Page 32 – CrossExamined

The #1 Doctrine That Answers Christianity’s Toughest Questions with Dr. Tim Stratton

It’s the age old question–if God is sovereign over all things then how do we have free will? And if God controls everything, does that make Him the author of evil since He causes humans to sin? How do we reconcile a good God with all of the pain and suffering that’s happening in the world?

It can seem like a bit of a conundrum for Christians, and the lack of satisfactory answers has caused many people to turn away from God. But what if there was a doctrine or school of thought that could help us make sense of these seemingly intractable problems? Joining Frank on the podcast this week is CIA graduate and professor of Theology at Trinity Theological Seminary, Tim Stratton, who has spent his fair share of time studying these dillemmas. So much time in fact, that this centuries old school of thought known as “Mere Molinism” became the focus of his doctoral dissertation. During the episode, Frank and Tim will answer questions like:

What event in his personal life caused Tim to question his former Calvinist beliefs?
Where does the term Molinism come from?
What are the two “main ingredients” of Molinism?
How does Molinism compare to Arminianism and Calvinism?
What is the proper interpretation of Romans 9?
How does Molinism solve the problem of evil?
How does Avengers: Infinity War and Endgame apply to Molinism?

If you’ve ever struggled with the problem of evil or wondered how we can possibly steer our own ship when God is completely omniscient, then this episode will definitely give you a few light bulb moments! For more information on this topic, be sure to check out Tim’s contribution to Faith Examined (a collection of essays written by CIA graduates) or Tim’s book ‘Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism‘.

To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into some great discussions with like-minded Christians while simultaneously providing financial support for our ministry.

You can also SUPPORT THE PODCAST HERE.

RESOURCES MENTIONED DURING THE EPISODE:

Faith Examined book: https://a.co/d/hvS13kK
Free Thinking Ministries: https://freethinkingministries.com/
Tim’s book on Mere Molinism: https://a.co/d/bBWr0u1
In-Person CIA (Charlotte, NC): https://crossexamined.org/what-is-cia/
CIA Online 2024: https://bit.ly/3T8Unjw

March 8, 2024/by Frank Turek

The Sense of Hearing is a Masterpiece of Engineering

2. Does God Exist?, 3. Are Miracles Possible?

By Jonathan McLatchie

The ear is responsible for two of our most fundamental senses — hearing and equilibrium — the receptors for which are all found inside the inner ear. For an incredible animation of how hearing works, I recommend this YouTube video.

Here, I will describe the anatomy of the ear and the biological basis of the sense of hearing. The information below can be found in any good anatomy and physiology textbook. You can also find a good discussion of this subject in Chapter 11 of Your Designed Body, by Steve Laufmann and Howard Glicksman. It might be helpful to refer to the illustration of the ear below as you read the description that follows. [1]

The Outer Ear

The outer ear is comprised of the auricle and ear canal. The auricle is composed of skin-covered cartilage. In dogs (who have movable ears), the auricle can serve as a funnel for sound waves. In humans, on the other hand, its absence would not negatively affect our hearing.

Skin containing ceruminous glands lines the ear canal (also called the external auditory meatus). The ear canal is a tube-like structure that extends from the outer ear to the middle ear. It is responsible for directing sound waves into the ear, which then travel through the ear canal and arrive at the eardrum (tympanic membrane) in the middle ear. The eardrum vibrates in response to these sound waves, and these vibrations are transmitted to the middle ear bones.

The Middle Ear

The middle ear is a cavity in the temporal bone that is filled with air. The tympanic membrane (popularly called the eardrum) is a thin, flexible membrane that separates the outer ear from the middle ear, and is stretched across the end of the ear canal. When sound waves enter the ear canal, they strike the eardrum, causing it to vibrate. Behind the eardrum, there are three small bones known as the ossicles — namely, the malleus (hammer), incus (anvil), and stapes (stirrup). The ossicles form a chain and are connected to each other. When the eardrum vibrates in response to waves, it causes the malleus to move, which, in turn, moves the incus and stapes. This mechanical linkage helps amplify the vibrations and transmits them from the eardrum to the inner ear.

The middle ear is also connected to the nasopharynx (back of the throat) through a tube called the eustachian tube. This tube helps to equalize air pressure on both sides of the eardrum. This is essential to maintain equilibrium of air pressure between the middle ear and external atmospheric pressure, to allow the eardrum to properly vibrate.

The Inner Ear

The inner ear is also a cavity within the temporal bone, and is also called the bony labyrinth. It is lined with a membrane called the membranous labyrinth. Between the bone and membrane is a fluid called perilymph, and within the membranous structures of the inner ear is a fluid called endolymph. Three of these structures (the utricle, saccule, and semicircular canals) are concerned with equilibrium. The other (the cochlea) relates to hearing.

The cochlea’s appearance is like the shell of a snail. The inside of the cochlea is partitioned into three canals, filled with fluid. The uppermost canal is called the scala vestibuli, and it is filled with perilymph (a fluid similar to cerebrospinal fluid). Sound vibrations travel through the cochlea and arrive at the scala tympani. The middle canal is called the scala media (otherwise known as the cochlear duct), and it is separated from the scala vestibuli by Reissner’s membrane, and from the scala tympani by the basilar membrane. The scala media contains endolymph and is where the sensory cells of the cochlea (known as hair cells) are located. These hair cells are of course not in fact hair, but, rather, are specialized microvilli that are responsible for converting sound vibrations into electrical signals that can be interpreted by the brain. Situated above the hair cells is the tectorial membrane which, as we shall see, is crucial for hearing.

The Sense of Hearing

The process of hearing begins with the production of sound waves, which are pressure fluctuations that are propagated through air. These waves are funneled into the ear canal by the pinna (the external part of the ear). The ear canal carries the sound waves to the eardrum (tympanic membrane), which causes it to vibrate. These vibrations are then transmitted to the malleus, incus, and stapes, which amplify the vibrations. The stapes is connected to the oval window, a membrane-covered opening to the inner ear. Vibration of the stapes bone against the oval window creates pressure waves in the fluid-filled cochlea. As the pressure waves pass through the fluid in the cochlea, they cause vibration of the basilar membrane. This results in the bending of hair cells against the tectorial membrane, which in turn triggers the release of neurotransmitters that convert mechanical vibrations into electrical signals. These electrical signals are transmitted to the brain by the auditory nerve, where they are interpreted as sound by the auditory areas in the temporal lobes of the cerebral cortex.

