3 More BIG Questions: Fine-tuning? Feeling God? Inerrancy?

Does the scientific evidence fall short of proving the fine-tuning of the universe? Should Christians regularly “feel God’s presence”? And since there are minor differences in the Gospels, does that disprove biblical inerrancy? In this midweek podcast episode, Frank tackles three more BIG questions from our listening audience along with questions like:

  • What are the 3 levels of fine-tuning and does it only occur here on planet Earth?
  • Can the fine-tuning argument alone actually prove Christianity is true? And can all truth be explained through science?
  • Where exactly are Heaven and Hell?
  • What’s the true meaning of Christmas?
  • Is loving God an emotion, a feeling, or a decision?
  • If God chooses not to reveal Himself to us is that proof that He doesn’t exist?
  • What’s a great question to ask your skeptic friends?

Have a question you’d like Frank to address in a future episode? Send it to hello[at]crossexamined.org, and stay tuned for Friday’s podcast to hear more about his recent trip to Egypt and Saudi Arabia!

Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.

Resources mentioned during the episode:

BOOK: Hollywood Heroes – https://bit.ly/3Or82Ax
BOOK: Stealing From God – https://bit.ly/41hLt91
BOOK: Decision Making and the Will of God – https://a.co/d/gQhMD3m
OCC Course: How to Interpret Your Bible – https://bit.ly/3BoEhxD
ARTICLE: Does God Whisper? Part 1 – https://bit.ly/3P0KW47
ARTICLE: Does God Whisper? Part 2 – https://bit.ly/3ZY3hVJ
ARTICLE: Does God Whisper? Part 3 – https://bit.ly/3ZzqOe8

/by

Historical Bias, Objectivity, And The Truth Of Christianity

“Historians are biased and choose what they report. As such, history can’t be known.” That’s a typical objection to the ability to know history. If such objections prove that we can’t know history, then we can’t know that Christianity is true since it is known through history and historical claims.

In his prologue, Luke says,

“Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:1-4).

The above passage demonstrates that Luke was writing as an historian. Words such as the ones underlined show his desire to write the truth of the events he wanted to convey. So, if history can’t be known, then we can’t know that Christianity is true. Let’s look at a typical objection.

The Most Popular Objection

Bias is probably the most popular objection to knowing history. It is claimed by some that historians are biased. It is not always clear what the objection is really getting at, but usually it is something like the historian holds certain views that in some way make his reporting subjective or unfair. For example, an historian may be writing about a religious issue and if he is part of that religion he is likely going to be accused of being biased. The disciples are often said to be biased regarding the events of the life of Jesus, particularly his resurrection. Since they knew him and had a vested interest they must have made up the claims of the resurrection.

Ironically, there are many assumptions (i.e. biases) about the nature of bias. It is more often than not used in a negative way and is equated with subjectivity and falsity. But why should this be the case? Why should the notion of either bias or subjectivity be equated with something being false? People could be biased because of evidence. If the disciples really did see Jesus alive after he was dead, then the reason they were biased was because of evidence and proof. But this bias would not be based on any subjectivity since their knowledge was based on objective and empirical evidence. Further, someone could have a subjective view of something and still be correct. There is nothing about being biased or subjective that guarantees that the belief is false. Such is an assumption in itself.

A Wrench in the Works

Consider this popular argument against objectivity:

  1.  To be objective one must be free from bias.
  2.  No one is free from bias.
  3.  Therefore, no one is objective.

 

This is a valid argument, meaning that the conclusion follows from the premises. But is it sound (i.e. is the argument valid and the premises and conclusion true)? Well, if no one is free from bias that means the one making this argument is not free from bias. But statements like “No one is . . .” is a universal statement that applies to everyone everywhere. But aren’t universal statements objective? What else would ‘objective’ mean other than something that is universal and not simply limited to the subjective beliefs of an individual? This whole line of argument is self-defeating. In other words, when using the argument’s criteria, the very argument itself fails. The objector in this case is objective in trying to argue that no one is free from bias and that no one is objective. However, the only way to make such universal statements is for the objector to make objective statements. If they were subjective, then they wouldn’t necessarily be universal. If they weren’t universal, then maybe some people aren’t biased. But this contradicts the argument. Assuming the argument holds water, because no one really denies that people are biased, it shows that one can be biased and objective. (Note, it is not guaranteed that one is going to be objective and biased, just that it’s logically possible. The objection is thus deflated.)

What do you mean “Objective”?

This raises another question that is rarely asked and usually assumed: What does it mean for something to be ‘objective’? By now it should be clear that it can’t mean free from bias since we’ve just seen that a person can be both biased and objective. So being free from bias is not necessary to be objective (in fact I would agree that everyone is biased in a general sense). So what does it mean? Most people think that it means being detached from a given circumstance so that one can see it as an objective outsider. In his fascinating work Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, drawing on other work on this topic (such as Samuel Byrskog’s Story as History—History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History), Richard Bauckham makes the surprising and unfashionable statement:

“A very important point that . . . for Greek and Roman historians, the ideal eyewitness was not the dispassionate observer but one who, as a participant, had been closest to the events and whose direct experience enabled him to understand and interpret the significance of what he had seen” (page 9).

He further notes that many historians wanted someone who was involved in the events in question because that person would have a vested interest. They wanted someone who was involved and really there.

