at a time like this? Is He really there?

As an apologist—someone who knows well the evidence for God’s existence and the truth of Christianity—I knew what I would say to someone else asking that question. I could talk all about evidence and the philosophical reasons for divine hiddenness.

But at that moment, I didn’t want any more evidence. I didn’t want to make a case to myself for the truth of Christianity. I didn’t want to weigh facts to see what was most reasonable.

I wanted an experience.

I wanted a feeling.

I wanted to be overcome with the presence of God, with a feeling of peace, or with a supernaturally-given reassurance that I was going to be OK.

None of those things happened. And in that darkest of moments, I understood more than ever why experience so often trumps evidence… for both skeptics and Christians.

When Experience Trumps Evidence for Skeptics

Christian apologist Sean McDowell and the “Friendly Atheist” blogger Hemant Mehta were recently on the Unbelievable podcast by Justin Brierley. It was a fascinating discussion on what both Christians and atheists get wrong about the other side. You can watch it here on YouTube or listen through the podcast. I thought Sean was brilliant, and his gracious but pointed comments and questions revealed many of the inconsistencies in Mehta’s worldview.

But one thing stood out to me more than any other. Someone asked what it would take to change each of their minds about what they believe. Mehta (and I’m paraphrasing) said that he’s heard all the kinds of evidence that Christians offer and there’s really no evidence that could be convincing…outside of a personal experience.

This was absolutely intriguing to me. He had spent much of the discussion explaining how he doesn’t believe because there’s no evidence for God’s existence, but when pressed on what would change his convictions, he acknowledged that there’s no objective evidence—evidence outside himself—that would change his mind. It would have to be a personal experience (and he said he would question even that).

His comment made me reflect on years of hearing from skeptics through my blog. Though the reason for unbelief is almost always framed as “lack of evidence,” the comments typically come sandwiched with a list of experiential issues:

I’ve never experienced God doing anything in my life even when I desperately needed it.

God never answered my prayers when I was a Christian.

If God exists, he wouldn’t have let my daughter be born with this disability.

I used to be a Christian, but when I was losing faith I cried out to God for a sign, and nothing happened.

Truthfully, I’ve always mentally responded to such statements with, “but these things, logically speaking, don’t mean God doesn’t exist…we have to look at the objective evidence for the whole picture of reality.” And that’s true.

But I can now better understand that experience can be so powerfully negative that we can become closed to considering any evidence outside of ourselves. We naturally trust our interpretation of our experiences over our interpretation of things like the complexity of DNA.

When Experience Trumps Evidence for Christians

People who are passionate about apologetics often lament the fact that so many Christians don’t understand the need for it in today’s world. What we hear all the time from church-goers is that they already believe, so they don’t need all this “evidence stuff.”

As someone who writes and speaks frequently about all the important reasons why we desperately need this “evidence stuff” to be known in the church today, that’s very frustrating. And it can be even more frustrating when Christians say they don’t need it because they have experiences instead:

They’ve felt God’s presence, so they know He’s there.

They see God in their spouse and kids.

They know God is there from that still, small voice inside.

They see God in the beauty of the mountains.

Why do I say frustrating? Let me put on my apologist hat: because experiences are subjective. In a world that is increasingly hostile to the idea that Christianity is true, Christians need to be able to point to something outside of themselves as evidence for their beliefs. If your child says they don’t feel God, and you say you do, how helpful can your personal experience be to them? But when you can point to the objective evidence for God’s existence in the world around them, the historical evidence for the resurrection, and the evidence for the reliability of the Bible, you’re able to ground their faith in something you can mutually access.

However, just as powerfully negative experiences can trump evidence for atheists, powerfully positive experiences can trump evidence for Christians. What they’ve experienced has felt so certain that the value of outside evidence seems to pale in comparison.

What, Then, Is the Value of Objective Evidence for Anyone?

Through this brief ordeal, I’ve understood more than ever that nearly everyone trusts, by default, their experiences more than objective evidence. And frankly, it’s experience that we desperately want. Fine-tuning arguments schmarguments. We would all rather take a powerful feeling of God’s presence any day.

