Page 122 – CrossExamined

What COVID-19 Reveals About Us: Four Categories of People Surfaced from the Pandemic

COVID-19 has brought great panic across the globe due to the rapidity of its transmission and the danger it poses to seniors and those with compromised immune systems. However, COVID-19 has done more than just bring panic. It has also catalyzed several truths about American people, revealing a more troubling underbelly of the American way of life. COVID-19 may prove to be a sociologist’s dream as it has shown what we as American people are like, what we are truly like when a crisis transpires. Because of the virus, comments on social media reveal four types of responses to the COVID-19 crisis. The comments begin to repeat over time. From the overlapping discussions, we can discover four categories of people. As a caveat, this information merely comes from this writer’s observations and is by no means intended to be a scientific study.

The Political Propagandist. For this person, everything becomes political. If the government says anything, the political propagandist will look for some twist and automatically assume that the authorities in question are only trying to pander for votes. Oddly, some of my Republican friends have taken this perspective even when a Republican President has issued some of the guidelines against which they are contending. Thus, every decision is thereby for or against the person’s party. I mentioned a Republican friend earlier. Ironically, I have some Democratic friends who have used the same logic with what a Democratic governor has issued. Some in this category deny that there is a real problem. They hold that the virus is nothing more than a political stunt. But who’s to blame? That depends on which political affiliation to which the political propagandist belongs.

The Paranoid Peddler. This person is one who is mostly given over to hysteria if left unchecked. For the paranoid peddler, everything is a conspiracy. Even if the government were to say that creamed cheese is good for your health, the paranoid panderer would attempt to find some agenda behind the government’s endorsement. He or she might say, “Maybe the government is trying to get rid of those of us who are lactose intolerant? What if that’s all the food they offer?” This is especially true when governing authorities have advised that people abstain from gatherings of over 100 people, including religious services. Katie, bar the door! From that point onward, the paranoid peddlers prognosticate that the government’s war against religion is well underway, all within the guise of protective parameters. Paranoid peddlers hold to the adage, “I don’t care what the government says, I’ll do it my way!”

My friend, Thomas McCuddy, pointed out that this logic is faulty on several fronts. The paranoid panderer commits the categorical mistake, mistaking the categories between shutting down something temporarily and permanently; the false dilemma, thinking that one has given up their faith by listening to the governing authority’s advice; and a non-sequitur, thinking that God will promise that if one goes to a church that he or she will not contract the virus.

The Hysterical Hoarder. Perhaps the third person is linked with the second? Nonetheless, some have made a point to hoard as many items as they can. It is one thing to be prepared. It is another thing to buy as much as you can so that others cannot get what you have. COVID-19 will be known as the toilet paper disease even though it is a respiratory virus. Why? People have selfishly purchased and stored enough toilet paper to last an entire year out of fear of running out. My parents grew up in a time where indoor bathrooms did not exist. Ask them. There are other sanitary ways to live, even if toilet paper is not around. Just make sure you don’t use poison oak to take care of your sanitary needs. My mother, who is five-feet-tall, was reaching up to grab a couple of rolls of toilet paper when this tall young guy ran up and stole them from her before she could reach them. Such examples exemplify the level of selfishness that has captured our society. Should such a real crisis exist, we would not come together as a nation. Rather, we would selfishly tear one another apart over something so trivial as toilet paper. The apologist in me thinks that this is one such consequence of living in a nation that is turning from its Judeo-Christian roots.

The Rational Responder. Lastly, while the first three responses have been mostly negative, there is hope with the rational responder. I have noticed that many of my Christian friends have responded to this crisis responsibly and with great compassion. By using reason instead of hysteria, many believers have seen the inherent risks associated with the virus and have chosen to respond accordingly. Many of the rational responders are even looking for ways in which they can minister to people during the chaos. I find it fascinating that most of these individuals also have a healthy ecclesiology (theology of the Church) by realizing that the Church is not an organization that requires walls and a structure, but rather one that is an organism, consisting of the people of God.

This article is not intended to poke fun at anyone. Furthermore, it also is not to say that some of what the first three responders have claimed doesn’t have some truth in it. Rather, the article comes as an observation of the reactions arising from COVID-19. By no means am I saying that I trust every governmental action. Nor am I saying that anyone should. However, when hysteria and emotionalism replace logic and reason, bad things soon follow. I am reminded of the words of the late Dr. Norman Geisler who said, “A clear mind and a pure heart are dangerous to the devil.” No matter what may come, let us always seek to think clearly while having faith that Christ can and will deliver us through any storm encountered. For our Great Shepherd will lead us through the valley of the shadow of death (Ps. 23:4) so that he may bring us to even greater pastures.

By the grace of God, we shall persevere!

Philosophy is more Certain than Science

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

How can philosophy be more certain than science? How can morality be more certain than science? That goes against the common wisdom. Join Frank as he uses COVID 19, as an illustration, to show we know philosophy and morality at least as well if not better than we know scientific truths. Since science is built on philosophy in at least nine ways, science is only as good as our philosophy. Frank also addresses questions on why God created us knowing we would sin, and how to deal with doubts.

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

April 24, 2020/by Frank Turek

Is Earth Just A Pale Blue Dot?

2. Does God Exist?, Atheism

By Ryan Leasure

In his book Pale Blue Dot, the late astronomer Carl Sagan had this to say about the above photograph taken aboard Voyager I:

Because of the reflection of sunlight… Earth seems to be sitting in a beam of light as if there were some special significance to this small world. But it’s just an accident of geometry and optics… Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

Sagan reiterates what is commonly known as the Copernican Principle, or the Principle of Mediocrity. It’s the idea that earth and by extension human beings aren’t significant in the grand scheme of things. We’re just a random speck of dust revolving around an average star in the corner of an average galaxy.

Sagan was so confident of his view that he predicted the Milky Way galaxy probably contains as many as a million advanced civilizations. But is this a reasonable conclusion? I think it’s unlikely. In fact, the more we learn about the requirements for habitability, the less probable life in other places becomes. To demonstrate this claim, I want to highlight seven different habitability requirements — or habitable zones — that are necessary for advanced life to exist in the universe. As far as we know, the earth is the only planet to meet all the requirements.

The Right Kind Of Galaxy

Astronomers have placed galaxies into three categories — spiral, elliptical, and irregular. Of these three, only spiral galaxies can support life. Elliptical galaxies contain mostly ancient stars that lack necessary resources — like heavy elements — that life needs. Additionally, because of the shape of elliptical galaxies, and the close proximity of the stars, stable planetary orbits are impossible.

Similarly, irregular galaxies lack the necessary qualities for habitability. For starters, their irregular shape leads to chaotic stellar and planetary orbits which result in planets colliding or brushing too closely to ultra-violet emitting stars. Additionally, large irregular galaxies possess active nuclei which spew too much deadly radiation for life to exist. Conversely, small irregular galaxies lack the necessary heavy elements for habitability.

Only spiral galaxies can support life. And not just any spiral galaxy, but one that possesses the right size and structure that can yield heavy elements and protect a host planet from deadly radiation and gravitational disruptions along the spiral arms. It just so happens that the Milky Way meets these necessary requirements.

The Right Location In That Galaxy

Not only is the right kind of spiral galaxy necessary for habitability, but the location inside that galaxy is also just as important. And that location is close to the mid-plane of the galaxy about halfway between the galactic nucleus and the external edge.

If the earth’s solar system was closer to the nucleus, it would face the onslaught of radiation and overwhelming gravitational force from the galactic black hole nucleus. Moreover, this territory inside the galactic habitable zone contains trillions of comets, which combined with the erratic gravitational forces would inevitably lead to several comet collisions and wipe out any existing population. Conversely, stars located towards the outer galactic edge can only host small terrestrial planets that are too small to retain an atmosphere or sustain plate tectonics.

This galactic habitable zone is usually represented by a thin ring that circles around the Milky Way galaxy. Only stars that land on this narrow ring can realistically sustain life. Furthermore, our solar system is located in a safe place between the Sagittarius and Perseus spiral arms. Spiral arms are dangerous places with fluctuating radiation and erratic orbits. And as many astronomers have pointed out, this relatively gas and dust free environment proves to be the ideal location for viewing the universe and making further discoveries.

The Right Kind Of Star

In addition to being in the right location of the galaxy, the star must possess the right qualities to support life. Of the stars located in the galactic habitable zone, about 3 percent of them have the right qualities for any kind of life to survive. In fact, to emit a sufficient level of ultra-violet radiation, the host star must be virtually identical to the sun. Larger stars than our sun give off extreme variations of UV radiations, as do smaller stars than the sun. Our sun is also metal-rich compared to most stars making it possible to host planets like earth.

While it’s true that the sun is an average star (a yellow dwarf) as far as size goes, its average quality is essential for life. In addition to emitting erratic levels of UV radiation, larger stars burn their fuel faster and have shorter life spans — too short to host advanced life. On the other hand, smaller stars, like red dwarfs, give off such low levels of energy that a planet would have to orbit extremely close to it. This close proximity inevitably leads to tidal locking where one side of the planet bakes in unending misery while the opposite side remains frozen in perpetual darkness.

The Right Distance From The Star

Next, for habitability to be possible, a planet must maintain liquid water. And this is only possible for planets that are the right distance from their host star. For example, if the earth were slightly closer to the sun, all water would evaporate. If it was slightly further away, all water would freeze. Furthermore, for water to remain, the planet must have the appropriate level of atmospheric pressure.

The planet must also receive the right amount of UV radiation, and much of this depends on its distance from that star. If it receives too little, vitamin D levels would be too low to produce strong bones, prevent cancer, and maintains healthy immune systems. On the flip side, if UV radiation were stronger, most if not all would suffer from skin cancer and bad eyesight.

Additionally, a planet must be the right distance from its host star for photosynthesis to occur. While some life-forms could exist without photosynthesis, large-bodied warm-blooded animals could not.

The proper distance also impacts its rotation rate. As I mentioned earlier, a planet that is close to its host star experiences tidal locking, meaning it does not rotate due to the intense gravitational force. This results in one side of the planet enduring an onslaught of heat and radiation while the opposite side remains perpetually in the cold dark. This kind of planet could not sustain life as it could not have liquid water. Conversely, if the earth rotated faster, we’d experience extreme temperatures and atmospheric winds that would make life virtually impossible.

The Right Kind Of Neighbors

While the other planets in our solar system aren’t suitable for life, they still serve a purpose in contributing to the earth’s own habitability. For starters, larger planets such as Jupiter and Saturn serve as earth’s bodyguards against comets or asteroid bombardments. Due to their size and relative force of gravity, these large gas giants act like giant vacuum cleaners for potentially dangerous collisions. Even smaller planets like Venus and Mars offer protection despite their limited gravity. Mars, for example, stands between us and an asteroid belt and has taken a few hits for us over the years.

Additionally, these other planets have contributed to important scientific discoveries. Johannes Kepler formulated his famous laws of planetary motion by observing these other planets. One of these discoveries was that planetary orbits are not circles but ellipses. And these discoveries served foundational for Newton’s laws of motion and gravity, which became the foundation for Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.

The Right Kind Of Moon

Of the dozens of moons in our solar system, the moon if fifty times larger than any other moon compared to the mass of its host planet. Moreover, the moon orbits more closely to earth than any other large satellite yet discovered.

The size and proximity of the moon stabilize the earth’s rotation on its axis around 23.5 degrees. If the moon were smaller, like the Martian moons, the tilt would wobble about 30 degrees like Mars. The results of an unstable title would be catastrophic. If the North Pole, for example, were leaning more sunward during the summer, most of the Northern Hemisphere would experience months of scorching heat and perpetual daylight. Then in the winter months of the year, any survivors would experience extremely cold dark winters that would make Antarctica feel mild by comparison.

With no tilt, the earth would not experience seasons and rain distribution across the planet. The result would be large swaths of arid land uninhabitable for life.

It’s also worth noting that earth is the only place in our solar system where a perfect solar eclipse is possible. This phenomenon is possible because while the moon is four hundred times smaller than the sun, it is four hundred times closer making them both appear the exact same size from our vantage point. This phenomenon is highly coincidental if the earth is just a “pale blue dot.”

The Right Kind Of Planet

Finally, the right planet is also necessary for habitability. For example, life could not survive on a gas planet, but one made of rock. Additionally, this planet must have liquid water. But if the planet was perfectly smooth, the entire planet would be submerged in water. Fortunately, the earth has continents, mountain ranges, and valleys which allow for life to exist simultaneously with oceans and lakes. And this is made possible by plate tectonics. Yes, plate tectonics can be dangerous, but without them, life could not exist. And earth is the only planet in our solar system with plate tectonics.

A planet must also maintain a powerful, stable magnetic field. Without this protective fence, the earth’s atmosphere would eventually float away towards the sun making it impossible to sustain life. Of course, to maintain the right magnetic field requires the right internal composition of a rocky planet. Specifically, it requires a liquid iron outer core and a solid iron inner core.

Additionally, the planet must also have the right kind of atmosphere. In particular, the ozone shield is necessary for protecting a planet from receiving too much harmful radiation. Currently, earth’s ozone layer absorbs about 98 percent of the sun’s harmful UV radiation while allowing the beneficial radiation to pass through to earth’s surface. In this sense, the ozone layer acts as a shield or a type of sunscreen protecting us from too much of the sun’s radiation but allowing just enough beneficial for life.

Just A Pale Blue Dot?

So many are the requirements necessary for habitability that extraterrestrial life seems improbable. Back in the 1960s, when Sagan’s theory began to pick up steam, scientists launched the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). When the search began, scientists were convinced we would find advanced life on the moon or Mars. Now the search is more modest. They hope to find some kind of lower life form to an obscure moon orbiting Saturn that may or may not contain liquid water. In other words, the hundreds of millions of dollars invested in SETI have been spent to no avail.

Additionally, this search raises some important questions. If life really exists all over the universe, why haven’t they found us yet? After all, are we so conceited to think that we are the most advanced civilization? Surely, if millions of other civilizations exist, some of them would have greater capabilities than us.

Furthermore, good scientific theories are always falsifiable. But isn’t this theory unfalsifiable? At what point will those who say the universe is teeming with life say they were wrong? After sixty years of searching, they’re still saying, “Just give us more time. We’ll find it.” And they could keep saying it for a thousand years. In the end, the search for extraterrestrial life seems like a fools errand. So many are the conditions necessary for habitability. Earth appears to be pretty special after all.

God Uses Our Dreams and Disasters to Accomplish the Impossible

Apologetics for Parents, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Natasha Crain

If you’ve read my books or followed my blog for a while, you know that the focus of my writing is to equip parents with an understanding of how to make a case for and defend the truth of Christianity so they can pass that knowledge on to their kids. This is my passion and focus, but it certainly doesn’t represent ALL that kids need to know and experience in their faith.

It’s not enough to KNOW what’s true if that truth doesn’t transform us.

For years now, I’ve followed blogger and author Kristen Welch at her blog; We Are THAT Family. She is someone I hugely admire for living a life transformed by truth through her work to serve others around the world, and today I want to introduce you to her ministry if you don’t already know about it.

In 2010, she and her family started Mercy House Global to “engage, empower, and disciple women around the globe in Jesus’ name.” They rescue pregnant teens in Kenya and provide a home for them. They empower these young moms and women around the world by providing dignified jobs through partnerships and sustainable, fair trade product development. They also disciple these women to be lifelong followers of Jesus Christ. You can read more about their values and see a statement of faith here.

As part of the ministry, Mercy House has several “Fair Trade Friday” clubs that support their mission. Our family belongs to the bracelet club. For just $14.99 each month, we receive a beautiful bracelet made by a woman in an impoverished country. My two daughters love getting the package in the mail each month and reading more about who made each bracelet and where it came from. It’s led to wonderful conversations about what fair trade means, why it matters, and the kinds of needs people have in other countries. I highly encourage you to check out what they offer and consider supporting Mercy House through one of these clubs.

The reason I’m writing about this today, in particular, is that Kristen has a new book out that I want to recommend to you as well: Made to Move Mountains: How God Uses Our Dreams and Disasters to Accomplish the Impossible. In this book, Kristen shares very honestly about what it’s been like to deal with the “impossible” challenges of running an often heartbreaking ministry like this…and how God has met their needs. It’s also a very personal book, as she talks about the toll serving has taken on her family and her marriage, and how God has brought them through even when it’s felt overwhelming. There’s no tidy ending, which I love because life rarely has tidy endings. It will convict you, move you, encourage you, and help you think in fresh ways about the mountains of dreams and disasters in your own life.

Kristen has provided the following excerpt from the book to share here. I hope you’ll enjoy her insights and I highly recommend getting a copy.

Excerpt from Made to Move Mountains:

When I think of someone who was more fearful than brave—but with a measure of faith—and who definitely didn’t boast of his abilities, I think of Gideon. When I was in Israel, one of our stops was at Ein Harod, the spring of Gideon, written about in Judges 7. I love this story. It is an important one for us to consider, and it has been incredibly encouraging.

Gideon was a military leader who was also a prophet and a judge. In verse 2, God says to Gideon, “You have too many men. I cannot deliver Midian into their hands, or Israel would boast against me, ‘My own strength has saved me.’” God whittled away twenty-two thousand of Gideon’s army, but in verse 4, the Lord says to him, “There are still too many men.” God tells Gideon to separate the remaining men based on how they drink water from the spring in the desert. As we heard the gurgling water and stood at the small natural spring where Gideon obediently separated his men and was left with only three hundred, the story came alive in a new way.

Gideon was prepared for the battle. He had gathered his resources, used his expertise, and led an enormous army into enemy territory. But we see very clearly in chapter 7 that God did not want Gideon’s expertise or his battle plan; God wanted his trust. God wants us to trust him so much that we will do what he tells us, even when it goes against what feels right. God wants our obedience because he fights battles in a way that brings glory to him instead of to us. Gideon had to lay down his faith in his military experience and trust a miracle-working God to fight the battle.

One of the reasons I love the story of Gideon is because I can identify with his fear and his courage. Gideon continued to obey God but with fear and doubt every step of the way. He was taking a brave step forward and doubting with every step backward. Nevertheless, God used him to defeat the enemy and help set Israel free, but not without discomfort and risk for Gideon. God had a plan and removed what Gideon thought was necessary for victory. We can’t always see or understand why God asks certain things of us or allows us to experience suffering; we don’t have a bird’s-eye view of the big picture. We can see only the temporary, not the eternal, and we have to trust that the discomfort and uncertainty he is allowing is not only for our good but also for his glory. In this tension, miracles happen.

Kristen Welch, a blogger at We are THAT family, is a bestselling author and founder of Mercy House Global. Made to Move Mountains released March 3, 2020.

¿Cómo sabemos que la Biblia no ha sido cambiada? Parte 2: Dificultades en la biblia y pasajes vergonzosos

Español

Por Carlos E. Rodríguez

En la primera entrega de esta serie de posts establecimos en qué consiste la acusación y/o pregunta, muchas veces de forma sincera, acerca de nuestra confianza al texto bíblico y su fidelidad en transmitir, a través de los años, realmente lo que se escribió al inicio. Para ello hablamos de forma general de algunos casos en donde si cambiar el texto hubiese sido una tendencia general, no tendríamos razón para encontrar pasajes que sirven más como municiones para los críticos que para apoyar las afirmaciones de la creencia cristiana. También, se presentó un sencillo argumento que dice lo siguiente:

Si la Biblia ha sido cambiada entonces la Biblia no puede contener errores.
La Biblia contiene errores.
Por lo tanto, la Biblia no ha sido cambiada.

Lo más sobresaliente en este silogismo, que usa el modus tolens en su inferencia, es que depende de la condición de que la Biblia contiene errores. Los críticos dicen que sí. Así que usando sus propios casos para validar esta premisa hemos concluido que contiene “errores” y que no ha sido cambiada. No podemos tener las 2 cosas: o contiene errores o ha sido cambiada, pero no ambas a la vez. Como esta serie no trata de corregir o argumentar para explicar los casos de errores en el texto, comenzamos con buen pie en nuestro camino de responder con un no a la pregunta de si el texto bíblico ha sido cambiado. Y la mejor prueba en la línea de evidencia consiste justamente en dar por válida la creencia generalizada entre los críticos del cristianismo.

Lo que haré en esta ocasión es darle un poco más de fuerza a la idea de que el texto no ha sido cambiado viendo pasajes en él que son de dificultad para algunas creencias doctrinales dentro del cristianismo. También mencionaré algunos pasajes vergonzosos que afectan en cierto modo la imagen del mensaje cristiano.

Pasajes con dificultad

Imaginemos por un momento que sí, la práctica de cambiar el texto era habitual o hasta escasa, para ayudar a la idea; y se hacía cuando era necesario corregir un texto, pasaje o libro que entraba en conflicto con las creencias en el momento o con el desarrollo de las mismas a través de los años. Si esto pasó en la antigüedad, no deberíamos encontrar esos pasajes. Pero que creen: los seguimos encontrado. Es más, tenemos evidencia de que están en el texto desde hace siglos, pues la mayoría, sino todos, aparecen en las copias más antiguas de los textos bíblicos que poseemos hoy. Y siguiendo la lógica de la crítica, no debería ser esto posible. Aquí puede surgir una nueva acusación para evitar caer en este absurdo que destruiría la misma acusación en base a lo que ella dice. Alguien puede decir que el cambio a esos pasajes se hizo, pero en los textos que hoy no tenemos o no hemos encontrado aún, y el resultado de ellos es el texto que sí tenemos desde las copias más antiguas. Sí, esto puede ser una posibilidad, pero el punto es: ¿Qué evidencia respalda esta suposición? Ninguna. Así que nunca algo posible va a tener más validez que lo que sí tiene evidencia. En este caso: los mismos pasajes que presentan una dificultad a las doctrinas cristianas están ahí desde las copias más antiguas de los manuscritos que tenemos, y esto es evidencia clara de que por lo menos desde ese punto en adelante, no ha habido cambios en el texto. ¿Cuáles son esos textos que presentan una dificultad a las creencias cristianas y que si la tendencia ha sido cambiar la biblia a nuestro antojo no deberían esta?

Mateo 24:36

Pero del día y la hora nadie sabe, ni aun los ángeles de los cielos, sino sólo mi Padre.

En el cuerpo de doctrina del cristianismo ortodoxo se afirma que Cristo es Dios, y que posee todos los atributos de Dios, como la Omnisciencia. Aquí tenemos a Cristo afirmando no saber algo. Esto supone un problema para la enseñanza de esta doctrina, pues está contenida en los evangelios mismos, los cuales son la fuente más segura para saber de Jesús y lo que dijo, y aquí tenemos que él dice que hay algo que no sabe. En vez de buscar alguna explicación para esto, si la tendencia de la iglesia era de cambiar el texto, es más fácil eliminar esto o cambiarlo, que dejarlo como una dificultad que estaría ahí a través de los siglos, pues déjeme informarle que justamente este pasaje es usado para decir que Jesús no puede ser Dios, pues aquí lo tenemos afirmando algo que lo demuestra.

Job 2:3

Y Jehová dijo a Satanás: ¿No has considerado a mi siervo Job, que no hay otro como él en la tierra, varón perfecto y recto, temeroso de Dios y apartado del mal, y que todavía retiene su integridad, aun cuando tú me incitaste contra él para que lo arruinara sin causa?

Dentro de las creencias centrales del cristianismo está la que dice que Dios no puede ser tentado por el mal ni caer en él, pero aquí tenemos un texto que nos dice que él sí cayó en hacer el mal. No tengo ni que recordar lo mismo que dije anteriormente, pues era más fácil cambiar este pasaje que dejarlo ahí por los siglos para que sea usado en contra de dicha creencia. Pero, aún está ahí, demostrando que el texto no ha sufrido esos cambios que proponen los críticos.

Los pasajes que representan una dificultad para explicar las doctrinas cristianas, su mera existencia textual en la Biblia, es prueba de que esta no ha sido cambiada en la forma de la que se acusa.

Pasajes vergonzosos

Este tipo de texto no debería de existir en una escritura que ha sido vilmente manipulada al antojo. Sin embargo, ahí están. Al igual que con los que presentan una dificultad, estos prueban que no han ocurrido tales cambios propuestos por la crítica.

Algunos pasajes vergonzosos son:

Mateo 3:15-16

Pero Jesús le respondió: Deja ahora, porque así conviene que cumplamos toda justicia. Entonces le dejó.Y Jesús, después que fue bautizado, subió luego del agua; y he aquí los cielos le fueron abiertos, y vio al Espíritu de Dios que descendía como paloma, y venía sobre él.

Esta escena es vergonzosa por el hecho de que el enviado de Dios, Jesús, el cordero sin mancha, tiene que participar de un ritual que consiste en arrepentirse de los pecados. Pero si él es sin pecado, por qué debe arrepentirse de los mismos. Esto demostraría que él no fue tan integro como se supone. Recuerde que estoy hablando lo que la crítica dice, y razonando dentro de sus propias ideas.

Si esta escena está en el texto y no se ha quitado o cambiado, es porque esta práctica no era usada.

Juan 7:3-4

Y le dijeron sus hermanos: Sal de aquí, y vete a Judea, para que también tus discípulos vean las obras que haces.Porque ninguno que procura darse a conocer hace algo en secreto. Si estas cosas haces, manifiéstate al mundo.⁵Porque ni aun sus hermanos creían en él.

Esta escena nos muestra como el Cristo, el ungido de Dios, no era ni bien visto por sus hermanos. Ni aun ellos creían en él. Cuando ni tu propia familia lo hace, hay razones para poner en duda de que realmente seas lo que afirmas ser. ¿No se supone que los primeros en creer en él debieron ser sus familiares? Pero aquí vemos que no lo hacían. Esto es más que suficiente para presentar la idea de que él no era realmente el Cristo. Este pasaje vergonzoso sería una razón aun para afirmar que fueron sus discípulos que, posterior a su muerte, le atribuyeron dicho título. Con todo esto, volvemos a preguntar: ¿por qué no fue cambiado este pasaje? Tal vez se debe a que esa no era una práctica ni generalizada ni escasa, en la iglesia antigua.

La idea es simple: pasajes como estos y otros debieron ser eliminados o cambiados. Si no se hizo solo debe tener una explicación: nada se cambiaba en la manera de que se acusa. En este punto alguien puede sugerir, para salvar la idea, de que no se cambiaron porque ya eran bastantes conocidos. Ahora, esto es tan absurdo que supone 2 cosas:

Que los antiguos eran tan tontos que cuando “inventaron” esta historia estaban tan afanados por darla a conocer que no leyeron lo que escribieron. Es decir, nadie lo leyó, solo se escribió y se lanzó.
Que no se les pudo ocurrir usar la misma técnica de la que se les acusa que usaron a su favor en el pasado. Es decir, ellos podrían inventar otro manuscrito corregido, y decir que el que contiene los errores y fallos fue adulterado y/o cambiado tan deliberadamente que su fin era manchar la imagen del cristianismo y lo que este enseña. Digo, para un grupo que tenga tan común el cambio del texto bíblico a su favor, ¿por qué no lo usarían una vez más para salir de este problema?

Al final todo es obvio: los críticos han fallado en esto.

Conclusión

Con elementos que prueban directamente que la sola idea del cambio deliberado a su favor no es plausible, podemos rechazar la validez de la acusación. Ni siquiera entra en la categoría de sugerencia, pues usando las mismas afirmaciones de la crítica y razonando dentro de su propio círculo de ideas, vemos que no hay forma de justificar su caso.

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

Carlos Enrique Rodríguez Alcántara es de República Dominicana, bloguero, predicador, maestro, conferencista y apologista. Esposo de Carolina. Miembro de la Iglesia Roca de Salvación Central, en donde ha sido director de educación y sub-director de educación del concilio. Tiene un grado asociado en teología de ESFOTEBIC. Certificado en filosofía, filosofía y ciencias (con honores) y pensamiento crítico por la universidad de Edimburgo, además de filosofía, ciencia y religión por la misma universidad.

April 20, 2020/by Guest

Conservatives on Campus with Charlie Kirk

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

Why should Christians be interested in politics? What political principles should they advocate? Is anyone teaching the principles of political freedom, free markets and limited government on high school and college campuses?

Charlie Kirk is the founder and president of TurningPoint USA, which has about 2,000 clubs on high school and college campuses. He joins Frank for an enlightening discussion that ranges from how to articulate conservative principles, to Christians and President Trump, to why would God allow evil. Charlie is only 26 years old, but, as you’ll see, he has wisdom and insights beyond his years.

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

April 19, 2020/by Frank Turek

Don’t the Resurrection Narratives Contradict?

3. Are Miracles Possible?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

The apostle Paul said that if Christ hasn’t risen, Christianity is a sham. (1 Corinthians 15:17) Many atheists agree and will happily point to the gospel accounts. Just how seriously should they take the claim of the resurrection? After all, aren’t the accounts riddled with contradictions? How can they possibly be trusted?

Historians don’t normally conclude that just because individual accounts have apparent contradictions that the event in question didn’t occur. But let’s allow that to pass for now. I think the majority of the discrepancies that critics bring up can be easily resolved. Here’s a list of four of the most popular contradictions in the resurrection account that skeptics like to point to.

#1. HOW MANY WOMEN WERE AT THE TOMB OF JESUS?

How many women came to the tomb Easter morning? Was it one, as told in John? Two (Matthew)? Three (Mark)? Or more (Luke)?…

Atheist blogger Bob Seidensticker

LET’S LOOK AT THE TEXTS

“On the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark. She saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb.” (John 20:1)

“After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to view the tomb.” (Matthew 28:1)

“When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they could go and anoint him.” (Mark 16:1)

“On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came to the tomb, bringing the spices they had prepared…Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them were telling the apostles these things.” (Luke 24:1,10)

Whoa there! On the face of it, you can see why skeptics would point to these passages to discredit the gospels. It seems like they can’t get their details straight. But are these accounts really so contradictory? Not really.

“NEVER READ ONE BIBLE VERSE”

It’s a bit amusing that Bob thinks that because John said that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb, he’s implying that others were not present. All we need to do is to keep reading to see that isn’t the case at all. In the very next verse, John says: “So she went running to Simon Peter and to the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said to them, “They’ve taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they’ve put him!” (John 20:2)

Wait a second. Where did this we come from? In passing, Mary Magdelene’s own words clearly show that there were other women. John reporting this implies that he’s well aware that there were other women at the tomb. No bludgeoning required. As Greg Koukl has famously said, “never read a Bible verse.” You have to keep reading and get the context before making assumptions about the text. Otherwise, it would seem that you’re either looking for a negative verdict or you’re just trying to fleece someone.

THE SKEPTIC’S BAD ASSUMPTIONS

As for the other accounts, why assume that each gospel account is supposed to give us a complete, detailed list of the women? Luke explicitly says that there were others that he didn’t name. In no gospel did it say these were the women who came to the tomb and there was no one else.

There’s no contradiction here unless you bring that assumption to the text. Selecting to name some women is not an automatic denial that there were no others. If I say I went to the store with my wife last night, I’m not automatically excluding the fact that I brought my four kids with me. I just left out a detail. So what?

#2 WAS THE TOMB OPENED OR CLOSED WHEN THE WOMEN ARRIVED?

“Was the stone already rolled away when they arrived at the tomb (Mark, Luke, and John), or explicitly not (Matthew)?”

Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God

LET’S LOOK AT THE TEXTS OURSELVES

And they were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?” And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back—it was very large. (Mark 16:3-4)

And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb…(Luke 24:2)

Now on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. (John 20:1)

So far all Mark, Luke, and John say that the tomb was open when the women found it. Now here’s Matthew’s version:

At the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher. And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. (Matthew 28:1-4)

So far it looks like Bart and the critics have a good point.

GETTING A GRIP ON THE GREEK

So what’s going on here? Is Matthew signifying that the women saw the angel coming down and rolling the stone away? If Matthew comes after Mark, then it feels like he’s adding an extra layer of supernatural ad hoc. While it makes the account sound more impressive, we now get this contradiction.

But let’s reconsider what Matthew says. We’re introduced to the passage about the angel by the Greek participle γὰρ (gar). Strong’s Greek Concordance defines it as: “For. A primary participle; properly assigning a reason.” In other words, it exists to explain the earthquake and set of circumstances as the women found them.

As philosopher Tim McGrew points out, “Matthew uses an aorist participle, which could be (and in some versions is) translated with the English past perfect: “… for an angel of the Lord had descended …”

One such translation is Weymouth, who phrases Matthew 28:2 as follows: “But to their amazement, there had been a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord had descended from Heaven, and had come and rolled back the stone, and was sitting upon it.”

And here’s Young’s Literal Translation, which is about as a word-for-word Greek translation you can get: “and lo, there came a great earthquake, for a messenger of the Lord, having come down out of heaven, having come, did roll away the stone from the door, and was sitting upon it”

So Matthew isn’t claiming that the women saw the angel descend or that they saw the guards get knocked out. It’s not in the text. It seems like the critics are looking for fault here.

OK, BUT WHERE IS MATTHEW GETTING HIS INFO FROM?

But now a question arises. If the women didn’t tell them this story about the stone’s rolling away and the guards falling out, who did? That’s a fair question.

While can’t say for sure, we can venture a safe guess here. In Matthew 28:11-15 we find out that the author had some info about the guards. What happened to them could have come from the same source — perhaps one of the guards themselves.

Matthew 28:2-4 gives us an explanation for the women at the tomb found when they got there. And that is the stone rolled away and no guards. This just isn’t meant to be a description of what the women saw. The stone moved before they got there, and that seems to be what Matthew is communicating when properly read.

#3. DID THE WOMEN AT THE TOMB OF JESUS SEE A MAN AT THE TOMB, TWO MEN, OR TWO ANGELS?

“Did they see a man, did they see two men, or did they see an angel? It depends on which gospel you read.“

Bart Ehrman (The Craig-Ehrman debate)

AGAIN, LET’S LOOK AT THE TEXTS IN QUESTION:

Mark 16:5-6: “And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. And he said to them, …”

Matthew 28:5: “But the angel said to the women…”

Luke 24:4: “While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel…”

John 20:11-13: “But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept, she stooped to look into the tomb. And she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet.”

So is this a major difference like Bart and other skeptics claim? Nah. Not if you’ve read the rest of the Bible. Angels often appear to humans as men. Let’s look at just a few texts to prove this out:

6 TIMES IN THE BIBLE WHERE ANGELS APPEAR AS MEN

When Abraham was sitting by the oaks of Mamre, “he lifted up his eyes and looked, behold, three men were standing opposite him” (Genesis 18:1-2). These visitors in the very next chapter are called angels. (Genesis 19:1)
Jacob wrestled with the man until daybreak in Genesis 32:22-32. We read in Hosea 12:4 that he wrestled with the Angel of the Lord.
Joshua encountered the “captain of the host of the LORD” who was called “a man” (Joshua 5:13-15).
Here again, we see the same thing in Judges: “And God listened to the voice of Manoah, and the angel of God came again to the woman as she sat in the field. But Manoah her husband was not with her. So the woman ran quickly and told her husband, “Behold, the man who came to me the other day has appeared to me.” (Judges 13:9-10)
Daniel had visionary experiences where he describes his angelic visitor as “one in the likeness of the children of man”. (Daniel 10:16-18)
And finally, Hebrews 13:2 tells us that “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.”

Because of medieval, we picture angels as babies or women with wings on their back floating on white clouds. But if it’s possible to entertain angels unawares as the writer of Hebrews says, then they can look just like a human being.

HOW MANY ANGELS WERE THERE?

This shouldn’t be that hard to figure out. Wherever there are two angels, there is always at least one. That’s just an unfailing principle of math. It’s Matthew and Mark who focus on the one who spoke. They don’t mention the other. But omission itself doesn’t equal denial. There is no account saying that there was one and no other.

I mean, we’ve all experienced this before, haven’t we? I’m thinking of my own life for certain job interviews I had. There were two managers in the room interviewing me for a promotion, but my focus was only on the one who was asking me questions. When talking about the interview later with others, me describing the questions and body language of manager Steve wouldn’t mean that manager Suzy wasn’t also in the room with her head down, taking notes.

#4. THE WOMEN SPREAD THE WORD OF THE EMPTY TOMB (OR DID THEY?)

In the other gospels, women discovered the empty tomb of Jesus and returned to tell the others:

“The women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples.” (Matthew 28:8).

“When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others” (Luke 24:9).

Mark tells us the women kept it hush-hush:

“Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone because they were afraid.” (Mark 16:8)

That’s how the original version of the gospel of Mark ended.

BUT DOESN’T MARK 16 HAVE TWENTY VERSES?

Now some of you might be thinking to yourself: “Whoa. Hold up! Doesn’t Mark 16 have more than 8 verses? What about “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature,” and that strange stuff about drinking poison and handling snakes that we find in the ending of Mark?

Seemingly strange statements aside, I’m not at all here to argue against the inspiration of Mark 16:9-20. But most scholars believe that the original ending of Mark ends at verse 8. Unless you’re reading from the King James Version, most translations alert us to the fact that verses 9-20 are not in the earliest manuscripts. Here’s a sampling:

ESV : [Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9–20.]

NIV : [The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]

CSB : [Some of the earliest mss conclude with 16:8.]

NLT : [The most ancient manuscripts of Mark conclude with verse 16:8. Later manuscripts add one or both of the following endings.]

These are all fairly conservative versions of the Bible. There’s no liberal conspiracy happening here. You can still believe verses 9-20 are historically reliable and even inspired. But nearly all textual specialists agree that the long ending of Mark wasn’t part of the original text. This gives us an apparent contradiction about what the women said after discovering the empty tomb.

LETTING THE SKEPTICS SPEAK

“One point, in particular, seems to be irreconcilable. In Mark’s account, the women are instructed to tell the disciples to go meet Jesus in Galilee, but out of fear, they don’t say a word to anyone about it.”

Jesus Interrupted. Page 49

Bart wants to create a contradiction by reading Mark as saying they never said a word to anyone. But is this the right reading of the passages?

IS MARK’S GOSPEL INCOMPLETE?

While the general scholarly consensus is that the long ending of Mark wasn’t originally there, what we’re not being told by the skeptics is that there’s debate regarding whether or not Mark meant to end it there or if the original text was cut off or left incomplete.

The late Bruce Metzger was a biblical scholar and longtime Princeton professor. He thought the original ending was cut off. Why did he believe that? Mark has a pattern of making blanket statements before adding an exception. Just take a look:

“He did not let anyone accompany him except Peter, James, and John, James’s brother.” (Mark 5:37)
“Suddenly, looking around, they no longer saw anyone with them except Jesus.” (Mark 9:8)
“As they were coming down the mountain, he ordered them to tell no one what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead.” (Mark 9:9)
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus asked him. “No one is good except God alone.” (Mark 10:18)
“Now concerning that day or hour no one knows—neither the angels in heaven nor the Son —but only the Father.” (Mark 13:32)

This is a clear pattern in Mark. So how would we expect Mark to continue if Metzger is right and the text is broken off? It would probably look a lot like what we read in Matthew 28:8. Let’s combine the two passages: They said nothing to anyone because they were afraid, but departing quickly from the tomb…, they ran to tell his disciples the news.”

Ehrman did his doctoral dissertation under Metzger, so he has no justification in keeping his audience in the dark.

BUT WHAT IF MARK REALLY INTENDED ON STOPPING AT VERSE 8?

If you read Mark carefully in one sitting, you’ll find a common thread. After Jesus reveals himself in some way, he asks the witnesses to keep it on the down-low.

“Then a man with leprosy came to him and, on his knees, begged him: “If you are willing, you can make me clean.” Moved with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched him. “I am willing,” he told him. “Be made clean.” Immediately leprosy left him, and he was made clean. Then he sternly warned him and sent him away at once, telling him, “See that you say nothing to anyone; but go and show yourself to the priest, and offer what Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them.” Yet he went out and began to proclaim it widely and to spread the news, with the result that Jesus could no longer enter a town openly.” (Mark 1:40-45)
“They brought to him a deaf man who had difficulty speaking and begged Jesus to lay his hand on him. So he took him away from the crowd in private. After putting his fingers in the man’s ears and spitting, he touched his tongue. Looking up to heaven, he sighed deeply and said to him, “Ephphatha!” (that is, “Be opened!”). Immediately his ears were opened, his tongue was loosened, and he began to speak clearly. He ordered them to tell no one, but the more he ordered them, the more they proclaimed it.” (Mark 7:32-36)
“But you,” he asked them, “who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Messiah.” And he strictly warned them to tell no one about him.” (Mark 8:29-30)

Reading this, we see that there’s a pattern silence, or requested silence, followed by proclamation. The silence never sticks. The whole punchline of Mark is that Jesus is the Messiah. Why we’d expect this pattern to stop seems silly. Just think about Mark’s Gospel as a whole for a minute:

In the first half of Mark, everyone questions who Jesus is.
In the middle, Jesus questions the disciples’ belief about Him.
The second half tells how Jesus became the Messiah.

Mark is making a point about Jesus’ identity. Many Jews hoped that the Messiah would overthrow the Romans and rule as king, but as we read his gospel, we see that Jesus came to set up a kingdom different than their expectations. He came not to be served but to serve and give his life as a ransom for sin. (Mark 10:45) His kingdom would start small but gradually become great, like a mustard seed. (Mark 4:26-29)

With that in mind, it’s possible that the gospel’s abrupt ending is there to intentionally challenge us to decide if we believe Jesus is the Messiah. Mark could be making the understood assumption that of course, the women eventually said something, that’s why you’re reading about this – but what do you think? Who do you think Jesus is?

THE RESURRECTION ACCOUNTS AREN’T HOPELESSLY CONTRADICTORY

“[T]he sources [regarding Jesus’ resurrection] are hopelessly contradictory, as we can see by doing a detailed comparison of the accounts in the Gospels.”

Bart Ehrman, The Historical Jesus (2000), p. 90

Bart’s claim is a strong one, but we’ve seen from this quick review that this claim just isn’t true. These accounts can all rather easily be reconciled. There are other alleged discrepancies in the accounts, and so this isn’t meant to be an exhaustive rebuttal to every objection that could be made. But in examining a handful of the skeptics’ toughest objections, we’ve seen that the narratives are very far from being hopelessly contradictory. Don’t let the critics ruin your Easter.

What Is Salvation All About?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Jason Jimenez

Ever wish you had a backup plan? Well, God did. Of course, that doesn’t imply God made a mistake. God is perfect, and everything He created was perfect (Gen. 1-2).

He perfectly and freely made Adam and Eve perfect in His image. And yet, Adam and Eve chose to rebel against God’s commands and eat from the forbidden tree (Gen. 3).

But God knew Adam and Eve would sin, and so, in His infinite love and mercy, He set the plan of salvation in motion to redeem His people from their sin (Jon. 2:9; Jn. 1:13; Rom. 9:16; Eph. 1:5).

But God didn’t need to do this. He is perfectly just to condemn sinners in their disobedience. Yet, instead, God predetermined to send Jesus to become the ultimate atonement for the sins of the whole world (Rom. 1:16; Acts 4:12).

Read the beautiful picture that Paul the Apostle paints in Romans 3:21-25 of the grace of God and our faith:

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it–the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

According to Paul, the two conditions for salvation are God’s grace and our faith.

Think of it like this: God is the Giver (by grace-freely), and we are the receiver (through faith-freely). Ephesians 2:8-9 reads, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”

There is nothing we can do to earn or gain salvation. All that is required of each one of us is to humbly admit that we are sinners, and receive (in faith) the free gift of salvation that God decrees. The Bible makes clear that Jesus is the atonement for the sins of the whole world (1 Jn. 2:2). He became sin for us that we might “become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21).

Therefore, it’s very important that Christians realize that we are not saved by good works, but are saved for good works. In 2 Timothy 1:9, Paul writes, “[God] saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began.”

Therefore, good works are the evidence of salvation, not a condition for it (Phil. 2:13-14; Js. 2).

Listed below are the three stages of salvation that we need to appreciate and fully understand.

The Three Stages of Salvation

Justification: Salvation from the penalty of sin (Rom. 3-4).
Sanctification: Salvation from the power of sin (Rom. 6)

Victory over the world (1 Jn. 5:4)

Victory over the flesh (Rom. 7:24, 25)

Victory over the devil (James 4:7)

Glorification: Salvation from the presence of sin (Rom. 8:18-23)

One final thought, the Christian can have total faith that the free gift of salvation comes with absolute assurance and security. Peter puts it like this:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 1 Pet. 1:3-5

(Additional Bible References: 2 Cor. 5:1-8; 13:5; 2 Pet. 1:10; John 3:18; 5:24; 6:37, 39-40; 10:27, 28; 17:9-24; Rom. 8:33-39; 11:29; Eph. 1:4-13; Phil. 1:6).

It’s Logically Impossible To Avoid Logic

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Alex McElroy

The only foundation upon which one should build their life is the truth. The truth should be sound, logical, and justifiable. Most, if not all, people would agree with that sentiment. However, the factors that one uses to determine what is true and what role truth ultimately plays in one’s life are where worldviews tend to diverge. Therefore, it is necessary for each individual to build or understand the epistemic structures that are reliable guides on how to determine what is true about the world around them.

Scottish poet and Christian minister George MacDonald said, “to give truth to him who loves it not is but to give him more plentiful material for misinterpretation.” Therefore, the first question to be asked and answered is, are you open to the truth wherever it may lead? Additionally, whether one presupposes a Christian or atheistic worldview, there are further delineations that exist in either framework. Within a Christian worldview, some believe that reason or philosophy as a means to acquire truth subverts the essence of faith. Others believe that without some level of reasoning ability, we can never truly come to faith. Let’s explore the perceived tension between faith and reason with a particular focus on the potential ramifications for misunderstanding how the Bible supports and encourages our reasoning capabilities. The fact is that the ability to reason soundly is wholly intertwined with sustaining Christian faith, which is trust in Jesus Christ.

Faith Is…

Noah Webster, the creator of the dictionary that bears his name and the Father of Christian Education, famously said, “education is useless without the Bible.”[1] In 1828, he published the first edition of his dictionary. Within that dictionary, the word faith was defined as affectionate practical confidence in the testimony of God. It was further defined as “a firm, cordial belief in the veracity of God, in all the declarations of his word, or full and affectionate confidence in the certainty of those things which God has declared, and because he has declared them.” [2] The current definition of the word faith in the subsidiary dictionary of Noah Webster, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary reads, “a firm belief in something for which there is no proof.” [3] That is quite a departure from how faith was once defined, and it adequately reflects the current societal disengagement with anything remotely religious.

The idea that Christians place their faith or trust in a God for whom no evidence exists is popular, but apologists, scientists, and philosophers are providing the material to combat that notion. Craig and Moreland write, “One of the awesome tasks of Christian philosophers is to help turn the contemporary intellectual tide in such a way as to foster a socio-cultural milieu in which Christian faith can be regarded as an intellectually credible option for thinking men and women.”[4] Christian faith can, therefore, be defined as trusting in the eternal person, presence, and work of God. The Bible clearly states that without faith, it is impossible to please God. [5] However, the Bible never calls us to have blind faith. As we will see, God the Father, Jesus, and the Biblical authors place a high view on evidence, thinking, and reasoning.

Reason Is…

Unfortunately, there exists within current Christianity a wave of anti-intellectualism. Moreland notes that as early as the mid-19^th century, anti-intellectualism was beginning to have an impact. He writes:

But their overall effect was to overemphasize immediate personal conversion to Christ instead of a studied period of reflection and conviction; emotional, simple, popular preaching instead of intellectually careful and doctrinally precise sermons; and personal feelings and relationship to Christ instead of a deep grasp of the nature of Christian teaching and ideas. Sadly, as historian George Marsden notes, ‘anti-intellectualism was a feature of American revivalism.’[6]

The impact of anti-intellectualism has only been accelerated with the advent of postmodernism. Reason is necessary in order to push back against a postmodern mindset, which denies absolutes and objective realities. Such a mindset actually becomes self-refuting, and that fact can only be demonstrated by engaging in sound philosophy. It is to this task that the Christian and especially the apologist, must not retreat. Therefore, in order to move forward, we must define reason. Moreland writes, “By reason, I simply mean the faculties, in isolation or in combination, I use to gain knowledge and justify my beliefs.”[7]

The point was made that postmodernism, in many instances, becomes self-refuting. For example, Nicolas Wolterstorff references:

A lecture by Anthony Flew, which contended that if one scrutinizes how people guard their religious convictions one sees that they treat them as compatible with the happening of anything whatsoever. In other words, these beliefs are not falsifiable. And because they are not falsifiable they do not constitute genuine assertions. They make no claims on actuality… scientists convinced of the truth of some scientific theory behave exactly the way Flew says religious believers do.[8]

Here we can see that such a scientist becomes guilty of the same type of faith they falsely accuse the Christian of exercising.

Already, it has been demonstrated how accurate reasoning can be employed to diffuse the often-incomplete reasoning of naturalists and how a lack of philosophy can do much to hinder the advancement of the church. In order to apply this understanding of reason and its necessity, one should also consider the futility of eschewing reasoning in the attainment or sustainment of the Christian faith. Even if someone got saved in a miraculous spiritual experience, they would still have to make a decision not to simply write that experience off as a freak event. A choice must be made regarding whether or not one will acknowledge that experience as evidence of God’s existence. Once that choice is made, you have engaged your reasoning ability.

Even to come to the conclusion that faith, which often comes from reading the Bible, is the essential component for acquiring faith or a proper understanding of Christianity, you have arrived at that conclusion by employing your reasoning abilities. To say otherwise would be akin to an atheist like Richard Dawkins writing about the nonexistence of God but not recognizing that the rationality necessary to make such a statement only exists if God exists. If our brains are simply a product of time, matter, and chance, that would hardly be the recipe for a source of sound reasoning. Or it is like the postmodernist who writes that no objective truths exist while desiring us to believe their own reasoning embedded in such a statement. Reason, if real, presupposes the ability to know that we have the structural components to choose between a range of options.

The naturalist cannot sustain this proposition, and the theist who places an undo emphasis on faith without reason equally cannot sustain the proposition unless they posit that God miraculously causes only some people to have faith in Him. “The law of the excluded middle says that P is either true or false; or, put somewhat differently, either P is true or its negation, not-P, is true.”[9] In other words, we all must make a choice. The option to not choose is invalid. Either reason is firmly grounded in the mind and nature of God, our Creator, or we don’t have the ability to reason at all. However, if we do have it, it must be because God desires that we use it.

How Faith And Reason Work Together

Apologetics helps us to grow in confidence as disciples of Jesus as we begin to see the value of reason and how unbiased reasoning actually affirms the tenets, mandates, and principles of Christianity. With such understanding, a Christian worldview is no longer our version of the truth; it is communicated as an accurate depiction of reality. Peter tells us to “always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.”[10] The Apostle Paul, in his brilliant oration on Mars Hill in Acts 17, confidently and thoughtfully provided an explanation for the truth of the gospel, who God is and what He desires of us. Klein and Blomberg note that “in each case, these preachers sought to establish common ground with their audiences in order to gain the greatest possible acceptance of their message.” [11] Neither Peter nor Paul assumed that those they spoke to would simply be able to look at nature and come to faith in God. In fact elsewhere, Paul writes, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them because God has shown it to them.” [12] This implies that some other method may be of use to prevent the truth from being suppressed.

This is not to say that unless Christians become master philosophers and apologists that God will never be able to save anyone. Rather there is a partnership that should exist between faith and reason. Romans 10:9-10 informs us that salvation comes through confident confession in Christ as our Lord and Savior and a belief in our hearts. That belief is the result of choice based upon sound logical, historical, and experiential evidence. Belief should always be justified and warranted. John Skorupski raises and answers some important questions. He writes, “Rational explanation raises questions at the philosophical level. What connection must hold between your response and the facts that warrant it, for you to be said to respond from that warrant? What is it to be aware of, to recognize, a warrant? Do you have to believe that you have a warrant?” [13] Do Christians have a responsibility to have good reasons for believing what they believe, or is the internal witness of the Holy Spirit enough? Skorupski goes on to write those rational explanations are, “to be understood as short for explanations which explain an actor’s response by showing that it proceeded from the actor’s recognition that it was warranted. A rational explanation explains a person’s response (belief, feeling, action) as proceeding from a warrant.” [14] Whatever factors (philosophical, moral, spiritual, or academic) motivate the individual to come to salvation, they will always have a warrant.

The Inescapability Of Philosophy

Some Christians distrust our ability to reason well due to our fallen nature. Therefore, they believe there should always be a tension between faith and philosophy. Steve Wilkens notes that “many who embrace the Tension view emphasize the vast ontological distance that distinguishes Creator from creation. God’s transcendence, this perspective argues, necessitates that the means by which we know of God differ from the process by which we come to other types of knowledge.” [15] Our sinful nature should cause us to examine our reasoning against the truth of Christianity. However, those who avow the faith and philosophy in tension perspective “view that sin’s lingering effects continue to diminish and distort reason’s capacity to comprehend divine truth even after regeneration. Thus reliance upon rationality to discern the nature and ways of God does more harm than good.” [16]

This seems to present problems because what follows from such a view is that at no point are we able to reason well. This means to be able to support a tension view; you have to be able to trust that your perspective is not corrupted by your continued inability to reason well! Furthermore, an overemphasis on keeping faith and philosophy in tension will prevent Christians from engaging in the necessary activity of combating purely secular philosophy.

What Is At Stake

Much is at stake in determining the proper relationship faith should have with reason. Were philosophy and thereby reason to be completely removed from matters pertaining to faith, what could our children do when challenged in school by seemingly well-reasoned arguments? Conversely, if philosophy and reasoning are given too large a platform in Christianity, they may overshadow the uniqueness and beauty of the gospel. The Greek word most commonly used for ‘faith’ in the New Testament is pistis, which, according to Strong’s Lexicon, means a conviction of the truth of anything. In order to hold to orthodox Christian beliefs and defend those beliefs against heretical beliefs, a mature Christian should be willing and able to delineate reasons for their belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who was crucified, buried and rose from the grave. To say to someone “just have faith” when God has graciously provided us with evidence seems unnecessarily antagonistic and does not, in the end, affirm the person of God.

In practice, the ability to reason soundly is entirely interlaced with actualizing and sustaining faith in Christ. The reason we fellowship with other believers is in order to grow in our understanding of God. The reason we evangelize to non-believers is to see them enter into a relationship with God as well. There are, however, many Christians who have placed their faith in Christ but who don’t evangelize. Sometimes this is due to a lack of certainty about the validity of Christian claims. Perhaps, reason and philosophy could aid such a Christian in gaining confidence in their faith, which would compel them to be more active in the work to which we have all been called.

C.S. Lewis wrote:

“If all the world were Christian, it might not matter if all the world were uneducated. But, as it is, a cultural life will exist outside the Church whether it exists inside or not. To be ignorant and simple now — not to be able to meet the enemies on their own ground — would be to throw down our weapons, and to betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered. The cool intellect must work not only against cool intellect on the other side, but against the muddy heathen mysticisms which deny intellect altogether. [17]

Christians would be wise to heed the words of a man who referred to himself as “England’s most reluctant convert.” C.S. Lewis was converted through conversations with other Christians who challenged his reasoning and philosophy and provided him a more coherent, well-reasoned worldview. [18] This is why the ability to reason soundly is wholly intertwined with initiating and sustaining Christian faith, which is trust in Jesus Christ.

References

[1] Luteria Archambault, Challenges, and Objections: Meeting Them Head On. (Bloomington, IN Westbow Press, 2013)5.

[2] Noah Webster, A Dictionary of the English Language. (London, England: Black, Young, and Young, 1828).

[3] The Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (Martinsburg, WV: Quad Graphics, 2016).

[4] J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2017)4.

[5] Hebrews 11:6 NKJV

[6] J.P. Moreland, Love Your God With All Your Mind. (Colorado Springs, CO: NAVPRESS Publishers, Inc., 1997), 16.

[7] Ibid., 45.

