By Rajkumar Richard
The question, “Would there be less evil in a world without Satan?” could be relevant, for if the answer to this question is a yes, then we could plausibly ask, “Why did God create angels, i.e., Satan if evil in this world would be lesser without Satan?”
Within this context, if God had not created Satan, evil would have been less, and our world would have been a good world. However, since God created Satan, could we then infer that God erred in HIS decision to create Satan?
The entailment to this thought process could potentially debunk Historic Christianity. God (as a maximally great being) cannot err. If God erred in creating Satan, HE cannot be God. Hence God’s existence could be disputed. The infallibility of the Bible that reveals God to mankind could also be thus disputed. We could go on and on.
Let us discuss this theme by considering the following aspects albeit from a biblical standpoint.
The Source of Sin
Sin is an evil action or motive that opposes and assaults God. Sin replaces God with something or someone in God’s rightful place of supremacy. Sin entails evil.
Understanding the source of sin is vital to understanding the theme we are discussing now. If Satan is the source of sin and evil, one could argue that God should not have created Satan to keep the world free of sin and evil.
The “Animal Nature” of man is the source of sin, claimed British Philosopher and Theologian Frederick R. Tennant. Under this notion, humans possess natural animalistic impulses as a means to human survival that have intensified through natural selection based on their evolution from less highly developed forms. Other theologians have posited other sources of sin. However, each of these views has been found to be largely inadequate.[1]
The Bible teaches differently. Sin is not caused by God (James 1:13), but man is responsible for his sins (James 1: 14-15).
Man possesses certain innate desires. He could either satisfy those desires in moderation or sin by abusing those desires to either hurt himself or the others.
His ‘desire to enjoy’ could result in an enjoyment of eating in moderation or a sin by being a glutton, whereby he injures himself. His ‘desire to obtain’ could be satisfied either by legitimately acquiring material possessions or he could sin by exploiting and stealing from others. His ‘desire to achieve’ could be satisfied either through legitimate achievement or he could sin and achieve at the expense of others.
Man could satisfy these desires in a godly manner by dwelling within the divinely imposed constraints. But man sins when he fails to accept the divine limits to these desires and makes these desires as ends in themselves, which are the cravings of a sinful man (1 John 2: 16).
While desires are natural, there could be external inducements (Satanic or human) that motivate a man to sin. Whatever be the case, man is wholly responsible for his sins. Sin is the choice of the person who commits it.
Function of Satan in Sin
Satan is a demon (cf. Luke 10: 17-20). He is the tempter and deceiver. Satan opposes God and the work of Christ by tempting and deceiving humans. Satan tempted Adam & Eve, Jesus, Judas, etc. (cf. Acts 5:3, 1 Corinthians 7:5, 2 Corinthians 2: 11, Ephesians 6: 11, 2 Timothy 2: 26).
Sometimes we state that Satan is the source of sins. While making such statements, we use the word “source” informally. In this informal usage, “source” refers to an ‘originator’ or an ‘instigatory cause.’
If we claim that Satan is the source of all sins, i.e., if we use the word ‘source’ to mean, in an Aristotelian sense, the material cause (‘that out of which’) or the efficient cause (‘the primary source of…’), then we posit dualism. Dualism contradicts the Bible, for there are no two equally ultimate powers, one good, and the other evil.
God is the only ultimate power and God is good. God is not the source or the originator of sin or evil. Moreover, Satan was originally created good; hence Satan is not the source of sin and evil.
Potency of Freewill to Sin without Satan
If asked differently, the title question would be, “Would Adam & Eve have sinned without Satan?” Since man is responsible for his sins, the answer should be yes.
The premise on which this argument is also predicated on is the freewill-based rebellion of angels in the heavenly realm. (This premise presupposes the metaphysical similarity of the free will of angels and humans.)
The angels that rebelled against God did not have an external inducement (as Adam & Eve had Satan as an external inducer). There were only two entities during the angelic fall – God and Angels. (Even if mankind was created before the fall of Satan, man was totally incapable of influencing Satan’s fall.)
Since God can neither tempt nor cause evil, the angelic rebellion was an entailment of their free will. Therefore, it is quite reasonable to conclude that Adam & Eve had the potential to sin or would have sinned irrespective of the presence of Satan.
Satan merely accelerated the sin of Adam and Eve. Had Satan not existed, Adam and Eve would have sinned (or eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) sooner or later.
Conclusion
Satan is not the source of sin. Man’s free will is the source of sin. Man would have inevitably sinned regardless of Satan’s existence.
Would the quantum and the extent of sins be minimized if Satan was not created? Not necessarily so, for if Satan is to be considered as an accelerant of sin, then there is a possibility that the quantum and the extent of sins would be actualized at a later time. So the quantum and the extent of sins would have been the same with or without Satan, for the potency of man’s free will to sin is independent of Satan.
The other possibility is that the quantum and the extent of sins would be lesser without Satan. In which case, the question, “If evil in this world would be lesser without Satan, then why did God create Satan?” gains legitimacy.
If Satan is the sole cause of evil, then evil would have been absolutely eliminated, had Satan not been created. However, since Satan exists and that Satan is not the sole cause of evil, only God, in HIS omniscient wisdom would be able to determine the extent to which evil would be reduced had angels not been created.
But on the other hand, if the good that is to be actualized from the good angels in ministering to people is commensurately immeasurable, then God would be justified to create Satan even with the potential of evil.
Finally, natural evil, which is devoid of human willing and acting, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. and suffering caused by a host of diseases such as cancer, cystic fibrosis, etc. exist independent of Satan and adds substantial numbers to the victims of evil. The pain and suffering caused by natural evil and diseases are innate in the creational design of this world and the human body.
The fact of the matter is that evil would not cease to exist if Satan were to be non-existent. Hence, numbers need not matter. When evil exists, the terms ‘lesser’ and ‘greater’ do not gain greater significance, for the world we live in would be evil even if only 1% of the total population (1 out of 10 people) are adversely affected by evil. Moreover, if only 1% of the total population is affected by evil, then there is a certain possibility for evil to increase.