This counters the usual desire or assumed need for detatchment, but it does not say what objectivity is. Objectivity is arriving at conclusions that are based on evidence and principles that have their foundation in external reality. Everyone can use and measure truth claims based on external (objective) reality. Put negatively, it is the opposite of one making conclusions that arise simply out of one’s subjective mind. Such evidence based on reality and the principles that follow is mind-independent. Since reality is objective, that is, everyone can know it (as long as their faculties are working properly), the conclusions based on reality can also be objective. When one uses universal (objective) principles to ascertain the truth of a conclusion, one can be objective. Such principles are the laws of logic (or being). One such law is the law of non-contradiction. It declares that if two statements are mutually exclusive one must be true and the other must be false. For example, Christianity teaches that Jesus died. Islam counters that Jesus did not die. These statements are mutually exclusive—one must be true and the other false since there is no third option. Thus, they are contradictory. (This is contrasted with statements that can both logically be false, such as “Buddhism is true” and “Atheism is true.” Such statements that can both be false are called ‘contrary’.) Regarding this principle and its application to historical objectivity, Maurice Mandelbaum says,

“Our knowledge is objective if, and only if, it is the case that when two persons make contradictory statements concerning the same subject matter, at least one of them must be mistaken” (The Anatomy of Historical Knowledge [Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins, 2019] 150).

The law of non-contradiction is based in the nature of reality. It is not just a principle of thought, but of being. A tree cannot exist and not exist at the same time in the same sense. That would be a contradiction. Such first principles of thought and being arise out of the nature of reality since something can’t simultaneously be and not be. It is not simply a made up principle. In fact it is undeniable since to deny it would require using it.

Thus, if one’s conclusions are based on external and objective reality and evidence, and the principles from such reality, those conclusions can be objective. There is, in a sense, an objective apparatus giving us the possibility of being objective. Again, this is contrasted with something arising only from one’s (subjective) mind rather than from external (objective )reality. There is, therefore, nothing about biases that preclude one from making objective historical statements. Biases do not guarantee subjectivity or falsity.

The Benefit of Bias

Back to Bauckham’s point regarding bias, it is often the case that people are indeed biased, but biased because of the evidence. They have seen so much evidence, that they are convinced that what they are saying is true. This, however, is not subjective bias or assumption, but rather the careful examination of objective reality and the evidence that all can investigate.

When looking at historical questions, such as the resurrection, one should not base his conclusions on notions such as the alleged bias of the ones making claims. Rather, one should examine the evidence for the claims to discover their veracity. We can recognize bias in every area and by all people. However, that alone is not enough to show that a person’s claim is false. To be good and responsible historians and investigators, we must follow the evidence.

(I would like to thank Norman L. Geisler for his direction regarding my MA thesis topic which was on this issue, as well as Thomas A. Howe to whom my thoughts and work are indebted greatly.)

Recommended Resources: 

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (mp4 Download)

The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth mp3 by Frank Turek

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD) 

The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

 

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.

/by

The Privileged Planet – Designed for Discovery with Dr. Jay Richards

The fine-tuning of the universe is one of the most compelling arguments for Intelligent Design—so compelling that even atheists like Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens have acknowledged its challenge to materialistic explanations. Why is the fine-tuning argument so extraordinary, and how have recent scientific discoveries made it even clearer that the universe points to a divine Creator?

This week, Dr. Jay Richards joins Frank to discuss the 20th anniversary edition of ‘The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery‘, the groundbreaking book he co-authored with Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez. Together, they explore the updated book and the remarkable new scientific discoveries that continue to affirm its hypothesis. During their conversation, they’ll address:

  • How did Guillermo’s career suffer when the book was first released in 2004?
  • What updates have been made to the 20th anniversary edition?
  • What is the likelihood that life exists on other planets?
  • How is materialism a self-defeating worldview?
  • What is the cosmological constant and what type of precision is required in order for a planet to be able to sustain life?
  • How probable is a multiverse?
  • What’s so special about “perfect” solar eclipses?
  • What are the most common atheist objections to fine-tuning and our privileged position in the Universe?

If you’re looking for a good stocking stuffer this Christmas, grab the 20th Anniversary Edition of ‘The Privileged Planet‘, a book and documentary film that continues to stand the test of time and compels readers to acknowledge how the complexity and fine-tuning of the universe couldn’t possibly be the result of a cosmic accident. And be sure to stay tuned for an update on the Kingdom AI Project that’s helping CrossExamined to place apologetics resources around the globe as a result of your continued support!

Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.

Resources mentioned during the episode:

The Privileged Planet Website: https://privilegedplanet.com/

The Privileged Planet 20th Anniversary Book: https://www.discovery.org/b/privileged-planet/

The Privileged Planet Video on Demand: https://go2rpi.com/privileged-planet-vod/

Follow Dr. Jay Richards on X: https://x.com/DrJayRichards

/by

Was Jesus Really Born of a Virgin? Does It Matter?

“It doesn’t really matter if Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit or by Joseph’s seed. What matters is that Jesus came to earth, died, and was resurrected.”

This is more or less what was said in a conversation I had several years ago with a now self-proclaimed progressive Christian. At the time, he was trying to work out his theology. Today, his words ring with expectancy to be answered. Was Jesus born of a virgin? Does it matter in regard to our faith if He was?

Virgin Birth: Negotiable or Not?

The virgin birth of Jesus Christ has always been considered a non-negotiable core doctrine of Christianity and is mentioned in the earliest creeds. Among Christians, this doctrine wasn’t broadly questioned until a period of history referred to as “the Enlightenment”. Sometimes called “the Age of Reason,” the Enlightenment was an intellectual movement that took place primarily in the 18th century. It has had an incalculable impact on Western culture, profoundly affecting the way people think about philosophy, politics, religion, and science.