[8] Nicolas Wolterstorff, Reason Within the Bounds of Religion. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984), 24.

[9] Moreland, Philosophical Foundations, 120.

[10] 1 Peter 3:15

[11] William Klein, Craig Blomberg & Robert Hubbard Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation: Third Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017)541.

[12] Romans 1:18-19

[13] John Skorupski, The Domain of Reasons. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010), 2 of 33.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid., 13.

[16] Ibid.

[17] C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory. (New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 1949), 58.

[18] David C. Downing, The Most Reluctant Convert. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 147-8.

The World On The Other Side of This Pandemic

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

The world is an unpredictable place. But we pretend it isn’t. We like to envision our future and plan our steps, pretending we know how we’ll get there. But the stories we write for ourselves rest on assumptions about how the world works and our place in it. And those assumptions tend to be cheery ones. Most of us never include suffering or vulnerability in our forecasts, especially if we believe that “God is in control.” But when it all goes to hell, our illusions fade to black. The smiling facade vanishes quickly when life unveils our real gods. Our lives are changing rapidly and permanently right before our eyes. But the Church needs to take the lead in influencing the world we will face on the other side of this pandemic.

The World Descends

Between Sunday and Thursday of last week, I saw my own home state shut down all bars and restaurants. Inconvenient? Sure. But then I went to work.

I spent the next three days in hotels in Boston and San Francisco. Boston was a dark, rainy ghost town. There were empty streets and closed businesses in the city by the bay. No trolley cars in sight. You could hear birds singing in the eerie air downtown.

I met a British man in an elevator whose flight to London had been canceled. He had no earthly idea when, or how, he would be able to get home. And no one from his airline would communicate with him.

Salt Lake City, one of my airline’s major hubs, was rocked by an earthquake that closed the airport and caused massive flight diversions.

During the descent on our final leg home, we were informed that the eastern half of the Indianapolis Air Traffic Control Center was shutdown. Two air traffic controllers had tested positive for Coronavirus.

On Tuesday, my airline announced that it would park 300 airplanes and cut flying by 40%. By the time I got home, those numbers had changed to 600 airplanes and 70%.

In short, every time I landed somewhere, I was afraid to turn on my phone. In the space of three and a half days, I felt like I had become a character in a Stephen King novel. And as I write this, the details of this pandemic have only gotten worse.

Paradigm Shifts

In the space of just a few hours on the morning of September 11, 2001, we had a massive paradigm shift in this country. It led to economic calamity, war, and distrust. It’s hard to remember what life was like before that day. Today’s crisis may be happening at a little slower pace, but the consequences will be more severe. And some of them will be permanent.

Welcome to the new reality. The post-Coronavirus world is something few of us could have imagined even a few weeks ago. We’re still not sure what that world will look like. But we’re getting a glimpse.

New Reality?

The stock market is plummeting. The value of our retirement accounts have been cut by more than a third. Leaders are issuing edicts and manipulating “rescue” bills to gain a political advantage. Neighbors hoard food and supplies, depriving their neighbors of the same. “Preppers” are feeling vindicated. Opportunists are trying to sell vital products for obscene profits.

In each of these cases, we see the fruits of the gods who some folks really worship: selfishness, panic, fear, power, greed, and control.

It is an unfortunate reality that challenging times tend to bring out the worst in us. And it is a sad fact that some of that fruit comes from people we sit next to in church every week.

But it doesn’t have to be this way.

Children of a Greater God

We are free-will beings. And that means nothing is inevitable. We don’t have to accept the rotten fruit of the lower gods.

” … for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.” 2 Timothy 1:7

The God of the Bible is a reasonable God. A selfless, loving, compassionate God. A God of mercy and justice.

We are made in His image.

The Church has faced catastrophes before. But instead of languishing with the lunatics of the lesser gods, it made the choice to reflect the character of its King. Here are some ways I can think of to do that. Feel free to add some more if you have them…

Empathize With the Younger Generation

If you’re older than 35 or so, think about the world you grew up in as a kid. It was carefree and mostly serene. You didn’t have to think about “adult things.” And your parents weren’t bombarded with outrage, politics, and flamethrowing 24/7/365 from the news. All you had to do was be a kid.

Now think about those who are under 30 years old. Realize that their lives have been bookended by catastrophes like 9/11 and the Coronavirus pandemic. Their view of the world is different than those of us who are older. Look at it through their eyes and have some compassion. You don’t have to be Pollyanna. Just give them something to be optimistic about … or at least try to understand why they’re not.

Serve Our Neighbors

Christianity exploded during the plagues and persecutions in the ancient world. And it did so precisely because Christians served those who most needed it. They comforted and cared for the sick and dying. This isn’t just a job for healthcare professionals. It’s a duty for us all.

We need to quit being the “takers” our culture encourages us to be. We need to be givers of whatever it is we are able to give.

And let’s be smart about this. Preparing to care for those in need includes caching medical supplies and equipment for future outbreaks like this that will come — instead of fighting each other to hoard things now. And it means retooling our country to produce our own medicine and other medical equipment here where we need it, not overseas where it’s cheap.

Demand Economic Restraint

The economic expectations we have come to accept as normal are reckless, selfish, and short-sighted. We borrow and spend too much. We save too little. Our leaders are more worried about the next election than the next generation. But they are like that because we demand comfort and security from them now. We have mortgaged the future so we can indulge ourselves in the present. And we do it on a national, congregational, and personal scale.

Imagine how different this crisis would be if businesses, churches, and families had conserved the financial means to weather this storm. And imagine what kind of world we will be leaving for our kids and grandkids if we don’t change our ways.

The World On The Other Side

The changes we are facing will be dramatic and long-lasting. There are things we will never do the same way. There are ways we will think about things that have been forever altered. But, since that’s the case, let’s make the world on the other side of this a better one. The circumstances will be challenging. But our response should be far different from the world around us.

If you believe Christianity is true, that means it applies to every aspect of our lives and to every situation in which we find ourselves. Economics and pandemics are no exception. Let’s use the rational minds God gave us to be smart, savvy, and sacrificial.

This kind of thing will happen again. If anybody should be ready to deal with it the next time, it’s the Church.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Right Kind Of Galaxy

The Right Location In That Galaxy

The Right Kind Of Star

The Right Distance From The Star

The Right Kind Of Neighbors

The Right Kind Of Moon

The Right Kind Of Planet

Just A Pale Blue Dot?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Pasajes con dificultad

Pasajes vergonzosos

Conclusión

Recursos recomendados en Español:

#1. HOW MANY WOMEN WERE AT THE TOMB OF JESUS?

LET’S LOOK AT THE TEXTS

“NEVER READ ONE BIBLE VERSE”

THE SKEPTIC’S BAD ASSUMPTIONS

#2 WAS THE TOMB OPENED OR CLOSED WHEN THE WOMEN ARRIVED?

LET’S LOOK AT THE TEXTS OURSELVES

GETTING A GRIP ON THE GREEK

OK, BUT WHERE IS MATTHEW GETTING HIS INFO FROM?

#3. DID THE WOMEN AT THE TOMB OF JESUS SEE A MAN AT THE TOMB, TWO MEN, OR TWO ANGELS?

AGAIN, LET’S LOOK AT THE TEXTS IN QUESTION:

6 TIMES IN THE BIBLE WHERE ANGELS APPEAR AS MEN

HOW MANY ANGELS WERE THERE?

#4. THE WOMEN SPREAD THE WORD OF THE EMPTY TOMB (OR DID THEY?)

BUT DOESN’T MARK 16 HAVE TWENTY VERSES?

LETTING THE SKEPTICS SPEAK

IS MARK’S GOSPEL INCOMPLETE?

BUT WHAT IF MARK REALLY INTENDED ON STOPPING AT VERSE 8?

THE RESURRECTION ACCOUNTS AREN’T HOPELESSLY CONTRADICTORY

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Three Stages of Salvation

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Faith Is…

Reason Is…

How Faith And Reason Work Together

The Inescapability Of Philosophy

What Is At Stake

References

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The World Descends

Paradigm Shifts

New Reality?

Children of a Greater God

Empathize With the Younger Generation

Serve Our Neighbors

Demand Economic Restraint

The World On The Other Side

Recommended resources related to the topic: