Why Oppose Evil? It’s a Sign of the End Times!

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

What do you say to a fellow Christian when they say things like “why do you fight the progression of evil in our society if it’s, is just a sign of the end times”? During this episode of the Cross Examined Official Podcast, Frank gives a biblical answer to this type of attitude as he continues to answer your questions. 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 Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

/by
Why was the Head Cloth of Jesus Wrapped to the Side

Why was the Head Cloth of Jesus Wrapped to the Side?

, ,

By Brian Chilton

A friend asked me about a supposed Jewish tradition concerning the head wrapping of Jesus in the tomb. The Gospel of John notes that Peter and John (if the beloved disciple is the writer of the Fourth Gospel which this writer accepts) run to the tomb of Jesus. They investigate the tomb and saw the “napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself” (Jn. 20:7, KJV).

According to a story circulating online which has been passed along in many churches, an ancient Jewish tradition held that when a person had finished their meal, the person would toss their napkin aside if he or she was finished. However, if the person had to leave and was not finished, the person would neatly fold their napkin and place it to the side of their plate indicating that he or she would return. Advocates of this story contend that the folding of the napkin in John 20:7 was Jesus’s way of saying that he was going to leave but would soon return. While the story is heartwarming, one must ask if there any merit to the claim. After investigating the story, unfortunately, I must report that there seems to be no evidence that the story is true. But there is a more remarkable twist that is greater than the supposed tradition. First, here are the reasons why the story seems to be nothing more than an urban legend.

  1. The headcloth was not a napkin. With all due respect to the King James Version, “napkin” may not be the best translation of the term Sudarion indicates a small piece of cloth which could be a towel, a napkin, handkerchief, or a face cloth. Given the context, no one was eating a meal inside the tomb which would exclude the term “napkin.” Sudarion best fits with the idea of a cloth that covered the head of the corpse. The Christian Standard Bible provides a better translation as it says, “the wrapping that had been on his head was not lying with the linen cloths but was folded up in a separate place by itself” (Jn. 20:7, CSB).
  2. The headcloth was rolled and not folded. While the CSB uses the term “folded,” the term entulissō seems to fit better with the notion of being rolled. According to Louw and Nida, entulissō indicates the action “to cause something to be in the shape of a roll.”[1] The term is also used in Revelation 6:14 where the sky is entulissō (i.e., rolled up) like a scroll. The neat folding of the headcloth as implied by the mealtime tradition does not seem to fit the tomb scene even if the tradition did exist as it seems more likely that the head cloth was rolled up like a scroll.
  3. There is no evidence of the Jewish mealtime tradition. The death knell to the mealtime legend (no pun intended) is that there seems to be no evidence that such a Jewish mealtime tradition exists. Granted, there are numerous Jewish traditions in both the written and oral law and it is possible that one could have been overlooked. Nonetheless, this writer could not find anything pertaining to a tradition surrounding a folded napkin.

This so-called Jewish mealtime tradition is one that I have heard but have never investigated until now. The story has no root in any apparent oral or written tradition (at least as far as I could find) and possesses all the earmarks of being nothing more than an urban legend. While this news may be disappointing for some, the genuine story of the rolled head cloth provides greater and deeper meaning to the resurrection of Jesus. Consider the following three truths.

  1. The body was clearly resurrected and not merely resuscitated. Something amazing must have taken place for the rolled head cloth to have been placed in a separate location than the other linens. For Jesus to have been able to escape the grave cloths without disturbing their form while at the same time rolling the cloth that had wrapped his head illustrates that Jesus experienced a greater and far different return to life than what Lazarus or anyone else ever had. Lazarus had to be unbound from the cloths that enclosed his body (Jn. 11:43-44). Jesus was able to return to life and leave behind the cloths without any assistance. Remarkable!
  2. The body would have had to come through the cloths with the head wrapping. The other cloths were lying in the same place and the same form they had when they wrapped the body of Jesus. Yet, here was this head cloth rolled up to the side away from the other cloths. This seems to suggest that the body of Jesus came through the cloths with the head cloth attached. Thus, if a person were to witness the resurrection, it is likely that the eyewitness would see the body arising out from the cloths. Or, it could be that a person would see the body vanish with the cloths sinking in where the body had been with the visible Jesus standing beside them with headcloth in hand. After the resurrection, Jesus rolled up the cloth like a scroll and laid it to the side before exiting the tomb. The resurrection of Jesus was an otherworldly event, unlike anything anyone had before perceived. When Jesus resurrected from the dead, God used a new system of physics for this event—one that linked the spiritual and physical in an amazing new union.
  3. The body of Jesus was wrapped in more than one cloth. While the Shroud of Turin’s authenticity is not necessary to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, some have used the cloths mentioned in John’s Gospel to refute the Shroud. This is not a good practice primarily because John notes the existence of more than one kind of cloth. Since the women were not able to fully embalm the body of Jesus, it is possible that a Shroud covered the body of Jesus along with other wrappings in the tomb. The head cloth and the other linens indicate the plurality of cloths used to bury Jesus’s body. The absence of evidence pertaining to the Shroud is not evidence of absence.

So, while the story of an ancient Jewish tradition linking the folded head cloth with Jesus’s return is most likely an urban legend, the actual story of the wrapped head cloth tells a greater story. Jesus’s resurrection was a spectacular and ethereal event. The power exhibited by the resurrection is greater than any power known to humankind. Paul notes that just as Jesus has risen from the dead, so shall all of those who have trusted Christ (1 Co. 15:23). This indicates that this kind of resurrection will one day be coming to a tomb near you.

Note

[1] Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 704.

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as the Senior Pastor of Westfield Baptist Church in northwestern North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Ixzqw3

/by
16 Bad Atheist Arguments and How to Respond to Them

16 Bad Atheist Arguments and How to Respond to Them

,

By Jeremy Linn

With the NCAA Final Four coming to the Twin Cities this weekend, it seems appropriate to have our own little March Madness Tournament. Instead of college teams, we built a bracket with some of the “top” bad Atheist arguments.

Below we list 16 of these bad arguments and list at least one problem with the argument for each. Much more could be said for each of these arguments, so we present this post with the risk of coming across shallow.  The point of the post, however, is not to give you a thorough response to each argument – It’s to give you ideas for an initial response to them.

For each of the arguments, we give an example question you can ask to better understand where the person who gave the argument is coming from. The goal is to listen and understand, rather than to dominate and tear down.

Now that we have those precursors set, here are the 16 bad Atheist arguments and how to respond to them.

Argument #1: Who created God?

This question is asked under the assumption that God needs a creator. This assumption misrepresents the Christian understanding of God, where God is the necessary cause of all creation.

Question: Why do you think a Christian would say that no one created God?

Argument #2: Jesus never existed

This objection flies against the conclusions of almost all scholars invested into Biblical and Roman history, along with evidence from both the New Testament books and extrabiblical sources.

Question: How did you come to the conclusion that Jesus never existed?

Argument #3: Atheists believe in just one less god than Christians

Some Atheists try to use this argument to show that there is not much of a difference between them and Christians. After all, Christians are “Atheists” for thousands of gods from other religions since they lack belief in those gods!

The problem is, there is a huge difference between a Theist (such as a Christian) and an Atheist. Theists believe in a supreme, personal creator of the Universe. Atheists don’t. This difference has huge implications for how each carries out their lives.

Question: Do you think there are any major differences between Christians and Atheists?

Argument #4: Believing in God is like believing in Santa or leprechauns.

This statement calls God “made up,” equal on the level of something like Santa Claus. But the Christian claims to have evidence for God, and hardly anyone claims to have evidence for a real Santa. The alleged evidence for God cannot be simply dismissed with this silly statement.

Question: Do you think there is any evidence for the existence of God?

Argument #5: The gospels are full of myths

This objection completely ignores the definition of a myth in ancient literature. A myth looks back at the past to understand how something in the present came to be. The gospels were written as a historical narrative, discussing things that were happening at the time.

Question: What do you mean when you use the word “myth”?

Argument #6: Faith is belief without evidence 

This definition of faith is a clear strawman of the Christian position. Most Christians view faith as involving some sort of personal trust. The trust aspect of faith is simply ignored by the “no evidence” definition.

Question: How do you think Christians would typically define “faith”?

Argument #7: There’s no evidence for God

Christians claim to have philosophical arguments for God’s existence. It seems like those arguments could provide at least a tiny bit of evidence for God, even if an Atheist doesn’t consider the evidence close to satisfactory. Atheists who use this phrase are overstating their case.

Question: What type of evidence would you need to see in order to be convinced that there is at least some evidence for God?

Argument #8: God is a maniac slavedriver

The idea here is that God is some sort of dictator who tells us what to do and believe and threatens to send us to hell if we don’t listen. But this characterization of God contrasts from the understanding that God offers a choice for us to escape the “slavery” of sin and to experience life as it was meant to be lived.

Question: Do you think God gives us a choice in how to live our lives?

Argument #9: Science disproves God

This is one of the most broad arguments in the list. There are many fields in science, and some concepts about God are completely unrelated to those fields. What exactly is being said here? There needs to be more detail given before any substantial discussion can take place.

Question: What is one way in which science disproves God?

Argument #10: Stories of Jesus changed like the game of telephone

The story goes… You know the game of telephone? You start with a sentence and then it gets changed after being passed down from person to person? Well, that’s what happened when stories of Jesus were passed from person to person.

This objection does not take into account the communal aspect of oral tradition – people could check their stories against one another. The objection also causes the reliability of all ancient history to be called into question.

Question: How might the way stories were spread in ancient history be different than the game of telephone?

Argument #11: If you grew up somewhere else you would believe something else

This is one of the most common objections to Christianity – if you grew up in a middle eastern country, you would be a Muslim, not a Christian! While this concept does have some truth in it, it packs a load of unsupported assumptions. It also has little effect on the question of if God actually exists or not.

Question: How do you know I believe what I do because where I grew up?

Argument #12: Atheists can be good without believing in God

This statement is true in the sense that people who do not believe in God can make choices that are moral choices. But the statement ignores the grounding of the good – the question of what caused the existence of objective moral duties.

Question: I agree that Atheists can do good things without believing in God. But what caused “good” and “bad” to exist in the first place?

Argument #13: Religion is toxic

The idea here is that religious thought always motivates actions that are bad. One problem with this idea is that “religion” is a broad term. It puts people who follow all kinds of religions under one umbrella, even if the differences between those religions are stark. It also downplays any potentially “good” actions taken under religious motivations.

Question: Are you referring to one specific religion, or are you saying all religions are toxic?

Argument #14: Jesus is just a copy of pagan gods

This argument seems powerful on the surface as Atheists stack up to similar traits between Jesus and pagan gods – “born of a virgin,” “resurrected,” “born on December 25”, etc. But when you dig deeper into the primary sources for the pagan gods, you will find that the traits don’t align with the actual stories of those gods.

Question: Which god is Jesus a copy of, and how do you know that?

Argument #15: The Flying Spaghetti Monster

New Atheists intended to make a point by bringing up this fictional creature – that you could assign the attributes of God to any random thing. But many Atheists who mention the creature now seem to do so in order to mock religious ideas rather than make a substantial point about them. Overall an Atheist who brings the creature up today ends up looking more ridiculous than thoughtful.

Question: What relevance does the Flying Spaghetti Monster have to what you are saying about God?

Argument #16: Christians never agree

The argument goes like this: Since Christians always seem to disagree about everything, it’s clear that God isn’t involved in the whole process. This argument is incredibly broad and immeasurable – it is uncertain how much agreement there would need to be before the objector no longer sees a problem. It also ignores that “mere Christianity” – the divinity, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ – is almost entirely agreed on amongst Christians.

Question: How much agreement would you need to see between Christians in order to no longer consider this objection a problem?

Hopefully, this list gives you a better idea of how to respond to these bad arguments when they come up. We’re hoping that the Final Four also comes to the Twin Cities next year so we can do something like this again. At the very least, this was fun.

 

Jeremy is the co-founder of the ministry Twin Cities Apologetics and is an accountant for a law firm in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He’s also going to Bethel Seminary for a graduate degree in a program called Christian Thought (basically Apologetics!). Outside of Apologetics, Jeremy enjoys sports, playing guitar, and making videos.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2DaNPe5

/by
My Discussion with Dr. Michael Shermer on God and Evil

J. Brian Huffling Discussion with Dr. Michael Shermer on God and Evil

, ,

By J. Brian Huffling

Having seen Dr. Michael Shermer debate many times, I was excited to be able to get a chance to have a discussion with him. Shermer, the founding publisher of Skeptic magazine, accepted Southern Evangelical Seminary‘s invitation to have an informal, but moderated, discussion with me on the topic, “Is the Reality of Evil Good Evidence against the Christian God?” This discussion was the culmination of a mini-conference on the problem of evil at SES. He was a delight to have, and the event was a blast.

My Discussion with Dr. Michael Shermer on God and Evil

I am not going to recount the whole debate. I am simply going to discuss some of the most important points and issues. (For those interested, Michael has a podcast of the debate/issue.)

What is ‘Evil’?

Michael was asked by the moderator, Adam Tucker (his thoughts on the discussion are here), to define what he meant by ‘evil.’ He said that evil is the intentional harm of a sentient being. There is no such thing, he said, of an entity that is evil, such as evil spirits, or anything that is pure evil.

I largely agree. Following Augustine, I hold that evil is simply the privation of good. In other words, evil is the corruption of a good thing. The classic example is blindness in the eye. The eye should have a certain power (sight) that it does not. It is lacking and is corrupted. Thus, it is physically evil. Then there is a moral evil. This happens when a person lacks virtues. Overall, though, Michael and I basically agree on what evil is and that there is no existing thing that is pure evil. For Christians, to exist is to somehow be like God, which is good. Further, following Aquinas, good seeks its perfection. Thus, there is a contradiction with an existing evil. Evil really has no goal or purpose in itself. Thus, an existing thing that is somehow good since it has being (in a sense like God) and that seeks its perfection cannot be pure evil.

At this point, we discussed the problem of evil and what it is exactly.

The Problem of Evil Briefly Stated

There are basically 2 forms of the problem of evil: the deductive form and the inductive form. The deductive form is also called the logical argument from evil and argues that the co-existence of the classical view of God and evil are logically impossible. This is the argument Michael used (from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy):

  1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
  2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
  3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
  4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
  5. Evil exists.
  6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
  7. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

This argument makes several assumptions. The most problematic in my view is that God is morally perfect. Many, if not most, Christian theologians take it for granted that God is morally perfect. However, I would argue that God is not the kind of being to be moral. That is not to say he is not good; he is just not morally good. I have written that God is not a moral being. I have also written that God’s goodness does not depend on what he does, but what he is. How does this relate to the problem of evil? If it is indeed the case that God is not a moral being with obligations to man, it makes all the difference in the world. I will not rewrite the articles above on God, morality, and goodness. I will summarize those positions here as they relate to the problem of evil.

As I said in the debate, J. L. Mackie, a notorious atheist of the twentieth century, said that if one gives up a premise in the problem of evil as just laid out, then the problem doesn’t arise (see The Problem of Evil edited by Adams and Adams, page 1). This is exactly what I said we need to do. There are certain assertions/assumptions that have to be made in order for this argument (the problem of evil) to work. I argue that the assertion that God is a morally perfect being is false. If we take that out of the problem, the problem falls.

I am not suggesting this simply to get out of this argument. There are really good reasons for not thinking that God is a moral being, at least in the sense we normally mean when referring to humans being moral. When we say a person is moral, we mean that he behaves well and as he should. In other words, there is a prescribed way in which men are supposed to behave. If they do, they are moral. If they don’t, they are immoral.

I am arguing that God has no prescribed way in which he should behave. There are no obligations imposing on God. God transcends the category of morality like he transcends time and space. Morality is a created category wrapped up in what it means to be a human. Without created beings to live up to some objective standard that God has created him to live up to, there is no moral law.

If this is correct, then God is not a moral being and thus cannot be a morally perfect being. But this is the linchpin of the logical problem of evil as Michael has argued. Once this assertion is removed, as Mackie says, there simply is no logical problem of evil. There is no contradiction with an omnipotent, omniscient being existing alongside of evil. Thus, the problem of evil does not even arise.

All of this is to say that God has no obligation to how he orchestrates the universe. To say that God is morally obligated means that he has to treat his creation in a certain way. This is the basic thrust of the problem of evil. To put it another way, as Michael did at one point, the problem of evil boils down to this: “If God really does exist I would expect the universe to be different/better.” The assumption here is that God should operate the way we think he should. He doesn’t. The inference is that he doesn’t exist.

Again, if we take away the assumption/assertion that God is morally perfect then the problem of evil not only fails, it never gets off the ground. (Please remember we are talking about the academic/philosophical issue of evil and not the emotional/pastoral concern.)

This is not to say God is not good; he is just not morally good. He is metaphysically good and perfect. Given our definition of evil, this just means God lacks nothing. His existence is perfect and cannot be corrupted.

The story of Job illustrates my point that God is not obligated to treat his creatures in any certain way. In the opening chapters of Job God basically dares Satan to attack Job. God maintains to Satan that Job will not curse him (God). Satan agrees. The only caveat is that Satan cannot touch Job. Job’s family (except his wife) is killed, and he loses all of his many possessions. Yet he does not curse God. God gives Satan another chance, but this time Satan can inflict Job with disease; although he cannot kill him. Job is inflicted with sores and physical issues. Still, he does not curse God.

Job’s friends show up and stay with Job, silent, for a week. For many chapters after this Job’s friends argue about what Job did to bring this judgment upon him. They maintain that God would not do this without some (just) cause. Job maintained his innocence and wanted to take God to court and try him for being unjust.

At the end of the book, God shows up. Does he try to explain to Job why he did what he did? Does he offer a theodicy or defense for his actions? No. He basically asks Job where he was when God made all of the wonders of the world. Job cannot answer and repents. In short, God does not try to get off the hook, as it were. Rather he says, “I’m God, and you are not.”

I think this illustrates my point that God does not have to act in any certain way with his people. He is not unjust in dealing with Job the way he did. However, let’s put a human in the place of God and Satan in this story. If a human did to Job what God and Satan did, we would almost certainly say the human would be unjust. However, we would not, presumably, say that God is unjust. Why? Because he’s God. There is no standard by which to judge him. God transcends morality and yet is still perfectly good.

Philosophy vs. Science

This above point is one that I could not get Michael to acknowledge. He did not want to stray from his scientific position. (By ‘scientific’ I mean the modern sense of the word to refer to the natural sciences like biology and chemistry. This should be contrasted with the historical sense of a discipline’s conclusions being demonstrated via first principles and logic. In this latter sense, philosophy and theology were considered sciences.) This is unfortunate because the issues of God and evil are inherently philosophical. As I have written, natural science alone cannot demonstrate God’s existence. Thus, to adequately deal with the issues of the discussion we have to delve into philosophy. Michael would have none of it.

Michael’s main point here is that if God is not measurable, then we can’t know he exists. As I pointed out this is a category mistake as God is not a material being. Thus, even if he did exist, we could not measure him–which Michael acknowledged.

Throughout the debate, Michael approached the issue from the point of view of natural science. I approached it from philosophy. In short, the questions of God’s existence and evil cannot be decided by natural science since they are not physical things in the natural world to be studied: God is not a being in nature and evil is a description of the nature of being (a philosophical concept).

Michael offered a lot of red herrings. I will not deal with those here as they are, well, red herrings.

Conclusion

The problem of evil is not a problem concerning God’s existence if God is not a moral being. Further, questions of God’s existence and evil are inherently philosophical. If you are interested in this topic, I recommend Brian Davies’ The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil.

 

J. Brian Huffling, PH.D. have a BA in History from Lee University, an MA in (3 majors) Apologetics, Philosophy, and Biblical Studies from Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES), and a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from SES. He is the Director of the Ph.D. Program and Associate Professor of Philosophy and Theology at SES. He also teaches courses for Apologia Online Academy. He has previously taught at The Art Institute of Charlotte. He has served in the Marines, Navy, and is currently a reserve chaplain in the Air Force at Maxwell Air Force Base. His hobbies include golf, backyard astronomy, martial arts, and guitar.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2v4rTNa

/by

Unplanned and the Abortion Debate with Dr. Mike S. Adams

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

In this episode, Frank talks about the movie Unplanned, based on the dramatic true story of a former Planned Parenthood leader who, after participating in an actual abortion procedure for the first time, walked down the street to join the Coalition for Life. He also interviews the great Dr. Mike S. Adams about his debate with Dr. Willie Parker, an abortion doctor who has performed thousands of abortions and claims to be a Christian. We don’t shy away from the truth, you shouldn’t either, listen to this important episode of the Cross Examined Official Podcast.

Keep us busy by sending your questions to Hello@CrossExamined.org and don’t miss this episode!

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

/by
Twitter suspends account of pro-life movie “Unplanned”, deletes 99% of their followers

Twitter suspends account of pro-life movie “Unplanned”, deletes 99% of their followers

,

By Wintery Knight

Wow, big social media companies like Facebook, Google, Youtube, and Twitter are really ratcheting up their suppression of any accounts that challenge their allies in the Democrat Party. For example, on the weekend Twitter decided to suspend the account of the new pro-life movie “Unplanned.” And then they deleted 99,000 of their followers.

PJ Media reports:

The pro-life movie Unplanned surprised at the box office its opening weekend, taking 5th place with $6.1 million. That didn’t stop Twitter from attacking the film twice in one weekend, however.

The movie’s Twitter account was briefly suspended on Saturday, mere hours after its release on Friday. On Sunday, the account seems to have mysteriously lost 99,000 of its 100,000 followers.

There was a backlash against the suspension of the account. Twitter didn’t provide any rule that was violated, but they reinstated the account – with zero followers. People trying to re-follow the account were prevented from doing so, including the author of the PJ Media article:

I attempted to follow the page, but the same thing happened to me.

However, the movie performed so well at the box office that they are expanding the number of theaters next week to 1,700:

Despite the Twitter suspension and sudden mysterious loss of followers, Unplanned racked up more than $6.1 million at the box office, despite being predicted to take in only $2-3 million. Even more impressive, the film only played on 1,060 screens, earning an average of $5,770 per screen.

On Sunday, the film announced that its distributor, Pure Flix, will add an additional 600 screens for a count of 1,700 screens next week.

The movie also earned an A+ rating from CinemaScore, and it has a 93 percent positive rating on RottenTomatoes.

I’d make sure that you go see it as soon as possible. Remember what happend to the Gosnell movie, last time? The theaters pulled it very early, even though it was doing very well.

This isn’t the first time that Twitter has censored voices critical of their allies in the Democrat Party. Remember when they refused to allow a pro-life election ad from (now Senator) Marsha Blackburn? Or when they censored pro-life ads from the well-known pro-life Susan B. Anthony List group? Or when they said that death threats against conservative Dana Loesch were permissible? They also allowed threats of violence to be made against the pro-life Covington students. They also blocked pro-life ads from Live Action. Basically, they censor anything that makes their pro-abortion allies in the Democrat Party look bad.

I understand that companies make mistakes, but why are all the mistakes made by these big social media companies in favor of their allies in the Democrat Party? Is it because they don’t want their allies in the Democrat Party to lose elections?

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2IbAy8l

/by
Meet the New Apologists (Part 2_ Advice)

Meet the New Apologists (Part 2: Advice)

By Jordan Apodaca

In the last post we met seven “new apologists.” Now, we ask them crucial questions about how to start and run a young apologetics ministry.

What advice would you give to newer apologists about finding their niche/focus? How important is it? How does one find a niche?

Here is Scott Olson’s case for why it is so important to find a niche:

  • Scott Olson (Free Thinking Ministries): I think it’s incredibly important to find a niche. I hesitate to say that the apologetics community is oversaturated because I would hate to discourage anyone from doing apologetics, but if you just start up another generic apologetics ministry, your voice is going to be drowned out. In all good marketing strategies (which is what you’ll need in order to grow your ministry), you need to be known for solving a problem. When people think of your ministry, they should immediately associate it with the specific apologetics problem you’re trying to solve. For example, when people think of Freethinking Ministries, they immediately think of free will and Molinism. We talk about other things on the website, but we’re known for those two issues. If you’re resistant to niching down, I’ll say this: build your “brand” by focusing on a specific niche, and once you’re happy with the size of your audience, then you can begin to branch out and focus on other things. It’s extremely difficult to build a brand by trying to be all things to all people. People have psychological tendency to need to categorize every person they meet. If they can’t put you in a box, you’ll just confuse them and never attract them as an audience member. As far as choosing a niche, I would browse through Facebook groups and other ministries and try and find something that you feel hasn’t been properly addressed. Chances are, there are a lot of people who feel the same way, and you can grow your ministry with them.

This isn’t about becoming someone you’re not. It’s about being who God made you to be:

  • Cameron Bertuzzi (Capturing Christianity): Be yourself. Seriously. Don’t try to be anyone else. Don’t try to be the next William Lane Craig. Don’t try to be the next Greg Koukl. Be the first you. When I was just starting my blog I had no idea that photography and apologetics could go so well together. In fact, I initially thought it would mean people wouldn’t take me seriously (who wants to listen to what some random photographer has to say?!). But once I embraced that identity, and didn’t shy away from it, beautiful things started to happen (pun intended). Yourself.

Another easy way to find a niche is to focus on a specific geographical location, like Jeremy Linn and Matt Slama have done with Twin Cities Apologetics. Matt Slama also adds another insight on finding a niche: “I would suggest just looking at where there is a need. Wherever there are people, you will have bad thinking. Atheism is at its root, bad thinking. It is evident from what God has told us that people know that God exists. (See Romans 1:19.) So, just start helping people think correctly. God will help you and be with you.”

What are some potential apologetics ministry ideas that you’d love to see some young, bright apologists run with?

Several answered that we should focus on evangelism:

  • Scott Olson: I would love to see a ministry that primarily focused on the integration of apologetics and evangelism. It can be quite difficult to figure out where to sprinkle in your apologetic arguments when evangelizing to someone, so I think that might be a good idea to run with.
  • Matt Schmidt (Engage 360): For me and the Engage 360 team, it almost always comes back to, “How do we better equip people in the church to know their faith, share their faith, and grow in their faith?”  There are numerous ways we can do that. I would love to see a lot more resources designed to help the untrained Christian to be able to have more spiritual conversations in their lives.  This could be quick reference guides, guided learning, interactive training, etc.

Other ideas:

  • Cameron Bertuzzi: We need way more Christian YouTubers. And don’t just start a YouTube channel without a plan. Research best practices. Learn marketing strategies. Reach out to other successful Christian YouTubers like Mike Winger and ask for advice. Don’t reinvent the wheel!
  • Jeremy Linn: Well I’d like to see Apologetics incorporated with music more but that’s something that is just an out-there idea I’ve been thinking of for a while.

Evangelism, YouTube, and music! Go after it!

What are the top three mistakes that new apologists often make?

Tim Stratton:

  1. I think many new and young apologists try to “be” someone else. That is, they try to BE Dr. Craig or J.P. Moreland instead of simply being themselves. Be comfortable in your own skin. Don’t try to be someone else.
  2. Know your audience and communicate to them. I struggle with this since I often communicate to high school students and I am also currently working on a PhD dissertation. As far as FTM goes, I have formed a team to try and offer a range of content so that together we can reach beginners, intermediates, and advanced folks. I am finding that there are pros and cons to this approach. I’m learning on the fly!
  3. Related to (2), if you are talking to a beginner (for example) make sure to use language they understand and speak in a manner they can follow. If you must use technical jargon, make sure to define your terms in ways they can grasp. Timothy Fox blogs for FreeThinking Ministries and has this down to an art form.

Scott Olson:

  1. They try to appeal to everybody.
  2. They worry too much about the little things, like picking a name and designing the perfect logo.
  3. They don’t worry about marketing and messaging.