Therefore, the question, “Would there be less evil in a world without Satan?” would neither debunk nor harm Historic Christianity.
Notes:
[1] Other theologians have posited various sources for sin. The “Anxiety of Finiteness” was proposed by Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971). The idea of “Existential Estrangement” was proposed by Paul Tillich (1886-1965), the “Economic Struggle” proposed by the Liberation Theology, and “Individualism and Competitiveness” as argued by Harrison Sacket Elliott (1882-1951).
Rajkumar Richard is passionate to strengthen the faith of fellow Christians, especially the young Christians. He has a Masters in Religion (Southern Evangelical Seminary, NC, USA) and Masters in Biology (School of Biological Sciences, Madurai Kamaraj University, India). He is a Christian blogger, itinerant speaker, social evangelist, and a mentor to young Christians.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2OKqCUp
The MAVEN Experience
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Tim Stratton
The primary goal of FreeThinking Ministries is to equip the church to engage the culture. In my opinion, no one is doing that better than Brett Kunkle. Kunkle became well-known in the apologetics community through his time at Greg Koukl’s organization, Stand To Reason. Recently, however, Kunkle has branched out and started MAVEN, an organization focused on helping the next generation know the truth, pursue goodness, and create beauty.
What exactly is a “maven?” Wikipedia defines maven as “a trusted expert in a particular field, who seeks to pass timely and relevant knowledge on to others in that field.” Kunkle’s particular “field” is worldview, apologetics, and the gospel of Jesus Christ. Since our goals overlap (and we are both former youth pastors), Kunkle invited FreeThinking Ministries to partner with MAVEN to pass this “timely and relevant knowledge” of God along to teens.
This is primarily accomplished through MAVEN’s Apologetics Immersive Experience. I joined Kunkle and his crew this summer to witness the “experience” first hand on the campus of Cal-Berkeley in northern California. Three youth groups—from New York, Colorado, and Utah—joined forces under Kunkle’s lead. What I witnessed was amazing!
Teenagers from around the country put many “stones in the shoes” of people in the Bay Area. They engaged in respectful and intelligent dialogue with atheist speakers, talked to skeptical U.C. Berkeley students and professors, visited Alcatraz, the Golden Gate Bridge, and even went surfing. As a former youth pastor, I can attest that this was the best “evangelism training” I have ever witnessed. These teens are inoculated by the MAVEN team “injecting” them with the best arguments atheists, and those of other religions will offer against Christianity. That might sound risky, but then Kunkle and his team show the students all the logical flaws with these arguments raised against the knowledge of God (2 Corinthians 10:5). After training, teenagers are sent to the mission field, in this case, UC Berkeley, to put their new-found apologetic skill set to the test.
The Berkeley Survey & Dialogues with Atheists
This is primarily accomplished through a survey MAVEN has developed. Teens spread out across the campus in groups of two or three and ask students and professors if they would be interested in taking a quick survey on worldview. Unless one is late to class, most are happy to engage in this discussion.
Many of these campus surveys at Berkeley would turn into 45-minute conversations about worldview, God, and Jesus Christ. I lost track of how many times an ardent “anti-Christian” would take a step back and say “you’ve really given me something to think about.” Or, “I guess I’ve never thought about it that way before.”
After conducting campus surveys, the students and MAVEN leaders reconvene. One evening I had the opportunity to teach students about how we have epistemic access to the supernatural. That is a fancy way to say, “how we can know the supernatural exists.” I explained that although we cannot directly sense the supernatural with our five senses, logic provides epistemic access to the supernatural. I offered the Kalam Cosmological Argument as one example.
To be fair, however, MAVEN allows teens to be exposed to ideas from atheists as well. A prominent atheist in the San Francisco area was invited to give the students his best shot. Kunkle invites certain atheists to come to speak to kids and lets them explain why they believe atheism is true and Christian theism is false. There is one catch: they must engage in a dialogue with the teenagers. Shortly after my discussion (about how we have epistemic access to the supernatural through logic) came to close, one particular atheist entered the classroom and proclaimed: “Even if the supernatural does exist, we would have no way of knowing it!”
The youngest student in the room (still in middle school) raised his hand and with what he had learned an hour earlier politely asked: “Have you heard of the Kalam Cosmological Argument?” The atheist said that he was aware of the Kalam, but was no expert. The young student (while regularly looking back at me to make sure he was explaining it correctly) began to debate the atheist. His classmates joined him and were able to explain how we do have the ability to know the supernatural exists and how we can know specific things about supernatural entities.
The takeaway is this: the atheist left his encounter with the teens with his “faith” shaken. The Christian teens left with their faith strengthened with logic and reason.
Movie Night
The MAVEN experience also includes times of Bible study and prayer, time enjoying God’s creation, and time learning how to see everything through the lens of a Christian worldview — a worldview that happens to be true! This even includes a lesson on how to watch a movie.
One evening we all gathered to do just that — watch a movie. Before it began, Kunkle prepared the students to keep several things in mind when watching any movie and to always look for certain ideas, assumptions, moral values, and how characters are developed throughout the story. We then watched Les Miserables starring Liam Neeson and Uma Thurman.
After the movie, Kunkle led a fantastic conversation by asking some key questions regarding the overarching theme, who are the “good guys” and who are the “bad guys.” (What makes them “good” and “bad”?) What values are promoted and what is the “good life” according to the movie? These questions led to a fantastic and deep conversation with the teens.
Conclusion
By the end of the week, teens in these three youth groups were equipped to engage the culture! They all know exactly what they believe and exactly why they believe it. They know the Gospel and are prepared to share it and also to answer questions and objections raised against the Gospel message (which is a rarity)! These students also learned how to worship God while enjoying His beautiful creation — and simultaneously learning how to surf. The kids had tons of fun and were transformed by the renewing of their minds (Romans 12:2). They also changed a few lives for eternity.
If you are a youth pastor, Sunday school teacher, parent, or grandparent, you must do whatever it takes to get your kids on one of these trips before they graduate! To get a glimpse of the MAVEN experience click here for a Berkley trip and here for a Salt Lake City trip (they also offer a “Worldview Roadtrip”)! To learn more about these experiences email Glenn Pinson here: glenn@maventruth.com.
Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18)
Tim pursued his undergraduate studies at the University of Nebraska-Kearney (B.A. 1997) and after working in full-time ministry for several years went on to attain his graduate degree from Biola University (M.A. 2014). Tim was recently accepted at North-West University to pursue his Ph.D. in systematic theology with a focus on metaphysics.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2LYzO9U
A Practical Guide to Culture: Helping the Next Generation Navigate Today’s World
PodcastPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS
Do you feel like you are fighting a losing battle for the hearts and minds of your kids?
Something has changed. We all sense it. The cultural pressure is increasing, especially on our kids. But even in a world of ever-present screens, gender-identity questions, and addictions, kids can have clarity and confidence. We must help them and there’s nobody better in this important subject than Brett Kunkle founder of MAVEN. In this interview Frank and Brett talk about his latest book A Practical Guide to Culture: Helping the Next Generation Navigate Today’s World. Where he explores questions such as:
– What unseen undercurrents are shaping twenty-first-century youth culture?
– Why do so many kids struggle with identity?
– How do we talk to kids about LGBT issues?
– How can we steer kids away from substance abuse and other addictions?
– How can we ground students in the biblical story and empower them to change the world?
and more! Don’t miss it!
How Do I Explain Abortion To My Children?
Apologetics for Parents, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Michael Sherrard
These kinds of questions keep you awake at night. Knowing how and when to talk to your children about sensitive issues isn’t an exact science. But we better figure it out quick. While we contemplate the best way to do it, our little ones are being taught by someone else. The internet, social media, and public education have changed the rules of the game. With that in mind, here are four practical suggestions for parents and church leaders on how to get ahead of the issue and teach your children about abortion.
Parents always struggle with “how soon do I allow my children to see the brokenness in the world?” My wife, Terri, and I err on the side of sooner than later. I want the first time my children to be horrified by the brokenness of our world to be in the safety of our company and in the context of the gospel. Besides, in the tech age, I’d be foolish to think I can keep the filth away. It will find them. My children need to be ready for when they encounter the darkness.
We need to be proactive in teaching our children. This doesn’t mean that we the force the issue, though. A good way to be proactive but not overbearing is to use questions to gently bring up sensitive subjects. They way I broached abortion with my oldest daughter (age 7) was by asking her if she knew why I went on a recent trip to England. She said, “to speak.” I said, “Yep. I went to speak about abortion. Have you heard that word before?” She shook her head no. I left it there. One minute later she asked what it meant, and we had an amazing conversation.
Good teaching requires knowing your children’s knowledge and assumptions. Bad teachers simply lecture and then patronizingly ask, “Does that make sense?” Don’t do this with your children. Instead, ask your children questions to find out where they are on abortion. Are they oblivious, disinterested, or already educated? Find out. Asking questions also allows for self-discovery. You’d be amazed at the insight of seven-year-olds. They are already making sense of the world. They are forming their moral framework. When simply asked a question and introduced to abortion, children often know what to think if it.[1]
Children, and adults for that matter are confused about the pro-life position. We must simplify it. People need to know that we are pro-life because we believe it is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. Abortion is the killing of an innocent human being. Therefore, we believe abortion is wrong.
Children also need to know the reasons that support this belief. They need to know that along with scripture we are pro-life because science and philosophy direct us to be. Science informs us that from the earliest stages of development the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. And philosophically, we understand that there is nothing morally significant in the difference between an embryo and adult that would justify killing the unborn. Differences in size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency are not good reasons to kill the unborn.[2]
The case for life is reasonable, rationale, and remarkably simple. Children easily grasp it. Use questions to simplify the issue, teach the pro-life syllogism, and explain the science and philosophy that support our conclusion.[3] Here are some questions you can use.
There you go. It’s that simple. You can teach your children the scientific and philosophical case for life by having a conversation directed by the right questions.
I understand that many pastors don’t want the controversy that might accompany speaking on a social issue, but neutrally isn’t an option when it comes to abortion. Children are very observant. When the church is silent on abortion one of two things is communicated to them: either that abortion is tolerable or that it is unforgivable. Both positions are false.
The sin of abortion is a horrific sin for which the blood of Jesus Christ is sufficient. People in our congregation need to hear that abortion is wrong and that there is mercy, forgiveness, and healing for those who have participated in one. When the pulpit addresses abortion, it shows the relevancy of Christianity to our children. It shows that it speaks to all of life. Speaking on it also allows sin to be seen in a concrete rather than abstract manner which makes the gospel more tangible. If you want to faithfully teach your children about abortion, the pulpit must be involved. When it is not, the church undermines the work in the home.[4]
Training our children to be pro-life doesn’t mean that we just make then apologists. We want them to serve and love those affected by abortion. Whether this means that they serve in a local pregnancy resource center, or simply show compassion to their friends who have had an abortion, actively loving those affected by abortion must be stressed.
Do this as a family or a church family. Our youth group went and served our local pregnancy resource center by doing odd jobs for them. Our youth painted, cleaned up the grounds, folded clothes, and many other things. They also were given a short presentation by the director educating them on what the resource center did for a woman. Many of our kids had no idea what the resource center was doing. This experience opened their eyes to the compassion in the pro-life movement and the reality of abortion in a way that words never could.
Parents, church leaders, we must be motivated. Children are almost always ready for more than we give them. Knowing when they are ready for something isn’t always clear. But I would rather make a mistake a time or two of addressing something too early rather than too late. So start early and teach the simple pro-life message in the home and the church, and may we all show the compassion that springs from the love of our Lord.
Notes
[1] Check out “Children asked about Abortion” by my friends at the Human Coalition.
[2] See “How to Defend Your Pro-Life Views in 5 Minutes or Less” by Scott Klusendorf for an excellent, concise summary of the pro-life position.
[3] A syllogism is simply a conclusion that is supported by reasons. This is the pro-life syllogism in case you missed it.
[4] I am a pastor, and I’ve experienced the fruit of speaking an equipping, gospel-centered message on abortion. Pastors, you can win on this issue. You don’t need to fear taking it on. For our story and some resources on how to do this is your church, visit the Pro-Life Pastors Initiative at plpi.info.
Michael C. Sherrard is a pastor, the director of Ratio Christi College Prep, and the author of Relational Apologetics. Booking info and such can be found at michaelcsherrard.com.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2LXSW87
Would A World Without Satan Lack Evil?
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Rajkumar Richard
The question, “Would there be less evil in a world without Satan?” could be relevant, for if the answer to this question is a yes, then we could plausibly ask, “Why did God create angels, i.e., Satan if evil in this world would be lesser without Satan?”
Within this context, if God had not created Satan, evil would have been less, and our world would have been a good world. However, since God created Satan, could we then infer that God erred in HIS decision to create Satan?
The entailment to this thought process could potentially debunk Historic Christianity. God (as a maximally great being) cannot err. If God erred in creating Satan, HE cannot be God. Hence God’s existence could be disputed. The infallibility of the Bible that reveals God to mankind could also be thus disputed. We could go on and on.
Let us discuss this theme by considering the following aspects albeit from a biblical standpoint.
The Source of Sin
Sin is an evil action or motive that opposes and assaults God. Sin replaces God with something or someone in God’s rightful place of supremacy. Sin entails evil.
Understanding the source of sin is vital to understanding the theme we are discussing now. If Satan is the source of sin and evil, one could argue that God should not have created Satan to keep the world free of sin and evil.
The “Animal Nature” of man is the source of sin, claimed British Philosopher and Theologian Frederick R. Tennant. Under this notion, humans possess natural animalistic impulses as a means to human survival that have intensified through natural selection based on their evolution from less highly developed forms. Other theologians have posited other sources of sin. However, each of these views has been found to be largely inadequate.[1]
The Bible teaches differently. Sin is not caused by God (James 1:13), but man is responsible for his sins (James 1: 14-15).
Man possesses certain innate desires. He could either satisfy those desires in moderation or sin by abusing those desires to either hurt himself or the others.
His ‘desire to enjoy’ could result in an enjoyment of eating in moderation or a sin by being a glutton, whereby he injures himself. His ‘desire to obtain’ could be satisfied either by legitimately acquiring material possessions or he could sin by exploiting and stealing from others. His ‘desire to achieve’ could be satisfied either through legitimate achievement or he could sin and achieve at the expense of others.
Man could satisfy these desires in a godly manner by dwelling within the divinely imposed constraints. But man sins when he fails to accept the divine limits to these desires and makes these desires as ends in themselves, which are the cravings of a sinful man (1 John 2: 16).
While desires are natural, there could be external inducements (Satanic or human) that motivate a man to sin. Whatever be the case, man is wholly responsible for his sins. Sin is the choice of the person who commits it.
Function of Satan in Sin
Satan is a demon (cf. Luke 10: 17-20). He is the tempter and deceiver. Satan opposes God and the work of Christ by tempting and deceiving humans. Satan tempted Adam & Eve, Jesus, Judas, etc. (cf. Acts 5:3, 1 Corinthians 7:5, 2 Corinthians 2: 11, Ephesians 6: 11, 2 Timothy 2: 26).
Sometimes we state that Satan is the source of sins. While making such statements, we use the word “source” informally. In this informal usage, “source” refers to an ‘originator’ or an ‘instigatory cause.’
If we claim that Satan is the source of all sins, i.e., if we use the word ‘source’ to mean, in an Aristotelian sense, the material cause (‘that out of which’) or the efficient cause (‘the primary source of…’), then we posit dualism. Dualism contradicts the Bible, for there are no two equally ultimate powers, one good, and the other evil.
God is the only ultimate power and God is good. God is not the source or the originator of sin or evil. Moreover, Satan was originally created good; hence Satan is not the source of sin and evil.
Potency of Freewill to Sin without Satan
If asked differently, the title question would be, “Would Adam & Eve have sinned without Satan?” Since man is responsible for his sins, the answer should be yes.
The premise on which this argument is also predicated on is the freewill-based rebellion of angels in the heavenly realm. (This premise presupposes the metaphysical similarity of the free will of angels and humans.)
The angels that rebelled against God did not have an external inducement (as Adam & Eve had Satan as an external inducer). There were only two entities during the angelic fall – God and Angels. (Even if mankind was created before the fall of Satan, man was totally incapable of influencing Satan’s fall.)
Since God can neither tempt nor cause evil, the angelic rebellion was an entailment of their free will. Therefore, it is quite reasonable to conclude that Adam & Eve had the potential to sin or would have sinned irrespective of the presence of Satan.
Satan merely accelerated the sin of Adam and Eve. Had Satan not existed, Adam and Eve would have sinned (or eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) sooner or later.
Conclusion
Satan is not the source of sin. Man’s free will is the source of sin. Man would have inevitably sinned regardless of Satan’s existence.
Would the quantum and the extent of sins be minimized if Satan was not created? Not necessarily so, for if Satan is to be considered as an accelerant of sin, then there is a possibility that the quantum and the extent of sins would be actualized at a later time. So the quantum and the extent of sins would have been the same with or without Satan, for the potency of man’s free will to sin is independent of Satan.
The other possibility is that the quantum and the extent of sins would be lesser without Satan. In which case, the question, “If evil in this world would be lesser without Satan, then why did God create Satan?” gains legitimacy.
If Satan is the sole cause of evil, then evil would have been absolutely eliminated, had Satan not been created. However, since Satan exists and that Satan is not the sole cause of evil, only God, in HIS omniscient wisdom would be able to determine the extent to which evil would be reduced had angels not been created.
But on the other hand, if the good that is to be actualized from the good angels in ministering to people is commensurately immeasurable, then God would be justified to create Satan even with the potential of evil.
Finally, natural evil, which is devoid of human willing and acting, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. and suffering caused by a host of diseases such as cancer, cystic fibrosis, etc. exist independent of Satan and adds substantial numbers to the victims of evil. The pain and suffering caused by natural evil and diseases are innate in the creational design of this world and the human body.
The fact of the matter is that evil would not cease to exist if Satan were to be non-existent. Hence, numbers need not matter. When evil exists, the terms ‘lesser’ and ‘greater’ do not gain greater significance, for the world we live in would be evil even if only 1% of the total population (1 out of 10 people) are adversely affected by evil. Moreover, if only 1% of the total population is affected by evil, then there is a certain possibility for evil to increase.
Therefore, the question, “Would there be less evil in a world without Satan?” would neither debunk nor harm Historic Christianity.
Notes:
[1] Other theologians have posited various sources for sin. The “Anxiety of Finiteness” was proposed by Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971). The idea of “Existential Estrangement” was proposed by Paul Tillich (1886-1965), the “Economic Struggle” proposed by the Liberation Theology, and “Individualism and Competitiveness” as argued by Harrison Sacket Elliott (1882-1951).
Rajkumar Richard is passionate to strengthen the faith of fellow Christians, especially the young Christians. He has a Masters in Religion (Southern Evangelical Seminary, NC, USA) and Masters in Biology (School of Biological Sciences, Madurai Kamaraj University, India). He is a Christian blogger, itinerant speaker, social evangelist, and a mentor to young Christians.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2OKqCUp
Lógica 04: 10 reglas de inferencia lógica
EspañolRULES OF INFERENCE
Having seen the main points of argumentation and propositional logic , it is now time to see what gives formal validity to a good argument: the rules of inference.
1. Modus Ponens (MP)
If P implies Q, and P is true, then Q is true.
Logical form:
This rule allows us, from a conditional statement (P→Q), to conclude the truth of its consequent (Q) from the truth of its antecedent (P). Example :
2. Modus Tollens (MT)
If P implies Q, and Q is not true, then P is not true.
Logical form:
This rule allows us, from a conditional statement (P→Q), to infer the falsity of its antecedent (P) if its consequent (Q) is also false. Example:
An important feature of conditional propositions is this: The antecedent (the statement before “if”) sets up a sufficient condition for the consequent (the statement after “then”), while the consequent sets up a necessary condition for the antecedent. In other words, the truth of P is sufficient for the truth of Q , whereas P will never be true without Q . Take the example of the cake. That the cake is made with sugar is sufficient for the cake to be sweet. Likewise, if it turns out that the cake is not sweet, then it is impossible for the cake to be made with sugar.
Of course, not all arguments for modus tollens are so trivial. For example,
Someone might object that there is a possibility that there was an intruder that the security system did not detect; but that does not invalidate the argument, why? Very simply: the first premise is “If the security system detects an intruder.” The important issue is that whether the system detects or does not detect an intruder, it says nothing about the existence of the intruder.
Let’s look at one last example that might be more complicated:
It could clearly be the case that Reina did pass her exam with a high grade, but perhaps the teacher chose someone else because she was a relative. Does this invalidate the rule? Not at all. What happens is that in agreements like these, we tend to omit other factors that we take for granted will be fulfilled. In this case, one expects the teacher to be honest and to do his job. Now look at the same example but with that other condition added:
Another important point is that there are other ways of stating sufficient and necessary conditions besides the phrase “if…, then…”. Sometimes a necessary condition is stated by saying “only if.” For example, let’s say Reina’s teacher had said, “Secured position in the band only if she gets good grades on the exam.” Here getting good grades on the exam has been stated as a necessary condition , so this proposition would be our consequent (Q), not the antecedent in the conditional form (P). If this is the case, then the formulation, “If Reina passes her exam with good grades, then she will be in the band” is wrong, because that is not what the teacher said; he stated a necessary condition for the band position, not a sufficient one, so there may be other conditions that must be met to get the position, as we saw in our previous example where we included the teacher’s honesty. Taking the teacher’s statement as both a necessary and a nonsufficient condition, we can formulate the argument this way by modus tollens:
Always remember to keep this in mind to avoid misunderstandings.
3. Hypothetical Syllogism (SH)
If P implies Q, and Q implies R, then P implies R.
Logical form:
The rule of hypothetical syllogism allows us to establish that the truth of P implies the truth of R. Example:
4. Disjunctive Syllogism (DS)
Either P is true or Q is true; P is not true; therefore, Q is true. Likewise, whether P is true or Q is true; Q is not true; therefore, P is true.
Logical form:
This rule tells us that if a disjunction of two propositions is true, and one of the propositions is false, then the other proposition is true.
There are two types of logical disjunction:
Example of inclusive disjunction:
Both propositions in premise (1) could be true. Therefore, you cannot conclude that because one of the disjuncts is true, the other is false. Both could be true (note that in premise (1) you can change “or” to “and/or” without any problem). So the disjunctive syllogism allows you to conclude only that if one disjunct is false then the other disjunct is true.
Example of exclusive disjunction:
Note that in premise (1) you cannot change “or” to “and/or”, only in the case of exclusive disjunction can you infer the falsity of a disjunct from the truth of the other.
5. Constructive Dilemma (CD)
If P implies Q and R implies S , then if either P or R is true, it follows that either Q or S is true.
Logical form:
The constructive dilemma is the disjunctive version of modus ponens . Example:
6. Destructive Dilemma (DD)
If P implies Q, and R implies S, and either Q is false or S is false; then either P is false or R is false.
Logical form:
The destructive dilemma is the disjunctive version of modus tollens and states that if two conditionals are true, but one of their consequents is false, then one of their antecedents must be false. Example:
7. Conjunction (Conj.)
If P is true and Q is true, then the conjunction “P and Q” is also true.
Logical form:
Simple, if two propositions are true in isolation, then their conjunction is also true. Example:
8. Simplification (Simp.)
If the conjunction of P and Q is true, then P is true and Q is true.
Logical form:
For a set like P^Q to be true, both P and Q must be true. So simplification allows us to conclude from P^Q that P is true and that Q is true. Example:
9. Absorption (Ab.)
If P implies Q, then P implies P and Q.
Logical form:
By means of this rule P is “absorbed” by the term Q in the consequence. Example:
10. Addition (Ad)
If P is true, then its conjunction with any other statement will also be true.
