By Xavier Gonzalez
Part I: Definition and history of Fideism.
Part II: The story of Christians with reasonable faith.
Promoters of Reasonable Faith
As we saw earlier, the first Christians were not fideists, and that is in total contradiction with the fideists and certain atheists who claim that faith is blind and irrational, and that there is a contradiction between faith and reason, but would those Christians who have some academic specialization say the same? Did those who tried to find out where their faith is based think the same, as did the apologists of the second century? Or did they have (and do they have) good reasons to think that the Christian faith is really a reasonable faith?
We will quote certain statements from different academics who follow this line of thought:
Faith is indeed the response to evidence, not a celebration of the absence of evidence.
—John Lennox
Reason is the left hand of our soul, faith is the right.
—John Donne
Reason and faith are two banks of the same river.
—Domenico Cieri Estrada
Real Faith is Not Blind, It is Based on Evidence.
—Rice Brooks
The Christian Faith requires its members to know their beliefs for themselves. Being a Christian means feeling responsible for one’s own beliefs and living them in a conscious and intelligent way.
—Alfonso Ropero
In Scripture, faith involves putting our trust in what we have reason to believe. Faith is not a blind, irrational leap into the darkness. In a biblical perspective, faith and reason cooperate with each other. They are not inherently hostile.
—JP Moreland
Thus, faith and thought go hand in hand, and it is impossible to believe without thinking. BELIEVING IS ALSO THINKING!
—John Stott
The Christian faith is, in its essence, the act of thinking.
—John Stott
The Bible never states that we should take a leap in the dark. Faith is not blind, in the sense of being arbitrary, eccentric, or a mere expression of human wish. If so, why does the author of Hebrews say that faith is the “conviction of things not seen”?
—RC Sproul
Few are those who leave their intellectual comfort to satisfy these uncertainties, but those who set out in search of evidence will not be disappointed, because the Christian faith is not a blind faith, but a faith in facts, facts that can be subjected to the judgment of reason.
—Claudio Garrido
My faith is Reasonable, Christianity is reasonable and based on History.
—Chris Du Pond
If a rational God has created us as rational beings with the loving intention of having communion with him, then we must confidently expect to come to know something of his existence and nature.
—Thomas V. Morris
Christian belief is justified in the same way that belief in atomic theory is justified: through good arguments and evidence.
—Cameron Bertuzzi
Faith does not show us God rationally, but it shows him to us reasonably.
—Francisco Lacueva
Everyone who believes, thinks. Because faith, if what is believed is not thought, is null.
—Augustine of Hippo
Faith in Christianity is based on evidence. It is reasonable faith. Faith, in the Christian sense, goes beyond what is reasonable, but it does not go against reason.
—Paul Little
Our trust in Christ is not based on blind emotion, but on the intellectual evaluation of the evidence that has convinced us of the truth of Christianity and given rise to a reasonable faith.
—Tricia Scribner
To renounce reason is to renounce religion; reason and religion walk hand in hand, every irrational religion is a false religion.
—John Wesley
It is not that we are trying to trick the opinion of fideists or atheists with a long list, these are simply a few to name and that also goes for fideists and atheists, phrases that would perhaps be capable of knocking anyone’s face down.
Now, the promoters of reasonable faith really think that there is a balance or compatibility between what is faith and reason, so for my brothers in Christ who have a Fideistic thought I say: Study!
Question your beliefs if necessary, but always looking for answers and justification of those beliefs if they are true or not. Do not stay like vagabonds in a box without seeking answers or help like a child who no longer goes out to the playground for fear of getting hurt, the only advice I give you is from the Apostle Paul himself: “But test everything; hold on to what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.” (1 Thess 5:21-22) and “Brothers, do not be children in your thinking, but be children in malice, but be mature in your thinking.” (1 Cor 14:20).
And for the not-so-friendly atheists (this can also include agnostics) who still accuse Christians of being brainless, if you are going to question the Christian faith… I appreciate it! This encourages committed Christians to study the faith further and seek better answers.
But to be frank, if they are going to be skeptical even of the evidence that one puts on the table and do not deign to carefully analyze what is presented, then it can be said that skeptics of this style have a rather naive and superstitious Faith , what I mean is, questioning everything without having good reasons for why to sustain such skepticism, that does not indicate that atheism is a reasonably and intellectually satisfactory position, it is only intellectual, rational laziness and even a comfortable way to take refuge in one’s own worldview, as intellectually lazy Christians also do.
Reasonable Faith (Biblically)
We may have described a bit of history and respectable promoters of a rational faith, but to finish this writing, we must go to the Bible, since atheists as fideists try to justify the irrationality of Christianity and what better way than using the very same sacred book that Christians use or believe respectively.
Let’s just see, are atheists right in saying that the Bible allows for blind faith? Do John 20:29, 2 Corinthians 5:7 and Hebrews 11:1 really assert that Christian faith is blind? We will analyze these and other quotes with great care and detail.
In this part of the writing we will first analyze the verses that assert that “faith” itself (or that it seems) is blind, we will use the classic Reina Valera of 60 :
John 20:29
Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen me, have you believed? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
2 Corinthians 5:7
(because we live by faith, not by sight)
Hebrews 11:1
And faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
Before we go into depth about the verses themselves, let’s first see what the word “Faith” really means in Greek, this word in its original translation is pronounced πιστός (pistos or pistis) this word in the Greek sense is used in 2 ways, which are active and passive, in the active mode it means that it is confident and in the passive mode it means that it is faithful, so this word in Greek is not synonymous with blindness but with trust or fidelity, the term first of all is firm persuasion, conviction based on what is heard, to give an example, it is like the doctor who diagnoses the patient, the doctor tells his patient the disease he has and the cure for that disease, and the only option the patient has is to trust the word of his doctor or not, hence the trust in someone. This is where the apologists base themselves on 1 Peter 3 15, to make a reasoned defense .
Now that it is clear what “Faith” really is, let us analyze the verses:
First to get a clarification of why Jesus said that, let’s go to the previous verses, John 20:24-29
24 But Thomas, one of the Twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus appeared.
25 Therefore the other disciples said to him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will never believe.”
26 And after eight days his disciples were again within, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you .
27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands, and put your hand here and put it into my side; and do not be unbelieving but believing.”
28 Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen me, have you believed? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Before let’s see certain conditions that happen here, first when Jesus appeared to the other disciples Thomas was not with them, then it happens that when the disciples met again with Thomas, he did not believe them, but wait a moment, how many people were there when Jesus appeared to them resurrected bodily before meeting with Thomas? Well, in Luke 24:13 it gives us 2 testimonies that they saw Jesus and the other appearance that the disciples had was in John 20:19, the verse does not tell us how many people were gathered, but here I would speculate that it was with almost all the disciples, because if they hid for fear of the Jews, I imagine that they agreed to have a hiding place so that the Jews would not catch them, although it was the right place and time for Jesus to appear to them. Now let’s see, whether it was the course of days or the week in which Jesus appeared to them (except for Thomas, of course), Thomas still had good justifiable evidence to believe, and it was the testimony of the other disciples, although Jesus always appeared to Thomas, we see 2 particular things, (1) that the faith that Jesus demanded from the apostles did not end up being a blind faith and (2) that that faith does have good justification for its evidence, but our question here is why did Jesus say that? And our answer is that:
The beatitude Jesus pronounced is not comparative in itself, that is, he does not say that “more” blessed are those who believe without seeing, although this might be implied. He accepted and approved Thomas’ faith by sight as true, but he omits to say that he is blessed. Thomas had the opportunity to believe in the resurrection based on the testimony of his companions, without visual evidence, and he did not take advantage of it. Jesus was apparently looking ahead to when his future disciples would have to believe without being able to see and he steps forward to pronounce a blessing on them. Culpepper observes that throughout the Gospel, John has discussed the relationship between seeing and believing, presenting a series of signs, but encouraging readers to a faith that is not based on signs.
So, in simple words, even if Jesus does not appear to us bodily resurrected every day, it is not a plus that our belief is not really well justified.
Now let’s move on to the next verse, which is 2 Corinthians 5:7. This quote tells us in a very emphatic way that “Faith” is “blind,” but we must take both the verses before this one and those that follow it in order to have an adequate context of the verse, and not juggle the same verse and end up deducing false conclusions. Now let’s see what the verses before and after 5:7 tell us.
1 For we know that if our earthly house, this tabernacle, were destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2 And thus we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly habitation,
3 For even though we are unclothed, we will not be found naked.
4 For we who are still in this tent groan with anguish, because we do not want to be unclothed, but to be clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life.
5 And he who destined us for this very thing is God, who gave us the Spirit as a guarantee.
6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, while present in the body, we are absent from the Lord.
7 ( because we live by faith, not by sight);
8 But we are confident, although we prefer to leave the body and be with the Lord.
As we read in these verses, it indicates a faith directed toward another goal or purpose, which is not obviously a faith without evidence, but a faith in a promise. To put it in our perspective, it is like when a Father promises his son that he will give him a toy, and the child trusts and hopes in the promise that his Father made him. So what Paul does is contrast our faith that we will be resurrected and have a home in heaven with our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the faith that he speaks of here is toward a promise that we still await. Verse 7 with the passages that come from it refers to the fact that life is a journey, or a pilgrimage, and that the Christian is traveling to another country. The sense here is that we conduct ourselves in our course of life with reference to things that are not seen, and not with reference to things that are seen. Sometimes the people of this world strive for those objects that they have not seen, without any promise or assurance that they will obtain them. The inability to grant them has been promised to them; No one has assured them that their lives will be lengthened in order to obtain them. In a moment they may be cut off and all their plans frustrated; or they may be utterly disappointed and all their plans fail; or if they do obtain the object, it may be unsatisfactory and may not give such pleasure as they had anticipated. But not so the Christian. He has:
(1) The promise of life.
(2) He is assured that sudden death cannot deprive him of it. He immediately brings it to the object of persecution, not away from him.
(3) You are assured that when it is obtained, it will not displease, satiate, or deteriorate, but will fulfill all the expectations of the soul and will be eternal.
Thus, the verse quoted from 2 Corinthians 5:7 contextualizing its verses, does not exactly refer to an incompatibility between “faith and reason” it simply refers to “faith and promise”; therefore, given what is understood in this verse, let us go to the next one.
Hebrews 11:1
And faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
Here we discover the essential characteristics of faith from the author’s point of view. Faith has to do with things to come (hoped for) and things invisible (unseen). The RSV translation (the constancy of things hoped for) puts the emphasis on faith as an expression of our confidence in God’s promises. However, it is also possible to translate “faith is the substance (hypostasis) of things hoped for” or “faith gives substance to our hopes.” Such a translation suggests that things hoped for become real and have substance through the exercise of faith.
Now given the context of the verse, it is not a reference where it can be used to denote that faith is blind in itself, because if one reads the verses that follow we see certain characters who believed in what God told them, one could say that rather the faith that is referred to in this verse is in itself a fidelity to God, a fidelity to his promises; although something is quite clear, that when one reads the following verses and the faith that these characters had, it did not turn out to be a “blind faith” either, thus, faith is always accompanied by evidence, as my friend Anselm of Canterbury would say “I believe in order to understand and I understand in order to believe.”
Now that the verses have been clarified, we must touch on an important point, and that is, how do we come to know that a Faith is blind in itself? And here is the crucial point, for a faith to be blind, its very content must be false. What do I mean by this? That the content of the faith, where the heart of the belief is found, cannot justify or sustain what it declares about itself, and here we are going to touch on the verse 1 Corinthians 15:14 and 17.
12 If then it is preached that Christ was raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 For if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised either;
14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is also in vain.
15 And we are found to be false witnesses of God, because we testify that God raised up the Messiah; whom he did not raise, if it is true that the dead are not raised.
16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either.
17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins,
18 and those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
Now, given as we read well in these verses, Paul denotes in a very emphatic way 2 things, (1) that the heart of the Christian faith is the resurrection and (2) recognizes that for the Christian faith to be blind the resurrection of Christ could never have occurred, hence the implications that he himself mentions, now if this is so, then this is where the atheist must attack to demonstrate that the Christian faith is blind, not starting from how the world was created or otherwise, thus, the Christian faith rests on 2 propositions that make the Christian faith true and reasonable, the first in the own statements that Jesus made of himself for all who believe in him and in the second that his resurrection is the basis or solid confirmation of all his statements.
Now, to give an analogy, imagine that a king declares war on a nation and motivates his army saying that he will win the war, here we see 2 propositions where the army puts its faith in its King, which are (1) that the guarantee that they will win the war is based on the King’s declaration and (2) that the event occurs for that declaration to be true, but if the opposite happens then the army gave their lives for nothing and the faith they had towards the king ended up being in vain, it is so in the Christian faith if what Jesus Christ said about himself after his death was not fulfilled, then I have no reasons to be a Christian I would even dare to say that Christianity would cease to exist, in fact in Acts 5:34-39 a Pharisee Gamaliel recognized that although what these men preach is a lie, there will come a point when it will disappear, but if what these men preach is true, if the same statements of Jesus came true after his death, then even maintaining this FAITH IS REASONABLE.
That is why we can consider that Faith rests on a Faith founded on truth, and it can be demonstrated that it is true and that anyone can embrace that truth, with the mind and with the heart .
Xavier Gonzalez is from Venezuela and is dedicated to the study of philosophy, early Christianity and theology. He converted to Christianity at the age of 15. He managed the Me Lo Contó Un Ateo website and is in charge of the apologetics section of the Iglesia Cristiana la gracia website ( http://www.iglesialagracia.org ).
45 Quotes About Relativism vs. Truth
1. Does Truth Exist?, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Luke Nix
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4
Right From Wrong by Josh McDowell Mp3
Counter Culture Christian: Is There Truth in Religion? (DVD) by Frank Turek
Deconstructing Liberal Tolerance: Relativism as Orthodoxy (Mp3) by Francis Beckwith
Defending Absolutes in a Relativistic World (Mp3) by Frank Turek
Is Morality Absolute or Relative? (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD) by Frank Turek
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/2L19IR3
New Tactics with Greg Koukl
PodcastPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Email | TuneIn | RSS
There are many places you can learn evidence for Christianity. There are very few places you can learn easy ways to share that evidence. Greg Koukl’s classic book Tactics is simply the best place to go to learn how to share the hope you have within you. Now, ten years after the first edition, Greg has rewritten, updated and expanded Tactics, and it just became available this week. Join Frank as he interviews Greg and they reveal some of the new Tactics that will help you move people closer to Christ in a way that takes all the pressure off of you.
Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
Un caso contra el teísmo (Parte 2)
EspañolIn this article I will address the second of four objections that were presented to us a few months ago. You can find the first part here .
Randy claims that
Let us first look at a formulation of the kalam :
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
1.1 Confirmed by experience.
1.2 It is a metaphysical principle that nothing can come from nothing.
1.3 If something can really come into existence without a cause, why don’t we see this happening in reality?
2. The universe began to exist.
2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of a current infinity:
2.1.1 An actual infinity cannot exist.
2.1.2 An infinite time regression of events is a current infinity.
2.1.3 Therefore, an infinite temporal regression of events cannot exist.
2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of forming an actual infinite by successive addition:
2.2.1 A collection formed by successive additions cannot actually be infinite.
2.2.2 The time series of past events is a collection formed by successive additions.
2.2.3 Therefore, the time series of past events cannot currently be infinite.
2.3 Confirmation based on the expansion of the universe.
2.4 Confirmation based on the thermodynamic properties of the universe.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for its beginning into existence.
4. If the universe has a cause of its existence, then there exists an uncaused personal Creator of the universe who, without creation, is unprincipled, immutable, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.
4.1 Argument that the cause of the universe is a personal Creator:
4.1.1 The universe was created by a set of necessary and sufficient conditions of mechanical functioning or by a personal free agent.
4.1.2 The universe could not have been created by a mechanical set of necessary and sufficient conditions.
4.1.3 Therefore, the universe was created by a personal free agent.
4.2 Argument that the Creator without creation is uncaused, unbeginning, immutable, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.
4.2.1 The Creator is uncaused.
4.2.1.1 There cannot be an infinite temporal regression of causes (2.1.3, 2.2.3).
4.2.2 The Creator is unprincipled.
4.2.2.1 Anything that is not caused does not begin to exist. (1)
4.2.3 The Creator is immutable.
4.2.3.1 There cannot be an infinite temporal regression of changes. (2.1.3, 2.2.3)
4.2.4 The Creator is immaterial.
4.2.4.1 Whatever is material implies a change at the atomic and molecular levels, but the Creator does not change. (4.2.3)
4.2.5 The Creator is timeless.
4.2.5.1 In the total absence of change, time does not exist, and the Creator does not change. (4.2.3)
4.2.6 The Creator is spaceless.
4.2.6.1 Whatever is immaterial and timeless cannot be spatial, and the Creator is immaterial and timeless (4.2.4, 4.2.5)
4.2.7 The Creator is enormously powerful.
4.2.7.1 He created the universe out of nothing. (3)
5. Therefore, there is a personal, uncaused Creator of the universe, who without creation is unprincipled, immutable, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.
With this argument in hand, we can now respond to each of the objections presented.
As can be seen from premise (4) of kalam, the cause of the universe must have, at a minimum, the following characteristics:
a. Immateriality
b. Incausality
c. Spatiality
d. Timelessness
e. Imprincipiality
f. Eternity
g. Immutability
h. Will
i. Enormous power
Randy mentions that kalam points to an unknown property, but there is at least one problem with this proposal: a property could only satisfy characteristics a – g , but not h or i , because its very nature as an abstract object makes it causally impotent, as Craig always puts it: “The number 7 causes nothing.”
What about naturalistic pantheism? Roughly defined, it is the position that God is the sum of all natural phenomena unified, but if this is true, then by definition natural phenomena cannot meet any of the characteristics (maybe i , if we are being kind).
What about magic? The problem with this is that we have good references to the fantastic origins of magic, not to mention that contemporary magic is nothing but tricks and skills to deceive the spectator. But even if we concede that the existence of magic is possible (in the broad logical sense), the problem with this “cause” is that it has different definitions depending on the place of origin (there are both natural and non-natural magics), but in most of them, a magician is always required to use it. Probably Randy, taking advantage of how difficult it is to define magic, would be tempted to say that there could be a magic that not only meets the characteristics a–g , but also h and i , but this would be the same case that occurred in the Craig–Woolper debate, in which the atheist begins to say a string of incoherencies, such as that the cause of the universe is a Supercomputer that meets a–i , to which Craig simply points out that, by definition, that would no longer be a computer, but God himself. [1]
Let’s go with Universe-Creating Goblins. By definition, a goblin is humanoid in shape, but about the size of a small child. A description of a material being, so goblins don’t fit the a–g criteria , but they do fit the h and i criteria . Of course, Randy, you can pull the Woolper tactic and say, “Oh, but these are Super Goblins!” But we’ve already seen what the problem with that is, and it honestly has no seriousness whatsoever.
Finally, that the cause of the universe is a law that has not yet been discovered. Dr. John Lennox has a perfect answer to the claim that mathematics or natural laws are causes:
So it is clear that appealing to some unknown law does not solve the problem. Now let’s move on to the next thing:
But Randy, this analogy is too weak. A stronger analogy of God as the cause of the origin of the universe from premise (4) would be something like this: Imagine someone shows you a box about 12 inches long x 12 inches wide and tells you to guess what’s inside it. You take the box, weigh it, and find that it weighs 2 pounds; then you notice something moving around inside the box, the movements are random, so you rule out a toy, at which point you know it’s an animal. Then you hear the animal inside start meowing. Bingo! At this point you know that at least the animal inside is a feline, and it can’t be a snake or any other 2-pound animal. Can you tell the difference? So when you get to the cause of the universe, it, just as in the box analogy, must have certain properties given the nature of the case, such as having all the properties ai . The theist here is not making gratuitous claims about the characteristics of the cause of the universe.
The problem is that it is a weak analogy fallacy.
There is no need to appeal to Occam’s Razor to choose the best explanation for the cause of the origin of the universe because it has already been shown that all the other possible causes that Randy has postulated do not meet the necessary characteristics.
Grades:
[1] Link: https://youtu.be/LgdkFOg7utY (accessed Nov. 12, 2019).
[2] Link: https://youtu.be/rSlGMXIYKD8 (accessed November 12, 2019).
Jairo Izquierdo is a member of the Social Media team and an author for the Christian organization Cross Examined . He studies philosophy and theology, with his current focus being classical logic, epistemology, Christian doctrines, and philosophy of language. He is co-founder of Filósofo Cristiano . He is a member of the Christian Apologetics Alliance and a worship director at the Christian Baptist church Cristo es la Respuesta in Puebla, Mexico.
What a Non-Christian Taught Me about the Gospel
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Dr. Dave Oldham
A number of years ago, a young woman came to our church for counseling and talked to me. She poured out her story of disappointment with her husband’s unfaithfulness, his unwillingness to change, and the mess her life had become, not only because of him but also because of her own unwise choices. She felt she was in a hole and wanted to know how to get out and begin afresh. While she was sharing and I looked into her searching eyes, I was asking myself and God how he and the healing he alone could bring might fit into her life. I knew she needed Jesus and the forgiveness and hope he would give, but I struggled with how to tell her she needed him. How did “accepting Jesus as her Savior” fit into the prospects that her past life would not continue to make her its slave? In short, how did the Gospel offer a new light to her path?
As I continued to think about what to say to her—though this was only a brief few minutes in the counseling session—it seemed that immediately inviting her to ask God for his forgiveness wasn’t the solution to her problems. Indeed, as I thought and prayed about what counsel to give her, it didn’t seem like the typical “altar call” invitation to accept Christ would be understood by her because of her lack of background in the Christian faith. She had not come for “religion” but for a solution to her life that she considered a mess.
Yet, I was a pastor and a Christian counselor. The struggle in my mind as I listened to her difficult story forced me to ask some of the hardest questions about my understanding of the gospel and Christianity. I think in those moments, God was doing something in me, something that would radically change my thinking from that time on. It is easy to say, “Jesus is the answer!” but the question that was pulsating in my mind was “How does God—especially, the message of salvation—fit into this young lady’s mess (damage, brokenness) and offer a future and a hope?”
I had been reading a book by Scott McKnight (The Gospel of the Kingdom)[1] in which he was debating where a person ought to begin in explaining the Gospel, the good news about God’s transformation in the lives of his people. He noted that far too often, Christians begin with the account of Jesus’ death as our substitute and the forgiveness that he made possible. But as I sat there with this young lady in my office, my mind said that was not the place to begin to guide her and help her find a new direction, new hope, a new chapter in her life. Then, I remembered McKnight’s words: The Gospel must begin with Adam and Eve’s fall in the garden. The perfect—sinless couple, undamaged, “innocent” as they came from the creative hand of God—became, like all of us, rebels. They freely chose to spurn God’s recipe for living in the paradise in which God had placed them. But from eternity past, God had a plan. He knew that his creatures (then and ever since then) would need a way of restoration, a restoration that was a path of healing for disobedience and the consequent damages. His plan begins with their (and our) acknowledgement that they had gone their own way, that they had chosen a way to live “better” than God’s. This rejection of the Creator’s design was and is a personal affront to God. This the Bible calls “sin.” And such choices have consequences; sometimes as the shipwreck, it makes in our lives, but—beyond that—our rebellion has put us in serious jeopardy with God. Though he loves us, his creatures as no one else does or ever will—he is a God of justice and must punish our sins. Punishment doesn’t sound like love, but here is where the good news begins.[2] He will be our judge, but he also wants to be our benefactor, offering us forgiveness because his beloved Son took on himself our punishment, the consequences of our sin. His forgiveness is a gift he offers for all.
Thus, the beginning of our restoration is seeking, asking for the forgiveness Jesus died to make possible, resting in God’s punishment of his Son for a restored standing with him. But God does something beyond forgiveness. He makes us his children; he adopts into his family, and though we (sadly) will and do disobey again, he has committed himself by his Spirit to take our brokenness and lead us to restoration and healing, a healing that follows the path Jesus taught. Jesus said his teachings were not “new,” but were in the Old Testament Scriptures. What in particular? A scribe asked that very question:
Our mission statement as new children of God is to do these two: to love God with our whole being (to love what he loves; to think how he thinks—which is discovered by reading and reflecting on the Scriptures; to be what he is: “holy,” set apart for God’s use; and to do what Jesus did.), and to love our neighbor as ourselves.
Restoration for this young lady—and for us—(1) begins with a brokenness because she/we have rejected God’s way (even if we did not do it knowingly); (2) progresses with asking God for his forgiveness; and (3) continues by depending on God’s power (the Holy Spirit) to restore her/our life to God’s ideal. The following illustration pictorially summarizes McKnight’s concept:
This is the new way, and it can be best lived in a “new community” with other children of God who are committed to the same mission: God’s mission. Dieter Zander put it well when describing his mission, he said:
God’s plan, then, is not only for people to find forgiveness (the beginning) but for wholeness and restoration to God’s image. This gives broken people hope. Because of Jesus, they can be forgiven. Because of the Spirit, there can be transformation. And because of the relationship with other children of God, she/they can be inspired to live out their commitment to God before a watching world.
Notes
[1] Two other seminal resources are Dallas Willard’s, The Divine Conspiracy and N. T. Wright’s, Jesus and the Victory of God and The Challenge of Jesus: Discovering Who Jesus Was and Is.
[2] Eddie Gibbs and Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches, 44: “Clearly, the gospel is not restricted to a message giving an individual assurance about eternal destiny. It is minimally that, but it is much more, being concerned as much with life before death as with life after death. When people are reconciled to God through Christ, they become a ‘new creation’ (2 Cor. 5:17). They first experience God’s reconciliation, often in community, which results in a life of radical transformation. The primary reference point is no longer their former alienation but their present and future identification as part of God’s new order, which was inaugurated with the first coming of Christ.”
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)
David Oldham graduated from the University of Illinois (BA), received an M.Div. from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and D.Min. from Fuller Seminary (2000). He has done post-doctoral with Dallas Willard (Course: “Spiritual Formation”). For 42 years, Oldham was a pastor in the Evangelical Free Church of America and then spent 3 years as a missionary in Honduras.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2pyYknW
Did Paul really change his tactics after Athens and begin to take a dim view of apologetics?
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Erik Manning
Some Christians have argued that apologetics is a waste of time. We aren’t supposed to be arguing with unbelievers; we’re just called to preach the simple gospel. If we’re faithful to do that, the Holy Spirit will supernaturally come to our aid — either in supernatural conviction, or performing signs and wonders through us that no one can gainsay.
To support this view, these well-meaning believers will point to Paul’s so-called ‘failure’ in Athens. Paul debated with the thinkers of Mars Hill, using natural theology and quoting their own philosophers in order to persuade them of the truth of the gospel. Paul’s results were modest. Acts 17:32-34 reads: “Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, “We will hear you again about this.” So Paul went out from their midst. But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.”
After Athens, Paul moved on to Corinth and switched up his approach, or so the story goes. In 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:5, Paul says that the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing. He quotes Isaiah, who wrote that “God will destroy the wisdom of the wise,” which included the ballyhooed wisdom of the Greeks. God isn’t calling very many of those who are wise by worldly standards.
Paul says that when he came to the Corinthians, he didn’t come to them with lofty speech or wisdom. He decided to know nothing but Jesus and him crucified and came in demonstration of the Holy Spirit and power. In 1 Cor. 4:20, Paul continues this line of thought, saying the kingdom of God doesn’t consist in talk but in power.
So these critics argue that for Paul, using fancy arguments and evidence wasn’t necessary anymore. He learned this the hard way at the Areopagus.
Here’s the thing about this view: While there is some seemingly some biblical evidence that Paul switched things up with the Corinthians, it just isn’t true that Paul didn’t continue to use evidence and arguments in order to persuade people to become Christians. We just have to keep reading.
Did Paul give up on using reason and evidence after Athens?
For starters, let’s see how Luke records Paul’s visit to Corinth. Acts 18:3 says: “And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks.” The Jews later tried to get Paul arrested, saying to the proconsul, “This man is persuading people to worship God contrary to the law.” (v. 13).
Paul clearly was still in the business of trying to persuade people. This pattern continues in the very next chapter when Paul goes to Ephesus. Check out Acts 19:8-10:
Paul was reasoning in the synagogues. When the Jews weren’t having it, he moved on and rented out the lecture hall of Tyrannus and was “reasoning daily,” there for two whole years. He did this until everyone in the area heard the gospel. This almost sounds like a daily public Q+A session. As Peter May writes:
Paul still continues this pattern at the end of Acts. Even after having a healing revival of sorts (Acts 28:8-9), he still used arguments and reason to persuade others to become Christians. Acts 28:23, we read: “When they had appointed a day for him, they came to him at his lodging in greater numbers. From morning till evening, he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets.”
Paul’s still using his eyewitness testimony of the resurrection. He’s still using the argument from prophecy.
Paul used apologetics in his letters
We also have what Paul wrote that undercuts this argument of “preach and perform miracles only.” In the very same letter, Paul points to eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus in order to prove the resurrection of the physical body to the Corinthians. 1 Cor. 15:3-8, he cites a creed that lists multiple individuals and groups who had seen the risen Jesus.
He even uses modus tollens in the form of an argument. Quoting the Expositor’s Greek NT Commentary on 1 Cor 15:17-18, “Paul leaves the inference, which observes the strict method of the modus tollens, to the consciousness of his readers (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:20): “We are true witnesses, you are redeemed believers; on both accounts it is certain that Christ has risen,—and therefore that there is a resurrection of the dead”.
Paul deftly uses logic to show them that they’re begging the question when they say there is no resurrection from the dead. For if Christ isn’t raised, then their faith is useless. But Christ has been raised, therefore their faith isn’t futile — they too will one day be raised.
In his second letter to the Corinthians, Paul says, “We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.” (2 Cor 10:5) And writing from prison a decade letter, Paul writes to the Philippians that he is set for the defense of the gospel. (Phil 1:7) The Greek word defense there is apologia, where we get our word apologetics. He is set out to remove false ideas and defend the gospel.
Paul did not give up on apologetics
So the bottom line is that it’s just not true that Paul didn’t value using reason and evidence in proclaiming and defending the gospel. It’s ironic that these pious-sounding critics against apologetics use reason and evidence to defend their own view that apologetics is worthless. They’re making an apologetic against apologetics, which is just sawing off the branch that they’re sitting on. Why not think that God’s Spirit can use preaching, miracles, and arguments? Why limit what God can use?
By pointing to Paul’s alleged paltry results in Athens, they basically are saying reaching Damaris and Dionysus the Areopagite was a waste of time. Jesus doesn’t think that way, the parable of the lost sheep tells us that Jesus will leave the 99 to find the one. Paul said became all things to all men in order that he might save some. (1 Cor. 9:21-23)
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)
Erik Manning is a Reasonable Faith Chapter Director located in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. He’s a former freelance baseball writer and the co-owner of vintage and handmade decor business with his wife, Dawn. He is passionate about the intersection of apologetics and evangelism.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/37oXnQ8
¿Por qué no soy Fideísta? Parte III
EspañolBy Xavier Gonzalez
Part I: Definition and history of Fideism.
Part II: The story of Christians with reasonable faith.
Promoters of Reasonable Faith
As we saw earlier, the first Christians were not fideists, and that is in total contradiction with the fideists and certain atheists who claim that faith is blind and irrational, and that there is a contradiction between faith and reason, but would those Christians who have some academic specialization say the same? Did those who tried to find out where their faith is based think the same, as did the apologists of the second century? Or did they have (and do they have) good reasons to think that the Christian faith is really a reasonable faith?
We will quote certain statements from different academics who follow this line of thought:
Faith is indeed the response to evidence, not a celebration of the absence of evidence.
—John Lennox
Reason is the left hand of our soul, faith is the right.
—John Donne
Reason and faith are two banks of the same river.
—Domenico Cieri Estrada
Real Faith is Not Blind, It is Based on Evidence.
—Rice Brooks
The Christian Faith requires its members to know their beliefs for themselves. Being a Christian means feeling responsible for one’s own beliefs and living them in a conscious and intelligent way.
—Alfonso Ropero
In Scripture, faith involves putting our trust in what we have reason to believe. Faith is not a blind, irrational leap into the darkness. In a biblical perspective, faith and reason cooperate with each other. They are not inherently hostile.
—JP Moreland
Thus, faith and thought go hand in hand, and it is impossible to believe without thinking. BELIEVING IS ALSO THINKING!
—John Stott
The Christian faith is, in its essence, the act of thinking.
—John Stott
The Bible never states that we should take a leap in the dark. Faith is not blind, in the sense of being arbitrary, eccentric, or a mere expression of human wish. If so, why does the author of Hebrews say that faith is the “conviction of things not seen”?
—RC Sproul
Few are those who leave their intellectual comfort to satisfy these uncertainties, but those who set out in search of evidence will not be disappointed, because the Christian faith is not a blind faith, but a faith in facts, facts that can be subjected to the judgment of reason.
—Claudio Garrido
My faith is Reasonable, Christianity is reasonable and based on History.
—Chris Du Pond
If a rational God has created us as rational beings with the loving intention of having communion with him, then we must confidently expect to come to know something of his existence and nature.
—Thomas V. Morris
Christian belief is justified in the same way that belief in atomic theory is justified: through good arguments and evidence.
—Cameron Bertuzzi
Faith does not show us God rationally, but it shows him to us reasonably.
—Francisco Lacueva
Everyone who believes, thinks. Because faith, if what is believed is not thought, is null.
—Augustine of Hippo
Faith in Christianity is based on evidence. It is reasonable faith. Faith, in the Christian sense, goes beyond what is reasonable, but it does not go against reason.
—Paul Little
Our trust in Christ is not based on blind emotion, but on the intellectual evaluation of the evidence that has convinced us of the truth of Christianity and given rise to a reasonable faith.
—Tricia Scribner
To renounce reason is to renounce religion; reason and religion walk hand in hand, every irrational religion is a false religion.
—John Wesley
It is not that we are trying to trick the opinion of fideists or atheists with a long list, these are simply a few to name and that also goes for fideists and atheists, phrases that would perhaps be capable of knocking anyone’s face down.
Now, the promoters of reasonable faith really think that there is a balance or compatibility between what is faith and reason, so for my brothers in Christ who have a Fideistic thought I say: Study!
Question your beliefs if necessary, but always looking for answers and justification of those beliefs if they are true or not. Do not stay like vagabonds in a box without seeking answers or help like a child who no longer goes out to the playground for fear of getting hurt, the only advice I give you is from the Apostle Paul himself: “But test everything; hold on to what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.” (1 Thess 5:21-22) and “Brothers, do not be children in your thinking, but be children in malice, but be mature in your thinking.” (1 Cor 14:20).
And for the not-so-friendly atheists (this can also include agnostics) who still accuse Christians of being brainless, if you are going to question the Christian faith… I appreciate it! This encourages committed Christians to study the faith further and seek better answers.
But to be frank, if they are going to be skeptical even of the evidence that one puts on the table and do not deign to carefully analyze what is presented, then it can be said that skeptics of this style have a rather naive and superstitious Faith , what I mean is, questioning everything without having good reasons for why to sustain such skepticism, that does not indicate that atheism is a reasonably and intellectually satisfactory position, it is only intellectual, rational laziness and even a comfortable way to take refuge in one’s own worldview, as intellectually lazy Christians also do.
Reasonable Faith (Biblically)
We may have described a bit of history and respectable promoters of a rational faith, but to finish this writing, we must go to the Bible, since atheists as fideists try to justify the irrationality of Christianity and what better way than using the very same sacred book that Christians use or believe respectively.
Let’s just see, are atheists right in saying that the Bible allows for blind faith? Do John 20:29, 2 Corinthians 5:7 and Hebrews 11:1 really assert that Christian faith is blind? We will analyze these and other quotes with great care and detail.
In this part of the writing we will first analyze the verses that assert that “faith” itself (or that it seems) is blind, we will use the classic Reina Valera of 60 :
John 20:29
Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen me, have you believed? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
2 Corinthians 5:7
(because we live by faith, not by sight)
Hebrews 11:1
And faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
Before we go into depth about the verses themselves, let’s first see what the word “Faith” really means in Greek, this word in its original translation is pronounced πιστός (pistos or pistis) this word in the Greek sense is used in 2 ways, which are active and passive, in the active mode it means that it is confident and in the passive mode it means that it is faithful, so this word in Greek is not synonymous with blindness but with trust or fidelity, the term first of all is firm persuasion, conviction based on what is heard, to give an example, it is like the doctor who diagnoses the patient, the doctor tells his patient the disease he has and the cure for that disease, and the only option the patient has is to trust the word of his doctor or not, hence the trust in someone. This is where the apologists base themselves on 1 Peter 3 15, to make a reasoned defense .
Now that it is clear what “Faith” really is, let us analyze the verses:
First to get a clarification of why Jesus said that, let’s go to the previous verses, John 20:24-29
24 But Thomas, one of the Twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus appeared.
25 Therefore the other disciples said to him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will never believe.”
26 And after eight days his disciples were again within, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you .
27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands, and put your hand here and put it into my side; and do not be unbelieving but believing.”
28 Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen me, have you believed? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Before let’s see certain conditions that happen here, first when Jesus appeared to the other disciples Thomas was not with them, then it happens that when the disciples met again with Thomas, he did not believe them, but wait a moment, how many people were there when Jesus appeared to them resurrected bodily before meeting with Thomas? Well, in Luke 24:13 it gives us 2 testimonies that they saw Jesus and the other appearance that the disciples had was in John 20:19, the verse does not tell us how many people were gathered, but here I would speculate that it was with almost all the disciples, because if they hid for fear of the Jews, I imagine that they agreed to have a hiding place so that the Jews would not catch them, although it was the right place and time for Jesus to appear to them. Now let’s see, whether it was the course of days or the week in which Jesus appeared to them (except for Thomas, of course), Thomas still had good justifiable evidence to believe, and it was the testimony of the other disciples, although Jesus always appeared to Thomas, we see 2 particular things, (1) that the faith that Jesus demanded from the apostles did not end up being a blind faith and (2) that that faith does have good justification for its evidence, but our question here is why did Jesus say that? And our answer is that:
The beatitude Jesus pronounced is not comparative in itself, that is, he does not say that “more” blessed are those who believe without seeing, although this might be implied. He accepted and approved Thomas’ faith by sight as true, but he omits to say that he is blessed. Thomas had the opportunity to believe in the resurrection based on the testimony of his companions, without visual evidence, and he did not take advantage of it. Jesus was apparently looking ahead to when his future disciples would have to believe without being able to see and he steps forward to pronounce a blessing on them. Culpepper observes that throughout the Gospel, John has discussed the relationship between seeing and believing, presenting a series of signs, but encouraging readers to a faith that is not based on signs.
So, in simple words, even if Jesus does not appear to us bodily resurrected every day, it is not a plus that our belief is not really well justified.
Now let’s move on to the next verse, which is 2 Corinthians 5:7. This quote tells us in a very emphatic way that “Faith” is “blind,” but we must take both the verses before this one and those that follow it in order to have an adequate context of the verse, and not juggle the same verse and end up deducing false conclusions. Now let’s see what the verses before and after 5:7 tell us.
1 For we know that if our earthly house, this tabernacle, were destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2 And thus we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly habitation,
3 For even though we are unclothed, we will not be found naked.
4 For we who are still in this tent groan with anguish, because we do not want to be unclothed, but to be clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life.
5 And he who destined us for this very thing is God, who gave us the Spirit as a guarantee.
6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, while present in the body, we are absent from the Lord.
7 ( because we live by faith, not by sight);
8 But we are confident, although we prefer to leave the body and be with the Lord.
As we read in these verses, it indicates a faith directed toward another goal or purpose, which is not obviously a faith without evidence, but a faith in a promise. To put it in our perspective, it is like when a Father promises his son that he will give him a toy, and the child trusts and hopes in the promise that his Father made him. So what Paul does is contrast our faith that we will be resurrected and have a home in heaven with our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the faith that he speaks of here is toward a promise that we still await. Verse 7 with the passages that come from it refers to the fact that life is a journey, or a pilgrimage, and that the Christian is traveling to another country. The sense here is that we conduct ourselves in our course of life with reference to things that are not seen, and not with reference to things that are seen. Sometimes the people of this world strive for those objects that they have not seen, without any promise or assurance that they will obtain them. The inability to grant them has been promised to them; No one has assured them that their lives will be lengthened in order to obtain them. In a moment they may be cut off and all their plans frustrated; or they may be utterly disappointed and all their plans fail; or if they do obtain the object, it may be unsatisfactory and may not give such pleasure as they had anticipated. But not so the Christian. He has:
(1) The promise of life.
(2) He is assured that sudden death cannot deprive him of it. He immediately brings it to the object of persecution, not away from him.
(3) You are assured that when it is obtained, it will not displease, satiate, or deteriorate, but will fulfill all the expectations of the soul and will be eternal.
Thus, the verse quoted from 2 Corinthians 5:7 contextualizing its verses, does not exactly refer to an incompatibility between “faith and reason” it simply refers to “faith and promise”; therefore, given what is understood in this verse, let us go to the next one.
Hebrews 11:1
And faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
Here we discover the essential characteristics of faith from the author’s point of view. Faith has to do with things to come (hoped for) and things invisible (unseen). The RSV translation (the constancy of things hoped for) puts the emphasis on faith as an expression of our confidence in God’s promises. However, it is also possible to translate “faith is the substance (hypostasis) of things hoped for” or “faith gives substance to our hopes.” Such a translation suggests that things hoped for become real and have substance through the exercise of faith.
Now given the context of the verse, it is not a reference where it can be used to denote that faith is blind in itself, because if one reads the verses that follow we see certain characters who believed in what God told them, one could say that rather the faith that is referred to in this verse is in itself a fidelity to God, a fidelity to his promises; although something is quite clear, that when one reads the following verses and the faith that these characters had, it did not turn out to be a “blind faith” either, thus, faith is always accompanied by evidence, as my friend Anselm of Canterbury would say “I believe in order to understand and I understand in order to believe.”
Now that the verses have been clarified, we must touch on an important point, and that is, how do we come to know that a Faith is blind in itself? And here is the crucial point, for a faith to be blind, its very content must be false. What do I mean by this? That the content of the faith, where the heart of the belief is found, cannot justify or sustain what it declares about itself, and here we are going to touch on the verse 1 Corinthians 15:14 and 17.
12 If then it is preached that Christ was raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 For if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised either;
14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is also in vain.
15 And we are found to be false witnesses of God, because we testify that God raised up the Messiah; whom he did not raise, if it is true that the dead are not raised.
16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either.
17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins,
18 and those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
Now, given as we read well in these verses, Paul denotes in a very emphatic way 2 things, (1) that the heart of the Christian faith is the resurrection and (2) recognizes that for the Christian faith to be blind the resurrection of Christ could never have occurred, hence the implications that he himself mentions, now if this is so, then this is where the atheist must attack to demonstrate that the Christian faith is blind, not starting from how the world was created or otherwise, thus, the Christian faith rests on 2 propositions that make the Christian faith true and reasonable, the first in the own statements that Jesus made of himself for all who believe in him and in the second that his resurrection is the basis or solid confirmation of all his statements.
Now, to give an analogy, imagine that a king declares war on a nation and motivates his army saying that he will win the war, here we see 2 propositions where the army puts its faith in its King, which are (1) that the guarantee that they will win the war is based on the King’s declaration and (2) that the event occurs for that declaration to be true, but if the opposite happens then the army gave their lives for nothing and the faith they had towards the king ended up being in vain, it is so in the Christian faith if what Jesus Christ said about himself after his death was not fulfilled, then I have no reasons to be a Christian I would even dare to say that Christianity would cease to exist, in fact in Acts 5:34-39 a Pharisee Gamaliel recognized that although what these men preach is a lie, there will come a point when it will disappear, but if what these men preach is true, if the same statements of Jesus came true after his death, then even maintaining this FAITH IS REASONABLE.
That is why we can consider that Faith rests on a Faith founded on truth, and it can be demonstrated that it is true and that anyone can embrace that truth, with the mind and with the heart .
Xavier Gonzalez is from Venezuela and is dedicated to the study of philosophy, early Christianity and theology. He converted to Christianity at the age of 15. He managed the Me Lo Contó Un Ateo website and is in charge of the apologetics section of the Iglesia Cristiana la gracia website ( http://www.iglesialagracia.org ).
Reactions to John Crist’s Moral Failings Demonstrate Our Culture’s Confusion about Christianity
Apologetics for Parents, CrossExamined, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Natasha Crain
News broke yesterday that popular Christian comedian and YouTuber John Crist has come forth with an admission of ongoing “sexual sin and addiction struggles” after multiple women exposed years of his sexually immoral behavior.
Honestly, my heart sank when I saw this. I love Crist’s videos. We watch them with our kids. In fact, our family had just watched one of his most popular ones, “Church Hunters,” this week! If you’re not familiar with Crist, he pokes fun at evangelical culture through his videos, and in a way that you can typically nod along with because they (unfortunately and humorously) hit close to home. Church Hunters, for example, is a parody that features a couple searching for a new church, but they’re considering all the wrong criteria…something all too common today. The video actually made for a great discussion with our kids about how people DO look at the wrong things, and what is most important when considering a church home.
You can read a detailed article with the accusations and Crist’s own statement here. In that article and some common responses, I’ve seen to it on social media, I’ve noticed three areas of serious confusion that both Christians and nonbelievers sometimes have about this kind of news:
Confusion 1: Thinking popular Christians are more immune to sin than others.
Honestly, I feel this point is so obvious that it’s embarrassingly uninsightful to point out. But consider this statement in the article from one of the women who says she was emotionally devastated by her encounters with Crist:
“I was truly blinded by his celebrity status…There were a few moments I thought, ‘Hey, this is kind of weird,’ but the same phrase kept playing through my head that stopped me from leaving: ‘It’s OK. He’s a Christian. He won’t do anything inappropriate.’”
The naivety of that last statement is mind-blowing. A Christian wouldn’t do anything inappropriate? May we all be mindful of the following biblical truth:
All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).
All.
While we may feel disappointed when we learn of the moral failings of Christians we appreciate, admire, or learn from, we should never be shocked. Christians are able to sin just as nonbelievers are. The Bible never claims that we become perfected in this life—only that when we put our trust in Jesus for the forgiveness of our sins, we will someday stand before the Lord clothed in his righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21). Of course, saving faith doesn’t see that as a license to sin—we should never sin so that “grace may abound” (Romans 6:1).
Confusion 2: Assuming that popular Christians should be seen as church leaders.
Social media is buzzing with commentary on Crist, and a good number of people are referring to him as a fallen Christian “leader.”
There’s an important distinction to be made here: John Crist is a popular Christian, but that doesn’t mean anyone should consider him to be a Christian leader.
Equating the two things has become a real problem in our culture. Given the nature of social media, anyone can build a platform and influence others. But just because a person identifies as a “Christian” doesn’t mean they teach biblically sound doctrine or faithfully attempt to represent Jesus in their everyday lives. Leaders in the local church, however, are held to specific biblical standards in order to qualify as worthy of shepherding the flock (see Titus 1:5-9, for example).
One example of the confusion in this area is the following comment made by a woman on Facebook: “Crist’s exploitation of women was well-known for the past 7 years…The question is, WHY were there no consequences, and his career was allowed to flourish?”
Unless you’re confused about the difference between popular Christians and Christian church leaders, the answer to this is clear. Who would have the authority and ability to issue “consequences” and stop his career from “flourishing” if his work is outside the context of a church or church organization? People are free to enjoy social media content, however, they want. Crist was in no church position to step down from.
Do I wish that every Christian would be above reproach, whether in a position of formal church leadership or not? Yes, of course. But to think every popular Christian naturally has the same kind of accountability structures as actual leaders in the church is misguided and problematic. It results in people placing a critical light on an ambiguous notion of “the church” rather than on individual choices.
Confusion 3: Believing the failures of Christians are indicative of whether or not Christianity is true.
The article reports that “Crist’s use of his Christian reputation to gain trust contributed to at least two women—Nora and Lindsey—losing trust in Christianity altogether. Neither affiliates as a Christian today.”
Lindsey says, “I haven’t been to church in years…It’s hard. It’s hard to go into a place where you know that people know things that are going on, and they never do anything about it because they just list it as ‘bad behavior’ or something that someone can just be forgiven of and then it’s fine. It’s not fine. Even when you forgive someone, it’s important to go back and make restitution and to change your ways and change your behavior. It’s really hard to even consider participating in a community, in a body of believers, that would allow such behavior to unfold unchecked, and give it a platform. No, I don’t consider myself a Christian anymore. … I have no ill will toward the church. I don’t have bitterness there. I think a lot of people are really earnest in what they believe, and I respect that. But I want to be able to respect it more.”
Based on this statement, it seems that Lindsey doesn’t consider herself a Christian due to her disappointment in a particular Christian and the perceived lack of moral concern from the Christian masses, resulting in her inability to “respect” Christianity.
Unfortunately, this demonstrates the lack of critical thinking about worldview that is prevalent in the church today. It’s yet another example of why teaching kids apologetics (how to make a case for and defend the truth of Christianity) is absolutely critical.
Christianity does not become more or less “respectable,” depending on whether your favorite Christian comedian lives consistently within his stated beliefs—even when it affects you personally.
It also doesn’t become more or less respectable, depending on how many people have heard about his moral failings and have rallied to collectively bring them to light.
There is just one question that should determine if you should be a Christian:
Is Christianity true?
That’s it.
End of story.
If Christ hasn’t been raised, your faith is in vain (1 Corinthians 15:14). That’s the truth test, and nothing else.
You may be hurt by other Christians; you may be hurt by someone in your local church, you may be disenchanted with leaders who presume to represent Christianity but do so poorly, you may not like what the Bible says on some matters, you may wish the world were different…but none of this should logically substitute for an objective investigation of the evidence for the truth of Christianity (see these books for help having these conversations with your kids).
If Christianity is true, we should be Christians in spite of bad experiences. The question isn’t whether John Crist is trustworthy; it’s whether Jesus is. That’s not to minimize the hurt done in the name of Christ (a subject outside of my scope here), but rather to refocus our kids on the objective questions that matter most.
I hope that John Crist’s statement of repentance is sincere and that he emerges from this experience as a more committed follower of Christ. In the meantime, let’s recognize this as nothing more than what it is: a popular Christian has admitted a long pattern of immoral behavior and needs to address it personally, with those he hurt, and with the Lord.
Let’s pray that good will come from this, so Crist can better use his influence in the future for the glory of God.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
So the Next Generation will Know by J. Warner Wallace (Book and Participant’s Guide)
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/2XqLx3B
Is Chick-fil-A Chicken? And your questions
PodcastPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Email | TuneIn | RSS
Jesus said that you can’t serve both God and money. It looks like Chick-fil-A may be sacrificing God for money. Under pressure from LGBTQ activists, they’ve decided to stop supporting the Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. They say they want to focus their charitable giving “in areas of education, homelessness, and hunger.”
Newsflash: That’s exactly what the Salvation Army and FCA do!
Now, Chick-fil-A can give or not give to whomever it wants. But don’t say the reason you’re not giving to the SA or FCA is that you want to focus your giving on exactly what those organizations are already doing! There must be something else going on here.
Join Frank as he investigates that and answers questions on:
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
Was Apollonius of Tyana a Jesus Parallel?
4. Is the NT True?, Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Ryan Leasure
Bart Ehrman is the most popular skeptic in America today. Writing at super-sonic rates, his books seem to find their way on the New York Times Bestseller list about every other year. Because of his rapid output and wide popularity, his views are spreading like gangrene across the American landscape (and beyond).
Additionally, Ehrman is a professor of religion at UNC-Chapel Hill where he works to cripple the faith of every young Christian who enters his classroom. He shares one of his faith-crippling tactics in his book How Jesus Became God.
Ehrman tells the story of beginning his class by sharing this description of a famous man from the ancient world.
Ehrman, of course, wants everyone in his class to thinks he’s talking about Jesus. But alas, he reveals the shocking news that he wasn’t talking about Jesus at all. Instead, he’s referring to Apollonius of Tyana.
This revelation is intended to rattle whatever remaining faith his Christian students might have. For if he can demonstrate that Jesus’ story isn’t any different from Apollonius of Tyana, well then Jesus must not be the unique Son of God after all.
Apollonius of Tyana — The Skeptics’ Best Parallel
As demonstrated in the story above, skeptics think that if they can show parallels of Jesus from the ancient world, they can prove that Jesus was just one more in a long line of myth stories.
And Ehrman isn’t the only skeptic using this tactic. In fact, if you listen to debates on the historical Jesus, Apollonius of Tyana is mentioned far more than any other ancient “parallel.” In other words, Apollonius is the best parallel the skeptic has to offer.
So, should Christians be worried? Does Christianity crumble in light of Apollonius of Tyana? Was Apollonius even remotely similar to Jesus? No, no, and no. Allow me to elaborate.
The Problem of Dating
Apollonius supposedly lived between AD 15-96. That is, his life comes shortly after the life of Jesus. Yet the only source we have for his life comes from Philostratus in the third century (AD 225). In other words, there is virtual silence about this man for about 150 years prior to Philostratus’ work.
If Apolonnius had been a Jesus-like figure, how come nothing is said about him for such a long period of time?
Sources for Jesus, on the other hand, all date within the first century when eye-witnesses to his ministry would have still been around. The Gospels come about 30-50 years after his life, and Paul writes his letters even earlier (20-30 years after Jesus). Moreover, Paul quotes or references traditional material that predates his work by decades. All that to say, Jesus’ fame understandably spread shortly after his death and resurrection.
Yet we have crickets with respect to Apollonius. This is hard to believe if he truly was the Son of God who performed miracles and rose again from the dead.
The Problem of Motive
What did Jesus’ followers have to gain for spreading the message of Christianity? Ostracism at best, and death at worst. In other words, they had no motive (money, sex, or power) to make up these stories in a hostile environment. In the end, most of them faced severe persecution for their faith.
What about Philostratus? Well, it just so happens that he was paid by the empress Julia Domna to write a laudatory account of Apollonius’ life in order to improve Apollonius’ reputation amongst the Romans and diminish Jesus’ importance.
Living during a time when Christianity was spreading rapidly across the Roman Empire, the pagan empress needed to do something to restore cultic worship amongst the citizens. Funding this project seems to be her attempt to minimize Jesus’ fame.
Philostratus Was Skeptical of Apollonius’ Miracles
Philostratus, though, couched miracle claims with phrases such as “it is reported that” or “some believe.” Case in point. Reporting on Apollonius of Tyana’s most famous miracle (raising a dead girl to life), Philostratus reports that the girl probably wasn’t dead at all, and even states that only some believed she was. He indicates that this girl had some kind of mist coming out of her mouth prior to Apollonius “healing” her.
The Gospels are nothing like this. They make no qualms about Jesus’ miraculous activity. Furthermore, non-Christian sources also indicate that Jesus was a miracle-worker.
The Problem of Historical Errors
The Gospels provide all kinds of evidence for their historical reliability. Non-Christian corroborating sources, eye-witness testimony, an understanding of local customs, and embarrassing material all suggest that these sources are trustworthy.
Since not many people will take the time to read through Philostratus’ five hundred page work on Apollonius, they will miss out on the fact that Philostratus made all sorts of historical errors — mostly anachronisms.
The blunders are so bad that historian H. C. Kee reports, “what Philostratus reports tells us a great deal about the author and his time — that is, at the turn of the third century — but provides no unassailable evidence about Apollonius and his epoch.”2
While Philostratus attempts to give us a biography, many scholars acknowledge that his work reads more like a romance novel. As Boyd and Eddy remark, “while few have gone so far as to reject a historical Apollonius altogether, most scholars are rather skeptical about the historicity of major aspects of the image offered by this one source written well over a century after the figure it depicts.”3
The Alleged Resurrection
Jesus’ resurrection is the single-most-important fact about Christianity. If he didn’t rise, Paul says, we’re still in our sins. Fortunately, Jesus did die and rise again as the Gospels report, and there’s ample evidence to back this up this claim.
But what about Apollonius of Tyana? Did he rise again as Ehrman suggests? Simply put, no he did not. The only hint in Philostratus’ work that gets remotely close to a resurrection is when one doubting disciple has a dream about the spirit of Apollonius after his death.
A Parallel? Really?
Scholars have systematically debunked every line from the Erhman quote above. At best, he’s misleading. At worst, he’s downright deceitful.
No heavenly messenger announced Apollonius’ birth and said he would be divine. That messenger actually came from Egypt and never said Apollonius would be divine. He wasn’t so much an itinerant preacher as he was a visitor of foreign sages. Furthermore, he took a vow of silence for several years as he began his journey. His miracles were dubious, and he wasn’t killed by Roman authorities. Nor did he rise from the dead and appear to his followers. And none of his followers wrote books about him either.
Be that as it may, what if Philostratus had reported exact parallels? What would that prove? For starters, Jesus predates Apollonius. So any parallel would be evidence against Apollonius of Tyana and not Jesus.
Additionally, even if these so-called parallels did exist, it wouldn’t do anything to diminish the historical Jesus.
Taking this line of thought, you could prove I’m a myth because of the parallels between my life and Bart Ehrman’s. Both of us went to Bible college and later seminary. We both write about the historical Jesus and teach others about the Bible. Both of us live in the Carolinas. We’re both white males. And on and on.
The point is you can find parallels anywhere. Many have shown parallels between Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. Does that mean Kennedy was a legend? Absolutely not.
In the end, it’s not the parallels that matter, but the differences. So while the story of Apollonius of Tyana is interesting, it does nothing to disprove the historicity of Jesus Christ.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)
Cold Case Resurrection Set by J. Warner Wallace (books)
Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? By Dr. Gary Habermas (book)
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity – Episode 14 Video DOWNLOAD by Frank Turek (DVD)
The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (MP3) and (DVD)
Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels by J. Warner Wallace (Book)
The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth mp3 by Frank Turek
Ryan Leasure holds a Master of Arts from Furman University and a Masters of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He currently serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/33XD6Pq
LGBT activist calls for “hardball” “fight” to empty the church pews of Christians
Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Wintery Knight
Transgender woman calls for “hardball” “fight” to “empty the pews”
Previously, I blogged about how transgender activists shut down a discussion of transgender issues on a university campus in Canada. You might think that suppressing debate and disagreement is something that only happens north of the border. But an LGBT activist with 50,000 Twitter followers is being re-tweeted by prominent people on the left after demanding a “fight” to “empty the pews”.
Look at this Twitter thread from “Chrissy Str00p“, a transgender woman:
Now, you have to ask yourself, given the previous post about transgender activists using threats of violence to suppress basic human rights like free speech, what does Str00p mean by emptying the pews? How does Str00p intend to get the Christians in those pews to vacate the pews? Does Str00p sound like a tolerant, law-abiding person who respects a diversity of views? Does Str00p sound like someone who engages in a rational debate?
I don’t mind that Str00p has those views, or speaks them. I hope Str00p’s words don’t incite violence against Christians, as they could easily be interpreted to be a call for violence by someone mentally unstable. It’s happened before. Remember the gay activist Floyd Lee Corkins II, who was sentenced to 25 years in prison for domestic terrorism, after attacking the Family Research Council building armed with a gun? We just don’t know what Str00p meant.
I hope that Christians take note of Str00p’s views and that they don’t just vote in 2020. I’d like Christians to get informed, and be persuasive to their undecided neighbors using facts and evidence. All it takes for Str00p to win is for us to be so intimidated by Str00p’s rhetoric that we decide that it’s not worth it to share facts and evidence with our neighbors. If you have to use an alias to share facts and evidence with your neighbors, then get an alias.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Legislating Morality (mp4 download), (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), (PowerPoint download), and (PowerPoint CD) by Frank Turek
Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book)
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/376jc6T