As science was given precedent over religion, one of the trends to emerge during the Enlightenment was skepticism towards anything miraculous or supernatural. In other words, believing in the miracles recorded in the Bible such as the virgin birth is superstitious and unscientific, so they must be mythological. This seems to be a popular view among progressive Christians today.

​Does the Bible teach that Jesus was actually born of a virgin? 

The prediction, 700 hundred years before Christ (Isaiah 7:14):

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

The fulfillment (Matthew 1:22-23):

Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel.

Seems pretty simple, right? Isaiah predicted the Virgin Birth and Matthew records that prediction coming true. Not so fast.

A common claim among skeptics is that the word translated “virgin” really just means “young woman” or “maiden,” and there is no reason to assume that Mary was a virgin.

Young Lady, Virgin, or Both?

This reasoning might make sense if we were only reading these Scriptures with a Western, American mindset. With any Scripture, however, we have to look at it through the lens of the culture in which it was written. The Hebrew word in question is almah, which does mean “young woman” or “maiden.” However, in ancient Hebrew culture, all young women of marriageable age were considered to be virgins. Strong’s Online Concordance notes:

There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin.

There is another Hebrew word that specifically means “virgin” (bethulah), but it’s likely that Isaiah preferred almah because he wanted to communicate that the virgin would also be young. Long before the virgin birth was an established doctrine, 70 Hebrew scholars must have agreed, because when they began translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, they translated almah as parthenos, the Greek word for “virgin.” Apparently, they understood exactly what that word meant in context.

Mary herself clearly stated that she was a virgin in Luke 1:34. When the angel told her she would conceive a child, she was perplexed and asked, “But how can this be, since I have not been intimate with a man?”

Does it matter if Jesus was born of a virgin?

As with most core doctrines, the case for the virgin birth of Jesus doesn’t just come down to one or two Bible verses. Scripture teaches that Jesus is fully God and fully human. He literally has two natures. It was necessary for Him to be born of a woman, to fulfill the promise God made to Eve in Genesis 3:15. If Jesus had not been born of a woman, He would not be fully human, and could not have been the promised Messiah.

As I’ve written previously, Scripture teaches that humans inherited a “sin nature” from Adam, and it would seem that sin nature gets passed down through the line of the father (Rom. 5:12, 17, 19). According to Hebrews 7:26, Jesus did not have a sin nature. Also, it’s important to note that Jeremiah prophesied that there would never be a king of Israel who was a descendant of King Jeconiah (Jer. 22:28-30). Matthew 1:12-16 tells us that Joseph was in fact, a descendant of Jeconiah.

If Jesus had been conceived by the seed of Joseph instead of by the Holy Spirit, He would have received a sin nature, and would not be fully God. As a descendant of Jeconiah, He would not have had a right to the throne of Israel, and He could not have been the promised Messiah.

Prophesied by Isaiah and fulfilled by Jesus, the virgin birth allowed for Jesus to be both fully God and fully human, unstained by sin, and God Incarnate. The doctrine of the virgin birth matters because it must be true for salvation to even be possible.

Recommended Resources:

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)      

Reflecting Jesus into a Dark World by Dr. Frank Turek – DVD Complete Series, Video mp4 DOWNLOAD Complete Series, and mp3 audio DOWNLOAD Complete Series

 

Alisa Childers is an American singer and songwriter, best known for being in the all-female Christian music group ZOEgirl. She has had a string of top ten radio singles, four studio releases, and received the Dove Award during her time with ZOEgirl. In later years, Alisa found her life-long faith deeply challenged when she started attending what would later identify as a Progressive Christian church. This challenge pushed Alisa toward Christian Apologetics. Today you can read, listen and watch Alisa’s work online as well as purchase her recently published book on Progressive Christianity titled Another Gospel.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4f3rRZP

/by

3 BIG Questions About Homosexuality, Human Flourishing, and Hell

How do you convince non-Christians that homosexuality is wrong without using the Bible? Does human flourishing replace the need for God and the moral argument? And why does God create people that He knows will end up in Hell?  In this week’s solo podcast episode, Frank tackles three BIG questions that were recently sent in from our listening audience. During this discussion, Frank shares some practical advice on how to address these sensitive topics along with questions like:

  • Should Christians be concerned about what people do privately?
  • How does natural marriage contribute to spiritual maturity?
  • Are morals biologically determined?
  • Does the existence of Hell prove that God is unjust?
  • What thought-provoking questions can you ask people who are in support of homosexuality?
  • Why doesn’t atheism solve the problem of evil?
  • What does the Bible say about divine justice?
  • How can pain and suffering possibly result in GOOD?

Brace yourself — this episode is not politically correct, but it will be correct! Be sure to grab a copy of ‘Correct, Not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage & Transgenderism‘ and ‘Stealing from God‘ for more in-depth answers to these three BIG questions!

Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.

Resources mentioned during the episode:

BOOK: Toxic Empathy – https://www.toxicempathy.com/
BOOK: Correct Not Politically Correct – https://bit.ly/3qws2ZL
BOOK: Stealing From God – https://bit.ly/41hLt91
VIDEO: Frank and Alex O’Connor – https://youtu.be/qNeB1RVeJHo

/by

What Really Happened at the Council of Nicea?

For many years, the Council of Nicaea has been the subject of much confusion among laypeople. The misapprehensions which have come to be associated with the council of Nicaea have, in part, been fueled by popular fictional novels such as Dan Brown’s notorious The Da Vinci Code. No matter what group you are dealing with in your apologetic exploits (including atheists, Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Unitarians), you are almost guaranteed to encounter some of these misconceptions. For this reason, it is important for Christians to study and learn church history, so that they might correct common myths and falsehoods.

Did Constantine Invent the Bible and the Deity of Christ?

The Council of Nicaea was famously convened on May 20, 325 AD, at the request of Emperor Constantine (pictured above). What did the council of bishops meet to discuss? Contrary to common misconception (popularized particularly in Muslim circles) that has been widely circulated via the internet, the Council of Nicaea did not meet to discuss the canon of Scripture — that is, the decision about which books should make up the New Testament. In fact, there is not a shred of evidence that the canon of Scripture was even brought up at Nicaea. Another misconception is that the council of Nicaea, at the encouragement of Constantine, “invented” the deity of Christ or, at the very least, that the bishops in attendance at Nicaea were significantly divided on the issue, the matter being decided with a vote. This too, however, is completely inaccurate. In 325 AD, when the bishops convened at Nicaea, the deity of Christ had been affirmed almost unanimously by the Christian movement for close to three hundred years!

The bishops who met at Nicaea had just come out of an extremely challenging time of intense persecution by the Romans, having lived through the cruelty of the Emperors Diocletian (ruling 284-305) and Maximian (ruling 286-305). One of the bishops present at Nicaea, Paphnutius, had even lost his right eye and been given a limp in his left leg as a consequence of his profession of faith. According to one ancient writer, Theodoret (393-457),

“Paul, bishop of Neo-Cæsarea, a fortress situated on the banks of the Euphrates, had suffered from the frantic rage of Licinius. He had been deprived of the use of both hands by the application of a red-hot iron, by which the nerves which give motion to the muscles had been contracted and rendered dead. Some had had the right eye dug out, others had lost the right arm. Among these was Paphnutius of Egypt. In short, the Council looked like an assembled army of martyrs.” [Ecclesiastical History, 1.7.5]

It strikes me as odd, therefore, that one would suppose that the early Christian movement, having come out of such difficult times as those, would capitulate so easily to the emperor Constantine’s demands with respect to defining the very fundamentals of their faith!

It Was About the Aryan Heresy

The story of the Nicaean council begins in Alexandria in northwest Egypt. The archbishop of Alexandria was a man by the name of Alexander. A member of his senior clergy, called Arius, took issue with Alexander’s view of Jesus’s divine nature, insisting that the Son is, in fact, himself a created being. In similar fashion to modern Jehovah’s Witnesses, Arius maintained that Jesus was like the Father inasmuch as they both existed before creation, played a role in creation and were exalted above it. But the Son, according to the theology of Arius, was the first of God’s creations and was commissioned by the Father to create the world.

On this point, Alexander strongly disagreed, and publicly challenged Arius’s heretical teachings. In 318 AD, Alexander called together a hundred or so bishops to talk over the matter and to defrock Arius. Arius, however, went to Nicomedia in Asia Minor and rallied his supporters, including Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was a relative by marriage to Constantine the emperor, and a theologian in the imperial court. Eusebius and Arius wrote to many bishops who had not been involved in the defrocking of Arius. The effect was the creation of divisions among the bishops. Embarrassed by such bickering, the emperor Constantine convened the ecumenical council of Nicaea in 325.

Constantine’s primary concern was imperial unity rather than theological accuracy, and he desired a decision that would be supported by the greatest number of bishops, regardless of what conclusion was reached. His theological advisor, Hosius, served to get the emperor up to speed before the arrival of the bishops. Since Arius was not a bishop, he was not invited to sit on the council. However, his supporter Eusebius of Nicomedia acted on Arius’s behalf and presented his point of view.

Arius’s position regarding the finite nature of the Son was not popular with the bishops. It became clear, however, that a formal statement concerning the nature of the Son and his relationship to the Father was needed. The real issue at the Council of Nicaea was thus how, and not if, Jesus was divine.

The Deity of Christ was Never In Question
A formal statement was eventually put together and signed by the bishops. Those who declined to sign the statement were stripped of their rank of bishop. The few who supported Arius insisted that only language found in Scripture should feature in the statement, whereas Arius’s critics insisted that only non-Biblical language was adequate to fully unpack the implications of the language found in the Bible. It was Constantine who eventually suggested that the Father and Son be said to be of the “same substance” (homoousios in Greek). Although Constantine hoped that this statement would keep all parties happy (implying the complete deity of Jesus without going much further), the supporters of Arius insisted that this language suggested that the Father and Son were equal but didn’t explain how this was compatible with the central tenet of monotheism (i.e. the belief in only one deity).

Nonetheless, the Nicaean creed did indeed incorporate this language. It stated,

“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, visible and invisible; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down and became incarnate, becoming man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the living and the dead; And in the Holy Spirit. But as for those who say, ‘There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is from a different hypostasis or substance, or is created, or is subject to alteration or change — these the Catholic Church anathematizes.”

Aryanism Denounced by not Defeated

With just two exceptions (Secundus of Ptolemais and Theonas of Marmarcia), the creed was signed by all the bishops, numbering more than 300. Arius’s supporters had been overwhelmingly defeated.

Arius’s supporters, however, managed to find some wiggle room. A single letter “i” (iota), changes the meaning of homo (“same”) to “like” (homoi). The latter could be exploited by Arius and his followers to describe a created Christ. Moreover, it was argued, the creed could be interpreted as supporting Sabellianism, an ancient heresy which fails to discriminate between persons of the godhead. It was this in-house squabbling between bishops that ultimately led to the Council of Constantinople in 381.

Unity, But at What Cost?

A company of bishops started to campaign for the formal re-instatement of Arius as a presbyter in Alexandria. Constantine yielded to their petition and, in 332, re-instated Arius as a presbyter. Athenasius, who had recently succeeded his mentor Alexander as bishop of Alexandria, was instructed to accept Arius into the church once again. Needless to say, Athenasius did not comply with this order. The consequence was exile. Constantine had little interest in the precision of his theology — rather, it was the struggle for imperial unity that was his motivation.

In conclusion, although popular misconceptions about the Council of Nicaea are rampant, the idea that the Council of Nicaea determined which books comprised the New Testament or that it invented the deity of Christ to comply with the demands of Constantine are myths. Indeed, correct theology was of little concern to Constantine, who cared much more about imperial unity. Christians must make a serious effort to study and learn church history, so that when we encounter such claims in the media and in our personal evangelism, we may know how to present an accurate account of our history.

Recommended Resources:

How Can Jesus be the Only Way? Mp4, Mp3, and DVD by Frank Turek

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (mp4 Download)

The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth mp3 by Frank Turek

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)      

 

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4isqk2b

/by

World Religions in Seven Sentences with Dr. Doug Groothuis

 

 

How much do you know about the major world religions? Whether it’s atheism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or one of the many Eastern religions, humanity holds a wide array of beliefs about who God is and if He even exists at all. But what if more Christians dedicated time to learning about other religions? How could this strengthen our faith along with our ability to share the Gospel?

We’re kicking off December with renowned Christian apologist and philosopher, Dr. Doug Groothuis, professor at Cornerstone University in Grand Rapids, MI and the author of 20+ books, including his latest work, ‘World Religions in Seven Sentences: A Small Introduction to a Vast Topic‘. In this episode, Frank and Doug discuss the inspiration behind the book and unpack some of the core beliefs of today’s major world religions—one sentence at a time. Together, they’ll tackle questions like:

  • What are the seven sentences that represent each world religion and why did Doug choose them?
  • What makes Friedrich Nietzsche the “quintessential atheist”?
  • Should atheism be classified as a religion? And what typically happens when atheism and Marxism collide?
  • What are some of the key differences between Hinduism and Buddhism?
  • What’s the connection between Nietzsche, Pol Pot, Ted Bundy, and human depravity?
  • Why do some people choose to be atheists?
  • What happened when Doug encountered a Hinda guru at the age of 18?
  • How do Judaism and Islam differ in their relationship to Christianity?

If exploring diverse faith systems seems overwhelming, ‘World Religions in Seven Sentences‘ is the perfect guide to get started. Tune in as Frank and Doug reveal how false religions often lead to human suffering and why Christianity alone is the solution to the problem of evil in the world. Be sure to grab your copy of Doug’s book and subscribe to his Truth Tribe podcast for even more great content!

Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.

Resources mentioned during the episode:

‘World Religions in 7 Sentences’: https://a.co/d/gExzxhz
Doug’s Website: https://www.douglasgroothuis.com/
Doug’s Podcast: https://www.douglasgroothuis.com/podcast-1

 

Download Transcript

 

/by

Jesus: Santa Claus for Adults?

It’s common for atheists to be a “Grinch” over the Holidays and exclaim that Jesus is just a “Santa Claus for adults!” When I hear that claim, I immediately respond with a question: “What do you mean by that?”

If one means that children often believe in fictional fairy tales and adults believe in fact-based evidence, then I agree – Jesus is for adults (and actually people of all ages)! But I don’t think that’s the intent behind this claim. I believe the intent of the atheist (“Grinch”) is to convey that little kids believe in a fictional Santa Clause and many adults believe in fiction too – Christianity.

How the Grinch Stole Christ out of Christmas

Well, why think a thing like that, Mr. Grinch? Is belief in Jesus — or belief in God — really no different than belief in Santa? To answer this question, we must first ask if we have any good reason to believe in Santa. What good reasons are there that would lead us to logically conclude, “Therefore, Santa exists”?

Now, I’m not emotionally opposed to the existence of Santa Claus, and my life would not really have to change if Santa really exists, so if there were any evidence pointing to a jolly fat man in the North Pole who flies around with Rudolph giving gifts made by the elves, then I would happily follow that evidence wherever it leads. Even if there were logic-based arguments concluding that Santa PROBABLY exists, I would be very open to the existence of Santa. Come to think of it, Santa Claus would save me a ton of money on Christmas presents! Be that as it may, there is no evidence or any logic-based arguments concluding that Santa Claus exists — or even PROBABLY exists. So, although I am willing to be persuaded, there just doesn’t seem to be any evidence or logical reasons to believe in Santa Claus (sorry kids).

Now perhaps, Mr. Grinch, you’re saying to yourself: “That’s right! There’s no evidence for Santa Claus AND there is no evidence of God or Jesus either! That’s why it’s ridiculous to believe in Santa Claus or God!”

A False Equivalence

But is that true? Is the evidence — or lack thereof — for Santa Claus and the evidence for God really the same?

Well, if Santa does exist, we would know what to look for: A big, jolly, white-bearded, fat man in a red suit flying around in a sleigh being pulled by flying reindeer delivering presents to children on Christmas Eve. We would look for his factory full of elves at the North Pole too! So far (as far as I know), this evidence for Santa has never been detected. That in and of itself is not PROOF that Santa does not exist, but once we add to the fact that we have no other positive reasons to believe that Santa exists, then we can safely say that Santa does not exist.

But what about God? If God does exist, what would we expect to find? Do you even know what evidence you should start looking for?

Before stating that there is no evidence for something, Mr. Grinch, make sure you know what kind of evidence there should be if that thing does exist. If the God of the Bible exists, for example, he is not the kind of being you would see flying around in the clouds. He would not be some “sky daddy,” as many internet atheists seem to think. No, if the God of the Bible exists, He would not be some humanoid “Zeus-like being.” God (if He exists) is an immaterial unembodied mind – a “spirit” (John 4:24).

How Christ Saves Christmas, from the Grinch

So, what should we expect to find if Christian theism is true? We would expect to find scientific evidence for the beginning of the space-time universe. We have that! We would expect to find evidence for the fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the big bang so that intelligent life – not to mention matter itself – could exist. We have that! We would expect to have historical data showing that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person of history who was executed by the Roman government. We have that!

In fact, we would expect to be able to make a strong case — via the historical method alone – that Jesus actually rose from the dead. Historians have demonstrated that the resurrection of Jesus is the inference to the best explanation after examining all of the historical facts!

So, the things we would expect to find if Santa exists, do not exist. However, the things we would expect to find if the God of the Bible exists, those things DO exist!

After taking everything into consideration, although it would be irrational to believe in Santa Claus, one is quite coherent believing in the God Jesus revealed. That is to say, we have good reason to celebrate Christmas.

So, the next time Mr. Grinch compares Jesus to Santa Claus, just show him the evidence pointing to the reason for the season.

Have a reasonable (Isaiah 1:18) and Merry Christmas,

Dr. Tim Stratton

Recommended Resources: 

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)      

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

Reflecting Jesus into a Dark World by Dr. Frank Turek – DVD Complete Series, Video mp4 DOWNLOAD Complete Series, and mp3 audio DOWNLOAD Complete Series

How Can Jesus Be the Only Way? (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek

 

Tim Stratton (The FreeThinking Theist) 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.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/49fAu1O

/by

Should We Repent for the Sins of Our Ancestors? with Monique Duson and Krista Bontrager

Should reparations be paid to people who are the ancestors of slaves? After all, aren’t reparations biblical? On this midweek podcast episode, Monique Duson and Krista Bontrager from The Center for Biblical Unity return to continue the conversation that centers on their new book, ‘Walking in Unity: Biblical Answers to Questions on Race and Racism‘ and address the following questions:

  • Can a biblical case be made for reparations?
  • What’s the major problem with the modern day reparations movement?
  • Is the way we see Black America today a direct result of slavery?
  • Are all disparities due to racism?
  • Did Lyndon Johnson’s ‘War on Poverty’ help or hurt the black community?

During the second half of the episode, you’ll also hear the fascinating story of how their ministry started, including details of the supernatural event that brought them together and how their friendship remained intact despite the seemingly insurmountable barriers they encountered along the way. It’s an amazing testimony of how God still intervenes in our lives today and you definitely don’t want to miss it!

Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.

Resources mentioned during the episode:

Link to previous podcast with Monique & Krista: https://bit.ly/4i3cR0B
The Center for Biblical Unity: https://www.centerforbiblicalunity.com/
Walking in Unity: Biblical Answers to Questions on Race and Racism: https://a.co/d/hEuCdwe

 

Download Transcript

 

/by

Pastoral Counseling and the Resurrection of Jesus

When reflecting on over forty years of pastoral ministry carried out in numerous forms and contexts, two recurring realities emerge as most prominent in my experience. First, people are often profoundly troubled and deeply hurting amid the moral chaos and cultural decay of a sin-stricken world, resulting in a brokenness that reaches the deepest recesses of the human mind and heart.

Second, the gospel—the hopeful proclamation of the now-and-not-yet kingdom of God as manifested in the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ—is the greatest source of healing for individuals, families, churches, and cultures.[i]

“The gospel—the hopeful proclamation of the now-and-not-yet kingdom of God as manifested in the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ—is the greatest source of healing for individuals, families, churches, and cultures.”

In a word, the world is profoundly out of sorts and only Jesus can set it to rights. It is the concomitance of these two concerns that provides much of the context and content of what has become a focus in my ministry, namely biblically based, gospel-centric pastoral counseling.

H.O.P.E.

Bearing this in mind, the following is a brief introduction to a model of pastoral counseling I developed utilizing the acrostic HOPE (Hear the Pain; Optimize Passional Reason: Proclaim the Gospel; Emphasize the Resurrection). Of particular significance for this model is that it gives central place to the resurrection in the caregiving process.

My goal is to demonstrate the HOPE model through a notional scenario derived from real counseling experiences, thereby highlighting how the resurrection provides a key component in helping broken people experience transformation and lasting wholeness.

H: Hear the Pain

Scenario: Randy walked into the pastor’s office with a look of consternation on his face and a certain slowness in his step. The appointment was scheduled the prior Sunday after Randy asked for prayer at the conclusion of the service. The pastor had heard a certain familiar pain in Randy’s voice, so he offered to not only pray that day, but to meet in person for a follow-up counseling discussion. Randy was happy to accept the offer, and now he stood in the office.

“Sit down, Randy,” said the pastor, “and tell me what’s on your mind.” Randy sat opposite the pastor’s desk and, after an opening prayer by the pastor, began to share his story. Moment by moment, hurt by hurt, Randy recounted his experience with Post Traumatic Stress precipitated by several tours of combat in Iraq.

The pastor listened intently, careful not to interrupt and trying to avoid anything like a leading question; his concern was to give Randy ample space and time to tell his story, and it was quite a story.

At one point the emotion in Randy’s voice heightened and he burst into tears as he recounted the loss of dear friends during a combat operation gone awry. It was clear that Randy was hurting, and the pastor was glad Randy was able to get the hurt out into the open in the safety of a counseling session.

Discussion: All counseling begins with listening, or at least it should.[ii] It is when the pastor listens without leading or stifling responses, that the counselee can paint the picture of the problem that brought them to seek help.

As the counselor listens, there are two goals: 1) establish with the counselee that the pastor wants to hear before responding, to listen before counseling; and 2) to give the pastor a sense of the depth of the pain involved in the situation and what related matters may need to be addressed later and/or may justify a referral to caregivers with relevant expertise.

Further, hearing the person’s pain may involve more than one session where the counselor offers little input, opting to show support by listening intently and for as long as it takes to get the counselee to the place where their burden is sufficiently expressed and understood.[iii] Again, counseling begins with listening, with hearing the pain.

O: Optimize Passional Reason

Scenario: After talking for nearly an hour without interruption, Randy began to quiet himself, finally coming to a point of asking, “Pastor, what can I do to get through this pain?” After a thoughtful pause before answering, the pastor replied with a question of his own. “Randy, what do you think would help you?” Seeming a bit frustrated, Randy responded, “I’m not sure. That’s why I’m talking to you, pastor. I need your help.”

After another pause, the pastor stated, “Randy, thank you for trusting me with your pain. What I heard as you recounted losing your friends was two things.

First, your emotions are up and down, high and low, and I suspect you are unable to find a balance most of the time. Second, there are a few areas in your explanation and evaluation of what you are going through that are a bit out of sorts with what is true.” Randy looked intently at the pastor, nodding slightly.

The pastor continued, “Randy, getting to the place of wholeness involves both how you think and how you feel—not one or the other, but both. My goal is to help you think and feel your way through this issue. I want you to learn to check your feelings with your reason, and to allow your reason to be properly informed by your feelings.”

Discussion: Much of what constitutes a counselee’s burden is a mismatch between facts and feelings, between reason and emotions. However, the counselor must not assume that feelings are always wrong, or that the answer to the counselee’s problem is simply a matter of clearer thinking.

It is imperative to recall that humans form beliefs based on a combination of reason and emotion, with both coming together and each informing the other so that the whole person comes to a particular conviction or position with their head and their heart. This confluence of reason and emotions in relation to forming beliefs is called passional reason, and counselors who learn to optimize it in the counseling process are more likely to see holistic transformation encompassing noetic and affective capacities in the counselee.[iv] Thus, when a counselor begins to engage the counselee’s story, he should look for instances of misshapen thoughts and feelings and explain to the counselee that both areas will be addressed during the counseling process.

Lest this point seem to call for some type of specialized knowledge on the part of the pastor, consider that with or without the nomenclature of passional reason there is an intuitive sense that thinking and feeling are fundamental aspects of being human. Thus, optimizing passional reason is simply another way of inviting the counselee to experience wholeness as a “whole” person, beginning with their thoughts and feelings.

P: Proclaim the Gospel

Scenario: Randy sat for a moment, then asked, “So what you’re saying, pastor, is that my head and my heart need healing?” “Correct,” replied the pastor, “and that healing begins with hearing one more time something I know you already believe with all your mind and heart.” After sitting quietly for another moment, Randy replied, “What do I need to hear, pastor?”

Looking intently at Randy, the pastor spoke with passion and clarity, “Randy, Jesus is Lord. He died and rose again. He loves you, and because he rose again and overcame death, he can and will help you overcome your pain and grief.” After letting those words of the gospel settle onto Randy for a moment, the pastor continued, “Randy, am I right? Do you believe the gospel with all your heart and mind? Do you believe that Jesus is Lord, and that he died for you, rose again for you, and is right now at his Father’s right hand, praying for you?”

With tears in his eyes, his voice breaking, Randy replied, “Yes, pastor, I do believe those things.” “Good, Randy,” replied the pastor, “because the Jesus’ resurrection is essential to your wholeness and healing.”

Discussion: What makes Christian counseling unique is not method but focus. The Christian counselor’s ultimate point of reference from beginning to end of the caregiving process is the message of the gospel.[v] While the pastor’s counsel may include more than the gospel, it certainly should never leave out the gospel.

“What makes Christian counseling unique is not method but focus. The Christian counselor’s ultimate point of reference from beginning to end of the caregiving process is the message of the gospel.”

In this sense, pastoral counseling is evangelical counseling, which is to say that it is counseling through the lens of the evangel, the good news, the gospel. Thus, in the notional scenario the pastor has laid the groundwork by hearing the pain of the counselee and optimizing passional reason as the epistemic pathway to wholeness.

Now enters the gospel, which encapsulates all the hope the counselee seeks. While there may be varied approaches to proclaiming the gospel and different points of emphasis by its proclaimers, what is fundamental to the Christian path to remedy is the declaration of the deity, death, and resurrection of King Jesus.

It is not enough to assume that because counseling is Christian that the gospel is clear. Rather, the pastor has the privilege and necessity to proclaim the gospel to his counselee, thereby giving center place to the lordship of Jesus over death and the grave as his resurrection is highlighted as the ultimate demonstration of victory in place of defeat.

E: Emphasize the Resurrection

Scenario: Randy continued to listen as he leaned forward in his chair and drew a bead on the pastor with his eyes. The pastor continued, “Randy, the healing you seek in your mind and heart will take time, but it is possible because of Jesus’ victory over the grave. What we will do going forward is sort of like taking a tube of antibiotic cream and applying and reapplying it to an open wound, except in this instance the wound is your Post Traumatic Stress, and the antibiotic cream is the resurrection.”

Randy thought for a moment, then asked, “Pastor, exactly how does that work? I mean, how do I apply the resurrection to my situation?” After a pause, the pastor replied, “Think of it like this. You told me that lately you struggle most with a feeling of hopelessness when you think of how your heart seems to know only an aching sense of despair. You wonder if it is possible to ever get past the hurt and loss.”

Romans 8:11
Randy nodded in agreement. “Your homework is to write down on a card that you will carry with you at all times the following: ‘But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.’ That is Romans 8:11, and it is a powerful reminder that the Spirit is at work in you giving you the life—the same life—that brought Jesus from the dead.

His resurrection is your victory, and as often as you find yourself struggling with the thoughts of despair you must apply the hope of the gospel to your situation. Over time you will come to experience a change in your outlook as your mind learns that the hopeless thought is a trigger to the hope of the resurrection. This is how you can do what Paul said later in Romans 12:2, ‘be transformed by the renewing of your mind.’”

A smile came to Randy’s face, the first one the pastor had seen since the session began. “Pastor,” Randy said with confidence, “I know I have a long way to go, but I’m starting to think and feel like I can get there with your help…with Jesus’ help. His resurrection is my hope.” “You are right, Randy, there is hope because of Jesus’ resurrection.”

Discussion: As an example of the blending of methods from cognitive behavioral therapy and the hope of the Christian gospel that flows from the resurrection, what the pastor offers is an approach to healing the mind and emotions with the truth of Scripture that capitalizes on neuroplasticity and trigger thoughts/words.[vi]

Again, just as with passional reason, so with this aspect of pastoral counseling there is no need for the pastor to be an expert in various counseling modalities. Rather, through a simple and consistent process of learning to correct thoughts and feelings with the hope of the resurrection, the pastor can lead the counselee along the path of a renewed mind and heart.

In the notional scenario discussed here, the pastor would continue to help Randy apply the truths of God’s Word, and especially the message of Jesus’ resurrection to the thoughts and feelings that are out of sync with the Spirit’s work in sanctification. This would happen over numerous counseling sessions and periodic checkups thereafter.

Conclusion: Hope Lives Because Jesus Arose

By utilizing the HOPE acrostic, the notional scenario illustrates how a Christian counselor may combine elements of cognitive behavior therapy with the gospel message of the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The counselor hears the counselee’s pain, optimizes passional reason, proclaims the gospel, and emphasizes the resurrection in ways that help the counselee apply the truth of Jesus’ victory over death to their struggles and shortcomings. Indeed, because of the resurrection hope lives in a tangible and powerful way through the work of pastoral counseling.

References:

[i] Cf. 1 Cor. 15:3-4. Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotes are from The Holy Bible: New King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982).

[ii] For a discussion of the importance of listening to the counselee, see Harry Shields and Gary Bredfeldt, Caring for Souls: Counseling Under the Authority of Scripture (Chicago: Moody, 2001), 179-180.

[iii] Charles Allen Kollar, Solution-Focused Pastoral Counseling: An Effective Short-Term Approach for Getting People Back on Track, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 79-88.

[iv] William J. Wainwright, Reason and the Heart: A Prolegomenon to a Critique of Passional Reason (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995), 1-6.

[v] Gary R. Collins, The Biblical Basis of Christian Counseling for People Helpers: Relating the Basic Teachings of Scripture to People’s Problems (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2001), 3-11.

[vi] Shields and Bredfeldt, Caring for Souls, 193-223.

Recommended Resources: 

If God, Why Evil? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek 

Reflecting Jesus into a Dark World by Dr. Frank Turek – DVD Complete Series, Video mp4 DOWNLOAD Complete Series, and mp3 audio DOWNLOAD Complete Series

Why does God allow Bad Things to Happen to Good People? (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek 

Relief From the Worst Pain You’ll Ever Experience (DVD) (MP3) (Mp4 Download) by Gary Habermas

 

Dr. Thomas J. Gentry II (aka T. J. Gentry) serves as the Senior Pastor of First Christian Church of West Frankfort, Illinois, the Assistant Vice President of Publishing and Communications, and the Assistant Editor of Bellator Christi Ministries. He formerly served as the Executive Editor of MoralApologetics.com. Dr. Gentry earned his Ph.D. in Theology and Apologetics (Liberty University); Ph.D. in Theology with Missiology (North-West University, South Africa); and Ph.D. in Biblical Studies, Ph.D. in Leadership, and D.Min. in Pastoral Counseling (Carolina University). Additionally, he is the President of Illative House Press (illativehousepress.com), having previously published Pulpit Apologist: The Vital Link between Preaching and Apologetics (Wipf and Stock, 2020) and Absent from the Body, Present with the Lord: Biblical, Theological, and Rational Arguments against Purgatory (Wipf and Stock, 2019). Additionally, Dr. Gentry proudly served his country, both enlisted and officer, in the United States Army Chaplain Corps, and he has taught martial arts as a Christian ministry platform since the late 1990s. He is an adjunct professor at Carolina University (carolinau.edu). He and his wife are blessed with five children and two grandchildren. His daily Bible teaching and devotions can be heard at tjgentry.net.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3Z9VanC 

/by