Page 102 – CrossExamined

Skeptics say that the gospels are riddled with contradictions and therefore are not reliable historical sources. And these same skeptics say that some of these contradictions are downright absurd. For example, agnostic NT scholar Bart Ehrman points out one of his favorite Bible contradictions in his book best-selling book, Jesus, Interrupted.

One of my favorite apparent discrepancies—I read John for years without realizing how strange this one is—comes in Jesus’ “Farewell Discourse,” the last address that Jesus delivers to his disciples, at his last meal with them, which takes up all of chapters 13 to 17 in the Gospel according to John. In John 13:36, Peter says to Jesus, “Lord, where are you going?” A few verses later Thomas says, “Lord, we do not know where you are going” (John 14:5). And then, a few minutes later, at the same meal, Jesus upbraids his disciples, saying, “Now I am going to the one who sent me, yet none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’” (John 16:5). Either Jesus had a very short attention span or there is something strange going on with the sources for these chapters, creating an odd kind of disconnect.

Jesus, Interrupted, pp. 9

So there you have it. Either Jesus or John were having a ‘brain fart’. Take your pick.

Did Jesus Or John Have A Painfully Short Attention Span?

If you look at the Bible in a wooden fashion, this contradiction does seem to be absurd on the face of it. So how should we understand this so-called discrepancy?

It seems to me that the writer of John is dealing with the disciples’ immediate reaction to Jesus’ words. The thought of him leaving fills them with sorrow, but if they had asked where he was going and grasped that it was to the Father, they would have recognized it was for Jesus’ advantage and theirs. Just look at the next verse: “But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you.” (Jn 16:6-7)

Looking back at the previous times Jesus was questioned that Ehrman points out, Peter had a bit of a bodyguard complex and didn’t want to hear about Jesus taking off by himself. So when he asks the question in John 13:36 about where Jesus is going, he doesn’t get it.

And in John 14:1-5, Jesus talks about going to his Father to prepare places for them. Thomas asks a question, but it’s because he’s not picking up what Jesus is laying down. He doesn’t ask what Jesus means by any of these things. And we know Thomas is a bit slow on the uptake, as we find out later in John’s Gospel. Thomas and Peter were both thinking naturally.

The Disciples’ Silence Became Deafening

We see that Jesus is disrupted with another question in John 14 but isn’t asked another question in John 15. Jesus so far has mentioned his departure, but then in John 15:22-16:4, he talks about persecution headed their way. You know, some heavy stuff. Now their hearts are sorrowful. They fall silent with sadness after being so inquisitive earlier.

It’s at 16:5 that Jesus is saying, “guys…you still don’t get it. You went quiet on me with all these hard sayings of persecution and me leaving. But I’m not leaving you alone. I’m sending the Spirit in my place. Now is the time to be asking questions again, but this time let’s be a little sharper and ditch the gloomy pessimism.”

After this, they interrupt Jesus again twice more in John 16, showing they still don’t understand what he’s talking about. Read John 16:17-19:

So some of his disciples said to one another, “What is this that he says to us, ‘A little while, and you will not see me, and again a little while, and you will see me’; and, ‘because I am going to the Father’?” So they were saying, “What does he mean by ‘a little while’? We do not know what he is talking about.” Jesus knew that they wanted to ask him, so he said to them, “Is this what you are asking yourselves, what I meant by saying, ‘A little while and you will not see me, and again a little while and you will see me’?

The Disciples Finally Get It, But Does Ehrman?

Jesus then answers their questions, and finishes by saying “I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.”

The light bulb finally seems to turn on. They quit looking at earthly things and start to see the spiritual realities Jesus is talking about. In John 16:28-30 the disciples exclaim, his disciples said, “Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech! Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.” Jesus answered them, “Do you now believe?“

The metaphors are over in their minds. Jesus is now speaking clearly. They fell silent after some heavy sayings from Jesus, but now it’s dawning on them after Jesus prompts them to probe further. This interpretation doesn’t just come from me but is also supported by commentators and exegetes like CK Barrett, RCH Lenski, Craig Blomberg, John Gill, Christian Kuinoel, and Hermann Olshausen.

Only when we leave no room for conversational nuance would we have to conclude Jesus had a mental lapse or that something strange is going on with the writer of John. It seems like Bart’s reading is pretty wooden, and dare I say, fundamentalist. Many of his examples of alleged discrepancies in Jesus, Interrupted that are much more worth investigating and wrestling with. But this isn’t a golden moment for Ehrman here. And unfortunately, there are more bad ones like this. There’s nothing all that strange here.

Reflecting God’s Character in Apologetics

CrossExamined

By Mikel Del Rosario

Character Counts

Our spiritual conversations should reflect God’s character

Explaining reasons to believe doesn’t have to strictly be an intellectual thing. In fact, it shouldn’t be—especially when we’re talking to our skeptical friends, neighbors, and others who see Christianity differently. No, apologetics is way more profound in terms of its role in cultural engagement.

Character plays a key role in this. And it isn’t just about adding memorized apologetic answers to your life. Developing a Christian character needs to be part of our discipleship to Jesus. I can’t tell you how many times the importance of character has come up in my work with other apologists, in my ministry, and in my teaching at William Jessup University. Let me give you just four examples from my work at Dallas Theological Seminary.

The Relationship of Confidence and Character

First, I talked to my friend Sean McDowell about an activity he uses to help Christians think about how we can tend to approach engaging with atheists. We agreed that many times, it seems like your confidence in the faith is linked to your ability to stay respectful in difficult spiritual conversations. Sean said:

One of my favorite things to do at churches, camps, conferences, is this: I show up. People know it’s me, that I’m a Christian professor, but I go into role play and I put on glasses and [play the role of] an atheist…then I open it up for questions from the audience. I respond and I shoot them down…graciously and kindly as an atheist to break their stereotypes of how they think atheists may be. Almost every time I do it…people get frustrated. They get upset. I’ve been called names. I’ve literally had a guy stand up and threaten me! People get angry and you can feel the tension coming over the crowd.

Then I’ll stop, I’ll take the glasses off, and instead of saying, “How do we defend faith?” I’ll say, “Here’s my first question. How did you treat me as your atheist guest?” And the eyes of people, it’s like, “Oh, my goodness. I hated you. I wanted to bash you. I was angry at you.”

And then I’ll say, “Why did people get so defensive? I think it’s because you don’t really know what you believe and why.” When I push back, it shows an insecurity so you lash out with anger and defensiveness.

So, if we want to be able to talk about difficult subjects, we have to have a confidence in terms of what we believe. Then we’re not threatened when people challenge our faith.

Next, I’m reminded of another one of my friends, Mary Jo Sharp. She explained her early experiences of feeling intimidated at the thought of sharing her faith. But now, she says that knowing what you believe and why you believe it can help you avoid that feeling of being flustered, defensive, or angry. I agree. I’m a firm believer that we, as Christian apologists, must reflect the character of God while engaging with people form different backgrounds.

The Blending of Conviction and Compassion

Third, I remember very clearly, John Dickson sharing this image of what he called “part of the genius of Jesus,” which was “flexing two muscles at the same time: The muscle of conviction and the muscle of compassion.” That stuck with me.

There’s also an exchange between John and my mentor, Darrell Bock, that happened later that day that comes to mind as part of this. We need to reflect God’s loving character and his engagement of the world. What do the Scriptures say about how we should engage?

John Dickson: 1 Peter 3:15 says that you’re to give an apologia but do this with prouteitos kai fobos: gentleness and respect. Because you can’t defend this Lord that you set apart in your heart…without gentleness and respect.

Darrell Bock: Colossians 4:5 and 6 goes to the same place: “Let your speech with outsiders always be gracious.” There’s an interesting combination of moral challenge and invitation that’s part of the way the Christian’s supposed to function…conviction and compassion together…you’ve got to have both. It can’t be one or the other or else it will absolutely fail.

Here, the Apostle Paul is emphatic about how grace should characterize a Christian Ambassador at all times. This, along with the demeanor commanded in 1 Peter 3:15-16, should inform the way we go about having spiritual conversations. Because the people we talk to about God, Jesus, and the Bible cannot just be “another notch in your belt.” We don’t get to do that. We have to love them.

The Importance of Listening and Loving

That imagery comes from Nathan Wagnon at Watermark church and it’s another one that’s stuck with me. Nathan’s the only person I know whose job title is “Pastor of Equipping and Apologetics” and he shared that idea while we were talking about the importance of loving people while doing apologetics. He’s the fourth example that comes to mind. He told me:

One of the greatest mistakes that I think a lot of evangelicals make is we think of evangelism as like closing the deal…You start to feel like a used car salesman, ’cause you’re trying to push people towards, ‘Yeah, but do you want to pray this prayer? Do you want to accept Jesus?’ And unfortunately there’s a lot of people who are trying to push toward that because of insecurities in their own lives. Their spiritual life, a lot of times, is deficient. And so they’re trying to fill that void with ministry activism, so that they can raise their hand and go, ‘See how the Lord used me?’ so that they can get this sense of self worth.

And that expresses itself, a lot of times, by people who don’t listen. They’re using the space, when someone else is talking, to formulate in their own minds how they’re gonna respond, instead of actually listening to what the person is saying. And what I would say to that is, ‘We don’t get to do that.’ Jesus has called us to love people. And that looks like treating them with value and worth, because they are valuable, and they do matter to God, who’s deeply loved by God, who deeply matters…we don’t get to just mow over people. We have to love them.

Confidence Leads to Compassion

As apologists, we are keenly aware of our responsibility to give reasons for the hope we have in Christ. But it’s that very hope—along with the confidence that comes with knowing what we believe and why we believe it—that allows us to be compassionate, gentle, and respectful. This is so important for engagement and dialogical apologetics.

Apologetics shouldn’t just be an intellectual pursuit. Our character and our tone must communicate our love for those we challenge with the gospel. And that means approaching apologetics as dialogue—a more relational, holistic, person-centered conversation—rather than an issue-centered debate. May God grant us the grace to reflect God’s character as we engage the culture, make the case for Christianity, and defend the faith.

Oposición Dominica al Conocimiento Medio

Español

In 1588 the Dominican theologians Domingo Báñez (1528-1604) and Tomas de Lemos (1555-1629) emerged as the leading opponents of middle knowledge. Báñez and Lemos advanced three major criticisms of the doctrine. [1] First, it contradicts Aquinas’s understanding of God’s general concurrence. For Aquinas, general concurrence constituted God’s sovereign generation of events by acting directly upon secondary agents (e.g., humans), moving them in advance and working through them to bring about those events.

In order to make God the author only of good events and not of bad ones, Aquinas derived a strong distinction between efficacious and inefficacious concurrence. Efficacious concurrence occurs when secondary agents produce effects that God intends them to produce; in this case, God’s power over the agents is infallibly and irresistibly directed toward producing their intended effects. Inefficacious concurrence occurs when secondary agents produce effects that God does not intend them to produce; in that case, God’s power over the agents is sufficient or sufficient for those agents to produce the effects God intended, but it is not infallibly or irresistibly directed toward those effects. Thus, imperfect creatures redirect God’s power toward producing sinful events, which cannot happen apart from that power. On Aquinas’s view, efficacious concurrence is intrinsically efficacious, and inefficacious concurrence is intrinsically inefficacious.

While efficacious concurrence inevitably produces effects that God positively volitions [2] , inefficacious concurrence inevitably produces effects that God does not intend to produce but merely permits. In contrast to Aquinas, Molina declared that general concurrence amounted to God’s sovereign causality of events by acting directly on those events and not on secondary agents. He therefore denied that secondary agents must be moved by God to use their causal power. Furthermore, Molina argued that intrinsically, God’s general concurrence is neither efficacious nor inefficacious. Rather, it is intrinsically neutral and is extrinsically made efficacious or inefficacious by the relevant secondary agents. [3]

Second, Báñez and Lemos argued that middle knowledge implied passivity in God, since making divine concurrence intrinsically neutral seemed to make God relate in exactly the same way to the good and evil actions of creatures. In the words of Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, “God would be neither the author of good nor of evil acts, at least as far as his intrinsic and free determination is concerned, because neither good nor evil acts would come from Him, at least as far as the performance of these acts is concerned.” [4] Accordingly, God’s essence as actus purus (pure act), as defined by Aquinas, is compromised if God were not to decree what free creatures would do in each set of circumstances, but instead sit back as a helpless spectator and watch what happens. [5] Third, Báñez and Lemos asserted that middle knowledge eviscerated God’s freedom, since God would know what He would freely do in any set of circumstances in which He found Himself. [6] Because they found these criticisms persuasive, the vast majority of contemporary Dominicans followed Báñez and Lemos in accusing Molina.

Regarding divine concurrence, Molina defended his position by asserting the incoherence of the Thomistic alternative held by his Dominican interlocutors for three reasons. First, the Dominicans could not explain God’s detailed knowledge of evil events. While the Dominican position had the ability to delineate God’s detailed knowledge of good events, as well as God’s general knowledge that good events would not occur in various circumstances (based on his decisions to concur inefficaciously rather than efficaciously with creatures), Molina held that the Dominican position lacked an explanation of how God knows exactly which evil events would occur. [7] Freddoso illustrates Molina’s point with the following example:

Let us take the state of affairs of Peter remaining loyal to Christ in H, where H is the situation in which Peter actually freely denies Christ. Since God’s concurrence with Peter in H is itself sufficient to produce the desired effect of Peter remaining loyal, it only follows that Peter will not remain loyal. But there are many ways in which Peter could deny Christ, a host of intentions on which he could act, different degrees of cowardice or outright malice that his act could evince, different words he could use. How can God know all the relevant details with precision, given only his prior resolution not to causally predetermine Peter’s loyalty in H? [8]

Second, Molina charged that the radical asymmetry proposed by the Dominicans between God’s causal contribution to good and evil events was nonsensical. For an evil event can differ from its benign analogue only by virtue of some historical circumstance. In this regard, Molina pointed out that the same act of sexual intercourse, with all its physical and psychological characteristics, is good if the couple is married, but bad if they are not. Imagine that the history of the couple’s relationship in both cases is exactly the same, except for the short visit to a priest where the marriage ceremony was performed. Is it not absurd, Molina asked, to suppose that God’s intrinsically efficacious concurrence is necessary in one case but not in the other? If creatures are capable of performing the same act without intrinsically efficacious concurrence when it is evil, why are they not equally capable of performing the same act without intrinsically efficacious concurrence when it is good? [9]

Third, Molina argued that on the Dominican view, God cannot truly will the virtuous events that He chooses not to predetermine through His intrinsically efficacious concurrence. For example, if God truly intends that Judas repent after betraying Jesus, and if God can effect this repentance simply through efficacious concurrence, then why does God refuse to grant such concurrence? In general, Molina held that the Dominicans made it impossible to blame creatures for their evil acts, since those acts necessarily resulted from the absence of God’s efficacious concurrence. Sins become acts of God’s omission, making God the author of sins as if they had been produced by God’s omission. Thus, Molina declared:

Again, what resentment will God have on the Day of Judgment against the wicked, since they were unable not to sin as long as God did not effectively incline and determine them to good, but rather solely by His own free will decided from eternity not to determine them to do so? Most likely, if this position is accepted, our freedom of choice is completely destroyed, God’s justice towards the wicked vanishes, and a cruelty and perversity are perceived in God. That is why I consider this position to be extremely dangerous from the point of view of faith. [10]

For these reasons, Molina concluded that if divine concurrence were intrinsically efficacious or inefficacious rather than, as he insisted, intrinsically neutral, then ostensibly free creatures would be nothing more than puppets controlled by God, who alone possesses freedom. [11]

In response to Báñez and Lemos’s second charge that middle knowledge implied divine passivity, Molina claimed that it does so only if one conceives of God in a Thomistic sense as pure act, the determining cause of all that occurs. But Molina insisted that one should abandon the doctrine of pure act as philosophically incoherent and contradictory to Scripture. For if God is pure act, then God’s attributes are not distinct from one another. But surely, for example, God’s omnipotence and God’s omnibenevolence denote two distinct properties, each of which is irreducible to the other. [12] This can be seen conceptually by observing that an entity could be all-powerful without being wholly loving, and an entity could be wholly loving without being wholly good. However, both attributes are philosophically necessary to God’s status, pro Anselm, as the greatest being conceivable, and both attributes are affirmed biblically (Genesis 17:1, 1 John 4:8). [13]

Rather than pure act, Molina believed that God must be understood as essentially infinite and tripersonal, an understanding that precluded divine passivity. God’s infinity, or the sum total of his great making properties, includes his omniscience, which in turn includes his middle knowledge. Taking advantage of this knowledge, the tripersonal God chooses, in his creative decree, all that will happen (the actual world [14] ) from all that could possibly happen given human freedom and natural indeterminism (the set of all feasible worlds [15] ). Far from sitting idly by, God is the active agent whose free decision is the indispensable factor in producing all human actions. [16] And God’s free decision produces these actions indeterministically, so that God cannot be accused as the author of sin. In fact, each of the three Trinitarian persons is grieved by sin (Gen. 6:6; Luke 19:41-44; Eph. 4:30). [17] This sorrow was so strong that it moved God to enter human history and become incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth, to solve the problem of sin once and for all and thus redeem all who place their faith in him (Rom. 3:24-25; 8:3-4; Eph. 1:7; Titus 2:14). [18]

Regarding Báñez and Lemos’ third charge that middle knowledge destroyed divine freedom, Molina emphasized that middle knowledge does not give God knowledge of what he himself would do under any set of circumstances. If God had such knowledge, Molina admitted, that would certainly destroy divine freedom. [19] Middle knowledge only gives God knowledge of what any possible creature would freely do under any conceivable circumstances. Here Molina emphasized that the way God has middle knowledge is supercomprehension, or his ability to infinitely perceive the essence or pattern of each individual or possible creature that exists solely in his imagination prior to the divine creative decree. Because these individual essences are abstract, not concrete objects, and God perfectly understands his own imagination, supercomprehension follows inevitably as a result. But it is logically impossible for God to supercomprehension himself, since God is a concrete object (even more than that, the only logically necessary concrete object), not an abstract object that exists within God’s imagination. God’s individual essence is also not an abstract object existing within God’s imagination, but is one and the same as his existence. [20] Furthermore, Molina insisted that supercomprehension can only occur when the knower infinitely transcends in fullness or totality that which is known. Since God cannot infinitely transcend his own perfection, the idea that God supercomprehended himself again proves to be self-refuting. Tying together the threads of his case, Molina asserted:

God does not know, solely by virtue of the knowledge which precedes the act of His will, what part of His own will will determine itself with respect to any object which may be created by Him, although, by virtue of that same knowledge He does know , on the hypothesis that His will were to choose to determine itself to one or another order of things and circumstances, what each created faculty of choice would volition or do in its freedom within that order. Now the reason of this is, that whereas the divine intellect and knowledge surpass in perfection by an infinite distance every created faculty of choice which they contain eminently in themselves and which for this reason they comprehend in an infinitely more eminent manner than that in which it is knowable (that is, itself [21] ), so they too do not surpass the divine will in perfection nor comprehend it in a more eminent manner than that which is knowable in itself. However, as has been said, it is this kind of understanding that is required to know about free choice, before it determines itself, which part it is going to determine itself in its freedom under any given hypothesis. [22]

Molina went on to assert that in choosing to create the present world, God freely decides what all of his future actions in that world will be. These actions are in no way determined by God’s prevolitional knowledge, but are entirely dependent on God in his freedom. Therefore, God knows everything that he will do in the world in his free knowledge, not in his middle knowledge. In other words, God has foreknowledge of his own actions in the present world, not by knowing in his middle knowledge what he would do in every conceivable circumstance, but by knowing what he has decided, in his creative decree, to do in every future circumstance, by means of his almighty power to carry out his freely chosen will. [23]

Grades

[1] Robert Joseph Matava, “Divine Causality and Human Free Choice: Domingo Báñez and the Controversy de Auxiliis,” PhD diss. (University of Saint Andrews, 2010), 1 – 24.

[2] Translator’s note. The verb here is “to will” which has no literal translation in Spanish. “To will” expresses an exercise of will or an inclination toward something, not merely “wanting something.” The confusion arises because there are two words in English that are translated into Spanish as “querer” (to want) and “to will.” The first of these is what we know as “wanting something” in the sense of having a desire and intention for it. While the second can be specified as a volition of the agent.

[3] Alfred J. Freddoso, “Introduction,” in Luis de Molina, On Divine Foreknowledge , trans. Alfred J. Freddoso (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988), 18 – 19.

[4] Réginald Gartigou Ñagrange, The One God , trans. Bede Rose (St. Louis: Herder, 1943), 466.

[5] William Lane Craig, Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom: The Coherence of Theism: Omniscience , Studies in Intellectual History 19 (Leiden: Brill, 1990), 270

[6] Domingo Báñez, Pedro Herrera, and Didacus Alvarez, Apologetica fratrum prædicatorum in provinciâ Hispaniæ sacræ theologiæ professorum, adversus novas quasdam assertiones cujusdam doctoris Ludovici Molinæ nuncupati (Madrid, 1595), 3.25; Thomas of Lemos, Acta omnia et Congregatioum disputationum, quae coram SS. Clement VIII and V Panlo Summis Pontificibus sunt celebratae in causa controversy et illa magna de auxiliis divinae gratiæ (Lovain, 1702), 8.5.

[7] Ludovici Molina, Appenidx ad Concordiam, continens responses ad tres objectiones et satisfactiones ad 17 animadversiones (Libson, 1589), 4 – 7.

[8] Freddoso, “Introduction,” 39.

[9] Ibid., 40; Luis de Molina, On Divine Foreknowledge , trans. Alfred J. Freddoso (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988), 4.14.13.53.2.13.

[10] Molina, Foreknwowledge , 4.14.13.50.14.

[11] The Dominicans did not feel that they were denying human libertarian freedom. In fact, they argued that creatures possessed libertarian freedom, though without using the modern phrase. But Molina found these claims philosophically incoherent and concluded that despite what they said, the Dominicans ended up with a compatibilist freedom.

[12] However, Molina also held that neither God’s omnipotence nor his omnibenevolence is separable from God’s essence. So I don’t think the evidence allows us to conclude what Molina’s position was (or even whether he had one) concerning divine simplicity. It seems to me that Molina’s doctrine is compatible with either divine simplicity (the mainstream Christian view) or divine univocity (the minority view held, for example, by Scotus), depending on whether one thinks the doctrine applies at the level of essence or at the level of attributes.

[13] Molina, Concordia , 1.14.13.19.2.10.

[14] Translator’s note. Original: “the actual world.” It does not refer to a temporal adjective, i.e., to the “contemporary world.” But to the world that God has actualized or made real . “In religious jargon, it is not unusual to refer to God as creating the world. However, in the semantics of possible worlds, this is semantically improper. Rather, God’s creative activity must be referred to as “creating the heavens and the earth,” but as actualizing a particular possible world (since possible states of affairs have no beginning, and the language of creation implies this).” The above excerpt was taken from the Scientia Media section of the article on Middle Knowledge in the Internet Philosophical Encyclopedia. Consulted on July 24, 2020 at: https://www.iep.utm.edu/middlekn/ See also definitions (3) and (5) of the Royal Spanish Academy: https://dle.rae.es/?id=0d341nz (3) tr. To put into action, to carry out. (5) tr. To make abstract or virtual linguistic elements become concrete and individual. Consulted on February 15, 2019. See also: http://www.filosofia.org/enc/ros/actualiz.htm ; Consulted on July 24, 2020.

[15] Translator’s note. Original “feasible world”. In modal logic, feasible worlds are a subset of worlds within the possible worlds that, given a set of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, are within the power of God to actualize (see note 14). Others call them “metaphysically possible worlds”. See Moreland, J.P. & Lane Craig, William. “ Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview ”, 2nd Ed. Kerigma Publications, pp. 609-616, Keathley, Kenneth, “ Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach ”. Ed. B&H Publishing Group, 2010, pp. 16-18, 38-41, 149-152, Lane Craig, William. “ The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom ” ed. Wipf and Stock Publishers, pp. 129 – 13, MacGregor, Kirk, “ Luis de Molina: Life and Theology of the Founder of Middle Knowledge ”. Ed. Zondervan 2015, pp. 79 – 96. For the definition of possible worlds, see What is the logic of possible worlds about? , Jaramillo, Raúl, https://www.apologetica.com.ar/logica-mundos-posibles/ ; consulted on July 24, 2020.

[16] Ludovici Molina, Appenidx ad Concordia , 26 – 27.

[17] Molina, Concordia , 5.19.6.1.26.

[18] Ibid., 3.14.13.46.18, 20.

[19] Molina, Foreknowledge , 4.14.13.52.13.

[20] Here Molina focused on a trivial Thomistic idea, since Aquinas believed that the notion of God as pure act was logically equivalent to the identity between God’s essence and his existence. Molina takes these to be two entirely different notions, interpreting pure act as the actualization of God completely determining everything that happens and the identity between essence and existence as the Anselmian claim that the idea of God in the mind, including in the mind of God, cannot exist apart from a concrete reality of God ( Appendix ad Concordiam , 13, 36, 41).

[21] This reflexive understanding of “what is knowable” is implicit in the immediate context and is in the Latin construction “quodam eminentiori modo, qua,m illud sit cognoscibile” ( Concordia , 4.14.13.52.13).

[22] Freddoso, “Introduction,” 52.

[23] Freddoso, “Introduction,” 52.

Excerpt Luis de Molina: Life and Theology , MacGregor, Kirk, Ph.D.

Translation and Annotations: Eng. Raúl Jaramillo

August 10, 2020/by Guest

What Does Paul Say About Homosexuality?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

In this post, we’re asking the question: What does Paul say about homosexuality? To find out, we need to investigate Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:9-10. Let’s consider each text in turn.

Romans 1:26-27

This passage is probably the most significant biblical text addressing homosexuality. In the broader context, we read that God reveals his wrath from heaven against all ungodliness. Even though people know God exists through natural revelation, they have suppressed the truth and worshipped idols instead. Therefore, God hands them over to their depraved minds. Verses 26-27 give us an example of this depravity:

For this reason, God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature (para physin); and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

So what exactly does Paul condemn here? Matthew Vines, author of God and the Gay Christian notes, “Paul wasn’t condemning the expression of same-sex orientation as opposed to the expression of an opposite-sex orientation. He was condemning excess as opposed to moderation.“¹ Elsewhere he states that Paul “explicitly described the behavior he condemned as lustful. He made no mention of love, fidelity, monogamy, or commitment.”²

That is to say, and Paul doesn’t condemn homosexuality in general. He merely condemns the excesses or abuses that were common in the ancient world. These excesses included pederasty, master/slave rape, or prostitution. If Paul, according to Vines, would have seen examples of committed, monogamous same-sex partners, he would have celebrated them.

In response to Vines, I simply note that nowhere does Paul limit his condemnation to specific types of homosexuality like master/slave relations, pederasty, or prostitution. Rather, he condemns homosexuality in general terms.

If he wanted to condemn pederasty, for example, he could have simply used the Greek word paiderastes. If he meant to condemn a master appeasing his sexual desire with his male slave, then why state that they were “consumed with passion for one another?” Doesn’t that sound like two consenting adults? Furthermore, why mention the women engaging with one another when we have no record of female master/slave or pedophilia relations from the ancient world?

Contrary to Vines, Paul condemns homosexuality in general (not limited to specific abuses) and roots his condemnation in creation itself. This explains why he writes that homosexual activity is an “exchange of natural relations that are “contrary to nature” (para physin in the Greek). Other revisionists (not Vines) take this to mean that some men’s sexual appetites were so insatiable, that they went against their heterosexual nature to have sexual relations with other men. In other words, “going against nature” simply means going against one’s heterosexual orientation. Thus, the text doesn’t condemn those with a homosexual orientation engaging in sexual activity.

But this explanation fails on multiple fronts. Not only do ancient authors repeatedly use the phrase “para physin” to refer to homosexual activity (not going against one’s orientation), Paul goes to great lengths to state that his position is rooted in the creation narrative of Genesis 1-3. In the surrounding context, he uses phrases such as “creation of the world” (1:20), “creator” (1:25), “birds and animals and creeping things” (1:23), “women” and “men” (1:26-27), “image” (1:23), “lie” (1:25), “shame” (1:27), and “death” (1:32). These allusions to the creation narrative indicate that Paul sees homosexuality as an affront to God’s design for marriage as outlined in Genesis 1-2.

Self-professed lesbian Bernadette Brooten writes in her scholarly book Love between Women:

I believe that Paul used the word “exchanged” to indicate that people knew the natural sexual order of the universe and left it behind. . . . I see Paul as condemning all forms of homoeroticism as the unnatural acts of people who had turned away from God.”³

Romans 1:26-27 doesn’t merely condemn excesses. It condemns homosexual activity in general as an affront to God’s design for sexuality.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 And 1 Timothy 1:9-10

I lump these two together because they are similar in nature.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality (malakoi and arsenokoitai), nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. — 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality (arsenokoitai), enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine. — 1 Timothy 1:9-10

Paul’s use of arsenokoitai is the first known use of this word in the ancient world. It’s a compound word of man (arsen) and bed (koite). The word literally means “bedders of men.” It’s a term that conveys action, which is why the NIV translation of the word “men who have sex with men” is preferable to one like the NASB’s which simply reads “homosexuals.” Scholars are in agreement that Paul coined this term using the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 20:13:

If a man lies with a male (arsenos koiten) as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

This text clearly condemns both partners for participating in homosexual activity. It says that “both of them have committed an abomination.” In the same way, 1 Corinthians 1:9-10 appears to condemn both partners as well. Not only does Paul condemn arsenokoitai (bedders of men), right before that he condemns malakoi (soft ones).

The Greek word malakoi has a broad range of meaning. It can refer to men who have long hair, wear makeup, have a fondness for expensive clothing, gluttons, the lazy who avoid manual labor, or the acceptance of being penetrated by other men. So which of these does Paul condemn here?

It’s noteworthy that the Jewish philosopher Philo twice uses the word malakoi to refer to passive homosexual partners. It’s also noteworthy where Paul places this word in his list of vices. He places it right between moikoi (adulterers) and arsenokoitai. When a word has a broad range of definitions, context usually is the strongest determiner of the author’s meaning. Considering malakoi’s placement in the sentence, it’s likely that Paul’s referring to a passive male partner in homosexual sex. After all, it’s hard to imagine that Paul would say that men who like designer clothing or a good chick flick will not inherit the kingdom of God. He must be referring to something more blatant.

Was There Really No Concept Of Homosexual Orientation In The Ancient World?

As I’ve alluded to numerous times in this blog series, revisionists argue that when the Bible condemns homosexuality, it condemns abuses — not lifelong, monogamous relationships. Revisionists argue that homosexual orientation and committed homosexual relationships were completely foreign in the ancient world. Therefore, the biblical authors didn’t condemn them. But is this an accurate assessment?

Louis Crompton, a gay man and scholar of queer studies states in his book Homosexuality and Civilization:

Some interpreters, seeking to mitigate Paul’s harshness, have read the passage [in Romans 1] as condemning not homosexuals generally but only heterosexual men and women who experimented with homosexuality. According to this interpretation, Paul’s words were not directed at “bona fide” homosexuals in committed relationships. But such a reading, however well-intentioned, seems strained and unhistorical. Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer of this period imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any circumstances. The idea that homosexuals might be redeemed by mutual devotion would have been wholly foreign to Paul or any Jew or early Christian.”⁴

In other words, while Crompton supports homosexuality, he says the revisionists’ arguments don’t work. It’s a massive leap in logic to think that Paul would have embraced homosexual relationships if he had only seen good examples of them.

Furthermore, the idea of homosexual orientation wasn’t completely foreign to the ancient world. Thomas K. Hubbard, a non-Christian classical scholar notes in Homosexuality in Greece and Rome:

“Homosexuality in this era may have ceased to be merely another practice of personal pleasure and began to be viewed as an essential and central category of personal identity, exclusive of an antithetical to heterosexual orientation.“⁵

Notice what Hubbard says here. He argues that people in the ancient world experienced homosexual orientation and self-identified as homosexuals.

In Plato’s Symposium, a philosophical text depicting a contest of extemporaneous speeches by notable men, speaks to the reality of homosexual orientation. Consider these excerpts from two of the speeches:⁶

“For they fall in love with boys only at the point when they begin to have in their possession a mind; and this moment approximates the time when they begin to get a beard. For, I think, those who begin from that moment to fall in love with them are prepared to love in the expectation that they will be with them all their life and will share their lives in common.” — Pausanias

In other words, he speaks of a loving, life-long commitment between homosexual partners. Or consider this other speech:

“So of course when he also happens upon that very person who is his half, whether the lover of boys or any other, then they are wonderfully struck with affectionate regard and a sense of kinship and love, almost not wanting to be divided even for a short time. And these are they who continue with one another throughout life. . . . Each desiring to join together and to be fused into a single entity with his beloved and to become one person from two.” — Aristophanes

Here, again, is another example of life-long homosexual commitments. Commenting further on this subject, N. T. Wright argues:⁷

“As a classicist, I have to say that when I read Plato’s Symposium, or when I read the accounts from the early Roman Empire of the practice of homosexuality, then it seems to me they knew just as much about it as we do. In particular, a point which is often missed, they knew a great deal about what people today would regard as longer-term, reasonably stable relations between two people of the same gender. This is not a modern invention; it’s already there in Plato. The idea that in Paul’s day it was always a matter of exploitation of younger men by older men or whatever . . . of course there was plenty of that then, as there is today, but it was by no means the only thing. They knew about the whole range of options there.”

In the end, the revisionist arguments fall short. Nowhere does Paul limit his condemnation to homosexual abuses. Furthermore, we have no reason to believe that Paul was ignorant of homosexual orientation.

Concluding Thoughts

Based on the above evidence, Paul condemns homosexual behavior in general — not just abuses. He condemns both men and women in Romans 1, and both the active and passive partners in 1 Corinthians 6. The revisionist arguments that Paul had no concept of homosexual orientation, and therefore, couldn’t have condemned it lacks historical backing.

Those that have never heard? And a COVID Update

Podcast

Frank shares a passionate reaction to the death of Mike Adams and then tackles the COVID situation, including the idea that churches and schools should reopen. If you can only school remotely, Frank recommends the online classes at CrossExamined.org he’s teaching this Fall.

Frank also gives robust answers to the following listener questions:

Why did God allow Adam and Eve to be tempted when He knew what would happen?
What about those that have never heard about Jesus?
What about those who think they are good people and don’t need forgiveness?

If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

August 7, 2020/by Frank Turek

8 Tips to Discuss Politics, Race, Religion and Other Controversial Topics

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Luke Nix

Who has not been exposed to or may be even involved in discussions of controversial topics these days?

It seems that talk of politics, race, religion, and a whole host of other controversial topics are swirling around us everywhere we go. Some topics we can ignore and avoid, and others we get sucked into. Some discussions we get reluctantly and others we get into too eagerly. There are numerous pitfalls to having these discussions that we all want to avoid, so today, I want to offer eight tips for discussing controversial topics that will hopefully help your discussions be more productive and respectful. Being that the USA is in an election year (2020), politics seems to be on everyone’s mind, so let’s start with this quote from a book that I reviewed a few years ago entitled “Before You Hit SEND: Avoiding Headache and Heartache” by Emerson Eggerichs to set the stage:

“Some people enter politics because they derive personal fulfillment from the ‘gotcha’ approach to issues. It isn’t about what is true but about the political chess game. The key is to put a better spin on a matter than the other candidate and to put the opposition in checkmate…In political circles the rule of thumb is never admit a mistake or that you don’t know something. Thus, keep talking in an interview to sound like an expert, all the while aware that you don’t know. Feeling on the hot seat, and determined never to be wrong, but fully cognizant that the information is insufficient or incorrect, keep moving your lips, weaving and ducking as best as your polemical skills permit.”

If this sounds all too familiar to you and you’re tired of it, keep on reading!

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #1: You Could Be Wrong

It is important to recognize that we could be wrong about what we believe about reality. Interestingly enough, a challenge could actually be a blessing in disguise. It could be an opportunity for us to let go of false beliefs and acquire true ones. Of course, challenges do not always result in a changed belief; they can also result in a more nuanced and more strongly defended belief. But regardless of the ultimate result of a challenge, when we see it as an opportunity, we give the other person a respect that is often missing from discussions today.

When we demonstrate that we can have a rational discussion where arguments are presented and granted when they are sound, we demonstrate that we are committed to truth. We demonstrate that we understand that we are not perfect and do not necessarily have everything figured out. We also demonstrate that we are willing to hear others out, understand the reasons that they hold the other view and carefully consider those reasons. Greg Koukl summarizes this quite well in his book “Tactics: A Game Plan For Discussing Your Christian Convictions“:

“A commitment to truth — as opposed to a commitment to an organization — means an openness to refining one’s own views. It means increasing the accuracy of one’s understanding and being open to correction in thinking. A challenger might turn out to be a blessing in disguise, an ally instead of an enemy. An evangelist who is convinced of her view, then, should be willing to engage the best arguments against it.”

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #2: Find Common Ground

This is so important. Regardless of who you are discussing a controversial subject with, you can find some sort of common ground with them. The very fact that we are all created in the Image of God provides a strong set of commonalities that we can begin with. If we hold to the same worldview, in general (this discussion just being one of working out the details), then it is important to recognize that up front. Even if you remain in disagreement at the end of the conversation and agree to pick up the conversation again later, it is important to affirm where agreement exists. Again, Greg Koukl offers wisdom here from “Tactics“:

“As a general rule, go out of your way to establish common ground. Whenever possible, affirm points of agreement. Take the most charitable read on the other person’s motives, not the most cynical. Treat them the way you would like others to treat you if you were the one in the hot seat.”

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #3: Assume Good Will

Speaking of charitable motives, always assume this. No one likes to have their character attacked, particularly when they know that they are not deserving of such an attack. Even if we do not attack one’s character verbally in our discussion, we may still be doing so in our minds as the conversation progresses (or regresses). It is important that we focus on the person’s claims and arguments for the claims rather than their motives because their motives logically have no bearing on the truth of their claims.

Further, when we assume good will, we are more willing to understand where someone is coming from. When we understand where they are coming from, it gives us an opportunity to address a deeper concern that they have with our opposing view- we can offer them a logically, rationally, and evidentially supported alternative that takes into account their deeper commitment. When we understand that the other person ultimately has good intentions, it allows us to show kindness while we speak and defend truth. In his book “Before You Hit SEND: Preventing Headache and Heartache,” Emerson Eggerichs lists out the important reasons why kindness in controversial topic discussions is vital:

“Kindness eases others, which enables them to hear the substance of our concern. Kindness demonstrates and builds trust. Kindness affects the emotions, which is key when seeking to inform or persuade. Kindness maintains a relationship, and relationship determines response. My communication kindly demonstrates who God is.”

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #4: Listen To Understand

Listening is vital to the discussion. If we are truly there to defend a position and, hopefully, convince the other person that our view more closely matches reality than the one they presently believe, we have to be able to properly understand their current view. It does us no good to argue against a view that the person does not hold. If we have soundly defeated a view and offered ours as an alternative, but the view that we have defeated is not what the other person holds, we have not given them a reason to abandon their view in favor of ours. We’ve given them reasons to not accept that other view, yes, but we have not given the reason to change from the view that they currently hold. Listening takes patience. We cannot always be eager to sneak in a rhetorical jab or present the next logical “gotcha!” We need to focus on what the other person is saying in order to understand to ensure that what we are about to present actually addresses and applies to their claims.

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #5: Ask Honest Questions

One of the great ways to listen is not just being quiet and focusing but asking clarifying questions. Questions like “what do you mean by that,” or “how do you get from X to Y in your logical thinking” helps us to learn about other views and the reasons why people hold those views. Asking honest questions in order to learn demonstrates that we are willing to consider and engage other views (Tip #1) as they actually are rather caricatures of those views.
Some people may have even considered the views that they espouse more deeply. Foundations and implications may not have crossed their minds. This is also where asking honest questions can be helpful. Jonathan Morrow speaks to the wisdom of asking questions:

“People may not ask…questions of their own beliefs or think carefully about the way they view the world, but they still have a worldview. And it affects every area of their lives. Every person–knowingly or not– filters the information that enters their minds through their worldview. They then make sense of that information based on their worldview. This process is automatic and the filtered information shapes their beliefs and influences how they function in society, including the smallest decisions they make.”

Asking honest questions demonstrates to the other person respect and demonstrates a spirit of humility a heart of a student. Listen, understand, and appropriately critique in a loving and kind manner. I will refer you to both of the books already mentioned above for more on this tip.

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #6: Get Your Facts Right

This cannot be emphasized enough. It is important that our claims match reality, meaning that we need to get our facts right. This affects the persuasiveness of our presentation in multiple ways. First, if we do not have our facts right, then any conclusions that we draw from those incorrect claims will be questionable. We simply cannot use false claims about reality to come to true conclusions about reality. It is not logical, and no one would be reasonable to accept a conclusion that is dependent upon something false for its truth.

Second, when we do not have our facts right, it appears that we do not value truth enough to verify claims. This could be because we are gullible, lazy, or simply just want to believe that our conclusion is true, so we’re looking for any confirmation of it. When we do not check the claims we make for truth before we use them to persuade someone to our view, it demonstrates that we are more committed to a view than to what is true.

Third, if we value a particular view over what is true, why should anyone trust us about anything else that we claim? Getting our facts right is not just an issue of making a sound argument, but an issue of personal character and trust. If we do not take the time to investigate our claims before using them, we should not be trusted. I’ll quote Eggerichs again, here:

“Perhaps in many cases we didn’t know it was untrue. No harm, no foul. Even so, an honest error in judgment does not make it okay, especially when we repeatedly make such mistakes. The real point here is to the lazy and neglectful individuals who keep making mistakes and claim they did not know the truth. They may be innocent, but one becomes guilty of carelessness and inattentiveness. We must aggressively get our facts straight to avoid a routine of ‘honest’ mistakes.”

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #7: Avoid or Qualify Speculation

Part of getting our facts straight is to communicate the difference between what we understand to be facts and what we are speculating about what those facts mean for the future. Speculation can get quite emotional because it tends towards two extremes: either a “best-case scenario” or a “worst-case scenario.” The first gives people a utopianistic feeling and expectation. The second gives people a fearful feeling and expectation. Both of those are strong drivers of strong action and rhetoric, but they are only founded in speculation. We do not want to give someone a false impression and cause them to react according to that falsehood.

Speculations about all sorts of things take place in conversations, but it seems that speculations about future events and individuals’ motives tend to be the most damaging. Obviously, no one can see the future. We can certainly look to history and notice a pattern of certain conditions preceding or coinciding with certain events, but because we are not omniscient and may be overlooking an key condition that may change the whole outcome, speculating about the future needs to be done carefully and with qualification. Some people may choose to just avoid it altogether.

Obviously, too, no one can see the heart of another individual. When we speculate about the “pure evil” or “purely altruistic” motives someone may have for defending a particular political policy or view of the world, we tread on dangerous territory here, as well. We do not want to be guilty of encouraging character assassinations or character glorifications. The character of a person has no logical bearing on the truth of their claims, so we need to focus not on their character but on the claims being made to argue for or against their truth. It is wise to simply avoid speculating about motivations for holding a particular view.

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #8: Learn to Use Reason Well

Communicating truth to those we wish to persuade is only part of the discussion. The other important part is using truths together to come to reasonable and true conclusions and to avoid using truths together to come to unreasonable and false conclusions. We may present a series of true statements, but if we present them together in such a way that they do not connect logically, then we run the risk of believing and promoting unreasonable or false conclusions. We also run the risk of being unable to identify where another’s reasoning has gone wrong even though we know that their conclusion is incorrect.

Norman Geisler describes logic like this:

“Logic is a way to think so that we can come to correct conclusions by understanding implications and the mistakes people often make in thinking.”

Going back to speculation for a moment: Speculation often results from the mistakes using of true claims to support implications that do not follow. The reciprocal error is made, as well: an implication (conclusion) that either necessarily follows from the true propositions and the valid reasoning or true propositions when taken together yield a high probability of or are all best explained by an implication are accused of being speculation. This error often results from the misunderstanding of logic and mistakes in thinking. But when true claims are used correctly, logic is understood correctly and we adjust our thinking to match both, both errors regarding the acceptance of speculations and rejection of implications can be avoided.

There are numerous fallacious ways to reason using true claims that will lead us and others to false conclusions. We need to learn not only how to use logic (connect true claims together) correctly, but we also need to learn how to avoid fallacies in our attempts to connect one true claim to another true claim. When we learn these, we not only can guard our communication, guide our discussion, and clearly present our case, but we can also analyze others’ claims and be able to respectfully and lovingly ask questions that will guide the other person to see the error that they are making.

As a bonus, learning to reason well gives the first tip I offered in this post (recognize that you could be wrong) a solid and reasonable foundation. The first tip is not a call to be malleable in your thinking simply because we don’t want to offend or we all want to get along; it is a call to recognize that we all hold wrong beliefs about this world and that those wrong beliefs can be positively identified, removed from our worldview, and replaced with true beliefs about the world. Learning to reason well gives us the tools to adjust our beliefs to match reality and to communicate that knowledge to others. Finally, if you want to learn how to reason well, I highly recommend the book “Come, Let Us Reason” by Norman Geisler for its introductory view of logic that is easy to follow for anyone who desires to learn.

Marx Attacks!

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Phil Bair

If I were to ask you who the most influential philosopher of the 21st Century is, what would your answer be? The correct answer might surprise you.

It is Karl Marx.

Karl Marx believed that class struggle would occur naturally on its own without the help of any social engineer. He believed the Communist Revolution was the inevitable outcome of socio-economic forces, and it was only a matter of time.

He was wrong.

The marxists of today believe in the class struggle, just like Marx did in his day. Except that now, the new Marxists recognize that it won’t naturally happen on its own. They have forged a new agenda to bring about a social revolution similar to the one Marx imagined. Except this time the intended outcome will be a cultural and social revolution they hope to control through deliberate measures rather than an unpredictable result left to chance.

A Worldview and its Weapon

A study of this cultural marxism can be summarized as the movement to apply classical marxist ideas of economic class struggle to cultural classes and identities primarily based on proportionality. The majority classes (e.g., white anglo-saxon male, cisgender Christians) are seen as oppressive just because they are the majority. Minorities are seen as oppressed just because they are minorities. Power is perceived as an automatic property of having greater numbers in your group, and that alleged power is always seen as villainy.

Whenever you see and hear people use language like “American racism,” or “systemic racism,” or “American original sin,” or any other expression of built-in institutional or structural bias cited as the cause of socio-economic disparities, cultural marxism is behind it. It is blaming imaginary policies and systems for what it sees as institutional discrimination rather than identifying the real causes of the disparities. It is the myth that the whole system is rigged against minorities and in favor of the “privileged.” It is the idea that what was institutional discrimination in the past still exists, despite the fact that Jim Crow laws and the earlier scourge of slavery have been eradicated. It is blaming society for disadvantages rooted in individual dysfunction and/or cultural pathology.

The left-wing marxist soldiers are engaged in a systematic and widespread attack on Western Civilization. They use an insidious tool known as “critical theory” to accomplish their objectives. It is important to understand that despite having the word “theory” in its name, critical theory is not technically a worldview or an ideology. It is a methodology. It functions as a weapon designed to torpedo social frameworks that are healthy and beneficial for all mankind. The worldview behind the methodology of critical theory (cultural marxism) sees those frameworks as evil and oppressive. Critical theory poisons the minds of those in society against those frameworks and deceives them into thinking they should be dismantled and replaced by an anti-Christian collectivist framework that becomes the true oppressor and destroys the freedom and rights of God’s image-bearers. Critical theory is not the ideology itself, but the blueprint for aggression and activism that is designed to pulverize the existing social fabric and establish the new order the marxist ideology visualizes.

The weapons of the critical theory include challenges from radical feminism, identity politics, the weaponization of homosexuality and transgenderism, and the accusations of systemic racism, bigotry, xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, and evangelical religious oppression. The battle is waged against what they view as the establishment of “whiteness.” The Equinsu Ocha, the white devil, is the enemy, and has to be destroyed at all costs in order to bring about social justice and cultural transformation.

The strategy? Criticize, demonize, disrupt, divide, and destabilize Western society and its institutions by cultivating resentment and grievance culture so that they can be dismantled more easily and a new social order can replace them. The criticism and accusations of critical theory don’t have to be true, and they rarely are. Truth doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is the marxist narrative, to be accepted as dogma through blind ideological conformity. Critical theory seeks to turn people against each other by fostering tribal warfare and victim culture. It stirs up hatred and animosity based on false narratives people have been brainwashed in for decades in our colleges and universities.

One of the largest flaming arrows critical theory has been shooting at us over the last few years is the idea that evangelical Christians have abandoned the Gospel to embrace a power-centered “right-wing” political agenda. We are told that our efforts to promote the Kingdom of God in this life and in our society have been co-opted by a fawning devotion to the spiritually and morally problematic “orange man” occupying the White House. (And by the way, it’s called the “White House.” Hello? The White House.) The purpose of this accusation is to shame and intimidate us into silence when it comes to speaking into our current socio-political climate. After all, we are subordinate to the Son of God, not the Republican Party. This has taught us to avoid politics in the church so as not to offend those in the laity whom the marxist ideology has infected, and to avoid any potential divisiveness taking a stand may cause. Very clever.

The reality is, God is the author of all truth. Truth always has political implications, whether we like it or not. Therefore to avoid politics is to avoid truth. To avoid truth is to ignore the author of all truth: God. Which group of people are terrified of getting political more than any other, and which community avoids it like the plague with unrelenting tenacity? The church. Take your time.

The easiest way to establish a new order is to silence the most vocal opponents of that order. Social engineering is just as much about silencing dissent as indoctrinating the credulous. Critical theory has had overwhelming success in this regard.

Marxism vs Freedom

What does this new social order look like? No classes. No racial “inequality.” No “oppression.” No white “privilege.” No wealth or income, “inequality.” Absolute uniformity of outcome through the coercive power of the state. No dissent. No opposing ideas. Utopia.

Oh, and by the way, no freedom. Free people are at liberty to think and speak as they wish, based on their convictions, and this is not allowed. Nothing contrary to the marxist narrative of class ideology is permitted, no intolerance of the state ideology will be tolerated.

Every outcome is equalized through force. The state is greater than the individual, and until the revolution is complete, people will be treated and judged according to their class, not as stand-alone human beings created in the image of God. If you are white, you are privileged, and you are damned in the name of social justice. Whether you enjoy any personal “privilege” or not, and whether you are personally racist or not, you are guilty, privileged, and racist anyway — period. None of the details about who you are as a person matter. The only thing that matters is that you belong to the white class, and therefore you are a target.

It is almost impossible to dislodge this ideology from its acolytes. The false accusations carried into our minds by the pathological vector called critical theory are so deeply embedded and so thoroughly pervasive in our society that they have been elevated to the status of axiomatic certitude. Anyone who challenges these presuppositions is seen as a drooling hateful neanderthal and will be treated as a pariah. The mechanism to silence dissent is known as “political correctness.” You are not allowed to question the narrative nor attempt to refute it by speaking the truth. Truth is offensive. This is what happens when myth has been implanted in the minds of multitudes of people through indoctrination (from the entertainment industry, the media, and academia) and repetition for so long that people are no longer capable of seeing the world any other way.

The Infected Church

Now this poison has invaded the Body of Christ. Untold numbers of Christians are redefining the principles of their faith to conform to the agenda of social justice rather than personal redemption. The Gospel articulates and endorses a well-defined concept of true justice. But it stands in sharp contrast to the false justice in modern marxist ideology that now has so much of the Church in its death grip.

The monolithic ideology of “white guilt” is wreaking havoc in the Church by pressuring white Christians into “apologizing” for things they didn’t do, and to adopt an attitude of self-condemnation as a means to redeem themselves before the judgment seat of social justice. It comes in the form of progressives (which are now almost identical to marxists) insisting on whites becoming “woke” to their alleged implicit racial bias and defining themselves by their newly enlightened status as pathetic inferiors.

The most virulent lie in the arsenal of critical theory in our present moment is the idea of systemic racism, belief in which is a form of mental illness (a mind detached from reality). Those who are brainwashed by it will attack you like rabid animals if you so much as question their holy article of faith or offer evidence that systemic racism doesn’t exist. Facts don’t matter. The only thing that counts is subjective interpretation of personal experience guided by junk ideology. That is why they spray such toxic venom at their own black brothers and sisters who are trying to teach them a different way of understanding their condition — a way that embraces the truth. For them to admit, that possibility would force them to stop blaming their favorite scapegoat (whiteness), and to honestly examine the real roots of their suffering.

Make no mistake: those who believe in the lie of systemic racism have no desire to see that alleged racism eradicated — ever. If it did exist, and if it came to an end, their precious grievance culture and celebration of their own victimhood would cease to exist. They must believe it’s true, and they will never believe otherwise. The accusation of racism toward whites is what they live for. It is what nourishes and sustains them. That their psychotic security blanket could ever be taken from them is unthinkable. Do not believe for a second that movements like Black Lies Matter really care about black lives or true justice. They only care about one thing: the obliteration of the foundations of Western Civilization. Their web site speaks of dissolving the nuclear family. Their leaders openly inform us they are trained marxists. Their marches advocate deadly violence against the police. Meanwhile, they ignore the over 300,000 black victims of homicide at the hands of other blacks over the last 40 years. The only time they protest and riot against the loss of a precious black life is when it occurs at the hands of the police. And they don’t give a flying rat’s patoot whether it was justified or not. I repeat: they don’t care about black lives — at all. Black Lies Matter is a race-baiting hate group, and the only thing that matters to them is the perpetual decomposition of our society. They are the most high profile puppets of critical theory you can possibly find.

Conclusion

This is the essence of the attack of left-wing marxist pathology in our society. It has achieved the lofty status of a militant social cult. It has already destroyed Europe, and we are next in line. The invasion has already begun. The most tragic aspect of all this is that gullible Christians, especially the millennial variety, have been brainwashed into the new marxist ideology and are busy helping the left do the dirty work of destabilizing American society, and worst of all, invading the Body of Christ like a metastasizing flesh-eating disease that is exterminating the true Gospel of Christ and replacing it with a demonic substitute.

What Is The Fine-Tuning Argument For God’s Existence, And Does The Multiverse Counter It?

2. Does God Exist?

By Wintery Knight

One of the best arguments for the existence of a Creator and Designer of the universe is the cosmic fine-tuning argument. The argument argues that individual constants and quantities in nature cannot be much smaller or larger than they are, because it would remove the ability of the universe to support life of any kind. Dr. Michael Strauss, an experimental physicist, explains some examples of the fine-tuning in a recent post on his blog.

He writes:

I liken the finely-tuned universe to a panel that controls the parameters of the universe with about 100 knobs that can be set to certain values. If you turn any knob just a little to the right or to the left, the result is either a universe that is inhospitable to life or no universe at all.

Consider the knob that controls the strength of the strong nuclear force that holds quarks inside the neutrons and protons and binds the nucleus of the atom together. If the strength were increased by 2%, the element hydrogen would be either non-existent or very rare. Without hydrogen, there would be no water (H₂O) or stars that burn hydrogen as their nuclear fuel like our sun. Without hydrogen, there would be no life. If the strength of the strong nuclear force were decreased by about 5%, then hydrogen would be the only element in the universe. That would simplify the periodic table and make Chemistry class very easy, but it would render life impossible.

All known life in this universe is based on the element carbon, which is formed in the final stages of a star’s life. The carbon you and I are made of is the result of the nuclear processes that occurred as previous stars ended their lives. One nice recent study showed that if the mass of the quarks that make up neutrons and protons were changed by just a few percents, then the process that makes carbon as stars die would be altered in such a way that there would not be sufficient carbon in the universe for life. The masses of the lightest sub-atomic quarks are the precise value that is required for carbon to form and for life to exist.

Regarding the multiverse, let me just quote from MIT physicist Alan Lightman, writing in Harper’s magazine about the multiverse:

The… conjecture that there are many other worlds… [T]here is no way they can prove this conjecture. That same uncertainty disturbs many physicists who are adjusting to the idea of the multiverse. Not only must we accept that the basic properties of our universe are accidental and uncalculable. In addition, we must believe in the existence of many other universes. But we have no conceivable way of observing these other universes and cannot prove their existence. Thus, to explain what we see in the world and in our mental deductions, we must believe in what we cannot prove.

Sound familiar? Theologians are accustomed to taking some beliefs on faith. Scientists are not. All we can do is hope that the same theories that predict the multiverse also produce many other predictions that we can test here in our own universe. But the other universes themselves will almost certainly remain a conjecture.

The multiverse is not pure nonsense; it is theoretically possible. But even if there were a multiverse, the generator that makes the universes itself would require fine-tuning, so the multiverse doesn’t get rid of the problem. And, as Lightman indicates, we have no independent experimental evidence for the existence of the multiverse in any case. Atheists just have to take it on faith and hope that their speculations will be proved right. Meanwhile, the fine-tuning is just as easily explained by postulating God, and we have independent evidence for God’s existence, like the origin of biological information, the sudden appearance of animal body plans, the argument from consciousness, and so on. Even if the naturalists could explain the fine-tuning, they would still have a lot of explaining to do. Theism (intelligent causation) is the simplest explanation for all of the things we learn from the progress of science.

It’s very important to understand that if these values were any different, then it’s not like we would bridges on our foreheads, or have green skin, or have pointy ears, etc. That’s what science fiction teaches you. And many atheists form their view of science by watching science fiction entertainment. But the truth is that the consequences of changing these values are much more consequential: no stars, no planets, no hydrogen, no heavy elements, the universe re-collapses into a hot fireball. You’re not going to have complex, embodied intelligent agents running around making moral decisions and relating to God in a world like that.

Questions like the existence of God should be NOT decided by feelings and faith and superstitious nonsense. They ought to be decided by evidence. Specifically, scientific evidence. Everyone has to account for this scientific evidence for fine-tuning within their worldview, and they have to account for it in a way that is responsible and rational. Punting to the multiverse, without any evidence for it, is neither rational nor responsible. Holding out hope that the evidence we have now will all go away is neither rational nor responsible.

By the way, if you are looking for a good book on the cosmic fine-tuning, especially for evangelism and debating with atheists, you really need to get a copy of “A Fortunate Universe. “ Although it is from one of the most prestigious academic presses, it is pretty funny to read, and the main points are made clear, even if you don’t understand science. Two astrophysicists wrote it – one who believes that God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning, and one who doesn’t. I really think that Christians need to get used to the idea that evangelism can be pretty easy, so long as you are arguing from peer-reviewed facts. When you get a good book on evidence for God that is not in dispute, then you are invincible. Everybody ought to believe in God in a universe with this much overt scientific evidence spilling out everywhere. Whether this Creator and Designer is the God of the Bible, who visited us as Jesus of Nazareth, takes more work to establish. Working through the emotional objections people have to God, and coaching them to take on the difficulties of living out an authentic Christian life (very unpopular!), is even harder.

The Mike Adams I Knew and Loved

Podcast

Our friend Dr. Mike Adams has died. He was a UNC Wilmington Criminology Professor, a Summit Professor, a columnist, and author, a Free Speech and Pro-life Warrior, a fellow instructor with Frank and J. Warner Wallace on our Fearless Faith seminar, and most importantly, a born again Christian. Authorities are ruling it a suicide. Is that really what happened, and if so, why?

Frank has some answers as he honors a man of love and courage whom many misunderstood and vilified. Beware: this tribute is direct and raw.

If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

August 1, 2020/by Frank Turek

Book Review: How Reason Can Lead To God by Joshua Rasmussen

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Stelman Smith Jr.

“I write for a specific sort of person. You value reason, science, and independent thinking. You question beliefs propped up by ‘faith’ without sufficient evidence. Maybe you would like your life to have a deeper purpose, but you cannot believe something based on a mere wish. Whether you are a student, an academic, or just a curious person, you want one thing: the truth. If you can relate, this book is for you” (Rasmussen).

In what promises to be one of the great Christian Apologetics books of all time, Dr. Josh Rasmussen leads us across a bridge of reason. A bridge that begins with his own doubts and questions as a teenager. A bridge built by the tools of reason, on which we can learn to think clearly, and discover the foundations of the world in which we find ourselves. A bridge that if followed honestly and openly, can lead to a real treasure on the other side.

But this is not an ideological bridge; one based on affirming prior conclusions and forcing the reader to think a certain way. This book is not even written primarily for those who are already believers. Rather, it is for the skeptic. As someone who is naturally skeptical himself, Josh does not compel anyone to step onto the bridge. But he extends his hand and invites one to use their own reason. Josh has no interest in leading anyone blindly according to his own reasons. He invites his readers to test his arguments and conclusions every step of the way – even teaching them how to use powers of reason they may not have even known they had to investigate the world for themselves.

Taking nothing for granted, Rasmussen looks at some of the most fundamental questions we can ask ourselves: What is reality? How do we know anything exists? How do we even know we exist? How do we know we are thinking? Using the light of reason and sophisticated philosophical thought, Rasmussen investigates competing theories about the foundation of all reality to explain how anything at all can exist. He explains that our theory about the foundation must consist of the materials capable of constructing all the aspects of the reality in which we exist.

He shows us how we can use logic to discover what the foundation of reality is like; that materialism and naturalism fail to account for all the aspects of reality around us – but that a Mental Foundation can serve as a robust theory that provides us with simplicity, uniformity, and the explanatory depth needed for all the aspects of reality, including Mind, Matter, Morals, and Reason. And this foundation also serves as the pillars for our bridge of reason; Independence, Necessity, Ultimacy, and Eternal Power.

Libertarian Freedom

In one of my favorite chapters, FOUNDATION OF MIND, Rasmussen helps us understand ourselves and our own minds better through self-reflection and reason. In his section on free will, he shows us that our sense of ourselves making free choices is a window into a world where we really do have libertarian free will:

“Stop reading this. Can you? Is it up to you whether you continue reading? If so, then you have some measure of ‘free will.’ In other words, you have the power to choose between options.

You might be unsure whether you actually have free will. It is understandable: the particles in your brain follow the laws of physics, and the laws of physics are not up to you. In other words, if particles pull all the strings, then you are a puppet of their powers.”

This section lends greatly to the defense of the FreeThinking Argument which deductively demonstrates that naturalism is incapable of providing the foundational materials needed for building minds that have the capacity to reason. But that Theism provides the best explanation for why

“… you have the power to choose whether to focus on these words or to release your focus. This power is within the options available to you, at least if it is within the options available to the particles. Choose your focus, and the particles in your brain will thereby take a path. (Recent science of the mind-brain connection supports this result).”

This chapter helped me personally see how it is possible for God to know my thoughts. God is the foundational mind of all other minds. Minds made in his image.

All along the way, Rasmussen does an excellent job of communicating deep ideas at a personable level that makes it easy for even the laymen to grasp tough thoughts.

The Bridge to Reason

Even the entire argument of the book boils down to a simple form:

Premise 1. Reality in total is self-sufficient (with no outside cause or explanation).

Premise 2. Nothing can be self-sufficient without a perfect foundation.

Conclusion. Therefore, reality has a perfect foundation.

I’ll leave it to Rasmussen to defend the premises in his book. He does so with stunning brilliance and clarity.

Now, construction of this bridge does not come without its obstacles. But Rasmussen helps to remove these barriers by answering some of the toughest objections to his worldview, including the logical problem of evil and some of its sub-categories, such as why God would condemn people for being born into the wrong religion, and why God would allow innocent children to suffer. And in what I think is one of the best answers to this problem, Rasmussen shows us how we can use reason to see that not only does naturalism fail to provide a satisfying explanation for why any moral creatures exist, but that on theism, we should expect the existence of certain mysterious evils. In doing so, he presents a meaningful view of a world in which God creates us to be coauthors in His grand story of reality.

And on the other side of the bridge, we get access to a secret argument that our journey has made for us. But more importantly, if we seek with an honest and open heart, we might find a treasure that’s value is immeasurable. There is a risk, but “… there is value in seeking treasures in the face of uncertainty.”

One risk is the collapse of one’s worldview. But Rasmussen identifies with this, and provides consolation in the discovery of truth:

“My original vision of the world was too limited. My research helped me see that the world is far greater and more complex than I had imagined. I began to feel thankful that my childhood vision of reality was shattered, for it was too simple.”

The other risk is disappointment. Rasmussen points out that “… it takes courage not only to face cold truth, but it also takes courage to look for a treasure before you know whether the treasure is real.”

“This book is about the search for a treasure. Many treasures are not obvious, but we can find them without leaping into the dark. In this book, I will attempt to construct a bridge of reason that can help truth-seekers explore a pathway to a valuable discovery.

You will be the judge. My goal is to bring you encouragement about the big picture of your life through the unalterable rules of reason. I invite you to put the bridge to the test. Without a rational basis for our steps, we walk blindly.

Reason will give us Light.”

Conclusion

When having the conversation about the greatest Christian Apologetics books of all time; books that every serious Christian and non-Christian alike ought to read: No doubt that in the years to come, among mentions such as Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, or Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig, How Reason Can Lead To God, by Joshua Rasmussen will find itself in that conversation.

Did Jesus Or John Have A Painfully Short Attention Span?

The Disciples’ Silence Became Deafening

The Disciples Finally Get It, But Does Ehrman?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Relationship of Confidence and Character

The Blending of Conviction and Compassion

The Importance of Listening and Loving

Confidence Leads to Compassion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Grades

Romans 1:26-27

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 And 1 Timothy 1:9-10

Was There Really No Concept Of Homosexual Orientation In The Ancient World?

Concluding Thoughts

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #1: You Could Be Wrong

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #2: Find Common Ground

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #3: Assume Good Will

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #4: Listen To Understand

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #5: Ask Honest Questions

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #6: Get Your Facts Right

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #7: Avoid or Qualify Speculation

Controversial Topic Discussion Tip #8: Learn to Use Reason Well

Recommended resources related to the topic:

A Worldview and its Weapon

Marxism vs Freedom

The Infected Church

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Libertarian Freedom

The Bridge to Reason

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic: