Un caso contra el teísmo (Parte 3)

In a previous post I addressed an objection from Randy, an atheist from Cuba, who presented a case against theism. In this post I will address the second objection. Randy says that

The properties of God, being metaphysical, pose another problem: how do we know that he is omnipotent and not powerful enough to create the universe alone? What justifies the omni part, how can we know that?

Randy, you are right that God’s omnipotence is not inferred from the kalam cosmological argument, just that He is “extremely powerful” enough to bring the universe into existence. But as Dr. Craig himself states: “…the fact that an argument fails to prove that God is omnipotent does not imply that He is not omnipotent.” [1]

Then you ask the question:

How do you rule out there being a being more powerful than him?

Well, Randy, if there is a being more powerful than the one concluded by the kalam argument, it would be God! In reality, this objection does little to nothing to refute the existence of God as you can see.

How do you rule out in omniscience that he does not know everything, because he was created by a Supergod who created him making him believe that he knew everything when he does not know everything? Even God revealing to you that he knows everything, we cannot justify that he is omniscient because of the problem previously raised. This happens with all omni properties, they are unjustified.

Well, Randy, it seems you haven’t heard of Alvin Plantinga’s modal ontological argument, since the argument concludes in a Maximally Great Being possessing all the superlative attributes you claim cannot be justified.

Finally, it must be made clear that the arguments of natural theology do not aim to demonstrate all of God’s attributes, but rather to raise the possibility or probability that God exists.

Note:

[1] https://es.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer/P30/should-we-check-gods-superlative-attributes Accessed on October 31, 2019.

Jairo Izquierdo is a member of the Social Media team and an author for the Christian organization Cross Examined . He studies philosophy and theology, with his current focus being classical logic, epistemology, Christian doctrines, and philosophy of language. He is co-founder of Filósofo Cristiano . He is a member of the Christian Apologetics Alliance and a worship director at the Christian Baptist church Cristo es la Respuesta in Puebla, Mexico.

December 9, 2019/by Jairo Izquierdo

A Neglected Proof for the Resurrection – The Sign of Jonah

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

When arguing for the resurrection of Jesus, Christian apologists often make a historical case for the empty tomb and the appearances of Jesus that occurred after his death. I’d certainly never say that isn’t a legitimate way to argue, but there’s an additional reason to believe in the resurrection that flies under the radar: Jesus’ resurrection was a fulfillment of Scripture. The New Testament writers are pretty emphatic on this point.

Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead… (Luke 24:45-46)

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures…(1 Corinthians 15:3-4)

Here’s where I’ve always been puzzled — the phrase that the Messiah was to be raised from the dead on the third day according to the Scriptures. What scriptures exactly are Luke and Paul referring to? Many commentators say that the third-day is referencing Hosea 6:2, which reads, “After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.” But from the context, the passage refers to national Israel. It’s a bit of a stretch to turn this into a reference about the Messiah, and none of the NT writers used this verse as a proof text. In fact, it’s not until the early third century do we see this verse applied to Jesus by the church father, Tertullian.

Not your Flannel Graph Version of the Story of Jonah

Some clarity came to me regarding this strange and confusing passage when I read The Case for Jesus by Dr. Brant Pitre. To understand this 3rd-day motif, Pitre says we have to go back to the gospels themselves. What did Jesus say?

Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. (Matthew 12:38-41)

Pitre says that at first blush, this interpretation feels a bit forced, and I have to admit it, I’ve always felt the same way. OK, three days and three nights…there’s a parallel there, but it doesn’t feel all that impressive. No disrespect to Jesus, but Jonah feels like a fictional kid’s story to us; our minds often flash to Veggie Tales movies or children’s books when we think of it. In these kid’s version stories, Jonah is very much alive in the fish’s belly.

And it’s for that reason that even Muslim apologists like Shabir Ally and Zakir Naik will cherry-pick this very text to show that Jesus didn’t really die on the cross, verifying the Qu’ran’s supposed accuracy. (Qu’ran 4:157-158) But here’s where our modern minds and the Muslim apologists get it wrong. If you read the text, Jonah very clearly dies in the belly of the great fish. I completely overlooked this.

Then Jonah prayed to the Lord his God from the stomach of the fish, and he said,

“I called out of my distress to the Lord, And He answered me. I cried for help from the depth of Sheol; You heard my voice. “You had cast me into the deep, Into the heart of the seas, And the current engulfed me. All Your breakers and billows passed over me. “So I said, ‘I have been expelled from Your sight. Nevertheless, I will look again toward Your holy temple.’ “Water encompassed me to the point of death. The great deep engulfed me, Weeds were wrapped around my head. “I descended to the roots of the mountains. The earth with its bars was around me forever, But You have brought up my life from the pit, O Lord my God. “While I was fainting away, I remembered the Lord, And my prayer came to You, Into Your holy temple. “Those who regard vain idols Forsake their faithfulness, But I will sacrifice to You With the voice of thanksgiving. That which I have vowed I will pay. Salvation is from the Lord.”

Then the Lord commanded the fish, and it vomited Jonah up onto the dry land. Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah the second time, saying, “Arise, go to Nineveh…” (Jonah 2:1-3:2)

The Sign of Jonah – Jonah Was Raised from the Dead

Pitre gives three arguments to support the miraculous death and resurrection of Jonah.

First, the phrases belly of Sheol and the Pit are Old Testament terms that refer to the realm of the dead. (See Job 7:9, 33:18, Psalm 40:2, 49:14-15, 89:48)

Secondly, the Hebrew says that his soul or nephesh fainted, meaning he took his last breath like a dying man.

Lastly, when God says to, Jonah “arise” this is the Hebrew word קוּם. This is the same word Jesus used when he raised Jairus’ daughter from the dead. Mark 5:41 reads Taking the child by the hand, He *said to her, “Talitha kum!” (which translated means, “Little girl, I say to you, get up!”)

Woah. So now the Jonah parallel makes a lot more sense! But wait, there’s a whole lot more going on here! In the Jewish reader’s mind, hearing about someone being raised from the dead would be interesting but not mind-blowingly significant. After all, the widow of Zarephath’s son, Shunammite woman’s son, and an Israelite man who came in contact with Elisha’s bones were all raised from the dead. There’s no major religious significance tied with these events, other than they show Elijah and Elisha were powerful prophets.

Pitre argues that there was an even greater miracle that happened with Jonah — Nineveh actually repented! Now, if you know anything about Old Testament history, Nineveh was no friend of Israel. The historical Nineveh was the capital of the Assyrian empire in the late seventh century BC. There was no love lost between the ancient Israelites and Nineveh. The city’s king, Sennacherib, laid siege to Jerusalem in 701 BC (2 Kings 18:13-19:37). Nahum, the prophet, practically rejoices over Nineveh’s destruction by the Babylonians in 612. He says Nineveh is a “city of bloodshed.” (Nah 3:1)

It’s for these reasons Jonah ran the other direction. Jonah, like many Jews of the time, hated Nineveh.

The Sign of Jonah – The Gentiles Repent and Worship the God of Israel

So when Jesus says to the Pharisees that they only sign they would see is the sign of Jonah, he’s not only saying that he’d rise from the dead, but also that the resurrection would turn the pagan Gentiles to the God of Israel. But instead of just one pagan nation turning, much of the Gentile world would turn to God.

If you know about the history of Christian apologetics, the success of the church was what Christian thinkers from Augustine to Aquinas would point to as proof of the truth of the gospel. Says Pitre:

“Over and over again, whenever the early church fathers wanted to make the case for the messiahship, divinity, and resurrection of Jesus, they did not (as a rule) point to the evidence for the empty tomb, or the reliability of the eyewitnesses. They did not get into arguments about the historical probability and evidence and such. Instead, they simply pointed to the pagan world around them that was crumbling to the ground as Gentile nations that had worshiped idols and gods and goddesses for millennia somehow inexplicably repented, turned, and began worshiping the God of the Jews.”