Matt Schmidt:

  1. Think way too much of themselves.
  2. Think that because they know Apologetics they also know Theology and Philosophy (usually mostly just repeating the positions of their favorite apologist).
  3. Learn how to bring apologetics to a practical level for everyday people in the Church.

Cameron Bertuzzi:

  1. Aesthetics,
  2. Marketing,
  3. Treating people like humans.

Travis Pelletier:

  1. Fail to network. Don’t be a nerd in your basement. Get involved in your church and in your community. If you’ve never been involved in church before, then you shouldn’t be surprised if your leadership doesn’t just jump for joy when you ask to teach on a relatively difficult and potentially controversial topic like apologetics. Also, network with other apologists. There are apologetics nerds in almost every church. Find them. Get together with them. See if you can encourage them to become involved.
  2. Application: Every apologetics lesson should be connected to real life. Don’t just teach a lesson on the problem of evil as an abstract idea. Bring it home to people. For example, you could talk about someone who walked away from the faith because they didn’t get a good answer to this question. Or you could talk about how you struggled with this issue. At the end of the lesson, ALWAYS give some practical tips on how to actually engage with people in everyday life. Don’t let apologetics be some ethereal abstract philosophy – it’s about loving the people we meet, loving them enough to engage with them and give them good answers.
  3. Always have grace – This has been a struggle for me. Whether it’s the atheist who is being idiotically pigheaded in order to avoid the divine, or whether it’s the Christian who uses the word “Faith” as an excuse for intellectual laziness, apologists need to realize that everyone is at a different place, and that we must love the people who frustrate us, and we must love them enough to not always have to force the argument to end with us on top. Apologists often feel that we must “win the argument”. But we don’t. All we should try to do is to get them thinking, and if we behave graciously then the door will be open to more conversations in the future.

Jeremy Linn:

  1. SOCIAL MEDIA – this is huge if you are focusing on content and want your apologetics platform to grow. You need to know how to best utilize each platform. I was quite bad with SM right away but developed skills and got better over time (and still am)
  2. I’m guessing most don’t make the personal connections with people that they should, and form partnerships that will help with their ministry. That is something I have a hard time with, and could put more time emphasis on.
  3. Tailor posts to their audience, whatever that may be. That especially means the title of a blog post or video should appeal to whoever you want your content to appeal to. Same with the caption on social media. Those two things are some of the main things that will drive people to content, along with having a picture that looks good and is not cut off (need to use the right sized picture for Facebook, in example).

Matt Slama:

  1. Addressing questions that people are not asking. Often times we know our material and know what problems a majority of people have with Christianity. However, we need to address the individual and the question/argument posed.
  2. Letting other people get away with putting the burden of proof on you. There is a clear method of determining burden of proof. Some people don’t understand the reason for burden of proof. When one is making a claim, they need to uphold the burden of proof not the other way around. It is interesting how this so easily gets swapped around. Be level headed and just think through the conversation. Take your time even if it might feel a little awkward. Bad thinking = bad conversations.

(Matt Slama doesn’t follow the rules.)

What are the top three things new apologists should focus on in order to thrive?

Tim Stratton:

  1. I would encourage new apologists not just to repeat the work that others have already done, but strive to occasionally develop new and unique arguments.
  2. Build off of the work of the “giants” who have preceded you, stand on their shoulders, and take it to new heights. Dr. Craig recently told me that I was helping to fulfill one of his dreams because he said “You are taking my work, reflecting on it, making it your own, and running with it.” I encourage others to do the same. For example, take the work of guys like Mike Licona or JP Moreland and continue building on what they have already accomplished.
  3. Don’t feel like you have to be doing apologetics as a profession to be a good and effective apologist! Be faithful with the little platform you might have and do the best with what you’ve got, trying to reach as many people in your circle of influence as possible. Let God handle the rest!

Scott Olson:

  1. Find that area within apologetics in which you can become the expert.
  2. Build your online presence by having a website and being on social media.
  3. Be able to clearly articulate the goal of your ministry, and make this goal a solution to a problem that your audience has. For example, if you wanted to create a ministry focusing on Christianity and neuroscience, maybe articulate your goal as “ensuring that Christians remain capable and effective when talking about neuroscience” or something along those lines. This clearly defines your target audience (Christians interested in neuroscience) and what the problem is you’re going to solve (ineffective apologetics related to neuroscience).

Matt Schmidt:

  1. Keeping things practical.
  2. Learning how to talk apologetics to non-apologetics people.
  3. Rounding out with solid Theology, Bible, and Philosophy training.

Cameron Bertuzzi:

  1. Finding your niche and sticking to it,
  2. Marketing,

What advice would you give to an aspiring apologetics ministry trying to equip local churches? How do you build trust with pastors? How do you even begin the conversation?

  • Tim Stratton: Just this morning I met with two local pastors from churches that I do not attend. I offered them my services. I told them that whenever an apologetic or theological issue might arise to give me a call and that I will do the research for them that they do not have the time to do. I told them that I am sure they will occasionally disagree with me, but that I will strive to tell them what I think on a specific topic, and then give them other options to consider if they did not find my approach satisfying. I think it builds trust when you offer to serve churches in this manner. It also builds trust when you give them permission to disagree with you but tell them that you will point them to other possible solutions as well.
  • Scott Olson: The absolute best thing you can do is volunteer at your local church. Get involved helping set up or tear down, serving coffee, serving on the worship team, anything to show that you’re a team player and you genuinely care about serving your local church. Believe me, you’ll inevitably meet some of the “power players” within the church and you can ask them out to lunch or coffee in order to talk to them about your interest in equipping the church with apologetics. Frame your conversations in such a way as to illustrate the problem you see in your local church, and how your apologetics ministry will help solve it.
  • Matt Schmidt: Don’t use the word apologetics!  Focus on how you can serve and aid the church in bringing the life changing the truth of Christianity to their local community.  Don’t make it about you and how much you know. Keep whatever you do as interactive as possible. Very few people can sit and listen to a lecture, and even fewer can do so then put something into practice from it.  We could argue that people in the Church need to mature and be able to handle that, and you might even be right. However, we have to live in reality and figure out how to bring people up more than complain that they can’t handle things we thing they should be able to.
  • Travis Pelletier: Let them know that what the goal of your ministry is, and ask the pastor how you can be of service to him. Don’t just tell him what you want to do; ask him how you can help him.
  • Jeremy Linn: Personal connection beats email every time. Even phone calls are better than emails. The majority of head pastors won’t respond to emails regarding ministry connections, from what I understand. Youth pastors tend to respond more often.

What advice would you give to an aspiring apologist trying to teach apologetics in a small group/class setting? What are some teaching tips, some things to definitely do and some things to definitely not do?