The auditory nerve fibers carrying information from one ear partially cross to the opposite side at a structure in the brainstem, known as the trapezoid body. This means that signals from both ears are sent to both sides of the brain. This plays an important role in sound localization and spatial processing, allowing the brain to compare the timing and intensity of signals from both ears, helping us to determine the direction of a source of sound. Impulses arriving from each inner ear are counted and compared by the auditory areas, to determine the direction of a sound. If there are more impulses coming from the right cochlea than from the left one, the brain projects the sound to the right, and vice versa.

The neurons of the auditory cortex are organized in a manner similar to a piano keyboard — being arranged from low to high pitch. The brain is also able to detect volume, rhythm, and tempo, as well as timbre, which is a quality of tone (a guitar playing a middle C and a piano playing the same note at the same volume will sound different due to the unique timbre of each instrument).

A Masterpiece of Engineering

The anatomy of hearing described above is of course the system found in humans and other terrestrial mammals. Many other organisms have less advanced hearing systems. For example, fish lack external ears and have structures called otoliths that detect vibrations and changes in water pressure. Reptiles, birds, and amphibians also often lack an external ear and have a single middle ear bone instead of the three found in mammals. And most invertebrates (such as crustaceans and mollusks) lack ears and a sense of hearing altogether. Typically, claims that the sense of hearing evolved by natural selection focus on these as intermediate stages. The incus, malleus, and stapes are thought to have arisen from three reptilian bones associated with the jaw — the quadrate bone, articular bone, and columella respectively.

However, the vertebrate sense of hearing involves several fundamental anatomical features that are common to all vertebrate hearing systems and cannot be removed without severely compromising (or completely eliminating) the ability to hear. For example, the cochlea (which contains the hair cells) is a critical component for transducing sound vibrations into electrical signals that the brain can interpret. Indeed, the leading cause of hearing loss is damage to the hair cells. Furthermore, the auditory nerve, which carries electrical signals from the hair cells in the cochlea to the brain, is crucial for transmitting auditory information to the central nervous system. In injuries or infections (such as meningitis) where the auditory nerve is damaged, the result can be a complete and permanent loss of hearing in that ear. The eardrum (tympanic membrane), which vibrates in response to sound waves, transmitting these vibrations to the middle ear ossicles, is also an essential aspect of the sense of hearing. If the eardrum is damaged or perforated, the consequence can be deafness. A minimum of one middle ear ossicle appears to be essential for hearing as well. Another crucial feature of the auditory system is the oval window, the membrane-covered opening between the middle and inner ear, located at the base of the stapes bone. Vibrations transmitted by the ossicles are transferred to the fluid within the cochlea through the oval window.

Thus, several different structural components are necessary for the vertebrate sense of hearing. It strains credulity to suppose that an unguided process of random variation sifted by natural selection could assemble such a delicately arranged system. It instead points to a cause with foresight.

Footnotes:

[1] Image credit: Blausen.com staff (2014). “Medical gallery of Blausen Medical 2014”. WikiJournal of Medicine 1 (2). DOI:10.15347/wjm/2014.010. ISSN 2002-4436., CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God with Justin Brierley – Part 2

Podcast

Can a purely materialistic worldview account for concepts like human dignity, moral absolutes, or objective meaning? In a surprising (and encouraging) turn of events, many who once held to an atheistic worldview are beginning to see that a search for meaning without God is ultimately futile. As this realization continues to permeate the minds of prominent intellectuals within the new atheist movement, will this spark a new interest in faith conversations and even Christianity itself?

This week, Justin Brierley returns to talk more about his new book (and podcast), ‘The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God: Why New Atheism Grew Old and Secular Thinkers Are Considering Christianity Again‘, as well as explore the positive impacts of Christianity on contemporary society and its overarching role in uplifting humanity. Why did Christianity spread so quickly in the ancient world? Was Julias Caesar a hero or a tyrant? Why are people flocking to hear Jordan Peterson speak about the Bible of all things? All of this and more will be discussed in the conclusion of this special two-part series!

You can also SUPPORT THE PODCAST HERE.

Justin’s book: https://justinbrierley.com/the-surprising-rebirth-of-belief-in-god/

The Surprising Rebirth podcast: https://justinbrierley.com/surprisingrebirth/

Download Transcript

March 5, 2024/by Frank Turek

The True Meaning of ‘Headship’ and ‘Head Coverings’ for Women: A Theological Perspective of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16

Culture and Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, the apostle Paul addresses the topic of head coverings for women, a subject that has sparked much debate, confusion, and substandard interpretations throughout history. In order to truly understand Paul’s meaning, my goal is to provide a proper exegesis and interpretation that upholds the purity of the text and lends itself to how we are to show unity and equality among men and women.

Respect the Context

Contrary to misconceptions, Paul’s intention was not to demean women or diminish their role in the home or society. Instead, he addressed the issue of proper respect within marriage and worship. Before delving into 11:2-16, however, it is only appropriate to set the stage before turning back to the previous chapter. In 1 Corinthians 10:31-33, Paul writes,

“So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.”

All to God’s Glory

Before discussing “headship” and “head coverings,” Paul establishes a fundamental principle to guide Christians in their daily lives. We are to honor God in everything we do and to love others as we share the gospel with those who are perishing.

Paul’s Fundamental Principle: We are to honor God in everything we do and to love others as we share the gospel with those who are perishing.

Keeping this guiding principle in mind, let us try to understand what Paul meant in 11:2-16. From the context, it is clear that Paul is attempting to rectify the misuse of freedoms leading to division and inappropriate behavior. His primary concern is not about men and women (in general) but rather about the testimony of a husband and wife faithfully living out their marriage before God in church and society.

In verse three, Paul writes,

“But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” To understand the word “headship” used by Paul, we must understand its historical and cultural context. The Greek word is kephalé, which translates as “head” but also carries broader meanings such as “authority” or “source.”

Hints at the Trinity

Paul’s approach is intriguing because he refers to the relationship within the Triune Godhead before acknowledging the esteemed roles of a husband and wife. Paul does this to connect our relationships that ought to reflect the perfect unity shared with the Triune Godhead.

Each Person of the Trinity is a subsistence of the same substance. Yet, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct (not divided) in their functions (operational roles) in the economy of salvation. In 1 Corinthians 15:28, Paul elaborates on this very point, “When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.”

Similarly, Paul emphasizes the significance of headship within the framework of God’s divine order in the context of marriage. Paul refers to the husband’s and wife’s unique roles and responsibilities, reflecting both the unity and diversity within the Trinity. He did not imply that headship means a husband ruling over his wife or suggest that qualitative differences between women indicate they are inherently inferior to men.[i]

Sacrifice and Submission

In Ephesians 5:21-33, the apostle Paul emphasizes the sacrificial love that husbands should have towards their wives while highlighting the importance of wives voluntarily respecting their husbands. This passage explains that marriage is meant to exemplify Christ’s relationship with his church, where both husband and wife have distinct roles but are equal in value before God. Therefore, having a harmonious partnership where both spouses honor and support each other is essential.

The Meaning of Head Coverings

The second controversial verse from Paul is as stated:

“For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. but since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head” (11:5).

To fully grasp the meaning and underlying principles behind head coverings in this passage, it is essential to explore cultural and historical contexts. It was not customary for Corinthian women to cover their heads as it was for Jewish women. Many of the upper-class Greek women would flaunt their hairstyles, causing a clash with less privileged women and Jews. In Paul’s day, it was customary for women (in the Ancient Mediterranean) to cover their heads in public or among strangers as symbolic representation of modesty and submission. In Genesis 24:65, Rebecca veiled (Hebrew tsaciph) herself in the presence of Isaac.

By wearing a veil or covering their heads during worship or public gatherings, women demonstrated their acknowledgment of societal norms and their commitment to honor their husbands as leaders within their homes. If a Jewish woman revealed her long hair in public, she was either in mourning or she was being publicly humiliated as an accused adulteress. Additionally, if a woman took off her head covering (veil or scarf) in the worship service, it could be a sign or suggestion that she was withdrawing from her husband and “available.” Because of that, if a wife were participating in church, she would keep her veil over her head to avoid people thinking several things: (1) she was abusing her freedom, (2) rejecting honor to God, and (3) disrespecting her husband by making a public gesture that she was promiscuous.

Furthermore, when Paul was writing, temple prostitutes were known for wearing their hair very short and not covering their heads. Thus, giving weight for Paul to advise against adopting a similar appearance to avoid giving the wrong impression and causing others to stumble.

Paul Was Teaching About Dignified Femininity Not About Fashion

It is important to understand that the topic of head coverings was related to cultural norms and not a command given by Paul for Christians today. The underlying principle behind the advice of wearing head coverings is to behave with dignity, avoiding actions that might lead to division or cause others to stumble.

When we honor God and strive to do good for others, our witness is beyond reproach in marriage, family, and society, as Paul mentions in his overarching principle in 1 Corinthians 10:31-33.

In light of these considerations, it becomes evident that Paul’s teachings on headship and head coverings is rooted in promoting harmony within marriage rather than enforcing gender inequality.

Although cultural practices may differ across different societies and periods, what remains crucial is the need for mutual respect and honoring one another in our relationships, particularly in marriage.

By understanding these principles, we can appreciate the importance of head coverings and uphold equality and respect between spouses in accordance with biblical teachings.

References:

[i] Editor’s Note: This statement depends on what one means by “ruling/over.” There is no domineering, authoritarian, or overbearing sense of “ruling” within the Trinity, nor should there be any such “ruling” within marriage. There is, however, a dignified distinction in responsibilities where God the Father and God the Son can have different job descriptions – at least for a time – and that can be reflected in different authority roles between husband and wife.

The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God | with Justin Brierley – Part 1

Podcast

Could we be witnessing a return of belief in God during our generation? It seems that the Christian narrative that shaped the West has been replaced by sweeping secularism. But is that the end of the story?

In recent years, a number of highly intellectual atheists have abandoned their secularism and found themselves surprised by the continuing resonance and relevance of Christianity in today’s modern world. Is it possible that the new atheist movement is now dealing with a massive downward spiral of its own? And what’s pushing this new generation of secular thinkers to reconsider the Christian worldview in a positive light?

This week, Frank speaks with the one and only Justin Brierley, former host of the popular show ‘Unbelievable’ and author of the new book, ‘The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God: Why New Atheism Grew Old and Secular Thinkers Are Considering Christianity Again.’ In conjunction with the release of the book, Justin is here to share the details on his new documentary podcast of the same title, and how this project has reignited his hope for the survival of the Christian faith in secular society. During the episode, Frank and Justin will answer questions like:

Why did Justin end his time on ‘Unbelievable’?
What is the focus of Justin’s new podcast?
What contributed to the rise of New Atheism after 9/11?
Is Richard Dawkins a “Christian Atheist?”
Why did Christianity fuel the modern scientific revolution?
Who are the prominent voices leading the exodus of new atheism?

Justin and Frank will also touch on some of the splits within the new atheist movement and highlight the ways in which atheism maintains its own version of dogmatism and religiosity. Want to dive deeper into the unfolding story of ‘The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God’? Be sure to check out Justin’s new book and podcast!

You can also SUPPORT THE PODCAST HERE.

Justin’s book: https://justinbrierley.com/the-surprising-rebirth-of-belief-in-god/

The Surprising Rebirth podcast: https://justinbrierley.com/surprisingrebirth/

Download Transcript

March 1, 2024/by Frank Turek

In the Image of God: The Battle for Human Identity

2. Does God Exist?, Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian Apologetics

Introduction

Human origins is a fascinating area of research today. With all the different models for the origins of humanity being proposed, I see an increase in the discussions, both scientific and theological. For everyone reading this post, this area of research should be of utmost interest for you as well. Two critical ideas about humanity are at stake depending on which model (or family of models) is true: intrinsic and equal human dignity and value, and the sinfulness of humanity.

The age-old debate about God’s existence has great implications on this area of the debate about human origins. The Judeo-Christian claim that all humans are created in God’s Image and that humans possess a sin nature that will cause them to tend toward the immoral. These paradoxical doctrines together explain both the greatness and wretchedness of humanity that we see everyday, throughout history, and expect in the future.

The Image of God

If we are created in the image of God that means that all humans possess intrinsic and equal human dignity and value. If this is false, then humans are not valuable in virtue of their being human but in virtue of a myriad of other characteristics and stati that change in fashionability with the culture. One moment a human can be valuable and the next moment they are not. If humans do not have value at any point, that gives justification for their expendability (murder) at the hands of those who have power over them at that point. If humans are not created in the image of God, then there is nothing wrong with humans abusing their power against other humans. Any model of human origins that does not allow for the Image of God in humans places the very lives of every human at risk.

Human Sinfulness

Genesis also records that Adam and Eve sinned against God and with that action brought the sin nature into all future humans. Humans are not born good or even neutral. This means that the abuse of power described above is not just possible but inevitable. Any model of human origins that does not allow for the Fall or for the transfer of the sin nature (whether through the biological, spiritual, or some combination) denies this element of human psychology, sociology, and history.

Denying Both?

Any model that does not allow for one or the other already makes human lives less worthy of protection because either it is not worth protecting or there is nothing to necessarily protect against. But if a model denies both, then that is a recipe for disaster. This means that the debate about human origins is not just a scientific question but also a philosophical one, even for the atheist or naturalist. An interesting analysis of the implications of these two characteristics is provided in Os Guinness’ book “The Magna Carta of Humanity” which I highly recommend, particularly for those involved in human origins discussions and debates. It provides a renewed urgency for the importance of the debate about human origins.

Should Theology Judge Science?

I often hear the claim that many Christians allow their theology to determine their interpretation (and maybe even rejection) of the scientific data. The implication is that we should not allow any knowledge discipline (or at least, theology) other than science in developing our model or that we should at least give precedence to science.

It is important to recognize at this point the distinction between “science” and “data of nature.” The data that is discovered is the raw information that must be accommodated in any model, whereas “science” is the interpretation (which is fallible, but not necessarily false) of that data. Because multiple sources of truth (philosophical and historical as described above, and not just the natural data) exist about humans, the data of each must be recognized and accommodated in any model of human origins that claims to accurately reflect the natural history of human origins (what really happened). Just as the data of nature can judge our interpretation of the data of history and Scripture, the data of history and the data of Scripture can judge our interpretation of the data of nature in virtue of their being true.

We cannot allow an epistemic (knowledge) posture of strong or even weak scientism to prevent our discovery of the correct model of human origins. To do so, would be dangerous.

Conclusion

With the work in the field of human origins being done at numerous Christian organizations, the number of possible models and level of detail may seem confusing to many yet exciting to others. But they are important for all of us. I encourage these organizations to continue (or begin) working together to gather all the data that each emphasize in their respective models and adjust those models to reflect the data provided by others. We need to be careful and respectful of any accusations of heresy- ensure that our accusations are demonstrably reflective of the model not the Christian, and that we address such accusations with or adjust our models based on the biblical data and logic. It is important that even though we may disagree on details that we present a united front that is based on the data and sound reasoning from that data, not only for the future of humanity, but as a demonstration of the unity and love that Christ prayed for and told us that unbelievers will see. We need to not only demonstrate the truth of these important Christian doctrines (ones that are often under attack and used as excuses to reject Christ) but we need to emphasize our love, respect, cooperation, and dedication to truth that unbelievers often overlook.

Navigating the Digital Age: Youth, Technology, and Social Media Survival

Podcast

Is social media turning your kids into digital zombies? You wouldn’t believe how much time the average person will spend scrolling their phone in a lifetime, but the effects that endless scrolling is having on today’s youth is becoming more and more apparent. Is there anything that concerned parents can do to safeguard the well-being of vulnerable children, teens, and young adults from the tech industry’s attacks?

In this midweek podcast episode, Jorge Gil sounds the alarm on the negative impact that the overuse of technology is having on our modern culture and how it’s brainwashing younger generations. A pressing issue hiding in plain sight, parents and even grandparents have the huge responsibility to stay in the know when it comes to their children’s online interactions. During this episode, Jorge will answer questions like:

In what ways is social media lying to you and your children?
What is the connection between social media and depression rates among young people?
What practical rules can you put in place to protect kids from their devices?
How long does the average person spend scrolling everyday?
How can Christians use technology for good instead of evil?

Phone addiction doesn’t discriminate, but the good news is, you can do something about it if you tackle it now! This episode will give you a lot to think about as Jorge exposes the dangers of allowing young people to have too much access to social media without any accountability. Jorge will also give you the tools you need to fight back against the tech industry’s digital assault on your family and share practical advice on how to use technology in a way that honors God.

You can also SUPPORT THE PODCAST HERE.

Resources mentioned during the episode:

Article: Has the Smartphone Destroyed a Generation

Article: The Tech Industry’s War on Kids

Book: American Girls: Social Media and the Secret Lives of Teenagers

Book: A Practical Guide to Culture: Helping the Next Generation Navigate Today’s World

Download Transcript

February 27, 2024/by Frank Turek

The Most Important Question

4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

It wasn’t too long ago we finally finished putting the Christmas decorations away at our house. The process caused me to reminisce about the time we had enjoyed with family and celebrations with our church family both this year and in years past. As each year passes, I am increasingly burdened by the chasm between the secular “Christmas” celebrated by society and the true meaning of Christmas–the incarnation of Jesus Christ.

I ponder the great effort put forth by retail companies (think gifts and décor) and the entertainment industry (movies, concerts, and special events in the name of the “special season”) and can’t help but marvel at the effort to capitalize on the season all while wholly rejecting the reason behind it.

This season, I was reminded of a very important question, arguably the most important question each one of us must answer. All three of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) record Jesus asking his disciples “Who do you say that I am?” Considering the confusion at Christmas and what event it truly marks, I would challenge you to consider your own answer to this question. Who do you say Jesus is?

Jesus’s Two Questions

Jesus and his disciples made their way to an area known as Caesarea Philippi, located north of the Sea of Galilee and near the base of Mount Hermon. It is a beautiful, lush, park-like area that has some of the beginning waters of the Jordan River running through it. Like many places during the time, the name was chosen to honor the current Caesarean and local ruler, Philip the son of Herod the Great.[i]

In addition to the beautiful nature there are ruins of pagan Roman worship. Today one can walk along the side of a hill into which is carved numerous niches that might have held statues of Roman gods and goddesses. There are areas that were once foundations for temples to both one of the Caesars and other gods. There is a particularly looming grotto dedicated to the god Pan (see attached picture). According to a local guide this grotto once involved the sacrifice of infants to the god Pan. This was the physical environment that served as a backdrop to Jesus’ two questions.

