Anyone who has spent considerable time studying the gospels can tell that they are literally saturated with Old Testament fulfilment and allusions. Indeed, the early church used two primary lines of argument to establish the Messianic credentials of Jesus of Nazareth — the resurrection of Jesus from the dead and Messianic prophecy. How useful is fulfilment of the Messianic prophecy in the person of Jesus to the purposes of contemporary, twenty-first-century apologists? In this article, I explore a way to frame the argument in a robust and objective way. First, I will summarise my argument, and then I will dig into the details.
A Summary of the Basic Argument
When it comes to the origins of the gospel narratives, there are three contending hypotheses for explaining their origin. These are:
(1) The gospel authors deliberately fabricated the events that they narrate.
(2) The gospel authors were honestly mistaken in their reporting of the events that they narrate.
(3) The gospel authors faithfully recorded actual events.
Of course, those options could in principle, be correct either individually or in combination with one another. When we discover striking correlations between the gospel narratives and the Old Testament texts (on a level that is unlikely by mere coincidence), then we have evidence against the hypothesis that the gospel authors were honestly mistaken — that is to say, we have positive evidence for design, either on the part of the human authors manipulating the story to impose conformity to the Hebrew Scriptures or on the part of God supernaturally orchestrating the history. The question then becomes, what is the locus of the design?
The first of the above hypotheses — that is, that the gospel authors deliberately fabricated the events that they narrate is significantly undermined when we discover points of historical confirmation of the gospels (a subject that I have written, lectured and debated extensively about elsewhere). I have contended publicly elsewhere that numerous historical points in the gospels can be historically verified and confirmed (e.g., here). This gives rise to an inductive argument for treating the gospel documents as a whole as trustworthy. The numerous points of historical confirmation in the book of Acts, moreover, build us a picture of the pedigree of its author Luke (who also happens to be the author of the third gospel), and thus offers us additional reason to trust what he writes in his gospel. I (and others) have developed that case extensively in various venues, and to argue this is not the primary purpose of the present article.
Having shown the first two of the three options to be improbable, therefore, it is possible to provide evidential support for the third contending hypothesis, namely, that the gospel authors faithfully recorded actual events, and the locus of the design is supernatural divine orchestration of the events to result in convergence between events in Jesus the Messiah’s life and foreshadows written of in the Hebrew Bible. In syllogistic form, this argument can be presented as follows:
Premise 1: The correlation between events recorded in the gospels and Hebrew Scripture is either the product of human design or divine design.
Premise 2: It is not the product of human design.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is the product of divine design.
One can, of course, make the inductive argument I just described for taking the gospels as a whole to be highly reliable. The case, however, is lent even greater force when we can point to specific instances of details in the gospels that are subject to historical confirmation, which also correlates with the Hebrew Bible in some way. We can model this argument probabilistically using Bayesian analysis.
Probabilistic Modelling
The equation given below represents the odds form of Bayes theorem, which is used in developing cumulative cases. Translated, it states that the posterior probability of your hypothesis (H) given the available evidence (E) is equal to the prior probability (given the background information) of the hypothesis being true (expressed as a ratio) multiplied by the ratio of the evidence given the hypothesis against the probability of the evidence given the antithesis.
Dividing the probability of the evidence given the hypothesis by the probability of the evidence given the antithesis gives you what is referred to in probability theory as the Bayes Factor. The Bayes Factor is a measure of the strength of the evidence and indicates how many times more likely it is that you will observe this evidence given that your hypothesis is true than if it were false. For instance, a Bayes Factor of one hundred indicates that your evidence is one hundred times more likely if your hypothesis is true than if it were false.
This form of reasoning is used routinely in the discipline of forensic science. For instance, the presence of a defendant’s fingerprints on the murder weapon may be taken as evidence for the hypothesis of guilt over the hypothesis of non-guilt because the probability of the defendant’s fingerprints being on the murder weapon is much higher on the hypothesis that the defendant is guilty than on the hypothesis that he is not guilty. This is the very same mode of reasoning that I use when evaluating the evidence for the existence of God and for the truth of the Christian gospel. As we examine the data, I will be using to construct this argument; we will assign each a plausible Bayes factor as a way of modeling our cumulative case. We will then be able to more readily see the strength of the argument as a whole. Please note that there is a degree of subjectivity in these assignments, but I have tried as best as I can to err on the side of caution, and I do not think my estimates are unreasonable. In any case, the reader is invited to plug in his or her own numbers and conduct their own analysis. My goal here is to show how an argument of this sort can be mounted.
The Data
I will now consider several instances where we have specific historical confirmations of details in the gospel that, given the Old Testament backdrop, seems to be a bit too striking to be coincidental.
Example #1: Jesus’ Death at Passover
One historical detail that can scarcely be denied is that Jesus died at the time of Passover. This is a detail attested by all four gospels and implied by Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:7. This is not a detail that the gospel authors (or their sources) plausibly misremembered. So many details in the gospels are connected to Jesus’ death being at the time of Passover (e.g., see John 18:28). It is also supported by the next example we will discuss shortly. I will not here get into the discussion of whether John and the synoptic gospels contradict each other on the precise day on which Jesus is crucified (I have already addressed that here). It is clear that the New Testament authors unanimously considered Jesus to be the ultimate fulfilment of the Passover lamb (see John 1:29; John 1:36; 1 Corinthians 5:7; 1 Peter 1:18-19; Revelation 7:14; and Revelation 12:11). The correspondence, therefore, seems too neat to be the result of coincidence. Christ’s execution by the Romans at the time of Passover is a remarkable ‘coincidence’ that would have been difficult for an impostor to engineer.
One caveat to consider is that there are also other days throughout the year, such as the day of atonement, to which we might attach some special significance if Jesus’ death had landed on those days. I will, therefore, assign a conservative Bayes factor of 50 for this correspondence. Remember, this means that the correlation is 50 times more probable on the hypothesis of design than on the hypothesis of coincidence.
Example #2: Selection of the Passover Lamb
There is an additional interesting connection, not wholly independent of the one just discussed but nonetheless certainly worthy of attention. This has to do with Jesus’ entrance into Jerusalem five days before the Passover on which He died. Consider John 12:1-2,12-13:
Six days before the Passover, Jesus, therefore, came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 So they gave a dinner for him there. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those reclining with him at the table…12 The next day the large crowd that had come to the feast heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. 13 So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, crying out, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel!”
John here has given us a very specific extraneous detail (which none of the other gospels gives us): Jesus arrived at Bethany six days before the Passover, and the following day rode into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey (which would have been five days before the Passover).
Can we confirm John’s accuracy on this? Yes, we can.
Turn over to Mark 11:1-11, which parallels the arrival at Bethany (although Mark does not give us the time-stamp that John provides):
Now when they drew near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples 2 and said to them, “Go into the village in front of you, and immediately as you enter it you will find a colt tied, on which no one has ever sat. Untie it and bring it…7 And they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it, and he sat on it. 8 And many spread their cloaks on the road, and others spread leafy branches that they had cut from the fields. 9 And those who went before and those who followed were shouting, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! 10 Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father, David! Hosanna in the highest!” 11 And he entered Jerusalem and went into the temple. And when he had looked around at everything, as it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the twelve.
Mark does not tell us that Jesus approached Bethany six days before the Passover, nor that it was the following day that Jesus rode into Jerusalem. However, it appears implicit that they fetched the colt early in the morning — since the disciples fetch the colt, there is the triumphal entry and Jesus and the disciples entered the temple and “looked around at everything” (which was presumably a whole day’s activities). If then, we assume that Jesus entered Jerusalem five days before Passover, then we can begin counting off the days narrated in Mark’s gospel, to see if the narrative synchronizes with that of John.
Verses 12-14 narrate the cursing of the fig tree, which according to verse 12, happened “the following day” (i.e., four days before the Passover, assuming John’s chronology to be correct). Jesus then cleansed the temple, and according to verse 19, “when evening came, they went out of the city.” In verse 20, we read, “As they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots.” We are now, therefore at three days before the Passover. In Mark 13, we read of the Olivet discourse on the Mount of Olives. This we can assume took place in the evening, since the Mount of Olives was mid-way between the temple in Jerusalem and Bethany where Jesus and the disciples were staying. This, then, marks the end of three days before the Passover. When we turn over to Mark 14, we read in verse 1, “It was now two days before the Passover.” Mark and John thus calibrate perfectly, thereby corroborating the time-stamp given to us by John.
Having confirmed that Jesus really did enter Jerusalem five days before the Passover, let us now look to the Old Testament to see if we have any point of striking correlation. Passover itself falls on the fifteenth day of the month of Nisan. That means that five days before the Passover falls on the 10th day of Nisan. Now let us turn over to Exodus 12, where God gives instructions to the people of Israel concerning the first Passover. In verse 3, God says to Moses and Aaron,
Tell all the congregation of Israel that on the tenth day of this month [i.e., Nisan] every man shall take a lamb according to their fathers’ houses, a lamb for a household.
Thus, the Passover lamb was to be selected and taken into the household of the men of Israel on the tenth day of the month of Nisan. Given the oft-repeated New Testament imagery of Jesus being the Passover lamb (e.g., 1 Corinthians 5:7), it is thus quite striking that Jesus’ triumphal entrance into Jerusalem and reception by the people happens to fall on the 10th of Nisan, five days before Passover.
How probable is this correlation on the hypothesis that the connection is coincidental? It must be borne in mind that this coincidence is not wholly independent of the previous one since Jesus coming into Jerusalem on Nisan 10 would not matter at all if it weren’t for the fact that he then died subsequently at least around that time. If we take his entry into Jerusalem on Nisan 10 to be significant, we must be assuming that he died right around that time, which means that that one entails the other. The question we can ask, however, is how much additional evidence it provides that Jesus also entered Jerusalem on Nisan 10. Another factor for us to consider is that Passover is a particularly likely time for a Jew to enter Jerusalem and also a time when he could count on ministering to a large crowd of people who had made their pilgrimage to Judea for the feast.
One may object here that a possible explanation of this coincidence is that Jesus Himself, seeing Himself as the fulfilment of the Passover lamb, deliberately entered Jerusalem on Nisan 10th. However, to this, I offer two responses. First, if Jesus saw falsely Himself as Messianic it is far more likely that he would have perceived Himself to be a military leader like Simon Bar Giora, who would lead a revolt against the Roman occupiers, not suffer a humiliating death by crucifixion. Second, the appropriate issue to concern ourselves with is the striking coincidence that it was precisely on the year on which Jesus entered Jerusalem five days before Passover that His death by crucifixion coincidentally took place on the day of Passover.
To be conservative, therefore, I will only assign a Bayes factor of 2 to this fact. Thus far, our cumulative Bayes factor from the two examples we have considered is 50 x 2 = 100.
Example #3: Jesus the First Fruits
In 1 Corinthians 15:20, Paul says of Christ that he is “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.”
What is being alluded to here? For the answer, we turn to Leviticus 23:9-14, in which we read of the feast of first fruits.
9 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 10 “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, When you come into the land that I give you and reap its harvest, you shall bring the sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest to the priest, 11 And he shall wave the sheaf before the Lord, so that you may be accepted. On the day after the Sabbath, the priest shall wave it. 12 And on the day when you wave the sheaf, you shall offer a male lamb a year old without blemish as a burnt offering to the Lord. 13 And the grain offering with it shall be two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil, a food offering to the Lord with a pleasing aroma, and the drink offering with it shall be of wine, a fourth of a hin. 14 And you shall eat neither bread nor grain parched or fresh until this same day until you have brought the offering of your God: it is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.
The feast of firstfruits is the next Jewish feast following the feasts of Passover and unleavened bread and had to do with the barley harvest, which preceded the slightly later wheat harvest (the former arrived in March / April; the latter around May, according to our calendars). The latter of those was associated with the feast of Weeks (Pentecost). God, therefore, instructed the people of Israel that prior to reaping the barley harvest they were to wave before the Lord a sheaf of the first grain. This would symbolize that the sheaf was representative of the whole crop. It represented their trust that the God who had given them the firstfruits would also bless the rest of the harvest.
How, then, does Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:20, link Jesus to the feast of first fruits? Christ was the first fruits of the resurrection, having been raised prior to the general resurrection at the end of time. Although previous people (e.g., Lazarus, Jairus’ daughter) had been raised from death, those individuals were not raised to glory and immortality. Eventually, they would die again. Jesus, by contrast, was the first person in all of history to be raised to glory and immortality, with a body transformed such that it was no longer subject to decay or death. Thus, he is the ‘sheaf’ that is waved before the Lord, the first fruits of the harvest.
Now, what is particularly striking is the day on which the feast of first fruits was to take place. According to Leviticus 23:11b, it was to happen “the day after the Sabbath” following Passover. That would be Sunday! It can thus hardly be a coincidence that Christ was raised on the Sunday following the Passover. When we consider the day that Jesus was claimed to be raised as first fruit from among the dead (the Sunday following Passover), we have yet another striking coincidence.
It is largely taken for granted among scholars that the disciples had experiences following Jesus’ death, which they interpreted to be the raised Christ — scholars are largely in agreement that the disciples did not deliberately lie about having seen Jesus raised from the dead. We also have strong evidence that the claim was that Jesus rose from the dead on the Sunday following His crucifixion — not only is it reported in all four gospels (Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, John 20:1), but there is also the widespread switch from observing the Sabbath to observance of the Lord’s day (Sunday) in the first century. One might object that the gospels only report the discovery of the empty tomb and the appearances taking place on the Sunday but do not tell us when exactly Jesus was raised. However, Jesus repeatedly states that His resurrection will take place “on the third day,” which would have to be the Sunday since His death was on a Friday. Further evidence that the earliest apostolic proclamation was that Jesus had been raised on the Sunday following His death is the allusion in 1 Corinthians 15:4 to Jesus being “raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.” Indeed, Paul’s allusion in verse 20 of the same chapter to Christ being the firstfruits from among the dead may indicate what Paul means by Christ’s resurrection on the third day being “in accordance with the Scriptures.”
It must be stated at this point that the exact interpretation of Leviticus 23:11b was disputed by first-century Jewish interpreters. Most Pharisees took this day to be the day after the annual Sabbath, rather than the weekly Sabbath — that is, the day after the 15th of Nisan, on which fell the feast of unleavened bread (the Jews were not permitted to work on this day according to Leviticus 23:7). They would thus observe the firstfruits offering on the 16th of Nisan, irrespective of the day of the week. Here is what the first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus tells us [Antiquities 3:10:5-6]:
But on the second day of unleavened bread, which is the sixteenth day of the month, they first partake of the fruits of the earth, for before that day, they do not touch them.
A minority of Pharisees, and the Sadducees, however, maintained that the offering of first-fruits was to take place the day after the weekly Sabbath which falls during the feast of unleavened bread. According to this view, the firstfruits offering always took place on a Sunday. This view makes more sense to me Biblically because Leviticus 23:15-16 gives the following instruction about when the feast of firstfruits is to be observed:
15 “You shall count seven full weeks from the day after the Sabbath, from the day that you brought the sheaf of the wave offering. 16 You shall count fifty days to the day after the seventh Sabbath. Then you shall present a grain offering of new grain to the Lord.
For the day after the seventh Sabbath to equal exactly 50 days, one has to begin counting from the day after the weekly Sabbath.
Furthermore, according to the gospels, the day following Jesus’ death was itself a weekly Sabbath. For example, in John 19:31, we are told,
Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away.
Likewise, Mark 15:42-43 tells us,
42 And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.
The festival of first fruits, therefore, would have to have been celebrated the day following the Sabbath (given the Jewish regulations about what could or could not be performed on the Sabbath). This entails that the Sunday on which Jesus was raised is indeed the feast of first fruits.
Moreover, as long as the second temple stood (i.e., prior to A.D. 70) and the Sadducees were in charge, their interpretation prevailed, and the feast of firstfruits was recognized the day following the first weekly Sabbath after Passover.
Further evidence that the gospel authors understood Jesus to be fulfilling the first fruits comes from Acts 2, where we read that the Holy Spirit comes upon the disciples at the time of Pentecost, which fulfils further symbolism relating to the feast of Pentecost that is outlined in Leviticus 23 (which I will not dwell upon here).
What Bayes factor might we assign to this piece of evidence? Of course, this piece of evidence is not wholly independent of the fact that Jesus’ death takes place at the time of Passover. There are also only seven days in the week. For these reasons, I assign a conservative Bayes factor of 5. So far, our cumulative Bayes factor is 50 x 2 x 5 = 500.
Example #4: The Crucifixion
Psalm 22 contains a remarkable text which, centuries before crucifixion was even invented, contains a description of the Messiah’s sufferings that strikingly resemble a crucifixion scene. Consider this excerpt from verses 12-18:
12 Many bulls encompass me; strong bulls of Bashan surround me; 13, they open wide their mouths at me, like a ravening and roaring lion. 14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted within my breast; 15 my strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to my jaws; you lay me in the dust of death. 16 For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet— 17 I can count all my bones— they stare and gloat over me; 18 they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.
Dislocation of bones, heart failure, lack of strength, dehydration, and the piercing of the hands and feet are all apt descriptions of a crucifixion scene, not to mention the dividing of his garments and the casting of lots — crucifixion victims would be stripped naked as part of their humiliation. This execution also appears to be public since people stare and gloat over him. For a much more detailed description of the evidence for the Messianic nature of this text, I refer interested readers to Mike Winger’s video on the subject of Psalm 22, or this discussion between Dr. James White and Dr. Michael Brown on the topic. The Messianic interpretation of Psalm 22 is also not a Christian invention but can be found in early Jewish sources (for documentation, see this article).
For this fact, I think it is fair to assign a conservative Bayes factor of 1000 (for justification of this Bayes factor, see McGrew, L. (2013) Probabilistic Issues Concerning Jesus of Nazareth and Messianic Death Prophecies. Philosophia Christi 15:311-328.
Thus far, our cumulative Bayes factor is 50 x 2 x 5 x 1000 = 500,000
Example #5: The Name Jesus
The name Jesus is itself very significant. The reason for calling him Jesus is given in Matthew 1:21:
…you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.
Fittingly, Jesus’ name (the same name as Joshua) means “Yahweh is salvation.” Already, this is a striking coincidence.
A second reason why the name Jesus is significant is that a certain Joshua in the Old Testament replaces Moses in leading God’s people into the promised land. Moses represents the embodiment of the law. The law (embodied by Moses) was unable to lead God’s people into the promised land and so was replaced by Joshua.
A third correspondence is to another Joshua in the book of Zechariah and chapter 6. In Zechariah 6:9-13, we read,
9 And the word of the Lord came to me: 10 “Take from the exiles Heldai, Tobijah, and Jedaiah, who have arrived from Babylon, and go the same day to the house of Josiah, the son of Zephaniah. 11 Take from them silver and gold, and make a crown, and set it on the head of Joshua, the son of Jehozadak, the high priest. 12 And say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, “Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: for he shall branch out from his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord. 13 It is he who shall build the temple of the Lord and shall bear royal honor and shall sit and rule on his throne. And there shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.”’
This individual is described as “the man whose name is the Branch,” which is a Messianic title used elsewhere (e.g., Zechariah 3:8; Isaiah 11:1; Jeremiah 23:5; Jeremiah 33:15). He is also given the office of both priest and king, a dual office which the Messiah is also said to fulfil (e.g., Psalm 110:4) whereas others were not permitted to occupy both offices.
In a study of 2625 male Jewish names from first-century Palestine (from documentary sources and ossuaries), 99 are reported to bear the name Jesus/Joshua (it being the sixth most popular name). That is approximately 3.77% of the Jewish male population. I will conservatively assign a Bayes factor to this piece of evidence of 2, taking our cumulative Bayes factor to 50 x 2 x 5 x 1000 x 2 = 1000,000.
Example 6
Yet another striking coincidence is the fact that Christianity became the dominant international world religion that it became. Until 313 A.D., the Christian church was the persecuted minority, and powerful rulers and officials attempted to stamp out the Christian religion, destroy its Scriptures and its people. There was a high price to pay for being a follower of Jesus, and your fate could include being nailed to a cross, burned alive, or fed to wild animals. The probability that Christianity would become a dominant global religion was, therefore, vanishingly small. However, this is exactly what was predicted in various passages throughout the Old Testament, namely, that the Messiah would bring representatives of all nations to a recognition and worship of the God of Israel.
As an example, consider Isaiah 49:6:
He says: “It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel; I will make you as a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”
Therefore, on the hypothesis that a given individual is the promised Messiah, the probability that they would bring representatives of all nations of the world to worship the God of Israel is approximately equal to one, whereas on the hypothesis that Jesus is not the Messiah, the probability is vanishingly small. In all history, only Jesus has accomplished this fete. I will assign a conservative Bayes factor of 1000.
At this point, our cumulative Bayes factor is 50 x 2 x 5 x 1000 x 2 x 1000 = 1000,000,000
Conclusion
Various other examples could be given, but I will stop the present analysis at this point. The point of this article was simply to show how a cumulative case can be constructed for the truth of Christianity based upon these striking instances of convergence between the life of Jesus and Old Testament texts in a manner that seems to point towards the conclusion of design rather than coincidence. Since the examples given above enjoy strong historical corroboration, we can safely rule out the human design as being responsible for these correspondences. We, therefore, have good evidence for divine design, and therefore the truth of Christianity.
Of course, it is necessary when doing a Bayesian analysis to give an estimate of the prior probability. Prior probability relates to the intrinsic plausibility of a proposition before the evidence is considered. Normally the prior probability will be somewhere between zero and one. A prior probability of one means that the conclusion is certain. For instance, the fact that two added to two is equal to four has a prior probability of one. It is true by definition. A prior probability of zero, conversely, means that the hypothesis entails some sort of logical contradiction (such as the concept of a married bachelor) and thus cannot be overcome by any amount of evidence. Priors can be established on the basis of past information. For example, suppose we want to know the odds that a particular individual won last week’s Mega Millions jackpot in the United States. The prior probability would be set at 1 in 302.6 million since those are the odds that any individual lottery participant, chosen at random, would win the Mega Millions jackpot. That is a low prior probability, but it could be overcome if the supposed winner were to subsequently quit his job and start routinely investing in private jets, sports cars, and expensive vacations. Perhaps he could even show us his bank statement or the documentary evidence of his winnings. Those different pieces of evidence, taken together, would stack up to provide powerful confirmatory evidence sufficient to overcome a very small prior probability to yield a high posterior probability that the individual did indeed win the Mega Millions jackpot. In other situations, setting an objective prior is more tricky, and in those cases, priors may be determined by a more subjective assessment.
If we suppose for argument’s sake that the prior probability of God sovereignly orchestrating the history is as low as 1 in 10,000,000, this leads us to a posterior probability of 0.99 of the hypothesis being true. Of course, this figure will be highly dependent on the Bayes Factors we have assigned to each piece of evidence. This is, of course, only a mathematical tool for modelling how a cumulative case can provide powerful evidence for our hypothesis, and we haven’t even considered all of the relevant data. I invite readers to plug in their own numbers and see what conclusion they arrive at.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
The Jesus of the Old Testament in the Gospel of John mp3 by Thomas Howe
How Can Jesus be the Only Way? (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek
Cold Case Resurrection Set by J. Warner Wallace (books)
World Religions: What Makes Jesus Unique? mp3 by Ron Carlson
The Bodily Nature of Jesus’ Resurrection CD by Gary Habermas
Historical Evidences for the Resurrection (Mp3) by Gary Habermas
How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide
Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Master’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective and evidence-based Christian faith.
Can A Person Be A Committed Christian While Ignoring Apologetics?
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Wintery Knight
I would like to describe a situation that arises frequently that concerns me. The situation I describe below brings out a flaw I see in the way that rank-and-file Christians respond to criticisms of Christianity in the public square.
Here is the situation
Eve is busy programming away at her desk, rushing to check in her unit tests so she can spend her lunch hour reading the latest Stephenie Meyer novel, or check on the schedule for her local sports team, “the Vicariouses” (she has tickets for Thursday). Suddenly Eve hears Alice talking to Bob on the other side of her cubicle. She stops typing to listen to the following unencrypted conversation.
Eve double-majored in business and computer science at the Indian Institute of Technology and has an MBA from the London School of Economics. She has spent a ton of time, effort and money studying very difficult subjects for her job, and she even publishes research papers. She works full-time and runs her own business part-time, and teaches night classes for a well-known university. She earns about 200K per year. She lives in a huge house, drives an expensive car, and goes on vacation abroad to all the best vacation spots.
Eve thinks she is a Christian. She has attended church since childhood, her husband is a church elder and she sings in the church choir. She reads the Bible and prays every night because it helps her to get sleepy before bed. She gives lots of money to the poor. She teaches Sunday school to very small children. She has even read all of the Narnia novels five times! She even has a calendar filled with nature scenes and itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny Bible verses posted on her office wall at work! Judging from all of these facts, you might expect Eve to get in on that conversation with Alice and Bob, and set them straight.
But she won’t. Why not?
Why won’t Eve stand?
I am wondering if anyone can explain to me why it is that most church Christians are not able or not willing to make a public defense when God’s reputation is called into question. It seems to me that there are two bad effects that follow from Eve’s unwillingness to stand up and invite Alice and Bob to lunch so that she can address their questions and concerns.
Eve is capable of studying to defend the faith, because of her great success in other areas where so much time and effort were required to master difficult material. So why has she not applied herself to answering public challenges to her Christian faith from her professors, teachers, actors, the media, politicians, scientists, historians, etc.? She’s heard these questions about God’s existence and character all through high school and into university and then now in her career. Doesn’t she believe the Bible when it says to prepare a defense? Doesn’t she believe the Bible when it says to acknowledge God before men? Doesn’t she believe the Bible when it says that all authentic believers in Jesus will suffer a little for their faith?
It seems to me that if she did spend some time studying, and then made her defense to her co-workers, then two good things would follow:
So why is it that Eve is able to go to church for 20 years, sing in the choir, read the Bible, read the Narnia stories, pray on her knees, and yet still be unwilling to do the best thing for God and the best thing for her neighbor? If a Christian is smart enough to know how to get a degree and how to hold down a job, then that intelligence should also be used to defend God’s reputation when it is called into question. I don’t see how it is possible to claim that you love God, but then not apply your mind to defending him when you apply your mind to other things like education and work.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Practical Apologetics in Worldview Training by Hank Hanegraaff (Mp3)
The Great Apologetics Adventure by Lee Strobel (Mp3)
Defending the Faith on Campus by Frank Turek (DVD Set, mp4 Download set and Complete Package)
So the Next Generation will Know by J. Warner Wallace (Book and Participant’s Guide)
Reaching Atheists for Christ by Greg Koukl (Mp3)
Living Loud: Defending Your Faith by Norman Geisler (Book)
Fearless Faith by Mike Adams, Frank Turek and J. Warner Wallace (Complete DVD Series)
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2PRANsi
Are You Good Without God?
Atheism, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Mikel Del Rosario
While I was driving from Sacramento to the Bay Area, I saw a huge billboard that read, “Are you good without God? Millions Are.” I also noticed a theistic tagger added the words, “Also Lost?” at the end of the message. At first, I wondered if the original question could mean something like, “Do you feel comfortable without a belief in God? Millions feel the same way.” Kind of like if you offer someone a drink, and they say, “No, thanks. I’m good.” But I don’t think that’s what the message is all about.
Can’t People be Good Without God?
So, then it got me thinking, “Can’t people be good without God?” I mean, couldn’t an atheist do some really good things without God? I guess if we mean “doing the right thing while not believing in God,” then sure. An atheist could do the right thing. For example, they could honestly report their income to the government, be faithful to their spouse, and so forth. And why not? But maybe the better question is, “Why?” Why even care about being moral?
Why Do the Right Thing?
Think about it like this: If God’s not real, there’s no moral lawgiver and no such things as objective moral commands. If that’s true, then why not say, “I’ll do the right thing when it makes me feel good or gives me an advantage, and I’ll do the wrong thing when it makes me feel good or gives me an advantage.” Or why not say, “I hereby declare from this day forward that it’s always right to steal.”
If there’s no God and no objective moral standard, there’s no moral difference between abusing someone or taking care of them. Basically, good and evil are reduced to preference. All you could say is, “I don’t like terrorism,” or “I’m not into slavery.” “Human trafficking isn’t my thing.” But who can really live like this? Some things are really wrong. For example, we all know by intuition that it’s better to give a little girl a loving hug than to hurt her for no reason.
Right, Wrong, and the Moral Law
Imagine my 6-year-old asked you who wrote this blog post. It’d be dumb to say “No one. And if you think I’m wrong, don’t forget I can read better than you!” The existence of this post implies an author. And it really doesn’t matter if you can read this post better than a kid. Here’s the point: Moral commands imply a moral lawgiver. They are a form of communication from one mind to another. And it doesn’t matter if a certain atheist happens to do more good deeds than a certain Christian or vice versa.
Interested in exploring this idea further? Check out these links:
Maybe people really can’t be good without God, after all. I mean, if there’s no God, there’s no standard of goodness. On top of that, when we compare ourselves to God’s standard, it turns out no one is good—no one’s lived up to the standard. That’s what Jesus said in Mark 10:18. Keep in mind that niceness isn’t goodness. Don’t you think the Neo-Nazi moms bake cookies for their kids or hand out cupcakes at their birthday parties? Sure they do. Jesus also said it’s no big deal if we’re nice to the people we like (Matt. 5:46-47). How do we treat everyone else?
Yes and No
If “Are you good without God?” just means, “Can you do good things without acknowledging God?” Then, sure. You could say, “Yes” to that. But the real answer to the question, “Are you good without God?” is “No. None of us are.” Without God, there is no objective standard of goodness. But we know such a standard exists. Why? Because while you could have good without evil, you can’t have evil without good.
Think about it: You could have a standard of goodness in a world where nothing falls short of that standard. But you can’t have something falling short of a standard of goodness without the standard itself. And when we recognize a standard greater than ourselves–GOd’s own nature–we can see we need forgiveness. We all for short before God. That’s another reason we need him. Millions and millions do.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)
Do Ethics Need God? by Francis Beckwith (Mp3)
Mikel Del Rosario helps Christians explain their faith with courage and compassion. He is a doctoral student in the New Testament department at Dallas Theological Seminary. Mikel teaches Christian Apologetics and World Religion at William Jessup University. He is the author of Accessible Apologetics and has published over 20 journal articles on apologetics and cultural engagement with his mentor, Dr. Darrell Bock. Mikel holds an M.A. in Christian Apologetics with highest honors from Biola University and a Master of Theology (Th.M) from Dallas Theological Seminary, where he serves as Cultural Engagement Manager at the Hendricks Center and a host of the Table Podcast. Visit his Web site at ApologeticsGuy.com.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/3cEE1cj
Cinco Razones para creer que el Molinismo es Verdad (parte I)
EspañolPor Evan Minton
Los no Molinistas usualmente acusan a los Molinistas de leer filosofía sobre la Biblia. Ellos dicen que el Molinismo es una teoría filosófica que no se encuentra en las páginas de la Escritura, y esta es una de las razones por las cuales ellos rechazan el Molinismo como una perspectiva teológica viable. Pero creo que hay varias razones buenas para pensar que el Molinismo es verdadero. En este blog, expondré cinco razones por las cuales acepto la teoría de Luis de Molina.
1 Un Dios verdaderamente Omnisciente sabría contrafácticos
¿Es Dios omnisciente? La Biblia dice que lo es. La Biblia dice “Grande es el Señor nuestro, y de mucho poder; y su entendimiento es infinito” (Salmos 145:7), “Sus ojos están sobre los caminos del hombre, y ve todos sus pasos. No hay tinieblas ni sombra de muerte donde se escondan los que hacen maldad. No hay carga, pues él al hombre más de lo justo, para que vaya con Dios a juicio” (Job 34:21-23) y “Los ojos de Jehová están en todo lugar, mirando a los malos y a los buenos”. (Proverbios 15:3).
Después de que Jesús resucitó de los muertos, él cocinó peces para los discípulos. Jesús y Simón Pedro tuvieron la siguiente discusión: “Cuando hubieron comido, Jesús dijo a Simón Pedro, ‘Simón, hijo de Jonás, ¿me amas más que éstos?’ “Sí, Señor”, él dijo, “tú sabes que te amo’. Jesús dijo, ‘Alimenta a mis ovejas’, la tercera vez que él le dijo ‘Simón, hijo de Jonás, ¿me amas? ‘él dijo, ‘Señor, tú lo sabes todo; tú sabes que te amo”. (Juan 21:15-17). Pedro dijo que Jesús sabía “todas las cosas”, y Jesús no intentó corregirlo (lo que implica que él estaba de acuerdo con la declaración de Pedro). La Biblia afirma que Dios conoce todas las cosas.
Sin embargo, si Dios no posee conocimiento de los contrafácticos, entonces ¿cómo es que él es omnisciente? ¡Habría cosas que Dios no sabría! Dios no sabría qué hubiera sucedido si tú te hubieras salido ayer de tu casa un poco antes o un poco después. Dios no sabría cómo resultaría tu vida si hubieras rechazado la propuesta de matrimonio de tu esposo. Dios no sabe si tú te hubieras intoxicado si hubieras decidido comer en cierto restaurante en cierto día. ¿Cómo es que Dios puede ser un Ser Máximamente Grandioso su él es menos que omnisciente?
2 La Biblia Describe que Dios conoce los Contrafácticos.
Aquellos que son detractores del Molinismo usualmente argumentan contra el Molinismo diciendo que los contrafácticos no tienen valor de verdad (es decir, no pueden ser ni verdaderos ni falsos), así que decir que Dios no es omnisciente porque no conoce acerca de los contrafácticos es como decir que él no es omnipotente porque él no puede crear círculos cuadrados o rocas demasiado pesadas que él mismo no puede levantar.
Dios no puede hacer lo lógicamente imposible, pero no diríamos que él no es omnipotente debido a ello. En la misma forma, Dios no puede conocer lo lógicamente imposible, así que ¿por qué decir que él no es omnisciente a causa de ello? Olvidemos que la posibilidad lógica de conocer los contrafácticos parece intuitiva (basamos nuestros juicios diarios todo el tiempo en lo que pensamos que son contrafácticos verdaderos), el problema más grande con estos negadores del conocimiento medio es que la Biblia presenta diversas ocasiones en las cuales Dios afirma el conocimiento de contrafácticos. Una pequeña muestra de versos se provee a continuación:
Ahora, si piensas que los contrafácticos no tienen valor de verdad, entonces debes de decir que estos pasajes de las Escrituras no son ni verdaderos ni falsos. Pero ello parece absurdo. Si crees que la palabra de Dios es inerrante (así como yo lo creo, y así como implican pasajes como Proverbios 30:5 y 2 Timoteo 3:16), entonces una negación del conocimiento medio parece implicar que la doctrina de la inerrancia bíblica es falsa. Y peor aún, no solo la inerrancia bíblica, sino la inerrancia divina también (dado que fue Jesús quien afirmó el contrafáctico en Mateo 11, y fue Dios respondiendo a David en 1 Samuel 23). Si Dios no posee conocimiento medio, entonces no solo su Palabra no es inerrante, sino ¡él tampoco lo es!
3 Cuando hablamos del Libre Albedrío y la Providencia Divina, el Molinismo es una inferencia a la Mejor Explicación
Cuando hablamos de la providencia divina, yo sólo conozco tres opciones posibles. Dos de ellas son extremos inaceptables. Por una parte, podríamos estar de acuerdo con el Calvinista de que Dios causalmente determina todo lo que ocurre. La manera en la que Dios ordena providencialmente la historia humana es determinando cada pensamiento, palabra o acción de cada ser humano que ha vivido en la Tierra. En esta perspectiva, no hay libre albedrío (excepto, tal vez, una libertad compatibilista, pero no creo que la definición compatibilista del libre albedrío sea “libre” en algún sentido significativo de la palabra). Hay varios problemas con esta perspectiva. Uno de ellos siendo que ésta perspectiva lógicamente implica que Dios es el autor del mal; es decir, Dios es realmente responsable por cada hecho malvado que ha ocurrido en la historia. Si Dios causalmente determinó las acciones de todos, entonces la razón por la cual ellos hacen acciones malvadas es porque Dios esencialmente los hizo hacerlas. Si Dios los hizo hacerlas, entonces Él es finalmente el responsable por el mal de este mundo. Entonces Dios sería el pecador último, Él sería malvado. Dado que sabemos tanto de la teología natural (Argumento Moral y Argumento Ontológico) y de las Escrituras que Dios no es malvado, por lo tanto, el determinismo divino no es verdad. Además, hay una gran cantidad de Escritura que no tiene sentido lógico a menos que se presuponga el libre albedrío cuando se leen pasajes bíblicos. Por ejemplo, todos esos lugares en donde Dios se enoja hacia el pecado y procede a castigar a las personas por el mal que han cometido. Ello no tendría sentido si Dios determinara tus acciones. Si Dios determinara sus acciones, ¿por qué se enojaría con ellos? Si no le agradó lo que esas personas hicieron, ¿por qué no las determinó a hacer cosas que lo harían feliz? Además, ¿acaso no es injusto castigar a personas si tú eres la razón por la que ellos hicieron lo que hicieron?
Por otro lado, tenemos la perspectiva del libre albedrío libertariano y el conocimiento previo simple del Arminianismo. Esta perspectiva enseña que todos los seres humanos tienen libre albedrío libertariano (lo que significa que tenemos la habilidad tanto de escoger como de refrenarnos de escoger entre varias alternativas frente a nosotros, y también de que somos el origen último de nuestras acciones, y no había nada prohibiéndonos de escoger diferente a lo que hemos escogido). Sin embargo, como el Calvinista, el Arminiano afirma que Dios tiene conocimiento previo simple. Es decir, Dios conoce lo que SERÁ en el futuro, lo que todos libremente ESCOGEREMOS, pero él no sabe todos los futuros posible que hubieran sido si hubiéramos tomado decisiones diferentes. Él no conoce los contrafácticos de la libertad creatural. Esto también crea un problema también. Si Dios solo conoce el futuro real, y no cómo el futuro hubiera sido si las cosas fueran un poco diferentes, entonces, ¿cómo podemos explicar la providencia de Dios a través de la historia humana?
Imagina que Dios crea un mundo, y Él solo conoce el futuro real, pero él no conoce los contrafácticos de la libertad creatural. ¿Qué hubiera pasado si Judas, Pilato, o Caifás no hubieran hecho las decisiones requeridas para crucificar a Jesús? ¿Qué hay si Judas libremente escoge no traicionar a Jesús? O ¿qué hay si Pilato no sucumbe a la presión de la multitud para crucificarle? Ciertamente, Dios sería capaz de prever sus decisiones libres, pero Él no sería capaz de hacer algo al respecto sin violentar su libertad. Y en este caso, no habría redención porque Jesús no hubiera sido crucificado. Ahí quedó nuestra redención por nuestros pecados. En el Arminianismo, parece que Dios simplemente es suertudo de que estos eventos tomaron el curso que Él quería que tomaran. En el Arminianismo, Dios simplemente no parece tener el control soberano que la Biblia describe que Él tiene.
Dado que ni el Calvinismo ni el Arminianismo son opciones aceptables (porque implican consecuencias absurdas), la única opción restante es el Molinismo. El Molinismo puede explicar de la mejor manera la providencia meticulosa de Dios sobre la historia humana mientras al mismo tiempo explica el libre albedrío genuino. En el Molinismo, Dios tiene tres momentos lógicos de conocimiento; natural, medio y libre. El conocimiento natural de Dios es su conocimiento de todas las posibilidades y verdades necesarias, todo lo que podría suceder. El conocimiento medio de Dios es el conocimiento de todos los contrafácticos, todo lo que sucedería. El conocimiento libre de Dios es el conocimiento de lo que realmente va a suceder en el futuro, lo que sucederá. El conocimiento natural de Dios es un conocimiento de todos los mundos posibles, su conocimiento medio es un conocimiento de todos los mundos viables, y su conocimiento libre es un conocimiento del mundo real. El conocimiento libre es un resultado del decreto eterno de Dios (es decir, escoger cuál mundo viable actualizar [hacer real]).
Pienso que esta perspectiva explica de la mejor manera la orquestación de Dios de los eventos humanos y también permite afirmar una perspectiva fuerte de la libertad humana. En el Molinismo, Dios conoce cuales personas situar en aquellas posiciones en el primer siglo para hacer que Jesús sea crucificado. Él sabía que si Caifás era el sumo sacerdote en el primer siglo, entonces él libremente condenaría a Jesús en base a blasfemia y lo llevaría a Pilato para la ejecución. Él sabía que si Pilato era prefecto en el primer siglo, entonces él libremente cumpliría las demandas de la multitud. Y Él sabía que si Judas naciese en el tiempo y lugar en el que en realidad nació, entonces él se volvería un discípulo de Jesús por un tiempo y libremente escogería traicionar a Jesús con el Sanedrín. En el Molinismo, Dios providencialmente produjo la crucifixión al actuar respecto a su conocimiento de cómo las personas libremente actuarían si fueran puestas en esas posiciones. Dios las produjo al situarlos en esas circunstancias, y las personas produjeron estos eventos desde su propio libre albedrío porque ellos fueron los que hicieron esos contrafácticos verdaderos de ellos mismos.
Y al contrario de la opinión popular Arminiana, esto no es determinista. Dios no escoge qué contrafacticos son verdaderos. Las Personas deciden qué contrafácticos son verdaderos. Todo lo que Dios hace es actuar en base a su conocimiento de los contrafácticos de la libertad creatural.
Por ejemplo, Dios puede conseguir que Bob escoja la acción A en lugar de la acción B si lo crea en las circunstancias S. Porque Dios sabía que si Bob estuviera en las circunstancias S, él libremente escogería la acción A en lugar de la B”. Dios logra que Bob escoja A al situarlo en esas circunstancias. Pero Bob no debía [necesitaba] escoger A. Bob bien podía haber escogido B en su lugar. Nada determinó o coaccionó a Bob a escoger A y nada le prohibía a Bob escoger B. Bob pudo haber escogido B y haberse refrenado de escoger A. Si lo hubiera hecho, entonces el conocimiento medio de Dios no hubiera contenido la proposición “Si Bob estuviera en S, él escogería A en lugar de B”. No. Dios hubiera sabido “Si Bob estuviera en S, él escogería B en lugar de A”. Dios no decreta cuales contrafácticos de la libertad creatural son verdad, son las criaturas las que lo hacen. Todo lo que Dios hace es escoger cuales son las circunstancias en las que nos encontramos al determinar cuándo y dónde nacemos (como Hechos 17:26 dice).
El Molinismo me parece la mejor explicación. Por cuestiones de espacio no puedo enlistar los pasajes bíblicos mostrando que Dios tiene providencia divina sobre la historia y los pasajes que muestran que los seres humanos tienen libre albedrío libertariano, pero las enseñanzas están ahí, y creo que mi perspectiva es la mejor para reconciliar esos dos conjuntos de verdades bíblicas. Yo si pienso que Proverbios 16:9 enseña simultáneamente el libre albedrío y la providencia divina (o al menos parece que lo hace), lo cito a continuación:
“El corazón del hombre piensa su camino; Mas Jehová endereza sus pasos”.
Proverbios 16:9
Eso parece reflejar la declaración de Randy Everist (del blog “Possible Worlds”) sobre el Molinismo en un comentario de Facebook, la cual es “Nosotros escogemos lo que haríamos, y basado en eso, Dios escoge lo que haremos”.
Recursos recomendados en Español:
Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek
Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek
Evan Minton es un apologista cristiano y bloguero en Cerebral Faith (www.cerebralfaith.net). Es el autor de “Inference To The One True God” (Inferencia al único Dios verdadero) y “A Hellacious Doctrine” (Doctrina infernal). Ha participado en varios debates que pueden ser visto en la sección “Mis debates” de Cerebral Faith. El Sr. Minton vive en Carolina del Sur, EE. UU.
Traducido por Raúl Jaramillo de Lira
Why Studying Evolution Will Likely Challenge Your Kids’ Faith
Apologetics for ParentsBy Natasha Crain
I saw the following post in a Christian Facebook group:
If this is his daughter’s first time hearing about evolution (or at least secular views of it), it’s going to be a tough semester. Any suggestions on how she should “approach this” are at least a couple of years late.
I hear or see questions like this all the time. Unfortunately, in my experience, many (if not most) Christian parents aren’t tackling the topic of evolution at home. I know some would love to but are overwhelmed by the subject and don’t know where to start. I wrote 8 of 40 chapters in my book on the topics of creation and evolution views to help parents who feel this way (I also posted a giant resource page last week).
However, far more parents are simply disinterested in the topic and, consequently, have a limited understanding of why evolution is such a big deal. They have a general idea that evolution is a challenge to Christian faith, but don’t necessarily know the particulars of why. At one end of the spectrum, there are parents who don’t care to know because they think it’s enough to teach their kids that “evolution is wrong and the Bible is right.” At the other end of the spectrum, there are parents who don’t care to know because they think evolution and Christianity can seamlessly fit together.
Both of these approaches trivialize the impact that studying evolution can have on a child’s faith.
Here’s why.
(Please note: There are many different uses of the term evolution. When I say evolution in this post, I’m talking about modern (“neo-Darwinian”) evolutionary theory in which all life descended from a single primitive species via natural selection acting on random DNA mutations. For more background on basics to understand about evolution, please see my post, 4 Key Points Christian Kids Need to Understand About Evolution.)
The Compelling Evidence for Evolution: Not Simple to Throw Out
When your kids first have the chance to hear the scientific case for evolution, it will likely be very convincing to them. Kids whose parents simply emphasize that evolution is wrong because it’s “not what the Bible says” (without further discussion) may well be left in a faith crisis when they eventually engage with the subject in depth. That’s exactly what happened to me. Here’s an excerpt from my chapter on the evidence for evolution, in which I share my own experience:
If your kids hear all this scientific evidence in school and say, “Meh. Unimpressive…” then their faith may not be challenged. But that’s an unlikely reaction for most. Clearly, kids need to engage with their parents on the complexity of these issues. Trivializing the subject is not the answer.
Five Ways Evolution Can Challenge Christian Faith
At the other end of the spectrum are parents who don’t care what their kids believe about evolution because they assume Christianity and evolution can fit seamlessly together. Indeed, the acceptance of evolution, in and of itself, does not necessitate atheism. God theoretically could have created the universe and planned for life to unfold via an evolutionary process (this idea is called theistic evolution). However, that doesn’t mean Christianity and evolution go together without some significant challenges. There are several big reasons why many people end up rejecting their faith after accepting evolution (again, not a necessary outcome, but a very possible one given these questions):
First, if a deity did create the world via evolution, it raises the question of whether He would still be active in it.
Most theistic evolutionists believe that God acted directly in creating the universe, but in doing so ensured that nature would require no additional guidance from that point on. If God is so “passive” in our natural history, why should we believe he’s so engaged in salvation history as told by the Bible (making covenants with people and nations, performing miracles, entering history as Jesus, and so on)?
Of course, there’s no logical reason God couldn’t act differently in these histories, but the contrast does give many people pause.
Second, if evolution is true, it’s hard to see how humans are different from animals, as the Bible claims.
The Bible is very clear that humans were made in the image of God. Although there is considerable scholarly debate over what precisely that means, at the very least it means humans have the cognitive and moral faculties necessary to have a relationship with God…and that animals don’t. The Bible presents humans as very different creatures who are uniquely accountable to our Creator, with eternal implications. According to modern evolutionary theory, however, humans are just another kind of animal. We all descend from the same species.
Theistic evolutionists usually believe that, at some point in time, God chose certain creatures to receive His image and become fully human (there’s no consensus on when or how that happened). Again, while logically possible, evolution certainly raises significant questions about the supposedly special status of mankind.
Third, if naturalistic (atheistic) evolution is true, it’s easier to account for the problem of suffering in the world.
One of the most difficult theological questions is why there is so much suffering in the world if an all-powerful and all-good God exists. While many Christians have offered answers throughout history, naturalistic evolution (at first) seems to explain suffering more readily than theism. If there’s no God, and the history of life is just a giant snowball of continuous DNA mutations rolling through time, genetic errors leading to suffering and disease are to be expected.
Fourth, if evolution is true, it raises serious questions about the reliability of the Bible.
There are quite a few things Christians disagree on when it comes to interpreting parts of the Bible, often boiling down to the meaning of a few specific verses. But there are more than a few verses that are in question if one believes evolution is true. Most obvious is the creation account in Genesis. If the Bible really is God’s Word, why wouldn’t God have informed the biblical writers that He created life via evolution…or, at the very least, remained silent on the topic and not given them an account that at face value contradicts reality? Those were the immediate questions that came to my own mind when I first learned about the evidence for evolution.
Additionally, many verses reference the creation account throughout the Bible, and, importantly, treat Adam as a historical figure (see, for example, Luke 3:38; Romans 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45; 1 Timothy 2:13, 14; Jude 1:14). However, evolutionists conclude that we do not descend from an original set of two parents; they believe we descend from a group of at least 10,000. If Adam is not a historical person, it clearly challenges several more verses in the Bible than the creation account itself. (Theistic evolutionists have addressed this challenge and the next in a variety of ways beyond the scope of this post).
Fifth, if evolution is true, it raises serious questions about Christian theology.
There are also a lot of theological implications if there wasn’t a historical Adam or a historical “fall.” In the traditional Christian view, salvation is the result of God working to restore a fallen mankind to a right relationship with Him through Jesus. If there wasn’t a real Adam and there wasn’t a historical fall, it naturally raises the question of why there had to be a savior. Theistic evolutionists have offered answers to this, but there’s no question that it’s far more difficult to reconcile Christian theology without a historical Adam.
As I wrap this up, I want to return to the father’s question at the beginning of this post. When you realize how many scientific and scriptural considerations there are on this topic, you can see how difficult it will be for a young adult to go into a class where naturalistic (atheistic) evolution is taught as fact. Don’t let your child’s eventual college professor have the first (and possibly final) word on what your child believes. Take accountability and engage with your kids long before then.
If you’re not sure how to talk about these issues with your children, please check out my book. I explain young-Earth creationism, old-Earth creationism, naturalistic evolution, and intelligent design for parents with no background in these topics (without advocating any one position).
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Talking with Your Kids about God: 30 Conversations Every Christian Parent Must Have by Natasha Crain (Book)
Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side: 40 Conversations to Help Them Build a Lasting Faith by Natasha Crain (Book)
Courageous Parenting by Jack and Deb Graham (Book)
Proverbs: Making Your Paths Straight Complete 9-part Series by Frank Turek DVD and Download
Forensic Faith for Kids by J. Warner Wallace and Susie Wallace (Book)
God’s Crime Scene for Kids by J. Warner Wallace and Susie Wallace (Book)
Natasha Crain is a blogger, author, and national speaker who is passionate about equipping Christian parents to raise their kids with an understanding of how to make a case for and defend their faith in an increasingly secular world. She is the author of two apologetics books for parents: Talking with Your Kids about God (2017) and Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (2016). Natasha has an MBA in marketing and statistics from UCLA and a certificate in Christian apologetics from Biola University. A former marketing executive and adjunct professor, she lives in Southern California with her husband and three children.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2VSTqzY
Evil is a powerful argument FOR God
PodcastPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS
Many are asking the questions, “If there is a good God, why does he allow viruses? Why doesn’t he stop evil?” In fact, some are claiming that evil proves that God doesn’t exist.
But Frank lays out the case that evil is a powerful argument FOR God. He cites twenty assumptions that people make when they claim the contrary, and most of these assumptions are best explained by God. The show also contains important announcements that will give you hope each day during the coronavirus lockdown (Join us for the new Hope One LIVESTREAM each weekday at 11:30 am ET).
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
Dr. Dan Treats a Coronavirus Patient
PodcastPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS
Dr. Dan Eichenberger, MD, is back to shoot more sanity into a sensationalized situation. As Christians, we are commanded to obey what our government wants us to do in this situation. But that doesn’t mean we have to buy into the fear caused by a media that is hyping this entire coronavirus issue. The media is skewing stats and reporting half-truths. Dr. Dan corrects the misinformation and gives us a first-hand account of treating a coronavirus patient himself.
Here are some of the questions and issues Frank and Dr. Dan discuss:
Please share this with others.
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
Is it time to run and hide?
PodcastPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS
Is it time to run and hide? Should you cut yourself off from other people because of the coronavirus? Is the level of concern reasonable or overblown?
Dr. Dan Eichenberger, MD, is Frank’s guest, and he gives a shot of sanity into our sensationalized environment. Among the questions he and Frank investigate:
Frank looks to the scriptures and other Christians (including C.S. Lewis) for how Christians should live in the face of risk. The truth is, we always live with the threat of death. All of us also have a virus called sin. Christians know the cure, and people right now might be more open to considering that cure.
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
Messianic Convergence in the Gospels: A New Way to Frame the Argument from Old Testament Fulfilment
Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian ApologeticsAnyone who has spent considerable time studying the gospels can tell that they are literally saturated with Old Testament fulfilment and allusions. Indeed, the early church used two primary lines of argument to establish the Messianic credentials of Jesus of Nazareth — the resurrection of Jesus from the dead and Messianic prophecy. How useful is fulfilment of the Messianic prophecy in the person of Jesus to the purposes of contemporary, twenty-first-century apologists? In this article, I explore a way to frame the argument in a robust and objective way. First, I will summarise my argument, and then I will dig into the details.
A Summary of the Basic Argument
When it comes to the origins of the gospel narratives, there are three contending hypotheses for explaining their origin. These are:
(1) The gospel authors deliberately fabricated the events that they narrate.
(2) The gospel authors were honestly mistaken in their reporting of the events that they narrate.
(3) The gospel authors faithfully recorded actual events.
Of course, those options could in principle, be correct either individually or in combination with one another. When we discover striking correlations between the gospel narratives and the Old Testament texts (on a level that is unlikely by mere coincidence), then we have evidence against the hypothesis that the gospel authors were honestly mistaken — that is to say, we have positive evidence for design, either on the part of the human authors manipulating the story to impose conformity to the Hebrew Scriptures or on the part of God supernaturally orchestrating the history. The question then becomes, what is the locus of the design?
The first of the above hypotheses — that is, that the gospel authors deliberately fabricated the events that they narrate is significantly undermined when we discover points of historical confirmation of the gospels (a subject that I have written, lectured and debated extensively about elsewhere). I have contended publicly elsewhere that numerous historical points in the gospels can be historically verified and confirmed (e.g., here). This gives rise to an inductive argument for treating the gospel documents as a whole as trustworthy. The numerous points of historical confirmation in the book of Acts, moreover, build us a picture of the pedigree of its author Luke (who also happens to be the author of the third gospel), and thus offers us additional reason to trust what he writes in his gospel. I (and others) have developed that case extensively in various venues, and to argue this is not the primary purpose of the present article.
Having shown the first two of the three options to be improbable, therefore, it is possible to provide evidential support for the third contending hypothesis, namely, that the gospel authors faithfully recorded actual events, and the locus of the design is supernatural divine orchestration of the events to result in convergence between events in Jesus the Messiah’s life and foreshadows written of in the Hebrew Bible. In syllogistic form, this argument can be presented as follows:
Premise 1: The correlation between events recorded in the gospels and Hebrew Scripture is either the product of human design or divine design.
Premise 2: It is not the product of human design.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is the product of divine design.
One can, of course, make the inductive argument I just described for taking the gospels as a whole to be highly reliable. The case, however, is lent even greater force when we can point to specific instances of details in the gospels that are subject to historical confirmation, which also correlates with the Hebrew Bible in some way. We can model this argument probabilistically using Bayesian analysis.
Probabilistic Modelling
The equation given below represents the odds form of Bayes theorem, which is used in developing cumulative cases. Translated, it states that the posterior probability of your hypothesis (H) given the available evidence (E) is equal to the prior probability (given the background information) of the hypothesis being true (expressed as a ratio) multiplied by the ratio of the evidence given the hypothesis against the probability of the evidence given the antithesis.
Dividing the probability of the evidence given the hypothesis by the probability of the evidence given the antithesis gives you what is referred to in probability theory as the Bayes Factor. The Bayes Factor is a measure of the strength of the evidence and indicates how many times more likely it is that you will observe this evidence given that your hypothesis is true than if it were false. For instance, a Bayes Factor of one hundred indicates that your evidence is one hundred times more likely if your hypothesis is true than if it were false.
This form of reasoning is used routinely in the discipline of forensic science. For instance, the presence of a defendant’s fingerprints on the murder weapon may be taken as evidence for the hypothesis of guilt over the hypothesis of non-guilt because the probability of the defendant’s fingerprints being on the murder weapon is much higher on the hypothesis that the defendant is guilty than on the hypothesis that he is not guilty. This is the very same mode of reasoning that I use when evaluating the evidence for the existence of God and for the truth of the Christian gospel. As we examine the data, I will be using to construct this argument; we will assign each a plausible Bayes factor as a way of modeling our cumulative case. We will then be able to more readily see the strength of the argument as a whole. Please note that there is a degree of subjectivity in these assignments, but I have tried as best as I can to err on the side of caution, and I do not think my estimates are unreasonable. In any case, the reader is invited to plug in his or her own numbers and conduct their own analysis. My goal here is to show how an argument of this sort can be mounted.
The Data
I will now consider several instances where we have specific historical confirmations of details in the gospel that, given the Old Testament backdrop, seems to be a bit too striking to be coincidental.
Example #1: Jesus’ Death at Passover
One historical detail that can scarcely be denied is that Jesus died at the time of Passover. This is a detail attested by all four gospels and implied by Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:7. This is not a detail that the gospel authors (or their sources) plausibly misremembered. So many details in the gospels are connected to Jesus’ death being at the time of Passover (e.g., see John 18:28). It is also supported by the next example we will discuss shortly. I will not here get into the discussion of whether John and the synoptic gospels contradict each other on the precise day on which Jesus is crucified (I have already addressed that here). It is clear that the New Testament authors unanimously considered Jesus to be the ultimate fulfilment of the Passover lamb (see John 1:29; John 1:36; 1 Corinthians 5:7; 1 Peter 1:18-19; Revelation 7:14; and Revelation 12:11). The correspondence, therefore, seems too neat to be the result of coincidence. Christ’s execution by the Romans at the time of Passover is a remarkable ‘coincidence’ that would have been difficult for an impostor to engineer.
One caveat to consider is that there are also other days throughout the year, such as the day of atonement, to which we might attach some special significance if Jesus’ death had landed on those days. I will, therefore, assign a conservative Bayes factor of 50 for this correspondence. Remember, this means that the correlation is 50 times more probable on the hypothesis of design than on the hypothesis of coincidence.
Example #2: Selection of the Passover Lamb
There is an additional interesting connection, not wholly independent of the one just discussed but nonetheless certainly worthy of attention. This has to do with Jesus’ entrance into Jerusalem five days before the Passover on which He died. Consider John 12:1-2,12-13:
Can we confirm John’s accuracy on this? Yes, we can.
Turn over to Mark 11:1-11, which parallels the arrival at Bethany (although Mark does not give us the time-stamp that John provides):
Mark does not tell us that Jesus approached Bethany six days before the Passover, nor that it was the following day that Jesus rode into Jerusalem. However, it appears implicit that they fetched the colt early in the morning — since the disciples fetch the colt, there is the triumphal entry and Jesus and the disciples entered the temple and “looked around at everything” (which was presumably a whole day’s activities). If then, we assume that Jesus entered Jerusalem five days before Passover, then we can begin counting off the days narrated in Mark’s gospel, to see if the narrative synchronizes with that of John.
Verses 12-14 narrate the cursing of the fig tree, which according to verse 12, happened “the following day” (i.e., four days before the Passover, assuming John’s chronology to be correct). Jesus then cleansed the temple, and according to verse 19, “when evening came, they went out of the city.” In verse 20, we read, “As they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots.” We are now, therefore at three days before the Passover. In Mark 13, we read of the Olivet discourse on the Mount of Olives. This we can assume took place in the evening, since the Mount of Olives was mid-way between the temple in Jerusalem and Bethany where Jesus and the disciples were staying. This, then, marks the end of three days before the Passover. When we turn over to Mark 14, we read in verse 1, “It was now two days before the Passover.” Mark and John thus calibrate perfectly, thereby corroborating the time-stamp given to us by John.
Having confirmed that Jesus really did enter Jerusalem five days before the Passover, let us now look to the Old Testament to see if we have any point of striking correlation. Passover itself falls on the fifteenth day of the month of Nisan. That means that five days before the Passover falls on the 10th day of Nisan. Now let us turn over to Exodus 12, where God gives instructions to the people of Israel concerning the first Passover. In verse 3, God says to Moses and Aaron,
Thus, the Passover lamb was to be selected and taken into the household of the men of Israel on the tenth day of the month of Nisan. Given the oft-repeated New Testament imagery of Jesus being the Passover lamb (e.g., 1 Corinthians 5:7), it is thus quite striking that Jesus’ triumphal entrance into Jerusalem and reception by the people happens to fall on the 10th of Nisan, five days before Passover.
How probable is this correlation on the hypothesis that the connection is coincidental? It must be borne in mind that this coincidence is not wholly independent of the previous one since Jesus coming into Jerusalem on Nisan 10 would not matter at all if it weren’t for the fact that he then died subsequently at least around that time. If we take his entry into Jerusalem on Nisan 10 to be significant, we must be assuming that he died right around that time, which means that that one entails the other. The question we can ask, however, is how much additional evidence it provides that Jesus also entered Jerusalem on Nisan 10. Another factor for us to consider is that Passover is a particularly likely time for a Jew to enter Jerusalem and also a time when he could count on ministering to a large crowd of people who had made their pilgrimage to Judea for the feast.
One may object here that a possible explanation of this coincidence is that Jesus Himself, seeing Himself as the fulfilment of the Passover lamb, deliberately entered Jerusalem on Nisan 10th. However, to this, I offer two responses. First, if Jesus saw falsely Himself as Messianic it is far more likely that he would have perceived Himself to be a military leader like Simon Bar Giora, who would lead a revolt against the Roman occupiers, not suffer a humiliating death by crucifixion. Second, the appropriate issue to concern ourselves with is the striking coincidence that it was precisely on the year on which Jesus entered Jerusalem five days before Passover that His death by crucifixion coincidentally took place on the day of Passover.
To be conservative, therefore, I will only assign a Bayes factor of 2 to this fact. Thus far, our cumulative Bayes factor from the two examples we have considered is 50 x 2 = 100.
Example #3: Jesus the First Fruits
In 1 Corinthians 15:20, Paul says of Christ that he is “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.”
What is being alluded to here? For the answer, we turn to Leviticus 23:9-14, in which we read of the feast of first fruits.
The feast of firstfruits is the next Jewish feast following the feasts of Passover and unleavened bread and had to do with the barley harvest, which preceded the slightly later wheat harvest (the former arrived in March / April; the latter around May, according to our calendars). The latter of those was associated with the feast of Weeks (Pentecost). God, therefore, instructed the people of Israel that prior to reaping the barley harvest they were to wave before the Lord a sheaf of the first grain. This would symbolize that the sheaf was representative of the whole crop. It represented their trust that the God who had given them the firstfruits would also bless the rest of the harvest.
How, then, does Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:20, link Jesus to the feast of first fruits? Christ was the first fruits of the resurrection, having been raised prior to the general resurrection at the end of time. Although previous people (e.g., Lazarus, Jairus’ daughter) had been raised from death, those individuals were not raised to glory and immortality. Eventually, they would die again. Jesus, by contrast, was the first person in all of history to be raised to glory and immortality, with a body transformed such that it was no longer subject to decay or death. Thus, he is the ‘sheaf’ that is waved before the Lord, the first fruits of the harvest.
Now, what is particularly striking is the day on which the feast of first fruits was to take place. According to Leviticus 23:11b, it was to happen “the day after the Sabbath” following Passover. That would be Sunday! It can thus hardly be a coincidence that Christ was raised on the Sunday following the Passover. When we consider the day that Jesus was claimed to be raised as first fruit from among the dead (the Sunday following Passover), we have yet another striking coincidence.
It is largely taken for granted among scholars that the disciples had experiences following Jesus’ death, which they interpreted to be the raised Christ — scholars are largely in agreement that the disciples did not deliberately lie about having seen Jesus raised from the dead. We also have strong evidence that the claim was that Jesus rose from the dead on the Sunday following His crucifixion — not only is it reported in all four gospels (Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, John 20:1), but there is also the widespread switch from observing the Sabbath to observance of the Lord’s day (Sunday) in the first century. One might object that the gospels only report the discovery of the empty tomb and the appearances taking place on the Sunday but do not tell us when exactly Jesus was raised. However, Jesus repeatedly states that His resurrection will take place “on the third day,” which would have to be the Sunday since His death was on a Friday. Further evidence that the earliest apostolic proclamation was that Jesus had been raised on the Sunday following His death is the allusion in 1 Corinthians 15:4 to Jesus being “raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.” Indeed, Paul’s allusion in verse 20 of the same chapter to Christ being the firstfruits from among the dead may indicate what Paul means by Christ’s resurrection on the third day being “in accordance with the Scriptures.”
It must be stated at this point that the exact interpretation of Leviticus 23:11b was disputed by first-century Jewish interpreters. Most Pharisees took this day to be the day after the annual Sabbath, rather than the weekly Sabbath — that is, the day after the 15th of Nisan, on which fell the feast of unleavened bread (the Jews were not permitted to work on this day according to Leviticus 23:7). They would thus observe the firstfruits offering on the 16th of Nisan, irrespective of the day of the week. Here is what the first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus tells us [Antiquities 3:10:5-6]:
A minority of Pharisees, and the Sadducees, however, maintained that the offering of first-fruits was to take place the day after the weekly Sabbath which falls during the feast of unleavened bread. According to this view, the firstfruits offering always took place on a Sunday. This view makes more sense to me Biblically because Leviticus 23:15-16 gives the following instruction about when the feast of firstfruits is to be observed:
For the day after the seventh Sabbath to equal exactly 50 days, one has to begin counting from the day after the weekly Sabbath.
Furthermore, according to the gospels, the day following Jesus’ death was itself a weekly Sabbath. For example, in John 19:31, we are told,
Likewise, Mark 15:42-43 tells us,
The festival of first fruits, therefore, would have to have been celebrated the day following the Sabbath (given the Jewish regulations about what could or could not be performed on the Sabbath). This entails that the Sunday on which Jesus was raised is indeed the feast of first fruits.
Moreover, as long as the second temple stood (i.e., prior to A.D. 70) and the Sadducees were in charge, their interpretation prevailed, and the feast of firstfruits was recognized the day following the first weekly Sabbath after Passover.
Further evidence that the gospel authors understood Jesus to be fulfilling the first fruits comes from Acts 2, where we read that the Holy Spirit comes upon the disciples at the time of Pentecost, which fulfils further symbolism relating to the feast of Pentecost that is outlined in Leviticus 23 (which I will not dwell upon here).
What Bayes factor might we assign to this piece of evidence? Of course, this piece of evidence is not wholly independent of the fact that Jesus’ death takes place at the time of Passover. There are also only seven days in the week. For these reasons, I assign a conservative Bayes factor of 5. So far, our cumulative Bayes factor is 50 x 2 x 5 = 500.
Example #4: The Crucifixion
Psalm 22 contains a remarkable text which, centuries before crucifixion was even invented, contains a description of the Messiah’s sufferings that strikingly resemble a crucifixion scene. Consider this excerpt from verses 12-18:
Dislocation of bones, heart failure, lack of strength, dehydration, and the piercing of the hands and feet are all apt descriptions of a crucifixion scene, not to mention the dividing of his garments and the casting of lots — crucifixion victims would be stripped naked as part of their humiliation. This execution also appears to be public since people stare and gloat over him. For a much more detailed description of the evidence for the Messianic nature of this text, I refer interested readers to Mike Winger’s video on the subject of Psalm 22, or this discussion between Dr. James White and Dr. Michael Brown on the topic. The Messianic interpretation of Psalm 22 is also not a Christian invention but can be found in early Jewish sources (for documentation, see this article).
For this fact, I think it is fair to assign a conservative Bayes factor of 1000 (for justification of this Bayes factor, see McGrew, L. (2013) Probabilistic Issues Concerning Jesus of Nazareth and Messianic Death Prophecies. Philosophia Christi 15:311-328.
Thus far, our cumulative Bayes factor is 50 x 2 x 5 x 1000 = 500,000
Example #5: The Name Jesus
The name Jesus is itself very significant. The reason for calling him Jesus is given in Matthew 1:21:
Fittingly, Jesus’ name (the same name as Joshua) means “Yahweh is salvation.” Already, this is a striking coincidence.
A second reason why the name Jesus is significant is that a certain Joshua in the Old Testament replaces Moses in leading God’s people into the promised land. Moses represents the embodiment of the law. The law (embodied by Moses) was unable to lead God’s people into the promised land and so was replaced by Joshua.
A third correspondence is to another Joshua in the book of Zechariah and chapter 6. In Zechariah 6:9-13, we read,
This individual is described as “the man whose name is the Branch,” which is a Messianic title used elsewhere (e.g., Zechariah 3:8; Isaiah 11:1; Jeremiah 23:5; Jeremiah 33:15). He is also given the office of both priest and king, a dual office which the Messiah is also said to fulfil (e.g., Psalm 110:4) whereas others were not permitted to occupy both offices.
In a study of 2625 male Jewish names from first-century Palestine (from documentary sources and ossuaries), 99 are reported to bear the name Jesus/Joshua (it being the sixth most popular name). That is approximately 3.77% of the Jewish male population. I will conservatively assign a Bayes factor to this piece of evidence of 2, taking our cumulative Bayes factor to 50 x 2 x 5 x 1000 x 2 = 1000,000.
Example 6
Yet another striking coincidence is the fact that Christianity became the dominant international world religion that it became. Until 313 A.D., the Christian church was the persecuted minority, and powerful rulers and officials attempted to stamp out the Christian religion, destroy its Scriptures and its people. There was a high price to pay for being a follower of Jesus, and your fate could include being nailed to a cross, burned alive, or fed to wild animals. The probability that Christianity would become a dominant global religion was, therefore, vanishingly small. However, this is exactly what was predicted in various passages throughout the Old Testament, namely, that the Messiah would bring representatives of all nations to a recognition and worship of the God of Israel.
As an example, consider Isaiah 49:6:
Therefore, on the hypothesis that a given individual is the promised Messiah, the probability that they would bring representatives of all nations of the world to worship the God of Israel is approximately equal to one, whereas on the hypothesis that Jesus is not the Messiah, the probability is vanishingly small. In all history, only Jesus has accomplished this fete. I will assign a conservative Bayes factor of 1000.
At this point, our cumulative Bayes factor is 50 x 2 x 5 x 1000 x 2 x 1000 = 1000,000,000
Conclusion
Various other examples could be given, but I will stop the present analysis at this point. The point of this article was simply to show how a cumulative case can be constructed for the truth of Christianity based upon these striking instances of convergence between the life of Jesus and Old Testament texts in a manner that seems to point towards the conclusion of design rather than coincidence. Since the examples given above enjoy strong historical corroboration, we can safely rule out the human design as being responsible for these correspondences. We, therefore, have good evidence for divine design, and therefore the truth of Christianity.
Of course, it is necessary when doing a Bayesian analysis to give an estimate of the prior probability. Prior probability relates to the intrinsic plausibility of a proposition before the evidence is considered. Normally the prior probability will be somewhere between zero and one. A prior probability of one means that the conclusion is certain. For instance, the fact that two added to two is equal to four has a prior probability of one. It is true by definition. A prior probability of zero, conversely, means that the hypothesis entails some sort of logical contradiction (such as the concept of a married bachelor) and thus cannot be overcome by any amount of evidence. Priors can be established on the basis of past information. For example, suppose we want to know the odds that a particular individual won last week’s Mega Millions jackpot in the United States. The prior probability would be set at 1 in 302.6 million since those are the odds that any individual lottery participant, chosen at random, would win the Mega Millions jackpot. That is a low prior probability, but it could be overcome if the supposed winner were to subsequently quit his job and start routinely investing in private jets, sports cars, and expensive vacations. Perhaps he could even show us his bank statement or the documentary evidence of his winnings. Those different pieces of evidence, taken together, would stack up to provide powerful confirmatory evidence sufficient to overcome a very small prior probability to yield a high posterior probability that the individual did indeed win the Mega Millions jackpot. In other situations, setting an objective prior is more tricky, and in those cases, priors may be determined by a more subjective assessment.
If we suppose for argument’s sake that the prior probability of God sovereignly orchestrating the history is as low as 1 in 10,000,000, this leads us to a posterior probability of 0.99 of the hypothesis being true. Of course, this figure will be highly dependent on the Bayes Factors we have assigned to each piece of evidence. This is, of course, only a mathematical tool for modelling how a cumulative case can provide powerful evidence for our hypothesis, and we haven’t even considered all of the relevant data. I invite readers to plug in their own numbers and see what conclusion they arrive at.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
The Jesus of the Old Testament in the Gospel of John mp3 by Thomas Howe
How Can Jesus be the Only Way? (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek
Cold Case Resurrection Set by J. Warner Wallace (books)
World Religions: What Makes Jesus Unique? mp3 by Ron Carlson
The Bodily Nature of Jesus’ Resurrection CD by Gary Habermas
Historical Evidences for the Resurrection (Mp3) by Gary Habermas
How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide
Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Master’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective and evidence-based Christian faith.
20 Myths About Old Earth Creationism
Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian ApologeticsPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS
By Luke Nix
Introduction
Last month I was alerted to a debate on Justin Brierley’s podcast “Unbelievable.” This debate was a discussion between a young-earth creationist (Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis) and an old-earth creationist (Jeff Zweerink of Reasons to Believe). This, of course, caught my attention because of my focus on science/faith issues. I decided to take a listen but found myself quite frustrated within just minutes of Justin giving his introductions. Here is a link to the episode for those who would like to hear it for themselves: Do we live on a young or old earth? Ken Ham vs. Jeff Zweerink
Throughout the discussion, Ken Ham presented many strawmen and misrepresentations of Zweerink’s old-earth creationist view in order to argue against the view. I recognized many of these myths as ones I’ve heard over the years that remain popular today despite their falsehood and countless attempts at correction.
In today’s post, I have compiled twenty of the myths that Ken Ham presented in the “Unbelievable” discussion, and I have provided a short, one-to-three paragraph explanation of how they are false and what the correctly understood old-earth creationist (OEC) position is. Since I have written on many of these topics in the past, I have included links to previous posts where they can offer a more detailed response. My intention for this post is three-fold for both believer and unbeliever.
First, for the unbeliever, I want them to understand that the young-earth view is not the only view held by Christians. They do not have to affirm young-earth creationism (YEC) in order to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and remain logically consistent.
Second, for the believer, I want them to understand that claiming that a logically consistent Christian must hold to the YEC view is simultaneously a detriment to our evangelism and to worshiping the Father in spirit and in truth (John 4:23).
Finally, for those who are honestly investigating the biblical, philosophical, and natural data to resolve this issue (both believer and unbeliever), I pray that this post also serves as a quick stop for addressing many of the myths, strawmen, and other mischaracterizations of the OEC view in a single location.
But, before I get to the perpetuated myths of old earth creationism, it is important to recognize where Ken Ham (YEC) and Jeff Zweerink (OEC) hold much common ground in their two views. Even though there are significant differences, there are even more significant commonalities that they can shake hands with each other and give them a hardy “Amen, brother!” I compiled a list a while back that is certainly not comprehensive, but is a large list to see where the differences between YEC and OEC may be fewer than is commonly understood:
What Do Young Earth and Old Earth Creationists Agree Upon Regarding Origins?
Now, on to the myths of Old Earth Creationism!
Myth #1: The debate is not about whether the universe is young or old, it is about whether you believe God’s Word or not.
Fact:
Ken Ham began with this myth. It implies that anyone who disagrees with him on the interpretation of Genesis 1-11 does not believe God’s Word. This could not be further from the truth. It is the very belief that God’s Word is true and authoritative in the Christian’s life that Christians try to understand what it means. In order for a proposition (or collection of propositions, such as the Bible) to be believed and applied to our lives, we need to correctly understand the meaning of the proposition(s). If we did not believe that the collection of propositions that constitute God’s Word is true and authoritative over our lives, then we wouldn’t bother with trying to understand what the author (and Author) meant to communicate in it. Saying that a Christian, who interprets differently, does not believe God’s Word is simply false. The debate is not about belief but rather about correct meaning.
For more, see “Man’s Fallible Ideas vs. God’s Infallible Word.”
Myth #2: Big bang cosmology is based on naturalism.
Fact:
Naturalism holds that there is nothing that exists outside this physical universe. Big bang cosmology has two requirements that necessarily exist outside this physical universe. Firstly, because big bang cosmology posits an absolute beginning to the universe and nothing that begins to exist can cause its own beginning to exist, the big bang necessarily requires a cause that is outside itself (this physical universe). Secondly, because of the fact that the universe’s physical laws are finely-tuned to support advanced life, the cause of the universe not only has to be super-natural, but it also has to be intelligent and purpose-driving in His creative act. These are attributes of a purposeful agent, not just another mechanism (naturalism), or deism (we’ve now left naturalism behind), or even basic theism. These attributes of the Cause mirror those of the Christian God. Not only is it false that big bang cosmology is based on naturalism big bang cosmology necessarily implies that the Christian God exists by the attributes of the Cause required to produce what is observed in the universe.
Myth #3: You cannot see “age” in nature.
Fact:
One of the foundational beliefs of science (that allow it to discover events of even the recent past) is constant laws of physics. For the Christian, this foundational belief for science is even affirmed in Jeremiah 33:26 (see my post “How Naturalism Defeats Science As A Knowledge Discipline“). What is very nice about constant laws of physics is that if we have a correct understanding of processes from one moment to the next, we can work backward in time (via deductive reasoning) to come to sound (necessarily true) conclusions about the past, including the age of things. This is done for trees and corals using the number of rings and layers, respectively, and the well-understood rate of the formation of those layers. The idea that age cannot be determined by observing nature alone is correct, but when combined with the constant laws of physics and deductive reasoning, the ability to accurately determine age by observing God’s creation cannot be escaped by the Bible-believing Christian.
Myth #4: The same people who promote big bang cosmology deny the virgin birth of Jesus.
Fact:
This is quite a sweeping statement. In this myth, Ken Ham places all who affirm big bang cosmology into the same naturalistic category of those who deny miracles and God’s interaction with creation (including the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity and the Resurrection of Jesus). It is obvious, though, that Christians do not belong in the same category as naturalists when it comes to miracles. Some YECs who insist on this categorization, though, insist that Christians can believe both but only inconsistently.
The problem here is that affirmation of big bang cosmology in no way implies that supernatural miracles are not possible. In fact, as shown above, in Myth #2, the big bang assumes a supernatural miracle for the universe’s existence! If anyone is being inconsistent in their beliefs regarding the big bang and miracles, it is the naturalist who affirms the big bang yet denies supernatural miracles are possible. So, Christians who affirm big bang cosmology do not deny supernatural miracles such as the virgin birth of Jesus and are under no compulsion by logic to even entertain such a ridiculous claim. We do not deny the virgin birth of Jesus, and our view does not imply even the possibility of such a denial. While naturalists do deny the virgin birth of Jesus, inconsistently, the Christian affirms it consistently.
Myth #5: People only debate the meaning of the word “yom” in Genesis 1 because they want to fit millions of years into the Bible.
Fact:
Implied in this myth is the idea that “yom” was never debated until it was discovered that the universe was billions of years old and/or when Darwin came along and proposed evolution, which presumably would require billions of years of slow changes over time. However, this is demonstrably false. The meaning of “yom” has been debated for centuries before scientists posited billions of years for the age of the universe. St. Augustine, for instance, defended the contention that “yom” was different from a 24-hour day. Numerous other Church Fathers also debated “yom”‘s meaning. Since it was debated before scientists posited billions of years for the age of the universe and earth, such a discovery cannot serve as the motivation for the debate continuing to this day. For more on the Church Fathers and their debates over the meaning of the word “yom” in Genesis 1, I recommend checking out “Coming to Grips With The Early Church Fathers’ Perspective On Genesis” by Dr. John Millam.
Myth #6: The idea that the universe is young has been well-established in Church history; therefore, it is true.
Fact:
This is an interesting argument. The falsehood is not found in the first part; young-earth creationism (along with other views) we debated and held by many Church Fathers; the falsehood is found in the logic. A well-established doctrine is not necessarily a correct doctrine (this goes for all sides of the age debate). Ken Ham, as a member of the Protestant tradition of the Church, would hold that many well-established doctrines of the Church (Catholic Church, at the time) were false. So, being well-established does not mean true, even for Ken Ham. Anyone who argues this way is simply incorrect.
Now, many people try to claim that young-earth creationism originated with the Seventh Day Adventist “prophetess” Ellen G. White, but since some of the Church Fathers already held to this view, it can hardly be said to have originated recently. But, again, that early origin does not mean true. Young-earth Christians need to be careful about which conclusion they are drawing from the early articulation of their view, and old-earth Christians need to be careful about which conclusion they are drawing from a later (more developed) articulation of the young-earth view.
Myth #7: Believing that the universe is old undermines God’s Word.
Fact:
Many young-earth Christians (but not all) are not even open to alternative views because they have heard this myth so many times, presented in so many different ways, that they believe it. As mentioned in my response to Myth #1, this is not true, as demonstrated by the very attempt to reconcile God’s Word with God’s actions (creation). That recognition is enough to demonstrate the falsehood of the myth in general. But what about the more specific forms of the myth (additional myths, in themselves)? In a past post, I took on five common ways that this myth is articulated. Take a look at these additional myths in the post “Does Old Earth Creationism Compromise Scripture” to see if you have fallen victim to believing them.
Myth #8: You weren’t there to witness the creation; therefore, you cannot know what happened except by an eyewitness testimony (God’s Word).
Fact:
This myth attempts to strike at the foundation of scientific claims about origins: the ability to know origins. In this myth the young-earth creationist takes a hyper-empiricist view of knowledge that states that only the five senses can reveal truth about the physical world: in order to know anything that happened in the past, you had to be there to witness whether it happened or not, and since we were not there to witness the creation, we cannot know how it happened. They then say that we can only rely upon the eyewitness record in Genesis 1, which they assume is only compatible with their view (see Myths #1 and #7 above).
Even if we were to grant that the Genesis 1 account was only compatible with the young-earth view, they have a serious problem. If we cannot know something happened in the past unless we witnessed it, then how do we know that Genesis 1 was reliably handed down through the generations? We were not there to witness each transcription. In order to defend the reliable transmission of the text to today, we rely upon another source of knowledge that uses inductive and abductive reasoning (neither of which are sense-based). If those are valid sources of truth to discover past events, then the young-earth creationist must allow such sources of truth in the debate over origins. So, by their own epistemology (how we know what we know), this myth falls and falling further, their attempt to use the process of elimination to get to their view also fails. This myth is so prevalent in the origins debate that I have written quite a bit about this it in the past.
Myth #9: Only the YEC believes the eyewitness of God’s Word.
Fact:
As demonstrated in my answer to Myth #8, this myth falls flat immediately. However, it gets worse for the YEC, not only can they not know that they have the eyewitness account about origins as it was originally recorded, they cannot know that they have a reliable eyewitness account about the Resurrection of Jesus as it was originally recorded! The staunch YEC may be able to live with not having a reliable account of the events of creation, but I do not believe for one second that they are willing to follow the logic to its necessary conclusion and accept that we then also do not have reliable accounts of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. For such a necessary implication would give us no confidence whatsoever in the truth of Christianity, which would then give them no foundation for holding onto their YEC view. The ground crumbles beneath them.
This is not a problem of belief (I know Ken Ham believes that the Bible we have today was reliably transmitted through the generations), but rather it is a problem of a lack of a foundational explanation for the belief in the reliability of the transmission of the Bible. If Ken Ham is to maintain the “you weren’t there” mantra, then he has no explanation for the reliable transmission of the Bible, and worse he has unwittingly provided an explanation for precisely why the Bible he holds in hands cannot be trusted as what was originally inspired by God! This is the myth, among all other ones because it strikes at the very foundation of the Christian worldview, that must die in the Church:
Myth #10: Animal death and suffering are incompatible with the all-powerful and all-loving God of the Bible.
Fact:
I find it very interesting that young-earth creationists often raise the logical problem of evil against God in these discussions. Simply put, the logical problem of evil has been a go-to challenge to God’s existence for atheists for centuries (and still is today in popular/internet atheist circles), but such a challenge is no challenge at all. The challenge relies upon the idea that an all-powerful and all-loving God could not possibly have justifiable reasons for allowing evil, pain, and suffering in the world. However, since we cannot possibly know all of God’s purposes comprehensively, this challenge fails on epistemic grounds- no one has enough knowledge to make such a grandiose claim. And not only that, the Bible teaches that any suffering that God does allow does has an ultimate, eternal purpose.
So we do have enough knowledge to claim the very opposite: that God does have a purpose for allowing all pain and suffering, even if we cannot specifically identify that purpose with our current amount of knowledge. This would include any and all animal suffering. So for the young-earth creationist to be in the company of atheists with raising this challenge is to simply place the God of the Bible in the same box that the atheist attempts to place Him: “since I cannot see what purpose God may have for suffering, He must not have one.” This is only one way to demonstrate the falsehood of this myth, but others exist as well.
Myth #11: Having animal death before The Fall makes God responsible for moral evil.
Fact:
Related to Myth #10 above, Ken Ham tries to show how God is responsible for moral evil if animal death existed before the Fall of Adam and Eve. Since the Christian God is not responsible for moral evil, then if there is a view that necessarily implies that God is responsible for moral evil, then it is false, and its god is not the Christian God. Ken Ham argues that animal death is a moral evil, and since old-earth creation requires that God is responsible for it, then old-earth creationism must be false. He attempts to release God from the responsibility of animal death by saying that the Fall introduced death to the animal kingdom. Many YECs have proposed different models for the Fall introducing death into the natural order (changed laws of physics, attributing creative power to sin, and punctuated equilibrium are just a few) in order to escape the implications of their own accusation.
But all this effort is actually unnecessary because animal death is not morally evil. For an event, action, or behavior to be morally evil, the perpetrator must be a moral agent with the free will to choose to do otherwise, and the offended party must be of intrinsic value. Both of those features are necessary, but neither are present in the physical creation prior to God’s creation of Adam and Eve. Animals are not moral agents, and they are not created in the Image of God, which would be the source of intrinsic value. These are precisely why we do not classify animals killing other animals as murder. “Murder” is “killing” with moral status. Without the moral status, animal killing is just killing, not murder. Since animals killing animals is not performed by moral, free agents and animals are not intrinsically valuable, there is no foundation for calling such death “morally” evil. It does not matter how much death happened before the Fall of Adam and Eve; it was not morally evil. So even though God is the Creator of the natural order (which includes animal death), He is NOT responsible for any moral evil here. Thus this myth is demonstrably false. I go into more detail in these posts:
Myth #12: If you can understand the general message of the Gospel without the scholarship, then you can understand the details of creation without scholarship.
Fact:
This myth implies that because the basics of the Gospel can be understood and acted upon by the youngest and least educated among us, that the deeper and more refined details of the Gospel can also be discovered without the need for a scholarship. Ken Ham holds that the same applies to ideas of origins: if the basics of creation can be understood without scholarship, then so can the details be known without scholarship. In the podcast, Ken Ham appeals to biblical scholarship to make his case; then, he comes back later to deny the value of such biblical scholarship. He seems to hold that the “plain reading” (as would be understood the first time a person reads a passage) is the correct and comprehensive understanding- there is no need for further scholarship to determine details. Because Ham both uses and denies the value of biblical scholarship in the same conversation, it is hard to determine which of the mutually exclusive views he takes. But since he pounds the drum of “the plain reading” so much, it is reasonable to think that he (at least by his words and his actions) denies the value of biblical scholarship and affirms that there is no need to pursue further study beyond one’s initial reading of the text.
Interestingly enough, the Apostle Paul denies such a view explicitly in 1 Corinthians 3:2. Paul tells the Corinthian church that he gave them the theological basics and called it “milk,” but affirmed that the theological details, which he called “solid food,” still remained to be grasped by them. A deeper study (scholarship) is required if we are to get to the truth of a view. If we eschew biblical scholarship, then we run the same risk of the Corinthian church and being satisfied only with “milk” and never graduating to “solid food.” When we look deeper into the first chapters of Genesis, we discover that the YEC view is not the only view compatible with the inerrant text. In fact, a range of views are fully compatible. If a person is to pursue the correct understanding, they must begin with the correct list of available options, then use further scholarship and sources of truth to determine which of those available options is the correct interpretation. This myth denies such a pursuit, which is in direct contradiction to Paul, so it must be false.
Myth #13: OEC takes something from outside the Bible to use it to reinterpret God’s Word.
Fact:
What is very dangerous about this myth is that it makes a simple statement but never explicitly states the conclusion or the logic to the conclusion. It is true that OEC takes something from outside the Bible and uses it to interpret God’s Word. What does OEC take from outside the Bible? God’s actions: His creation. Time after time, the Bible affirms that God’s actions (His creation) are a valid source of truth. Psalm 19 states that the heavens declare the glory of God; Romans 1 affirms that the knowledge (truth) available to all in creation is so reliable and visible that it is enough to condemn a person; and Jeremiah 33:25-26 states that the laws that govern the universe are as constant as God Himself! (see Myths #16 and #20 below for more on this).
Not only is it biblical to use God’s actions, it is perfectly logical to use a person’s actions to help interpret what their words mean. We do this every day. We even do this when trying to interpret what America’s Founding Fathers meant when they penned the Constitution (see my post “Deconstructionism, The Constitution, and Biblical Interpretation“)
This myth is simply an attempt at a scare-tactic. It is presented as if OEC is concluded because people have approached Scripture with an atheistic presupposition (see Myth #2 above and Myth #14 below) and are trying to make Scripture subject to atheism. If God tells us that His actions are reliable sources of truth, then it is perfectly legitimate to use His actions to help us interpret His words. And to refuse to allow God’s actions to guide our interpretation is another way that we refuse to accept “solid food” and remain satisfied with “milk” (see Myth #12 above).
Myth #14: OEC tries to fit millions of years into the Bible because the secularist needs it for evolution.
Fact:
Similar to Myth #2, Ken Ham attempts to discredit using God’s actions (His creation) to interpret His words by appealing to atheism. Myth #2 already demonstrated that big bang cosmology not only does not indicate atheism, but it requires theism. This myth is necessarily dependent upon the idea that the currently measured age of the universe (~13.7 billion years) is enough time for unguided evolution to produce what we see today. This could not be further from the truth.
Big bang cosmology and a 13.7 billion-year-old universe was not a relief for the naturalist when it was discovered; it was a brick wall that evolution slammed against then and continues to slam against today. This was one of the key reasons that big bang cosmology was rejected by naturalists for so long! 13.7 billion years is orders of magnitude too young for unguided evolution to produce what we see today! In fact, many naturalists are positing that an infinite multiverse exists that would provide them with enough time across all of reality just for evolution to produce what we see today even one time! Big bang cosmology is no friend to the secularist. Not only does big bang cosmology require a Cause and a Designer, it chronologically constricts the naturalist’s evolutionary story to suffocation! Big bang cosmology is rather a powerful enemy to the naturalist, which adds yet another reason for its truth (see my post “Evidence for the Empty Tomb of Jesus and Big Bang Cosmology“).
Myth #15: Allowing nature to interpret Scripture opens the doors to immoral, secular views (including gay marriage).
Fact:
Since Ken Ham is under the mistaken impression that allowing God’s creation to help us interpret Scripture sneaks in an amoral view (naturalism), I can understand why he would be scared of this myth (and propagate the same fear to his followers). However, it is not the act of allowing nature to interpret Scripture that is the source of moral conclusions; rather, it is the presupposition that one approaches the Scripture. If one already has the view that atheism is true, then all behaviors are permissible in their view. However, as seen in Myth #13, the usage of God’s actions (His creation) to help interpret His words is grounded in Scripture, which already holds that the Scripture (which includes the ethical claims) is inerrant and authoritative. A Christian allowing God’s creation to help them interpret God’s words does nothing to damage the ethical claims of God’s words and actually affirms their truth by affirming the truth of the biblical claims of the physical world.
Ham is also fond of saying that a Christian can follow biblical ethics and believe in the big bang, but they are doing so inconsistently. As discussed in Myths #2 and #14 above, though, big bang cosmology is not an atheistic but rather theistic view of the origin of the cosmos, so there is no logical inconsistency between the Christian who agrees with both biblical ethics and big bang cosmology. This myth is simply false.
Myth #16: Allowing nature to interpret Scripture undermines the authority of God’s Word.
Fact:
If it is not clear from the previous fifteen myths that this myth, too, is false, then allow me to offer these additional points. First, if Christians who affirm OEC did not believe that God’s Word was both true and authoritative, they would not bother with trying to find the correct interpretation. Nobody looks at a work of fiction (on a page or on-screen) and attempts to reconcile its claims with the real world. We simply do not do that for stories that we believe are false and have no moral authority over our lives. The very fact that Christians take so much time to dig into biblical and scientific scholarship (the “solid food” of 1 Corinthians 3:2) to find the correct understanding (what the author and Author intended to communicate to their respective audiences) demonstrates their respect, belief, and submission to the content of Scripture.
Second, the only thing that is undermined by deeper scholarship is falsehood. Unlike God, man is not infallible, so his interpretations can be incorrect. It is through deeper scholarship that these incorrect interpretations are discovered and can be rejected. While it is important to study God’s Word to discover the range of possible interpretations that are compatible with an inerrant (and reliably transmitted) text, it would be irresponsible of us to neglect God’s actions (His creation) to rule out possible interpretations or even positively identify the correct interpretation. To refuse to conduct such a study and submit ourselves to God’s actions (as well as God’s Word), and even encourage others not to as well, is to affirm one’s own infallibility- something that no humble Christian should do, even implicitly. This is not to say that deeper scholarship will always lead to what is true (many scholars hold many different views about origins, many of them are mutually exclusive), but the more knowledge we have from the sources of truth that God has given us, the more information we have to reason with and come nearer to the correct view in the details.
Myth #17: OEC is a compromise in the Church.
Fact:
By this time, one should see how this myth is completely unfounded. OEC has compromised, nothing true nor important. OEC does not compromise the truth of God’s Word nor its authority in the Christian’s life. OEC only compromises the YEC interpretation, which is a human interpretation that is not infallible anyway. What has been compromised is falsehood, which is precisely what the Christian wants to compromise! This myth may have rhetorical power on the surface, but when we dig deeper into the scholarship (again, the “solid food” of 1 Cor 3:2), we find that the myth loses its rhetorical power with us because it is a lie. Now, I know that many young-earth creationists are concerned about more than just the age of creation (as well they should), so I have two posts that directly addresses (40) areas of full agreement with YECs and other common areas where “compromise” is claimed against OEC:
Myth #18: OECs talk about nature as the 67th book of the Bible.
Fact:
This myth originates from a claim made by Dr. Hugh Ross back in the 90s (if I recall the timing correctly) that was misunderstood. He stated that nature, as a trustworthy and infallible source of truth (since it is from the infallible God), was akin to a 67th book in the inerrant Bible. But many Christians misunderstood and misrepresented his analogy as his attempt to “add to Scripture” and was trying to say that nature can provide enough information to save a person. Of course, Dr. Ross never intended for either of these to be communicated by his analogy because he does not believe them, nor does his view logically imply or even indicate them. His attempts to correct the misunderstandings over several years were not accepted by his critics, so because of these misunderstandings and to attempt to avoid further misunderstandings of his view, Dr. Ross abandoned this analogy in the mid-2000s. Ken Ham was one of these critics and, to this day, still claims that OECs use this analogy. Today, OECs do not talk about nature as a 67th book of the Bible and have not for well over a decade precisely because we do not wish to be further misunderstood and misrepresented. Because the myth is dependent upon a misunderstanding of an analogy, and that analogy is no longer even used, the myth is false on two counts.
Myth #19: The creation is cursed; therefore, it cannot be trusted to reveal the truth.
Fact:
If we refer back to myth #3, we see that this myth is false already on that count alone. However, when we further study the Bible, specifically Psalm 19 and Romans 1, we see that the authors affirm (through divine inspiration) that the creation can be trusted to reveal the truth. This is not a debate about over whether God’s creation reveals the truth or whether or not the creation is cursed (as also affirmed by the Bible). The debate is over the nature and extent of the curse. Since Jeremiah 33:25-26 affirms constant laws of physics, we must exclude limitations on the creation’s ability to reveal the truth (again, see Myth #3 above). If we are to include limitations of the creation’s ability to reveal the truth as part of the curse, then we essentially must deny biblical inerrancy since Psalm 19’s and Romans 1’s (along with the numerous other passages that affirm creation’s revelation of truth) would be false. The creation was not cursed in a way that prevents it from revealing the truth. Creation was indeed cursed, but its ability to reveal truth being removed was not part of that curse. The creation’s ability to reveal truth remains intact despite the curse.
While this myth is incorrect on biblical grounds, let’s also not forget that Ken Ham attempts to use the creation to demonstrate the truth that it was created by a Designer. Old-earth creationists agree with this; however, if the creation cannot reveal the truth, then Ken Ham’s appeal to it to tell us something true about its origins is a pointless appeal- why would Ken Ham use an untrustworthy source to reveal truth? The reality is that Ken Ham’s own defense of his view using God’s creation is logically incompatible with his view of the curse in Genesis- every “scientific” critique that he offers against big bang cosmology is without a foundation. If God’s creation cannot reveal truth, then it also cannot reveal a defeater or even a mere challenge to any view of reality because it would be challenging a truth-claim. Challenges to truth claims, based upon God’s creation, is philosophically off-limits on Ken Ham’s view of the curse. But, lucky for Ken Ham, this myth has been biblically demonstrated to be false, so he can continue to bring his critiques, see them undermined, and be faced with what God’s creation actually reveals about its supernatural and awesome history.
Myth #20: Children are leaving the Church because they see the conflict between millions of years and the Bible.
Fact:
This myth capitalizes on Christian parents’ greatest fear: that their children will reject Christ. As we’ve seen, though, there is no actual conflict between the universe being billions of years old and the Bible. The reason children see conflict is because Ken Ham still perpetuates the idea that there is a conflict by consistently presenting these myths as fact. By perpetuating these myths, Ham is essentially presenting children the false dichotomy of “accept YEC or deny Christ.” God’s creation denies YEC (both deductively and abductively), yet God’s Word (and history) affirms Christ, so our children are caught between a rock and a hard place. Their sinful nature tends to make this decision easy, though: deny Christ. By presenting the false dichotomy of “YEC or atheism,” Ken Ham is unwittingly setting up our children for spiritual failure; it is this false dichotomy combined with their sin nature that is the reason our children are leaving the Church. Ken Ham perpetuates this problem then complains about it saying that his view is the cure, but if he is perpetuating the problem using a false dichotomy, false accusations against competing views, and a scientifically (the testimony of God’s creation, itself) demonstrably false alternative, how in the world can he hold the cure? Are our children leaving the Church because they see this conflict? Yep! But the conflict they see is a false conflict, perpetuated by Ken Ham. This is the only myth in this list that is true, but the myth testifies not against old-earth creationism but against the false dichotomy of “believe YEC or reject Christ” that Ken Ham claims that logically consistent people must choose between.
Conclusion – Post-Modernism Has Sneaked Into The Church
None of these myths are new. I remember hearing many of them in my teens when I first became aware of the origins debate within the Church. What is really disheartening, though, is that while Ken Ham has been corrected numerous times over the decades, he still insists on using these strawmen to argue against a view he disagrees with.
I recently finished reading the book “Time for Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin” by Os Guinness. As I was reading through the part of this book where Guinness talks about the importance to the post-modernist of controlling the narrative (whether with truth or falsehood) in order to preserve and promote a relative or subjective “greater good,” I couldn’t help but think of how so many Christians misrepresent and communicate myths about views they disagree with, in an effort to defeat that view in the market place of ideas. As Christians, when we refuse to correct our own misrepresentations of a view we’re critical about, we treat truth with no more respect than does the post-modernist. Let’s ensure that we are not guilty of this ourselves.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
How Old is the Universe? (DVD), (Mp3), and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek
God’s Crime Scene: Cold-Case…Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe (Paperback), (Mp4 Download), and (DVD Set) by J. Warner Wallace
God’s Crime Scene: The Case for God’s Existence from the Appearance of Design (mp4 Download Set) by J. Warner Wallace
God’s Crime Scene: The Case for God’s Existence from the Appearance of Design in Biology DVD Set by J. Warner Wallace
What is God Like? Look to the Heavens by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler
Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2I4b9w0
The Cure For Spiritual Disorientation
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Bob Perry
I have made the case that the church is suffering from spiritual disorientation. There are many Christians who are flying through this life in much the same way as a pilot who is spatially disoriented. Like that pilot, they’ve lost all reference to the ground. And that’s a dangerous position to be in. The first thing a pilot must do to correct his situation is to find the true horizon. Grounding our faith is no different. And the horizon line of faith is truth itself. Truth, in all its forms, is the reference for a grounded spirituality. It aligns us with reality. The Greeks believed in an impersonal force that was the source of truth, goodness, and beauty. They called it the logos. But the Bible tells us that the Logos is Jesus himself. Aligning ourselves with the Logos is the only way to correct our spiritual disorientation.
Getting Aligned With The World
If you want to fly safely through the sky, you need to have a constant reference to the ground. That seems simple enough. If it’s a nice day, you can see the horizon line just fine. But if you’re in the clouds, you need another method. For that reason, a tremendous amount of effort has gone into designing cockpit instruments that display an artificial horizon to the pilot. But that line has to be trustworthy. It has to replicate the real one. We always need a way to be able to see the “true horizon.”
If the church wants to address its spiritual disorientation problem, it needs to make it a priority to invest in doing the same kind of thing. The church needs a way to stabilize its vision of reality. And the place to begin doing that is with the basics of reality itself.
The Ground You Cannot See
Apologists like me love to talk about the origins, design, archaeology, and the scientific evidence that points to the existence of God. We are known to make a case for God as the Creator, Designer, and Sustainer of the world. That’s great. We need to do all those things. In fact, Christianity is unique among the world religions in its ability to offer tangible evidence for its trustworthiness.
But if the church is going to be properly grounded, we need to go beyond that kind of evidence. We need to re-emphasize things that are vital to rational thought, but that our culture has corrupted. I’m talking about the features of our world that you can’t see, but that are just as real as the ground you walk on. The kinds of things you have to know and understand to think clearly about anything at all. I’m talking about the philosophical triumvirate of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty.
For thousands of years, thinking people have recognized each of these as objective features of the world. If you want to understand how we’ve gotten disoriented, you have to start with them.
Hijacking Objective Reality
Think about it. For thousands of years, human beings saw Truth, Goodness, and Beauty as objective features of the world. But they weren’t just things that existed outside of us. We understood that they were important and reliable because they were grounded in the nature of God himself.
But contemporary culture has hijacked each of them. It has relativized them. Told us they were things we could decide for ourselves. The results have been disastrous. But there is a way to fix it. And the first step in confirming the church’s true horizon is to put truth, goodness, and beauty back where they belong — as the unmoving reference points for all we do and think.
Truth Is The Essence Of God
Truth has always been central to the human relationship with God. The Prophets of the Old Testament lamented it’s passing.
Jesus refers to truth more than 75 times. In the Book of John alone, he uses the double emphatic phrase, “Truly, truly I say to you …” twenty-five times. Truth was the reason he came to Earth at all:
Ultimately, he transformed our understanding of the nature of truth itself. He personalized it.
If we want our churches to be properly oriented, we have to defend the truth. We have to know that truth before it can set us free.
Goodness Is The Character Of God
Every one of us recognizes what C. S. Lewis put so succinctly:
You can’t torture toddlers for fun. It is wrong to murder an innocent person. You shouldn’t steal your neighbor’s iPhone. Rape is wrong. We all have human rights.
Where do these ideas come from? As I have discussed elsewhere, the existence of these kinds of things points to the fact that there is a standard we all use to determine morality. Individuals cannot create that standard for themselves. It would lead to chaos. Neither can we agree on them by accepting the consensus of our communities. If that were the case, there would be no way to argue against the actions of the Nazis or southern slave owners. After all, they governed by the consensus of their respective communities.
There is only one other possible explanation for these kinds of things. There is an external standard that defines them. And the only other source of such a standard of goodness is the character of God himself.
Beauty Is The Reflection Of God
As my article, “A Mind For The Beautiful,” points out in great detail, the classic understanding of beauty was that it was a property of objects. Beautiful things displayed symmetry, order, balance, unity, and proportion. They gave the inference of design and purpose.
As an example, the Wright Brothers were not the first ones to build an airplane. They were the first to be able to control an airplane. That’s why you know about them today. And they were able to do that because they spent countless hours studying and cataloging the movement and structure of birds. They watched their feathers warp and twist. They observed how the birds set their wings before takeoff and after landing. In other words, they owed their unique success to their ability to replicate nature.
We don’t create beauty. We recreate it. Beauty is something we find in the world around us. The best we can do is mimic it.
The Divine Mind
As it turns out, Truth, Goodness, and Beauty are each objective features of the world. They always have been. We do not create them. We discover them. They are foundational to reality itself. And they are what we need to know to properly orient ourselves to the world. They help form a true horizon.
Even the Greek philosophers knew this. They talked about truth, goodness, and beauty as elements of a concept they saw behind the orderly nature of the universe.
This concept was rich in meaning. It included reason, choice, reflection, and calculation. It explained the relational harmony between belief and actuality. The Greeks considered this to be some kind of impersonal force — a “divine mind.” And they had a name for it.
They called it the Logos.
The Impersonal Comes To Life
When the Apostle John begins his gospel, it is no coincidence that he does so with this Greek idea in mind. He makes it clear that the “force” is far from impersonal. In fact, he knows exactly who it is.
It turns out that Jesus is the Logos. He is the Divine Mind behind the universe. The foundation of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. Jesus obliterated any notion that the spiritual and physical worlds are disconnected. He is the place where they merge.
If the church is spiritually disoriented, we know where to look to get ourselves right-side up.
As the God who became a man, Jesus showed us that he is our true horizon — the reference for where we should be living our lives. When we focus on truth, goodness, and beauty, we are really focusing on him.
He gives life meaning. He makes life safe.
Jesus — and the Truth, Goodness, and Beauty he defines — is the cure for our spiritual disorientation.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity – Episode 14 Video DOWNLOAD by Frank Turek (DVD)
How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide
How NOT to Interpret the Bible: A Lesson from the Cults by Thomas Howe mp3
Can We Understand the Bible? by Thomas Howe Mp3 and CD
How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (MP3 Set), (mp4 Download Set), and (DVD Set)
Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and the culture at truehorizon.org. He is a Contributing Writer for the Christian Research Journal and has also been published in Touchstone and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of military and commercial flying experience. He has a B.S., Aerospace Engineering from the U. S. Naval Academy, and an M.A., Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown sons.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2w7wthB