Here is some advice on how to teach well:

  • Tim Stratton: (1) Make sure you know your material! For example, don’t teach the Ontological Argument unless you have a strong understanding of it yourself. (2) Do not speak over their heads! Know your audience! (3) Do your best to avoid “Christianeeze” and “Apologeticeeze.” (4) Take the subject matter seriously, but don’t take yourself too seriously (have fun)!
  • Scott Olson: Use stories to get your point across. People don’t retain bullet points of information very well, but they do understand stories. Illustrate how you would use an argument in a hypothetical (or experiential) story. Trust me, that’s what they’ll remember.
  • Matt Schmidt: Keep things interactive and hands-on to the highest degree possible.  I have made this mistake myself many times so I am not throwing stones here.  Over time it has become clear that you can engage more people and have them take more away if you keep things interactive.  For instance, rather than merely lecture and power point my way through some basic evangelism training I am currently using videos from a Boghossian disciple using “street epistemology” to try and deconvert Christians.  I, or the class members, can stop the video at any time and we use what is happening in the video and the context for guided discussion. I have a class of sixty members (in a church of 250) that are almost all engaged and giving input each week.  In fact, they are so engage we go over 90 minutes every week. Think about the last time you gave a 90 minute lecture to a church and most of them stuck with it!

Cameron and Jeremy give advice about how to not brand your group:

  • Cameron Bertuzzi: Definitely do not paint yourself or your class as overly intellectual. I started an apologetics class at my church, but once the word was out that it was “intellectual,” our numbers slowly decreased until we were down to just 2 members (not including myself). Don’t use apologetics in the name; don’t make it sound like you have to be smart to attend.
  • Jeremy Linn: There is a strong tendency for people who like apologetics to go to apologetics classes… When you are “teaching” people who already know the content, it can become more of a social club. This is not a bad thing as we know “Iron sharpens iron.” However, to be most effective, we need to draw people in who don’t normally have this bend.

How can a new apologetics ministry be evangelistic? What do you do to share the Gospel yourself, and what do you do to get others to share the Gospel? 

  • Tim Stratton: Always try to show how an argument for the existence of God is best explained by biblical data. For example, I like to appeal to the Kalam Cosmological Argument to eventually reach the conclusion that it is possible for the person listening to my presentation to have a personal relationship with the “Cause of the universe” without appealing to a single Bible verse. Then I follow that by noting that although I have not touched a Bible to reach my conclusion, that the Bible says the exact same thing – it is possible to have a personal relationship with the Cause and Creator of the universe. Then I say, “Perhaps we should take the Bible seriously.” I follow that with: “But wait, there’s more! The Bible doesn’t just tell us that it is possible to have a personal relationship with the Cause and Creator of the universe… it also tells us exactly how to do such a thing through Jesus Christ!” (Watch my sermon: “Doesn’t Science Disprove God?“) With that I am off and running with the Gospel. We can seamlessly transition from apologetic syllogisms to sharing the biblical message of salvation!
  • Scott Olson: Hopefully, being evangelistic is the goal of all ministries. In particular, get good at transitioning conversations from superficial topics into deeper ones. Trust me; everyone wants to tell you what they think about the important issues (like religion). Don’t try and force apologetics into a conversation, rather ask them about their beliefs and try and get them to see why their beliefs might be wrong. When you ask someone his or her thoughts on something meaningful, 95% of people will absolutely love it. Think about it, would you rather have someone ask you what you do for a living, or would you rather have them ask you your thoughts on religion?
  • Matt Schmidt: As much as possible bring everything back to the core elements of the faith.  The authority of Jesus, the reliability of Scripture, the integrity of the eye-witness testimony of the apostles, the biblical definition of key terms, the way we can reach people of different backgrounds, etc.  I am very comfortable with evangelism when opportunity arises in life (i.e. sitting next to someone on a plane, having a door opened in conversation with a co-worker, etc.). What I struggle with is intentional outreach as I am more of a shy extrovert.  To overcome this, I will go to a bookstore and hang-out it a relevant sections that will be a good context for a spiritual conversation. When someone pulls Deepok Chopra off the shelf I ask them about the book and off we go!
  • Cameron Bertuzzi: Good question. I think we need to spark up way more conversations with people in real life. I notice that online I’m ready to talk about anything but when I meet people at the grocery store, for example, I never think twice about stopping and asking them a couple questions. Why not? These people (a) need apologetics just like everybody else, and (b) are probably a lot more open to what we have to say. I would cite the fact that I’m naturally introverted, but actually that’s a lie. I’m more of a selective introvert. People in my inner circle I have no issue reaching out to, even if I barely know them. I need to do better at enlarging that circle.
  • Jeremy Linn: Connect up with local organizations doing evangelism, or create an evangelism event yourself. Those are the two main options I know of. I go out and have some way to start asking people questions, like to approach people and say you’re doing a survey of people’s thoughts about spiritual things, and asking permission to ask questions. One Apologetics group takes a whiteboard and writes a question on it and talks to people walking by in their city.

What advice to you have for ministries that are primarily focused on building an Internet presence? (Should every apologist try to have an online ministry?) How do you go about building a website and making an impact? What are some major mistakes apologists make in this area, and what are some of the opportunities? Do you have any recommendations on what platform to use (Wix, WordPress, etc.)?

  • Tim Stratton: In today’s world if an apologist does not have an online presence then they are probably either wasting their time or simply hoping to reach a very small number of folks. Now, this does not mean that everyone needs to have an expensive website. I got my start simply by treating my Facebook account as a website. I would also seek to debate or argue (respectfully) whenever I had the opportunity. I use WordPress and I like it a lot!
  • Scott Olson: The biggest mistake I see on websites today is that they have wayyyy too much stuff on their website. From the minute someone gets to your website, it should be clear what you do, how it will make their life better, and how they can interact with your content. Anything else on the front page of your website is really just unnecessary clutter that can be moved elsewhere.
  • Cameron Bertuzzi: Huge questions here! We use WordPress. That’s what I’m familiar with and it gets the job done. Apologists usually do poor in the website area because they don’t have a background in design. Here’s what I recommend: PUT DOWN THE PLANTINGA AND PICK UP A BOOK ON DESIGN! It’s not impossible to do design well, even if you aren’t naturally inclined to it. It’s a skill that can be learned, as with anything. There are rules and formulas; it’s a lot more analytic than it might seem. And while you’re at it, pick up a book on growing a website, another on marketing, and another still on social media. Read and study them. Do that and you’ll already be way ahead of the curve! Here are some book recommendations:

Where should I focus my attention on Social Media? Facebook? Instagram? YouTube? How do I use those productively? What social media tips and tricks would you give to a beginner?

  • Scott Olson: Facebook is really a fantastic tool for creating an online community. Obviously, it’s a great idea to have a “business” page for your ministry that you can use to post. However, Facebook has unfortunately began limiting the reach of business pages, so only about 1-5% of those who like and follow your page actually see what you post. For this reason, I highly recommend creating a Facebook group associated with your ministry. You’ll create a sense of exclusivity and community while having a great place to start conversations about your niche and ministry. YouTube is an area I’d like to begin focusing on a little bit more, as most people are transitioning to video as their primary form of content consumption. My advice for YouTube would be to not be afraid of creating long videos. Don’t feel like you have to stop a video because it’s more than 10 minutes long. Make the video as long as it needs to be. Finally, don’t be afraid to test stuff on social media. Create a bunch of posts throughout the day and see which ones get the most amount of likes and engagement. Keep posting similar content to the ones that do well, and stop posting content similar to the ones that don’t do well. Also, use surveys to figure out what your audience wants from you.
  • Cameron Bertuzzi: YouTube and Facebook are the best places for apologetics. A friend of mine always says that with Facebook, you pay them, but with YouTube, they pay you. And that’s true. On Facebook, be prepared to spend money advertising. It’s not impossible to grow without paying for ads, but unless your content is extremely shareable (think Babylon Bee), it’ll be difficult. If you can’t afford to pay for ads, find somebody that sees your vision and wants to partner. Facebook has been incredible for our ministry. I’m still getting the hang of YouTube, so I can’t comment on best practices there.
  • Jeremy Linn: It really depends what you want to go for. Some Apologetics ministries have focused solely on Youtube, and have had great success on there. Perhaps you want to reach out to the next generation with interactive media. Then Youtube is your go to. With enough focus on there and a built up subscriber base, over time you can earn money off of it (although likely not enough to do it full time). For general Apologetics ministries, a Facebook page is the #1 spot right now. A Facebook group may be appropriate for a ministry like me own where people meet locally. But you can share content more easily on a page, and it tends to grow faster for Apologetics content. Instagram is a valuable place to be especially since younger people are on it and it is really the “cool” place to be right now. However, it takes the most time and commitment out of any of the platforms – from making solid captions to doing Instagram stories consistently (both of which are necessary for growth). If you were going to pick one platform, I would make it the Facebook page. Instagram can do a lot if you are willing to learn what is effective on there. Quick one- or two-words tips:
    • Facebook page: SHORT CONTENT, LINKS TO LONG CONTENT, HUMOR
    • Instagram: 30 HASHTAGS, BE REAL

How can I contribute intellectually and maybe even academically to apologetics? Should I write?

  • Tim Stratton: I encourage apologists to know the content and share it in live settings and in writing whenever possible. However, apologists can raise the standard if we all strive to advance the conversations through research and unique arguments of our own. This is best accomplished through writing. If you don’t have a website send your writings to guys like me who might be interested in publishing your piece on their website. If one is in a position to do so, get a degree in apologetics, philosophy, or theology. This option, however, is not always available. If it is not feasible to get a degree in a related field, then “study to show yourself approved” (2 Timothy 2:15) and educate yourself to be the best apologist possible. Guys like Eric Hernandez, Jonathan Thompson, Evan Minton, Ricardo Martinez, and Chan Arnett (and many more) exemplify this beautifully. None of them have any official letters behind their name, but they are all brilliant minds who can go toe-to-toe with any Ph.D. They push themselves as if they were PhD candidates. I learn much from each of them.
  • Matt Schmidt: My personal answer is most likely not, but maybe.  Though it seems to be the attraction for many people who get into apologetics and philosophy, the greater need (by far) is for average people in the church and outside of it.  We would be better served with more apologists focusing their attention in that direction. That said, there are some who absolutely should pursue higher level academics and higher-level writing.  That percentage is fairly small though. The bottom line is that most academic fields are highly competitive to even get into PhD programs and often a small number of PhD grads are getting solid jobs because of their PhD.  It is not a demotion to serve the church more hands-on (academics can serve the church as well), but it is a different path that requires a different mentality.
  • Cameron Bertuzzi: What I recommend is to pick an argument or subject and stick with it for years at a time. Do you like the moral argument? Great! Learn everything you can about the different versions, various objections, etc. Read everything you can get your hands on. Follow Dr. Craig’s example. He spends years and years studying one topic at a time. Why does he do that? Trying to be maximally informed on everything all at once is too ambitious. Contribute intellectually by taking philosophy seriously.

What kind of person should pursue a solo ministry, and what kind of person should pursue a team-based ministry?

  • Tim Stratton: I can only speak for myself, but although I am the founder and executive director of FreeThinking Ministries, I sure enjoy being a part of a team! Scott Olson is the “voice of FTM” as he cohosts the FreeThinking Podcast. Timothy Fox, Jonathan Thompson, Adam Coleman, Shannon Byrd, and Jacobus Erasmus are a joy to work with as we all do ministry together (two more scholars are slated to officially join the FreeThinking team this summer)! There are also many guest contributors from around the world who have become an extension of the FreeThinking family like Kyle Barrington (world traveler), Johnny Sakr from Australia, John Limanto from Indonesia, Robert Oram from the UK, and Steve Williams from Hawaii (Does Hawaii count?) along with many others. We regularly communicate with each other, bring forth challenges, and work toward sharpening the team as a whole. Think about it: Captain America, Iron Man, and Thor all make great stand alone movies, but combine them as a team and you have The Avengers which is much more exciting! Having a team allows the ministry to cover many more topics than one guy can do alone (unless your name is William Lane Craig)! The key, however, is finding guys that you “click” with.
  • Cameron Bertuzzi: I might step on people’s toes here, but I would say that if you’re not a professional or haven’t gone to school for philosophy/apologetics, you probably need to do team-based. (That won’t apply in every case, but as a general rule.)
  • Jeremy Linn:
    • Solo – you need to be committed to put time in. Are you wanting to do social media? If so, are you task-focused? If not it may be hard to go solo on that. Solo however does allow you to focus on your “x” – that thing that will separate you from other ministries and will draw people in to what you have going on.
    • Team – If you have a group that meets personally this makes perfect sense. Your strengths can build off each other. You can designate areas to leaders, i.e., I am mainly social media, and the other leader is mainly meetings. We couldn’t do all that we’re doing without the team aspect being there.

What is it like having/being support staff?

  • Tim Stratton: I am currently doing FTM full-time and have one part-time guy (Dr. David Oldham) who does research for me and helps to raise finances. We meet one or two times per week to study together. I also have a fantastic board that handles many of the BIG things which frees me up to do more research, writing, teaching, preaching, and ministry in general. As mentioned above, the FTM contributors also act as support staff. As of now, they act as volunteers. It is such a blessing to have this team of guys surrounding me.
  • Scott Olson: Because apologetics is not my main focus, it’s awesome just being able to donate a little bit of my time and expertise to a ministry that I fully believe in.
  • Cameron Bertuzzi: It’s amazing. The guys that help run our ministry on a daily basis are invaluable. Learn to delegate responsibility early on or else you might burn yourself out.

How can a new apologist stay in love with Jesus and not grow cold toward God?

  • Tim Stratton: Always keep Jesus in mind. Talk to Him over a cup of coffee before you begin your studies for the day. Ask Him to teach you. Depend upon Him! This approach has been so beneficial for me. In fact, the more I have increased in my knowledge of apologetics; the more my love has grown with God. For example, I remember the first time I grasped the Kalam – I began to cry tears of joy and I began to praise Him! I saw a bigger and more beautiful picture of God and it brought me to worship. Moreover, make sure to continue to attend, be a member, and serve a local church! Make sure to take part in worship services and do not take for granted the assembly of believers (Hebrews 10:25). Study God’s Word and keep talking to God!
  • Scott Olson: It’s important to always keep in mind why we do apologetics. If the point of us doing apologetics is to make ourselves look smarter or better, then we’ll quickly grow away from God. But, if we genuinely want to equip other believers and ourselves to bring more people into the kingdom of God, then I believe apologetics can only help us in our walk of faith.
  • Cameron Bertuzzi: Plain and simple. Study your Bible, study apologetics, but make sure to spend time in prayer. There is no substitute for a healthy prayer life.
  • Travis Pelletier: Continue the spiritual disciplines of Church, prayer, and devotional time. STUDYING APOLOGETICS IS NOT A REPLACEMENT FOR ANY OF THESE THINGS! Sorry for all caps, but this point is so important that it deserves a yell. Also, it is so helpful to have friends who love Jesus that you spend time with regularly. I mean people who love Jesus, not just people who love theology. Finally, as someone who loves secular music, I’ve found that Christian music can absolutely refocus my mind on Christ in a way that secular music doesn’t.
  • Jeremy Linn: Spending time with God is key, although that can be hard for me as I have late nights some times. Acknowledging and receiving God’s grace when I “screw up” has been helpful too — and also journaling about what God is doing through the ministry and in my life in general. This is most certainly a topic I’m still wrestling through.

Beginning a new ministry often takes a lot longer than most of us want, and we often don’t get to see much fruit right away. What words of encouragement do you have for new ministries?

  • Tim Stratton: It is literally a one-day at a time journey. My son, Ethan, is sophomore and a wrestler on one of the best High School teams in the nation. Although he has been wrestling since he was four-years-old, just last year I encouraged him to have one simple goal: improve by one percent every practice. That does not seem like much, but if one takes this approach in just a few weeks, he will be an utterly transformed wrestler. Ethan took my advice and the improvement we have seen over the last year – since he adopted the “one percent philosophy” – is comparable to the improvement he made over the past decade of wrestling. In fact, Ethan won the KHS Most Improved Wrestler of the year award! All these little “one percents” add up quickly. That is my approach to apologetics too. I have been utterly transformed by the renewing of my mind (Romas 12:2). I look forward to the continual transformation ahead. I have a long way to go but I have already traversed more ground than I ever thought possible. I encourage you to adopt my “one percent philosophy” and see what happens!
  • Scott Olson: Keep any goals you set to 18 months or sooner. Personally, I like 90 day goals. If you try and set 5 year goals, you’re always going to be discouraged by how far away that seems. Besides, no one knows what’s going to be happening 5 years from now. Set 90 day goals for where you want your ministry to be, and every day take some actionable step toward achieving that goal. If, at the end of the day, you’ve moved one step closer to your 90 day goal, you’ve won the day. And if you win every day, you’ll win the week. And if you win every week you’ll win the month. And if you win every month, you’ll win the year. And that’s what winners do: they win.
  • Cameron Bertuzzi: If your ministry has stayed stagnant in terms of viewership, engagement, etc., most likely you’ve neglected the importance of marketing. The good news is that it can be fixed. Pick up some books on marketing. Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is, as we all know, the definition of insanity. Playing it safe is not what God wants from you. He wants you to use your talents creatively (see the Parable of the Talents, Matt 25:14-30). Ask yourself: are you like the man that doubled what he was given, or are you more like the man that took his talent and buried it? The second route is definitely safer, and requires less effort, but as the Parable of the Talents demonstrates, quite colorfully I might add, that’s simply not an option. Don’t waste your talents but neglecting marketing.
  • Travis Pelletier: Apologetics has often been called “pre-evangelism.” In other words, apologetics prepares people to hear the gospel. This means that apologists often don’t see the results of their work, simply because the result of their work might simply be a change in attitude toward faith which only blossoms much later. So, don’t let a lack of clear fruit discourage you.
  • Jeremy Linn: The fact that you are doing this puts you ahead of like 99.9% of Christians in apologetics engagement. That’s quite significant in itself. Comparing your status with other ministries can be discouraging. Instead, stay in continuous prayer with God and note the things he is doing in your own situation, whether big or small. With social media, consistency is the main thing, and over time people will recognize your dedication and passion to the ministry and will take action as a result.

Final thoughts: do you have anything else you want to say to new apologists?

  • Scott Olson: You have something to contribute. Even if you don’t feel like an expert in anything, trust me, you are an expert to someone. All it takes to be considered an expert is to know more than your audience does about what you’re talking about. If you’ve only studied apologetics for 6 months, then your target audience should be brand-new apologists. You know more than them, and so you can provide them with valuable content. And over time, the number of people you can be an expert for will grow, and thus your ministry will grow.
  • Cameron Bertuzzi: Make sure that your motivations for starting an apologetics ministry are pure. This isn’t about starting a platform that you can use to belittle people. It’s not about intellectual domination. As Paul said to the Corinthians, “If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.” Make sure that you are doing this for the right reasons. And on top of that, have a great time doing it! Oh, and btw, Christianity is true.
  • Travis Pelletier: One warning: Avoid theological hobbyhorses. You may think that eschatology, or reformed theology, or the age of the earth are important. I know that I do. But these issues are NOT the gospel, nor are they required for a defense of the gospel. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t talk about them, just that they shouldn’t be a primary topic in apologetics. Keep the central things the central things.
  • Jeremy Linn: Don’t lose your mission for sake of popularity. Personal connections are important even in online ministry. Know that this is going to be a big commitment but if God has truly given you this passion, the commitment and time is worth it.

 

Jordan is a Christian, the husband of Tarah, an evangelist-apologist with Ratio Christi, a volunteer with Engage 360 and Reasonable Faith, and an aspiring philosopher studying at Southern Evangelical Seminary. His intellectual passions include the study of free will and the doctrine of heaven. His ministry passions are to share the love of the Gospel and to equip ordinary Christians to do the same. Other interests include sports (especially Ultimate Frisbee), time management, veganism, peanut butter, and personality theories.”

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2FXchBv

/by

The Abortion Debate: Dr. Mike Adams vs. Abortion Doctor

,

Dr. Mike S. Adams takes on Dr. Willie Parker, an abortion doctor who has performed thousands of abortions. This debate took place on February 21, 2019 at UNC Wilmington. Although Dr. Parker claims to be a Christian, he says in his book that there are no moral absolutes and there is no right interpretation of Christianity. So much for sin then.

While Dr. Parker does claim, oddly, that the parable of the Good Samaritan somehow supports his work as an abortionist, this debate does not hinge on scripture passages, but on the distinction Dr. Parker tries to make between a human being and a person. That false distinction was used to defend chattel slavery when the Dred Scot Supreme Court decision declared that blacks were only three-fifths of a person.

“Human” is discovered by the science of genetics. “Person” is defined by whoever is in power at the time, maybe even just five lawyers on a court. If human beings don’t have a right to life, only what we define as “persons” do, then none of us are safe.

Watch the debate here:

 

/by

Collusion against the Truth

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

If the evidence is so good for Christianity, why don’t more people follow Christ? There are three possible factors for it and Frank discuss each one of them in this episode of the Cross Examined Official Podcast. We’ll see what motivates people to come to conclusions that are completely opposite to the facts.

Keep us busy by sending your questions to Hello@CrossExamined.org and don’t miss this episode!

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

/by