This is Matthew’s account of the conversation:

“When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; others, Elijah; still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But you,” He asked them, “who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answers, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God!” And Jesus responded, “Simon son of Jonah, you are blessed because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in heaven…”
– Matthew 16:13-17 (HCSB; see also Mark 8:27-29 and Luke 9:18-20)

The Question of the Populace’s Belief in Jesus’s Identity

Jesus begins by asking them what the general population said about his identity. In general, the response was, somebody good, important, and/or wise. John the Baptist or a prophet, like those through whom God spoke in the Old Testament. Obviously, someone who knew the things of God and seemed to live in his favor. How would you answer Jesus’ first question today? I would suggest the answers would be somewhat similar. While not citing specifically Old Testament prophets, many call him a prophet. Others consider him a good, moral teacher.

The Question of the Disciples’ Belief in Jesus’s Identity

Jesus makes his second question personal. He specifically asks the disciples who they say he is. We are wise to feel the same question pointed directly at us. Who do I (insert your own name) say Jesus is? The disciples couldn’t hide behind the prevailing popular answer. While it is impossible to detect whether there were any pauses in the conversation through the written version, Peter seems to answer without hesitation– “You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God!” How would you answer that question? Would you hesitate and need to think about your answer?

How the Bible Answers the Questions

Jesus tells Peter he is correct and knows the answer because God revealed it to him. The disciples had heard Jesus’ teaching and witnessed the miracles he performed while following him in his ministry.

The Bible is replete with passages that tell us about the identity of Jesus, God’s Son, sent as our Savior to redeem us from our sin, sin that entered the world through Adam and Eve in the early pages of Genesis. The length of this article allows space to note just a few of the places we are told about Jesus’ identity.

The Testimony of Jesus

Jesus himself tells us He is the Son of God. In the verses discussed above, Jesus tells Peter he is correct when he identifies Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the Living God. In his High Priestly prayer (John 17), Jesus identifies himself as God’s son (John 17:1) and repeatedly calls God his father (17:1; 17:5; 17:11 etc.). Jesus makes claim to his divinity in the account of the healing of the paralytic (Mark 2:1-12). Friends had lowered the lame man through the roof of a house to gain access to Jesus, believing he could heal him. Jesus begins by telling the man his sins are forgiven (2:5) and then ultimately provides physical healing (2:11b). It is the claim to have the authority to forgive sins that infuriates the religious leaders who acknowledge only God can forgive sins.

The Testimony of John the Baptist

John the Baptist, at the baptism of Jesus, testified, “…He is the Son of God.” (John 1:34). Before John the Baptist was even born, he responded to Jesus’s identity from within his mother’s womb. Luke records Jesus’s mother Mary’s visit to her cousin Elizabeth, who was John’s mother. Both women were pregnant at the time and upon Mary’s arrival, John, within his mother’s womb, “leaped” within Elizabeth when she heard Mary’s voice. (Luke 2:41) Elizabeth told Mary of John’s reaction, asked how it was possible the “mother of my Lord” would visit her (Luke 2:43), and told her all that the Lord had told Mary would be fulfilled. Earlier in chapter 2, Luke recorded the angel’s announcement to Mary that she would become pregnant and have a son. This son “will be called the Son of God.” (Luke 2:35b)

The Testimony of God the Father

God himself specifically identified Jesus as his Son at both his baptism and transfiguration. At his baptism, Mark records that when Jesus came up out of the water, a voice from heaven said, “You are my beloved Son; I take delight in You!” (Mark 1:10-11)

Matthew documents the transfiguration of Jesus in chapter 17. While gathered high on a mountain with Peter, James and John, Jesus was transformed in front of them. Moses and Elijah also appeared. “While he was still speaking suddenly a bright cloud covered them, and a voice from the cloud said: This is My beloved Son. I take delight in Him. Listen to Him!” (Matt 17: 1-5)

Conclusion

While Christmas, and all its trappings that deviate so far from the whole event at the root of the holiday, is in the review mirror of life for another year, Jesus’ question is still in front of us. Who do you say he is? Peter and so much of scripture provide the right answer–Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God. I will argue there is then a follow-up question of equal importance–what are you going to do with that answer?

Are you going to respond to his invitation to repent and follow him? Will you accept the fact that he has stood in your place, taking the just wrath of God as penalty for your sin on your behalf? Will you submit to him and enjoy forever a right relationship with the one and only true God? It is my prayer that you will. If you have questions about becoming a follower of Jesus, please go to Bellator Christi’s main menu and click on the “How to Become a Christian” tab.

References:

[i] Chad Brand, Charles Draper, and Archie England, eds., Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN.: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 248.

From Gangs to the Gospel: An Inside Look at the Faith Journey of Ruslan KD

Podcast

Where do you go to find good Christian commentary on current events happening in pop-culture? YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, and other social media channels have created an almost endless online space for Christians to defend the faith and weigh in on cultural issues. But what has been the overall impact of Christian content creation and are most Christian content creators using their influence in a way that truly gives glory to God?

This week, Frank sits down with one of today’s most well-known and relatable Christian YouTubers, Ruslan KD. A refugee from Baku, Azerbaijan, Ruslan moved to the U.S. as a child and over the years slowly made the transition from being a troubled gang member to a devout follower of Jesus Christ. Covering a variety of topics from pop culture, to theology, apologetics, and even politics, Ruslan’s down-to-earth content has helped him gain a massive following, attracting Christians and non-Christians from all walks of life. During their conversation, Frank and Ruslan will answer questions like:

How did Ruslan transition from atheism to Christianity and what did his overall faith journey look like?
What makes Greg Laurie stand out as one of Ruslan’s favorite past guests?
How and why did Ruslan make the transition from a successful Hip Hop artist to a successful Christian YouTuber (seemingly overnight)?
Why is Ruslan such a big fan of the Joe Rogan podcast?
How is the current moral decline we see happening in culture leading more people to Christ?
What advice does Ruslan have to offer for Christian content creators?