This tiny band of vagabond fishermen turned the world upside down, and their effect was seen generations later until now. Christianity has spread all over Europe, North Africa, and Western Asia in the first-century and is more recently rapidly spreading all over Africa, South America, and even in Communist China. And of course, Christianity is prevalent in North America and in parts of Europe today. Billions of non-Jews from all nations have repented and worshiped the God of Israel over the past two millennia. The fourth-century church historian Eusebius’ words are still apt today:

“Behold how today, yes in our own times, our eyes see not only Egyptians, but every race of men who used to be idolaters, whom the prophet meant when he said “Egyptians,” released from the errors of polytheism and the daemons, and calling on the God of the prophets!…

Yes, in our own time, the knowledge of the Omnipotent God shines forth and sets a seal of certainty on the forecasts of the prophets. You see this actually going on, you no longer only expect to hear of it, and if you ask the moment when the change began, for all your inquiry, you will receive no other answer but the moment of the appearance of the Saviour.

For He it was, of Whom the prophet spoke, when he said that the Supreme God and Lord would send a man to the Egyptians, to save them, as also the Mosaic oracles taught in these words: “A man shall come forth from his seed, and shall rule over many nations”; among which nations the Egyptians would certainly be numbered. But a great deal could be said on these points, and with sufficient leisure, one could deal with them more exhaustively. Suffice it to say now, that we must hold to the truth, that the prophecies have only been fulfilled after the coming of Jesus our Saviour.

… And who would not be struck by the extraordinary change—that men who for ages have paid divine honour to wood and stone and demons, wild beasts that feed on human flesh, poisonous reptiles, animals of every kind, repulsive monsters, fire and earth, and the lifeless elements of the universe should after our Saviour’s coming pray to the Most High God, Creator of Heaven and earth, the actual Lord of the prophets, and the God of Abraham and his forefathers?” (Proof of the Gospel, 1.6.20-21)

The Old Testament prophets said that one day, the pagan nations would worship the God of Abraham. This was a fulfillment of many passages of Scripture foretold centuries before. Just check out Genesis 12:3, Isaiah 2:1-3, Isaiah 25:6-8, Isaiah 66:18-21, Jeremiah 3:15-18, Micah 4:1-2, Zechariah 8:20-23 and Amos 9:11-12. Only now in hindsight can we see this obvious fulfillment. That this prophesied change perfectly coincides with the life, death, and resurrection appearances of Jesus piles on a powerful additional proof on top of our modern-day historical resurrection argument. We’d do well to not neglect it.

Why did Evangelicals Vote for Trump?

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

Frank attended two meetings with candidate Donald Trump in the weeks leading up to the 2016 election. The first meeting in Trump Tower is the subject of the new article in RollingStone Magazine in which Frank is quoted twice. This podcast is Frank’s response to that article, particularly the article’s audacious assertion that Donald Trump is a standard-bearer for American Christians. Frank highlights what the article gets wrong, what the media, in general, gets wrong about evangelical Christianity, and then offers five reasons why most evangelical Christians voted for Donald Trump. Regardless of what you think about Trump, Christianity or politics, this show will help you have better conversations with people as we enter an election year.

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

Transcript

December 7, 2019/by Guest

One Woman’s Quest for Straight Answers from Public Health Organizations

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Terrell Clemmons

After three years’ research on traumatic brain injuries he’d seen in prematurely deceased football players, Dr. Bennet Omalu wrote a paper in 2005 detailing his findings on the syndrome he named Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE). He was hopeful that NFL doctors would build on his discovery for the well-being of NFL athletes. But instead of welcoming his data, an NFL medical committee called for it to be retracted. A thoroughgoing medical scientist, Omalu would do no such thing, and it took a full four more years of increasing pressure before the NFL publicly acknowledged the link between concussions sustained on the field and CTE.

A similar kind of David versus Goliath challenge may be developing between investigative journalist Punam Kumar Gill and the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). A Canadian citizen of Indian descent and a lifelong pro-choice feminist, Gill became troubled after hearing questions raised about potential long-term risks of induced abortion. An honest investigator, she was quick to notice two things: (1) Although the questions did not concern the legality of abortion, because they were associated with abortion, few people seemed willing to listen, let alone talk about them. And (2) she herself might be guilty of allowing bias to blind her to a valid women’s issue where one might lie.

The dual discovery set her mind to thinking: What if there really were critical health risks to abortion? What were women actually being told before having one? And how were they doing afterwards? These were serious health care concerns, in some cases, matters of life and death. Shouldn’t they be discussed openly, rather than being dismissed as pro-life propaganda?

An Unlikely Team & A Balanced Report

She thought they should be, as did pro-life filmmaker Joses Martin of Mighty Motion Pictures. And so, although they came down on opposite sides of the pro-choice/pro-life divide, Gill and Martin teamed up to search out the truth about these questions for the sake of women everywhere. Their investigation is chronicled in the excellently produced documentary Hush: A Liberating Conversation About Abortion and Women’s Health. Here’s an overview.

Abortion & Breast Cancer

Gill interviewed several medical doctors. Is there evidence of a link between abortion and breast cancer? She asked. Yes, said Dr. Ian Gentles, coauthor of Complications: Abortion’s Impact on Women (2013); there have been “many dozens of studies [that] show a real, statistically significant link.” Yes, said Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, a breast cancer surgeon who has seen it in a textbook and in her practice. No, said Dr. David Grimes, an ob-gyn and abortionist for more than four decades, “there are no long-term consequences from abortion.” This issue is settled, he said. Doing continued studies would not only be inappropriate but unethical.

Thus, right off the bat, Gill and Martin encountered the deep divide between medical professionals. But Grimes had underscored his point by adding that his opinion was the same as that of all the major medical organizations. This did seem to add credibility to the “no consequences” side, so that’s where they went next.

One after another, Gill contacted them: The American Cancer Society. The Canadian Cancer Society. The National Cancer Institute. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in London. The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. And finally, the World Health Organization. But to her surprise, not only would none of them consent to an interview, they would not even speak to her. Not one. The case was closed, they all said. Anything she needed to know could be found on their website. It was as if they were all working off the same script.

With no other option, and now starting to feel suspicious of those denying any link, Gill went to their websites. Each one referred to a 2003 conference held by the NIH cancer division, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), where it had been concluded once and for all that there was no link between abortion and breast cancer. Upon this discovery, she tried again to speak with someone at the NCI, going so far as to visit in person. But when she arrived, she was swiftly escorted off the grounds by security. What was going on here?

A thoroughgoing journalist, Gill was not one to be intimidated into silence. She continued to dig and question until, eventually, she located a recording of the 2003 conference online and got to the bottom of the “no abortion-breast cancer link” conclusion. She explains her findings in some detail in the film but suffice it here to say that a careful look raises serious questions about who or what dictated the outcome of this seminal conference. Was it honest medical science? Or was it abortion politics?

Abortion & Pre-term Birth

Pre-term birth rates have doubled in the U.S. since Roe. Every year, more than 11,000 newborns die on the day of their birth in America due to prematurity, and those that survive exact untold emotional and financial costs on health care resources and families before ever leaving the hospital. After discharge, they face heightened risks of such lifelong disabilities as cerebral palsy, autism, chronic lung disease, and other vital organ maladies.

“It seems there’s a real clear unwillingness to deal with the science on this,” said Dr. Martin McCaffrey, a neonatologist who has frontline experience in caring for preemies and their families. He was invited in 2008 to serve as an expert panel member at the Surgeon General’s Conference on Preventing Preterm Birth, held by the NIH. He brought up the abortion-prematurity link and presented 122 articles as supportive evidence, but the co-chairs would not allow discussion, even though the link has been demonstrated in more than 80 studies. McCaffrey estimates that abortion accounts for 18 percent of very preterm births (earlier than 32 weeks’ gestation), yet in all the material published to raise awareness of prematurity, there is no mention of prior abortion as a possible risk factor. None. The question is, why not?

Abortion & Adverse Psychological Effects

This has been covered in Salvo before. Gill cites the alarmingly high rates of such maladies as PTSD, eating disorders, depression, substance abuse, and suicide in post-abortive women, but the most moving evidence of post-abortion trauma comes from the post-abortive women she interviews, many of whom suffer heart-wrenching grief and regret decades later.

Shouldn’t women considering abortion be provided with this information? Gill asks. No, insists Dr. Grimes, the abortionist. That would be “a very overt attempt to dissuade or discourage women from exercising their right to have an abortion.” Apparently this is what passes in his world for medical ethics.

The Moral Imperative of Informed Consent

For people of conscience, though, informed consent matters, and women considering abortion deserve factual information. Since neither the abortion industry nor the bureaus of medical apparatchiks will so much as countenance the data, Gill and Martin have brought it to the public themselves. Meanwhile, they continue to press the NIH and NCI to address the questions Hush raises, but so far, they have received no response beyond the same scripted suggestions to visit the NCI website, which in turn still cites the 2003 conference.

Hush is top-notch work. In many ways, you, the viewer, feel like you’re along on their quest. And where appropriate, well-crafted graphics depict the medical explanations, making the breast cancer and pre-term birth connections understandable.

“Over time,” said Dr. Patrick Fagan, who coauthored a 2014 paper on the abortion-breast cancer link, “the 2003 NCI conference is going to become an embarrassment in the history of the NCI itself.” Indeed, it may. It took Dr. Omalu four years to awaken the conscience of the NFL. The consciences of the NIH and NCI have already been slumbering for over thirteen years. One can hope that Hush will, paradoxically, finally wake them up.

45 Quotes About Relativism vs. Truth

1. Does Truth Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

“When it comes to truth, the outcome affects not only individuals but nations and even civilizations. What starts looking like a small abstract issue ends with titanic, public consequences for all who love freedom and justice.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“Although someone’s beliefs and assumptions may not be true and do not describe reality, they will still drive their behavior. So if someone doesn’t believe in truth, count on him to lie. If someone says there are no objective facts, expect her to be careless with facts to further her own interests. If someone explains everything by referring to evolution and the ‘selfish gene,’ be sure that at some point, he will be extremely selfish on behalf of the fitness of his own survival.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“Our challenge today is not to lament, protest, or simply talk about the crisis of truth in one of a hundred ways. Rather, it is to do something about it by becoming people of truth and learning to live free.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“Far from being a naive and reactionary notion, truth is one of the simplest, most precious gifts without which we would not be able to handle reality or negotiate life.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“When nothing can be judged except judgment itself– ‘judgmentalism’–the barriers between the unthinkable, acceptable, and doable collapse entirely. And then, since life goes on and the sky doesn’t fall, people draw the conclusion that the original concern was unfounded. Lighten up, the newly amoral say as they skip forward blithely, complicit in their own corruption.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“If truth is truth, then differences make a difference — not just between truth and lies but between intimacy and alienation in relationships, between harmony and conflict in neighborhoods, between efficiency and incompetence in business, between reliability and fraud in science and journalism, between trust and suspicion in leadership, between freedom and tyranny in government, and even between life and death.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“While we all may have a sense of what is evil and what is good under the philosophy of cultural tolerance, evil and good can only be relative ideals. Without an objective truth—a set of universal moral values—good and evil are defined by the individual, community, or society. Therefore we have no moral basis by which to judge another person, community, or nation for what they do or don’t do.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance
“Right up to the end of the nineteenth century, the most important course in an American student’s college career was moral philosophy, or what we today call ethics.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“Much of today’s focus is on ‘prevention ethics’ rather than on principled ethics. It is more concerned with ‘not being caught’ (or sued or exposed in the press) than with doing right.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“What is seen as important are issues related to corporations, schools, courts, governments, and the treatment of the environment– not the individual’s virtue and responsibility that underlie these secondary issues.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“The current ethics is often taught with a shallow view of human nature and an even more superficial view of evil in human society.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“The emphasis now is on surface, not depth; on possibilities, not equalities; on glamour, not convictions; on what can be altered endlessly; not achieved for good; and on what can be bought and won, not gained by education and formation.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“The present preoccupation with ethics in elite intellectual centers has an element of absurdity because they have no moral content left to teach. The fruit of the Western universities in the last two hundred years has been to destroy the possibility of any moral knowledge on which to pursue moral formation.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“If truth is contingent upon the society in which we live…there is nothing intuitive or universally or absolutely true about freedom from torture or freedom from slavery; our society just happens to have come up with these values over time.” Stephen McAndrew, Why It Doesn’t Matter What YOU Believe If It’s Not True

“If moral truths do not exist as a foundation for law, then the law itself becomes merely a system of raw political power accountable to no one.” Scott Klusendorf, The Case for Life

“Just as iron filings are drawn to the strongest magnet, so minds weakened by a loss of truth are drawn to the most powerful positions.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“What happens when we succeed in cutting away truth-claims to expose the web of power games only to find we have less power than the players we face? If truth is dead, right and wrong are neither, and all that remains is the will to power, then the conclusion is simple: Might makes right. Logic is only a power conspiracy. Victory goes to the strong, and the weak go to the wall.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“Just as the Greeks entered Troy concealed in the hollow wooden statue of a horse, so post-modernism is providing the cover for all sorts of ideas and practices to enter American life–ideas that on their own would have difficulty gaining entrance.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“Short of total isolation, the American society you live in today is going to influence how your children make moral choices in one way or another. Stop and think about it. What are the voices of society telling your children about the choices they are about to make? What is the central theme that today’s culture emphasizes over and over again? If you were to reduce it to a single sentence, it might look like this: You have the right to choose for yourself what is right for you and what is wrong for you–and no one should judge that choice.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“When nothing can be judged except judgment itself— ‘judgmentalism’—the barriers between the unthinkable, acceptable, and doable collapse entirely.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“If everything is endlessly open to question and change, then everything is permitted, nothing is forbidden, and literally nothing is unthinkable.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“Applying to the skeptics the skepticism they apply to others [pushes] them out toward the negative consequences of their own beliefs.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“While all beliefs appear consistent to those who believe them, they always have one of two problems. They are either constricting or contradictory. In the first case, the beliefs are more consistent but are incomplete in the sense that they are too small for the fullness of life…And in the second case, the beliefs are more comprehensive but are inconsistent—which in the worst cases makes them self-refuting- a problem Chesterton calls ‘the suicide of thought.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“Inevitably, moral choices based on our own moral compass will often be wrong choices. And wrong moral choices can result in consequences ranging from minor disappointments to major disasters emotionally, relationally, physically, and spiritually.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“Truth is true even if nobody believes it, and falsehood is false even if everybody believes it.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“It is that truth, like meaning as a whole, is not for to us to create but for us to discover. Each of us may be small, our lives short, and our influence puny. But if truth is there—objective, absolute, independent of minds that know it— then we may count on it.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“In order to discover truth it is necessary to coldly dissect and examine all of our prejudices and inherent biases to ensure we receive unbiased answers. This takes effort. It is always easier to simply accept the ideas presented to us than to question the status quo.” Stephen McAndrew, Why It Doesn’t Matter What YOU Believe If It’s Not True

“While we all may have a sense of what is evil and what is good under the philosophy of cultural tolerance, evil and good can only be relative ideals. Without an objective truth—a set of universal moral values—good and evil are defined by the individual, community, or society. Therefore we have no moral basis by which to judge another person, community, or nation for what they do or don’t do.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance
“We are all entitled to our own beliefs, but this doesn’t mean each of us has our own truths. Our beliefs describe the way we think the world is. Truth describes the objective state of the world, regardless of how we take it to be. Beliefs can be relative, but truth cannot. So when we consider the nature of truth—that it is an objective description of reality—it makes no sense to say that something is true for you and not for me.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“Without truth, a belief may be only speculation plus sincerity.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“While we all may have a sense of what is evil and what is good under the philosophy of cultural tolerance, evil and good can only be relative ideals. Without an objective truth—a set of universal moral values—good and evil are defined by the individual, community, or society. Therefore we have no moral basis by which to judge another person, community, or nation for what they do or don’t do.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“It is often said that to have a fulfilling life, three essentials are required: a clear sense of personal identity, a deep sense of faith and meaning, and a strong sense of purpose and mission.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“For those who find themselves without faith in God and who conclude that the world they desire does not fit with the world they discover, life is fundamentally deaf to their aspirations.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“For all the fragile precariousness of our human existence on our tiny earth in the vastness of space, we may throw the whole weight of our existence on God, including our truth-seeking desires, because he is wholly true.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“Those who put their faith in God do so for all sorts of good reasons, but the very best reason is that they are finally, utterly, and incontrovertibly convinced that the faith which they put their confidence in is true.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“All truth is God’s truth and is true everywhere, for everyone, under all conditions. Truth is true in the sense that it is objective and independent of the mind of any human knower. Being true, it cannot contradict itself.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“The beauty of intolerance is its opposition to wrong and evil in the world—in alignment with God’s righteous and perfect standard of justice, equality, human rights, and caring for others. Intolerance of evil is not mean-spirited and condemnatory; it is actually the only way to be loving and caring.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“What is more beautiful than God’s intolerance expressed in his moral outrage toward the tragedies of poverty, racism, sexual abuse, slavery, AIDS, bigotry, and other such evils?” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“Human beings are truth-seekers by nature, and truth persuades by the forces of its own reality.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“It is impossible to experience love without being truthful, and it is impossible to discover truth without loving it.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“Truth is our best friend, and it is an inseparable part of what real love is. While cultural tolerance may disguise itself as caring, understanding, and loving, it lacks the moral authority of an authentic love that looks out for the best interest of others. That is another quality of authentic, real love—it is always other-focused.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“As human beings, we are by nature truth-seekers; as fallen human beings, we are also by nature truth-twisters. And a proper account of truth in the human project must do justice to both.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin
“Conforming our desires to the truth is harder in the short term but easier in the long. We give up our need for control and submit to truth outside us, which, if we were wrong about truth before, requires repentance rather than rationalization. We have to face up to reality rather than trying to fit reality into our schemes. But the long-term outcome is freedom because…truth is freedom and we are engaging with reality at it truly is.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

“What distinguishes God’s unconditional acceptance from that of our culture is authentic love. His love is intended to make the security, happiness, and welfare of another as important as his own. It is other-focused, not performance-focused. God knows the real truth about us—that we were created in his image—and that truth allows him to separate the person from performance. God unconditionally values us for who we are without always approving of what we do because he separates the value of the person from the acts of the person.” Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance

“The Christian faith is not true because it works; it works because it is true. It is not true because we experience it; we experience it—deeply and gloriously—because it is true. It is not simply ‘true for us’; it is true for any who seek in order to find.” Os Guinness, Time For Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

New Tactics with Greg Koukl

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

There are many places you can learn evidence for Christianity. There are very few places you can learn easy ways to share that evidence. Greg Koukl’s classic book Tactics is simply the best place to go to learn how to share the hope you have within you. Now, ten years after the first edition, Greg has rewritten, updated and expanded Tactics, and it just became available this week. Join Frank as he interviews Greg and they reveal some of the new Tactics that will help you move people closer to Christ in a way that takes all the pressure off of you.

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

December 2, 2019/by Guest

Un caso contra el teísmo (Parte 2)

Español

In this article I will address the second of four objections that were presented to us a few months ago. You can find the first part here .

Randy claims that

Any empirical argument ( kalam , fine-tuning, design) is not evidence for God, since it would also apply as evidence for a property we have not discovered yet (naturalistic pantheism, magic, Goblin-Creates-Universes, etc.). If something is evidence for God, but is also evidence for naturalistic pantheism or magic, it cannot be evidence for either, here’s the reason: imagine a box and you say there is a rabbit in the box, and the reason for concluding that there is a rabbit in the box is that the box weighs 2 pounds, but that cannot be evidence for a rabbit because it could also be a snake or any 2-pound animal or object. By this analogy, we see that the evidence that applies to the things I mentioned above works the same as it does for God, [therefore,] they are not evidence for God. For example, the kalam , accepting it completely (which I don’t usually do because it’s wrong, but oh well) concludes that the universe has a cause, this can be a law that we have not discovered yet, magic, naturalistic pantheism or God, any of those explains it perfectly. If you argue that you use Occam’s Razor to stay with the simplest of all, the simplest would be a law that we have not discovered yet followed by naturalistic pantheism and then God.

Let us first look at a formulation of the kalam :

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

1.1 Confirmed by experience.

1.2 It is a metaphysical principle that nothing can come from nothing.

1.3 If something can really come into existence without a cause, why don’t we see this happening in reality?

2. The universe began to exist.

2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of a current infinity:

2.1.1 An actual infinity cannot exist.

2.1.2 An infinite time regression of events is a current infinity.

2.1.3 Therefore, an infinite temporal regression of events cannot exist.

2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of forming an actual infinite by successive addition:

2.2.1 A collection formed by successive additions cannot actually be infinite.

2.2.2 The time series of past events is a collection formed by successive additions.

2.2.3 Therefore, the time series of past events cannot currently be infinite.

2.3 Confirmation based on the expansion of the universe.

2.4 Confirmation based on the thermodynamic properties of the universe.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for its beginning into existence.

4. If the universe has a cause of its existence, then there exists an uncaused personal Creator of the universe who, without creation, is unprincipled, immutable, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.

4.1 Argument that the cause of the universe is a personal Creator:

4.1.1 The universe was created by a set of necessary and sufficient conditions of mechanical functioning or by a personal free agent.

4.1.2 The universe could not have been created by a mechanical set of necessary and sufficient conditions.

4.1.3 Therefore, the universe was created by a personal free agent.

4.2 Argument that the Creator without creation is uncaused, unbeginning, immutable, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.

4.2.1 The Creator is uncaused.

4.2.1.1 There cannot be an infinite temporal regression of causes (2.1.3, 2.2.3).

4.2.2 The Creator is unprincipled.

4.2.2.1 Anything that is not caused does not begin to exist. (1)

4.2.3 The Creator is immutable.

4.2.3.1 There cannot be an infinite temporal regression of changes. (2.1.3, 2.2.3)

4.2.4 The Creator is immaterial.

4.2.4.1 Whatever is material implies a change at the atomic and molecular levels, but the Creator does not change. (4.2.3)

4.2.5 The Creator is timeless.

4.2.5.1 In the total absence of change, time does not exist, and the Creator does not change. (4.2.3)

4.2.6 The Creator is spaceless.

4.2.6.1 Whatever is immaterial and timeless cannot be spatial, and the Creator is immaterial and timeless (4.2.4, 4.2.5)

4.2.7 The Creator is enormously powerful.

4.2.7.1 He created the universe out of nothing. (3)

5. Therefore, there is a personal, uncaused Creator of the universe, who without creation is unprincipled, immutable, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.

With this argument in hand, we can now respond to each of the objections presented.

(1) Any empirical argument ( kalam , fine-tuning, design) is not evidence for God, since it would also apply as evidence for a property that we have not yet discovered […] the kalam , accepting it completely […] it is concluded that the universe has a cause, this can be a law that we have not yet discovered, magic, naturalistic pantheism, [Goblins-Create-universes] or God, any of those explains it perfectly.

As can be seen from premise (4) of kalam, the cause of the universe must have, at a minimum, the following characteristics:

a. Immateriality

b. Incausality

c. Spatiality

d. Timelessness

e. Imprincipiality

f. Eternity

g. Immutability

h. Will

i. Enormous power

Randy mentions that kalam points to an unknown property, but there is at least one problem with this proposal: a property could only satisfy characteristics a – g , but not h or i , because its very nature as an abstract object makes it causally impotent, as Craig always puts it: “The number 7 causes nothing.”

What about naturalistic pantheism? Roughly defined, it is the position that God is the sum of all natural phenomena unified, but if this is true, then by definition natural phenomena cannot meet any of the characteristics (maybe i , if we are being kind).

What about magic? The problem with this is that we have good references to the fantastic origins of magic, not to mention that contemporary magic is nothing but tricks and skills to deceive the spectator. But even if we concede that the existence of magic is possible (in the broad logical sense), the problem with this “cause” is that it has different definitions depending on the place of origin (there are both natural and non-natural magics), but in most of them, a magician is always required to use it. Probably Randy, taking advantage of how difficult it is to define magic, would be tempted to say that there could be a magic that not only meets the characteristics a–g , but also h and i , but this would be the same case that occurred in the Craig–Woolper debate, in which the atheist begins to say a string of incoherencies, such as that the cause of the universe is a Supercomputer that meets a–i , to which Craig simply points out that, by definition, that would no longer be a computer, but God himself. [1]

Let’s go with Universe-Creating Goblins. By definition, a goblin is humanoid in shape, but about the size of a small child. A description of a material being, so goblins don’t fit the a–g criteria , but they do fit the h and i criteria . Of course, Randy, you can pull the Woolper tactic and say, “Oh, but these are Super Goblins!” But we’ve already seen what the problem with that is, and it honestly has no seriousness whatsoever.

Finally, that the cause of the universe is a law that has not yet been discovered. Dr. John Lennox has a perfect answer to the claim that mathematics or natural laws are causes:

What is the nature of a law? Do laws create things? No, of course not. […] I’m a mathematician and it’s honestly the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard [that mathematics created the universe]. […] I mean, 1 + 1 = 2, right? Has that ever put two euros in your pocket? […] But mathematics doesn’t create anything. It’s just descriptions.

Newton’s laws of motion will describe the motion of billiard balls, at least in part, but they do not make the balls move – for that you need someone with a billiard stick. And here we have another big confusion: that the laws of nature are causes, but they are not! They are just descriptions of what there is. So the law of gravity is meaningless if gravity is not present. [2]

So it is clear that appealing to some unknown law does not solve the problem. Now let’s move on to the next thing:

(2) Imagine a box and you say that there is a rabbit in the box, and that the reason for concluding that there is a rabbit in the box is that the box weighs 2 pounds, but that cannot be evidence of a rabbit because it could also be a snake or any 2-pound animal or object.

But Randy, this analogy is too weak. A stronger analogy of God as the cause of the origin of the universe from premise (4) would be something like this: Imagine someone shows you a box about 12 inches long x 12 inches wide and tells you to guess what’s inside it. You take the box, weigh it, and find that it weighs 2 pounds; then you notice something moving around inside the box, the movements are random, so you rule out a toy, at which point you know it’s an animal. Then you hear the animal inside start meowing. Bingo! At this point you know that at least the animal inside is a feline, and it can’t be a snake or any other 2-pound animal. Can you tell the difference? So when you get to the cause of the universe, it, just as in the box analogy, must have certain properties given the nature of the case, such as having all the properties ai . The theist here is not making gratuitous claims about the characteristics of the cause of the universe.

(3) By this analogy, we see that the evidences that can be applied to the things I mentioned above function the same as for God, [therefore,] they are not evidence of God.

The problem is that it is a weak analogy fallacy.

(4) If you argue that you use Occam’s Razor to stay with the simplest of all, the simplest would be a law that we have not yet discovered followed by naturalistic pantheism and then God.

There is no need to appeal to Occam’s Razor to choose the best explanation for the cause of the origin of the universe because it has already been shown that all the other possible causes that Randy has postulated do not meet the necessary characteristics.

Grades:

[1] Link: https://youtu.be/LgdkFOg7utY (accessed Nov. 12, 2019).

[2] Link: https://youtu.be/rSlGMXIYKD8 (accessed November 12, 2019).

December 2, 2019/by Jairo Izquierdo

What a Non-Christian Taught Me about the Gospel

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Dr. Dave Oldham

A number of years ago, a young woman came to our church for counseling and talked to me. She poured out her story of disappointment with her husband’s unfaithfulness, his unwillingness to change, and the mess her life had become, not only because of him but also because of her own unwise choices. She felt she was in a hole and wanted to know how to get out and begin afresh. While she was sharing and I looked into her searching eyes, I was asking myself and God how he and the healing he alone could bring might fit into her life. I knew she needed Jesus and the forgiveness and hope he would give, but I struggled with how to tell her she needed him. How did “accepting Jesus as her Savior” fit into the prospects that her past life would not continue to make her its slave? In short, how did the Gospel offer a new light to her path?

As I continued to think about what to say to her—though this was only a brief few minutes in the counseling session—it seemed that immediately inviting her to ask God for his forgiveness wasn’t the solution to her problems. Indeed, as I thought and prayed about what counsel to give her, it didn’t seem like the typical “altar call” invitation to accept Christ would be understood by her because of her lack of background in the Christian faith. She had not come for “religion” but for a solution to her life that she considered a mess.

Yet, I was a pastor and a Christian counselor. The struggle in my mind as I listened to her difficult story forced me to ask some of the hardest questions about my understanding of the gospel and Christianity. I think in those moments, God was doing something in me, something that would radically change my thinking from that time on. It is easy to say, “Jesus is the answer!” but the question that was pulsating in my mind was “How does God—especially, the message of salvation—fit into this young lady’s mess (damage, brokenness) and offer a future and a hope?”

I had been reading a book by Scott McKnight (The Gospel of the Kingdom)[1] in which he was debating where a person ought to begin in explaining the Gospel, the good news about God’s transformation in the lives of his people. He noted that far too often, Christians begin with the account of Jesus’ death as our substitute and the forgiveness that he made possible. But as I sat there with this young lady in my office, my mind said that was not the place to begin to guide her and help her find a new direction, new hope, a new chapter in her life. Then, I remembered McKnight’s words: The Gospel must begin with Adam and Eve’s fall in the garden. The perfect—sinless couple, undamaged, “innocent” as they came from the creative hand of God—became, like all of us, rebels. They freely chose to spurn God’s recipe for living in the paradise in which God had placed them. But from eternity past, God had a plan. He knew that his creatures (then and ever since then) would need a way of restoration, a restoration that was a path of healing for disobedience and the consequent damages. His plan begins with their (and our) acknowledgement that they had gone their own way, that they had chosen a way to live “better” than God’s. This rejection of the Creator’s design was and is a personal affront to God. This the Bible calls “sin.” And such choices have consequences; sometimes as the shipwreck, it makes in our lives, but—beyond that—our rebellion has put us in serious jeopardy with God. Though he loves us, his creatures as no one else does or ever will—he is a God of justice and must punish our sins. Punishment doesn’t sound like love, but here is where the good news begins.[2] He will be our judge, but he also wants to be our benefactor, offering us forgiveness because his beloved Son took on himself our punishment, the consequences of our sin. His forgiveness is a gift he offers for all.

Thus, the beginning of our restoration is seeking, asking for the forgiveness Jesus died to make possible, resting in God’s punishment of his Son for a restored standing with him. But God does something beyond forgiveness. He makes us his children; he adopts into his family, and though we (sadly) will and do disobey again, he has committed himself by his Spirit to take our brokenness and lead us to restoration and healing, a healing that follows the path Jesus taught. Jesus said his teachings were not “new,” but were in the Old Testament Scriptures. What in particular? A scribe asked that very question:

“What is the Greatest Commandment?” His response: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22).

Our mission statement as new children of God is to do these two: to love God with our whole being (to love what he loves; to think how he thinks—which is discovered by reading and reflecting on the Scriptures; to be what he is: “holy,” set apart for God’s use; and to do what Jesus did.), and to love our neighbor as ourselves.

Restoration for this young lady—and for us—(1) begins with a brokenness because she/we have rejected God’s way (even if we did not do it knowingly); (2) progresses with asking God for his forgiveness; and (3) continues by depending on God’s power (the Holy Spirit) to restore her/our life to God’s ideal. The following illustration pictorially summarizes McKnight’s concept:

This is the new way, and it can be best lived in a “new community” with other children of God who are committed to the same mission: God’s mission. Dieter Zander put it well when describing his mission, he said:

This…work…[is] to form communities of people that produce apprentices of Jesus who live in the gospel and communicate and draw others in a matter of course to the way they live…. [Far too often, echoing Dallas Willard] the gospel is informing how we die. Instead, the gospel ought to be about how we live! A lot of church people don’t know the relationship between the gospel of Jesus and how we are to live…. Their belief is that they try to believe in Jesus so that when they die, they get to go to heaven. Populating heaven is the main part of the gospel. Instead, the gospel is about being increasingly alive to God in the world. It is concerned with bringing heaven to earth.

God’s plan, then, is not only for people to find forgiveness (the beginning) but for wholeness and restoration to God’s image. This gives broken people hope. Because of Jesus, they can be forgiven. Because of the Spirit, there can be transformation. And because of the relationship with other children of God, she/they can be inspired to live out their commitment to God before a watching world.

Notes

[1] Two other seminal resources are Dallas Willard’s, The Divine Conspiracy and N. T. Wright’s, Jesus and the Victory of God and The Challenge of Jesus: Discovering Who Jesus Was and Is.

[2] Eddie Gibbs and Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches, 44: “Clearly, the gospel is not restricted to a message giving an individual assurance about eternal destiny. It is minimally that, but it is much more, being concerned as much with life before death as with life after death. When people are reconciled to God through Christ, they become a ‘new creation’ (2 Cor. 5:17). They first experience God’s reconciliation, often in community, which results in a life of radical transformation. The primary reference point is no longer their former alienation but their present and future identification as part of God’s new order, which was inaugurated with the first coming of Christ.”

Did Paul really change his tactics after Athens and begin to take a dim view of apologetics?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

Some Christians have argued that apologetics is a waste of time. We aren’t supposed to be arguing with unbelievers; we’re just called to preach the simple gospel. If we’re faithful to do that, the Holy Spirit will supernaturally come to our aid — either in supernatural conviction, or performing signs and wonders through us that no one can gainsay.

To support this view, these well-meaning believers will point to Paul’s so-called ‘failure’ in Athens. Paul debated with the thinkers of Mars Hill, using natural theology and quoting their own philosophers in order to persuade them of the truth of the gospel. Paul’s results were modest. Acts 17:32-34 reads: “Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, “We will hear you again about this.” So Paul went out from their midst. But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.”

After Athens, Paul moved on to Corinth and switched up his approach, or so the story goes. In 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:5, Paul says that the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing. He quotes Isaiah, who wrote that “God will destroy the wisdom of the wise,” which included the ballyhooed wisdom of the Greeks. God isn’t calling very many of those who are wise by worldly standards.

Paul says that when he came to the Corinthians, he didn’t come to them with lofty speech or wisdom. He decided to know nothing but Jesus and him crucified and came in demonstration of the Holy Spirit and power. In 1 Cor. 4:20, Paul continues this line of thought, saying the kingdom of God doesn’t consist in talk but in power.

So these critics argue that for Paul, using fancy arguments and evidence wasn’t necessary anymore. He learned this the hard way at the Areopagus.

Here’s the thing about this view: While there is some seemingly some biblical evidence that Paul switched things up with the Corinthians, it just isn’t true that Paul didn’t continue to use evidence and arguments in order to persuade people to become Christians. We just have to keep reading.

Did Paul give up on using reason and evidence after Athens?

For starters, let’s see how Luke records Paul’s visit to Corinth. Acts 18:3 says: “And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks.” The Jews later tried to get Paul arrested, saying to the proconsul, “This man is persuading people to worship God contrary to the law.” (v. 13).

Paul clearly was still in the business of trying to persuade people. This pattern continues in the very next chapter when Paul goes to Ephesus. Check out Acts 19:8-10:

“And he entered the synagogue and for three months spoke boldly, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God. But when some became stubborn and continued in unbelief, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them and took the disciples with him, reasoning daily in the hall of Tyrannus. This continued for two years so that all the residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews, and Greeks.”

Paul was reasoning in the synagogues. When the Jews weren’t having it, he moved on and rented out the lecture hall of Tyrannus and was “reasoning daily,” there for two whole years. He did this until everyone in the area heard the gospel. This almost sounds like a daily public Q+A session. As Peter May writes:

“for Paul, a lively exchange of views, in which he presented the gospel. By engaging with [the culture in the cities in Acts], he challenged their assumptions, clarified the issues, stormed their defences, provoked their questions, addressed their doubts, and presented the gospel in a compelling manner. This sort of “inter-faith” dialogue was not merely about finding common ground or seeking mutual understanding. It was far more than that. Paul engaged in dialogue in order to win his hearers to Christ.”

Peter May, What is Apologetics?

Paul still continues this pattern at the end of Acts. Even after having a healing revival of sorts (Acts 28:8-9), he still used arguments and reason to persuade others to become Christians. Acts 28:23, we read: “When they had appointed a day for him, they came to him at his lodging in greater numbers. From morning till evening, he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets.”

Paul’s still using his eyewitness testimony of the resurrection. He’s still using the argument from prophecy.

Paul used apologetics in his letters

We also have what Paul wrote that undercuts this argument of “preach and perform miracles only.” In the very same letter, Paul points to eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus in order to prove the resurrection of the physical body to the Corinthians. 1 Cor. 15:3-8, he cites a creed that lists multiple individuals and groups who had seen the risen Jesus.

He even uses modus tollens in the form of an argument. Quoting the Expositor’s Greek NT Commentary on 1 Cor 15:17-18, “Paul leaves the inference, which observes the strict method of the modus tollens, to the consciousness of his readers (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:20): “We are true witnesses, you are redeemed believers; on both accounts it is certain that Christ has risen,—and therefore that there is a resurrection of the dead”.

Paul deftly uses logic to show them that they’re begging the question when they say there is no resurrection from the dead. For if Christ isn’t raised, then their faith is useless. But Christ has been raised, therefore their faith isn’t futile — they too will one day be raised.

In his second letter to the Corinthians, Paul says, “We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.” (2 Cor 10:5) And writing from prison a decade letter, Paul writes to the Philippians that he is set for the defense of the gospel. (Phil 1:7) The Greek word defense there is apologia, where we get our word apologetics. He is set out to remove false ideas and defend the gospel.

