By Jonathan McLatchie
The principle of undesignedness was first identified by the famed Christian philosopher William Paley (1743-1805), in his book Horae Paulinae. Therein, he highlighted example after example of undesigned integrations between the epistles of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles. The principle of undesignedness refers to cases where two or more sources dovetail with each other in a manner that cannot be attributed to the design of the author. In 1850, J.J. Blunt published his book Undesigned Scriptural Coincidences, in which he took Paley’s argument further, documenting examples in the Old Testament, as well as between the gospels, and between the gospels, Acts, and Josephus. The principle of undesignedness is a forgotten but brilliant argument which can be used to corroborate Biblical history. In this article, I want to consider a few examples of undesigned coincidences in the Old Testament. In a subsequent article, I will discuss examples of undesigned coincidences in the New Testament.
Why Does Ahithophel Turn on David?
2 Samuel 15 details the story of King David’s son Absalom conspiring against his own Father. In verses 7-12, we read,
And at the end of four years Absalom said to the king, “Please let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed to the Lord, in Hebron. For your servant vowed a vow while I lived at Geshur in Aram, saying, ‘If the Lord will indeed bring me back to Jerusalem, then I will offer worship to the Lord.’” The king said to him, “Go in peace.” So he arose and went to Hebron. But Absalom sent secret messengers throughout all the tribes of Israel, saying, “As soon as you hear the sound of the trumpet, then say, ‘Absalom is king at Hebron!’” With Absalom went two hundred men from Jerusalem who were invited guests, and they went in their innocence and knew nothing. And while Absalom was offering the sacrifices, he sent for Ahithophel the Gilonite, David’s counselor, from his city Giloh. And the conspiracy grew strong, and the people with Absalom kept increasing.
In verse 12, Absalom sends for Ahithophel, David’s counselor. Who is this man, Ahithophel? According to 2 Samuel 16:23:
Now in those days the counsel that Ahithophel gave was as if one consulted the word of God; so was all the counsel of Ahithophel esteemed, both by David and by Absalom.
Ahithophel, then, was the most trusted adviser to King David. Why, then, did Absalom count on Ahithophel to join him in conspiring against the King?
In 2 Samuel 23, in a completely unrelated part of the text, we have an important clue. Verses 24-39 list the thirty-seven body guards of King David. In verse 39, we have a familiar name – Uriah the Hittite, the husband of Bathsheba. Another individual mentioned is Eliam the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite (verse 34). This means that Ahithophel’s son was a colleague of Uriah the Hittite.
It gets even more interesting when we look over at 2 Samuel 11, in which we read of David’s adultery with Bathsheba and his murder of her husband, Uriah the Hittite. Here is what we read in verses 2-3:
It happened, late one afternoon, when David arose from his couch and was walking on the roof of the king’s house, that he saw from the roof a woman bathing; and the woman was very beautiful. And David sent and inquired about the woman. And one said, “Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?
Thus, it appears that Bathsheba was the granddaughter of Ahithophel, David’s counselor, and her father Eliam himself was among the King’s body guards along with Bathsheba’s husband Uriah. This then explains why Absalom in chapter 15 expected Ahithophel to be ready to conspire against King David and why Ahithophel joined Absalom’s rebellion. He wanted revenge on David for what he had done to Bathsheba and Uriah.
But it gets even more interesting. Flip over to chapter 16 and verses 20-22:
Then Absalom said to Ahithophel, “Give your counsel. What shall we do?” Ahithophel said to Absalom, “Go in to your father’s concubines, whom he has left to keep the house, and all Israel will hear that you have made yourself a stench to your father, and the hands of all who are with you will be strengthened.” So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the roof. And Absalom went in to his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel.
Why do they pitch a tent for Absalom on the roof so that he can sleep with his father’s concubines? It was on the roof that David’s eye first caught Bathsheba bathing, resulting in his adulterous affair and his murder of her husband Uriah. Her grandfather Ahithophel then seeks revenge, and so encourages Absalom to sleep with his father’s concubines on the roof of the palace.
Now, note that it was only by putting together different, seemingly unrelated, parts of the text that we were able to arrive at these explanations. Nowhere in Scripture is it explicitly spelled out that Ahithophel was the grandfather of Bathsheba. Rather, one has to do detective work in order to see beneath the surface what exactly is going on here.
This is not the sort of pattern that one might expect in stories of myth and legend. Rather, it is the hallmark of truth.
Example #2: Hezekiah’s Treasury
For our second example, turn over to Isaiah 38, in which we read of King Hezekiah’s illness and recovery. In Isaiah 39, we have an account of envoys coming from Babylon to congratulate King Hezekiah on his recovery. There is a parallel account of those events in 2 Kings 20 which appear to be textually dependent on Isaiah (or vice versa). Here is the account in Isaiah 39:1-2:
At that time Merodach-baladan the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent envoys with letters and a present to Hezekiah, for he heard that he had been sick and had recovered. And Hezekiah welcomed them gladly. And he showed them his treasure house, the silver, the gold, the spices, the precious oil, his whole armory, all that was found in his storehouses. There was nothing in his house or in all his realm that Hezekiah did not show them.
Thus, we learn, King Hezekiah proudly showed the Babylonian envoys his great riches in his treasure house. Hezekiah’s pride brings upon him a prophecy of judgment. In verses 3-7, we read:
Then Isaiah the prophet came to King Hezekiah, and said to him, “What did these men say? And from where did they come to you?” Hezekiah said, “They have come to me from a far country, from Babylon.” He said, “What have they seen in your house?” Hezekiah answered, “They have seen all that is in my house. There is nothing in my storehouses that I did not show them.” Then Isaiah said to Hezekiah, “Hear the word of the Lord of hosts: Behold, the days are coming, when all that is in your house, and that which your fathers have stored up till this day, shall be carried to Babylon. Nothing shall be left, says the Lord. And some of your own sons, who will come from you, whom you will father, shall be taken away, and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.
King Hezekiah selfishly is relieved at the prophecy, thinking to himself that at least “There will be peace and security in my days” (verse 8).
Both the account of this event that we read in Isaiah and that in 2 Kings imply that Hezekiah fell ill at the time of the invasion by Sennacherib of Judah and before the outcome of that invasion. In both accounts, God promises Hezekiah that he will live and that God will deliver the city from the Assyrians (Isaiah 38:6; 2 Kings 20:6). Thus, the envoys arrived from Babylon after his recovery, and after the danger from Assyria had been averted.
Now let’s consider another text in 2 Kings 18:13-16:
In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and took them. And Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria at Lachish, saying, “I have done wrong; withdraw from me. Whatever you impose on me I will bear.” And the king of Assyria required of Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. And Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the house of the Lord and in the treasuries of the king’s house. At that time Hezekiah stripped the gold from the doors of the temple of the Lord and from the doorposts that Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid and gave it to the king of Assyria.
Wait a minute. So Hezekiah has just made this humiliating tribute to the king of Assyria, having had to offer him “all of the silver that was found in the house of the Lord and in the treasures of the king’s house” and even being reduced to stripping the gold from the doors of the temple and from the doorposts. How then was he able not long after this humiliation to show all of his riches of his treasury to the Babylonian envoys? One could write it off as a contradiction, or we could dig deeper to find the solution – and in so-doing uncover another remarkable undesigned coincidence.
For the solution, let us now turn to 2 Chronicles. 2 Chronicles contains the account of the destruction of Sennacherib’s army by the miraculous intervention of the angel of the Lord (which is also found in Isaiah and 2 Kings albeit in different wording and terminology from the account in 2 Chronicles). After these events, 2 Chronicles throws in a unique detail in 32:23:
And many brought gifts to the Lord to Jerusalem and precious things to Hezekiah king of Judah, so that he was exalted in the sight of all nations from that time onward.