As Ruslan shares his story, you’ll get the inside scoop (along with some shocking details) on his past traumas, and how all of this (plus an apologetics book recommendation) ultimately led him to lean into the good news of the Gospel. Regardless of your faith or cultural background, Ruslan will offer you a fresh perspective on trending topics that’s grounded in compassion and biblical truth. And be sure to subscribe to Ruslan’s YouTube channel for more cultural commentary from a Christian worldview!

You can also SUPPORT THE PODCAST HERE.

Follow Ruslan KD on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@RuslanKD

Book Ruslan for a speaking event: https://www.kingsdreament.com/booking

Download Transcript

February 23, 2024/by Frank Turek

A Christian Response to a Viral Deconversion Post

1. Does Truth Exist?, 2. Does God Exist?, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Natasha Crain

Social media has been a popular place to share deconversion stories over the last few years, and sometimes so many people resonate with those posts that they go viral to some extent (being liked and shared by thousands of people).

There’s one that’s being shared all over Facebook right now, written this week by a lady named Myndee Mack. At the time of this writing, it has 8,000+ likes/loves, 7,000+ comments, and over 3,000+ shares. Clearly, Myndee’s post is compelling to many.

I’d like to offer a response.

While it’s possible Myndee will come across this article, I’m not writing it primarily for her, but rather for the thousands of people who find her post to be a compelling assessment of Christianity and for Christians whose friends are sharing it and want to have a thoughtful response to share. The reason I say I’m not writing it primarily for her is that a one-on-one response would be more relational and personal in nature and tone—like a letter. My purpose here is to help those challenged by her words with a more direct response to the reasoning and theological clarity/accuracy of what she wrote.

“I used to be Christian. I prayed without ceasing. I spent time in the word. I asked. I sought. I knocked until my knuckles bled. My heart was pure. My faith was at least as strong as a mustard seed. I went to Christian elementary school. I prayed the sinners prayer at 6 years old. I would beg my mom to take me to church. I had pages and pages of notes from sermons and from my own studies. I hosted women’s groups. I went to Bible college. I attended church retreats from childhood all the way through young adulthood. I taught at children’s church. I believed I was a sinner in need of a savior, and I accepted Jesus as that savior.”

Myndee sets up her post by making it clear she wasn’t a new Christian rejecting her faith. She wants us to know that she has spent many years involved with the church and presumably seeking God. We have no information on what kind of churches she was part of (certainly something I’d be curious to know about if I met her in person), but the main point here seems to be that she doesn’t want the reader to be dismissive of her.

And I think it’s important to not be.

Don’t be Dismissive

Christians often are dismissive of deconversion stories, saying, “If they walked away, they weren’t truly saved anyway.” Regardless of your view of the assurance of salvation, this is not a helpful response. When people have genuine questions and struggles that they share, we should be ready and willing to offer answers both for them and for those looking on across social media.

That said, I can’t help but note a brief sentence in here that relates to much of what she goes on to write regarding the nature of sin: “My heart was pure.” From a biblical perspective, no one’s heart is “pure.” More on that shortly.

“I was also trapped in a vicious cycle of self hatred, shame, guilt, and repentance. Bible verses such as ‘your heart is deceitful and desperately wicked’ combined with ‘you are fearfully and wonderfully made’ gave me spiritual whiplash.”

Conflicting Scripture?

It’s quite easy to pull any two verses out of the Bible and think they are in conflict if you aren’t looking at them in the context of the whole. The same could be said for virtually any book in the world. In this case, there’s a very important distinction that is missing between being fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14) and having a deceitful and wicked heart (Jeremiah 17:9). The fact that we are “fearfully and wonderfully made” is a statement about our design and value: We are not the process of blind, purposeless chance, but rather a purposeful creation who has been given value by our creator—even made in His very image (Genesis 1:27). The fact that we have a “wicked heart” is a statement about the moral choices we are inclined to make. Anyone who is a parent can look at a child and agree that they are extraordinarily valuable and they make bad choices. It’s the same with every human. This isn’t a matter for “spiritual whiplash” once you understand the crucial that distinction between value and morality.

The Vicious Cycle

Furthermore, it’s likely that this conflation of value and morality led to the “vicious cycle” she felt of self-hatred, shame, guilt, and repentance. Knowing that you are inclined toward sin should not cause you to hate yourself. The Bible is clear on our value as image bearers. God so loved His creation that He gave His one and only Son to die for us. We should value ourselves as highly as God values us.

But God is also holy and just. When we sin—transgress a moral law—we rightly feel guilty because we are guilty. If someone intentionally kills an innocent human being, most people would say that person should feel guilty because they did something that is objectively wrong; guilt is not a bad thing, it’s a healthy thing that signifies a functioning conscience. It draws us to repentance, both to the person(s) wronged and toward God.

Therefore, sin, guilt, and repentance are not a vicious cycle. Sin is an ongoing reality in a fallen world, guilt is an appropriate response when we’ve done something wrong (against God’s standards), and repentance leads us back to God. As Christians, we should then accept that Jesus has forgiven us. Self-hatred is not a biblical part of that equation.

“I was taught Romans 8:38-39 and warned of the perils of backsliding all in the same sermon. The thought of somehow committing the unforgivable sin (blasphemy of the Holy Spirit) haunted my mind.”

Beware of Backsliding

Romans 8:38-39 is talking about how nothing can separate us from the love of God in Jesus. In context, Paul is saying that no one can bring a charge against God’s chosen people because it is God who justifies; no matter what happens on Earth, we are “more than conquerors” because nothing can separate us from the Lord. This is a statement about what’s true for those who are saved. While Christians have different views on the assurance of salvation, even for those who believe you can lose your salvation, this is not a contradiction with Romans 8:38-39. If you could “backslide” to a point where you have lost salvation, those verses would simply no longer apply to the unsaved person. It’s a different audience.

“Though I believed [in Christ] with every fiber of my being, I suffered from anxiety, self-loathing and a crippling fear of death. I longed to forge genuine connections with my church family but when I tried to open up about my fears and confusion, I was told I just needed to have more faith. When I had theological questions that made other leaders uncomfortable, I was dismissed if not outright ostracized.”

Just have more Faith!?

If it’s true that Myndee raised her fears and confusions with her church family and was met by dismissal, it’s incredibly sad. Certainly, I’ve seen Christians tell people who have questions to just have more faith, and that’s a terrible response. Biblical faith is confident trust based on who God is. If someone doesn’t understand why there’s good reason to be confident in the existence or identity of God, telling them to just trust more without giving them reason for a confident foundation from which to trust is not the solution.

I only say “if it’s true” because I do think it’s become a bit of a script for many who deconvert to say that no one would or could answer their questions. Did they ask one person? Five? Anyone outside their own church? Read books? There’s no way to know for any individual, but if you’re genuinely seeking truth, you should be seeking answers in many places. There are numerous resources available.

“My hunger and thirst for righteousness went unquenched. Those who claimed to be the hands and feet of Jesus showed me how they weaponized the Bible for their own gain.”

Weaponized Bible

It’s impossible to know what she has in mind about weaponizing the Bible, but today people often claim the Bible is being weaponized any time a Christian shares truth people don’t like. For example, if you say that God made two genders (and you can’t change those genders), you will be accused of “weaponizing the Bible.” If the Bible is truly God’s Word, that’s not using it as a weapon. It’s sharing truth. (Of course, truth should be shared in a gracious way.)

However, it’s possible Myndee grew up in a church that truly did weaponize the Bible in an abusive sense. If that’s the case, again, it’s awful. However, we have to recognize that we can’t blame God when people misuse His Word. We must seek to know if the Bible is true regardless of those abuses.

“My traumas and mental health issues were blamed on the devil, and I was made to feel as though I wasn’t Christian enough because of my struggles that, ironically, stemmed mostly from Christian teachings.”

Mishandling Mental Health

From a biblical perspective, mental health challenges can be part of both a spiritual and physical battle. There’s no way to diagnose this particular situation without knowing the specifics (and even if you knew some specifics, no one could definitively claim that x part is spiritual and y part is physical). But if her struggles were truly stemming from her response to “Christian teachings,” there are a couple of points that should be made.

First, how we feel in response to reality doesn’t determine what is reality. If we feel traumatized by the idea of hell, for example, that has no bearing on whether hell is real. So claiming trauma from biblical teachings is not inherently a statement about whether those teachings are true. Christians shouldn’t feel traumatized by a theologically accurate understanding of God’s judgment (there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus—Romans 8:1), but however a person does feel does not determine what’s true.

Second, sometimes people may feel the kind of trauma she’s talking about in response to a misunderstanding of biblical truth. If she felt self-hatred (as she mentioned previously) because she didn’t have a theologically accurate understanding of the value-morality distinction, that’s not the fault of what the Bible teaches. It’s a tragic misunderstanding on her own part that was never clarified by further study or other Christians.

“I was doing my best to maintain a good, close, loving relationship with the god of the Christian Bible. I wanted nothing more than that. To abandon myself. To die so he might live in me. What I was actually doing was denying my own compassion, my own intuition, which was objectively more righteous than a God who murders entire civilizations (the children too) and sends his own creation to hell for what can only be described as a design flaw. One the designer, the creator, is ultimately responsible for.”

More Righteous than God!?

This is quite the statement. She claims that her own compassion and intuition (moral intuition, presumably) are more righteous than that of the biblical God. She even states that this is objectively so! Yet where does she get the objective basis for her morality if God doesn’t exist? If there is no God, the universe is the product of blind, purposeless chance, and there is no such thing as an objective right or wrong. Without a higher-than-human moral authority and lawgiver, there is no objective moral law. The compassion she praises herself for is meaningless in such a world—it would simply be a function of evolutionary survival mechanisms, not of an actual moral nature (and therefore would not be praiseworthy!).

The same goes for the moral intuition she claims. If God doesn’t exist, that intuition is an evolutionary delusion brought upon the human species by time and chance. There is no objective morality to have moral intuitions about if there is no God. She claims her morality is objectively superior, but she has no objective standard if God doesn’t exist. And if a god does exist but hasn’t revealed himself, she still can’t claim to have knowledge of what objective standards this hypothetical god put in place—he didn’t reveal anything!

She then says that God “murders” entire civilizations. First, this isn’t morally wrong (as she clearly assumes) if there is no moral law giver. Second, she misses the distinction between murder (the unjustified taking of innocent human life) and killing (any taking of life). Most people recognize that killing in self-defense is not considered murder. Some would say that killing in the context of a just war isn’t either. And some would say neither is the death penalty.

Not all killing is murder. For God to murder people would mean He was unjustified in taking their lives. When God commands the killing of people in the Bible, however, it’s clearly because of judgment that He, as the all-knowing and perfectly just God of the universe, had the knowledge, nature, and right to make.

Free Will, a Design Flaw?

She then goes on to again confuse creation with our ability to make moral choices. Free will is a feature, not a bug, in God’s design of the human being. If we didn’t have the ability to make morally significant choices, we would be robots incapable of being in relationship with Him, which was His purpose in our creation. If we use our free will to reject God and His offer of forgiveness for sin, we will be subject to judgment because He is a holy and just God. Just as it’s not loving to let criminals go free in earthly justice systems, it’s not loving to let moral law breakers (every human) to go free in the “cosmic” justice system. But in God’s love, He paid the penalty for us. We simply have to accept His gift of Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross.

“Then one day, I could deny and ignore it no longer. The Christian god delights in violence. The Christian church caused me more harm than good.”

If you read the Old Testament, God does not delight in violence. He is a patient God who seeks the heart and repentance of His people.

Also, harm and good are two terms that require an objective basis for meaningful definition. A person’s subjective feelings of what is harmful or helpful, good or bad, and right or wrong do not define what is objectively true.

“In getting away from it, I found the peace that passes all understanding. I am now immersed with love, with grace, with joy. I have found freedom in what others call “witchcraft”. I don’t worship the moon or my crystals. My Tarot cards are not a god to me. I respectfully utilize these things to help me connect to myself and to this beautiful world I get to be a part of and share with my fellow humans. I don’t care if Tarot or Reiki or Buddhism or Christianity is real. I care if it is helpful.”

Utility over Truth

This says everything. As I have pointed out multiple times here, nothing she has said so far has had anything to do with what is true or real. A skeptical reader might say that “of course” she had already decided that Christianity is false, and she’s just telling us more about her journey—that it goes without saying that truth mattered. But that’s simply not the case for many people today, and she says it explicitly here: “I don’t care…if Christianity is real.” The motto of so many people who have deconstructed or deconverted is what they subjectively find helpful. The nature of truth is rarely considered.

If you’re reading this and don’t know what you believe, please consider that what you find helpful may or may not be true, and believing what is false but subjectively helpful in your own estimation can have serious consequences for your life now and for eternity. I might find it helpful to my peace of mind if someone came and told me that I will never have a car accident, so I can drive however I want. But if that’s not true, it doesn’t matter how much peace and joy the falsity provided. I’ll die in a car accident if I’m not driving with care.

What’s real matters.

About that Witchcraft . . .

Additionally, if the “witchcraft” she does has an actual consequence in the world because she is tapping into the demonic, she should recognize that this, indeed, is real. And if witchcraft is real, that means the supernatural is real. And if the supernatural is real, that should point her to the existence of God and ultimately back to the Bible, which explains exactly who is behind the witchcraft (Satan) and the role he plays in reality.

On the other hand, if the “witchcraft” does nothing, there’s no reason to do it at all. But I’m guessing she finds it appealing because witchcraft gives a person methods for attempting to exhibit control over the universe. If she struggled with feeling a lack of control under the sovereignty of a God she believed to be murderous and horrible, it would make sense she would try to regain control in her next belief system. But again, if it actually does something, that should point her back to a supernatural worldview in which God exists.

“I don’t care what your doctrine is, I care what kind of impact you make on the world around you. I care more about your mental and emotional health than whether or not you believe the ‘right’ thing.”

Truth-Neutral Living

Well, you might not care about what people believe, but again, this has no bearing on what’s true about the world. If there’s a God who created this incredible universe and every human being, then He is the only one with the rightful authority to say what matters and what doesn’t. The Bible is very clear from beginning to end that what people believe about God matters. There are right and wrong beliefs, and they have significant consequences. And when people do live according to right beliefs about who God is, who we are, what our relationship is, what’s required of us, and more, that flows into a true peace that surpasses all understanding.

This doesn’t mean a Christian won’t have any mental and emotional struggles, however. Counseling and sometimes medication are important for dealing with the kinds of challenges we encounter in this world. That’s a different question than whether or not doctrine matters.

“If being on the inside of Christianity helps you be a better, more whole human, I want that for you. I want whatever brings peace to your soul. Despite life’s turmoil, my soul is more at peace and I am a better human, both internally and externally, outside of Christianity.”

You do You

Again, it doesn’t matter what you want for someone. See answer above—the same logic applies. It’s what God wants for us. It’s how God defines what is better or worse. It’s who God thinks we are when we are most wholly human.

You might use your own definition of “better” to conclude you are a better human outside of Christianity, but if God disagrees, you’re in an infinitely worse place.

“Outside of Christianity, there is no more “us vs. them” or “wheat vs. chaff” for I see that we are all one under this universe. We are all made of stardust, here for a short time and instead of wasting my life dying to myself to try to please an angry, jealous god whose wrath could not be appeased outside the brutal murder of his own son, I spend my time building genuine connections and embodying love.”

If there is no God, she’s right that we’re made of material stuff alone, with no inherent value, and with no objective meaning of life. But if that’s truly the picture of the world we live in, she has no objective basis for claiming God is morally wrong, her “genuine connections” are with other groups of stardust with no actual value, and the love she is “embodying” is just a bunch of chemical reactions. Those are consistent truths with the worldview that we’re all just stardust and nothing more.

But it’s important to note that she simultaneously misconstrues the claims of Christianity here. Again, murder is the unjustified taking of an innocent human life. If you understand Christian doctrine, you know that the Trinity is God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—three persons, one nature. Jesus is God. He laid down His own life (John 10:17-18). Out of His love for us, He took the punishment for sin and offered us eternal life. Her description here is a complete mischaracterization and misunderstanding of this beautiful truth from our all-loving and perfectly just God.

“If you are worried about my eternal state, don’t be. If the god of the Bible is the loving god Christians claim he is, then [He] will meet me where I am. He will allow me to walk the path that helps me be a better human and live a life without anxiety and self-loathing. That god will understand my plight and accept my inability to accept a doctrine that has caused me irreparable harm. And if you think the god you believe in will say to me ‘depart from me, I never knew you’ when my time on earth is through, that’s not a god I’d want to spend eternity with anyway.”

It’s quite presumptuous to assume that the God of the universe will “meet you where you are,” when by that you mean He’ll accept whatever decisions you make as right for you. If He has already given us a Bible to tell us what we need to know so that we can meet Him where He requires, that’s the standard to which we’ll be held. The Bible explicitly and repeatedly tells us not to be anxious (e.g., Matthew 6:27). And as I already explained, we aren’t to be self-loathing.

It’s truly sad that the theological misunderstandings she has about God have led her to hate Him so much that even if He were real and the Bible were true, she claims she wouldn’t want to be with Him anyway. Theology matters. It’s the difference between someone longing to be with the God who loves them and someone longing to reject the God whom they hate based on an errant understanding of His Word.

All of this begs the question of what is actually true. Unfortunately, the most viral social media posts are rarely about seeking truth. They’re about people’s experiences and emotional responses to those experiences. Experiences and responses aren’t unimportant; they’re part of life. But they don’t determine what’s true. That’s why it’s so important for Christians to have an understanding of apologetics (the case for and the defense of the truth of Christianity). In a world that no longer even asks what’s true, we have to be able to show that’s still the pertinent question…and then demonstrate the Bible is truly God’s Word.

The Middle Ear

The Inner Ear

The Sense of Hearing

A Masterpiece of Engineering

Footnotes:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Respect the Context

All to God’s Glory

Hints at the Trinity

Sacrifice and Submission

The Meaning of Head Coverings

Paul Was Teaching About Dignified Femininity Not About Fashion

References:

Recommended Resources On This Topic

Introduction

The Image of God

Human Sinfulness

Denying Both?

Should Theology Judge Science?

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Jesus’s Two Questions

The Question of the Populace’s Belief in Jesus’s Identity

The Question of the Disciples’ Belief in Jesus’s Identity

How the Bible Answers the Questions

The Testimony of Jesus

The Testimony of John the Baptist

The Testimony of God the Father

Conclusion

References:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic: