By Erik Manning
2 Timothy 3:16 says that all Scripture is “God-breathed.” Of course for Christians, this would include 2 Timothy, as well as the rest of the pastoral epistles. Skeptics find this verse to be ironic because many biblical critics think that the pastoral epistles were forgeries.
These letters claim to be written by the Apostle Paul, but they allegedly were really written sometime in the early 2nd-century, long after Paul was dead. Apparently, the forger wanted to address some doctrinal issues, and their own name wasn’t authoritative enough, so they borrowed Paul’s. So the “God-breathed” New Testament apparently contains some pious lies.
But are the critical arguments against the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles really an open and shut case? Not really. In fact, there’s some very good evidence that Paul did write these letters, and the arguments of the critics aren’t really all that strong.
This will be a 2-part series. First, we’ll first look at the positive case for Pauline authorship before digging into the critics’ objections in the next post.
The witness of the early church fathers
If there was anyone in a spot to know who wrote 1st and 2nd Timothy, it would have been the church father, Polycarp. In his letter to the Philippian church written in about 110 AD, Polycarp quoted 1 Timothy 3:8, 6:7, 6:10, and 2 Timothy 2:12. He also mentions Paul by name four times in his letter, including some indications that he was familiar with the apostle’s martyrdom.
On the significance of these early patristic quotes, here’s Biblical scholar Kenneth Berding. He makes two main observations in regards to Polycarp’s use of 1 and 2 Timothy:
“Observation #1: The first is that Polycarp clusters allusions to Paul’s writings around each of the three times that he mentions Paul’s name explicitly (in chapters 3, 9, and 11). You see, Polycarp is like some elderly Christians you may have met in your life who are so immersed in the Bible that they almost talk like the Bible. Polycarp had huge sections of the Old and New Testaments committed to memory. His letter could almost be described as a pastiche of allusions to various writings, about half of which are originally Paul’s. (His connection to Paul in this letter makes sense, of course, since he is writing his letter to a Pauline congregation….the Philippians!) Polycarp pretty randomly mixes allusions to Paul’s writings (half of his total allusions) with allusions to other writings (e.g., Psalms, Matthew, 1 Peter, 1 John). But there is one significant exception: when he mentions “Paul,” he clusters allusions to Paul right after the mention of his name. He does this all three times he mentions Paul, showing that this is a pattern.
Observation #2: In the first “cluster” of Pauline allusions are two clear allusions to 1 Timothy (1 Tim. 6:10 and 6:7 found in Pol. Phil. 4.1) and in the second “cluster” is one clear allusion to 2 Timothy (2 Tim. 4:10 found in Pol. Phil. 9.2). There are none from the Pastoral Letters in the third cluster.
The implication of the first observation is that Polycarp considers the phrases in each cluster to be Pauline. The implication of the second observation is that Polycarp considers the phrases which he quotes from 1 and 2 Timothy also to be from Paul.
This, of course, doesn’t prove that Polycarp is correct in his assessment. But, as Koester writes, Polycarp was “doubtlessly the most significant ecclesiastical leader of the first half of II C. E.”
Critics say that the writer of the Pastorals was addressing Gnostic heresies of the late first and early second-century, so they were written around 110. But Polycarp was writing around the same time and seems convinced Paul wrote the letters. Irenaeus of Lyons tells us that Polycarp knew some of the apostles, in particular, John, whom Paul met. (Galatians 2:9). And he was familiar with Paul’s death, so this theory that the pastorals were written in the early 2nd-century is pretty strained.
Writing some 40-50 years later, Irenaeus explicitly mentions that Paul is the author of the Pastoral Letters. In his work Against Heresies, Irenaeus writes regarding heretics and says: “Paul commands us, ‘after a first and second admonition, to avoid” (Titus 3:10). Irenaeus also writes that Paul says to avoid those who use “novelties of words of false knowledge” (1 Tim 6:20).
Furthermore, the author of the Didache (a very early Christian writing dated to the late 1st-century) clearly quotes 1 Timothy 3:4. The Pastorals are also quoted by Clement of Alexandria (180 AD), Tertullian (220 AD) and Origen (230 AD). The witness of the early church is pretty clear. They quoted the pastorals as authoritative, and they believed the letters genuinely be from the Apostle Paul.
Undesigned Coincidences
If you’re forging a letter from someone and you want to make it believable, you’re going to color it with some overt connections with their previous letters and life-details. Some critics say this exists when the writer of Timothy talks about Paul’s former life as a church persecutor. (1 Tim. 1:13-16) But there are some less obvious interconnections in the pastorals that seem very unlikely to be intentional. These point to Paul being the genuine author of the letters.
These come in the form of undesigned coincidences. What the heck is an undesigned coincidence anyway? An undesigned coincidence (named by J.J. Blunt and first popularized by William Paley) happens when one account of an event leaves out a piece of info which is incidentally filled in by a different account, which helps to answer some natural questions raised by the first. You can read more about them here.
Lydia McGrew has recently revived and updated this older argument in her fantastic book Hidden in Plain View. It’s a must-read for anyone interested in defending the reliability of the New Testament. For our purposes, we’ll look at three undesigned coincidences where Acts and 1 and 2 Timothy seem to incidentally interlock.
Timothy’s Upbringing
The first is about Timothy himself. 2 Timothy 1:5 says “I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well.”. 2 Timothy 3:15 gives us some more details about Timothy’s upbringing: “and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.”
So Timothy was steeped in the Jewish scriptures and in the faith. These details fit well together with what we read in Acts 16:1-3: “Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek. He was well spoken of by the brothers at Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.”
In Acts, we learned Timothy’s father was Greek and apparently drew the line at circumcision, but his mother was a Jewish convert to Christianity. That’s why he would’ve been familiar with the scriptures since he was a child. 2 Timothy mentions his grandmother but not his father. Neither group of details seems to be in connection with the other. McGrew concludes that “this undesigned coincidence has the ring of truth. Timothy’s father was a Greek, and his mother was Jewish, he was raised from childhood in the knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures, and both the author of 2 Timothy and the author of Acts knew about him and described him accurately.” (HIPV, 200)
Timothy’s familiarity with Paul’s trials
2 Timothy 3:10-11 says: “You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra—which persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me.” This raises an interesting question. Paul went through a lot of persecutions, so why mention Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra as ones that Timothy would be familiar with?
In Acts 16:1, we read that Timothy was known as a believer when Paul came to Derbe and Lystra. Both cities are near Iconium, so Timothy must have been from one of them.
In the run-up to these verses, Acts gives us the rundown on the persecution of Paul experienced during his first missionary journey in Antioch (13:44–52), Iconium (14:5), and then Lystra (14:19). Paul was stoned and thought dead in Lystra in particular, so surely word got around about this event. It must’ve made quite an impression on a young believer like Timothy. Furthermore, Paul calls Timothy his “beloved child” (2 Timothy 1:2), suggesting he played a role in him becoming a Christian.
McGrew sums up this undesigned coincidence as follows: “Notice how indirect all of this is. One infers from II Timothy that Paul had some special reason to mention those persecutions to Timothy and to say that they were known to Timothy. One notes the point in Acts 13–14, where the narrative describes persecutions in those towns. One then infers from Acts 16 that Timothy was already a disciple from that region and had been converted during Paul’s previous visit to the region, described in Acts 13–14, during which the persecutions took place.” (HIPV, 203)
The Roster of Widows
For our last undesigned coincidence, we notice that in 1 Timothy 5:9-10 there are some instructions on how to help widows: “Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work.”
The conservative dating of 1 Timothy is in the early 60s, three decades after some of the stories related in Acts, which includes details of a ministry devoted to assisting widows. With that in mind, check out Acts 6:1-4: “Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”
So Paul implies that this listing of widows has been a tradition that’s been well-established, and he’s laying out some specifics how Timothy is to carry it out in his neck of the woods. We’d expect this kind of clarification if this practice had been carried out for a while and there needed to be some further practical instructions given since some women were abusing the system. (1 Tim 5:13-14)
Here’s William Paley’s summary on this particular undesigned coincidence: “Now this is the way a man writers, who is conscious that he is writing to persons already acquainted with the subject of his letter; and who, he knows, will readily apprehend and apply what he says by virtue of their being so acquainted: but it is not the way in which a man writes upon any other occasion” (Horae Paulinae, pp 300-301)
Personal References
There are a lot of personal references made in the pastorals. The writer mentions a lot of individuals that he had a connection with during his missionary journeys. In 1 Timothy 1:20, he names Hymenaeus and Alexander as false teachers.
In 2 Timothy, he not only mentions Eunice and Lois by name (which we touched on earlier) but he also blesses Onesiphorus for his kindness that he showed him at Rome and Ephesus (2 Tim 1:16-18) He talks about a number of disciples forsaking him during his trials, such as Demas, Crescens and Titus. (v. 4:10-11) He mentions Mark and Luke and asks Timothy to bring him his scrolls. (v11-13) He then asks Timothy to greet Priscilla and Aquila. He mentions Erastus and says he left Trophimus sick in Miletus. (v. 19-20)
In Titus 3:12, he asks Titus to join him once Artemas or Tychicus arrive to replace him. He also mentions some fellow workers, like Apollos and Zenas the lawyer (Titus 3:12-13)
If such allusions to people and circumstances were spun out of thin air by a forger pretending to be Paul, you’d think that such a sham would be easily exposed. But as we said earlier, none of the church fathers doubted the letters’ genuineness.
Paul wrote the Pastorals
There’s some very good evidence for the genuineness of Paul’s letters to Timothy that seems to go ignored by critics. They tend to focus on more granular internal inconsistencies and quibbles about grammar, which we’ll discuss in my next post. But as we’ve seen, the witness of the early church strongly favors that Paul wrote these letters based on their statements and use of the letters. And the internal evidence of undesigned coincidences between Acts and the pastoral letters is another strong argument in favor of the genuineness of the letters. The claim that Paul wrote these letters stands on solid ground.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)
Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)
The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (Mp3)
Erik Manning is a former atheist turned Christian after an experience with the Holy Spirit. He’s a freelance baseball writer and digital marketing specialist who is passionate about the intersection of evangelism and apologetics.
Apologetics as Conversation
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Mikel Del Rosario
Hey, Can We Talk?
Seeing apologetics as a conversational ministry
There’s an Indian proverb that says, “You don’t cut off a man’s nose and give him a rose to smell.” I first heard this from Ramesh Richards, who applies this idea to apologetics. He says that sometimes, in the midst of talking about God, Jesus, or the Bible with skeptics, some Christians seem to “destroy them in the process of contest and debate.” That stuck with me.
While apologists often cite 1 Peter 3:15, focusing on the command to be “prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you,” some tend to neglect the rest of the command, “yet do it with gentleness and respect.” Think about apologetics training in a church or school context. Each lesson usually focuses on philosophical, theological, or historical issues, and the instructor often gives less attention to the personal aspects of practical engagement in everyday conversations. The content isn’t bad, but we need practical training for having conversations, too.
So how can we approach difficult spiritual conversations? At the Hendricks Center, we’ve dedicated a number of episodes on the Table Podcast dedicated to exploring the concept of dialogical apologetics—a practical approach which sees apologetic engagement not merely as a debate but as genuine dialogue.
In this post, I’ll share three ideas we need to incorporate into the way we think about engaging in apologetics: First, we need to see apologetics as a ministry. Second, we need to adapt our approach to a shifting culture. Third, we need to earn the right to be heard–especially in difficult spiritual conversations.
See Apologetics As Ministry
While some Christians seem reluctant to discuss the faith with their skeptical friends, others seem almost too eager to tear down objections and refute people’s challenges to Christian truth claims. What kind of attitude should we have as we prepare for difficult spiritual conversations? How can we alleviate some of the tension, so we don’t automatically get defensive? On an episode of the Table Podcast called, “How to Engage in Spiritual Conversations,” Mary Jo Sharp talked about seeing apologetics as a ministry. She said:
So, knowing what you believe and why you believe it can give you the confidence you need to engage in spiritual conversations. But even before we start to engage, let’s look at apologetics as a ministry. Who says apologists have to be stern or super serious all the time? Sometimes we get a bad rap as the kinds of people who walk into conversations looking for a fight. But ministry means service. I believe there is apologetic value to remaining calm in difficult spiritual conversations and genuinely serving the other person.
When you have confidence in the truth of the Christian worldview, it should allow you to minister to the person by listening to their views and the stories behind them. Approaching these encounters with a desire to minister to the person can reduce the tension you feel. And it can help you avoid getting defensive or becoming argumentative.
Adapt to a Shifting Culture
While the truth hasn’t changed, challenges to the Christian worldview have evolved. And we need for a new generation of apologists who are sensitive to current conversations around transgenderism, religious freedom, and the intersection of faith and vocation. What kinds of issues are people already talking about as they try to sort out the tensions of life? These kinds of hot-button issues especially need to be approached from the standpoint of dialogue, not debate.
On an episode of the Table called, “Truth, Love, and Defending the Faith,” I sat down with Sean McDowell to talk about how the next generation of apologists can engage the culture in rapidly-shifting times. He said:
Back in the second century, there was a group of Greek Apologists like Justin Martyr who defended the faith in a pagan, Greco-Roman context. They had to learn to “read and react” to what was going on in the public square. In the same way, we need a new generation of apologists who are able to address a variety of cultural issues as they make the case for Christianity in the public square today.
Earn the Right to be Heard
So a new kind of apologist sees apologetics as a ministry and adapts to a shifting culture. But he or she also knows how to earn the right to be heard in a society that often pushes back against Christianity. On the same episode, I asked my mentor Darrell Bock about this. Here’s what he said:
Conclusion
The Indian proverb gets it right. There’s no point in giving someone a rose to smell if you’ve cut off their nose. But the flip side is also true. A gift of a rose and its smell is especially sweet when it comes from someone who actually cares about you. Let’s see apologetics as a ministry, adapt our approach to a shifting culture, and earn the right to be heard–especially in difficult spiritual conversations.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl (Book)
Practical Apologetics in Worldview Training by Hank Hanegraaff (Mp3)
The Great Apologetics Adventure by Lee Strobel (Mp3)
Defending the Faith on Campus by Frank Turek (DVD Set, mp4 Download set and Complete Package)
So the Next Generation will Know by J. Warner Wallace (Book and Participant’s Guide)
Reaching Atheists for Christ by Greg Koukl (Mp3)
Living Loud: Defending Your Faith by Norman Geisler (Book)
Fearless Faith by Mike Adams, Frank Turek and J. Warner Wallace (Complete DVD Series)
Mikel Del Rosario helps Christians explain their faith with courage and compassion. He is a doctoral student in the New Testament department at Dallas Theological Seminary. Mikel teaches Christian Apologetics and World Religion at William Jessup University. He is the author of Accessible Apologetics and has published over 20 journal articles on apologetics and cultural engagement with his mentor, Dr. Darrell Bock. Mikel holds an M.A. in Christian Apologetics with highest honors from Biola University and a Master of Theology (Th.M) from Dallas Theological Seminary where he serves as Cultural Engagement Manager at the Hendricks Center and a host of the Table Podcast. Visit his Web site at ApologeticsGuy.com.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2kTOY3P
Conceptualizando las dos naturalezas de Jesús
EspañolBy Max Andrews
Reduplicated preaching is the means to understanding the relationship between the natures of Jesus Christ. When Scripture attributes human qualities to Jesus they must be based on his human nature. Likewise, when Scripture attributes divine qualities to Jesus they must be based on his divine nature.
With this insight, we might be able to solve the problem of the predicates of the Person. The predicate property of the Person is one with respect to nature (i.e. ignorance with humanity and omniscience with divinity — hunger and fatigue with humanity, need with divinity).
But now there is a problem. Once we apply this to Jesus, such predicates as omniscience and ignorance, and sinlessness and humanity seem to be incompatible. A problem with limitations is posed. Is this irremediable? I don’t think so.
Additional Qualifier – We can posit that the divine aspects of Jesus were largely subliminal during his humiliation (his ministry before death). What reasons are there to support this qualifier? In fact, this qualifies Jesus’ humanity even further.
Psychoanalysis has confirmed the existence of a subconscious. This is evident in schizophrenia and in hypnosis. With schizophrenia there is one conscious that is awake and one (or more) that is not, however, the subliminal subconscious can still become a reality. There is one that controls and governs the conscious. With hypnosis, one can be hypnotized and instructed not to look at, for example, a table. If you were instructed to walk to the door, and the table was between you and the door, you would walk around the table, even though you cannot literally see it, you still have the knowledge that it exists in your subconscious.
During the incarnation, the Logos allowed only certain aspects of consciousness into the person of Christ that were compatible with normal human experience. This gives much more light to the genuineness of his temptation, the anointing and filling of the Spirit, the Spirit drawing him into the wilderness, his prayer to the Father (these are not just samples). Jesus, at 3 years old, would not have been contemplating Newton’s infinitesimal calculus or quantum mechanics; he was a genuine Jewish boy growing in wisdom and stature.
So in essence it was a self-limitation of humanity with simultaneous practical divinity in one Person. This is different from Kenotic Christology in that He does not give up certain attributes and no longer possess them. In this view, He still retains all the human and divine aspects of voluntary limitation.
Original Blog: http://bit.ly/2nir4jz
Translated by Jorge Gil Calderon
Theistic Evolution? with Dr. Stephen Meyer
PodcastPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS
Some Christians are trying to get the church to accept evolution by putting the word “theistic” in front of it. Is that wise? Is evolution true? Join Frank and his guest Dr. Stephen Meyer (one of the best people on the planet to discuss this), as they investigate several important questions such as:
Dr. Meyer contributed significantly to the massive recent book, Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical and Theological Critique. You should also go to the CrossExamined app and listen to the January 2017 and September 2014 shows with Dr. Meyer. Those shows are evergreen and lay out the evidence against macroevolution and for intelligent design.
If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.
Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
Transcript
Do Humans Have Intrinsic Value?
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Luke Nix
Introduction
Whether humans possess intrinsic value or instrumental value is a debate that often runs parallel to discussions about the true worldview. This debate also often fuels the passion behind worldview discussions because it has implications for ethics and morality, which are directly tied to how people ought to live and how people ought to hold each other responsible to those expectations. Such accountability can take a range of forms from personal and private conversations to legal and very public repercussions. And because one’s politics are an extension of their ethics, the passion associated with politics is also added to the mix.
Because all the emotions that accompany ethical and political discussions can easily cloud the issue, it is important that it is approached more objectively and philosophically, if we are to have a calm and reasonable discussion. Today, I want to take a few minutes to examine the philosophical implications and examine some scientific evidence for one side to assist with bringing calm to this important debate.
Intrinsic Value
If humans are intrinsically valuable, then there are a set of objective (and even absolute) duties that cannot be violated. This view holds that humans possess objective value regardless of their situation, condition, social or economic status, skin color, sex, location, beliefs, or any host of other characteristics that people try to judge others’ value. This allows for objective condemnation and consequences of particular choices and behaviors, which many people do not appreciate, especially if they are accused of committing the atrocities. This view also makes even government and governmental officials responsible to the greater reality of this moral law, which justifies political reform- something that certain rulers and politicians do not appreciate.
Instrumental Value
On the other hand, if humans are merely instrumentally valuable, then treatment of them (regardless of the particular treatment- including murder, rape, torture, or any host of traditionally unthinkable treatments) can only be judged based on their utility towards a particular goal. This view permits the affirmation of the “goodness” of even the most egregious behaviors if a “greater” goal is in view. This view allows for anyone to be able to justify any behavior if they can make their goal sound good or acceptable. There is no objective standard by which to judge the morality of a behavior, only to judge its utility. There is also no objective standard by which to judge a particular goal. Since the goal is subjective, so is the behavior, and no moral judgment is actually permitted. This ultimately reduces to “might makes right:” whoever holds the power to punish holds the power to dictate what is “right” and what is “wrong.” Political reform has no justification other than a differing opinion of someone who may be able to challenge the power of those currently in power. If one holds to this view, they often confuse legality with morality.
The Christian worldview traditionally has held that humans possess intrinsic value in virtue of being created in the Image of God. If this is true, then the first set of implications described above are features of reality that all humans are subject to. Any worldview that cannot justify intrinsic human value is left with the second set of implications described. And, by necessary logical implication, if one wishes to appeal to intrinsic human value, they must justify that appeal by grounding intrinsic human value outside the human race.
Origins of The Image of God
If humans have intrinsic value, it had to come from somewhere (or Someone) outside of the human race. Otherwise, the value that is ascribed to humans is merely subjective and instrumental. As I have described in a previous post (Why Is The Image of God So Important), this discussion is tied to one’s view of human origins. If someone wishes to appeal to intrinsic human value, they must accept some type of connection between humans and an eternally existing, absolute reality that is outside of (and is not) this universe. The only thing that fits this description is the Creator God of the Bible.
In order to argue for the intrinsic value of humans, Dr. Fazale Rana offers several lines of evidence for the sudden appearance of the Image of God in life’s history (which happens to coincide with the sudden appearance of humans on the scene). He calls this sudden appearance a “cultural big bang”:
These pieces of evidence include:
Advanced cognitive ability
The capacity for symbolic thought
A powerful imagination
Superior craftsmanship
Inventiveness and superior adaptability
A driving desire for artistic and musical expression
He goes into great detail about the anthropological discoveries of scientists over the years in his book “Who Was Adam.” In the third section of the book, he addresses modern challenges to his conclusions and brings in the latest discoveries over the past decade. The cumulative, scientific case presented in the book for the Image of God coinciding with the appearance of the human race, by extension, is a powerful evidential case for humans possessing intrinsic value.
Conclusion
It is vital to a proper theory of ethics (and even politics) that we know whether humans possess intrinsic value or not. Ultimately, if humans are created in the Image of God, as argued by Dr. Rana, then the idea that humans possess intrinsic value accurately describes the reality of our species. If humans are intrinsically valuable, that serves as the foundation for how we ought to treat one another (ethics) and that further guides how we should govern one another. If humans are not created in the Image of God (do not possess intrinsic value), then all sorts of heinous treatment of them are permissible even by those who wield the most power (governments and politicians).
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)
Do Ethics Need God? by Francis Beckwith (Mp3)
Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2mvkci2
Peripheral Visions: Even Science Needs More Than Science to Work Properly
Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Terrell Clemmons
Jon Headley has a confession to make. “I’m a 30-year-old man, but until a few years ago, I had no real understanding of the theory of evolution.”
“Ah,” the ex-Christian continues after relieving himself of this confessional burden, “it feels good to get that off my chest.” And with that, the musician and producer expounds upon his religious deconversion in a lengthy Medium.com essay titled “How I Learned to Trust Science: On the difference between dogma and evidence.” “I was taught that capital-S Science was our enemy,” Headley writes, and that there were “three big lies that Science had introduced to the world [that were] especially dangerous.” These are the Big Bang, an old earth, and evolution. As a kid, he was ready to argue with any science teacher because “I was sure of what I believed.”
But in truth, he now confesses, “I didn’t know s***.”
The essay starts out with a potentially helpful dismantling of what might be called “packaged” religion—that is, religious teachings pre-assembled somewhere up the hierarchy and disseminated with the expectation that they will be accepted on church authority. As he explains his upbringing, Headley paints a picture of insulated social groupthink, with the whole package propped up by confirmation bias.
He brings this up to compare and contrast “two foundational ways of looking at the world.” He was raised to look at the world by way of religion, he says, which is based on authority, dogma, and assumptions. The problem with this way, he continues, “was that I had been handed a set of beliefs, and I had never questioned them fully for myself.” By contrast, he now looks at the world by way of the scientific method, the key idea of which goes like this: “Any hypothesis about the world must be tested and proved by repeated experiment.”
He’s right about the problem he identifies with his first way, but sadly, after starting out so well, his second way leaves him in a place that is arguably worse. This is because, while the key principle of proving hypotheses by experimentation is reasonable and works well in the practice of science, it’s highly problematic when taken as the primary way of knowing truth about the world—which is what he has done.
Headley’s second way is what’s called scientism, and he is far from the only one succumbing to it. In Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology (Crossway, 2018), J. P. Moreland defines scientism as “the view that the hard sciences—like chemistry, biology, physics, astronomy—provide the only genuine knowledge of reality.” Whether expressed in the strong form, which says that science and its methods provide the only valid route to knowledge, or in some weaker form that allows other ways of knowing to have some lesser validity (as long as they bow to science), scientism has become a part of the pseudo-intellectual air we breathe. I say “pseudo” because scientism isn’t intellectual, but is rather, at its very core, intellectually unsound.
From the Ivory Towers to the Streets
We’ll return to that point momentarily, but first, let’s look at a few scenarios that demonstrate how deeply this assumption of scientism has become embedded in the substrate of public life:
Celebrity scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson especially tipped his scientistic hand when he was asked about the politics of climate change in the era of Trump. He defended the authority of science to the point of expressing his exasperation with those who resist bowing to it: “What will it take for people to recognize that a community of scientists are learning objective truths about the natural world?” he asked CNN anchor Fareed Zakaria.
Do you hear the intellectual imperialism in that little sermonette? The high priesthood of science (with himself as a figurehead, of course) learns and then dictates to the rest of us what is objectively true. (This from a man who also wrote, “After the laws of physics, everything else is opinion,” but I digress.)
Hollywood got the memo. In the wake of the 2017 hurricane season, actress Jennifer Lawrence said it’s “scary to know—it’s been proven through science that human activity—that climate change is due to human activity and we continue to ignore it and the only voice that we really have is through voting.” Has Ms. Lawrence tested and proved the climate catastrophe hypothesis by experiment? No, as Derek Hunter clarifies in Outrage, Inc. How the Liberal Mob Ruined Science, Journalism, and Hollywood (Broadside Books, 2018); “an exhaustive search of the Internet could find no record of Lawrence studying meteorology or weather or even studying beyond high school.” No, she believes in climate change based on the authority of science.
Similarly, what Headley has done, apparently blithely unaware, is merely exchange one way of knowing based on a claim to authority for the same way of knowing, only based on a different authority. Instead of “believing Religion,” he now “believes Science.” (On the upside, though, with this way you can announce your enlightened state of consciousness with a $35.00 t-shirt or $19.00 coffee mug from MarchForScienceShop.com, but again, I digress.)
Disambiguating Science from Scientism
In defense of the scientific-method way, Headley writes, “Science begins with no assumptions.” But this is utterly false because the very practice of science is itself based on several assumptions, and those assumptions are not scientific but philosophical.
Moreland identifies six presuppositions that underpin the empirical sciences. Here are the first four:
The remaining two have to do with ethical, mathematical, and logical truths, and Moreland shows how all six are necessarily a priori assumptions underlying the scientific enterprise that science itself cannot justify because they are philosophical, not scientific, in nature. “Just as the structure of a building cannot be more reliable than the foundation on which it rests,” he writes, “so the conclusions of science… cannot be more certain than the presuppositions of science.” Thus, in the end, scientism ends up being a foe, rather than a friend, of science.
This should suffice to demonstrate that scientism is unreliable as a comprehensive epistemology (“epistemology” means “way of knowing”), but it gets worse for Headley and his epistemological kin. Moreland identifies two more criticisms of scientism, the most devastating one being that scientism is, itself, self-refuting. Here’s how: Scientism asserts that the only propositions that are even capable of being true are scientific propositions. But as we have already seen, scientism is not itself a scientific proposition but is rather a philosophical proposition about science. Thus, on its own terms, scientism is incapable of being true.
But we’re still not done. There is one more coup de grace to be dealt. Scientism denies the existence of true, reasonable beliefs outside of science. And thus, all those moral posturings by Tyson and the marchers for science (and for “climate justice” and for whatever other “justice” cause you might see on a political placard) are rendered null and void according to scientism.
This is no laughing matter. Not only does scientism throw the very foundation of such essential values as human rights under the hegemonic steamroller of “Progress… because Science,” but it also blinds people to potentially liberating and more comprehensive paradigms for conceptualizing reality.
Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow conceded before his death in 2008 that the evidence he saw from Big Bang cosmology implies a creator, and that he found it hard to believe human life is “all a matter of atoms and molecules.” But because of what “my science tells me,” he could not incorporate the concept of a creator into his understanding of reality. It was a situation he found unsatisfactory. “I feel I’m missing something. But I will not find out what I am missing within my lifetime.”
Indeed, given his epistemological constraints, he could not. With apologies to 1970s music fans, Jastrow was so close, and yet so far. Since he couldn’t know God through the methods of science, he found himself, by his own admission, “in a completely hopeless bind.”
Restoring the Mind by Restoring Philosophy First
Whatever Headley was told in his youth about science, being an enemy is false. None of the empirical disciplines we call science are anyone’s enemy. Neither are the Big Bang, an old earth, or evolution. It is the untested, unproven presumption of scientism that is the free mind’s enemy and the dogma that should be dropped.
Still, Headley’s essay raises important questions for parents and churches about how to apprehend and propagate truth in an information-glutted society. Authoritative claims to knowledge won’t cut it (and never should have, anyway) in the absence of other reasons to believe.
“Religion often attracts people by selling certainty,” Headley says, but we don’t know anything for certain. Instead, he recommends “a large dose of humility.” Because “we are all human beings, with limited and treacherous brains, trying to figure out an infinite and complex universe that is way bigger than we are.”
And that, indeed, is excellent advice. All of us would do well to take this wise counsel and direct it toward the self-appointed, certainty-selling high priests and priestesses of scientism.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Why Science Needs God by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)
Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)
Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Does Science Disprove God? by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book)
Terrell Clemmons is a freelance writer and blogger on apologetics and matters of faith.
This article was originally published at salvomag.com: http://bit.ly/2kr7HUi
Correcting four myths about the history of the Crusades
Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Wintery Knight
Here is an interesting article from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.
Intro:
The four myths:
Here’s the most obvious thing you should know. The Crusades were defensive actions:
If you asked me what are the two best books on the Crusades, I would answer God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades by Baylor professor Rodney Stark and The Concise History of the Crusades by Professor Thomas F. Madden. If you get this question a lot from atheists, then I recommend you pick these up. Anything by Rodney Stark is useful for Christians, in fact.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Islamic Culture: Jihad or Jesus? by Dr. Frank Turek (Mp3)
Answering Islam by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD Set, Mp4 and Mp3)
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2lWyLuT
¿Cómo pueden ser los evangelios relatos de testigos oculares si ellos incluyen cosas que los escritores no vieron?
EspañolMi viaje hacia el cristianismo comenzó cuando examiné los evangelios con el fin de analizar las palabras de Jesús. Yo estaba interesado en Jesús nada más como una fuente de sabiduría antigua y mi curiosidad hacia su persona me hizo empezar a examinar cuidadosamente los evangelios. Me impresionó de inmediato la presencia de lo que yo llamo “Apoyo involuntario entre testigos”; una característica que a menudo veo en varias declaraciones de testigos en la escena del crimen. Esto me hizo examinar los evangelios con mucho más detalle y eventualmente apliqué los principios del Análisis de Declaración Forense (Forensic Statement Analysis) al Evangelio de Marcos.