Paul did not give up on apologetics

So the bottom line is that it’s just not true that Paul didn’t value using reason and evidence in proclaiming and defending the gospel. It’s ironic that these pious-sounding critics against apologetics use reason and evidence to defend their own view that apologetics is worthless. They’re making an apologetic against apologetics, which is just sawing off the branch that they’re sitting on. Why not think that God’s Spirit can use preaching, miracles, and arguments? Why limit what God can use?

By pointing to Paul’s alleged paltry results in Athens, they basically are saying reaching Damaris and Dionysus the Areopagite was a waste of time. Jesus doesn’t think that way, the parable of the lost sheep tells us that Jesus will leave the 99 to find the one. Paul said became all things to all men in order that he might save some. (1 Cor. 9:21-23)

¿Por qué no soy Fideísta? Parte III

Español

By Xavier Gonzalez

Part I: Definition and history of Fideism.

Part II: The story of Christians with reasonable faith.

Promoters of Reasonable Faith

As we saw earlier, the first Christians were not fideists, and that is in total contradiction with the fideists and certain atheists who claim that faith is blind and irrational, and that there is a contradiction between faith and reason, but would those Christians who have some academic specialization say the same? Did those who tried to find out where their faith is based think the same, as did the apologists of the second century? Or did they have (and do they have) good reasons to think that the Christian faith is really a reasonable faith?

We will quote certain statements from different academics who follow this line of thought:

Faith is indeed the response to evidence, not a celebration of the absence of evidence.

—John Lennox

Reason is the left hand of our soul, faith is the right.

—John Donne

Reason and faith are two banks of the same river.

—Domenico Cieri Estrada

Real Faith is Not Blind, It is Based on Evidence.

—Rice Brooks

The Christian Faith requires its members to know their beliefs for themselves. Being a Christian means feeling responsible for one’s own beliefs and living them in a conscious and intelligent way.

—Alfonso Ropero

In Scripture, faith involves putting our trust in what we have reason to believe. Faith is not a blind, irrational leap into the darkness. In a biblical perspective, faith and reason cooperate with each other. They are not inherently hostile.

—JP Moreland

Thus, faith and thought go hand in hand, and it is impossible to believe without thinking. BELIEVING IS ALSO THINKING!

—John Stott

The Christian faith is, in its essence, the act of thinking.

—John Stott

The Bible never states that we should take a leap in the dark. Faith is not blind, in the sense of being arbitrary, eccentric, or a mere expression of human wish. If so, why does the author of Hebrews say that faith is the “conviction of things not seen”?

—RC Sproul

Few are those who leave their intellectual comfort to satisfy these uncertainties, but those who set out in search of evidence will not be disappointed, because the Christian faith is not a blind faith, but a faith in facts, facts that can be subjected to the judgment of reason.

—Claudio Garrido

My faith is Reasonable, Christianity is reasonable and based on History.

—Chris Du Pond

If a rational God has created us as rational beings with the loving intention of having communion with him, then we must confidently expect to come to know something of his existence and nature.

—Thomas V. Morris

Christian belief is justified in the same way that belief in atomic theory is justified: through good arguments and evidence.

—Cameron Bertuzzi

Faith does not show us God rationally, but it shows him to us reasonably.

—Francisco Lacueva

Everyone who believes, thinks. Because faith, if what is believed is not thought, is null.

—Augustine of Hippo

Faith in Christianity is based on evidence. It is reasonable faith. Faith, in the Christian sense, goes beyond what is reasonable, but it does not go against reason.

—Paul Little

Our trust in Christ is not based on blind emotion, but on the intellectual evaluation of the evidence that has convinced us of the truth of Christianity and given rise to a reasonable faith.

—Tricia Scribner

To renounce reason is to renounce religion; reason and religion walk hand in hand, every irrational religion is a false religion.

—John Wesley

It is not that we are trying to trick the opinion of fideists or atheists with a long list, these are simply a few to name and that also goes for fideists and atheists, phrases that would perhaps be capable of knocking anyone’s face down.

Now, the promoters of reasonable faith really think that there is a balance or compatibility between what is faith and reason, so for my brothers in Christ who have a Fideistic thought I say: Study!

Question your beliefs if necessary, but always looking for answers and justification of those beliefs if they are true or not. Do not stay like vagabonds in a box without seeking answers or help like a child who no longer goes out to the playground for fear of getting hurt, the only advice I give you is from the Apostle Paul himself: “But test everything; hold on to what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.” (1 Thess 5:21-22) and “Brothers, do not be children in your thinking, but be children in malice, but be mature in your thinking.” (1 Cor 14:20).

And for the not-so-friendly atheists (this can also include agnostics) who still accuse Christians of being brainless, if you are going to question the Christian faith… I appreciate it! This encourages committed Christians to study the faith further and seek better answers.

But to be frank, if they are going to be skeptical even of the evidence that one puts on the table and do not deign to carefully analyze what is presented, then it can be said that skeptics of this style have a rather naive and superstitious Faith , what I mean is, questioning everything without having good reasons for why to sustain such skepticism, that does not indicate that atheism is a reasonably and intellectually satisfactory position, it is only intellectual, rational laziness and even a comfortable way to take refuge in one’s own worldview, as intellectually lazy Christians also do.

Reasonable Faith (Biblically)

We may have described a bit of history and respectable promoters of a rational faith, but to finish this writing, we must go to the Bible, since atheists as fideists try to justify the irrationality of Christianity and what better way than using the very same sacred book that Christians use or believe respectively.

Let’s just see, are atheists right in saying that the Bible allows for blind faith? Do John 20:29, 2 Corinthians 5:7 and Hebrews 11:1 really assert that Christian faith is blind? We will analyze these and other quotes with great care and detail.

In this part of the writing we will first analyze the verses that assert that “faith” itself (or that it seems) is blind, we will use the classic Reina Valera of 60 :

John 20:29

Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen me, have you believed? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

2 Corinthians 5:7

(because we live by faith, not by sight)

Hebrews 11:1

And faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Before we go into depth about the verses themselves, let’s first see what the word “Faith” really means in Greek, this word in its original translation is pronounced πιστός (pistos or pistis) this word in the Greek sense is used in 2 ways, which are active and passive, in the active mode it means that it is confident and in the passive mode it means that it is faithful, so this word in Greek is not synonymous with blindness but with trust or fidelity, the term first of all is firm persuasion, conviction based on what is heard, to give an example, it is like the doctor who diagnoses the patient, the doctor tells his patient the disease he has and the cure for that disease, and the only option the patient has is to trust the word of his doctor or not, hence the trust in someone. This is where the apologists base themselves on 1 Peter 3 15, to make a reasoned defense .

Now that it is clear what “Faith” really is, let us analyze the verses:

First to get a clarification of why Jesus said that, let’s go to the previous verses, John 20:24-29

24 But Thomas, one of the Twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus appeared.

25 Therefore the other disciples said to him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will never believe.”

26 And after eight days his disciples were again within, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you .

27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands, and put your hand here and put it into my side; and do not be unbelieving but believing.”

28 Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen me, have you believed? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Before let’s see certain conditions that happen here, first when Jesus appeared to the other disciples Thomas was not with them, then it happens that when the disciples met again with Thomas, he did not believe them, but wait a moment, how many people were there when Jesus appeared to them resurrected bodily before meeting with Thomas? Well, in Luke 24:13 it gives us 2 testimonies that they saw Jesus and the other appearance that the disciples had was in John 20:19, the verse does not tell us how many people were gathered, but here I would speculate that it was with almost all the disciples, because if they hid for fear of the Jews, I imagine that they agreed to have a hiding place so that the Jews would not catch them, although it was the right place and time for Jesus to appear to them. Now let’s see, whether it was the course of days or the week in which Jesus appeared to them (except for Thomas, of course), Thomas still had good justifiable evidence to believe, and it was the testimony of the other disciples, although Jesus always appeared to Thomas, we see 2 particular things, (1) that the faith that Jesus demanded from the apostles did not end up being a blind faith and (2) that that faith does have good justification for its evidence, but our question here is why did Jesus say that? And our answer is that:

The beatitude Jesus pronounced is not comparative in itself, that is, he does not say that “more” blessed are those who believe without seeing, although this might be implied. He accepted and approved Thomas’ faith by sight as true, but he omits to say that he is blessed. Thomas had the opportunity to believe in the resurrection based on the testimony of his companions, without visual evidence, and he did not take advantage of it. Jesus was apparently looking ahead to when his future disciples would have to believe without being able to see and he steps forward to pronounce a blessing on them. Culpepper observes that throughout the Gospel, John has discussed the relationship between seeing and believing, presenting a series of signs, but encouraging readers to a faith that is not based on signs.

So, in simple words, even if Jesus does not appear to us bodily resurrected every day, it is not a plus that our belief is not really well justified.

Now let’s move on to the next verse, which is 2 Corinthians 5:7. This quote tells us in a very emphatic way that “Faith” is “blind,” but we must take both the verses before this one and those that follow it in order to have an adequate context of the verse, and not juggle the same verse and end up deducing false conclusions. Now let’s see what the verses before and after 5:7 tell us.

1 For we know that if our earthly house, this tabernacle, were destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

2 And thus we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly habitation,

3 For even though we are unclothed, we will not be found naked.

4 For we who are still in this tent groan with anguish, because we do not want to be unclothed, but to be clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life.

5 And he who destined us for this very thing is God, who gave us the Spirit as a guarantee.

6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, while present in the body, we are absent from the Lord.

7 ( because we live by faith, not by sight);

8 But we are confident, although we prefer to leave the body and be with the Lord.

As we read in these verses, it indicates a faith directed toward another goal or purpose, which is not obviously a faith without evidence, but a faith in a promise. To put it in our perspective, it is like when a Father promises his son that he will give him a toy, and the child trusts and hopes in the promise that his Father made him. So what Paul does is contrast our faith that we will be resurrected and have a home in heaven with our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the faith that he speaks of here is toward a promise that we still await. Verse 7 with the passages that come from it refers to the fact that life is a journey, or a pilgrimage, and that the Christian is traveling to another country. The sense here is that we conduct ourselves in our course of life with reference to things that are not seen, and not with reference to things that are seen. Sometimes the people of this world strive for those objects that they have not seen, without any promise or assurance that they will obtain them. The inability to grant them has been promised to them; No one has assured them that their lives will be lengthened in order to obtain them. In a moment they may be cut off and all their plans frustrated; or they may be utterly disappointed and all their plans fail; or if they do obtain the object, it may be unsatisfactory and may not give such pleasure as they had anticipated. But not so the Christian. He has:

(1) The promise of life.

(2) He is assured that sudden death cannot deprive him of it. He immediately brings it to the object of persecution, not away from him.

(3) You are assured that when it is obtained, it will not displease, satiate, or deteriorate, but will fulfill all the expectations of the soul and will be eternal.

Thus, the verse quoted from 2 Corinthians 5:7 contextualizing its verses, does not exactly refer to an incompatibility between “faith and reason” it simply refers to “faith and promise”; therefore, given what is understood in this verse, let us go to the next one.

Hebrews 11:1

And faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Here we discover the essential characteristics of faith from the author’s point of view. Faith has to do with things to come (hoped for) and things invisible (unseen). The RSV translation (the constancy of things hoped for) puts the emphasis on faith as an expression of our confidence in God’s promises. However, it is also possible to translate “faith is the substance (hypostasis) of things hoped for” or “faith gives substance to our hopes.” Such a translation suggests that things hoped for become real and have substance through the exercise of faith.

Now given the context of the verse, it is not a reference where it can be used to denote that faith is blind in itself, because if one reads the verses that follow we see certain characters who believed in what God told them, one could say that rather the faith that is referred to in this verse is in itself a fidelity to God, a fidelity to his promises; although something is quite clear, that when one reads the following verses and the faith that these characters had, it did not turn out to be a “blind faith” either, thus, faith is always accompanied by evidence, as my friend Anselm of Canterbury would say “I believe in order to understand and I understand in order to believe.”

Now that the verses have been clarified, we must touch on an important point, and that is, how do we come to know that a Faith is blind in itself? And here is the crucial point, for a faith to be blind, its very content must be false. What do I mean by this? That the content of the faith, where the heart of the belief is found, cannot justify or sustain what it declares about itself, and here we are going to touch on the verse 1 Corinthians 15:14 and 17.

12 If then it is preached that Christ was raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

13 For if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised either;

14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is also in vain.

15 And we are found to be false witnesses of God, because we testify that God raised up the Messiah; whom he did not raise, if it is true that the dead are not raised.

16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either.

17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins,

18 and those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.

Now, given as we read well in these verses, Paul denotes in a very emphatic way 2 things, (1) that the heart of the Christian faith is the resurrection and (2) recognizes that for the Christian faith to be blind the resurrection of Christ could never have occurred, hence the implications that he himself mentions, now if this is so, then this is where the atheist must attack to demonstrate that the Christian faith is blind, not starting from how the world was created or otherwise, thus, the Christian faith rests on 2 propositions that make the Christian faith true and reasonable, the first in the own statements that Jesus made of himself for all who believe in him and in the second that his resurrection is the basis or solid confirmation of all his statements.

Now, to give an analogy, imagine that a king declares war on a nation and motivates his army saying that he will win the war, here we see 2 propositions where the army puts its faith in its King, which are (1) that the guarantee that they will win the war is based on the King’s declaration and (2) that the event occurs for that declaration to be true, but if the opposite happens then the army gave their lives for nothing and the faith they had towards the king ended up being in vain, it is so in the Christian faith if what Jesus Christ said about himself after his death was not fulfilled, then I have no reasons to be a Christian I would even dare to say that Christianity would cease to exist, in fact in Acts 5:34-39 a Pharisee Gamaliel recognized that although what these men preach is a lie, there will come a point when it will disappear, but if what these men preach is true, if the same statements of Jesus came true after his death, then even maintaining this FAITH IS REASONABLE.

That is why we can consider that Faith rests on a Faith founded on truth, and it can be demonstrated that it is true and that anyone can embrace that truth, with the mind and with the heart .

Xavier Gonzalez is from Venezuela and is dedicated to the study of philosophy, early Christianity and theology. He converted to Christianity at the age of 15. He managed the Me Lo Contó Un Ateo website and is in charge of the apologetics section of the Iglesia Cristiana la gracia website ( http://www.iglesialagracia.org ).

November 25, 2019/by Guest

Note:

Not your Flannel Graph Version of the Story of Jonah

The Sign of Jonah – Jonah Was Raised from the Dead

The Sign of Jonah – The Gentiles Repent and Worship the God of Israel

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Transcript

An Unlikely Team & A Balanced Report

Abortion & Breast Cancer

Abortion & Pre-term Birth

Abortion & Adverse Psychological Effects

The Moral Imperative of Informed Consent

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Grades:

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Did Paul give up on using reason and evidence after Athens?

Paul did not give up on apologetics

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Promoters of Reasonable Faith

—John Lennox

—John Donne

—Domenico Cieri Estrada

—Rice Brooks

—Alfonso Ropero

—JP Moreland

—John Stott

—John Stott

—RC Sproul

—Claudio Garrido

—Chris Du Pond

—Thomas V. Morris

—Cameron Bertuzzi

—Francisco Lacueva

—Augustine of Hippo

—Paul Little

—Tricia Scribner

—John Wesley

Reasonable Faith (Biblically)