Page 67 – CrossExamined

So You Left the New Age... Now What? Five Helpful Tips

We each go through unique difficulties whenever we leave the New Age.

Whenever I left the New Age, it was incredibly lonely. I felt like nobody understood what I had just gone through. At the time, it felt like no Christian around me understood what the New Age really was, and to be honest, I was somewhat embarrassed that I had fallen into such beliefs, even after going to church for so many years. I didn’t even understand what I believed was New Age. I had to sift through the theological mud. I also did a Pendulum swing where I just wanted to point out what was wrong with everybody’s beliefs, and I went through a brief phase where basically everything was “New Age,” and there was a demon under every rock. I had trouble trusting again and wasn’t sure how to get my footing. But I did. Scripture says that he gives wisdom to those who ask, and he rewards those who earnestly seek him. I want to share five helpful tips for those who have just left the New Age.

# 1.) Read Your Bible.

This sounds simple. But I think of the character of Christian in The Pilgrim’s Progress. He poured over the pages, and this fed his thirsty soul. Just the simple act of reading through the Gospels has been life-changing for so many people coming out of the New Age. This alone has undone so much theological damage done by the false beliefs of the New Age. Many people sometimes have trouble understanding the Bible at first. The simplest thing I’m going to tell you about that? Read it anyway. This is not just any book, but a spiritual book guided by the Holy Spirit, by God Himself to give to humanity. It’s applicable to all history. It’s perfectly normal not to understand everything in the Bible completely, but this is by far the greatest resource you have available to you when it comes to knowing who God is and basic Christian teachings.

# 2.) Pray and Spend Time with God.

This is arguably just as important as reading your Bible. Again, this sounds simple, but scripture is very clear that whenever we seek out God and draw close to Him, he draws close to us. He reveals Himself through his Word and prayer. These two things together are very powerful when it comes to giving you direction. When you pray, be very intentional about this. Purposely make time to spend throughout your day talking to God. Go in the closet if you need to and close the door and just spend time with, pray to, and worship Him. Also, keep in mind that just because you don’t feel God doesn’t mean he doesn’t hear you or isn’t there listening to you. The New Age is an extremely feelings-oriented belief system, and in many ways, our truth came surrounded by what we felt and where our emotions led. It can be a paradigm shift going into knowing God, but maybe not feeling Him all the time. What is also important for people to realize is that God is personal and is the source of wisdom and truth. For many people coming out of the New Age, knowing there is one place to go for truth and wisdom is very important because the New Age has many sources of truth. There’s a reason why Jesus says that He’s the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

# 3.) Find a Theologically Sound Church.

This is arguably the biggest challenge for some people. It’s a tall order for someone who doesn’t know what that looks like or might have had a negative church experience. Here are some tips. First, and this might be the most obvious, but is this church in line with what the Bible teaches? Is this church teaching sound doctrine? Is this church teaching what Christianity has taught and believed for the last 2000 years? You need to make sure that they’re solid on who Jesus is, the attributes of God, which is just a fancy way of understanding God’s complete character as revealed in Scripture, a Biblical understanding of the Trinity, heaven, and hell, the reliability of the Bible, and salvation, which again are all found very clearly within scripture. There’s a reason why number 1 is so crucial. The more that you read your Bible, the more you’ll be able to spot when things are off from the pulpit of any church. If the Pastor is just spouting off out-of-context life application principles from scripture like a walking talking self-help book with fancy gelled hair, a nice- and probably very expensive- polo shirt, and skinny jeans? Then that’s a big fat red flag, my friend. This is huge, but look out for if they downplay scripture reading and study and put experience and feelings first. Is inviting people to church and making it look attractive the focal point, or is discipleship and teaching sound theology? Do they resemble a lot of the New Age beliefs you just rejected? Are the Bible and Jesus alone sufficient? Is Scripture just used as an accessory for them, or is it the actual foundation for their faith? Is it the green beans your Mom has to put on the plate, or is it the real meat and potatoes? And yes— you do need to be around other believers. In my opinion, saying you’re a “lone sheep” and don’t think you need to meet regularly with other believers isn’t wise or spiritually mature. It can create unhealthy echo chambers.

# 4.) Beware of the ‘Pendulum Problem.’

Be careful about not becoming so extreme in your beliefs when coming out of the New Age. I have observed a constant correlation that there’s almost a sense of paranoia of deception, and it’s hard to shake. Sometimes “paranoia” can be confused with “discernment.” People don’t want to be deceived again, so they come out arms swinging-guns blazing-hersey-hunters at everything and everyone that resembles the New Age. I think it’s essential for us to remember the grace that we were given when we were new believers and remember what it was like to be in the New Age. Some people have shared with me that they experience a sort of grief when they come out of the New Age because it feels like they’ve been duped. When your life changes drastically, we sometimes need to mourn what we’ve gone through, even if it was bad for us. I know I did. But it wasn’t because I missed what I believed in. It was mostly because I felt like I was so so confident in what I had believed, and it was a total shock to my pride. So in this mind frame, people can go through many changes. It would be wise to be aware of this and not over-condemn everything. Picking and choosing our battles can be a good start. It takes study of scripture, discipleship, maturity, prayer, time, and wisdom to do this.

# 5.) Remove Unhealthy Temptations.

Riding on the coattails of number four, I’m not saying to go to the extreme and get rid of everything in your house that reminds you of the New Age or your beliefs, but it is very wise to get rid of books or items that you might have owned that might be a source of temptation for you or could cause you or others to stumble. This would include throwing out all New Age clothing, books, idols, tools of the occult, and things like that. Also, sometimes this can mean distancing yourself from people that might be toxic. It can be hard to be around people heavily involved in the very lifestyle you’re trying to leave. I had a friend describe this along the lines of someone who perhaps has an addiction or experienced abuse that to overcome it, they had to rid their lives of all influence of that temptation or environment. In a way, the same is true for those fresh out of the New Age. There’s a reason why we see this same thing in Scripture. Throughout the Old Testament, God told the Israelites to pull down and destroy idols. There were many reasons for this, but He compared it to Spiritual adultery. For some people who leave the New age, it’s sometimes surprising that they want to keep a foot in the New Age and a foot in Christianity. We even see this in some churches! For those who might want to hold on to some New Age beliefs and mix it with their Christian beliefs, let me ask you this: if you were married to someone, would you find it okay if they were to wear a wedding ring from another person along with the wedding ring from you? This would be an offense to you, just like it would be an offense to God. We can’t mix New Age with Christianity or claim that the New Age can somehow be redeemed for the church. You can’t serve two masters.

When Hollywood gets God and virtue right

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Frank Turek

Imagine if there were a fun way to raise your kid’s interest in God while imparting some of the most important virtues every Christian parent wants their children to learn. There is. You can use an unlikely source that will help you get your point across without you sounding all “preachy.”

Pollster George Barna found that young people get their theology more from movies than the pulpit. So why not use the power of Hollywood to give them good theology where you can? Stories inspire and instruct more vividly than commands, which is one reason why Jesus not only gave commands but also told stories.

Yes, I know. Unlike Jesus, Hollywood’s stories often glorify much that is immoral. But Hollywood’s most successful movies often tell inspiring stories of sacrifice that borrow from the greatest story ever told. These movies also provide biblical life lessons, even movies not made by believers.

Here are a few kid-friendly examples.

If you want your kids to have the courage to stand for the truth even when the world is against them, watch any movie with Captain America. Steve Rogers (a.ka. Captain America) is the poster child for what we look for in a hero. He’s the leader of the Avengers despite clearly being outclassed in power by most of the other heroes on the team. His most important trait is that he is morally incorruptible — a trait he had even when he was just a scrawny kid who was too small to enlist in the Army in World War II. Once his mind is made up about what the right thing to do is, nothing will stop him. The guy is even willing to fight the evil supervillain Thanos and his entire army in Avengers: Endgame BY HIMSELF.

If you have kids who tend to impulsively follow their hearts, look at the moral progression of Iron Man. He starts off as a selfish playboy but is transformed into a hero who eventually sacrifices himself to save the world. Tony’s transformation requires him to stop impulsively following his heart, as the culture promotes, and to start guarding his heart as the Bible commands (Pr. 4:23). This is beautifully illustrated by the device implanted in Tony’s chest that is literally guarding his heart from encroaching shrapnel. When Tony guards his heart from distractions and his own selfish desires, he can focus on what’s really important — the responsibilities he has to others.

If your child isn’t the most popular or strongest kid in school, watch The Lord of the Rings. The heroes of Tolkien’s Fantasy Masterpiece are those who are weakest physically but the strongest morally. Sam and Frodo are three-foot hobbits who are dwarfed by everyone else. But weakness turns out to be a strength for them because it gives them the humility to ask for help. Tolkien is highlighting the biblical truth that when you are weak you are strong because when you are weak you rely on God for help (2 Cor. 12:10). Of course, Tolkien intended for The Lord of the Rings series to present a Christian worldview — including the fact that there is a God who often works behind the scenes — so watching the series will be rich theologically and morally in many other ways as well.

If you want your kids to see the beauty of grace, watch Wonder Woman. In her first feature-length movie, Wonder Woman spares an evil war criminal who is kneeling in repentance even though she is being egged on to kill this war criminal by her opponent Ares who wants to kill everyone because he thinks human beings do too much evil. Ares screams at Wonder Woman that people “don’t deserve your protection!”

But Wonder Woman responds, “It’s not about deserve; it’s about what you believe. And I believe in love.”

That reflects what God believes and did for us. God loves so much that He sent His only son to take our punishment so when we believe in Jesus we will not get what we deserve — we will not get paid back for the evil we’ve done — we will get grace, love, and eternal life.

It’s not just the movie franchises of Captain America, Iron Man, The Lord of the Rings, and Wonder Womanthat can help parents reinforce Christian truths and virtues. So do other franchises such as Star Wars, Superman,Batman,andothersas we show in our new book Hollywood Heroes: How Your Favorite Movies Reveal God.

Your kids are probably watching those movies anyway (if not, they are hearing about them from their friends or online). So why not use the aspects of these films that convey truth and virtue to reinforce those things in your kids? Knowing these movies will also give them launch points to direct their friends toward Christ. Knowing them can help you do the same with your friends. And the best thing about all of this is that having movie night is often a lot more fun and effective than getting all “preachy.”

How We Got Our Bible: Manuscript Tradition

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

By Ryan Leasure

This article is part 6 in a nine-part series on how we got our Bible. Part 1 dealt with inspiration and inerrancy. Part 2 looked at Old Testament development. Part 3 investigate the Old Testament canon and the Apocrypha. Part 4 considered attributes of the New Testament Canon. And Part 5 inquired into the early church’s reception of the New Testament Canon. This post will consider the manuscript tradition and preservation of the New Testament text.

No Original Autographs

Sadly, none of the original autographs remain. Most likely, they wore out after constant usage and copying. Now, all that we possess are copies of copies of copies—a lot of them actually. Yet these copies differ in lots of different places. But do these differences render our Bible unreliable? Bart Ehrman thinks so. He asks:

How does it help us to say that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God if in fact we do not have the words that God inerrantly inspired, but only the words copied by scribes—sometimes correctly but sometimes(many times!) incorrectly?[1]

In response to Ehrman’s objection, I’d like to quote the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Article X reads:

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

In other words, through the manuscript tradition, we can recreate the original texts with a high degree of accuracy. The reason for this accuracy is that we have 5,000+ extant Greek NT manuscripts (and thousands more in other languages).

Important Early Manuscripts

While listing all the manuscripts would be an impossible task, allow me to highlight some of the more prominent ones:

P52

P stands for “papyri” taken from a reed-like plant in the marshes of Egypt. All the oldest NT manuscripts are on papyri. P52 is probably the oldest surviving manuscript and most likely dates to the second century. The manuscript is extremely small (about the size of a credit card), and contains portions of John 18:31-33, 37-38 on a two-sided fragment. It was discovered in 1934 and is currently housed in the John Rylands Library in Manchester, England.

P66

This manuscript contains almost a complete copy of John’s Gospel. The manuscript contains 104 in tact leaves and fragments from forty other leaves. This manuscript dates to somewhere between the late second and early third centuries. It is currently housed in the Bodmer Library in Cologny, just outside Geneva, Switzerland.

P75

This manuscript contains most of Luke and John’s Gospels and dates somewhere between the late second and early third centuries. Discovered in the 1950s, this manuscript made a significant splash in the text criticism world as it closely resembles the fourth century Codex Vaticanus, demonstrating that the copying of early scribes wasn’t as uncontrolled and inaccurate as many previously thought. This manuscript is housed in the Vatican Library.

P45

This manuscript is a highly fragmented portion of a four-Gospel and Acts codex (book with pages) and dates to somewhere between the late second and early third centuries. It was originally 220 pages, but only thirty survive. This codex, along with others like P46 demonstrate that the early church started collecting their canonical texts into single book forms. No early codex, for example, contains the canonical Gospels and the Gospel of Peter or Thomas. This manuscript was discovered in the 1930s and is housed in the Chester Beatty Museum in Dublin, Ireland.

P46

This manuscript contains eight of Paul’s letters and Hebrews. Many in the early church thought Hebrews was Pauline, so it was often lumped in with his other letters. This manuscript is very early and probably dates to the second century, though third century is a possibility. It was discovered in the 1920s in the ruins of an old monastery in Egypt. Fifty-six leaves are housed in the Chester Beatty Museum in Dublin, Ireland, and thirty are at the University of Michigan.

Codex Sinaiticus

Unlike the previous manuscripts, this one is on parchment (stretched and dried animal skins) and is extremely elegant. It dates to the fourth century. The manuscript includes about half of the OT, Apocryphal texts, the entire NT, the Shepherd of Hermes, and the Epistle of Barnabas. It contains over four hundred leaves of parchment measuring 13 x 14 inches in size. In 1844, Constantine Tischendorf supposedly discovered it in a waste basket that was set to be burned in a fire to keep the monks warm. Along with Vaticanus, this manuscript is the best one in our possession. It is currently housed in the British Library in London.

Codex Vaticanus

Similar to Sinaiticus, Vaticanus dates to around the middle of the fourth century. It contains almost the entire OT, Apocryphal texts, and almost the entire NT (parts of Hebrews and Revelation are missing). Most text scholars regard Vaticanus as the most trustworthy manuscript of the NT. As mentioned previously, it relates closely to P75. This manuscript has been housed in the Vatican Library since the 15th century.

Texual Variants

With thousands of manuscripts comes thousands of textual variants (about 500,000 in total). A variant is simply a different reading in the text. And as Bart Ehrman likes to point out, “There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”[2] While there are only about 138,000 words in the New Testament, Ehrman’s quote is misleading. First off, we wouldn’t have any variants if we only had one manuscript. With 5,000+, we’re bound to have thousands upon thousands of variants. And second, Ehrman wrongly compares the total number of variants in ALL the manuscripts to the total number of words in only ONE complete manuscript.

Peter Gurry has calculated that when you add up all the words in the 5,000+ manuscripts, and divide it by the total number of variants, you come out to “just one distinct variant per 434 words copied.”[3] That’s a far cry from having far more variants than words in the NT.

Types of Variants[4]

With all the variants in the manuscript tradition, how do scholars determine which readings represent the original text? To help you make sense of this process, I think it will be helpful to place the types of variants into four different categories:

1. Neither Meaningful nor Viable

This category represent variants that don’t change the meaning of the text and obviously don’t reflect the original reading. For example spelling errors are easy to detect and aren’t original to the text. Or, occasionally a scribe got careless and repeated a word like the scribe who copied Galatians 1:11: “For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel.” These types of variants make up about 75% of all variants (roughly 400,000 variants).

Even Ehrman admits, “To be sure, of all the hundreds of thousands of textual changes found among our manuscripts, most of them are completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance for anything other than showing that scribes could not spell or keep focused any better than the rest of us.”[5]

2. Viable but not Meaningful

These variants could reflect the original, but they don’t affect the meaning of the text. Variants of this sort include synonyms, different spellings, changes in word order, and the like. Allow me to offer you a few examples:

John 1:6 either reads, “There came a man sent from God.” Or it reads, “There came a man sent from the Lord.” Either could reflect the original, but meaning remains the same.
The movable nu is either present or absent in several instances. This variant is equivalent to the English use of the article “a” or “an.” No translation is affected.
Sometimes John has two n’s and sometimes it has one n. It can be spelled either way. This could be equivalent to spelling it “color” or “colour.” Technically, both are acceptable. But again, the spelling of Ἰωάννηςdoesn’t affect translation.
One popular group of synonyms are words translated as “and” (καὶ, δέ, τέ). The variants could reflect the original, but the translation and meaning are not affected.
Word order changes don’t affect meaning either because Greek is an inflected language. Meaning, the form of the word determines its place in the sentence. For example, I can write “God loves you” twelve different ways in Greek (θεός ἀγαπᾷ σε / θεός σε ἀγαπᾷ / σε ἀγαπᾷ θεός / σε θεός ἀγαπᾷ / ἀγαπᾷ θεός σε / ἀγαπᾷ σε θεός / ὁ θεός ἀγαπᾷ σε / ὁ θεός σε ἀγαπᾷ / σε ἀγαπᾷ ὁ θεός / σε ὁ θεός ἀγαπᾷ / ἀγαπᾷ ὁ θεός σε / ἀγαπᾷ σε ὁ θεός). That is to say, changes of word order don’t affect translation.

3. Meaningful but not Viable

These variants would change the meaning of the text, but they obviously don’t reflect the original. For example, most John 1:30 manuscripts reads, “after me comes a man.” One manuscript, however, reads, “after me comes air.” And I don’t think John the Baptist was talking about some bad locusts he ate. This variant would change the meaning, but it obviously does not reflect the original. The copyists simply left out a letter (ἀήρ vs. ἀνήρ).

Again, Erhman remarks, “Most of the changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the results of mistakes, pure and simple — slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort or another.”[6]

Of all textual variants, 99% of them fall into these first three categories. The remaining 1% fall into the final category.

4. Meaningful and Viable

These variants would change the meaning of the text and they very possibly could reflect the original. Furthermore, most Bibles include these variants in their footnotes. Let me give you a few examples of what these variants look like and the process that textual scholars go through in making their decisions:

Mark 1:2

Either it reads: (A) “as it is written in Isaiah the prophet” or, (B) “as it is written in the prophets.”

Most of the early manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Bezae) support reading A. Later Byzantine texts support B. This one seems pretty straight forward to me. A is the more difficult reading because the following quotation comes from both Isaiah and Micah. Therefore, it’s easy to see how a later scribe would try to smooth this out by changing “Isaiah” to “the prophets” because of a perceived mistake in the manuscript he was copying. Since it’s the more difficult reading, and since it is well represented among the earliest manuscripts, reading A is to be preferred.

Luke 22:43-44

Either: (A) it includes Jesus agonizing and sweating drops of blood in the garden, or (B) it omits it.

The manuscript evidence is somewhat divided on this issue. Good manuscripts support both A and B, although church father quotations support A. Moreover, its difficult to understand why a scribe would insert this scene if it wasn’t original to the text. On the flip side, it’s easier to make sense of why a scribe would omit the scene because it makes Jesus look weak compared to other Christian martyrs who boldly went to their deaths. Option A seems like the better reading in my opinion.

Romans 5:1

Either it reads: (A) “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” or, (B) “let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Most of the early and better manuscripts favor reading B. That said, the context of Romans 5 suggests that A would be a better reading. In other words, Paul doesn’t seem to be exhorting the believers to pursue peace with God, but declaring that they already have peace with God. The difference is one letter (ἔχομεν or ἔχωμεν), and they would have sounded almost identical as they were read aloud. It’s easy to see how a copyist mistakenly heard the wrong word as someone read it aloud to him as he copied the text. Therefore, A seems like the better reading.

A Reliable Text

I hope these examples give you a little idea of what the process of textual criticism looks like. I should also note that none of the meaningful and viable variants leave any Christian doctrine hanging in the balance. That is to say, the Trinity isn’t up in the air if a Bible translator chose the wrong variant. God’s word is redundant (in a good way) so that every major Christian belief is well-represented across a wide spectrum of texts. Thus, while biblical scholars are less than 100% certain in a few places, you can have confidence that God’s word has been reliably preserved.

The next post will look into the history of the English Bible.

Notes

[1] Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, 7.

[2] Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, 90.

[3] Peter Gurry, Myths and Mistakes, 196.

[4] These categories come from Dan Wallace.

[5] Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, 207.

[6] Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, 55.

Does Political Power Contradict the Cross? Plus Q&A

Podcast

Some Christians are saying that since Christ saved the world through weakness by agreeing to go on the cross, Christians should not use power in politics or culture wars. Christianity Today leader Russell Moore recently wrote a column titled, “THE CROSS CONTRADICTS OUR CULTURE WARS: The victory of Christ was won by crucifixion, not societal conquest.” Is Moore correct? Is it unchristian to seek political power to right wrongs in society through law?

Frank points out several problems with Moore’s position, which is becoming more popular among Christian intellectuals (to the delight of secularists and Leftists everywhere). He also answers listener questions including those on how to answer scoffers and how to honor parents who are not Christians.

Links mentioned in the show:

The Cross Contradicts Our Culture Wars by Russell Moore
Christianity Today Had an Easter Message: We’re Just … Better Than You by Eric Metaxas

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

May 13, 2022/by Frank Turek

6 maneras en que el ateísmo es un obstáculo para la ciencia

Español

By Luke Nix

Introduction: Science vs. Christianity?

It is often claimed that Christianity is a hindrance to science. To justify this claim it is often said that many Christians just look at nature and satisfy their curiosity by saying “God made it,” without looking any further to discover how God made whatever it is that he made that is there. For many Christians, questions about the origin and how the natural world works end with that answer. However, for many others, while they acknowledge that God did make something, they diligently seek to discover how he did it. Christianity does not stop science, a lack of curiosity or interest (not necessarily a bad thing if the person does not have that passion or pursue that goal) is what could stop science if there is not a Christian who possesses that curiosity. Each Christian can stop scientific discovery for themselves, but as scientific discovery continues to be developed by other Christians, scientific discovery will continue.

On the other hand, it is a fact that atheism stops science. Not because the atheist satisfies his curiosity by saying “evolution did it” and stops all exploratory research, but because it hinders science for a couple of reasons that the atheist cannot escape if his worldview is true. If atheism is true, scientific discovery does not cease only for the atheist whose curiosity and curiosity are satisfied by the answer “evolution did it,” but it ceases for everyone .

If you are a friend of science and an atheist, I implore you to take your reasoning to the next level: think about how the discovery of the world around you would be understood. In today’s blog, I will present six different ways in which atheism and science are mutually exclusive and how atheism stops all scientific discovery in its tracks.

Science vs Atheism

The laws of mathematics vs atheism

Much of the scientific research done today relies solely on mathematics in its most advanced forms. It is used to describe chemical reactions, model the formation history of the universe, and even predict the spread of viruses. The reason mathematics can be used in this way is because the universe is built on/governed by mathematics. This fact makes the universe describable, discoverable, and predictable (to a certain extent). If the universe produced mathematics, then there would be no reason for the universe to be bound by mathematics, and it would not be possible to describe, discover, or predict it.

This poses a serious problem for the atheist. Indeed, according to the atheist view, mathematics is a product of a particularity of the universe (the human brain, to be exact), and the universe is not bound to be governed by anything it has produced. According to the atheist view, mathematics is not objective, so it is irrational to expect that the world around us is consistent with or explainable by what mathematics depicts. The present cannot be described, the past cannot be discovered, and future events cannot be predicted.

From the atheistic point of view, without a supernatural cause (excluding this universe) that causes mathematics to limit the universe to its laws, this universe is meaningless, and all scientific endeavor is ultimately doomed to be nothing more than a guessing game and incapable of bringing knowledge about any point in time or space.

The principle of uniformity vs atheism

As in mathematics, the uniformity principle is key to conducting scientific research. This principle states that the past behaved much like the present, and that the future will develop much like the present. This principle limits the universe to a continuous connection through time that scientists can use to describe, discover, and predict. Based on this principle, scientists understand that it is reasonable to extrapolate current observations to the past and the future. Thanks to this continuous connection, scientists can discover what happened in the past (historical science) with methodical certainty and make predictions about future events in the natural world (this is how different models of natural phenomena are tested: predictions of future discoveries are made based on different interpretations of currently observable data).

But, just as with mathematics, this principle cannot simply emerge with the appearance of the human brain on the cosmic scene. If this principle is a product of a peculiarity of the universe, then the universe cannot be governed by such a principle. Because of this absolute lack of government, there is also no reason to think that the universe can be explained using the principle of uniformity.

Therefore, if we want to continue scientific discovery using this principle, and if we want to believe that anything discovered using it is true or makes sense, then it must have a foundation prior to this universe. This means that the uniformity principle, like mathematics, has a transcendent (supernatural) foundation. Without such a foundation, scientific knowledge of the past and prediction of future events are impossible. In this second respect, atheism renders scientific discoveries useless before they are published.

The laws of logic vs atheism

Mathematics and the principle of uniformity are joined by the laws of logic. It is through the laws of logic that we can connect the present with the past and discover the history of our planet, the solar system, the galaxy, the universe, and even the initial events of creation itself. But this level of scientific discovery is only possible if the universe is governed by the transcendental laws of logic. Deductive reasoning and methodical certainty (mentioned above) necessarily depend on the laws of logic. If the universe is not governed by laws that transcend its own existence, then there is no reason to investigate and connect events as if it were governed by such laws. These laws must have a foundation that exists outside the natural universe; this means that they must exist supernaturally.

But according to atheism, nothing exists supernaturally, and the laws of logic are no exception. Therefore, according to atheism, the universe is not required to follow any of these laws nor can it be expected to do so. If we cannot rely on the universe to invariably follow such laws, then we cannot use such laws to make plausible theses about the universe with any level of certainty, including its history or its future. Without laws of logic existing outside the universe, any scientific endeavor that attempts to extend our knowledge of the natural world beyond the present moment that we witness in our small space of action is futile. Without a reason to believe that this universe is subject to the laws of logic, scientific discovery is impossible. Since there is no room in atheism for the laws of logic to govern this universe, then it cannot claim that justified and reasonable scientific discovery lies within its worldview either.

The laws of physics vs atheism

Atheism, without the laws of mathematics and the laws of logic, can no longer state or explain the laws of physics. That is just one of the many implications of a worldview devoid of a reality beyond this universe. But the problem for atheism regarding the laws of physics is deeper than just discovery and exposition. For lack of discovery and/or exposition does not necessarily imply nonexistence. The lack of the laws of physics in the atheistic worldview is established independently of, but similar to, the absence of the laws of mathematics and the laws of logic.

If there really are no laws of physics governing this universe, which if there were would mean that they are logically prior to or have a foundation outside of this universe, then there is no reason to use such laws of physics in any reasoning (because that would be using non-existent laws of logic) from current observations of this universe to the past history (because that would be using a non-existent principle of uniformity) of the same universe. Again, without a foundation outside of this universe that makes the laws of physics govern the universe, this universe is not constrained to follow any specific trajectory (laws of physics). If atheism is true, this is another reason why science is useless before it makes itself known.

Our sensory organs and the brain vs atheism

Of course, the utility of the features of reality described above does not manifest itself in scientific discoveries until observations are made. While those features of reality are observer-independent, this latter property is observer-dependent. Not only does atheism lack the foundation for the observer-independent (and much needed for scientific work) features of reality described above, but the guidelines/criteria for observer-dependent scientific endeavor undermine the reliability of its own work.

Atheistic worldviews have only one possible explanation for the emergence of sensations in human organs and brains: they are changes that occur over time and are directed by the (non-existent) laws of physics that govern natural selection. This is also known as “unguided evolution” or simply “evolution” in many atheist circles. We must clearly differentiate between agent-guided and environmentally guided evolution. The “unguided” qualifier here refers to agent-guided evolution. Evolutionists firmly believe that evolution was guided, but that guidance was directed by the environment and by the (non-existent) laws of physics that governed the creation and behavior of the environment.

Given this, the process guided solely by non-existent physical laws results in the survival of the species, so traits that are useful for the survival of populations are passed on from generation to generation and will continually be present. From this point of view, one trait has an advantage over another because of the external factors that allow its propagation, regardless of how useful that ability is. How useful that ability is is a purely accidental trait, and there is no way to independently test the usefulness of such traits for their continued existence, especially since all the features of reality mentioned above, which could be used to independently test them, lack a solid foundation if atheism is true. This means that the sensations of our organs and our brain have survived, not because of how useful their abilities were, but because they helped our ancestors survive in their environment. The atheist cannot come along and say that we can scientifically and independently prove the sensations of our organs through logic, mathematics, the uniformity principle, or the laws of physics because none of these have any solid foundation if atheism is true. If atheism is true, then all of those “laws” are the product of our evolved brains, which, again, is the product of a process governed by non-existent laws of mathematics, logic, and physics.

Conclusion

If something doesn’t exist or isn’t true, it’s not a valid starting point for creating processes that gain knowledge. If the foundations are compromised, so are the results. If atheism is true…

…science cannot be based on the laws of mathematics.

…science cannot be based on the principle of uniformity.

…science cannot be based on the laws of logic.

…science cannot be based on the laws of physics.

…science cannot be based on our own observations.

…science cannot be based on our own reasoning.

Science necessarily depends on the certainty and truth of these features of reality. If atheism is true, there is no basis for any of these features of reality. If atheism is true, these are not features of reality, which means that they are not true and do not exist. They cannot therefore be starting points for any discipline of knowledge, including science. If atheism is true, then science (among other disciplines of knowledge) cannot legitimately claim to provide us with truths about our world. If atheism is true (in any of its forms), it is impossible to connect our subjective beliefs with objective reality.

Since atheism and science are mutually exclusive, atheism is no friend of science; and science is no friend of atheism. If you are a friend of science, you know that these six concepts are characteristics of reality and are true. I invite you to abandon the naive scientific and philosophical worldview of atheism; embrace the reality of the Christian God, the One who provides a firm foundation for each of these six realities that you already know exist and upon which you already depend for your scientific discoveries.

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

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Luke Nix holds a degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metals exchange in Oklahoma.

Original source of the blog: https://bit.ly/38XdTMC

Translated by Yatniel Vega Garcia

Edited by Gustavo Camarillo

May 13, 2022/by Guest

Moloch: Bruised but not Defeated

Culture CrossExamined, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Josh Klein

For decades our country has been mired by a decision that enshrined the sacrifice of human babies to the god of Moloch (also known as Molech). You might know this practice by its current moniker, abortion, but the practice is essentially the same. Sacrificing our children on the altar of prosperity is a tail as old as human civilization. Instead of molten hands the altar is often a Planned Parenthood operating table.

We have chosen, as a nation, to ignore the obvious humanity of the infant in utero and have embraced the lie that sex is a right but having children as a result is anathema. That is, unless you want the baby.

In 1973, possibly the worst decision in the history of the Supreme Court was handed down in Roe v. Wade. I do not mean worst in merely the moral sense, though it is that, but also the legal sense. Finding the right to an abortion in the constitution took mental and philosophical gymnastics that would make Simone Biles jealous.[1] If you don’t believe me, perhaps you would believe Ruth Bader Ginsberg, not exactly a bastion of conservatism, when she said of the decision in 1992, “Doctrinal limbs too quickly shaped… may prove unstable.”[2]

This decision enshrined the murder of innocent children and the racially motivated eugenics of Margaret Sanger,[3] the founder of Planned Parenthood. If there is a social justice issue worth fighting, it is this one. Abortion effects minority communities more than any other in our society, in fact, over 40% of all abortions since 1973 were people of color.[4]

For decades this decision has meant the belittling of pre-born life, the slaughter of millions of babies, and the attempted genocide of the African American people. It is, in my opinion, one of the most corrupt and heinous failings in our country’s history. The decision to abort has been called a “woman’s right to choose.” Representative Ilhan Omar tweeted that “the Republican party supports forcing women to give birth against their will,” on May 3^rd 2022.

The euphemistic language is by design, sure a woman might give birth against her will (unless the sex was consensual), but the baby is killed against his/her will every time. Which is worse? Saying the reality engenders discomfort. In reality “women’s reproductive rights” is simply a cover for worship of self and a desire for prosperity by sacrificing a life on the altar of convenience. The ease of life was always the goal of sacrifice to Moloch, abundant harvests were promised as the babies were laid on the glowing hot hands of the idol. “Give us prosperity because we give you our first-born children” has turned to “give us prosperity as we suck my preborn child lifelessly from the womb.”[5] Life will be easier for everyone if this child does not exist. Interestingly enough, I notice the child never has a say.

When pro-abortion advocates feel they are losing ground they often use extreme examples like rape or incest to insist that abortion must be kept legal if only for these cases. Only 1% of abortion cases are because of rape and even fewer are because of incest[6]. This Red Herring has proven effective, but it should not be. When granted the exception, it becomes obvious that limiting abortion to only cases of rape and incest would never be acceptable. The goal of this objection is to get the pro-life advocate to admit that the baby is not a real baby. If you are willing to allow a pre-born child to be killed due to a crime, then what is the point of limiting the act to only those that are victims of a crime. A life is a life is it not? In this argument they concede the point, not the other way around. However, murdering an innocent because he/she reminds you of a horrific crime you suffered is not moral. Committing a second evil does not negate the first evil committed. But most pro-lifers are willing to grant the exception. Why? It is not because they believe the personhood changes based on the condition of conception, but because when faced with the prospect that such a compromise might save 99% of babies that would otherwise be killed we say this, “It is not perfect, but it is a start.”

Other objections are similarly shallow. “Why force a woman who already has children to carry another child and make her life harder?” Perhaps because murder is never an excuse to make life easier, and then we pretend like adoption is not an option. Or, “wouldn’t it be better to have never been born than for a child to be born in abject poverty?” This is assuming the child will never amount to anything and, logically, we might as well exterminate all drug addicts and homeless people then because… wouldn’t it be better for them in the long run to simply be dead? All of these are Red Herrings, and houses of cars that easily crumble under slight scrutiny, but they are not meant to stand, they are meant to obfuscate by putting the pro-life person on the defense having to explain the position. And we often fall for it.

For many years overturning Roe v. Wade seemed like a political pipe dream. Something always talked about but never coming to fruition. Recently, notable theologian and pastor Tim Keller exemplified this thought with a twitter thread that seemed to indicate such a position:

While I disagree with Keller on many of his points here, I believe his position is one that took into account the pipe dream that was Roe v. Wade being overturned.

But now, all of that has changed. An unprecedented leak of a drafted Supreme Court decision to Politico[7] has forced many to recognize the pipe dream might become reality. But what does the accomplishment of this pipe dream do?

Well, contrary to popular belief on the left, the decision would not make abortion illegal on a federal level. Though, to be honest, I wish it did. All it will do is remove abortion as a “right” enumerated by the constitution under the guise of privacy. This would send the decision on whether to make abortion legal or not to individual states. All in all, it would only make it a little harder to get an abortion. Some states would maintain their laws while others would make abortion illegal. States already have the purview to put limitations on abortion after the first trimester.

However, this is a necessary first step in ending the idolatry of self and sex without consequences in our society. But, when the god of Moloch is challenge, his worshippers fight back. Death threats are sure to make their way to the Supreme Court in an attempt to dissuade the justices from maintaining their ruling. Let us hope that threat is where it stops. Regardless, the clear objective of the leak is to effect the decision of the courts in more than one way.

Clearly, this leak is an effort to pressure the House and Senate to do something the left has wanted them to do for some time now: end the filibuster, and pack the supreme court and codify Roe as law. This leak makes that desire more urgent and puts pressure on middle of the road Democrats like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema to toe the party line and get the deal done. This is a delicate time in our nation’s history, and, in particular, our Republic. As of this writing members of congress are already setting the stage:

We would be mistaken, as believers, to think that this is a death knell to the abhorrent practice of abortion even if the decision comes out as the leak indicates it will. Abortion will still be practiced in many states and that, unfortunately, will not change.

While abortion has been made into a political and human rights issue (and it is), it is so much more than that to the Christian. While abortion is a clear evil in our society, and in culture at large, it is representative of a larger issue in society – the worship of self.

Self-actualization, self-identity, self-care, self-improvement, self-indulgence. Self, self, self, self, self.

We are a me-oriented society and thus, the idea that a person cannot choose for herself whether or not to kill another human being to ease the burdens of life is anathema. This is not simply about a culture war, this is a war concerning the gospel. Our battle is not against flesh and blood but against the rulers of this day and the worshippers of Moloch will not relinquish their grip easily.[8]

Plenty of states will harden their hearts and continue to come down with extreme legislation allowing abortion up to and possibly after birth[9]. This is not the end of the war, it is only a battle.

If we view this issue as primarily political, we miss the forest for the trees. We ought to be engaged in politics (see: Separation of Church and State Deception), but we must not make politics an end unto themselves. This has always been and will always be about the gospel, about being salt and light! What we will see in the coming days will be tantamount to spiritual revolution for the ardent Molochites. We ought not wilt in the periphery but stand on the hill. The truth, and life, is on our side. Compromising on murder for the sake of peace is not progress, it is surrender.

The worshippers of Moloch did not go quietly in the night during Israel’s time and the 21st century version will not go quietly into the night either.

To be clear, not everyone who is pro-choice is serving Moloch, but make no mistake, for the passionate abortion-at-all-costs radicals this is more about worship than it is about supposed rights. But don’t take my word for it:

“The right to an abortion is sacred.” This is sacramental language. And this avenue of worship has taken many forms throughout history, from Moloch, to Baal, to Baphomet, to the cult of self, whatever the Enemy can offer as a counterfeit to the real worship of God almighty in a given culture he will. Different times, different cultures, same methodology. Why fix what isn’t broken? The schemes of the devil are simple yet effective.

The promise is alluring, the worship is self-gratifying, and the outrage is intoxicating. But the end, as always, is death and misery, but most do not even recognize they are participating in the worship of darkness. They think they are enlightened humanists and many do not believe in the spiritual at all and that is just the way the Enemy wants it. Not many would knowingly bend a knee to Satan but if he can get them to worship the created rather than the creator it is just as well.

So what do we do?

Pray – A lot.

Keep the five justices of the Supreme Court and, in particular, members of Congress in your prayers continuously. Specifically pray for Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito to remain safe and pray for the hearts and minds of the dissenting justices to be softened. Pray also for safety in our nation. Pray for an opportunity for the gospel to be heard. Pray that pro-life people, such as myself, will stand for life but also for the care of each person in the name of Christ. Pray that pastors and theologians, such as Tim Keller and many others, with a wide reach will find confidence and courage. This could be an inflection point in our nation’s history, pray that it is not squandered.

Do not fight the lies of Satan with half-truths and do not give ground. Be courageous. The darkness always hates the light but its power is fraudulent and without substance.

And finally, stay heartened, faithful, and committed to the cause of Christ!

[1] https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3681&context=mlr

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html

[3] https://www.frc.org/op-eds/margaret-sanger-racist-eugenicist-extraordinaire

[4] https://www.bostonherald.com/2022/01/28/franks-high-abortion-rate-strikes-blow-at-black-community/

[5] https://allthatsinteresting.com/moloch

[6]https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/24/rape-and-incest-account-few-abortions-so-why-all-attention/1211175001/

[7] https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473

[8] Ephesians 6:12

[9] https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/31/politics/ralph-northam-third-trimester-abortion/index.html

I’m Having Doubts. Is that Okay?

Apologetics for Parents, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Levi Dade

Is doubting sinful?

If you have ever asked this question, you’re not alone. It’s an important question because doubt is part of the human experience. Therefore, Christians should ponder the question and seek to find out if God condones his people to have doubts.

If so, to what extent? What are the boundaries if doubt in itself is not sinful? What should God’s people do with their doubts?

Before we get too far, let’s define some terms:[1]

Doubt: 1) verb. To be undecided or uncertain. 2) noun. A feeling of uncertainty about the truth, reality, or nature of something.
Unbelief: noun. The state or quality of not believing; skepticism, especially in matters of religion.
Faith (or belief): noun. 1) confidence or trust in a person or thing. 2) belief about someone or something with good reason. 3) belief that is not based on proof.

For most Christians, it is clear that the Church does not have a positive attitude toward doubt. Many Christians have left the faith altogether from festering doubts which were never addressed because they felt there was no safe space in the Church to make their concerns known.[2]

Indeed, in recent years, the Church has, by and large, neglected to seriously consider the question of whether doubt (or asking questions) is sinful.

The result has been damaging: Those who have doubts and questions don’t trust the Church enough to be honest and open. If there is one place in the world Christians should feel safe exposing their doubt, it’s with the Church. Rather, they go outside the Church to ask their questions, where they are welcomed with the open arms of a tolerant, inclusive, and diverse world.

Maybe this is your story. Maybe you have doubts in the back of your mind, but you feel like addressing them will make you a bad Christian or make God mad at you. Maybe you know people whose doubt led to deconversion.

That would understandably cause fear in anyone. Please hear that you are not alone. There is hope in Jesus, and you will see how addressing your doubt is actually what will keep your faith strong in the long run.

With some exceptions, the Church has sidestepped the question of doubt by labeling all doubt as sinful, setting doubt in direct opposition with faith. Hence, the common mantras such as “just have faith” and “don’t ask questions” are believed without any reservation as biblical truth.

Taking a step back and examining the question of doubt is valuable because it forces us to ask ourselves if our theology is accurately reflecting the true teachings of Scripture. Examining our beliefs, which we often put little to no thought toward, is critical if we want to grow in our knowledge, understanding, and love of God and others.

The Source of Doubt

When having doubts about faith, we first have to ask, “Where did this doubt come from?” Identifying the source of doubt will help you determine how to deal with it. All doubt is spiritual, but there are two “categories” of doubt: emotional doubt and intellectual doubt.

Emotional Doubt

In short, emotional doubt is caused by an emotional impact on your life. For example, when people experience the deep loss of a loved one, the emotional impact causes them to question God’s love, goodness, or his existence altogether. You may have this doubt yourself, and that’s okay.

A good test to see if doubt is caused by an emotional impact is to ask, “What is my primary emotion toward God when I think about this?” If it’s anger or resentment or grief, it’s probably emotional doubt. When addressing this doubt, you would seek assurance that Christianity is good.

Intellectual Doubt

Intellectual doubt deals with what you do or don’t know about God. In other words, intellectual doubt is focused on facts rather than pure emotion. Intellectual doubt can indeed cause some emotions, but in this case, the source of the doubt is intellectual while the effect of the doubt is emotional.

For this doubt to be addressed (which can also help emotional doubt), you would seek assurance that Christianity is true. Again, ask the question, “What is my primary emotion toward God when I think about this?” If it’s uncertainty or confusion, your doubt is probably intellectual.

Doubt, Faith, and Unbelief

As mentioned in the introduction, doubt is often used as the opposite of faith in the Church. However, this is not the case. The opposite of faith is unbelief. In the New Testament, the words “faith” and “believe” are the same in the original language (Greek). A good example is Romans 4:4:

Now to the one who works, pay is not credited as a gift, but as something owed. But to the one who does not work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.

In the English language, “believes” and “faith” are different words, yet in the Greek language, they are the same. “Believes” is the verb form (pisteuō), and “faith” is the verb form (pistis). When we say we have faith in Christ, we are synonymously saying we believe in Christ. (Just as important, when we say we believe in Christ, it’s not merely a cognitive belief or recognition, as if we are saying we believe that, say, air exists. Rather, we are saying that we believe in Jesus and align our lives in accordance with that belief. It changes who we are from the inside out.)

How does it follow that doubt is the opposite of faith? Doubt is uncertainty about something. Unbelief is a conviction that something isn’t true, while faith is a conviction (or assurance) that something is true. In other words, doubt is the middle ground of faith and unbelief.

The Direction of Doubt

It is hard to see how doubt is sinful when one reflects on it long enough. As mentioned in the opening, it’s part of the human experience. People are going to doubt no matter what. The sin is not the doubt. The sin is what you do with the doubt, or where you decided to let the doubt take you.

We have seen how doubt is the middle ground, or tension, of faith and unbelief. This implies there is a decision to be made to go toward one (faith) or the other (unbelief). In our doubt, we can decide to go to many sources and voices that can lead us to unbelief. Conversely, many places are available to go to for answers to our doubts that keep our faith intact.

Ignoring doubts also can lead to unbelief. In the same way, we can choose to go to the object of our faith, Jesus, and see what he has to say about the matter.

Sin comes when our conclusions drive us toward unbelief. When our conclusions cause us to trust Christ and go deeper in our pursuit of God’s truth, our faith is strengthened, and the doubt is answered. In other words, sin enters the picture when uncertainty turns to unbelief, while stronger faith is produced when uncertainty turns to assurance.

Jesus’s Response to Doubt

In the seventh chapter of Luke’s Gospel, he records a story about John the Baptist. John the Baptist is regarded as a great spiritual model in the Church as he “prepared the way” for Jesus to begin his ministry.

Yet, in this story, John the Baptist is recorded as having doubts himself!

What? Not John the Baptist!

In this story, John was in prison for his faith. Things were not turning out as he hoped they would. It’s not a huge stretch to assume John knew he was nearing the end of his life, and understandably, he wanted assurance that Jesus was the Messiah. He wanted to make sure his death would not be in vain, since Jesus was not doing the things that the average Jew thought the Messiah would do at that time in Israel.

John decided to send some of his disciples to ask Jesus, “Are you the one to come, or should we expect someone else?”

Once his disciples asked Jesus the question, Jesus’s response was very telling. It was not, “You go tell John to just have faith and quit asking questions! Doubting is sinful!”

Instead, Jesus’s response was to “go and tell John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, and the dead are raised…”

Jesus did not want them to have blind faith in who he was. The point of his miracles was to point to the fact that he is “the one who is to come.” He provided evidence for the divine claims he made through his miracles. That’s what he pointed to when he was questioned.

Lastly, in verse 28, Jesus said about John, who had just doubted him, that “among those born of women, none is greater than John.” Even after doubting and needing assurance, Jesus commends John the Baptist!

Conclusion

Although doubt is seen as a negative in a large portion of the Church, be encouraged that the Lord’s attitude about doubt is very different. You aren’t a “bad Christian” for doubting. I have a podcast and blog aimed at providing reasons for the hope that we have in Christ, yet I wake up some mornings and question if it is true, or at least if some of my central beliefs about who God is are true.

I’ve learned to take my doubts, questions, and concerns to the feet of Jesus. If I go anywhere else, the answer I receive will likely lead me away from Christ. This does not mean we can’t get helpful insight from other resources (that’s what you’re doing right now!).

Other resources are good, and God can use them for our spiritual growth and understanding. These are resources that reflect the true teachings of Scripture. However, when we do so, our hearts and minds should be in submission the lordship of Christ to direct us and give us discernment when we do go to those resources.

That’s why it is critical to know Scripture for ourselves: to be able to discern what’s true and false in the world. It’s also critical to pray for the Lord’s wisdom and help in seeking answers. This is a practical way to bring your doubts to the Lord.

Be assured, brother and sisters, when you doubt, you are still a child of the Living God. When you take your doubts to him who created you, he will supply you with whatever answer your heart needs. Sometimes we may not like the answers to certain doubts.

However, every day, every Christian must answer the same question: who has ultimate authority in my life? Myself and my desires, or Christ?

In most cases, he knows what we need better than we do. Be encouraged that when you have doubt, you can let it be known, for our Savior invites you to bring them into the light so that he can assure you of all things concerning himself.

Amen.

Reliable resources to start addressing doubt:

CrossExamined.org

Cold Case Christianity

Stand to Reason

Alisa Childers

Sean McDowell

[1] Definitions adapted from dictionary.com.

[2] Ed Jarrett, “Can a Christian Doubt God and Still Have Faith?” https://www.christianity.com/wiki/salvation/can-a-christian-doubt-god-and-still-have-faith.html.

Why Has the World Gone Mad? C.S. Lewis & Paul Tell Us

Podcast

What explains the super extreme—even mad—positions we’ve seen people take publicly in recent years? For example, how did we go from abortion being “safe, legal, and rare” to “shout your abortion” and laws even allowing the murder of babies 28 days AFTER they are born? How did we go from “believe every woman” to “what’s a woman?” in just four years? How did we go from considering gender dysphoria a mental condition to affirming 3-5 year-olds in it and shouting down anyone who makes common-sense distinctions about gender?

The answer has to do with the revenge of our own consciences. Drawing on C.S. Lewis, Dr. J. Budziszewski, and the Apostle Paul, Frank reveals that the madness we see is rooted in our rebellion to our own consciences, and how our own psychology amps up our response to promote extreme positions. Lewis, Budziszewski, and, of course, Paul, have very profound insights into this. In the end, the only lasting solution to rebellion is repentance. Don’t miss this one.

And pick up a copy of Frank’s new book out this week, written with his son Zach, called Hollywood Heroes: How Your Favorite Movies Reveal God.

If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.

May 6, 2022/by Frank Turek

¿Cómo obtuvimos nuestra Biblia?

Español

By Ryan Leasure

This article is the first in a nine-part series that will explain the story of how we got our Bible. That is, the Bible did not fall from the sky into our hands. Rather, the Bible is the result of a long process that begins in the mind of God and ends with our modern English translations.

The process involves inspiring texts, collecting certain books, rejecting others, copying manuscripts, evaluating thousands of manuscripts to recreate the originals as closely as possible, translating the Hebrew and Greek texts into English, and creating readable translations in our modern local language.

As you might have guessed, this series will deal with some of the most crucial issues surrounding the Bible: topics such as the canon, the Apocrypha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Pseudepigraphal Gospels, textual criticism, the King James Only movement, and much more. I hope you will join me on this journey through the fascinating history of the Bible. If you are not already subscribed, please click subscribe to receive updates on future posts.

That being said, let’s start with the inspiration.

Plenary and Verbal Inspiration

Paul writes: “All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17, ESV). Here are some concepts worth highlighting.

First, the Greek word “theopneustos,” translated “inspired,” technically means “God-breathed, God-breathed, God-inspired,” so Paul is saying that God “breathes out” rather than “inspires” the text. In other words, He is the source behind all Scripture.

Second, notice that God inspires Scripture, not the authors themselves. This necessary distinction means that God’s inspiration extends to the final product of Scripture itself, not to the everyday life of the human author. That is, the authors were fallible while God-inspired Scripture was not.

Third, Paul points out that ALL Scripture is inspired, not just parts of it. Some have wrongly taught that inspiration only covers the parts that deal with faith and morals. But that is not what Paul is writing about. When he says “all,” he includes the Canaanite conquests, the talking donkey, and the Levitical code.

The biblical authors affirm inspiration

Several times throughout the Old Testament, the authors acknowledged that they were writing the words of God. Consider these examples:

“ Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Write this in a scroll for a memorial, and tell Joshua that I will completely blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven ’” (Exodus 17:14).

“ Then the Lord put forth his hand and touched my mouth. And the Lord said to me, ‘Behold, I have put my words in your mouth ’” (Jeremiah 1:9).

“ The word of the Lord that came to Hosea son of Beeri in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam son of Joash king of Israel ” (Hosea 1:1).

“ On the fifth day of the month, in the fifth year of King Jehoiakim’s exile, the word of the Lord came to Ezekiel the priest, son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the River Chebar; and there the hand of the Lord came upon him ” (Ezekiel 1:2-3).

Furthermore, the New Testament authors affirm the inspiration of the Old Testament:

“ All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: ” (Matthew 1:22).

“ Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide for those who arrested Jesus ” (Acts 1:16).

“ David himself said through the Holy Spirit: ‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet ”” (Mark 12:36).

This last verse was quoted by Jesus Himself. That is, Jesus affirmed the inspiration of the Old Testament.

What about the New Testament?

When Paul writes that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” he was most likely referring to the Old Testament, since the word Scripture (“graphe”) refers to the Old Testament when used in the New. We must also remember that when Paul wrote this letter, parts of the New Testament had not yet been written. Was inspiration then limited to the Old Testament? No, it was not.

Notice how Peter speaks of Paul’s letters in 2 Peter 3:15-16: “And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you, according to the wisdom given to him. And in all his letters he speaks about this matter. In them there are some things that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable distort— just as they distort the rest of the Scriptures —to their own destruction.” Peter seems to equate Paul’s letters with the Old Testament and grant them equal authority.

1 Timothy 5:18 is another crucial text on this issue. Paul writes, “ For the Scripture says, ‘ You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,’ and, ‘The laborer is worthy of his wages.’” Paul quotes two different passages in this verse and refers to both as Scripture. The first is found in Deuteronomy 25:4 and the second in Luke 10:7. This means that Paul thought that Luke’s Gospel was Scripture just as the Old Testament is.

We even have some clues that suggest the apostles knew they were writing God’s Word. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 14:37, “If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command from the Lord .” Additionally, Paul states in 1 Thessalonians 2:13, “For this reason we also thank God continually that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as it really is, the word of God, which also works in you who believe.”

Peter also comments, “that you may remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior as declared by your apostles ” (2 Peter 3:2). The apostles, then, believed that they spoke with authority from God. And they could do so because Jesus promised them that the Holy Spirit would guide them in the process. (John 14:26; 16:13)

Mechanical dictation?

Peter points out, “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever made by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20-21). Some suggest that the activity of the Holy Spirit is a lot like annoying mechanical dictation. But this would be a mistake. As I mentioned earlier, inspiration extends only to the finished product of Scripture. That is, God worked in and through the abilities, personalities, and experiences of the human authors as they wrote their various works. In short, the biblical authors produced their Scriptures in different ways.

The author of Hebrews touches on this point when he tells us, “God spoke long ago, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to the fathers by the prophets” (Hebrews 1:1). Notice how he states that the prophets spoke “in many ways.” And Scripture makes abundantly clear these different ways. Consider a few examples:

Research/Interpretation: “ Now concerning this salvation the prophets who prophesied of the grace to come to you searched and investigated diligently, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating when he foretold the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow ” (1 Peter 1:10-11)
Dictation: “ Write to the angel of the church in Ephesus… ” (Revelation 2:1)
Investigative Search: “ Forasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a record of the things which are most certain among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed fitting for me also, having diligently investigated everything from the beginning, to write an orderly account to you, most excellent Theophilus ” (Luke 1:1-3)

Furthermore, the biblical authors wrote poetry, wisdom literature, letters, and prophecies. And in doing so, God worked through them in such a way that did not override their unique perspective. At the same time, He oversaw the process to ensure that their message was accurate when communicated. As the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy notes: “We affirm that God, in His work of inspiration, utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers He had chosen and prepared. We deny that God, by having these writers use the very words He chose, overrode their personalities.”

Evidence of Inspiration

Some argue that inspiration appeals to circular reasoning because we must appeal to Scripture itself to claim inspiration. While that is a fair criticism, Christians are right to appeal to Scripture because it is our highest authority. If we appeal, for example, to human reasoning, then we elevate human reasoning to a higher authority than Scripture.

That said, we do have good evidence for inspiration in fulfilled prophecies. I could list dozens of fulfilled prophecies, but I will only briefly touch on two of them. First, Isaiah 53 correctly predicts Christ’s crucifixion. Of note is the fact that Isaiah says, “He was pierced for our transgressions” (Isaiah 53:5, ESV). This method of death is significant because in Isaiah’s day, the Jewish methods of execution were stoning or hanging. How could Isaiah correctly predict the kind of death Jesus would suffer seven hundred years earlier?

Another example is Daniel 9. Although I won’t go into details, Daniel predicts the exact time of Christ’s arrival. Furthermore, Daniel says that the Messiah will be “slain” (killed) just before the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. Jesus was crucified in A.D. 30. The Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70.

Inerrancy

Inerrancy follows naturally from inspiration. In other words, if God is the author behind the entire Bible, then everything must be true because God always tells the truth. Consider the following texts:

“ in which it is impossible for God to lie ” (Hebrews 6:18)

“ Now therefore, O Lord God, you are God, your words are truth ” (2 Samuel 7:28)

“ Every word of God is proven; ” (Proverbs 30:5)

“ Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17)

Notice that Jesus doesn’t just say that God’s word is true, but that it is the TRUTH. It is the absolute standard of truth. And lest anyone think that this idea of inerrancy is a modern invention, listen to some of the church fathers:

“You have searched the Scriptures, which are true and have been given by the Holy Spirit. You know that nothing unjust or false is written in them,” Clement of Rome, 1st century.

“The statements of Holy Scripture never contradict the truth,” Tertullian, 3rd century.

“Some are of the opinion that the Scriptures do not agree or that the God who gave them is false. But there is no disagreement at all. Far from it! The Father, who is the truth, cannot lie.” Athanasius, 4th century.

In short, while Scripture does not give us exhaustive knowledge of all things (how to change a tire, for example), it does not assert anything that is contrary to fact.

The next post

In the next post we will look at how the Old Testament came into being. In particular, we will address the nature of the development of the Old Testament, its authors and editors, as well as its preservation.

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

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ryan Leasure holds a Master of Arts degree from Furman University and a Master of Divinity degree from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is currently a Doctor of Ministry candidate at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He also serves as pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.

Original blog source: https://bit.ly/3w9hBum Translated by Monica Pirateque Edited by Daniela Checa Delgado

May 5, 2022/by Guest

Was God’s Original Creation Perfect?

Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian Apologetics

by Bob Perry

There is, and probably always will be, a debate going on between sincere Christians about the age of the Universe. I think I’ve made my position on that issue very clear. But at the core of the disagreement between the so-called “Old Earth” (OE) and “Young Earth” (YE) Creationists is their respective views of “Death before the Fall” of Adam and Eve. I fully understand the stridency on the side of my YE friends in this regard. After all, this topic is vitally important to our understanding of the entire plan of salvation. But the YE paradigm insists that the original creation was a Perfect Paradise in every way. I think they’re dead wrong about that. And my reasons are theological. Was God’s original creation perfect? I think it was. But not in the way my YE friends insist it was. It wasn’t a perfect paradise, free of death and suffering. But it was perfectly designed to achieve God’s eternal purposes. That’s a far different thing.

The Meaning of God’s “Very Good” Decree

At the center of this debate is what God meant when He declared His creation to be “very good” in Genesis 1:31. On the YE view, there is no room for interpretation of this phrase. The reasoning is straightforward. Death isn’t good. And if you think the Earth had been around for a few billion years before Adam & Eve showed up, the obvious implication is that there would have been a whole lot of “death before the fall.” God would never have created such a place. He certainly wouldn’t have called it “very good.”

Even worse, if there was death before the fall, that seems to negate the very reason that humanity needed a Redeemer. Romans 5:12 states very plainly that “… sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin …” In other words, there was no death before the fall of Adam & Eve. To say there was is to ultimately negate the very reason for which Christ had to die on the cross!

This is a big problem that needs to be addressed. I get it. And that’s why I am empathetic to the objection to an old universe with lots of death before the fall. We have to be very clear and careful about how we approach this issue.

The “Perfect Paradise Paradigm”

To do that, we should first look at a summary of the YE position. In his book, Peril in Paradise (available below), author Mark Whorton lays out five basic tenets of what he calls the YE “Perfect Paradise Paradigm.”

When God declared His finished creation “very good,” He meant that it was perfect in every conceivable way.
Eden was the embodiment of the Creator’s ideal intentfor His creation.
Man’s sin thwarted God’s plan, shattered His ideal intent, and ruined all of His perfect creation.
God introduced the physical death of man and animals as a punishment for sin.
God instituted the plan of redemption to reverse the effects of Adam’s sin and restore all things back to their original intent.

This is an outline of the view most of us have probably learned about the Garden of Eden in Genesis 1. I know it’s what I was taught. But the more I’ve studied the issue, the more I found it wanting.

Problems With A Perfect Paradise

To be direct, the first point in the list above is obviously false. The creation was not perfect in every conceivable way. I say this for a few reasons …

Satanwas in the garden
The garden contained the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil”

But 1 Corinthians 2:9 tells us that, “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him.”

If that’s the case (and I believe it is), the Garden of Eden could not have been a “perfect paradise.” Not if something far better is coming in the future. And there’s more:

Adam was always required to tend to the Garden — the fall did not impose that work on him, it just made his work more
The curse on Eve did not originate the pain of childbirth, it increasedthe pain she would experience.

For each of these reasons, it seems pretty clear that the garden could not have been a place of “absolute perfection.” Satan, and evil, and pain cannot exist in any place that God says is “perfect.” But there is an even more obvious problem with this notion of a perfect paradise.

Words Mean Things

The more obvious problem is right there in the words. In fact, the problem is so obvious it’s hard to imagine how it ever became an issue in the first place. God said that his creation was “very good.” But …

“Very good” does not mean “perfect.”

The Hebrew phrase translated as “very good” here is: meod tob. This phrase occurs elsewhere in the Bible. But Genesis 1:31 is the only place in Scripture where some have interpreted it to mean “absolute perfection.” Why would that be?

I submit it is because we have been taught to assume the YE paradigm is true. And if it is, the Perfect Paradise Paradigm also has to be true.

I don’t know how else to put it.

Perfect Paradise Assumptions

No doubt, the Garden of Eden was a unique and specially protected place that defies our imagination. But the flaw in the Perfect Paradise Paradigm is that it assumes these conditions also existed outside the Garden. Think about that for a second. Why would the Garden need to be specially protected if the entire creation around it was also “perfect?” Secondly, where is the Scriptural evidence to support the idea that the entire Earth was a perfect paradise?

It is nowhere to be found.

There are several other logical difficulties that stem from this idea. And they are not trivial.

Animals Cursed by Death

The Perfect Paradise Paradigm demands that there was no death of any kind (including animals) before the fall. It insists that death only invaded the perfect paradise when God imposed it as a penalty after the fall of Adam & Eve. But, once again, this idea is foreign to the text. Look at Romans 5:12 again. It tells us specifically that death was imposed on “all men.” It doesn’t mention anything about animals, or anything else in the creation. Those who defend the Perfect Paradise Paradigm always quote the beginning of this verse to make the point that ” … sin entered the world [through one man], and death through sin.” They rarely acknowledge the remainder of the verse that specifically states “… and in this way death came to all men.”

My point is simple. There could well have been death in the plant and animal kingdom outside the Garden before the fall of man. Nothing in Scripture prohibits it. The only critical issue regarding death is that it was a penalty God imposed on human beings who willfully rebelled against Him. As human beings are the only moral agents with free will on the planet, it is only human beings who received the penalty for violating God’s moral law.

Carnivores

It’s pretty obvious that for animals to eat, other animals must die. But if the world was a perfect paradise with no death, it follows that there could not have been carnivorous activity either. In other words, all the animals that we now recognize as carnivores must have been herbivores before the fall. The perfect paradise model insists that these animals all changed their “behavior” by “degenerating” into carnivorous activity after the fall.

But, as Mark Whorton points out, there are enormous differences between carnivores and herbivores.

“Carnivorous digestive systems are fundamentally distinct from herbivore systems. Herbivores are able to digest the cellulose that forms the cell walls of plant while carnivores are not. Carnivores can survive without a stomach. Herbivores cannot. Carnivores can survive without microorganisms; herbivores cannot. Carnivores can survive without plant food. Herbivores cannot.”

A carnivore like a lion is a finely-tuned eating machine that is built with specific instincts, musculature, anatomy, physiology, and biochemical makeup. These are fundamentally different animals than the herbivorous creatures that would have existed prior to the fall under the Perfect Paradise model.

Defense Mechanisms

Other creatures like the bombardier beetle have always been favorites of creationists (of all stripes) because of the incredible design they exhibit in their ability to defend themselves. But why would such a creature need to defend itself before the fall if there was no death or violence to threaten it? Did a porcupine not have quills, a skunk not spray, sea urchins not have spines, or did snakes not have venom and fangs? The list of preposterous suggestions goes on and on. The design of these creatures makes no sense if they originated in a world without threats or danger.

Immune Systems

According to the Perfect Paradise Paradigm, there would have been no need for immune systems in animals because there was nothing to threaten them. Living things had nothing to fear from death through disease. Yet, these kinds of systems are highly sophisticated and built into the physical makeup of every living creature. They depend on specific physiology and use the energy resources of the body in a very integrated way. Did these systems just spontaneously appear after the fall?

Extreme Habitats

There are countless examples of organisms of all kinds that are specially adapted to the environments in which they live. Not only so, but these are parts of larger ecosystems that are also specially designed to support the food chains of their inhabitants. In a non-threatening, perfect paradise this makes absolutely no sense. If the entire planet was one giant, perfect ecosystem, there would be no need for any creature to be specially equipped to survive in its home environment.

The Most Troubling Implication

There are plenty more examples. And all of these are fatal flaws for the Perfect Paradise Paradigm. But there is one aspect of this way of thinking that is more troubling than anything we can observe in nature.

The most harmful aspect of the paradigm is the way it sabotages the sovereignty, omniscience, and character of God.

The Perfect Paradise Paradigm implies that God created what He thought was the perfect world for humanity to enjoy. He intended mankind to live pain-free in that world forever. But we humans shattered the perfect world He had created. Worse, God never saw it coming. He was caught off-guard. And when mankind threw him the ultimate curveball, God was forced to react. He had to institute a new plan of redemption to return the creation to the way He wanted it to be.

Human sin thwarted God’s intended purpose for the creation and forced Him to invoke Plan ‘B.’

Really?

A Better Understanding

There is a better way to understand all this. Mark Whorton calls it the Perfect Purpose Paradigm. On this view, the Garden of Eden is still a special, protected place. But being protected implies there was something it needed protection from. The lack of death inside the Garden is what made it special. The world outside the Garden was dangerous. But it was designed in exactly the way God needed it to be to achieve his ultimate purpose.

On this view, the incredibly integrated design we see in nature today was not the result of some Plan ‘B’ reaction on God’s part. God didn’t have to completely alter His original creation because of something we did to screw it up.

In His perfect omniscience and foreknowledge, He designed the world to be this way. He knew exactly how He would use it to serve His purposes when the time came. Where the Perfect Paradise view insists that suffering and evil defy God’s intentions, the Perfect Purpose view recognizes their place in the story.

Ironically, if Eden was the perfection God originally intended there would be no need for a Redeemer. But that’s why the Perfect Purpose Paradigm is a more accurate view of reality.

**The Perfect Purpose Paradigm**

We don’t know why, but evil pre-existed the creation. The rebellion of Lucifer and his minions played a part in it all. And God’s purpose in creating the world was to defeat that evil forever. Suffering and evil are part of the creation. But God allows them here for a little while as compared to eternity. They are part of what God uses to accomplish His eternal purpose. We can see how this plays out throughout the Bible in the lives of Job, Moses, Pharaoh, Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, the nation of Israel, Paul, and, yes, even Jesus.

Under the Perfect Purpose Paradigm, God’s labeling the creation “very good” is a value judgment about the where and why of His eternal plan. On this view, “very good” means “perfectly suited to the purpose for which God intended it.” It makes more sense of the words of Scripture. And it aligns more with the reality we see in the world around us.

The destination is much more wonderful than our ability to enjoy this life alone. He designed the world to allow His image-bearers to experience darkness and evil so that we would hate it as much as we should. As much as he does.

As free-will beings, our mission, should we decide to accept it, is to choose to reject evil, thereby drain it of its power, and join with God in defeating it for good. And those — His church — who choose God over evil get to spend eternity with Him.

The real purpose of it all is for us to glorify God forever.

Our Ultimate Purpose

God’s plan of redemption is not a Plan ‘B.’ It was not instituted as a reaction to our unforeseen rebellion. Instead, it was the plan for God’s perfect purpose from before the beginning of time.

Suffering and evil are here for a little while. They serve only to lead us to accomplish an eternal purpose. That purpose was not to create a perfect world. It was to perfect us so that we would be worthy of spending eternity with God.

To answer the original question, God’s creation was indeed perfect. But it was perfect in a different way than most of us have been led to believe. It was perfect because it was built to prepare us for glory in the new heaven and new earth.

That’s a perfect end. And that’s how God has always intended it to be.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)

Macro Evolution? I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be a Darwinist (DVD Set), (MP3 Set) and (mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.

Original blog: https://bit.ly/3LEzW9e

May 4, 2022/by Guest