Logical form:
Note that for a disjunction to be true, only one part of the disjunction has to be true. So, given any statement, it is possible to express it as a choice (disjunction) accompanied by any other statement. So if we know that P is already true, it follows that “P or Q” is also true no matter what Q is. Example:
Jairo Izquierdo Hernández is the founder of Christian Philosopher . He currently works as a Community Manager for the Christian organization Cross Examined . He is a member of the Christian Apologetics Alliance and a worship minister at the Christian Baptist Church Christ is the Answer in Puebla, Mexico.
Juego de herramientas apologéticas
EspañolBy Bryan Auten
A frequently asked and important question in the Christian Apologetics Alliance is about how aspiring apologists should spend their time and develop their skills. In a recent thread, CAA members addressed this issue. Tim McGrew summarizes the main points of the discussion, and they are presented here as an Apologetics Toolkit post.
1) Online arguments are not a good training ground for someone who has no experience
Stay away from them altogether until you have studied them deeply, and even then, don’t dive into every argument headlong.
This is one of the hardest pieces of advice for most young people to accept, but it is one of the most important. I know what it feels like to want to save the world, to stand up to the intellectual bullies on Twitter or YouTube or some chat room. But if that is all you do, you will waste years in an intellectually empty extreme, the best you can be is a cartoon hero on a playground, and sometimes you will get a bloody nose and look like a complete fool. Take the long road. Start training now for the serious battles, and when they come, in God’s mercy, you will be ready for them.
2) Get a copy of Greg Koukl’s book Tactics and read it very carefully, preferably more than once.
It will give you the tools to have a conversation even when you don’t have all the answers, for those moments when conversation comes to you without looking for it. Learning to be polite in these types of conversations is a priceless gift.
3) Apologetics is only one dimension of the Christian life
Important lifelong habits like Bible reading and prayer won’t just happen by themselves; you have to develop them now. Finding a good church is vital. Studying beyond apologetics—history, literature, poetry, science, art, math, music—will broaden your understanding and make you a more cultured person, better able to meet other people where they care. It may also change your view of what counts as apologetics.
4) For the study of apologetics in particular, ask around for good resources and then work on mastering them at a steady pace.
There are fantastic resources already listed in this thread: videos, podcasts, blogs, and books. Figure out the best method for understanding the information (I prefer reading, a good friend of mine prefers podcasts and audio books) and focus on that method, but don’t neglect reading altogether, even if you’re an auditory type of person. Find a pace you can maintain, maybe half an hour a day, maybe an hour, and dedicate that block of time to studying.
5) Find a mentor
If you can find a mentor who can be seen as more than just an intellectual superior, someone who can bring you spiritual wisdom and godly counsel, as well as solid knowledge and extensive learning, your life will change almost inconceivably. There may not be anyone in your life right now who can fill that role. If that is the case, begin now to pray earnestly that God will bring you the right person.
Learn more about the Christian Apologetics Alliance here .
Translated by Jorge Gil Calderon
Edited by Jairo Izquierdo
Original Blog: http://bit.ly/2MeQbyq
¿Qué es apologética cristiana?
EspañolWhy would anyone want or should become a Christian? Why should anyone put their faith in Jesus – a man who lived over two thousand years ago? Certainly, there have been various answers to these questions throughout the history of Christianity. Christian apologetics is both the science and the art of answering these kinds of questions, using reason and evidence.
The word apologetics first appears in the New Testament in 1 Peter 3:15 where the apostle Peter is writing to the early Christians in Asia Minor (a Roman province) who were suffering persecution for their faith in Jesus. He writes, ‘But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to give a defense (apologia) to everyone who asks you to give a reason (logos) for the hope that is in you, but do this with gentleness and respect’ (NASB).
Within this verse we can see a synthesis of Christian apologetics . This can be summarized in two parts: a) reasons and objective evidence about the truth of Christianity (this corresponds to reality), and b) the communication of this truth to the world.
Objective evidence that Christianity is true
The first Christian believers were Jews and so, ironically, the first Christian apologists were also Jews. As a means of sharing their new faith in Christ with family and friends, who were also Jews, they appealed to the Old Testament and to the bodily resurrection of Jesus as the main reasons for their belief in Christ.
Today (in the 21st century), Christian apologists must contend with ideologies and philosophies such as naturalism, atheism, pantheism, and post-modernism. At CrossExamined.org we employ a classical apologetic approach to defending Christianity, which is summarized here.
Classical Apologetic Approach: (a simplified outline)
Once these truths have been established, they must be communicated in a way that can be understood by the audience.
The communication that Christianity is true (and therefore, should be believed)
The apostle Paul was also Jewish and he called his fellow Jews to believe in Christ, as well as the Gentiles (Romans and Greeks). When he visited Athens he debated with Epicurean and Stoic philosophers on Mars Hill, the philosophical center of Ancient Greece (Acts 17:16-34). While there, Paul quoted Greek philosophers such as Epimenides. In doing so, Paul was contextualizing the gospel in such a way that it could be understood by those listening. This is the second fundamental part of Christian apologetics – effective communication to a given audience.
In 1 Corinthians 9:20-23 (NASB), Paul writes:
To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those under the law, as under the law (though I myself am not under the law), that I might win those under the law; to those not under the law, as not under the law (though I am not without the law of God, but under the law of Christ), that I might win those not under the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; to all men I have become all things, that by all means I might save some. And I do all things for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in it.
The gospel must be clearly communicated and understood in order to be believed. Each new generation of Christians must communicate and defend the gospel message in the social and cultural environment in which they find themselves. Culture will change over time, but the central message of the gospel never changes.
Christian apologetics seeks to connect with nonbelievers by presenting them with the reasons and evidence why Christianity is true, rational, and worthy of belief. Late twentieth-century Christian apologist Francis A. Schaeffer viewed apologetics as “pre-evangelism” – a way of preparing the mind and heart to receive the message of Christianity (the gospel). The connection between apologetics and evangelism can be summed up in the words of Oxford theologian Alister E. McGrath:
“…Christian apologetics represents a serious and sustained engagement with the ‘ultimate questions’ asked by a culture, people group, or individual, with the goal of demonstrating how the Christian faith is capable of providing meaningful answers to these questions. Where does God stand in regard to suffering in the world? Is faith in God reasonable? Apologetics paves the way for evangelism, just as John the Baptist prepared the way for Jesus of Nazareth…evangelism extends a personal invitation: ‘You are invited to the feast! Please come!’ Apologetics lays the necessary groundwork for the invitation, and evangelism extends it. Both are essential to the mission of the Church.” ( Mere Apologetics: How to Help Seekers & Skeptics Find Faith , pages 22–23)
If you would like to learn more about Christian apologetics for yourself or a small group, check out our resources at www.ImpactApologetics.com
A good place to start is the book ‘I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist’, and one of the first Christian apologetics curricula (great for churches, Christian schools, and small study groups). ‘I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist’.
We also have a free app for your smartphone. The app contains great resources on Christian apologetics (podcasts, blogs, and a quick question section). The CrossExamined.org app can be downloaded here .
Dr. Frank Turek (D.Min.) is an award-winning author and frequent college speaker who hosts a weekly television show on DirectTV and a radio program that airs on 186 stations nationwide. His books include I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist and Stealing from God: Why atheists need God to make their case.
A Call To An Intellectual Faith
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy J. Brian Huffling
I would venture that if you asked people what is meant by ‘faith,’ they would likely say “believing something in spite of the evidence or in the absence of evidence.” However, such has not historically been the view of faith.
Faith has traditionally been understood as trusting a reliable source. For example, while it is possible to prove through historical means that Jesus died, it is not possible to prove through merely historical means that his death atoned for our sins. The former is demonstrable through reason, the latter by faith. This is not meant to say that faith is irrational. On the contrary, when a source is demonstrated to be reliable, we can trust that source even when we cannot prove something through empirical investigation. Jesus and his apostles have been verified to be reliable sources. Their message has been confirmed with miracles, and Jesus’ claims to deity were likewise confirmed via miracles. Given such reliability, we can trust, i.e., have faith in, what they say.
This is in stark contrast to the blind faith that so many in our culture accuse Christians of having. I have been asked on more than one occasion how I can be a philosopher and also a Christian. The answer is simple: Christianity is philosophically rational.
The Problem
However, sometimes Christians don’t help matters. Sometimes people assert that faith is all it takes to be a Christian. In a sense there is a ring of truth to this; however, that is probably misleading. We have to have faith in the right object. Discerning what object should warrant our faith and belief requires reason. Faith alone is not enough, for one can have (blind) faith in anything. To have faith in the traditional sense requires one to have reasons, and thus to have a reasoned faith.
It is sad that some Christians actually believe (blindly) that we should not base our faith on reason, for such supposedly subordinates God’s Word to human reason. However, understanding (let alone believing) the Bible requires one to rationally understand what it says. We cannot even know what the Bible says without using reason.
Some Causes of the Problem
With such notions in mind, our culture has ridiculed Christians for being irrational. Historically this is false, for many of the best minds have been Christians. But there is a very real sense of anti-intellectualism in the church nowadays. This is particularly noticeable to new seminary graduates who are eager to take various positions in church ministry or academia. I cannot begin to count the number of graduates that I know who have been disillusioned by the church’s disinterest in being intellectually fit.
Another problem is pastors. I wish I had a dollar for every time some pastor called for the congregation not to clutter their Christian faith with reason. Sometimes this call is subtle and sometimes it is overt. Many churches I have visited, even lately, have an anti-intellectual air about them, stemming from the person behind the pulpit. Such leads to disastrous consequences.
This can be seen in the gross ignorance of average Christians who don’t know hardly anything about their faith. I have had countless people talk to me about their Christian “faith” who do not even know whether or not they are Protestant, even though they have identified with Christianity for years. The average churchgoer cannot even articulate, let alone defend, such primary doctrines as the Trinity or the Incarnation. Many who have grown up for decades in the Church know next to nothing about the Bible, where certain books are, or have any idea whatsoever about how to interpret or study it. Most Christians cannot have an intelligent conversation about God’s nature regarding whether they think he is temporal, changeable, etc., or that these issues are even debated. Rather than have solid studies on the Bible or theology, most are more interested in 12 step programs, like how to better their lives. Several years ago I made a list of the top 10 books in Christian bookstores. There was maybe one book on theology, several on health and prosperity, and others on fiction. Why is this?
I think at least one problem is pastors. They are not the only problem, but they are our leaders of spirituality, and they definitely share at least some of the blame. (I realize this is a generalization, but I have seen and heard more pastors show off their ignorance as well as a desire for others to do the same than I would like.) In my experience and in talking to others, it appears that one reason that pastors want to downplay reason and intellectual faith is because it is difficult. It actually requires a lot of studying and learning. It is much easier to attack reason as an instrument of paganism or the devil than it is to devote one’s life to the intellectual pursuit. However, pastors have a responsibility to lead their flock in worship and devotion to Christ. A consequence of pastors downplaying reason is apathy and ignorance on the part of the parishioners. The Bible tells us explicitly (and many times implicitly) to worship God with our minds (Matt 22:37).
It is worth noting that when reason is downplayed false teaching is much more likely to abound. Both Mormons and teachers of the Word-Faith Movement downplay the use of reason. What is left is an attempt to judge what is true based on feelings.
Of course, pastors are not the only problem. Each person is responsible for his own mind and faith. It is also true that a church can have a marvelous pastor with uninterested followers. Church and Christianity have been so divorced from intellectualism in many circles lately that people either don’t care to learn or don’t know how. So what is the solution?
Part of the Solution
The anti-intellectualism issue has many causes and requires various solutions. One solution is for parishioners and pastors to realize there is a great need for pastors and church leaders to be educated. Some pastors realize the need, but either can’t afford to do anything about it or do not have the support of the church. We must support our pastors in this area. We should not settle for anything less. Most people would not get their hair done by someone who didn’t have a license and training to do it, so why wouldn’t we want the leaders of our churches who are supposed to lead our families and us in our faith to have an education?
In turn, churches should have programs in place to teach their parishioners the basics of the faith. The average Christian isn’t expected to be a theologian, but he ought to at least understand the basics of the faith. A good way to do this is to have studies on the churches doctrinal statement (if they have one!).
Another part of the solution is to be educated ourselves. This does not necessitate formal training, but it we should take an interest in what we claim to be the most important area of our lives: our faith. This means going to church and Bible studies (taught by trained teachers), reading books, and making it a point to learn what our faith is all about. (See my Recommended Booklist.)
Having a rational faith also allows us to apply it to every area of our lives, such as politics, ethics, and entertainment. This is how we love and worship God with our minds. The difference between humans and other animals is the human mind and the ability to reason. This is how God made us different and more like him. We should, in fact, seek to worship and know him through this important aspect of our nature.
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/2LT9c9y
Pastors Get Scared Sharing Their Faith Too!
2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Ryan Leasure
We’ve all felt it. The sense of guilt overwhelmed us. The pastor brings his sermon to a close, but before he concludes, he gives the congregation one final exhortation. Go tell others about Jesus. He says if Jesus was willing to lay down his life for you, the least you can do is proclaim that message to others. Gulp. As you slouch farther down into your seat and wipe the sweat off your forehead, you wonder if you’re a pathetic Christian because you struggle to share your faith.
It’s not that you don’t want to either — you really do. But you’re scared. You’re scared of people will think you’re that weird Jesus person who’s out of touch with reality. You’re afraid the friendship will end or that you’ll make everything awkward. Have you ever felt this way? Have you ever started a conversation with good intentions to talk about Jesus only to back out later? If so, you’re not alone.
Pastors Get Scared Sharing Their Faith Too
I say you’re not alone because I’ve done the same. I’m a pastor. I have a seminary degree. I’ve studied the Bible a lot. Yet, at the same time, I get scared too. Do all my neighbors know about my Christian faith? Not even close. I’ve had intentions to share my faith, but my intentions often times fail to deliver the goods.
When I was younger, I owned a t-shirt and a hat that said “No Fear.” I wore them together so if anyone ever doubted my bravery after looking at my shirt, they could lift their eyes to my hat and have any lingering doubt removed. Wearing that slogan, however, only demonstrated my fear. It’s a lot like the kid who’s the first to say “Ewwww” when someone asks if they pick their boogers. The emphatic rejection often times reveals the opposite.
I’m fearful of how people will perceive me. And in my experience, just about everyone else is in the same boat. The Bible has a phrase for this — the fear of man.
Advice On Sharing Your Faith
While I struggle with the fear of man, God’s been kind to grow me in this area. I’m far from perfect, don’t get me wrong. Yet, sharing Jesus with non-Christians isn’t as daunting as it once was. And it doesn’t have to be a daunting task for you either if you abide by these principles.
Pray
Pray for your lost friends and neighbors consistently. Remember, God is the one who ultimately transforms people’s hearts and lives. Also, pray that God will give you a greater love for them because love compels us to share the Gospel more than anything else. And pray for boldness to share the Gospel despite the fear of rejection.
Personally, I find that when I pray for people to receive Christ, God gives me opportunities to share the Gospel with them in a natural way. Jesus says in Matthew 7 that when we ask God for good things — and evangelism opportunities are good — He will be faithful to give them to us.
Avoid Jesus-Juking
A Jesus-juke is when you try to smuggle Jesus into the conversation at any cost. For example, your non-Christian friend might say, “I’ve had a rough day.” To which you reply, “you know who had a rough day? Jesus, when he died on the cross for your sins.” If you want to make things awkward with your friend, Jesus-juking is the way to go.
As I think about evangelism, I think a lot of us feel as if we need to take this kind of approach. Sure, we won’t be as blatantly awkward, but we feel as if we need to look for any crack in the door in order to slip a Jesus foot through it. In my experience, forcing Jesus unnaturally never works.
Build Relationships
The days of door-to-door evangelism are long gone. Most people won’t even answer their door anymore, let alone talk with you for fifteen minutes on their front porch. We need a new strategy — one that will be effective. That strategy is cultivating relationships with non-Christians. Invite them into your home. Have dinner together. Have your kids play together at the park. Build a relationship with that person so that they know you care. And as you converse, ease into faith conversations.
As opposed to Jesus-juking, talk about Jesus at natural times. Perhaps they will bring up a difficult situation in their life. Express genuine compassion for them, and then ask them if they’ve ever wondered why this world is so broken? This could potentially lead to a conversation about Jesus dealing with our brokenness. You get the idea, but don’t feel as if you have to force Jesus into every conversation.
Be Ready To Give An Answer
One of the greatest fears we have when it comes to sharing our faith is that we’re afraid we’ll be asked hard questions we don’t know how to answer. For some, this might cause more fear than making things awkward. How do we fix this?
I would encourage you to know what you believe and why you believe it. This, of course, requires a bit of perspiration on your part because no one learns everything they need to know overnight. Read the Scriptures. Go through theology books. Think about the objections others have toward Christianity, and do your best to find the answers. You won’t ever know it all, but you can do your best. Peter says, “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Pet. 3:15).
You’re Not Alone
If you struggle to share your faith, you’re not alone. You’re not a pathetic Christian either. We all struggle. Pastors struggle. We’re in this together. Yet, by God’s grace, you can grow in effectiveness, though you will need to be intentional in your efforts. No one ever becomes an effective witness by accident. Just like anything else in your life, if you wish to excel, you need to plan to excel. Think about something you are really good at. Now think about how that happened. Chances are, you put a lot of thought and energy into excelling in that area. I would urge you to do the same with evangelism.
You’ll mess up along the way. You’ll chicken out again. It’s ok. God is gracious. He’ll give you more opportunities.
Ryan Leasure holds an M.A. from Furman University and an M.Div. 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/2OBGzvR
Are Christians too judgmental? & Did Jesus promise us anything we ask in faith?
PodcastPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS
At CrossExamined our goal is to try and answer your questions the best we can and this is exactly what Frank does in this podcast. He answers questions from YOU (our audience). In this episode he focuses on two very important questions:
• Are Christians too judgmental?
• Did Jesus promise us anything we ask in faith?
Don’t miss it and don’t forget to send your questions to Frank via Email!