Escribí Cold-Case Christianity desde la perspectiva de un detective de casos congelados (casos sin resolver durante muchos años) examinando las declaraciones de los autores de los evangelios y probando su credibilidad como testigos presenciales. Sin embargo, varios escépticos han cuestionado esta premisa fundamental y han cuestionado si los evangelios son relatos de testigos presenciales en primer lugar. Una objeción importante es el hecho de que los escritores de los evangelios a menudo incluyen información de eventos que simplemente no podrían haber observado personalmente (es decir, los relatos del nacimiento en Mateo o Lucas y varios momentos en donde Jesús es descrito estando solo). ¿Cómo pueden los evangelios ser relatos de testigos si se incluyen hechos que los autores no pudieron haber presenciado? Al leer las declaraciones de testigos presenciales de casos congelados que fueron investigados originalmente hace décadas, encuentro que estas declaraciones incluyen tres tipos de información de primera mano:
Es cierto que, en la mayoría de las cortes de los juicios criminales, la “experiencia de primera mano” y el “conocimiento de primera mano” suelen ser las únicas partes del testimonio que son admitidos como evidencia. La parte del testimonio que yo llamo “acceso de primera mano” no se toma en cuenta por ser “de oídas” (porque la fuente original de esta información no está disponible para el interrogatorio). Pero esto no significa que la información de esta categoría sea falsa o inválida. Existen una serie de condiciones en las que estos “testimonios de oídas” son admisibles en los casos penales, pero el estándar de aceptación en los procesos penales está cuidadosamente diseñado para ofrecer la máxima protección posible a los que están siendo acusados de cometer un delito. Preferimos tener a un centenar de personas culpables libres que condenar a una persona inocente. Por esta razón, queremos ser capaces de interrogar cuidadosamente a los testigos que están proporcionando información acusatoria.
Pero este alto estándar asociado con el testimonio de oídas es completamente irracional al examinar las afirmaciones de los testigos relacionados con los acontecimientos históricos. Una vez que un testigo presencial de un evento histórico muere, todo lo que este testigo dijo ya no está abierto a un interrogatorio. Bajo este estándar de la corte, tendríamos que ignorar todo lo que no puede ser declarado por un testigo viviente (y por lo tanto interrogado cuidadosamente). Si aplicamos esta norma a nuestra vida personal, ninguno de nosotros podría tener confianza en nuestra propia historia familiar más allá de nuestros padres o abuelos que aún viven. Es un estándar inaceptablemente alto al examinar las afirmaciones de los testigos relacionados con los acontecimientos históricos. Los testigos presenciales aportan información a la luz de su propia experiencia personal y su observación, su propio acceso a la información de otros testigos vivientes, y su propio conocimiento profundo de la cultura en la que viven. Me parece que esto es cierto en todos los casos en que he trabajado. El hecho de que un testigo presencial opte por proporcionar información de “acceso de primera mano” no desacredita lo que ellos están proveyendo de “experiencia de primera mano” o “conocimiento de primera mano”. De hecho, la inclusión de datos adicionales simplemente proporciona al investigador más datos para investigar, corroborar y presentar al jurado.
J. Warner Wallace tiene una trayectoria de más de 25 años como policía y detective, posee un Master en Teología por el Seminario Teológico Golden Gate Baptist y es profesor adjunto de Apologética en la universidad de BIOLA.
Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2mjmBwg
Traducido por José Giménez Chilavert
Why are there so many denominations?
PodcastPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS
Skeptics are quick to claim that there are thousands of Christian denominations. Is that really true? If the Bible is true and clear, why is are there so many denominations? Join Frank as he addresses these four questions:
Along the way, you’ll see that people disagree on almost everything— even science! The bottom line regarding denominations is that disagreement is more about our resistance to clear doctrine than the existence of clear doctrine.
If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.
Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
Transcript
Forgery in the Bible: Were 1 and 2 Timothy really forged?
4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Erik Manning
2 Timothy 3:16 says that all Scripture is “God-breathed.” Of course for Christians, this would include 2 Timothy, as well as the rest of the pastoral epistles. Skeptics find this verse to be ironic because many biblical critics think that the pastoral epistles were forgeries.
These letters claim to be written by the Apostle Paul, but they allegedly were really written sometime in the early 2nd-century, long after Paul was dead. Apparently, the forger wanted to address some doctrinal issues, and their own name wasn’t authoritative enough, so they borrowed Paul’s. So the “God-breathed” New Testament apparently contains some pious lies.
But are the critical arguments against the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles really an open and shut case? Not really. In fact, there’s some very good evidence that Paul did write these letters, and the arguments of the critics aren’t really all that strong.
This will be a 2-part series. First, we’ll first look at the positive case for Pauline authorship before digging into the critics’ objections in the next post.
The witness of the early church fathers
If there was anyone in a spot to know who wrote 1st and 2nd Timothy, it would have been the church father, Polycarp. In his letter to the Philippian church written in about 110 AD, Polycarp quoted 1 Timothy 3:8, 6:7, 6:10, and 2 Timothy 2:12. He also mentions Paul by name four times in his letter, including some indications that he was familiar with the apostle’s martyrdom.
On the significance of these early patristic quotes, here’s Biblical scholar Kenneth Berding. He makes two main observations in regards to Polycarp’s use of 1 and 2 Timothy:
Critics say that the writer of the Pastorals was addressing Gnostic heresies of the late first and early second-century, so they were written around 110. But Polycarp was writing around the same time and seems convinced Paul wrote the letters. Irenaeus of Lyons tells us that Polycarp knew some of the apostles, in particular, John, whom Paul met. (Galatians 2:9). And he was familiar with Paul’s death, so this theory that the pastorals were written in the early 2nd-century is pretty strained.
Writing some 40-50 years later, Irenaeus explicitly mentions that Paul is the author of the Pastoral Letters. In his work Against Heresies, Irenaeus writes regarding heretics and says: “Paul commands us, ‘after a first and second admonition, to avoid” (Titus 3:10). Irenaeus also writes that Paul says to avoid those who use “novelties of words of false knowledge” (1 Tim 6:20).
Furthermore, the author of the Didache (a very early Christian writing dated to the late 1st-century) clearly quotes 1 Timothy 3:4. The Pastorals are also quoted by Clement of Alexandria (180 AD), Tertullian (220 AD) and Origen (230 AD). The witness of the early church is pretty clear. They quoted the pastorals as authoritative, and they believed the letters genuinely be from the Apostle Paul.
Undesigned Coincidences
If you’re forging a letter from someone and you want to make it believable, you’re going to color it with some overt connections with their previous letters and life-details. Some critics say this exists when the writer of Timothy talks about Paul’s former life as a church persecutor. (1 Tim. 1:13-16) But there are some less obvious interconnections in the pastorals that seem very unlikely to be intentional. These point to Paul being the genuine author of the letters.
These come in the form of undesigned coincidences. What the heck is an undesigned coincidence anyway? An undesigned coincidence (named by J.J. Blunt and first popularized by William Paley) happens when one account of an event leaves out a piece of info which is incidentally filled in by a different account, which helps to answer some natural questions raised by the first. You can read more about them here.
Lydia McGrew has recently revived and updated this older argument in her fantastic book Hidden in Plain View. It’s a must-read for anyone interested in defending the reliability of the New Testament. For our purposes, we’ll look at three undesigned coincidences where Acts and 1 and 2 Timothy seem to incidentally interlock.
Timothy’s Upbringing
The first is about Timothy himself. 2 Timothy 1:5 says “I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well.”. 2 Timothy 3:15 gives us some more details about Timothy’s upbringing: “and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.”
So Timothy was steeped in the Jewish scriptures and in the faith. These details fit well together with what we read in Acts 16:1-3: “Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek. He was well spoken of by the brothers at Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.”
In Acts, we learned Timothy’s father was Greek and apparently drew the line at circumcision, but his mother was a Jewish convert to Christianity. That’s why he would’ve been familiar with the scriptures since he was a child. 2 Timothy mentions his grandmother but not his father. Neither group of details seems to be in connection with the other. McGrew concludes that “this undesigned coincidence has the ring of truth. Timothy’s father was a Greek, and his mother was Jewish, he was raised from childhood in the knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures, and both the author of 2 Timothy and the author of Acts knew about him and described him accurately.” (HIPV, 200)
Timothy’s familiarity with Paul’s trials
2 Timothy 3:10-11 says: “You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra—which persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me.” This raises an interesting question. Paul went through a lot of persecutions, so why mention Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra as ones that Timothy would be familiar with?
In Acts 16:1, we read that Timothy was known as a believer when Paul came to Derbe and Lystra. Both cities are near Iconium, so Timothy must have been from one of them.
In the run-up to these verses, Acts gives us the rundown on the persecution of Paul experienced during his first missionary journey in Antioch (13:44–52), Iconium (14:5), and then Lystra (14:19). Paul was stoned and thought dead in Lystra in particular, so surely word got around about this event. It must’ve made quite an impression on a young believer like Timothy. Furthermore, Paul calls Timothy his “beloved child” (2 Timothy 1:2), suggesting he played a role in him becoming a Christian.
McGrew sums up this undesigned coincidence as follows: “Notice how indirect all of this is. One infers from II Timothy that Paul had some special reason to mention those persecutions to Timothy and to say that they were known to Timothy. One notes the point in Acts 13–14, where the narrative describes persecutions in those towns. One then infers from Acts 16 that Timothy was already a disciple from that region and had been converted during Paul’s previous visit to the region, described in Acts 13–14, during which the persecutions took place.” (HIPV, 203)
The Roster of Widows
For our last undesigned coincidence, we notice that in 1 Timothy 5:9-10 there are some instructions on how to help widows: “Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work.”
The conservative dating of 1 Timothy is in the early 60s, three decades after some of the stories related in Acts, which includes details of a ministry devoted to assisting widows. With that in mind, check out Acts 6:1-4: “Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”
So Paul implies that this listing of widows has been a tradition that’s been well-established, and he’s laying out some specifics how Timothy is to carry it out in his neck of the woods. We’d expect this kind of clarification if this practice had been carried out for a while and there needed to be some further practical instructions given since some women were abusing the system. (1 Tim 5:13-14)
Here’s William Paley’s summary on this particular undesigned coincidence: “Now this is the way a man writers, who is conscious that he is writing to persons already acquainted with the subject of his letter; and who, he knows, will readily apprehend and apply what he says by virtue of their being so acquainted: but it is not the way in which a man writes upon any other occasion” (Horae Paulinae, pp 300-301)
Personal References
There are a lot of personal references made in the pastorals. The writer mentions a lot of individuals that he had a connection with during his missionary journeys. In 1 Timothy 1:20, he names Hymenaeus and Alexander as false teachers.
In 2 Timothy, he not only mentions Eunice and Lois by name (which we touched on earlier) but he also blesses Onesiphorus for his kindness that he showed him at Rome and Ephesus (2 Tim 1:16-18) He talks about a number of disciples forsaking him during his trials, such as Demas, Crescens and Titus. (v. 4:10-11) He mentions Mark and Luke and asks Timothy to bring him his scrolls. (v11-13) He then asks Timothy to greet Priscilla and Aquila. He mentions Erastus and says he left Trophimus sick in Miletus. (v. 19-20)
In Titus 3:12, he asks Titus to join him once Artemas or Tychicus arrive to replace him. He also mentions some fellow workers, like Apollos and Zenas the lawyer (Titus 3:12-13)
If such allusions to people and circumstances were spun out of thin air by a forger pretending to be Paul, you’d think that such a sham would be easily exposed. But as we said earlier, none of the church fathers doubted the letters’ genuineness.
Paul wrote the Pastorals
There’s some very good evidence for the genuineness of Paul’s letters to Timothy that seems to go ignored by critics. They tend to focus on more granular internal inconsistencies and quibbles about grammar, which we’ll discuss in my next post. But as we’ve seen, the witness of the early church strongly favors that Paul wrote these letters based on their statements and use of the letters. And the internal evidence of undesigned coincidences between Acts and the pastoral letters is another strong argument in favor of the genuineness of the letters. The claim that Paul wrote these letters stands on solid ground.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)
Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)
The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (Mp3)
Erik Manning is a former atheist turned Christian after an experience with the Holy Spirit. He’s a freelance baseball writer and digital marketing specialist who is passionate about the intersection of evangelism and apologetics.
4 Ways Parents Bore Their Kids Out of Christianity
Apologetics for ParentsBy Natasha Crain
The highlight of my summer was a family RV vacation to Kings Canyon National Park. Behind our campground flowed a gorgeous river that I returned to multiple times over the course of our trip. Each time I went, I sat and pondered the “big questions” of life. There’s something about the majesty of creation that bubbles up a deep sense of awe about who God is, what he has done, who we are, and the meaning of life.
But this sense of awe also led me to reflect on how so many kids are apathetic about their worldview. A common thread I hear from parents is that their kids just don’t care about their spiritual beliefs, or just don’t care about Christianity specifically. There are certainly many kids who explicitly reject Christianity today, but I just as often hear about kids who are ambivalent.
How does ambivalence happen? As I sat by a river contemplating that question, a thought struck me:
Kids are being bored out of Christianity.
And they’ve been bored out of it by the Christians around them. Since parents are the primary spiritual influencers in the lives of kids, I want to suggest four ways we sometimes let this happen.
1. Parents rely on Sunday school for their kids’ spiritual development.
The vast majority of Sunday school programs don’t exactly challenge kids to think deeply about their faith. It’s Adam, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Daniel, Jesus’s birth, Jesus’s miracles, and Jesus’s resurrection… repeat. Oh, and how could I forget Jonah! Always a Sunday school favorite.
But hearing the same stories over and over each year without going deeper is hardly different than reading kids the same book over and over and expecting them to really engage.
That’s boring.
When parents aren’t having rich conversations about faith with their kids at home—conversations that help them see the relevance of all those Sunday school lessons—Christianity can start to feel like nothing more than the sum of a handful of Bible stories. That’s pretty easy to leave behind when kids leave home.
2. Parents treat spiritual beliefs as subjective truths.
There are a number of Christian parents who treat spiritual beliefs as a matter of subjective truth—this is what works for them, but something else may work better for their kids. This usually sounds like some version of, “I want my kids to have their own faith journey, and that might not be Christianity for them. I just want them to be happy people with good values.”
Of course, every kid will be on their own faith journey (that goes without saying), but in this context, the parent is suggesting that it doesn’t matter where the child ends up because all beliefs are equally valid. Happiness and good “values” (however the parent defines those) are prioritized over their kids’ pursuit of objective truth—what is true about reality for everyone.
But Christianity is either true or false; it can’t be true for one person and not another. If Jesus was raised from the dead, then he was who he said he was and Christianity is true. If he wasn’t, our faith is in vain, and Christianity is a false worldview (1 Corinthians 15:14).
How does all this lead to boredom? If it doesn’t really matter what you believe, there’s no need to really put effort into determining what’s “true”—true in such a case is just whatever you stumble into thinking works for you over the course of your life. Why bother caring so much about the belief system your parents happen to adhere to?
3. Parents live their lives in a way that’s indistinguishable from those of nonbelievers.
Even for those parents who recognize that Christianity is a matter of objective truth with far-reaching implications, it’s easy for daily life to not reflect that in an obvious way to kids. Parents get busy, and family spiritual disciplines (e.g., Bible reading and prayer), church, serving, and meaningful faith conversations go out the window before anyone really notices what happened.
If the only detectable difference between the lives of a Christian family and those of nonbelieving families is that the Christian family occasionally attends church, kids will (rightly) question what difference being a Christian really makes. And if they don’t know why it matters that much, they won’t be motivated to really commit their own lives to the Lord. They’ll be bored by occasionally listening to “Christian stuff” that doesn’t translate into anything they see as meaningful.
4. Parents don’t teach kids what big faith questions they should be asking.
As I’ve written about before, I grew up in a Christian home and spent hundreds of hours in church. I never rejected my faith, but when I left home for college, it didn’t even occur to me to find a church or join a Christian college group. As far as I had thought through faith, I was saved, I would live my life without doing anything too bad, and go to heaven someday.
In other words, I had some rough “basics” down, yet it was hardly an invigorating faith. No one had ever challenged me to think about big, deep, meaningful questions that would become increasingly relevant as I got older. Things like: How can I be confident that God exists? Why is there so much evil in a world created by a good God? Why is God so “hidden?” What happens to those who haven’t heard about Jesus? Why do some prayers go unanswered? (You can look at the tables of contents in my books for 70 such questions kids should be thinking about.)
No one ever put these kinds of questions in front of me to say, “Hey! Here are some really big questions you should be thinking about when it comes to your faith—questions that have compelling answers and will lead you to a deeper conviction of what you believe!”
Instead, I just kept learning the “basics”—important basics, but only the basics. I wasn’t even aware that there could be so much more richness to my faith. I believed Christianity was true, but it was a boring kind of true. Familiar and comfortable like an old chair.
Plenty of kids today walk out of faith with a big yawn for this reason. Maybe they aren’t explicitly rejecting Christianity in this case, but they’re intellectually bored enough by it that they have no problem relegating it to a small corner of their lives until they feel the need to dust it off again.
Unfortunately, that perceived need often arises in the midst of a life crisis that finally prompts them to ask these questions. And those who have never really taken the time to work through them before will be woefully unprepared. What in the past was boredom can easily then turn to rejection in the darkest of times?
Spiritual apathy may seem less immediately troubling to parents than a child’s outright rejection of faith, but the end result is often the same. Boredom can end up being a quiet faith killer that parents unintentionally foster in their own home.
Need help fighting spiritual boredom? In my next post, I’ll offer ideas for reinvigorating your family’s spiritual life.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Talking with Your Kids about God: 30 Conversations Every Christian Parent Must Have by Natasha Crain (Book)
Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side: 40 Conversations to Help Them Build a Lasting Faith by Natasha Crain (Book)
Courageous Parenting by Jack and Deb Graham (Book)
Proverbs: Making Your Paths Straight Complete 9-part Series by Frank Turek DVD and Download
Forensic Faith for Kids by J. Warner Wallace and Susie Wallace (Book)
God’s Crime Scene for Kids by J. Warner Wallace and Susie Wallace (Book)
Natasha Crain is a blogger, author, and national speaker who is passionate about equipping Christian parents to raise their kids with an understanding of how to make a case for and defend their faith in an increasingly secular world. She is the author of two apologetics books for parents: Talking with Your Kids about God (2017) and Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (2016). Natasha has an MBA in marketing and statistics from UCLA and a certificate in Christian apologetics from Biola University. A former marketing executive and adjunct professor, she lives in Southern California with her husband and three children.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2lNA3Iq