By Ryan Leasure
This is the second in a series of nine posts addressing the question of how we got our Bible. Last post dealt with the question of inspiration and inerrancy. This week we turn our attention to the formation of the Old Testament.
Introductory Matters
In the late second century, Tertullian coined the term “Old Testament” to distinguish the Hebrew from the Greek Scriptures. The word “testament” simply means “covenant.” The Old Testament, in its current form, consists of thirty-nine books and was written by dozens of authors over the course of one thousand years.
In the earliest times, biblical authors used a variety of different writing surfaces. They etched into stone (Exod 34:1; Josh 8:32), inscribed on plaster (Deut 27:2-3), engraved on metal (Exod 28:36), and scratched on waxed tablets (Isa 30:8; Hab 2:2). In order to engrave on these surfaces, they used iron pens (Job 19:24; Jer 17:1) and other styluses.
Thankfully, the Egyptians had already invented a paper-like product using papyrus plants long before Moses wrote the law. Biblical authors adopted this writing technology for practical purposes (Jer 36:23). When papyrus wasn’t available, authors would write on stretched and dried animal skins called parchments. Writers used thin-stemmed reeds (Jer 8:8) that they dipped in ink which was usually a mixture of soot and tree sap or oil. Scribes would often wear ink cases around their belts (Ezek 9:2-3).
The First Scripture
Fittingly, God himself wrote the very first Scriptural text. We read in Exodus 31:18, “And he gave to Moses, when he had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.” Those same tablets were then stored in the Ark of the Covenant along with a jar of manna and Aaron’s staff (Deut 10:5; Heb 9:4).
Moses would later compile God’s writings into the Pentateuch along with his other writings. We have indications that Moses wrote the Pentateuch in stages and not all at one time. Exodus 24:4 reads, “And Moses wrote down all the words of the LORD.” Exodus 17:14 notes, “Then the LORD said to Moses, ‘Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalak from under heaven.’”
Scholars debate how Moses learned the contents of Genesis. Some suggest he learned them at Mount Sinai through divine revelation. Others believe it was passed down through oral tradition. And others believe it was a combination of the two.
Stages of Writing
As was previously noted, the Old Testament was not written at one time but over the course of a thousand years. It may be helpful to think of the development of the Old Testament in four stages.
The first stage was at Mount Sinai when Moses wrote the Law. Early on, the Pentateuch functioned like the Jewish canon of Scripture. In fact, Moses commands “You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you” (Deut 4:2). Over the course of hundreds of years, other books were written, but their inclusion into the canon took some time. The Books of Moses, however, were authoritative from the get go.
The second stage of revelation deposits came during the transition from the theocracy to the monarchy. During that era, authors wrote several historical books (Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuels), poetry (Psalms), and wisdom literature (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon).
The third stage was the time surrounding the Babylonian Exile. Several prophets wrote during this time period (Isaiah, Micah, Hosea, Jonah, Amos, Joel, etc.).
The fourth and final stage was the return from exile. More prophets continued to write (Zechariah and Malachi) as did historians (Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther).
Quoting the Law
Because the Old Testament developed in stages, later Old Testament writers often referred back to the Books of Moses. Perhaps the most quoted text from Moses is Exodus 34:6. The text declares, “The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness.”
Consider how these later Old Testament texts quote Moses:
But your are a God ready to forgive, gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love (Neh 9:17).
But you, O Lord, are a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness” (Psalm 86:15).
That is why I made haste to flee to Tarshish; for I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, and relenting from disaster” (Jonah 4:2).
Submitting to the Law
Not only did later Old Testament writers quote from Moses, they explicitly affirmed his authority.
Only be strong and very courageous, being careful to do according to all the law that Moses my servant commanded you. Do not turn from into the right hand or to the left, that you may have good success wherever you go. This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it (Josh 1:7-8).
When David’s time to die drew near, he commanded Solomon his son, saying, I am about to go the way of all the earth. Be strong, and show yourself a man, and keep the charge of the LORD your God, walking in his ways and keeping his statutes, his commandments, his rules, and his testimonies, as it is written in the Law of Moses (1 Kings 2:1-3).
They told Ezra the scribe to bring the Book of the Law of Moses that the LORD had commanded Israel. . . . And he read from it . . . in the presence of the men and the women and those who could understand. And the ears of all the people were attentive to the Book of the Law” (Neh 8:1-3).
The Prophets Use of Prophets
Because the Pentateuch was authoritative from the beginning, we find far more references to Moses than any other Old Testament author. That said, the prophets still recognized the authority of other prophets who lived closer to their time. Consider Daniels words:
“In the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years that, according to the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely seventy years” (Dan 9:2).
Even though Jeremiah wrote only a few decades prior, Daniel still recognized his divine authority.
Zechariah also recognizes the divine authority of his prophetic predecessors. He writes:
Then the word of the LORD of hosts came to me: Say to all the people of the land and the priests, When you fasted and mourned in the fifth month and in the seventh, for these seventy years, was it not for me that you fasted? . . . Were not these the words that the LORD proclaimed by the former prophets, when Jerusalem was inhabited and prosperous? (Zech 7:4-7).
Authors and Dates
Admittedly, we cannot be too precise on some of the authors and dates of the Old Testament books, especially some of the historical works. That said, consider the following chart which details the authors and dates of each Old Testament book.[1]
Use of Sources
Inspiration does not imply mechanical dictation. While biblical authors did dictate God’s word from time to time, they also employed other methods such as researching historical sources. Consider the following examples:
Therefore it is said in the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num 21:14).
And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? (Josh 10:13).
Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the Book of the Acts of Solomon? (1 Kings 11:41).
Now the rest of the acts of Joram, and all that he did, are they not written in the Book of Chronicles of the Kings of Judah? (2 Kings 8:20).
What these texts demonstrate is that the biblical authors didn’t invent this stuff. They did careful research before compiling their works.
Editors
Inspiration does not preclude editing. In other words, God not only inspired authors, he inspired editors to modify and rearrange the text. Without exception, the New Testament writers, and even Jesus himself, affirm Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch (Matt 8:4; 19:8; Mark 7:10; 12:26; Luke 16:31; 20:37; 24:44; Acts 3:22; 15:1; 26:22; 28:23; 1 Cor 9:9; Heb 9:19). That said, we have clear indications of later editing by Jewish scribes. Consider the following texts:
Now the man Moses was very meek, more than all people who were on the face of the earth (Num 12:3).
So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD, and he buried him in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Beth-peor; but no one knows the place of his burial to this day (Deut 34:5-6).
And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face (Deut 34:10).
Did Moses call himself the meekest person on the earth and report his own death and burial? And following his death, did he report that no such prophet has arisen since the time of Moses? Doesn’t that last statement assume that some time has passed since his death? In short, while Moses penned the Pentateuch, later scribes edited his work into their present form.
Preservation
Knowing that it took a thousand years to write the Old Testament (1400-400 BC), how confident can we be in its preservation? After all, we know that there was a period of time when it seems like the text had been lost and out of use (2 Kings 22-23).
Apparently, “clans of scribes” existed during the Old Testament era to copy and preserve the Hebrew Bible (1 Chron 2:55). Since then, Jewish scribes have meticulously copied texts for the same purposes. Perhaps the most famous of these scribes are the Masoretes and the Ben Asher family from the fifth century AD. These professional copyists counted the number of words on every page and knew the number of words in every book as well as the exact middle word and letter of every book to ensure that they copied accurately.
Additionally, the Masoretes added vowel markings to the otherwise vowel-less text. Up until the 1940s, the earliest Hebrew texts in our possession were Masoretic texts dating to the 9th and 10th centuries.
Dead Sea Scrolls
In 1947, a shepherd by the name of Muhammed edh-Dhib was out looking for some of his sheep along the coast of the Dead Sea. As he passed by a cave, he tossed a rock inside hoping to hear the bleating of sheep. Instead, he heard pottery shattering. That shattered jar led to one of the most significant archaeological finds of the twentieth century.
Archaeologists have since uncovered over a thousand ancient Jewish documents from dozens of nearby caves dating from 250 BC to AD 65. These texts belonged to the Qumran community otherwise known as the Essenes. These people functioned much like Jewish monks, isolated from much of society. The Qumran community most likely stashed their sacred texts in these caves during the war with Rome (AD 68-70) hoping to return to them once the dust settled. Unfortunately, they all died during the war, so their texts remained hidden for two thousand years.
Among these documents are every book of the Old Testament except for Esther. Perhaps the most significant text is a complete Isaiah scroll, consisting of twenty-seven sheets of parchment sewn end-to-end. It measures twenty-three feet in length. The scroll dates to 120 BC—a thousand years older than the previous oldest text. Most significantly, the Isaiah scroll hardly differs from the Masoretic text from the tenth century, demonstrating that Jewish scribes carefully preserved the original text.
Old Testament Canon
The next post will consider the Septuagint, the apocrypha, and the Old Testament Canon.
*For more on this topic, read Timothy Paul Jone’s helpful book How We Got the Bible.
References:
[1] This chart is modified from Timothy Paul Jones, How We Got the Bible, 31-33.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Does Science Disprove God? by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)
Two Miracles You Take With You Everywhere You Go by Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)
Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Leasure holds a Master of Arts from Furman University and a Masters of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Currently, he’s a Doctor of Ministry candidate at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He also serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/30ACsei
Learn To Make a Maximal Case For The Resurrection
4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Erik Manning
I used to love sharing the minimal facts with unbelievers. It’s easy to present in a few minutes and sounds rhetorically powerful. When I tell my friends that the facts I’m sharing are universally acknowledged by scholars, even those who are skeptical, it seems like I am not coming at them with something that only conservative evangelicals believe. And on the surface, taking an end-run around the Gospels seemed helpful because unbelievers tend to view them as dubious sources.
However, I ran into a couple of issues. One was practical. Let’s say I got the skeptic to hear me out. Does it really make sense to say: “OK, I granted for the sake of argument that the Gospels are a hot mess of contradictions and historical gaffes. I now wanna take that back and argue that they’re much more reliable than that. You should accept orthodox Christian doctrine” The skeptic might ask “um… if that were true, why’d you start out granting so much for the sake of argument?” This feels like bait and switch.
WHY MAXIMAL DATA?
Plus, once an objection like grief hallucinations or mass delusions came up, I’d eventually have to back up and present other facts that skeptical and liberal scholars didn’t acknowledge. Any imagined rhetorical advantage evaporated. This approach didn’t really save time. If I wanted to defend the bodily appearances, the empty tomb, or the early persecution of the Twelve, I couldn’t “do it all with Paul.” I’d have to learn to defend the reliability of the Gospels and Acts. There are no shortcuts.
The good news is that this can be both rewarding and faith-building. You won’t be lost for words when you’ll hear a scholarly critic like Bart Ehrman lay out a list of complaints about the Gospels. You’ll no longer have to console yourself with “well, I’m not sure how to answer that, but at least the core facts are true.” You can read the Gospels and not wonder “is this part really defensibly historical?” Learning this approach kills cognitive dissonance.
OBJECTIONS TO MAXIMAL DATA
The only drawback is that you’ll be told you hold fringy views. But again, saying that there is evidence that the tomb was empty or the resurrection appearances were physical is already considered fringy to the scholarly consensus anyway. And importantly, scholarly politics can’t trump the force of objective evidence. It doesn’t mean that something is weakly supported by non-question-begging evidence because it isn’t granted by skeptical and liberal scholars. Nor does it mean we’re making a “for the Bible tells me so” argument.
When the skeptic asks, “what about all the contradictions?” you can offer to revisit them later and continue to make your positive case, rather than conceding them for the sake of argument. And by the way, the robust reliability argument can also be made in a way that’s just as quick and easy to share as minimal facts. It goes like this:
There! That’s not so hard now, is it? You could make that argument on an elevator. You just need to be prepared to back it up with additional evidence. So with this in mind, I’m going to tell you about 3 modern books you can pick up for around $50 total. And then I’m going to give you three older, public domain books that you can get off the Google Play store that won’t cost you a dime.
Resource #1: The Case For Jesus – Brant Pitre
This book helps answer a whole host of questions: Were the four Gospels really anonymous? Aren’t they written far too late to be considered reliable? Aren’t the Gospels folklore? What about the lost Gospels, like the Gospel of Judas or the Gospel of Peter? Is Jesus only divine in the Gospel of John and not the Synoptics?
Pitre offers some neglected evidence from the early church fathers and ancient manuscripts to demonstrate that the Gospels are not anonymous, as skeptics like to assert. Furthermore, he puts Jesus of Nazareth’s divine claims in an ancient Jewish context in a way that blew my mind. You won’t look at the phrases Son of Man and Kingdom of God in the same way.
Resource #2: Can We Trust the Gospels? – Peter J. Williams
This is a super accessible book and only 140 pages. The whole thing is great, but chapter 3 is worth the price of the book alone. Skeptics often claim that the Gospels were written decades later by people unfamiliar with 1st-century Palestine. If that’s true, we’d expect to find all kinds of errors regarding Palestinian geography, names, and customs, but Williams demonstrates time and time again that the Gospel writers get these details right, including many difficult types of details. Based on the data, Williams concludes that “The resulting Gospels are not what we would expect from people who made up stories at a geographical distance.” This serves as evidence that the evangelists were well-informed, consistently trustworthy, and close up to the facts.
Resource #3: Hidden in Plain View – Lydia McGrew
Having been largely neglected for over a century, Lydia McGrew revives an argument for the reliability of the NT called undesigned coincidences. In a nutshell, an undesigned coincidence is an apparently casual, yet puzzle-like fit between two or more texts, and its best explanation is that the authors knew the truth about the events they describe or allude to. These connections are among passages in the Gospels, as well as between Acts and Paul’s epistles. These lend credence to the idea that these documents were written by eyewitnesses who knew what they were talking about. This is relevant to developing a case for the resurrection. For if the gospels can be shown to be rooted in credible eyewitness testimony, you have to take seriously the reported nature and variety of the post-resurrection encounters with the risen Jesus as coming from the original eyewitnesses.
Seeing examples of this in action is the easiest way to understand it. You can find plenty of interviews and lectures on YouTube where Dr. McGrew shares this argument.
I’d also highly recommend her other two books if you are interested in learning more about the Gospels’ reliability. Those are The Eye of the Beholder (which is a defense of John’s Gospel) and The Mirror and the Mask, which argues against claims made by evangelical scholars that the Gospel authors felt free to present events in one way even though they knew that the reality was different. These are a little more technical than her first book, and a great place to start if you want to go deeper into the issues.
FREE RESOURCES
Finally, get A View of the Evidences of Christianity by William Paley. I cannot recommend this book enough. Paley debunks Hume’s anti-miracle argument. He examines all the evidence that the original witnesses of Christianity were willing to undergo labors, dangers, and suffering in order to spread the gospel of the resurrection.
He goes into great detail regarding the authorship and early use of the Gospels, which includes the unanimous testimony of the early church and even some heretics. Paley takes us into the unity of the character of Christ in all four Gospels. This answers some of the “why’s John’s Jesus so different?” objections. Paley also demonstrates 41 instances where the Gospel writers make incidental allusions to history that can be confirmed outside the NT, even down to minor details. These illustrate the evangelists’ familiarity with the setting and their accuracy in recounting details. He discusses alleged discrepancies in the Gospels, prophecy, and so much more. I can’t do this book justice in a short video. Just get it. Sure, his style of writing is from the 18th-century and his arguments could use a little updating. However, this book has mostly stood the test of time and should not be forgotten.
Just search the Google Play store for these three public domain books and you can find free versions. There are many other books I could recommend, but these are meant to get you started. I just want to assure you that this isn’t a very difficult method to learn. It took time to learn the minimal facts approach, and you can take the time to learn this. There may be extra details, but we’ve seen that extra details are needed anyway to make a strong case. We can all find less time for Twitter, Instagram, or reading the latest political news, or binge-watching Netflix. You just have to set priorities.
Skeptics have poked apart the minimalist approaches to the resurrection for far too long. We need an army of Christian apologists who can make a more robust case. You can do this.
Recommended resources for this topic:
Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)
The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)
The Footsteps of the Apostle Paul (mp4 Download), (DVD) by Dr. Frank Turek
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Erik is a Reasonable Faith Chapter Director located in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. He’s a former freelance baseball writer and the co-owner of a vintage and handmade decor business with his wife, Dawn. He is passionate about the intersection of apologetics and evangelism.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/30z17Qb
Eternal Hell for Temporal Sins?
PodcastHow is it just for God to punish people for eternity when they’ve only committed temporal sins? Isn’t that overkill? Is Hell just temporary? Is it loving for God to “send” people to Hell? Frank answers those questions and others on this sensitive topic.
Plus, he dives into some of the objections leveled at the evidence that authenticates both the New Testament and the recently found burial box of the High Priest Caiaphas. Yes, we’ve actually discovered the grave and bones of the man who sentenced Jesus to die! But is the box real or a fake? Find out in this week’s episode of the ‘I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be An Atheist’ Podcast.
If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.
Subscribe on iTunes: 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
El impacto de la Omnipresencia Divina en la vida del creyente y más allá
EspañolPor Brian Chilton
Mientras que Dios utilizó la apologética para devolverme la fe, Dios utiliza la teología para humillarme, asombrarme y reconfortarme ante su asombrosa presencia. La teología es una de mis pasiones. Mi currículum muestra cuánto amo la teología. Como mencioné en un post anterior, me di cuenta de que las escuelas que contratan profesores desean que los solicitantes posean 18 horas de estudio de posgrado en el campo elegido. Con la curiosidad de saber qué horas tenía, empecé a investigar cuántas horas poseía en diferentes campos. Me di cuenta de que cuando termine mi doctorado, tendré 30 horas de estudio teológico. Supongo que se me puede llamar un superdotado. Desde luego, no digo esto para parecer fanfarrón. Simplemente lo menciono para señalar el gran impacto que la teología ha tenido en mi vida.
Aunque he dedicado gran parte de mi tiempo a los estudios teológicos, me siguen pareciendo ciertas las palabras del Dr. Daniel Mitchell, profesor de teología de la Universidad Liberty: “Cuanto más estudiamos a Dios, más grande se vuelve”. Le pregunté qué quería decir con esa afirmación en una clase que tuve con él. Mitchell señaló que no quería decir que hiciéramos a Dios más grande en nuestra imaginación, sino que empezamos a comprender cuan grande es realmente Dios cuanto más lo estudiamos. Cuando comprendemos la grandeza de Dios, nuestras preocupaciones tienden a desvanecerse en los cálidos y fuertes brazos de Dios.
Un atributo divino que proporciona tanto asombro como serenidad es la omnipresencia divina de Dios. La palabra omnus significa “todo”. Todos entendemos lo que significa el término presencia. Así, Dios tiene la capacidad de estar en todos los lugares y en todo momento. No hay un lugar donde no se encuentre la presencia de Dios. La Escritura indica la naturaleza omnipresente de Dios en muchos lugares, pero se encuentra más explícitamente en el Salmo 139. David escribe mientras habla con Dios,
A partir del texto que nos ocupa, se demuestra que Dios está presente en todos los lugares en el mismo momento. Wayne Grudem define la omnipresencia de Dios de la siguiente manera: “Dios no tiene tamaño ni dimensiones espaciales y está presente en cada punto del espacio con todo su ser, aunque Dios actúa de forma diferente en diferentes lugares” (Grudem, Teología Sistemática, 178). La omnipresencia divina impacta al creyente de múltiples maneras, pero por razones de espacio, me concentraré sólo en cinco.
Escribo esto sin saber a qué se enfrenta usted, el lector, al leer esta entrada. Pero la faceta asombrosa de este atributo divino es que no importa dónde estés, Dios está ahí contigo. Pablo dijo a los atenienses en el Areópago que Dios había establecido a partir de un hombre cada persona, nación y lengua. Dios estableció las fronteras y determinó los tiempos y las estaciones. Dios hizo esto, dice Pablo, “para que busquen a Dios, si en alguna manera, palpando, puedan hallarle, aunque ciertamente no está lejos de cada uno de nosotros.” (Hechos 17:27, RVR60). Sorprendentemente, Dios ha bendecido al Ministerio Bellator Christi para que lleguen a casi todas las naciones de nuestra querida Tierra. No importa dónde estés leyendo esto, Dios está cerca de ti. Dios está dispuesto a recibir tu adoración. Dios está dispuesto a perdonarte por el sacrificio que Jesús hizo en tu nombre. Por su naturaleza omnipresente, Dios puede llenarte con el Espíritu de Dios. Dios está contigo. Dios está siempre cerca de ti. ¿Qué puede ser mejor que eso?
Recursos recomendados en Español:
Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek
Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Brian G. Chilton es el fundador de BellatorChristi.com, el presentador de The Bellator Christi Podcast, y el autor del Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics. Recibió su Maestría en Divinidad en Teología de la Universidad Liberty (con alta distinción), su Licenciatura en Ciencias en Estudios Religiosos y Filosofía de la Universidad Gardner-Webb (con honores), y recibió la certificación en Apologética Cristiana de la Universidad Biola. Brian está inscrito en el programa de doctorado en Teología y Apologética de la Universidad Liberty y es miembro de la Sociedad Teológica Evangélica y de la Sociedad Filosófica Evangélica. Brian ha estado en el ministerio durante casi 20 años y sirve como el Pastor Principal de la Iglesia Bautista de Westfield en el noroeste de Carolina del Norte.
Blog Original: https://cutt.ly/pTZkIRJ
Traducido por Yatniel Vega García
Editado por Daniela Checa Delgado
How Culture Got to the Point Where Saturday Night Live is Promoting Abortion in a Clown Outfit
Culture CrossExamined, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Natasha Crain
This weekend, Saturday Night Live cast member Cecily Strong played a character called Goober the Clown who had an abortion when she was 23 and now talks to people about how normal abortion is in between clown jokes.
Goober explains that it’s a “rough” subject, so she does fun clown stuff to make it more “palatable.” In the context of her skit, saying that it’s a rough subject wasn’t a tacit admission that abortion is in some way wrong; it was a condemnation of those who make it rough to talk about because they have a problem with it.
If you can stomach it, you can watch the 4 minute clip here.
Yes, the intentional killing of preborn babies has become fodder for a comedy skit—something literally worth clowning around about.
Every single one of us should be asking how on earth we, as a culture, have arrived at such a moment.
If we’re not asking that question, we’ve become completely desensitized to evil.
In one sense, the question of how we got “here” is a complex one worth hundreds of pages of historical, philosophical, political, and theological history. (And if you’re looking for something of that nature, I can think of no better resource than Carl Trueman’s The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution.)
But in another sense, the question is far more straightforward when you understand the nature of the secular worldview that dominates our culture.
In Chapter 8 of my upcoming book Faithfully Different: Regaining Biblical Clarity in a Secular Culture, I talk about “Reaffirming Biblical Morality (Under the Pressure of Secular Virtue Signaling).” As I explain in that chapter, there are a lot of nuances to what people popularly call “virtue signaling,” but my objective was quite simple: to take the moral statements people and institutions publicly make at face value and assume 1) they truly believe the position they’re stating is the morally good position to have, and 2) they believe there’s some kind of value in stating that position publicly (otherwise they wouldn’t have bothered to say anything at all).
What I show is that these bare bones aspects of virtue signaling play an important role in promoting the secular moral consensus over and against a biblical view of morality.
To do that, I break down the psychological process of moral buy-in that secular culture must go through to gain acceptance of a changed moral position: awareness, normalization, then celebration.
While in the chapter I take a more detailed look at each stage, for my current purpose I just want to highlight key points for understanding the normalization part of the process. Goober the Clown clearly wanted us to all feel just how normal abortion is with her skit, and it’s important to understand just how culturally strategic—and predictable—that is.
The focus on portraying abortion as normal and therefore good is no accident.
Why is normalization in particular so important for gaining secular moral buy-in?
As I explain in chapter 8, “To understand why, we need to return to three of our secular worldview foundations [discussed earlier in Faithfully Different]: Feelings are the ultimate guide, happiness is the ultimate goal, and judging is the ultimate sin. On the one hand, secularism is all about the individual defining their own journey. On the other hand, if there’s a negative prevailing societal judgment about the morality of certain choices, it can make people question the validity of their journey…whether they want that gut check or not. Yes, the secular ideal is to live in a self-contained judgment-free zone, but when the reality is that there’s a holy God who defines morality and gives humankind an inner sense of right and wrong, there will be a battle fought with the conscience.
Through virtue signaling—publicly proclaiming the moral good of an action—people are fighting this inner battle in the public sphere.
The battle commonly takes three steps.
1. Publicly proclaim that the action leads to the holy secular grail of happiness (if it makes you happy, how could it possibly be wrong?). For those who believe that happiness is the ultimate goal, it makes a powerful statement to juxtapose a morally questionable action with the achievement of secularism’s greatest good. Abortion, for example, is commonly portrayed as the means through which a woman became free to happily pursue the life she wanted and the goals she had.
2. Proclaim it with as many people as possible to demonstrate that there’s no shame in the action (if everyone’s willing to tell the world they’ve done it, clearly there’s nothing to be ashamed of). Here’s perhaps the most important thing you can take away from this article: Given that secularism doesn’t defer to an objective higher authority, the closest thing it has to a moral standard is the popular consensus. Read that again multiple times—it’s the key to understanding a vast array of activism we see today. Increasing the number of people who share a positive moral judgment of an action is a proxy for transforming that action into a moral good for those who otherwise have no objective, external standard. Goober the Clown talks about how once a woman goes out on a limb in a social group to say she’s had an abortion, several more will say, “Me too!” The message is clear, and it sounds like something out of a bad 1980’s commercial portraying peer pressure to do drugs: “Everybody’s doing it, so it’s fine if you do, too.”
3. Remind everyone that life is all about self-authority anyway. Sure, you’ve shown it’s possible to justify your moral choice in steps 1 and 2, but this reminds people you never really had to anyway. Goober the Clown says right up front that it should all just be part of her “clown business,” but people keep talking about it, so she has to as well.
Normalization is ultimately a process of publicly signaling to society that an action is so commonplace, it’s unnecessarily taboo. Normal is the social validation secularism needs to minimize conflict with the conscience.
Perhaps nowhere has that been so on display as in this skit. If we can show that a subject is so unnecessarily taboo that we can discuss it in a clown outfit, surely it must not be a bad thing… right?
Christians, don’t be surprised. Secular culture will undoubtedly continue to “clown around” with evil. It’s actually quite predictable.
It’s the modus operandi for suppressing truth in unrighteousness.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
The Case for Christian Activism (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek
Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book)
Defending Absolutes in a Relativistic World (Mp3) by Frank Turek
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Natasha Crain is a blogger, author, and national speaker who is passionate about equipping Christian parents to raise their kids with an understanding of how to make a case for and defend their faith in an increasingly secular world. She is the author of two apologetics books for parents: Talking with Your Kids about God (2017) and Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (2016). Natasha has an MBA in marketing and statistics from UCLA and a certificate in Christian apologetics from Biola University. A former marketing executive and adjunct professor, she lives in Southern California with her husband and three children.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3DxEvht
How We Got Our Bible: Old Testament Formation
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Ryan Leasure
This is the second in a series of nine posts addressing the question of how we got our Bible. Last post dealt with the question of inspiration and inerrancy. This week we turn our attention to the formation of the Old Testament.
Introductory Matters
In the late second century, Tertullian coined the term “Old Testament” to distinguish the Hebrew from the Greek Scriptures. The word “testament” simply means “covenant.” The Old Testament, in its current form, consists of thirty-nine books and was written by dozens of authors over the course of one thousand years.
In the earliest times, biblical authors used a variety of different writing surfaces. They etched into stone (Exod 34:1; Josh 8:32), inscribed on plaster (Deut 27:2-3), engraved on metal (Exod 28:36), and scratched on waxed tablets (Isa 30:8; Hab 2:2). In order to engrave on these surfaces, they used iron pens (Job 19:24; Jer 17:1) and other styluses.
Thankfully, the Egyptians had already invented a paper-like product using papyrus plants long before Moses wrote the law. Biblical authors adopted this writing technology for practical purposes (Jer 36:23). When papyrus wasn’t available, authors would write on stretched and dried animal skins called parchments. Writers used thin-stemmed reeds (Jer 8:8) that they dipped in ink which was usually a mixture of soot and tree sap or oil. Scribes would often wear ink cases around their belts (Ezek 9:2-3).
The First Scripture
Fittingly, God himself wrote the very first Scriptural text. We read in Exodus 31:18, “And he gave to Moses, when he had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.” Those same tablets were then stored in the Ark of the Covenant along with a jar of manna and Aaron’s staff (Deut 10:5; Heb 9:4).
Moses would later compile God’s writings into the Pentateuch along with his other writings. We have indications that Moses wrote the Pentateuch in stages and not all at one time. Exodus 24:4 reads, “And Moses wrote down all the words of the LORD.” Exodus 17:14 notes, “Then the LORD said to Moses, ‘Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalak from under heaven.’”
Scholars debate how Moses learned the contents of Genesis. Some suggest he learned them at Mount Sinai through divine revelation. Others believe it was passed down through oral tradition. And others believe it was a combination of the two.
Stages of Writing
As was previously noted, the Old Testament was not written at one time but over the course of a thousand years. It may be helpful to think of the development of the Old Testament in four stages.
The first stage was at Mount Sinai when Moses wrote the Law. Early on, the Pentateuch functioned like the Jewish canon of Scripture. In fact, Moses commands “You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you” (Deut 4:2). Over the course of hundreds of years, other books were written, but their inclusion into the canon took some time. The Books of Moses, however, were authoritative from the get go.
The second stage of revelation deposits came during the transition from the theocracy to the monarchy. During that era, authors wrote several historical books (Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuels), poetry (Psalms), and wisdom literature (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon).
The third stage was the time surrounding the Babylonian Exile. Several prophets wrote during this time period (Isaiah, Micah, Hosea, Jonah, Amos, Joel, etc.).
The fourth and final stage was the return from exile. More prophets continued to write (Zechariah and Malachi) as did historians (Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther).
Quoting the Law
Because the Old Testament developed in stages, later Old Testament writers often referred back to the Books of Moses. Perhaps the most quoted text from Moses is Exodus 34:6. The text declares, “The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness.”
Consider how these later Old Testament texts quote Moses:
Submitting to the Law
Not only did later Old Testament writers quote from Moses, they explicitly affirmed his authority.
The Prophets Use of Prophets
Because the Pentateuch was authoritative from the beginning, we find far more references to Moses than any other Old Testament author. That said, the prophets still recognized the authority of other prophets who lived closer to their time. Consider Daniels words:
Even though Jeremiah wrote only a few decades prior, Daniel still recognized his divine authority.
Zechariah also recognizes the divine authority of his prophetic predecessors. He writes:
Authors and Dates
Admittedly, we cannot be too precise on some of the authors and dates of the Old Testament books, especially some of the historical works. That said, consider the following chart which details the authors and dates of each Old Testament book.[1]
Use of Sources
Inspiration does not imply mechanical dictation. While biblical authors did dictate God’s word from time to time, they also employed other methods such as researching historical sources. Consider the following examples:
What these texts demonstrate is that the biblical authors didn’t invent this stuff. They did careful research before compiling their works.
Editors
Inspiration does not preclude editing. In other words, God not only inspired authors, he inspired editors to modify and rearrange the text. Without exception, the New Testament writers, and even Jesus himself, affirm Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch (Matt 8:4; 19:8; Mark 7:10; 12:26; Luke 16:31; 20:37; 24:44; Acts 3:22; 15:1; 26:22; 28:23; 1 Cor 9:9; Heb 9:19). That said, we have clear indications of later editing by Jewish scribes. Consider the following texts:
Did Moses call himself the meekest person on the earth and report his own death and burial? And following his death, did he report that no such prophet has arisen since the time of Moses? Doesn’t that last statement assume that some time has passed since his death? In short, while Moses penned the Pentateuch, later scribes edited his work into their present form.
Preservation
Knowing that it took a thousand years to write the Old Testament (1400-400 BC), how confident can we be in its preservation? After all, we know that there was a period of time when it seems like the text had been lost and out of use (2 Kings 22-23).
Apparently, “clans of scribes” existed during the Old Testament era to copy and preserve the Hebrew Bible (1 Chron 2:55). Since then, Jewish scribes have meticulously copied texts for the same purposes. Perhaps the most famous of these scribes are the Masoretes and the Ben Asher family from the fifth century AD. These professional copyists counted the number of words on every page and knew the number of words in every book as well as the exact middle word and letter of every book to ensure that they copied accurately.
Additionally, the Masoretes added vowel markings to the otherwise vowel-less text. Up until the 1940s, the earliest Hebrew texts in our possession were Masoretic texts dating to the 9th and 10th centuries.
Dead Sea Scrolls
In 1947, a shepherd by the name of Muhammed edh-Dhib was out looking for some of his sheep along the coast of the Dead Sea. As he passed by a cave, he tossed a rock inside hoping to hear the bleating of sheep. Instead, he heard pottery shattering. That shattered jar led to one of the most significant archaeological finds of the twentieth century.
Archaeologists have since uncovered over a thousand ancient Jewish documents from dozens of nearby caves dating from 250 BC to AD 65. These texts belonged to the Qumran community otherwise known as the Essenes. These people functioned much like Jewish monks, isolated from much of society. The Qumran community most likely stashed their sacred texts in these caves during the war with Rome (AD 68-70) hoping to return to them once the dust settled. Unfortunately, they all died during the war, so their texts remained hidden for two thousand years.
Among these documents are every book of the Old Testament except for Esther. Perhaps the most significant text is a complete Isaiah scroll, consisting of twenty-seven sheets of parchment sewn end-to-end. It measures twenty-three feet in length. The scroll dates to 120 BC—a thousand years older than the previous oldest text. Most significantly, the Isaiah scroll hardly differs from the Masoretic text from the tenth century, demonstrating that Jewish scribes carefully preserved the original text.
Old Testament Canon
The next post will consider the Septuagint, the apocrypha, and the Old Testament Canon.
*For more on this topic, read Timothy Paul Jone’s helpful book How We Got the Bible.
References:
[1] This chart is modified from Timothy Paul Jones, How We Got the Bible, 31-33.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Does Science Disprove God? by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)
Two Miracles You Take With You Everywhere You Go by Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)
Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Leasure holds a Master of Arts from Furman University and a Masters of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Currently, he’s a Doctor of Ministry candidate at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He also serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/30ACsei
Juzgar bíblicamente en un mundo de “No me Juzgues”
EspañolBy Alisa Childers
“YOU SHOULD NOT JUDGE”
A couple of years ago, there was a very popular book written by an author who declared himself a Christian. It was published by a Christian publisher and marketed on Christian platforms and websites. It was a fairy tale come true. It reached the top of the New York Times Best Seller list and won the hearts and minds of millions of women, and was presented at countless small group Bible studies and conferences across the country.
The only problem is that the central message of the book is exactly the opposite of the biblical gospel. So I decided to write a little review of the book and post it on my blog. I didn’t expect this “little review” to go viral, nor did I predict the amount of hate mail that would arrive in my inbox in the following weeks.
Some of the emails cannot be repeated in the company of polite people. But most of the reactions can be summed up in three fateful words: “You. Should. Not. Judge.”
The message I received loud and clear was that it was wrong of me to criticize unbiblical ideas in a popular book. After all, Jesus would never be a “McJudge.” With love redefined as the affirmation of a desire or an idea, it’s easy to see how “judging” has become the unforgivable sin in our culture.
But Christians live by a different standard than the world. When someone says, “You shouldn’t judge,” they are actually contradicting real love, the Bible, and plain common sense. So, the next time someone brings up this particular argument to cut off the conversation, remember these three things:
SAYING “DO NOT JUDGE” IS NOT BIBLICAL
It seems like everyone’s favorite Bible verse (at least when they’re trying to avoid being told they’re wrong) is Matthew 7:1. The words “Judge not, that you be not judged” come from the lips of Jesus himself.
The microphone drops. End of conversation, right?
Well, that only works if you cross out the next six verses, along with other things Jesus said, and a good portion of the New Testament. In fact, right after saying “do not judge,” Jesus lets his audience know that when they judge, they must be very careful to make sure their judgment is not hypocritical . “First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye,” Jesus instructs in verse five. In other words, don’t point out a sin in your sister’s life before confronting a bigger sin in your own.
Rather, it is about helping your sister remove the speck from her eye, which requires you to judge that it is there. Therefore, Jesus is not saying that it is always wrong to judge. In fact, verse six tells us to “do not give what is holy to dogs, nor throw your pearls before swine.” How can one identify the “dogs” and the “swine” if one does not first judge correctly?
JUDGE THE FRUIT
If there is still any confusion, just a few verses later, Jesus tells us to recognize wolves, or false teachers, by their fruits. Again, this requires us to judge whether these teachers are speaking truth or deception. Then, in John 7:24, Jesus couldn’t say it more clearly. He directs his listeners to “Do not judge according to appearances, but judge righteous judgment.”
Later, in Matthew 18:15-16, Jesus gives instructions on how to confront a fellow believer if he or she has sinned against you. (The apostle Paul echoes this sentiment in Galatians 6:1, telling Christians how to deal with a brother who is caught in sin. He writes, “You who are spiritual”—thinking without a plank in your eye—“restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness.”)
In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul tells the Corinthian believers that their job is actually to judge other believers. He writes, “Why should I judge those outside? Do you not judge those inside? For God will judge those outside.”
Telling someone not to judge is not biblical. In fact, Scripture commands us to judge, but to do so carefully, correctly, humbly, and without hypocrisy.
SAYING “DO NOT JUDGE” IS NOT LOGICAL
Imagine you’re home alone and the doorbell rings. You look out the window and see a very large man with a gun in his hand, dressed in an orange uniform. He’s sweating and looking around nervously. Be honest. Are you going to open the door for him? My guess is… probably not. But wait. Why are you judging him? Maybe he’s not an escaped convict, but he just enjoys dressing up in an orange uniform and carrying his gun while he goes for a run. Who are you to judge?
Obviously, this is an extreme example. No one would open the door to that guy. But it just goes to show that literally everyone is judgmental. We all judge people every day. It would be more than illogical, and sometimes unsafe, not to judge.
Furthermore, even telling someone that they should not judge is judging that they are judging, which is considered judgment, which requires making a judgment about whatever is being judged. You get the point. But all that logical mess can be avoided by simply following Jesus’ advice to “judge with righteous judgment.”
SAYING “DON’T JUDGE” IS NOT LOVING
When I was younger, I was trapped in a toxic cycle brought on by an eating disorder. One of my good friends, a perpetual people-pleaser, worked up all the courage she could to confront me. To put it mildly, it didn’t go well for her. I invited her, not very politely, to stop “judging” me and get out of the way.
But he persisted. His determination to make sure I was not only being helped, but also held accountable, literally changed my life. I ended up confessing my secret and getting psychological help when my recovery began. To this day, it brings tears to my eyes when I think about how much he loved me to do something so difficult.
According to the Bible, love is patient and kind. It is not arrogant or rude. 1 Corinthians 13:6 goes on to tell us that “love does not rejoice in unrighteousness but rejoices with the truth.” My friend could not rejoice in my wrongdoing. If I had simply ignored the “speck in my eye” and chosen not to judge, my life might have taken a very different path.
He judged me because he loved me. And quite possibly he saved my life. Judging with fair judgment is not only biblical and logical, but it is also the most loving thing you can do.
BRAVE JUDGMENT
Culture will always have its slogans, mantras, and catchphrases. But haven’t we Christians always been countercultural? Sometimes Jesus calls us to judge others. As difficult as it may be, obeying his commands will keep you from being swayed by the whims of a fickle culture. After all, that culture won’t be there for you when your life (or the lives of your loved ones) falls apart because you followed its advice. Jesus will.
And that is something you can rightly judge as true.
Recommended resources in Spanish:
Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek
Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Alisa Childers is a wife, mother, author, blogger, speaker, and worship leader. She was a member of the award-winning MCC recording group ZOEgirl. She is a popular speaker at Christian apologetics and worldview conferences, including STR’s Reality Conference . Alisa has published in The Gospel Coalition, Crosswalk, The Stream, For Every Mom, Decision magazine , and The Christian Post. Her book, Another Gospel? A Lifelong Christian Seeks Truth in Response to Progressive Christianity , is now available. You can also connect with Alisa online at alisachilders.com.
Original Blog: https://cutt.ly/UTUiGGi
Translated by Jennifer Chavez
Edited by Elenita Romero
Bullies and Saints | with Dr. John Dickson
PodcastAtheist Christopher Hitchens once wrote, “religion poisons everything”, and he included the Christian religion in that assessment. When you look at the behavior of some claiming to be Christians over the centuries— when you look at church history— you realize that Hitchens was right in many ways. The history of Christianity has been a mixed bag historically: some very good behavior and some very bad behavior.
Dr. John Dickson of the University of Sydney and visiting professor at Oxford has written a brilliant and balanced book called, ‘Bullies and Saints: An Honest Look at the Good and Evil of Christian History,’ that covers every century of church history. He joins Frank to reveal the truth about:
Get the book here: https://amzn.to/3cvMaRu
And please check out Dr. Dickson’s wonderfully produced podcast at undeceptions.com.
If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.
Subscribe on iTunes: 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
The Benefits of Active Listening and Moral Apologetics to the Chaplaincy Ministry
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Brian Chilton
For the first article after having been named a Senior Contributor for MoralApologetics.com, it is only appropriate to acknowledge the tremendous benefit that moral apologetics has served in my present ministry as a clinical hospice chaplain. In September of 2020, I joined a team of nine other individuals who care for patients and their families at the point of death. Numerous individuals have inquired, “How do you do that? Don’t you stay depressed all the time? Isn’t that a heavy job?” Yes, the job can be intense emotionally and spiritually. A fellow chaplain told me that the average duration of a clinical hospice chaplain is generally 2-3 years because of emotional burnout. Ironically, I have found the job to be a blessing. I have seen God move in powerful ways to change lives and to impact people in ways that I was never prepared to see.
Two skills have served as a tremendous benefit for helping me help those most in need. By no means am I saying that I have these skills mastered. I am still learning. Nonetheless, I digress. The first is a skill acquired from my chaplaincy training. Fellow chaplain Jason Kline taught me the benefits of a practice known as active listening. Active listening is a technique that carefully listens to what the person is saying and observes non-verbal cues that communicate what the person is feeling and thinking. More on this in a moment.
While active listening is a tremendous tool, it becomes even more powerful when coupled with training in moral apologetics. This writer was highly honored to participate in Dr. David Baggett’s final course at Liberty University before he made his trek to Houston Baptist University. Truly, Liberty’s loss is HBU’s gain. For me, I wanted to take the course because I had already befriended Dr. Baggett but never had him as a professor. Even if Baggett taught a class on the benefits of chocolate ice cream, I would have taken it because I wanted to say that Dr. Baggett was my professor. Nonetheless, it could not have been more appropriate that the class was on moral apologetics. Furthermore, nothing could have prepared me for the enduring benefits that stemmed from this deeply philosophical and apologetic overview of the moral apologetic landscape. The field of moral apologetics prepared me in numerous ways to be able to help patients as a clinical chaplain and deal with the intense situations that I have encountered in my brief time in the profession. As a caveat, HIPAA laws do not permit the use of personal stories and examples in the chaplaincy field. Thus, this article will only speak in generalities as it pertains to the benefits of both active listening and moral apologetics to the task of chaplaincy ministry. As the article will show, the benefits are not only found in chaplaincy.
Benefits of Active Listening
As previously noted, active listening is a technique whereby a counselor actively participates in the conversation by observing both verbal and non-verbal cues that speak to the person’s emotional, spiritual, and physical condition. Healthline.com suggests that active listening requires eight tasks: 1. Give the person your full attention. 2. Use body language (show them you are interested in the person, don’t just say it). 3. Avoid interrupting the person. 4. Don’t fear the power of silence. 5. Reflect on the person’s communication, don’t parrot them. 6. Validate the person’s feelings. 7. Ask thoughtful questions. 8. Avoid passing judgment or offering advice.[1] All of these tips work well within the framework of moral apologetics. The eighth tip may sound counterintuitive to the apologist’s task because the apologist wants to guide the person to a personal relationship with Christ and/or strengthen his/her relationship with Christ. However, strategically asked questions can provide the same result and will allow the client to own the information for oneself. Furthermore, this fits well into the abductive argument for moral apologetics. Marybeth Baggett avers that the abductive approach “relies on and encourages bridge building, which isn’t helped by treated difficult questions as easier than they are.”[2] It just so happens that active listening works well within the abductive approach. From the brief time this writer has served as a clinical chaplain, it has been observed that the practice of active listening brings about four tremendous benefits.
Benefits of Moral Apologetics
As was shown, active listening is a powerful technique used to engage and develop a conversation with others. However, questions cannot be one-sided. Sometimes people want to know why a loving God would allow their loved one to suffer. Why is God allowing them to endure hardship and suffering? Simply answering, “Just believe God and all will be well” is not enough. Furthermore, the counselor and/or apologist needs to have a goal in mind. In the case of the moral apologist, the goal is to teach and move a person to accept the good moral nature of an Anselmian God.[4] The use of active listening within the framework of an abductive moral apologetic makes for a powerful means to assist those suffering from moral doubt for the following reasons.
Conclusion
Quite honestly, this article has only skimmed the surface of the great depths that the combination of active listening and moral apologetics extends to the counselor and apologist. However, this combination is not only limited to chaplaincy, but it can also be useful for every field and profession. From the academic professor to the local pastor and everyday Christian, these practices can enrichen one’s life and relationships. Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, the practice of active listening disarms a person from being on edge from thinking that he/she must prove one’s intellectual prowess. In most cases, the active listener allows the other person to do the most talking. Additionally, the strength from having a moral apologetic background encourages both counselor and client alike that they are not defined by the bad situations endured, but rather they are defined by a God who loves them and cares for them more than one could ever realize. What could be better than that?
References:
[1] Crystal Raypole, “Active Listening: Why it Matters and 8 Tips for Success,” Healthline.com (December 15, 2020), https://www.healthline.com/health/active-listening.
[2] David Baggett and Marybeth Baggett, The Morals of the Story: Good News about a Good God (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008), 51.
[3] See Brian G. Chilton, Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics: Bridging the Essentials of Apologetics from the Ivory Tower to the Everyday Christian (Eugene, OR: Resource, 2019), 40-43.
[4] That is, “God is the ground of being without whom nothing else can exist.” David Baggett and Jerry L. Walls, God & Cosmos: Moral Truth and Human Meaning (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2016), 64.
[5] Habermas in Chilton, LMOCA, 75.
[6] Baggett and Walls, God & Cosmos, 96.
[7] Viktor E. Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning (Boston, MS: Beacon, 2006), 74.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
What is God Like? Look to the Heavens by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)
Why Doesn’t God Intervene More? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek
Two Miracles You Take With You Everywhere You Go by Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com, the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast, the author of the Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics, and a Ph.D. Candidate of the Theology and Apologetics program at Liberty University. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has served in pastoral ministry for nearly 20 years and currently serves as a clinical chaplain and a Senior Contributor for MoralApologetics.com.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3wxX6aL
Confronting Homosexuality in a Culture of Identity (Part 4)
Culture CrossExamined, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Josh Klein
Lil Nas X
Back to where we started.
What if I told you that the issue with Lil Nas X was not his being gay, but with how he perceived the Church’s response to his being gay?
He has somehow come away with the understanding that he should hate himself because he has a natural proclivity to same-sex attraction. For some reason, pointing out a lifestyle of sin has been equated to pointing out the evil of the person. I think this reason is tied to the idea of identity. In this final section of this series, I will attempt to offer a “better way” in dealing with these issues.
It is important to note, however, that these ideas are not original with me. Many who have come before me such as Christopher Yuan, Rachel Gilson, Preston Sprinkle, Leadthemhome.org and others champion these same principles, but I will attempt to outline a strategy here that is simple, straight forward, and yet extremely difficult.
In an attempt to assuage the conflation of sin and sinner Christians have come up with a pithy phrase that you may have heard (or even said): “Hate the sin but love the sinner.”
As I mentioned in part one of this series, sexuality is a different animal altogether. This is not some universally accepted vice that must be confronted like drug addiction or alcoholism. The world has done a bang-up job in making this issue one of identity, and the church, for some reason, has agreed to the terms. Therefore, when a Christian says, “Hate the sin but love the sinner” the non-Christian balks in disgust. Why? Because the non-Christian has no identity except that which is being called a sin. Thus, the non-Christian believes that the Christian is subtly saying, “hate their identity but love what they could be if we could change them,” but they are currently happy with their identity.
Of course, this is not the intention of the phrase, but its use has had an unintended consequence in the LGBTQ+ community for decades. A full generation of human beings that identify as their sexual proclivity have come away with the belief that Christians hate them for simply being “who they are.”
Their solution then, is to either hate themselves and try to be something they are not, or to leave the bigoted views of those who claim to love them behind and pursue a life of what seems to offer fulfillment and happiness.
To the liberal church’s credit, they recognized this reaction as unacceptable. After all, God wants all people to come to a saving faith in him, does he not (1 Timothy 2:3-4)?
While their diagnoses of the problem may have been accurate, in parts two and three I touched on why their response to the problem (affirming people in their sin) was not and is even doing more harm than good.
So, what then?
I recently listened to a podcast by conservative pundit Andrew Klavan, who is a Christian. Klavan has a gay son that proclaims a faith in Jesus Christ, thus, Klavan struggles with the idea that homosexuality is a sin.
I will not get into critiquing Klavan’s beliefs on this matter; however, I believe his response to a listener’s question regarding her own gay son deserves some consideration. In the midst of answering this mother’s question Andrew says something to the effect of:
I believe Andrew is onto something here. We treat Homosexuality differently than any other sin.
Now, some might rebut Andrew’s statement by indicating (rightly so) that sexual sin is more severe and has an internal consequence that other sins do not (1 Cor. 6:18). So, gluttony may not be the best example, but the response to other sexual sins then should be considered.
How many young people in your church have had sex before marriage?
How many men (and women) are viewing pornography regularly?
How many marriages have crumbled due to infidelity or abuse?
How many teens struggle with opposite-sex attraction in a way that is sinful?
What would happen if we treated each of these people the same way we treat those struggling with (or embracing) homosexuality?
What if we did not think the answer to homosexuality was to make a person straight but to help a person become dedicated to Christ?
In the same response Klavan mentions a concept that is conspicuously foreign in some of our conversations regarding homosexuality. He says something to the effect of allowing God to confront the sin in people’s lives since we are all mired by some sin or another.
In the same vein, noted theologian and Dean of Theology at African Christian University in Zambia, Voddie Baucham is credited for saying this concerning the gospel:
How often do we ask a person struggling with lying to stop lying before coming to Christ? How often do we ask someone that is addicted to drugs or pornography to quit their addiction before coming to Christ?
The way we handle homosexuality in the church, however, almost forces a gay man or woman to renounce their homosexual behavior before they can come to Christ.
What if we spent less time convincing people of individual sins and more time pointing to our own sin nature as the reason we need a savior?
This does not mean we ought to ratify sinful behaviors as good. If we did that then we are limiting the ability of the Spirit to convict individuals of individual sins. Tell an addict that their addiction is not only unproblematic but part of their identity and that they should embrace it and why would the addict ever seek a way out of their addiction?
The church has a nasty history of handling sexual issues poorly and we need to come to terms with that.
I believe that the message the world needs to hear is not that they are evil but that they are broken, and they cannot hear that message unless we first tell them how broken we are apart from Christ. In other words, it is not so much the desire to convince the post-Christian culture that they are morally bankrupt, but that they are without hope just as we were without hope.
Instead of shouting into the burning building that the people inside are going to die because they are inside, we offer a way out of the building. “If you don’t want to die, come this way!”
This is what Voddie Baucham is saying concerning how we ought to preach the gospel. The gospel is not the good news of behavioral modification. The gospel is the good news that the Almighty God of the universe has provided a way to life!
In my conversation with the former student concerning these things she expressed a concern about the “hate on the internet” from supposed Christians concerning the LGBTQ+ community. This concern stems from two things, a misunderstanding of what hate really is on her part, sure, but also an inability to engage with society in a way that draws them to Christ on the Christian’s part.
Take, for example, Paul’s sermon on Mars Hill in Acts 17.
Paul could have walked through Athens and chosen to address their polytheism and idolatry. However, he knew that this would not be a winsome way to express the good news of Jesus. Instead, he lauded their spirituality and passion and found a hook on which to hang the gospel.
Outside of the church we must start looking at conversations with the post-Christian American culture more like a Mars Hill conversation than a letter to the Corinthians conversation.
What is the difference?
In one, Paul was addressing unbelievers (Mars Hill) and in another he was addressing supposed believers that knew better (1 Corinthians).
The church has spent so much time convinced that homosexuality is a threat that we have lost the opportunity (in many ways) to minister in grace and truth. There is no real threat to the Church! The gates of Hell themselves pose no danger! (Matthew 16:17-19)
The liberal church has ministered to them in grace and has augmented the truth and thus, the job of the orthodox church is made that much more difficult. There are now competing gospels for the gay person. This is a failure of the Church not of God and not of those that are being confused.
One gospel that affirms their identity both sexually and as a child of God and one that affirms their ability to be adopted as children of God but insists a thorough reckoning of the self in regard to behaviors and appetites.
But in the reaction to pursue truth with passion we have left grace at the window in many situations.
We do not need to convince the homosexual that they are participating in a particular sin to win them to Christ, but we must convince them that they are a sinner (regardless of whether or not they are gay) that is in need of a savior. In other words, the conversation is the same with a young man living with his girlfriend as it is with a young man living with is boyfriend, and yet, we tend to handle the two situations very differently.
They need not renounce all of their sins prior to knowing Jesus, just that of their sin nature. They renounce slavery to sin and embrace slavery to righteousness as they place their faith in Christ. And then the Holy Spirit gets to work and, as we all know, they will likely continue the struggle!
If they come away with the idea that they ought to hate themselves, it is likely that we have handled the conversation poorly.
So what does this “better way” mean? Do we remain silent on the topic of homosexuality culturally? No, but we must cover the truth in love. Homosexuality is not the primary issue, just as sexual promiscuity or pornography use is not the primary issue. The primary issue is a heart that needs desperately to be transformed, fulfilled, and made new. Give us a heart of flesh instead of stone Lord! (Ez. 36:26) Too often, the church operates with a heart of stone towards those that are in the LGBT community.
I think the following are some (not all) ways that the church can start to make headway in the conversation on sexuality in our culture. These are not easy, but I believe they are simple and in line with scripture and the gospel.
Lastly, understand that this is an uphill battle. We will be bucking trends on both sides of the aisle. We could lose friends, we could accidently offend, and we could be called all sorts of names from those that believe homosexuality is a sin and from those that believe it is not. Stand firm on the truth, regardless of consequences, but do not abandon grace and love in the process (Matt. 5:10).
I believe that homosexual behavior is a sin, but I do not believe it is a sin beyond the grasp of an Almighty God. The Church needs to stop treating it as though it is the one sin that must be fixed before someone darkens our doors. May God grant us all grace and favor as we endeavor to glorify his name and bring others to the foot of the cross!
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek
Five Questions No One Ever Asks About Gay Rights (DVD Set), (Mp4 Download), and (Mp3 Set) by Dr. Frank Turek
Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) downloadable pdf, PowerPoint by Dr. Frank Turek
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Josh Klein is a Pastor from Omaha, Nebraska with over a decade of ministry experience. He graduated with an MDiv from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his spare time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married for 12 years to Sharalee Klein and they have three young children.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3C3mXsd
Serie Defensa de la Resurrección: Evidencias arqueológicas que apoyan la Resurrección
EspañolPor Brian Chilton
En las últimas semanas, hemos examinado varias líneas de evidencia que apoyan la noción de que Jesús literalmente resucitó de entre los muertos. Al finalizar la serie, puede resultar beneficioso describir algunas pruebas arqueológicas que apoyan la resurrección de Jesús. La evidencia arqueológica no puede probar ni refutar un evento de la historia.[1] Sin embargo, puede prestarse a probabilidades de que un evento ocurrió o no. La resurrección plantea un problema adicional, ya que nadie estaba presente cuando el evento ocurrió. Aun así, ciertos artefactos dan credibilidad a la creencia de que Jesús resucitó de entre los muertos.
El hueso del tobillo con clavos de Jehohanan
En 1968 se descubrió un osario que contenía el hueso del talón de un joven llamado Jehohanan. Hace 2.000 años, Jehohanan murió crucificado a manos de los romanos. Las pruebas sugieren que sólo tenía veintitantos años cuando murió. La descripción de su crimen se ha perdido. Sin embargo, la naturaleza de su ejecución se conservó gracias al hueso del talón del joven. Un clavo tradicional romano atravesó el talón de Jehohanan. Pero, a diferencia de otros clavos que se reutilizaban para crucificar a las víctimas, este clavo se dobló probablemente tras golpear un nudo en la madera. El hueso del talón, el clavo doblado e incluso un trozo de madera confirman que los clavos se utilizaban, al menos en ocasiones, para sujetar a las víctimas a la cruz. En el caso de Jehohanan, sus ejecutores clavaron sus tobillos en los lados exteriores opuestos de la viga vertical en lugar de hacerlo a través de los pies. El hueso del talón conservado del joven revela dos cosas sobre la muerte, el entierro y la resurrección de Jesús.
En primer lugar, el hallazgo demuestra que los romanos sí clavaban a las víctimas en la cruz, lo que confirma los detalles de los relatos evangélicos relacionados con la muerte de Jesús. La crucifixión era una forma desagradable de ejecución. La víctima moría lentamente por asfixia, lo que provocaba un fallo cardíaco. Las posibilidades de que Jesús sobreviviera a la crucifixión, como proponen algunos, son escasas o nulas.
En segundo lugar, el hallazgo también demuestra que los romanos permitían a las familias conceder a las víctimas crucificadas un entierro adecuado. En la antigua cultura israelita, un cuerpo era enterrado en una tumba. Un año después, los huesos se recogían en las envolturas de lino y se colocaban en un osario familiar común (caja de huesos). No fue hasta la época del emperador Calígula cuando cesó la práctica de conceder una sepultura adecuada a las víctimas crucificadas. Calígula comenzó su reinado en el año 37 d.C., es decir, entre 4 y 7 años después de la crucifixión y resurrección de Jesús. Por lo tanto, la afirmación de que Jesús fue simplemente enterrado en una tumba poco profunda en lugar de una tumba pierde su impacto a la luz del descubrimiento del hueso del talón de Jehohanan.
Decreto de Nazaret
El Decreto de Nazaret es un hallazgo fascinante. En 1878, un erudito francés adquirió una losa de piedra en Nazaret que data del año 44 d.C.[2] El decreto fue dictado por el emperador Claudio (41-54 d.C.), quien ordena que si se encuentra a alguien extrayendo o exhumando cuerpos de las tumbas, los sepultureros sean acusados y ejecutados con prontitud. Curiosamente, el decreto también menciona a los que muevan las piedras que cierran las tumbas. El Evangelio de Mateo señala que los líderes judíos tramaron con engaño el rumor de que los discípulos habían robado el cuerpo de Jesús (Mateo 28:11-15). Aunque no puede establecerse una correlación directa entre el decreto de Nazaret y el rumor organizado por el sanedrín judío, todavía encontramos una fuerte probabilidad de que el crecimiento del cristianismo acompañado del rumor pudiera haber hecho necesario dicho decreto en la mente del emperador[3].
Iglesia del Santo Sepulcro
Los protestantes suelen preferir la localización serena de la Tumba de Gordona la naturaleza icónica y litúrgica de la Iglesia del Santo Sepulcro. Sin embargo, si se busca la verdad por encima de las preferencias, es mucho más probable que la iglesia del Santo Sepulcro sea la tumba real de Jesús que la contraparte irénica. En el año 132, el emperador Adriano prohibió a los judíos la entrada a Jerusalén e intentó erradicar las evidencias del judaísmo y el cristianismo construyendo templos y estatuas romanas sobre los lugares sagrados. En el año 313, Constantino legalizó el cristianismo. Su madre, Helena, una cristiana devota, trató de descubrir los lugares más sagrados del cristianismo. Adriano había colocado una estatua de Venus sobre la tumba de Cristo en un esfuerzo por profanar la tumba. Cuando Helena preguntó a los creyentes locales dónde se encontraba la tumba, éstos le señalaron la tumba con la estatua de Venus erigida. Helena ordenó inmediatamente la remoción de la estatua y la conservación de la tumba. Más tarde se construyó la Iglesia del Santo Sepulcro alrededor de la tumba y del lugar de la crucifixión. Hace unos años, en un esfuerzo por restaurar secciones clave de la santa iglesia, se permitió a los investigadores asomarse al interior de la losa de mármol utilizada para proteger el lecho. Se retiró la parte superior. Debajo, descubrieron una pieza de metal rota con una cruz de Las Cruzadas grabada. Bajo el metal, encontraron un lecho de piedra que databa del siglo I. El descubrimiento demostró que el Edículo de la Iglesia del Santo Sepulcro ha sido venerado como lugar de sepultura de Cristo durante dos milenios. Esto añade un peso considerable a la idea de que la tumba vacía de Jesús está en el Edículo o muy cerca. Personalmente, el Edículo tiene una gran probabilidad de ser el lugar de sepultura real de Jesús, una probabilidad superior al 95%.
Sudario de Turín
Por último, terminamos con uno de los hallazgos arqueológicos más misteriosos de todos los tiempos. Justo cuando los escépticos parecen desacreditar el Sudario de Turín, aparece algo que luego lo confirma. El muy controvertido Sudario de Turín es una tela de lino que mide 14 pies y 5 pulgadas por 3 pies y 7 pulgadas. Lleva una imagen tridimensional en negativo de un hombre crucificado de unos treinta y tantos e incluye manchas de sangre de hemoglobina AB real.[4] Otros descubrimientos han encontrado granos de polen de plantas originarias de Israel y que datan del siglo I, junto con pruebas de que el Sudario había sido expuesta a una alta dosis de radiación, tal vez del propio evento de la resurrección.[5] Aunque el Sudario había sido datado en la Edad Media en una prueba de carbono 14 realizada en 1988, esas pruebas han resultado ser falsas. El debate en torno al Sudario de Turín continuará con toda seguridad hasta el regreso del propio Cristo. El Sudario de Turín no es necesario para demostrar que Jesús resucitó, como se ha demostrado en esta serie. Sin embargo, si el Sudario de Turín es auténtico, no sólo demuestra que Jesús resucitó, sino que también proporciona una imagen del aspecto que pudo tener Jesús.
Conclusión
Es cierto que las pruebas arqueológicas de la resurrección de Jesús son en gran medida circunstanciales. La única prueba arqueológica directa de la resurrección sería el Sudario de Turín, si fuera auténtica. Sin embargo, el Sudario está rodeado de misterio (juego de palabras). Debido a la naturaleza del acontecimiento de la resurrección, no hay que esperar que se produzca un descubrimiento fulminante. ¿Por qué? Porque Jesús ya no está en la tumba. La evidencia más directa ha sido eliminada y ya no está disponible. Sin embargo, los datos proporcionados, en su conjunto, permiten afirmar que algo misterioso y sorprendente ocurrió el primer domingo de Pascua. Los artefactos descritos demuestran la alta probabilidad de que Jesús murió por crucifixión, fue enterrado en una tumba, la tumba fue encontrada vacía, y que la tumba fue venerada durante dos milenios. En conjunto, es un caso convincente para el evento de la resurrección. Para más información sobre las pruebas arqueológicas de la Biblia, véase el capítulo 13 de Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics, y no deje de visitar la página de Ted Wright EpicArchaeology.com.
Notas
[1] Randall Price and H. Wayne House, Zondervan Handbook of Biblical Archaeology, 26.
[2] Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 48; Ted Wright, “10 Significant NT Archaeological Discoveries,” EpicArchaeology.com.
[3] Para leer la transcripción completa del Decreto de Nazaret , véase Brian G. Chilton, Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics, 123.
[4] Chilton, Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics, 127-128.
[5] Ibid., 128.
Recursos recomendados en Español:
Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek
Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Brian G. Chilton es el fundador de BellatorChristi.com, el anfitrión de The Bellator Christi Podcast, y el autor de Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics. Brian es candidato a doctorado en el programa de Teología y Apologética de la Universidad Liberty. Recibió su Maestría en Teología y Divinidades de la Universidad Liberty (con alta distinción); su Licenciatura en Estudios Religiosos y Filosofía de la Universidad Gardner-Webb (con honores); y recibió la certificación en Apologética Cristiana de la Universidad Biola. Brian está inscrito en el programa de doctorado en Teología y Apologética de la Universidad Liberty y es miembro de la Evangelical Theological Society (Sociedad Teológica Evangélica) y de la Evangelical Philosophical Society (Sociedad Filosófica Evangélica). Brian ha servido en el ministerio pastoral durante casi 20 años. Actualmente sirve como capellán de hospital.
Blog Original: https://cutt.ly/aTjYha0
Traducido por Yatniel Vega García
Editado por Elenita Romero