Therein lies our answer. This explains how Hezekiah came to have a full treasury to show off to the Babylonian envoys by the time the Babylonians learned of his recovery. No mention is made of the humiliating tribute to the Assyrians in 2 Chronicles. 2 Kings does mention the humiliating tribute and him showing off his treasury shortly thereafter to the Babylonian envoys, but makes no mention of the gifts that replenished the treasury. Isaiah makes no mention of the tribute or the gifts but mentions his display of his great wealth.
This undesigned coincidence corroborates the historical veracity of these events and also strongly suggests that one of our authors (i.e. either Isaiah or the author of 2 Kings) had access to the court of Hezekiah, and thus knew about the visit of the Babylonian envoys.
Example #3: The Uniformity of Expressive Silence
Another sort of undesignedness can sometimes arise when we examine cases where information is assumed by the author although not explicitly spelled out – this may be called the uniformity of expressive silence – repeated omissions that have a meaning. Here, I give an example of this from the book of Genesis.
Genesis 24 narrates the story of Abraham’s servant’s journey to the city of Nahor in Mesopotamia in search of a wife for Isaac. He encounters “Rebekah, who was born to Bethuel the son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother,” who “came out with her water jar on her shoulder.” Abraham’s servant requests a drink of water from the jar. Rebekah gives him some water and also some for his camels to drink. In verses 22-28, we read what happened next:
When the camels had finished drinking, the man took a gold ring weighing a half shekel, and two bracelets for her arms weighing ten gold shekels, and said, “Please tell me whose daughter you are. Is there room in your father’s house for us to spend the night?” She said to him, “I am the daughter of Bethuel the son of Milcah, whom she bore to Nahor.” She added, “We have plenty of both straw and fodder, and room to spend the night.” The man bowed his head and worshiped the Lord and said, “Blessed be the Lord, the God of my master Abraham, who has not forsaken his steadfast love and his faithfulness toward my master. As for me, the Lord has led me in the way to the house of my master’s kinsmen.” Then the young woman ran and told her mother’s household about these things.
The point to which I wish to draw attention is the consistent insignificance of Bethuel throughout the narrative. Bethuel was the father of Rebekah, and thus it is reasonable to expect that the terms of a marriage contract would be stipulated by him. Indeed, in the case of Laban in Genesis 29 in regards to his disposing of a daughter in marriage – a daughter who, like Rebecca, had brothers (see Genesis 31:1) – the active party throughout the account is the father, Laban.
Contrast this with the case of Bethuel in our current text in Genesis 24. Abraham’s servant had asked her, “Please tell me whose daughter you are. Is there room in your father’s house for us to spend the night?” (verse 23). We are then told, however, that “the young woman ran and told her mother’s household about these things,” (Genesis 24:28). Notice we are not told that she ran to her father’s household (as Rachel did in Genesis 29:12 after meeting Jacob), but rather she ran to her mother’s household. Verse 29 further informs us, “Rebekah had a brother whose name was Laban. Laban ran out toward the man, to the spring.”
After having been invited into the house by Laban, the servant explains the purpose of his visit (verses 34-49). In verse 50, we read, “Then Laban and Bethuel answered and said…” The mention of Bethuel constitutes the only proof that he was alive at the time of this incident. It is agreed that the servant may “take her and go, and let her be the wife of your master’s son, as the Lord has spoken” (verse 51).
The servant then gives gifts, we are told, “to Rebekah” and “to her brother and to her mother,” (verse 53). Curiously, no gifts are given to Bethuel, it would seem. In verse 55, we read, “Her brother and her mother said, ‘Let the young woman remain with us a while, at least ten days; after that she may go.’” It would seem expected that such a proposal would be made by her father. Instead, it is made by her mother and brother. After inquiring of Rebekah, it is decided that she would leave with the servant after all (verses 58-61).
Abraham’s son Isaac marries Rebekah, and together they have a son called Jacob (Genesis 25:26). After Jacob deceives his father Isaac into blessing him rather than Esau, the eldest (Genesis 27), Rebekah counsels Jacob to flee because Esau planned to kill him, Along his journey, he encounters some shepherds and asks them “Do you know Laban the son of Nahor?” (Genesis 29:5). This is strange, because Laban was the son of Bethuel and only the grandson of Nahor. Yet, again, we see Bethuel passed over as an individual considered of no importance among his own family. Bethuel’s own son, therefore, is identified by the name of his grandfather rather than his father.
We cannot state the specific circumstances surrounding Bethuel or explain exactly why he was a man considered of no note. Who knows? Perhaps he was considered incapable of managing his own affairs due to age or imbecility. Whatever the reason, Scripture does not tell us. However, the lack of concurrence in a positive fact but silent presumption of that same fact suggests that the author knew something more than we do about the circumstances than he discloses in his account thereof. It is the sort of pattern we expect in real history, but not the sort of pattern we should expect from works of fiction.
Conclusion
Many further examples could be given in the Old Testament, but I hope that these three examples suffice to show how this argument can be wielded to corroborate Biblical history. In part 2, we will consider examples of undesigned coincidences in the New Testament.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3PRQqMQ
Darkroom Faith | with Mary Jo Sharp
PodcastMany people take antidepressants because they have been led to believe their depression is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain. But a recent study suggests that “there is no convincing evidence that depression is associated with, or caused by, lower serotonin concentrations or activity.”
So, if a chemical imbalance isn’t the problem, why does it seem like our society is slowly spiraling into a perpetual state of doom? We keep seeing rising rates of suicide, drug use, depression, anxiety, and other indicators of unhappiness–especially in teenagers and young adults. Could it be that we have a WORLDVIEW imbalance? After all, if we’re going to believe that there is no God and life has no meaning, might that cause us to be a bit depressed?
To help turn the tide, Mary Jo Sharp, a former atheist who is now an assistant professor of apologetics at Houston Baptist University, has helped put together a 14-episode video series and curriculum called Darkroom to give teens (age 13-17) the OK for expressing their doubts and questions about the Christian worldview in a safe environment. This million-dollar curriculum is available for FREE online for church leaders, youth ministers, parents, and anyone seeking to lead and engage students in discussions on 14 key issues of faith using materials that are sure to hold their attention.
Some of the topics addressed in this Gen-Z narrative-driven curriculum include:
Mary Jo, author of ‘Why I Still Believe‘ and several other books, is a clear communicator with a heart for people. She talks with Frank about her fascinating journey from atheist to assistant professor of apologetics and the importance of being able to ask questions (especially at a young age) when experiencing doubt in the Christian faith. During the last part of the show, Frank also answers listener questions on the topics of animal suffering, inalienable rights, theocracy, God’s morality, and Hell.
Darkroom curriculum: DarkRoomFaith.com
Mary Jo’s website: MaryJoSharp.com
Contact Mary Jo: https://bit.ly/3b89CY7
If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.
Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
¿Tienes fe?
EspañolBy Al Serrato
Sitting in traffic the other day, I once again saw the bumper sticker “Do you have faith?” It’s catchy, in a way, and in this day and age of catchphrases, I can guess why people find it useful. Maybe it’s a good discussion-generator, a way to invite a question or an answer. But Christians should be careful to understand the unintended effect that words like “faith” have on those whose worldview is intentionally secular.
When we borrow the famous milk ad for a slogan, we risk reducing faith to a commodity, like milk. Yes, we need it, and we can acquire it, and if we do, other things in life can be better, like the way cookies taste better with milk. But is faith a commodity we can acquire? Or is it something all of us already have? Something we already make use of?
I recently spoke to an atheist friend about these ideas. She told me that in her view, faith and reason are opposites. Faith, she said, means accepting things you can’t understand or explain, and reason, by contrast, is the opposite, accepting only things you can understand and explain. With this worldview, she will never be open to considering God, because, by her definition, attempting to do so would be unreasonable. Those who “have faith” can take comfort, but they have nothing to say to her. In fact, when she thinks about it, she feels a little sorry for the “faithful,” because they have stuck their heads in the sand. They may feel safe and warm, she accepts that, but the price of “not seeing things as they really are” is too high.
A more productive approach might be to point out to the secularist that she, too, is using “faith,” and to consider whose faith has a more rational basis. The first step, of course, is to clear up this misunderstanding about what “faith” really means. I would suggest a definition of “faith” as the act of trusting in something that cannot be known with complete certainty. It contains part action—trust—and part standard of proof, for lack of a better term—the degree of certainty you give to your conclusion. Contrary to my secular friend’s view, the opposite of faith is not reason, but disbelief. In other words, to lack faith in something is to believe that what is posited is not in fact true, that it does not fit with the way things really are. I have no “faith” that positive thinking will always enable me to achieve my goals. It doesn’t hurt to practice positive thinking, of course, but I don’t actively trust that things will actually work out that way. In some cases, lacking faith would mean going too far, believing that the opposite is probably true. I lack faith in my ability to jump over a tall building because I know the opposite is true.
Reason, by contrast, is not an act of trust; it is an act of thought, a process by which we arrive at conclusions based on the evaluation of the evidence we receive through our senses. It can be inductive or deductive; it can be sound or fallacious. But ultimately it is nothing more than a tool that we have access to through the use of our minds, just like the tool of sight, or hearing, or the acquisition of language. These things are simply available to any human being with a normally functioning mind. The opposite of reason is not faith, it is irrationality. If I conclude, for example, that a set of feathered wings will enable me to take flight, I am proceeding irrationally because the available evidence establishes that this simply cannot work, no matter how much “trust” I may wish to place in what I am attempting.
Far from being opposites, then, reason and faith coexist on a continuum, with knowledge moving from things that are definitively known through observable evidence (confidence with high certainty), to things that are not definitively known but are very likely to be true (confidence with less certainty), to matters that are entirely speculative and can only be taken “on faith” (confidence with little or no support). So faith in God, like any other conclusion a person comes to, is always a product of reason, because reason is simply the only way anyone can come to a conclusion. What distinguishes sound faith from foolish faith is the strength of the evidence supporting the conclusion and the validity of the reasoning process that was used.
Let’s apply this criterion to a real-world example – say a wife wonders if her husband is worthy of her trust. Since she can’t be with him all the time, she can’t know for sure if he’s cheating on her. But she’s not totally without evidence either. You wouldn’t tell her that she simply has “faith,” as if she had no reason for her beliefs. Rather, you’d look at that situation as a continuum of knowledge. In other words, her “faith” may be solidly based on the available evidence, as in the situation where, through long-term observation and knowledge of her husband’s character, belief system, and behavior, she can be confident in placing her trust. Or her “faith” may be foolish – as in the situation where the husband claims to be faithful but has shown through his past behavior and comments that he’s not likely to resist the temptation to stray. This example shows two things: one, that faith is something we all use, even without necessarily thinking about it, because as limited beings we can’t know everything for certain; and two, that the certainty of one’s faith depends on the facts and foundations that support it. In this example, one bases her faith on logic and reason, while the other maintains her faith in spite of logic and reason.
Faith and reason are not inherently in conflict, as many secularists seem to believe. Although faith requires a step beyond what can be known with complete certainty, it is not irrational to take that step, depending on the strength of the supporting evidence. Thinkers and intelligent people throughout the ages have found no conflict in accepting that God exists and placing their trust in him.
As believers, we need to prepare to show others today that this is still true.
Recommended resources in Spanish:
Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek
Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he continues to work. After being introduced to the works of C.S. Lewis, he became interested in apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He began writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.
Original source of the blog: https://bit.ly/3zCRrTQ
Translated by Jennifer Chavez
Edited by Monica Pirateque
How To ‘Stay Alert’ Until Christ Returns
Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Jason Jimenez
According to the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24-25; Mk.13; Lk. 21), Jesus prophesied that the world would grow darker before returning for his Bride, the church.
We see the escalation of deception and confusion consuming the world and the ensuing threats from adversarial countries.
Jesus warned, “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom” (Matt. 24:7). Jesus predicted that his followers would experience intense persecutions and even death for some (Matt. 24:9). Peter prompted his readers that severe persecution would come and that in the “last days scoffers will come, mocking the truth and following their own desires” (2 Pet. 3:3). Paul vigorously wrote that there “will be terrible times in the last days” (2 Tim. 3:1), and in the “last times some will turn away from the true faith” and that they would even “follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from demons” (1 Tim. 4:1).
Thus, it should not surprise us when we see things progressively get darker and more unsettling in our culture.
But although things may seem grim, it doesn’t mean Christians should have a “gloom and doom” outlook on life or ignore the times we live in today.
Quite the reverse.
The Bible explicitly tells us to “be on guard and stay alert” (Mk. 13:33) until Christ returns. That doesn’t sound like someone who is paranoid or shirking their responsibility.
In Matthew 25:14-30, Jesus shares a parable of a master giving a portion of his talents to illustrate the significance of working and waiting for his return. Upon his return, the master found that two of his servants brought profitability to his investment. Unfortunately, the other servant had buried his talent, producing nothing (25:24-25). The master responded, saying, “You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed” (25:26)?
The understanding of the parable is abundantly clear. Jesus has given you specific gifts and talents to invest in for a greater return. You are not to dilly dally or take what the Lord has given you for your selfish gain. You are called to be “salt and light” in the culture and take every opportunity to reinvest what God has given you for his glory and honor.
But perhaps your perspective on life is a bit jaded. Maybe you’re finding it hard to have a “work hard” and “stay ready” mentality as you live day-by-day.
Whatever is tripping you up or causing you to be ineffective in your faith, here are three self-reflective questions to reignite a preparedness in your spirit to live your Christian life with great anticipation.
Do you yearn to be holy like God?
God has not called you to conform to the world but be transformed by his perfect will for your life (Rom. 12:2). And what is God’s will for your life? To be holy as He is holy (see 1 Thess. 4:3; 1 Pet. 1:15-16).
What about you? Are you too wrapped up in the comforts of life that you hardly yearn for the holiness of God?
In his classic book, Pursuit of Holiness, Jerry Bridges expressed this sensible truth, “As we become soft and lazy in our bodies, we tend to become soft and lazy spiritually.”
No doubt, upon reflection, you will uncover lazy streaks in your life, lots of excuses that you’ve made for all the selfish reasons, and “respectable” sins that you’ve justified but now might make you cringe.
But don’t let the weight of your sin drag you down. John wrote, “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 Jn. 2:1-2).
The more diligent you are in confessing sin and pursuing holiness, the more your life will be used for God.
How mature is your faith?
A dear friend once told me, “Salvation is the same for everybody, but Christian growth is different for everybody.”
That is so true.
So, allow me to ask you, how much time do you devote to reading, studying, and memorizing Scripture?
The Bible is like any other subject. You won’t know much about it if you don’t spend time learning from it.
To have a mature faith, you need to be in the Word of God.
Being in the Word of God daily will sharpen your faith and give you the wisdom needed to make wise choices. The Bible promises you that if you grow in your faith, you will not be “ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 1:8).
Paul gave this charge to Timothy, and the same applies to you and me: “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).
Are you living a faithful life?
Every Christian is to walk in faithful obedience to God and fulfill the Great Commission (Mk. 16:15).
A great example of someone in the Bible who lived a faithful life is Daniel. God called Daniel to resist a hostile environment in Babylon and lead a charge against its false idols and worship.
Daniel didn’t refuse the call of God just because he felt out of place or outnumbered. The Bible says that Daniel “resolved not to defile himself” (Dan. 1:8) but remained faithful to God’s law.
Daniel’s bold allegiance to God demonstrates an unrelenting desire not to compromise and give in to worldly pressure. His God-honoring response amid extreme pressure and hostility is the sort of example for you to emulate in the world today.
Those who desire to live faithful lives must be willing to give over their lives for the sake of the gospel.
Is that something you’re willing to do?
Remember, my friend, when you hit your limits and come to your wit’s end, it is God who is faithful and will love you no matter what.
So, as you pursue holiness, maturity, and faithfulness, ask the Holy Spirit to fill your life with more love, passion, conviction, and hunger for him.
The Holy Spirit will do just that if you ask in simple faith.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Fearless Generation – Complete DVD Series, Complete mp4 Series (download) by Mike Adams, Frank Turek, and J. Warner Wallace
Why Doesn’t God Intervene More? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jason Jimenez is President of STAND STRONG Ministries and author of Challenging Conversations: A Practical Guide to Discuss Controversial Topics in the church. For more info, check out www.standstrongministries.org.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3cOA8GA
Undesigned Coincidences in the Scriptures: An Argument for Their Veracity (Part 1) — Old Testament Examples
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Jonathan McLatchie
The principle of undesignedness was first identified by the famed Christian philosopher William Paley (1743-1805), in his book Horae Paulinae. Therein, he highlighted example after example of undesigned integrations between the epistles of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles. The principle of undesignedness refers to cases where two or more sources dovetail with each other in a manner that cannot be attributed to the design of the author. In 1850, J.J. Blunt published his book Undesigned Scriptural Coincidences, in which he took Paley’s argument further, documenting examples in the Old Testament, as well as between the gospels, and between the gospels, Acts, and Josephus. The principle of undesignedness is a forgotten but brilliant argument which can be used to corroborate Biblical history. In this article, I want to consider a few examples of undesigned coincidences in the Old Testament. In a subsequent article, I will discuss examples of undesigned coincidences in the New Testament.
Why Does Ahithophel Turn on David?
2 Samuel 15 details the story of King David’s son Absalom conspiring against his own Father. In verses 7-12, we read,
In verse 12, Absalom sends for Ahithophel, David’s counselor. Who is this man, Ahithophel? According to 2 Samuel 16:23:
Ahithophel, then, was the most trusted adviser to King David. Why, then, did Absalom count on Ahithophel to join him in conspiring against the King?
In 2 Samuel 23, in a completely unrelated part of the text, we have an important clue. Verses 24-39 list the thirty-seven body guards of King David. In verse 39, we have a familiar name – Uriah the Hittite, the husband of Bathsheba. Another individual mentioned is Eliam the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite (verse 34). This means that Ahithophel’s son was a colleague of Uriah the Hittite.
It gets even more interesting when we look over at 2 Samuel 11, in which we read of David’s adultery with Bathsheba and his murder of her husband, Uriah the Hittite. Here is what we read in verses 2-3:
Thus, it appears that Bathsheba was the granddaughter of Ahithophel, David’s counselor, and her father Eliam himself was among the King’s body guards along with Bathsheba’s husband Uriah. This then explains why Absalom in chapter 15 expected Ahithophel to be ready to conspire against King David and why Ahithophel joined Absalom’s rebellion. He wanted revenge on David for what he had done to Bathsheba and Uriah.
But it gets even more interesting. Flip over to chapter 16 and verses 20-22:
Why do they pitch a tent for Absalom on the roof so that he can sleep with his father’s concubines? It was on the roof that David’s eye first caught Bathsheba bathing, resulting in his adulterous affair and his murder of her husband Uriah. Her grandfather Ahithophel then seeks revenge, and so encourages Absalom to sleep with his father’s concubines on the roof of the palace.
Now, note that it was only by putting together different, seemingly unrelated, parts of the text that we were able to arrive at these explanations. Nowhere in Scripture is it explicitly spelled out that Ahithophel was the grandfather of Bathsheba. Rather, one has to do detective work in order to see beneath the surface what exactly is going on here.
This is not the sort of pattern that one might expect in stories of myth and legend. Rather, it is the hallmark of truth.
Example #2: Hezekiah’s Treasury
For our second example, turn over to Isaiah 38, in which we read of King Hezekiah’s illness and recovery. In Isaiah 39, we have an account of envoys coming from Babylon to congratulate King Hezekiah on his recovery. There is a parallel account of those events in 2 Kings 20 which appear to be textually dependent on Isaiah (or vice versa). Here is the account in Isaiah 39:1-2:
Thus, we learn, King Hezekiah proudly showed the Babylonian envoys his great riches in his treasure house. Hezekiah’s pride brings upon him a prophecy of judgment. In verses 3-7, we read:
King Hezekiah selfishly is relieved at the prophecy, thinking to himself that at least “There will be peace and security in my days” (verse 8).
Both the account of this event that we read in Isaiah and that in 2 Kings imply that Hezekiah fell ill at the time of the invasion by Sennacherib of Judah and before the outcome of that invasion. In both accounts, God promises Hezekiah that he will live and that God will deliver the city from the Assyrians (Isaiah 38:6; 2 Kings 20:6). Thus, the envoys arrived from Babylon after his recovery, and after the danger from Assyria had been averted.
Now let’s consider another text in 2 Kings 18:13-16:
Wait a minute. So Hezekiah has just made this humiliating tribute to the king of Assyria, having had to offer him “all of the silver that was found in the house of the Lord and in the treasures of the king’s house” and even being reduced to stripping the gold from the doors of the temple and from the doorposts. How then was he able not long after this humiliation to show all of his riches of his treasury to the Babylonian envoys? One could write it off as a contradiction, or we could dig deeper to find the solution – and in so-doing uncover another remarkable undesigned coincidence.
For the solution, let us now turn to 2 Chronicles. 2 Chronicles contains the account of the destruction of Sennacherib’s army by the miraculous intervention of the angel of the Lord (which is also found in Isaiah and 2 Kings albeit in different wording and terminology from the account in 2 Chronicles). After these events, 2 Chronicles throws in a unique detail in 32:23:
Therein lies our answer. This explains how Hezekiah came to have a full treasury to show off to the Babylonian envoys by the time the Babylonians learned of his recovery. No mention is made of the humiliating tribute to the Assyrians in 2 Chronicles. 2 Kings does mention the humiliating tribute and him showing off his treasury shortly thereafter to the Babylonian envoys, but makes no mention of the gifts that replenished the treasury. Isaiah makes no mention of the tribute or the gifts but mentions his display of his great wealth.
This undesigned coincidence corroborates the historical veracity of these events and also strongly suggests that one of our authors (i.e. either Isaiah or the author of 2 Kings) had access to the court of Hezekiah, and thus knew about the visit of the Babylonian envoys.
Example #3: The Uniformity of Expressive Silence
Another sort of undesignedness can sometimes arise when we examine cases where information is assumed by the author although not explicitly spelled out – this may be called the uniformity of expressive silence – repeated omissions that have a meaning. Here, I give an example of this from the book of Genesis.
Genesis 24 narrates the story of Abraham’s servant’s journey to the city of Nahor in Mesopotamia in search of a wife for Isaac. He encounters “Rebekah, who was born to Bethuel the son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother,” who “came out with her water jar on her shoulder.” Abraham’s servant requests a drink of water from the jar. Rebekah gives him some water and also some for his camels to drink. In verses 22-28, we read what happened next:
The point to which I wish to draw attention is the consistent insignificance of Bethuel throughout the narrative. Bethuel was the father of Rebekah, and thus it is reasonable to expect that the terms of a marriage contract would be stipulated by him. Indeed, in the case of Laban in Genesis 29 in regards to his disposing of a daughter in marriage – a daughter who, like Rebecca, had brothers (see Genesis 31:1) – the active party throughout the account is the father, Laban.
Contrast this with the case of Bethuel in our current text in Genesis 24. Abraham’s servant had asked her, “Please tell me whose daughter you are. Is there room in your father’s house for us to spend the night?” (verse 23). We are then told, however, that “the young woman ran and told her mother’s household about these things,” (Genesis 24:28). Notice we are not told that she ran to her father’s household (as Rachel did in Genesis 29:12 after meeting Jacob), but rather she ran to her mother’s household. Verse 29 further informs us, “Rebekah had a brother whose name was Laban. Laban ran out toward the man, to the spring.”
After having been invited into the house by Laban, the servant explains the purpose of his visit (verses 34-49). In verse 50, we read, “Then Laban and Bethuel answered and said…” The mention of Bethuel constitutes the only proof that he was alive at the time of this incident. It is agreed that the servant may “take her and go, and let her be the wife of your master’s son, as the Lord has spoken” (verse 51).
The servant then gives gifts, we are told, “to Rebekah” and “to her brother and to her mother,” (verse 53). Curiously, no gifts are given to Bethuel, it would seem. In verse 55, we read, “Her brother and her mother said, ‘Let the young woman remain with us a while, at least ten days; after that she may go.’” It would seem expected that such a proposal would be made by her father. Instead, it is made by her mother and brother. After inquiring of Rebekah, it is decided that she would leave with the servant after all (verses 58-61).
Abraham’s son Isaac marries Rebekah, and together they have a son called Jacob (Genesis 25:26). After Jacob deceives his father Isaac into blessing him rather than Esau, the eldest (Genesis 27), Rebekah counsels Jacob to flee because Esau planned to kill him, Along his journey, he encounters some shepherds and asks them “Do you know Laban the son of Nahor?” (Genesis 29:5). This is strange, because Laban was the son of Bethuel and only the grandson of Nahor. Yet, again, we see Bethuel passed over as an individual considered of no importance among his own family. Bethuel’s own son, therefore, is identified by the name of his grandfather rather than his father.
We cannot state the specific circumstances surrounding Bethuel or explain exactly why he was a man considered of no note. Who knows? Perhaps he was considered incapable of managing his own affairs due to age or imbecility. Whatever the reason, Scripture does not tell us. However, the lack of concurrence in a positive fact but silent presumption of that same fact suggests that the author knew something more than we do about the circumstances than he discloses in his account thereof. It is the sort of pattern we expect in real history, but not the sort of pattern we should expect from works of fiction.
Conclusion
Many further examples could be given in the Old Testament, but I hope that these three examples suffice to show how this argument can be wielded to corroborate Biblical history. In part 2, we will consider examples of undesigned coincidences in the New Testament.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3PRQqMQ
Why Believe? | with Dr. Neil Shenvi
PodcastWhy believe in Christianity? Why believe that God exists? Aren’t there reasons NOT to believe in God? Reasons like:
For centuries, skeptics have disputed the claims of Christianity―such as the belief in an eternal God and the resurrection of Jesus Christ―arguing that they simply cannot be accepted by reasonable individuals. Furthermore, efforts to demonstrate the evidence and rational basis for Christianity through apologetics are often deemed too simplistic to be taken seriously in intellectual circles. And miracles? Ha! They’ll say anything is more probable than a miracle, even the idea that Jesus had an identical twin!
In his new book, Why Believe: A Reasoned Approach to Christianity, apologist and theoretical chemist turned homeschool dad, Dr. Neil Shenvi, engages in some of the best contemporary arguments against Christianity. He presents compelling evidence for the identity of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels, his death and resurrection, the existence of God, and the unique message of the gospel. As you’ll discover in this podcast episode, Neil is no “uneducated Christian” and responds to some of the most common objections to Christianity with precision, clarity, and grace.
Neil also talks with Frank about his college days at UC Berkeley and Princeton, where he came to faith during a class nicknamed “The Faith Buster,” taught using Bart Ehrman’s textbook and other liberal religious scholarship. Talk about a miracle; you won’t believe his testimony!
Neil’s website: https://shenviapologetics.com/
Follow Neil on Twitter: https://twitter.com/NeilShenvi
If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.
Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
¿Realmente no tuvimos un Canon del Nuevo Testamento hasta el siglo IV?
EspañolPor Ryan Leasure
¿Es verdad que los documentos del Nuevo Testamento no fueron Escrituras hasta el siglo IV? Es decir, ¿los libros no tenían autoridad hasta que los concilios de la iglesia se la otorgaron? Los eruditos liberales hacen esta sugerencia debido a que elimina cualquier explicación sobrenatural para el canon del Nuevo Testamento. Para ellos, una autoridad bíblica puede ser explicada únicamente en términos humanos.
Algunos de nuestros amigos católicos también argumentan a favor del siglo IV, pero por otras razones. Para ellos, la máxima autoridad reside en la iglesia. Por lo tanto, sin el sello de aprobación de la iglesia, el Nuevo Testamento no tendría ninguna autoridad.
Pero, ¿es ésta una representación exacta de los documentos del Nuevo Testamento? ¿No eran Escrituras hasta que la Iglesia se pronunció sobre ellos en el siglo IV? Para responder a esta pregunta, necesitamos ver cómo la Iglesia primitiva consideraba estos documentos.
Concilios de la Iglesia del siglo IV
Para empezar, permítanme decir que ningún concilio del siglo IV dio autoridad a los documentos del Nuevo Testamento. El Código Da Vinci se equivocó al decir que el Concilio de Nicea (325 d. C.), bajo la dirección de Constantino, formó el canon del Nuevo Testamento. El Concilio de Nicea no tuvo nada que ver con el canon.
De hecho, no tenemos ningún concilio eclesiástico del siglo IV que determine cuáles libros debían incluirse en el canon del Nuevo Testamento. Lo que tenemos son, en cambio, concilios eclesiásticos regionales que afirman los libros que ya habían funcionado como Escritura para la iglesia. En otras palabras, estos concilios eclesiásticos no otorgan autoridad a ningún libro del Nuevo Testamento. Más bien, se limitan a reconocer los libros que ya tenían esa autoridad. Esta distinción es crucial.
¿Quizás te estés preguntando por qué tardaron tanto tiempo? ¿Por qué la iglesia no hizo una lista mucho antes? Una explicación es que durante los primeros tres siglos, el cristianismo fue, en su mayor parte, una religión ilegal que enfrentó una persecución continua. De hecho, en el año 303 d.C., el emperador Diocleciano ordenó a todos los cristianos hacer sacrificios a los dioses paganos o de lo contrario tendrían que enfrentar el encarcelamiento o el exterminio. Además, les ordenó entregar todas sus Escrituras para que fueran quemadas.
Por estas razones, la iglesia no podía organizar concilios en todo el imperio para ratificar el canon del Nuevo Testamento. Además, no podían hacer circular sus libros ya que podrían ser confiscados por los funcionarios romanos. Una vez que Constantino legalizó el cristianismo en el siglo IV, la iglesia pudo dispersar sus libros libremente. En esta coyuntura, todas las iglesias tuvieron conocimiento de los distintos documentos y, por tanto, afirmaron la autoridad de los veintisiete libros.
Líderes de la Iglesia del siglo II
Sin embargo, la afirmación del canon del Nuevo Testamento por parte de la Iglesia en el siglo IV no venía de la nada. Los cristianos consideraban desde hacía tiempo que estos libros tenían autoridad. De hecho, varios líderes del siglo II afirman la autoridad del Nuevo Testamento en sus escritos.
Ireneo (180 d.C.)
Más que ningún otro padre de la Iglesia, Ireneo aborda cuestiones canónicas. Por ejemplo, declara que entre los muchos llamados evangelios, sólo cuatro de ellos tienen autoridad. Escribe:
“No es posible que los evangelios sean más o menos que el número que son. Así como que hay cuatro zonas del mundo en las que vivimos y cuatro vientos principales”2
Ireneo indica en otra parte por qué estos cuatro evangelios, y ningún otro, son canónicos. Confirma los cuatro evangelios porque sólo ellos están respaldados por la autoridad apostólica, mientras que los demás fueron escritos por gnósticos del siglo II. Dado que era un discípulo de Policarpo que conocía personalmente al apóstol Juan, su conocimiento de la autoría de los mismos tiene un peso importante.
Teófilo de Antioquía (177 d.C.)
Como obispo de Antioquía, Teófilo equipara compara en sus escritos a los profetas del Antiguo Testamento con los Evangelios.
“En cuanto a la justicia que la ley exigía, se encuentran declaraciones confirmatorias tanto en los profetas como en los Evangelios, porque todos hablaron inspirados por un mismo Espíritu de Dios.”3
No sólo eleva los Evangelios a la par con las Escrituras del Antiguo Testamento, sino que Teófilo afirma la inspiración divina para los Evangelios.
Justino Mártir (150-160 d.C)
Justino Mártir, que escribe antes que Ireneo y Teófilo, aborda los Evangelios o las “memorias” de los apóstoles en varias ocasiones. En una ocasión, aborda su papel en el culto.
“Y en el día llamado domingo, todos los que viven en las ciudades o en el campo se reúnen en un lugar, y se leen las memorias de los apóstoles o los escritos de los profetas, mientras el tiempo lo permita; luego, cuando el lector ha cesado, quien preside instruye verbalmente, y exhorta a la imitación de estas cosas buenas.”4
Esta cita lo dice todo. Justino indica que la iglesia primitiva tenía tan buena opinión de los Evangelios que los incluía en su servicio de culto junto con las Escrituras del Antiguo Testamento.
Policarpo (110 d.C)
Policarpo fue alumno y compañero del apóstol Juan. En uno de sus escritos, designa explícitamente los escritos de Pablo como Escritura cuando afirma:
Como está escrito en estas Escrituras: “Airaos, pero no pequéis; no se ponga el sol sobre vuestro enojo”.
Escribiendo a principios del siglo II, Policarpo cita Efesios 4:26 y lo llama Escritura – mucho antes de los concilios del siglo IV.
Otras fuentes tempranas – Ignacio, Clemente de Roma, y la Epístola de Bernabé – también discuten el canon del Nuevo Testamento.
Los escritores del Nuevo Testamento
Hasta ahora, hemos determinado que la iglesia del siglo II consideraba los escritos del Nuevo Testamento como Escritura con autoridad . Pero, ¿podemos retroceder aún más? Creo que podemos hacerlo observando los propios escritos del Nuevo Testamento.
2 Pedro 3:15-16
“y considerad la paciencia de nuestro Señor como salvación, tal como os escribió también nuestro amado hermano Pablo, según la sabiduría que le fue dada. Asimismo en todas sus cartas habla en ellas de esto; en las cuales hay algunas cosas difíciles de entender, que los ignorantes e inestables tuercen—como también tuercen el resto de las Escrituras—para su propia perdición”
En este texto, Pedro compara los escritos de Pablo con las Escrituras del Antiguo Testamento.
1 Timoteo 5:18
“Porque la Escritura dice: No pondrás bozal al buey cuando trilla, y: El obrero es digno de su salario.”
En este pasaje, Pablo cita Deuteronomio 25:4 “No pondrás bozal al buey mientras trilla”, y Lucas 10:7 “el obrero es digno de su salario”, y los califica a ambos de Escritura. En otras palabras, el Evangelio de Lucas estaba al mismo nivel de autoridad que el Antiguo Testamento.
1 Tesalonicenses 2:13
En esta carta, Pablo da la impresión de que es consciente de que sus escritos llevan la autoridad de Dios.
“Por esto también nosotros sin cesar damos gracias a Dios de que cuando recibisteis la palabra de Dios, que oísteis de nosotros la aceptasteis no como la palabra de hombres, sino como lo que realmente es, la palabra de Dios, la cual también hace su obra en vosotros los que creéis.”
Escritura desde el principio
Contrariamente al punto de vista escéptico y católico, los escritos del Nuevo Testamento llevaron la autoridad Bíblica desde el momento de su composición. El erudito del Nuevo Testamento, N. T. Wright, sostiene que los autores “eran conscientes de una vocación única de escribir libros con la forma de Jesús, la guía del Espíritu y que dieran forma a la Iglesia, como parte de su extraña vocación de primera generación”5 Puesto que estos libros eran tenían autoridad desde el principio, los concilios del siglo cuarto de ninguna manera les concedieron autoridad. Más bien, simplemente reconocieron su autoridad ya existente – una autoridad que tenían desde el primer siglo.
Ryan Leasure tiene una maestría en Artes de la Universidad Furman y una maestría en Divinidades del Seminario Teológico Bautista del Sur. También sirve como pastor en: Grace Bible Church en Moore, SC.
Recursos recomendados en Español:
Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek
Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Fuente Original del blog: https://bit.ly/3RR6oJd
Traducido por Monica Pirateque
Editado por Jennifer Chavez
Reality Rules: The Transgender War on Women
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsBy Bob Perry
Back in the good ‘ole days of 2015, the fight over allowing transgender women to use the women’s bathroom in Charlotte, North Carolina, took center stage in the national political debate. At the time, only a Chicken Little would suggest that mixing gender preference and sexual identity could lead to harmful outcomes. In an article titled, “‘Transgender’ Needs A Legal Definition Right Now or Women Will Get Hurt,” David Marcus pointed out that trans advocates:
David Marcus’s fear that women would get hurt was far more than a myth. It was an understatement. Today, transgender women are invading more than women’s restrooms.
Beyond the Bathroom
The move from spying on girls in the ladies’ room to the cases of sexual assault in schools we saw highlighted in last November’s Virginia Governor’s race is, by definition, an escalating threat to women.[2] But the ramifications of transgender ideology are even more far-reaching than that.
And what about women’s collegiate swimming? Traditionally, swimmers give us electrifying moments where they break records by tenths or even hundredths of a second. But recently, the University of Pennsylvania’s transgender swimmer, Lia Thomas, won the 200-meter freestyle by nearly 8 seconds, the 500-meter by over 12 seconds, and the 1,650-meter freestyle by 38 seconds. Two of those were the best times in the nation.[6]
But the reaction to Lia’s victories hasn’t been electrifying at all. Her teammates have noted that:
Women Strike Back
For all their successes, these “women” don’t seem to be getting much love from their fellow females. In fact, there has been a backlash against every one of them. And the backlash has been led by women. Take Rose McGowan, for instance, who:
Suddenly, feminism and transgenderism – both darlings of Leftist ideology – have created a new aphorism as it applies to the Patriarchy: “The enemy of my enemy … is my enemy.”
The snake, it seems, is eating its own tail.
Reality Bites
Behind Rose McGowan’s tirade is the tacit admission that transgender women are actually men. It’s the same reality that drove Cynthia Millen, a three-decade USA Swimming official, to resign her position in the wake of Lia Thomas’s record-setting achievements:
Don’t miss Cynthia Millen’s words: “Lia Thomas is a child of God.” Therein lies the transcendent reality in which the solution to all this mayhem must be grounded. Lia is a human being made in the image of God. For that, she deserves our love and respect. But that doesn’t oblige us to patronize her delusion. The stakes are too high for that.
The ascendancy of transgender ideology is harming women in more ways than even its critics could have imagined. But it is doing more than that. It’s a torpedo aimed at the foundations of a stable, healthy society. Whether it’s in the pool, on the playing field, in the boardroom, or in the sanctuary, denying reality is always destructive to those who practice it.
Footnotes
[1] David Marcus, “‘Transgender’ Needs a Legal Definition Right Now or Women Will Get Hurt,” The Federalist,
[2] Kaylee McGhee White, “Loudoun County Schools Covered Up Rape, Prosecuted a Concerned Father to Protect Transgender Agenda,” Washington Examiner,
[3] James Ellingworth & Sally Ho, “Transgender Weightlifter Hubbard Makes History at Olympics,” AP News
[4] Warner Todd Huston, “Aussie Trans Athlete Hannah Mouncey Towers Above Opponents,” Breitbart News
[5] Matt Lavietes, “Rachel Levine Becomes Nation’s First Transgender Four-Star Admiral,” NBC News
[6] Charmaine Patterson, “Swimmer Lia Thomas, Who is Transgender, Continues to Shatter Women’s Records,” People
[7] “The Week,” National Review, December 27, 2021, p. 10.
[8] Jill Stark, “Call Yourself a Woman? Feminists Take on Trans Community in Bitter Debate,” The Sydney Morning Herald
[9] Yaron Steinbuch, “Transgender Swimmer Lia Thomas is ‘Destroying’ Sport, Official Says,” New York Post
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Five Questions No One Ever Asks About Gay Rights (DVD Set), (Mp4 Download), and (Mp3 Set) by Dr. Frank Turek
Defending the Faith on Campus by Frank Turek (DVD Set, mp4 Download set, and Complete Package)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and the culture at truehorizon.org. He is a Contributing Writer for the Christian Research Journal and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of military and commercial flying experience. He has a B.S., Aerospace Engineering from the U. S. Naval Academy, and an M.A., Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown sons.
The Pendulum Problem: A Warning of Extreme Beliefs
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Melissa Dougherty
I have a dog and a cat.
Max is my dog whose personality is likened to a lovable, furry, hyperactive toddler. As an anxious dog, nobody is safe from his “watchful” eye. When the doorbell rings, my ferocious dog barks an explosive cry so loud that it vibrates throughout the entire house. His hair stands up, and he aggressively pushes his nose to the door to somehow intimidate his arch nemesis: the poor Amazon delivery dude. “Don’t you hoomans see the problem!? I’m protecting you from the bomb just delivered to our door!” Is a mom walking her baby down the street? A kid riding their bike? Oh, he must inform us about this potential threat by alerting us with all the gusto he can muster because it very well could be an ax murderer, for all we know. Everything is a threat. He must always be on constant exaggerated alert because he feels like this is how he will protect his family.
Dusty is my cat, a seal-point Siamese who is calm and passive and lives for food and sleep. Her personality is like, well… a cat. When someone comes to our door, she pays no mind. She likes routine and comfort. The end.
Like one end of a pendulum to the other, both are polar opposites. Some people can relate in some way to the personality traits Dusty and Max exhibit. I use my pets as an example to show the extreme views that I sometimes see in religion. Some people are highly apathetic, while others are constantly on guard. I know it’s not as black and white as this, but I’m sure many people somewhat understand what I’m talking about. Think of a swinging pendulum. Its weight forces itself from one side to the other, making it the opposite of its previous position. When someone leaves a particular belief system where maybe they’ve been deeply hurt, they want to be so far away from the said belief that they ‘overcorrect’ and go off the rails in the opposite direction.
This is the essence of what I call the “Pendulum Problem.”
Maybe someone had a bad experience in a very legalistic religious setting that was ridgid and cultlike. So they self-heal by distancing themselves from anything that has to do with organized religion, perhaps becoming an atheist or just “spiritual” with a very fluid view of morality and truth. It could also be the opposite, where someone feels they have been deceived by the devil with their spirituality. They become so careful and scared of being deceived again that they become overly cautious, critical, and legalistic in their religious convictions. Personally, I went through both sides of the pendulum to some degree. I went through about a four to five month time period where I demonized almost everything I saw. It was “worldly” and “demonic.” I came across as judgmental… and I really was. I didn’t want to be involved with anything or anyone that seemed remotely new age on any level out of fear. Then there came a time when I didn’t want to be seen as a religious Bible thumper and became too apathetic with few spiritual boundaries. I was in error both times.
So why is this an issue? Because extreme beliefs can create confirmation bias and unhealthy echo chambers. I believe this hinders the effective spread of the Gospel.
As Christians, do we need to have discernment? Yes. But do we need to live in a state of mind that functions more out of fear of deception than a love for the lost? No, we don’t. Do we need to be loving? Yes. But do we need to conform to the world to the point that we’re indistinguishable from it for the sake of peace? No, we don’t.
Another issue is that this goes even deeper than allowing thoughts to swing too far the other way. Our thought-life reflects our actions. I have often observed a fixation with throwing punches against what they came out of and immersing themselves with people and teachers that speak against it. They filter more and more of their worldview through this new paradigm. They can’t tolerate any compromise or nuance of an opposing view. Even if there was some lousy theology in their previous group, they will go to great lengths to defend themselves and be around people they know are “safe.”In this way, they reinforce what they already believe because the only voices they hear are those that are agreeable and never challenge them. A “challenge” is seen as the Amazon delivery man dropping off your new houseshoes, but better run for cover because it might be a false teacher instead. They’re steering clear of otherwise decent people that are more nuanced than they’re comfortable with.
What the Pendulum Problem really is? It’s a theology of experience. The hermeneutic for people in this phase is based on their experience: positive or negative. That’s the lens through which they see the world and define theology and their worldview. That’s another reason why this is a major problem. It’s based on negative history.
So what do we do about this once we recognize the problem? First, It’s valuable to know why we do this and maybe what we can do about it. Have I just been hurt, and this is my way of protecting myself? Am I angry at the people whom I now disagree with? Am I functioning out of hurt? Do I need to forgive? I think it’s important to understand that, to some degree, we’ve all done this or have seen it. Once we can recognize that our interactions with people are imbalanced, we can move forward with healing from this. Second, we do this out of a sense of trying to do the right thing. We want to do what’s right. But sometimes we overcorrect and we need to stabilize. We can function out of hurt kidding ourselves into thinking we’re being protective but it’s actually causing damage. People really do experience hurts, and it’s important to be sensitive to that hurt. I don’t think people actually intend to do this. There are legitimate traumas that they’ve experienced and they need understanding, prayer, and love. Third, Scripture should be our guide and Jesus should be our example. I clearly see a healthy balance when it comes to truth in love.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Melissa Dougherty is a Christian Apologist best known for her YouTube channel as an ex-new ager. She has two associate’s degrees, one in Early Childhood Multicultural Education, and the other in Liberal Arts. She is currently pursuing her bachelor’s degree in Religious Studies at Southern Evangelical Seminary.
Is God Immoral when He Kills People? Plus Q&A | with Frank Turek
PodcastIf God made humans in His image, does that also mean we have the right to “play God” whenever we want? Many atheists and pro-choice advocates criticize God’s morality when He (ironically) “plays” God by taking life prematurely in the Old Testament. But they don’t bat an eye when advocating for abortion and call it a “moral right.” It doesn’t make sense! However, what about capital punishment? It seems like pro-lifers who support the death penalty are also contradicting themselves. What’s the difference?
In this episode of ‘I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be An Atheist’, Frank continues the discussion from last week on how to answer some of the most common abortion arguments, including a discussion on Numbers 5:27-28, which many people mistakenly cite as an example that God is not pro-life, and the important difference between vaccines and abortions when people declare “my body, my choice”!
Frank also answers listener questions, including those on Mormonism, near-death experiences (NDEs), and whether or not it’s a good idea to use fictional and unbiblical stories as a bridge to the Gospel.
If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.
Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
¿Qué ocurrió realmente en Nicea?
EspañolPor Frank Turek
Durante muchos años, el concilio de Nicea ha sido objeto de mucha confusión entre los laicos. Los malentendidos que han llegado a asociarse con el concilio de Nicea han sido alimentados, en parte, por novelas de ficción populares como el tristemente célebre Código Da Vinci de Dan Brown. Independientemente del grupo con el que estés tratando en tus hazañas apologéticas (incluyendo ateos, musulmanes, testigos de Jehová y unitarios), está casi garantizado que te encontrarás con algunos de estos malentendidos. Por esta razón, es importante que los cristianos estudien y aprendan la historia de la Iglesia para poder corregir los mitos y mentiras comunes.
El concilio de Nicea se convocó el 20 de mayo de 325 d.C., a petición del emperador Constantino. ¿Qué se discutió en el concilio de obispos? En contra de la idea errónea (popularizada sobre todo en los círculos musulmanes) que ha circulado ampliamente por Internet, el concilio de Nicea no se reunió para discutir el canon de las Escrituras, es decir, la decisión sobre los libros que debían componer el Nuevo Testamento. De hecho, no hay ni una sola prueba de que el canon de las Escrituras se planteara en Nicea. Otro concepto erróneo es que el concilio de Nicea, alentado por Constantino, “inventó” la deidad de Cristo o, al menos, que los obispos que asistieron a Nicea estaban significativamente divididos sobre el tema, y que el asunto se decidió con una votación. Sin embargo, esto también es completamente inexacto. En el año 325 d.C., cuando los obispos se reunieron en Nicea, ¡la deidad de Cristo había sido afirmada casi unánimemente por el movimiento cristiano durante casi trescientos años!
Los obispos que se reunieron en Nicea acababan de salir de una época extremadamente difícil de intensa persecución por parte de los romanos, habiendo vivido la crueldad de los emperadores Diocleciano (que gobernaba en 284-305) y Maximiano (que gobernaba en 286-305). Uno de los obispos presentes en Nicea, Paphnutius, llegó a perder el ojo derecho y a cojear de la pierna izquierda como consecuencia de su profesión de fe. Según un escritor en la antiguedad, Teodoreto (393-457),
Me resulta extraño, por tanto, que se suponga que el movimiento cristiano primitivo, salido de tiempos tan difíciles como aquellos, capitulara tan fácilmente ante las exigencias del emperador Constantino respecto a la definición de los propios fundamentos de su fe!
La historia del concilio de Nicea comienza en Alejandría, en el noroeste de Egipto. El arzobispo de Alejandría era un hombre llamado Alejandro. Un miembro de su clero superior, llamado Arrio, se opuso a la opinión de Alejandro sobre la naturaleza divina de Jesús, insistiendo en que el Hijo es, de hecho, un ser creado. De forma similar a los modernos Testigos de Jehová, Arrio sostenía que Jesús era como el Padre en la medida en que ambos existían antes de la creación, desempeñaban un papel en la creación y eran exaltados por encima de ella. Pero el Hijo, según la teología de Arrio, fue la primera de las creaciones de Dios y fue encargado por el Padre de crear el mundo.
En este punto, Alejandro no estaba de acuerdo y desafió públicamente las enseñanzas heréticas de Arrio. En el año 318 d.C., Alejandro convocó a un centenar de obispos para tratar el asunto y expulsar a Arrio. Sin embargo, Arrio fue a Nicomedia, en Asia Menor, y reunió a sus partidarios, entre ellos Eusebio de Nicomedia, que era pariente por matrimonio de Constantino, el emperador, y teólogo de la corte imperial. Eusebio y Arrio escribieron a muchos obispos que no habían participado en la destitución de Arrio. El efecto fue la creación de divisiones entre los obispos. Avergonzado por estas disputas, el emperador Constantino convocó el concilio ecuménico de Nicea en el año 325.
La principal preocupación de Constantino era la unidad imperial más que la exactitud teológica, y deseaba una decisión que fuera apoyada por el mayor número de obispos, independientemente de la conclusión a la que se llegara. Su asesor teológico, Hosius, sirvió para poner al emperador al corriente antes de la llegada de los obispos. Como Arrio no era obispo, no fue invitado a participar en el concilio. Sin embargo, su partidario Eusebio de Nicomedia actuó en nombre de Arrio y presentó su punto de vista.
La posición de Arrio respecto a la naturaleza finita del Hijo no era popular entre los obispos. Sin embargo, quedó claro que era necesaria una declaración formal sobre la naturaleza del Hijo y su relación con el Padre. La verdadera cuestión en el concilio de Nicea fue, pues, cómo, y no si, Jesús era divino.
Finalmente se elaboró una declaración formal que fue firmada por los obispos. Los que se negaron a firmar la declaración fueron despojados de su rango de obispo. Los pocos que apoyaban a Arrio insistieron en que en la declaración sólo debía figurar el lenguaje encontrado en las Escrituras, mientras que los críticos de Arrio insistieron en que sólo el lenguaje no bíblico era adecuado para desentrañar plenamente las implicaciones del lenguaje encontrado en la Biblia. Fue Constantino quien finalmente sugirió que se dijera que el Padre y el Hijo eran de la “misma sustancia” (homoousios en griego). Aunque Constantino esperaba que esta afirmación mantuviera contentas a todas las partes (implicando la completa deidad de Jesús sin ir más lejos), los partidarios de Arrio insistieron en que este lenguaje sugería que el Padre y el Hijo eran iguales, pero no explicaban cómo esto era compatible con el principio central del monoteísmo (es decir, la creencia en una sola deidad).
Sin embargo, el credo de Nicea sí incorporó este lenguaje. Decía,
Con la excepción de dos (Segundo de Tolemaida y Teonas de Marmarcia), el credo fue firmado por todos los obispos, que eran más de 300. Los partidarios de Arrio habían sido derrotados de forma abrumadora.
Los partidarios de Arrio, sin embargo, se las arreglaron para encontrar un margen de maniobra. Una sola letra iota cambia el significado de homo (“igual”) a “como” (homoi). Esto último podía ser aprovechado por Arrio y sus seguidores para describir a un Cristo creado. Además, se argumentaba que el credo podía interpretarse como un apoyo al Sabelianismo, una antigua herejía que no discrimina entre las personas de la Divinidad. Fue esta disputa interna entre obispos la que finalmente condujo al concilio de Constantinopla en el año 381.
Un grupo de obispos comenzó a hacer campaña para la restitución formal de Arrio como presbítero en Alejandría. Constantino cedió a su petición y, en el año 332, reinstauró a Arrio como presbítero. Atanasio, que acababa de suceder a su mentor Alejandro como obispo de Alejandría, recibió instrucciones de aceptar a Arrio en la iglesia una vez más. No hace falta decir que Atanasio no cumplió esta orden. La consecuencia fue el exilio. Constantino tenía poco interés en la precisión de su teología – más bien era la lucha por la unidad imperial lo que le motivaba.
En conclusión, aunque las ideas erróneas populares sobre el concilio de Nicea están muy extendidas, la idea de que el concilio de Nicea determinó qué libros componían el nuevo testamento o que inventó la deidad de Cristo para cumplir con las exigencias de Constantino son mitos. De hecho, la teología correcta le importaba poco a Constantino, que se preocupaba mucho más por la unidad imperial. Los cristianos deben hacer un serio esfuerzo por estudiar y aprender la historia de la Iglesia, para que cuando nos encontremos con tales afirmaciones en los medios de comunicación y en nuestra evangelización personal, sepamos presentar un relato preciso de nuestra historia.
Recursos recomendados en Español:
Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek
Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
El Dr. Frank Turek (D.Min.) es un galardonado autor y frecuente orador universitario que presenta un programa de televisión semanal en DirectTV y un programa de radio que se transmite en 186 estaciones de todo el país. Sus libros incluyen I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (No tengo suficiente fe para ser ateo) y Stealing from God: Why atheists need God to make their case (Robando a Dios: ¿por qué los ateos necesitan a Dios para presentar su caso?) y es co-autor del nuevo libro Hollywood Heroes: How Your Favorite Movies Reveal God (Héroes de Hollywood: Cómo tus películas favoritas revelan a Dios).
Fuente Original del blog: https://bit.ly/3bsxSUw
Traducido por Jennifer Chavez
Editado por Monica Pirateque