What, then, is the value of apologetics?

A lot. But I’ll stick with three points.

  1. For those who have had powerfully negative experiences, apologetics remains a way to compare our subjective experiences to the objective evidence for the truth about reality… when we’re not grieving. Apologetics may be of very little use for most people in desperate times, but that doesn’t negate the longer term need. When we teach our kids to build a faith based on evidence, it doesn’t mean that when difficult times come they will necessarily resort to a simple response of, “No matter how I feel while pondering if I have cancer, I know Christianity is true!” I certainly didn’t. But it does mean that over the longer term they will have the tools needed to assess their personal experiences in light of objective evidence. Ultimately, confidence in the truth of Christianity—grounded in good evidence—gives people well-justified eternal hope that brings perspective to our (often tragic) negative experiences.
  2. Similarly, for those who have had powerfully positive experiences, apologetics provides a needed check against reality. Having hope without good reason is a delusion. We shouldn’t be content to assume God is there only because we had a powerful feeling while the praise band played. It’s also safe to assume that no one will live an entire life of powerful positive experiences—every Christian goes through times when God seems far. When powerful positive experiences become more distant, it’s easy to doubt their validity. Learning apologetics helps keep us grounded when the experiential highs wear off.
  3. For those who haven’t had particularly powerful positive experiences, apologetics provides conviction instead of a feeling that the lack of an experience means a lack of God’s existence. When I was a teenager, I went to a youth conference where the speaker stirred up a lot of emotions and many kids in the room were crying. I wasn’t. My youth leader pulled me aside and said, “Natasha, I noticed you aren’t as emotional as the others here. Are you sure you’re close to God?” I’ll never forget that assumption that closeness to God equals a highly emotional experience. If that’s the expectation, and you don’t experience God as you would like, you can quickly assume He just might not be there. When we teach our kids the objective evidence for the truth of Christianity, however, they gain a conviction of their beliefs and realize faith isn’t about waiting for a certain experience to happen.

I eventually got in for all the testing to determine what the lump was all about. It was the longest few hours of my life but ended with the best possible news: it was nothing but a common benign cyst that required no further testing or procedures. I was free to walk out.

I got to my car and cried tears of relief.

And now here I am, back to life as normal… but I want to acknowledge that there are many who don’t get this good news. I have several friends with cancer right now. They are living with the day-to-day uncertainties that consume your every waking second. I almost didn’t write this post because it seems too easy to write when you are no longer in the circumstance. I hope it will be taken in the spirit in which it was intended, however: a simple reflection on something I learned during a (relatively) few moments of desperation.

 

Natasha Crain administra su blog de apologética cristiana para padres, ChristianMomThoughts.com. Obtuvo su MBA en Marketing y Estadísticas en UCLA y consiguió un certificado de apologética cristiana de la Universidad de Biola. Actualmente reside en California con su esposo Bryan junto con sus tres pequeños hijos.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2QG02f7

/by
“How Would You Respond to This”

“How Would You Respond to This?”

,

By Timothy Fox

Once people discover that you’re a Christian thinker, they often start coming to you with all of the objections they hear:

“The Bible is hopelessly corrupt.”

“Jesus never existed.”

“Science disproves God.”

Your friends will offer you the objections and ask, “How would you respond to this?” And here is what I always say: “I wouldn’t.” I never respond to objections.

But wait, aren’t I an apologist? Isn’t it my responsibility to provide an answer to people’s objections? Not necessarily. Let me explain.

Offense and Defense

The same way that a football team has an offensive line and a defensive line, apologetics can be divided into offense – giving arguments for the truthfulness of Christianity – and defense – responding to objections against Christianity. So, when someone raises an objection to Christianity, they are trying to put you on defense. And while arguing against other religions and worldviews does take a lot of study, defensive apologetics is a whole lot easier. Here’s why: It isn’t your job to respond to a skeptic’s objection. It’s the skeptic’s job to defend the objection. So in reality, you aren’t on defense, the skeptic is!

Let’s look back at the objections above and ask some simple questions to deflate them:

Skeptic: “The Bible is hopelessly corrupt.”

Me: “Really? How do you know that?”

Now instead of me defending the reliability of the Bible, I’ve turned the tables and put the skeptic on defense. How does he know the Bible is hopelessly corrupt? What does he know about the transmission of the biblical texts?

Skeptic: “Jesus never existed.”

Me: “Why do you think that?”

Jesus mythicism is popular on the internet, but it’s a joke in scholarly circles. So force the skeptic to back up his claims. If Jesus isn’t real, who invented him and why? What do real historians think about this?

Skeptic: “Science disproves God.”

Me: “How exactly does science disprove God?”

Sure, you could have given a lecture on how science points us to a divine Creator, through the cosmological, fine-tuning, and design arguments. But why should you do all the heavy lifting? That’s the skeptic’s job! Let the skeptic try to make a scientific case against God’s existence, and if he can’t, then show how science actually provides evidence for God’s existence. That’s much more impactful.

Defending objections to Christianity is simple once you realize that it isn’t your job to defend against the objection; it’s the skeptic’s job to defend the objection itself.

Now, is it always this easy? Of course not. You may come across a very knowledgeable skeptic with a really tough objection that can’t be easily questioned away. But you can still keep your cool: “Wow, that’s an interesting objection and I’ve never thought of that before. I’ll look into it and get back to you.” Then you do your homework and resolve to never get stumped by the same question twice. But more often than not, some simple questions are all it takes to deflate a skeptic who hasn’t thought very much about his objections to Christianity.

Conclusion

Evangelizing and engaging in spiritual conversations can be very intimidating, especially when people have such a wide range of beliefs and may even be outright hostile to Christianity. But Jesus commanded his followers to go out and make disciples (Matt. 28:19). And when the tough objections come, we are called to defend our faith (1 Pet. 3:15). However, you don’t need hours and hours of study before you can begin sharing the gospel and defending your faith. Sometimes all it takes is a few simple questions.

To learn more about the tactical approach to engaging in spiritual conversations, check out Tactics by Greg Koukl. It’s the #1 book I recommend to anyone interested in apologetics. Seriously, buy it now.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Rns5B9

/by
Why the pulpit must be political

Why the pulpit must be political

,

By Michael Sherrard 

With all that is going on in the world, my church doesn’t need to be entertained. They need to be trained. We are not in a time of peace. While we creatively plan the stage design for our next sermon series, another group is setting the stage for our removal from society.

Now, of course, it is right to be creative in church. I’m not saying otherwise. But the pulpit doesn’t belong to entertainers. Pastors are not merely MC’s. They are watchmen. And when the enemy is before us, the watchman better not be blinded by his own stage lights while his people are attacked.

Rather than be caught defenseless, pastors must equip their people to engage a culture that is becoming increasingly hostile toward Christianity. And so, the pulpit must be political. Yes, I know that Christ’s kingdom is not of this world. Let’s get that out of the way. I already hear your objection: “We should care more about salvation than society.” Sure, I agree. It is better to lose the world than your soul. But if you think that society can go to hell as long as people don’t, you’ve fallen for an old trick and you’ve misunderstood the nature of the gospel.

A politically silent pulpit is one that is catering to the secularist’s agenda: “Keep your religious beliefs private. They are not wanted in society. They are no good to us.” And for some reason, we’ve bought into the propaganda of those that want to fashion a society after their own values. Somehow they have convinced us that the only good beliefs for society are the beliefs of atheists. But beliefs that are true are true for all and are good for all. It does not matter where they come from. And if the Christian message contains truth, the application of that truth is far-reaching. It does not end at the capital steps.

Christianity is an all-encompassing worldview. Meaning, it is a set of true beliefs that affect all of life. The gospel itself has implications that go beyond ones eternal destination. We see this truth in Paul’s ethics. Pauline ethics might be summed up this way: because Christ humbled himself and died on a cross, so should you be humble and willfully offer up your life for the good of others (Phil 2:1-11). Our faith manifests itself in ways that benefit others if it is a real faith. You must repress your hope in God to keep it private. I doubt you disagree with this.

So why are politics off limits? Why is it right for us to sit back and allow harmful policies be legislated? Why shouldn’t we expose candidates that seek to preserve the right to kill babies? Why do we think we have to let atheists run our country? Are Christian teachings not good? Do they not promote human flourishing? Why do we think a Christian influence equals a theocracy? How have we become so simple minded about our civil responsibility? Pastors we have failed our people. If it is not our job to instruct the people of God on these things, whose job is it?

When politics are ignored in the pulpit the message to the world and the church is clear: Christianity is irrelevant. It tells the world that what we care about is our little club, and it tells those in the club not to worry about what goes on outside. Subsequently, many in the church find it impossible to find fulfillment in life because life itself is apparently not worth redeeming. This leads to self-indulgence and things like “church shopping.” We use the church as a commodity to meet our needs. We consume the church rather than be the church. And the body of Christ becomes a glutton for the work of others instead of being a vessel passing out the common grace of our Lord.

Even though we know that the only way to find life is to give it away, we have sold a product that says otherwise. Let us change that. We understand that we are to seek the good of others. We understand that Christ did not redeem us for irrelevance, but to be agents of renewal. Therefore, let us turn our attention again to society and utilize all the tools at our disposal. As we eagerly await the Kingdom to come, let us not neglect the land we have been given. Let us be political.

 

Michael C. Sherrard is a pastor, the director of Ratio Christi College Prep, and the author of Relational Apologetics. Booking info and such can be found at michaelcsherrard.com.

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

/by
Dealing with the “Who Created God” Objection

Dealing with the “Who Created God” Objection

,

By J. Brian Huffling

It never fails. Offer an argument for God’s existence and almost invariably you will hear, “Well, who created God?” With some arguments, this may be a legitimate objection. I have argued elsewhere that philosophical proofs for God’s existence are more powerful than scientific ones. This objection is one instance where I think one can see the advantage of the philosophical arguments. For example, the usual intelligent design arguments do not necessitate that the designer be an infinite, uncreated being. Thus, the objection considered here would be relevant. But it is not relevant for certain philosophical proofs. These proofs argue either from logic or metaphysics that a being exists that is not caused and has no beginning. Arguments like the 5 Ways of Thomas Aquinas and the ontological argument from Anselm are such arguments. Consider the first of the 5 Ways:

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. (Summa Theologiae, I. q.2 a3)

The point I am trying to make is not whether the argument is sound, but rather to show that the argument does not allow the objection, “Who created God?” The conclusion of the argument is that there exists a being that is not put into motion (caused) by anything else. So the objection “Who created God” is asking “What caused the uncaused cause?” It’s a nonsensical objection that betrays the objector as either not paying attention to the argument or not understanding it. (For the rest of the 5 Ways, click here.)

The objection is usually offered to the Kalam argument which says “Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause.” The objection is often phrased, “If everything has a cause then why doesn’t God?” The attentive reader will note that the argument does not say everything has a cause, but that all things that have a beginning have a cause. In fact, no argument that I have ever heard says that everything needs a cause. Gottfried Leibniz’s argument from the principle of sufficient reason says that everything has to have a sufficient reason for its existence, but a necessary being is its own sufficient reason since a necessary being does not have a cause. In fact, a necessary being cannot have a cause, or it wouldn’t be a necessary being!

God as the uncaused cause does not require a cause and the “Who created God” objection does nothing except betray the objector’s ignorance of the logic of the (philosophical) argument. The next time someone asks you who created God, all that is needed is to ask the question, “Based on the argument I gave, the conclusion is that a being exists that is uncaused and is the cause of all other being. Why would an uncaused cause need a cause? One can argue that the argument is unsound for some reason, but if the argument is sound the objection is irrelevant.”

That is, of course, if you are using the philosophical type of arguments that are not susceptible to the objection. Since the scientific arguments are susceptible to this objection and at least some of the philosophical ones are not, the latter are more powerful and provide a fuller picture of God.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2P4JsW0

/by