Tag Archive for: Al Serrato

Why Demanding Extraordinary Evidence Makes Little Sense

,

Many skeptics approach “the evidence” for Christianity with a closed mind. Hobbled by a number of presuppositions, they typically end up where they begin: convinced that God simply would not have made himself so difficult to detect. Many will back up their position with a challenge – because Christian claims are so “extraordinary,” they say, only “extraordinary evidence” will be sufficient to persuade them.

Upon reflection, however, it is quickly apparent that this is a rather odd, and in the end self-defeating, way to go about the task of acquiring knowledge. It’s odd because it demonstrates a misunderstanding about the way evidence works. It’s self-defeating because reviewing evidence is supposed to be done so that one can arrive at the truth about what occurred, and when one option – that God created us and sent his Son to redeem us – is set off limits at the beginning, there is only one result that can be reached. This may give the atheist comfort – his views remain unchallenged – but it is difficult to describe this as a meaningful search for the truth.

Extraordinarily Presumptuous         

Consider: “evidence” can mean a variety of things, but as it relates to historical events, it refers to the existence of certain historical facts which directly or indirectly tend to prove that the event in question occurred. To determine whether Jesus was a real or fictitious person, whether he died on the cross, and, most significantly, whether he was bodily resurrected from the dead, the process of discernment requires a consideration of all the evidence in order to conclude with confidence that the challenged event did or did not occur. Consequently, in assessing the weight and persuasiveness of the evidence, it may appear that certain pieces of evidence line up as probative or not probative, relevant or irrelevant, weighty or weak. But refusing to even consider evidence unless it first meets the standard of “extraordinary” reflects a bias against ever reaching a conclusion. Far from being a rational position, it is the abandonment of reason, for reason does not impose upon itself such artificial restrictions.

Extraordinarily Ironic

This demand for “extraordinary” evidence is, upon reflection, also rather ironic. Christianity is in fact based on “extraordinary” evidence. It is “out of the ordinary” and “exceptional” and “not commonplace” that

  • the numerous books of the Bible, written over dozens of centuries by a variety of unrelated authors, could be assembled into a coherent whole, one that tells an overarching message of man, his problem, and the solution God set in motion. The books of the Old Testament presage and predict Christ, and the books of the New Testament demonstrate the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies
  • the concerns and beliefs of a culture separated from us by thousands of years could still resonate as relevant today, and join via a common system of belief cultures from across the globe and spanning every conceivable age since Christ walked the earth
  • the early followers could be so convinced of the truth of what occurred that they were willing to face death rather than deny what they would have known to be false, if indeed they were fabricating a story
  • a variety of predictions in those Old Testament accounts could find fulfillment in one historical person
  • modern archeology repeatedly confirms so much of what is written in the texts
  • the claims of multiple miracles that were witnessed by numerous people
  • and probably most significantly, a man who preached a radical message of universal brotherhood to a subjugated people who were expecting and hoping for a conquering king could change a world and still be regarded – and embraced – as relevant today.

This is just a partial list. Indeed, entire books and ministries have been devoted to making this case. And while the skeptic can challenge various pieces of evidence, it is difficult to gainsay both the amount and the quality of the evidence upon which Christians base their faith.

This is not to say that Christianity is not, in the final analysis, a matter of faith – it certainly is. As Paul says in Hebrews, faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the convictions of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1-2). No one can see heaven or preview what eternity with God will entail. Faith provides the assurance that what Jesus promised is true; we can rest confidently in the knowledge that things not seen will be as he promised. But we don’t have “blind faith” that he once lived, or that he has the authority to carry out what he promised. Our faith, our knowledge, is based on the evidence provided by those early witnesses.

These men and women lived in extraordinary times and witnessed extraordinary things; sadly, many suffered extraordinarily for their convictions. But what they left to posterity, the evidence of what they saw and heard and experienced – whether or not it rises to the level of “extraordinary” – was certainly sufficient.

And it remains so today.

Recommended Resources:

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

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

Debate: What Best Explains Reality: Atheism or Theism? by Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, and Mp3 

Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)

 

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

/by

What Children Show Us About Human Nature

Most non-believers will tell you that man is basically “good.” When he acts against that basic goodness, it’s the result of disease, such as alcoholism, drug addiction, or some form of mental illness. These, in turn, stem from a failure of society to reach out and provide the right kind of assistance and services. If only we as a society could do more, spend more, provide more, we could eventually create the kind of utopia that “good” people populate.

 

Christianity, by contrast, teaches a much different worldview. Long ago, the first man and woman exercised their free will to rebel against God, and in so doing created a rift between man and God that continues to this day. Though man has a certain inherent goodness, because he bears the image of God, he is at present broken, corrupted, and fallen, and he manifests that fallen nature in a way that we see quite starkly. Christians have a name for this manifestation – sin. It afflicts and motivates all of us, and no one can escape its pull. Not without divine help, anyway.

Worldviews Shape Our Response to the Gospel

These contrasting worldviews cannot both be correct. And depending on which view you accept, your response to the good news of the Gospel will be different. “Good” people who simply need more education and more refinement don’t need a Savior; they can do just fine on their own, and with a little help from society. But fallen and corrupted people, even well-intentioned ones, are not going to be able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Their nature, constantly at war with the good that is within them, needs to be recast – remade in the image of the God who made them and left them here.

Is there a way to “prove” which view is correct? How can we reliably determine what man is like in his natural state? First, we need to get our minds around what we mean by terms like “good” or “evil.” I would suggest a simple definition: what we recognize as “good” in other people is the product of an intentional effort at selflessness. Whether it’s sacrificial love, working for charity or simply a random act of kindness – what we experience as “good” is an act directed to the benefit of the other. By contrast, what we see as evil is an act directed at satisfying within oneself a base or selfish end. The quests for power, for recognition, for material wealth, for dominance – all these things drive people to ignore the harm inflicted as they climb over those who stand in their way.

But, What About the Babies?!

Now, with this basic concept in mind, what can we see from examining man in his most primitive state? I don’t mean primitive as in caveman, but as in newborn. Spend even a little time with infants and toddlers, and you’ll see some basic features emerge. Each views himself as the center of the universe and expects his parents and the other kids around him to treat him accordingly. With each passing month, the willfulness of the child’s behavior becomes increasingly apparent: from every fiber of his being, he is shouting, “I want things my way!” Whether it’s food or drink, when and how he wants it, his mother’s attention, or his playmate’s toys, a developing child’s “me-focus” is readily on display. And if his will is thwarted, there is no resort to reason – a temper tantrum is the predictable result.

Now, some might object that children are innocent and cannot be described as bad or broken, or worse yet, evil. They might point out that children are free from the biases and prejudices that sour many adult relationships. But this objection misses my point. I would not describe children as evil either, because evil implies a level of awareness of the harm one is doing, and a small child does not yet appreciate the consequences of his behavior. But the child’s behavior is reflective of the way his mind operates, and unless a parent applies discipline and training to bend the will to a proper orientation, a spoiled, self-centered adolescent will emerge.

Evil Comes Naturally

Consider: no parents ever have to train their child to give up his positive and sunny disposition and be more critical of others; they don’t need to punish their children for sharing too much and instead teach them to rip their toys out of the hands of their playmates; they don’t need to insist that a child stop thinking so much about what he can do for his parents – “Can’t I wash the dishes or sweep the deck? I really don’t have anything else to do?” No, for every child, the process of “civilizing” is a process of moving from a me-centered selfishness to an other-centered effort to get along.

Children don’t have the insight yet to seek to change their ways, to live more cooperatively and altruistically. Their parents’ job is to teach them – to help them move from their inherent fallenness to a state which is not quite natural to us, a state in which we are intentional about trying to do good. The non-believer can also do good. But by rejecting God as the source of true goodness, he remains in defiance to God. He refuses to see his need for a Savior to finish the job of making him good. He refuses to bend his will to God. It is no coincidence that the Bible speaks of becoming a “slave” to Christ. For in the end, it is only by bending to Him – by dying to ourselves as we look outward to others in order to better serve Him – that we can eventually find the solution to our problem.

Believing that we are basically good flies in the face of the reality of what we truly are. It stands in the way of our crying out for the Savior who alone has the power to restore us. Observing children in their natural condition can help give us a better picture of ours.

This is one of the few lessons that we should allow our children to teach us.

Recommended Resources:

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

Why Doesn’t God Intervene More? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

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

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

 

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

/by

Why It Is Appropriate For God to Judge Us On Our Beliefs

For many atheists, no amount of argument will ever convince them that a loving God could consign any of his creation to Hell. I have often encountered this challenge, which usually sounds something like this:

 

“It does not matter how just, kind, and generous they have been with their fellow humans during their lifetime. If they do not accept the gospel of Jesus, they are condemned. No just God would ever judge a man for believing the wrong thing. He would judge them instead by their actions.”

It is difficult, if not impossible, to provide an answer to this challenge that is emotionally satisfying. After all, even for believers, the doctrine of Hell is difficult to accept, as it runs up against our innate inclinations. How easy it is for us to grade our own behavior on a curve, to forgive our transgressions, to lessen our own culpability, to view ourselves as “basically good.” When we see ourselves this way, we naturally conclude that God will see us this way too. It is only by resorting to Scripture – an “outside” view – that we can see clearly that a God who embodies justice must have a place of punishment for those who rebel against him.

Justice Demands It

Consider: Justice, in its most basic sense, involves the notion of rewarding good and punishing evil. We appreciate this intuitively, and even at a very young age. How jarring would it be for a student to be given detention for being attentive in class, or to receive a merit award for cheating on his final exam. No, punishment is meant for bad behavior. But in assessing the proper extent of punishment, we also consider the wrongdoer’s mental state, which of course is reflective of their beliefs. Premeditated murder is worse than manslaughter, and is punished more severely, and a hate crime is a sentencing enhancement that adds more punishment to the underlying crime. In both examples, a person’s beliefs are at play: the premeditated murderer has reflected on his choices before committing the fatal act; a hate crime reflects a belief that the rights of a member of the protected group are especially unworthy of respect. So, considering what a person thinks and believes is indeed relevant to the question of consequences, especially if those beliefs have motivated bad behavior.

But the underlying mistake in the skeptic’s view is even more fundamental. He is wrong to assert that people are condemned for their beliefs, for not accepting the gospel.  They are, instead, condemned for their sinful behavior. Through their thoughts, words and actions, through the exercise of their free will, they repeatedly choose to violate God’s laws.

How should God respond to this?

Can God not just “let it go? Do nothing? After all, he created us this way, didn’t he? But if he simply accepts the repeated violation of his moral law, he could no longer be viewed as “just.” Imagine for a moment how one would view a judge who never imposes a sanction on someone who violates the law, no matter how often or how flagrant the violations are? Why would we expect God to be different? If he embodies perfect justice, and if he created us from nothing and made his law known to us, does it not stand to reason that there will be a consequence imposed on us for choosing to violate that law?

The Underlying Condition

The quoted challenge, then, is a bit like saying that the sick man died of “not believing in the doctor.” No, the person died of a specific underlying condition which a doctor might have been able to cure. So too with eternal punishment. No one is condemned for refusing to believe in Jesus. While Jesus can – and does – provide salvation for those who seek it, there is nothing unjust about not providing salvation to those who refuse to seek it. After all, we don’t normally feel obliged to help someone who has not asked for, and does not want, our assistance. So too the Creator has the right to withhold a gift – i.e. eternity spent in his presence – from those who would trample on the gift, and on the gift-giver.

God Isn’t Impressed

The quoted assertion also demonstrates an unspoken belief that we can impress God with our “kind” or “generous” behavior. On this view, God should be grateful that we have acted in a way that pleased him. This fails to grasp what God is – a perfect being. We cannot impress him. When we behave rightly, after all, we do what we should do. We don’t drag people into court and reward them for not committing crimes. Acting lawfully all of the time is rightly expected of us. By the same token, a person guilty of a serious crime cannot complain that his punishment is unfair, because he had been kind and generous to others in the past.

So, in the end, we find ourselves in a predicament. We use our free will to rebel against our Creator, but we want him to accept this rebellion, and us, with “no questions asked.” When God judges us, he finds us wanting in both our actions and our beliefs. But in his infinite goodness, he also provides the solution to our problem, a bridge that spans the divide that exists between us and him. This point bears emphasis: through his love and mercy, God provides the solution to our problem, if only we are willing to bend the knee and ask for that mercy.

There is nothing unfair in any of this.  In the end, we get what we choose. The bridge back to God, the one enabled by Jesus’ sacrifice when he walked the Earth, costs us nothing to cross, and is available to everyone.

But we must first want to cross it.

Recommended Resources: 

Is Original Sin Unfair? by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

Was Jesus Intolerant? by Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

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

 

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

 

 

 

/by

Can Christianity Really Be The Only Means of Salvation Part II

Many skeptics believe that all religions are basically the same. If there is an afterlife, they surmise, all that will be required for admission is that you live a “good” life and be “sincere” about your beliefs. My last post offered reasons from the observation of nature that should cause the skeptic some concern.

 

In short, it seems to me that a study of nature actually leads to the contrary conclusion: if nature is our guide to knowledge, then the Author of nature seems to be teaching that getting it right is what matters. Sincerely believing that you can defy gravity won’t count for much if you step off the side of a building, no matter how good a life you’ve lived up until then.

Nature is Exclusive

Nature provides many other examples of this lesson. Consider for a moment the way nutrition works. There are a variety of food groups that can provide nourishment, and considerable variety within each food group. Proteins, dairy products, fruits, grains, vegetables – each of these groups has something to add to a person’s total nutrition. When taken in the right balance, a growing child will experience normal development to adulthood, plenty of energy and overall good health. But when essential elements of a good diet are lacking, the child’s health can be severely impacted. Take for instance the disease known as scurvy, brought on by the absence of citrus fruits in a person’s diet. Many an ancient sailor experienced this lesson the hard way, suffering a variety of physical disabilities that led to a painful death.

Notice that nature does not seem to care how a person was raised. If they learned to eat poorly in their childhood, nature does not take that into consideration in attaching a consequence. Nor is nature concerned with how sincere a person is in believing that his diet is good for him. When medical experts of the ’50’s assured their patients that smoking cigarettes was not harmful, that did not make smoking any less of a threat to their health. The examples are endless: the common thread throughout is that the wise person will make use of their acquired knowledge to move beyond what they once believed to be true to conform their beliefs to what is actually true.

Truth Matters

To the thoughtful person then, the proper diet is not decided upon by considering what dishes he grew up on or what food makes him feel “good.” Most people find chocolate to be quite tasty, and it’s known to lift one’s mood. But if chocolate becomes a staple item in place of, say, vegetables, then one’s health will soon decline. This result will occur regardless of how many experts advise it and regardless of how sincerely the person believes that chocolate can take the place of beans or broccoli. Though considerable variation exists, we cannot eat just anything and, if we’re smart, we should concern ourselves with finding that right balance of items that will best sustain good health.

Finding this right balance, of course, can be difficult. There is no shortage of “experts” who will tell you that only they have the answers. Yet try we must, for our health hangs in the balance. It would make little sense for us to throw up our hands in frustration and say that these competing “experts” can’t all be right, so we’ll just keep eating the way we want to, or the way we were raised to, and hope for the best. No, seeking answers and moving closer to “getting it right” are what any thoughtful person should do.

How Ignorance breeds Apathy

How does this relate to apologetics? When dealing with a skeptic, the believer often encounters apathy. Most skeptics just don’t care what Christianity has to say, because they have uncritically accepted the notion that all belief systems are equal. By analogy, they have rejected the idea that some foods are good and some are bad, and replaced it: most people eat what they grew up eating; who are you to say that chocolate isn’t as good as broccoli or fish?; I don’t believe in citrus fruits; you’re so intolerant when you think you know what a healthy diet is? Sound familiar?

Perhaps a discussion of nature might be persuasive, because skeptics often believe that it is only through the study of nature – through science – that any real knowledge can be obtained. That study should lead to the conclusion that nature is quite a harsh professor. It doesn’t grade on a curve and it doesn’t give partial credit for making a good effort. There is an order to life and to nature, and one must live within that order or suffer some very real, and often very nasty, consequences.

A Word of Encouragement

As a Christian, I can take comfort that the Author of nature has provided a rescue plan that makes my choice easy, and my work light. Yes, nature is harsh as a result of man’s rebellion, but I have a rescuer who can and will restore what has been broken. There may be a variety of denominations, and there may be differences in some doctrines, but in the end there is one path to reconnecting with God – it is by placing one’s trust and faith in Jesus and his saving work. Like many who came before me, I can take great comfort in the knowledge that the heavy lifting has been done for me. But where does the naturalist find comfort when studying the workings of nature? And if nature is this harsh in the here and now, why in the world should the skeptic conclude that it will be any different in the hereafter?

No, the wise choice is to discard this foolish notion that all religions are the same and that all paths lead to God. Better answers are out there, but you’ll never find them if you never start looking.

Recommended Resources:

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

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

Was Jesus Intolerant? by Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3

 

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

/by

Can Christianity Really Be The Only Means Of Salvation?

Most skeptics I know feel pretty confident that all religions “say basically the same thing.” If there actually is a God, they’re not particularly worried, because in their view, “being a good person” is really all that matters. As long as you are “sincere” in your beliefs, whether you’re Muslim, Christian, Hindu or a member of your own individual religion, it will turn out fine in the end. Many go so far as to say that they simply “won’t believe” in a God who warns of a narrow path to salvation.

This view has always struck me as particularly odd, coming as it often does from people who subscribe to a view that nature is all there is, and that science is the best way to attain knowledge. It’s odd because neither nature nor science operates in this fashion. Neither cares about the sincerity of one’s views and beliefs, and neither cares about what experiences or life circumstances led them to form the conclusions they now hold about the “way things really are.” What matters, for both nature and science, is whether the person is getting it right. After all, stepping off a cliff will result in a nasty fall, regardless of whether the unfortunate soul knows or cares that there is a cliff in front of him and regardless of how sincerely he believes the cliff is not really there.

Just Follow Your Heart [Attack]

Consider another example from the natural realm. You awake one morning with a crushing weight on your chest. You’re sweating and short of breath, and pain begins to shoot down your arm. It quickly occurs to you that these are the symptoms of a heart attack, so you dial 911 and soon find yourself in route to a hospital. But a surprise awaits you there. You have a choice of several doors. Behind one is a primitive medicine man, ready to bring you comfort and healing with various incantations and potions. Behind another is an ancient herbalist. Knowing what compounds result in what physical effects, he plans on using a variety of roots and extracts to restore health. Behind a third is a hypnotist, who believes that your symptoms are the product of anxiety, and that clearing away some of the baggage of your past will eliminate both your physical and mental pain. And behind the fourth, is a gruff, unfriendly and disinterested surgeon who tells you that your coronary arteries have collapsed and that without a bypass operation, you will soon be dead.

A frightening prospect one hopes never to face. But imagine for a moment what considerations will be going through your mind: the pain is real and intense and growing stronger with each passing moment. You need help, someone who can save you. Before today, you cared very little about healers or hypnotists or herbalists, nor much for surgeons either. Each, you believe, has something to offer, something he or she can contribute, and each is right in his or her own way. But right now, you don’t care what makes the four similar; what matters is what makes them different. Will each be just as effective in saving you, and if not, which one can best deal with the particular problem you are facing?

Sincerity Is Not Enough

In that pivotal moment, you see with crystal clarity that their individual sincerity does not matter. Nor does the confidence that they express that their approach will work. The medicine man may seem more confident than the surgeon, who tells you bluntly what the risks are. But confidence and sincerity don’t guarantee that a person’s views correspond to reality. What matters here is basic: which one actually has the solution to your problem. The herbalist and hypnotist might solve some problems, but your particular problem needs a surgeon. Because nature doesn’t care about what you like or don’t like.

Of course, none of this proves that Christianity is true, or that Jesus Christ is the “surgeon” that you need. But that is not the point. In the scenario I posited, the crushing weight could not be ignored. By contrast, the prospect of death can be ignored, at least for a while. But every thoughtful person knows that it awaits in the end. Here we deal not with possibilities or probabilities, but with dead (excuse the pun) certainty. No matter how hard we try to avoid it, we have a “problem” that we cannot avoid forever.

Christianity explains the source of the problem. Man has rebelled against his Creator and is now paying a price for that rebellion. Eternal separation from God – from the source of all goodness and power and love – is the necessary consequence of that rebellion. But there is a solution, a particular way that God has provided through which we can get right with him. Over the centuries, this belief has offended many, who view it as exclusive, small-minded and unfair. But having a heart attack is “unfair” and so is dying. Reality can be quite harsh at times.

So next time a naturalist tells you that, if there is a God, he will certainly accept “good” people, ask him where in the world he got that notion. Nature itself stands in testimony to the fact that surviving requires more than wishful thinking – it requires that you actually get things right.

Recommended Resources:

Debate: What Best Explains Reality: Atheism or Theism? by Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, and Mp3 

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

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

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek Mp3 and Mp4

 

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

/by

Were the Gospel Accounts Reliably Recorded?

,

A common challenge to believers is the contention that the gospel accounts we read today are not particularly reliable. Referring to the “telephone game,” the skeptic will claim that since the gospel accounts were penned three to five decades after the life of Christ, the accounts they portray are probably much different than the original accounts, just as the tenth telling of what was said in the “telephone game” is much different than the first. This analogy resonates with many people, who realize how hard it is to memorize in exact order a string of words that are spoken once. By the time the sentence is repeated to that tenth person, it will indeed bear little resemblance to its original form.

But does this analogy aptly describe what occurred with the biblical texts? Are there valid reasons to be concerned that the words of the gospel writers were distorted by retellings and the passage of time?

The first step in assessing this analogy is to consider the unspoken assumptions that are at play. The “telephone game” usually involves a rather meaningless sentence, spoken once, in which word-for-word memorization is the goal. The sentence is not important to the listener and has no particular significance, other than to memorize it word for word. Modern players of this game face a particular challenge – memorization is neither valued nor practiced today. We live in a culture in which electronic information storage systems have virtually eliminated the need to memorize long passages of information.

Another assumption is that having an exact word for word transcript is necessary. Given the existence of technology that can easily make recordings, one may begin to believe that nothing short of this should suffice. Take for instance a criminal trial. As a juror, you may want to view the actual interview in which the killer confessed, because you want to know exactly what he said, and the way he said it. You will insist on viewing the officer’s body worn camera footage before accepting that the events described took place exactly as they were relayed in the testimony. When the non-believer takes this approach to the gospel accounts, he will reject them before he even considers their reliability because they will never meet these assumptions and expectations.

The early Christians lived in a much different world. The writers of the first century did not have electronic means to record statements, nor did their culture put a premium on recording history in the way we do. They did, however, have a rich tradition of passing on stories, of using their minds to memorize long passages, and in some cases even entire books. Accurately passing their traditions, stories and knowledge from generation to generation was often practiced and highly valued. After all, they were not distracted with endless sources of stimulation, as we are today.

When the first followers of Christ began to document Jesus’ message, they were not playing a game in which he quickly said a string of words and asked them to repeat it. He was not providing them with some type of obscure code, which if spoken in just the right order would magically unlock the doors of the kingdom. He did not call a convention at which he spoke on only one occasion to an assembled crowd, with no one taking notes to capture the details of the teaching. No, Jesus traveled from town to town spreading a consistent and repeated message. Much of what he said was shocking to his followers, often contradicting what they were expecting the Messiah to say. His followers no doubt heard him speak on each subject on numerous occasions. They struggled to make sense of his words, and no doubt discussed his sayings among themselves. Jesus’ technique aided the process; he often used parables that were easy to remember and vividly conveyed a point he was trying to make. And when they did not understand the meaning of the parable, he explicitly expanded upon his intended meaning.

Given this context, it is not difficult to understand how those who heard Jesus repeatedly discuss topics they considered critically important to their ultimate salvation would have committed to memory what was said. The important thing for the writer would not be that he got every word in the exact order in which it was said. Indeed, it is likely that Jesus himself varied the words he spoke from speech to speech. The important thing would be that the meaning was accurately captured and passed on.

This process of repeating the revered words of their Lord did not begin out of the blue decades later. No, the process of retelling began immediately after his death. In addition, there were authors such as the apostle Paul who wrote numerous letters that set forth much of what had occurred. Had this process of retelling not been so robust, Christianity would not have grown so rapidly in the succeeding decades. Consider: by AD 64, some thirty years later, Christians had become so large and troublesome a group as to garner the attention of the emperor, who (according to the writer Tacitus) blamed them for the fire which occurred that year in Rome. Consequently, when the gospel writers eventually committed to writing their verbal teachings, they were not attempting to remember the words of a single speech given thirty or forty years earlier, a nearly impossible task. They were instead committing to paper what they had witnessed firsthand and what they had been consistently teaching in the preceding decades.

While the challenge of the “telephone game” has some surface appeal, it is at most a red herring, a distraction which prevents some people from ever giving the historical truth claims of Christianity a fair hearing. The Christian message is far more robust – and meaningful – than a simple children’s game.

And that simple truth is certainly worth remembering.

Recommended Resources:

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

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

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

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

 

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

/by

The Early Martyrs Were Cross Examined to Death

Skeptics often challenge believers by claiming that the “evidence” for Christianity would never hold up in a courtroom. It’s hearsay, they contend, and since these witnesses can’t be cross-examined, the case would never even see the inside of a courtroom. For many unfamiliar with the legal system, this challenge seems solid. After all, why should we trust our eternity to a message that wouldn’t pass muster in a court dealing with comparatively less important issues?

Christianity On Trial

A bit of reflection shows the problem with this line of reasoning. First, it doesn’t take into consideration that we know many things that could never be “proven” according to the rules of evidence in a courtroom. Just about any historical event that is beyond the lifetime of living persons would suffer from similar problems, as well as problems of authenticating documents and physical evidence relating to the case. Yet, we have little doubt that these events occurred.

More importantly, the legal system provides the right to see and confront one’s accusers, and the related right to cross-examine them about their testimony, for a reason – “confrontation” is a reliable way to test evidence, to ensure that it is credible. But there are other ways to assure oneself that a person’s testimony is credible. In the case of the early martyrs, the way they demonstrated credibility – steadfastness in the face of persecution – is even more reliable.

On the Witness Stand

Consider: if a witness testifies that he saw the defendant point a gun at the victim and fire the fatal shot, the defense will want the right to test the reliability of the testimony. But what will they test? Generally speaking, the prosecution will take one of two possibles tacks. They will either, show that the witness is mistaken the witness is lying. Either way, their testimony isn’t very damaging to the defendant.

In preparing to cross examine, a skilled attorney need more oratory. He also needs to plot out an approach. If he wants to show that the witness isn’t mistaken, he will inquire into the types of things that could cause a mistake: how well does the witness know the defendant? How long did he see him? Were there impediments to clear viewing? How did the stress of the event affect the witness’ ability to perceive the event? Were drugs or alcohol a factor and if so, to what extent did they effect the witness’ ability to observe and record what occurred? Each of these avenues may prove productive in undercutting the conclusion the witness reached.

But if the witness says the defendant is his brother and he saw him a few feet away with nothing blocking his view, then alleging that the witness is “mistaken” will not be very productive. That leaves the other possibility, that the witness is lying. What is the relationship of the witness to the defendant? Does the witness stand to gain financially or otherwise by seeing the defendant convicted? What is the witness’s reputation in the community for honesty and integrity? Perhaps the witness is a “jailhouse snitch” who is trying to get out from another charge by telling the police what they want to hear. Or, by contrast, maybe the witness is the defendant’s brother who just happened to be present when the defendant committed the crime and is unwilling to lie for him.

Could the Martyrs Have been Telling the truth?

So, when skeptic’s refuse to even consider the testimony of the early martyrs, saying it’s hearsay, they are misunderstanding the point of cross-examination. The strength of a person’s testimony can be shown even more reliably by their behavior as it relates to that testimony. To put it bluntly: is he willing to die for it?

The skeptic will immediately object: but many people are willing to die for false beliefs? Yes, that’s true, but that is not the situation when we consider what those first martyrs faced. This group of men and women knew Jesus and witnessed the fact and circumstances of his death. This was their testimony: he died a gruesome death, he was later placed in a sealed and guarded tomb, and after three days he began to interact with them in a resurrected body.

If we had them on the witness stand, which of the challenges would we pursue. Mistake would not take us very far. No attorney with any sense would claim that Jesus survived the crucifixion or that the man the apostles saw after the resurrection was not Jesus. Jesus was well known to these individuals, and they witnessed the “effectiveness” of Rome’s favored way of ensuring a tortured and humiliating death. The tomb was empty and even if an imposter had tried to play Jesus’ role, he would not have been able to fool the apostles. That would be like telling the defendant’s brother that he actually saw someone else commit the murder – not a likely way to persuade anyone.

Perhaps then the apostles were lying. They knew Jesus had died on the cross but they wanted the world to believe that he had escaped death. They knew this was false but persisted anyway. How would a skilled attorney cross examine these witnesses? He would begin with the basics: is there a motive to lie? Do the apostles stand to benefit in some way, either financially, emotionally, or through the acquisition of power? Do the apostles have some animus against the “other side?” Are there prior inconsistent statements or actions that would undercut their present testimony? How committed are they to the position they are taking?

Having cross-examined countless witnesses, I for one would not want to take on these witnesses. Committed? They went to their deaths rather than retract their claim – “okay, you’re right, we just really wished that he was the Messiah, so we fabricated this whole thing.”

Prior inconsistencies? Quite the contrary. The change in their behavior shortly after Jesus’ death – from meek and broken to brave and bold – corroborates their testimony.

Animus against the other side? They preached a message of love, forgiveness and reconciliation. They gave unto Caesar the things of Caesar.

Motive for gain? Hardly. Insisting that Jesus was the Messiah brought them nothing; in many cases it took from them what little they had. They gained no position, nor power, nor wealth, nor anything else of earthly value.

Where does the cross-examiner go? Indeed, nothing they did on a witness stand could possibly add to the force of their “testimony” by remaining faithful . . . unto death.

They Wouldn’t Have Died for Lie

The missionary Jim Elliott once said, “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose.” Having witnessed the risen Lord, the early martyrs had a level of confidence in their message that few today can manage. They were neither fools nor liars. Indeed, it is rather the fool who refuses to acknowledge the power of their witness.

Recommended Resources:

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

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

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

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

 

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

 

/by

The Probability of a Past Event is One

In recent posts (here and here), I considered some of the difficulties inherent in defining what constitutes a miracle or recognizing an event as miraculous. The skeptic usually approaches the issue with the set presupposition that miracles, however defined, are not possible. They typically contend that what the believer concludes is a miracle is in fact explainable naturalistically and that the believer has allowed himself to be misled by limited knowledge, ignorance or wishful thinking. The skeptic, placing unquestioned faith in the power of science, confidently asserts that someday we will see that the miracle we assumed occurred was actually no such thing at all.

This is a difficult topic to tackle in the abstract. If a miracle is defined as a departure from the known laws of nature, then it is easy to assert that with enough additional knowledge, we will be able to see that the event in question wasn’t actually a departure after all.

The problem with abstract discussions is that they sometimes cause us to lose focus on the issue at hand. The issue, as it relates to Christianity, is whether a particular miracle occurred. Did Jesus of Nazareth – the historical figure who most scholars acknowledge lived and was crucified some two thousand years ago – emerge from his tomb in a resurrected and incorruptible body? Countless believers have staked their lives, their eternities, on the answer to that question.

The Problem with Probabilities

The skeptic already has his answer: since a dead man always stays dead, it is exceedingly improbable that this account could be true. The “probabilities” favor some naturalistic explanation: he didn’t die but was only seriously injured; the whole account is myth; the accounts are the product of hallucinations, etc. But approaching the issue in this fashion demonstrates an a priori rejection of the evidence that one is supposed to be considering. In other words, when someone is committed to the belief that a miracle is simply not possible, how much weight will they give to someone’s account of a miraculous event?

Careful thinking will show that relying on probabilities in order to determine whether a past event occurred is generally fallacious. A past event either occurred or it didn’t; the probability of a known past event therefore is one. If it didn’t happen, then the probability is zero.

“the probability of a known past event therefore is one.”

Consider: if I play the lottery, my chances of selecting the correct sequence of numbers are exceedingly small, on the order of one in many millions. The probability of my winning is extremely low. If my lottery ticket corresponds to the posted lottery results, then I have beat the odds. The event has now moved from one in the future, for which probability assessment applies, to one in the past, for which assessing whether it occurred based on probability makes no sense. Once I see that the numbers match, the argument “this can’t have happened because million-to-one shots don’t occur” would be inane.

Yet the skeptic does this all the time. Because resurrections are improbable, we must keep looking for more probable solutions, regardless of what the actual evidence tells us. In fact, many don’t consider the evidence at all, having concluded that improbable events cannot occur. To use the lottery analogy, they never bother to look at the lottery results or their tickets because they are sure that they can never win.

Let’s Not Throw the Probable Baby Out with the Bathwater

A probability assessment of a past event does have some value. First, it may tell us whether an intelligent agent was at work in causing the result. If I keep winning the lottery, it may mean that someone is tipping me off about the numbers or altering their selection. If life on earth is statistically a one in a trillion-trillion-trillion event, it may be that an intelligent source created it and that it did not arise by naturalistic means. And if a man who claims to be God doesn’t stay dead, it may mean that he is who he said he is. However “unlikely” it may be, if the evidence is adequate to support that the event occurred, it wouldn’t be rational to dismiss it as impossible.

Second, probability assessments may allow us to draw inferences about the way people acted. How probable is it that 500 people all experienced the same hallucination of the risen Jesus? How probable is it that dozens of people who knew the truth insisted on falsely claiming that they had experienced the risen Jesus so that they too could be put to death? Assessments as to probable behavior allow us to evaluate the legitimacy and likelihood of the claimed behavior. But probabilities can’t tell us whether a past event actually occurred. For that we need to evaluate the actual evidence, fairly and completely.

The case for the Resurrection is compelling. Perhaps it is the product of wishful thinking, but my study of the facts tells me otherwise. Because of what is at stake, each of us needs to consider the case on its merits. Enough has been written about it that this can easily be done. What we shouldn’t do is close our minds to the possibility without ever having considered the evidence.

Recommended Resources:

Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)

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

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

 

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

/by

Why the Best Explanation Can Be a Miracle

,

By Al Serrato

We all intuitively seek the best explanation for a set of facts or circumstances. It’s called abductive reasoning. Detectives make use of this method of reasoning when endeavoring to solve a crime; they put the pieces together so that a picture of what occurred emerges in sufficient detail to have confidence that it is true. Parents do it when they notice that a freshly baked pie has a piece missing and little Johnny has crumbs on his fingers and fruit staining his lips. Perfect knowledge is not required to know with sufficient certainty what occurred.

Abductive Reasoning in Christian Apologetics

As it relates to apologetics, abductive reasoning is a formal way of supporting the case for the validity of Christian truth claims. Though there are dozens of pieces of evidence to support the belief that the Resurrection took place, many apologists will make the case using a “minimal facts” approach. These generally undisputed facts include that Jesus lived, that he was put to death on a Roman cross, that his tomb was later found empty, and that his followers experienced encounters with him which were, simply put, life changing. These followers included skeptics who knew him well, such as his brother James; zealots who were persecuting his followers, such as Paul; and numerous men and women who had been following him during his earthly ministry.

A Cumulative Case

What best accounts for these well-established facts? Could it be they were all hallucinating? That makes little sense as we know that hallucinations do not occur in mass settings. Were they simply mistaken about who it was they were seeing? This too lacks explanatory appeal as mistaken identification is not plausible for family members and close friends and certainly not for many such people. Was it simply wishful thinking? While his followers no doubt missed him dearly, it is not reasonable to conclude that they would face death by insisting that he was still alive, when they knew he was not. Nor would wishful thinking explain the change in those who were initially persecuting Jesus’ followers, nor for those who only became followers after his death. Seeing that the cumulative case points to the fact of the Resurrection can be a powerful way to support the faith.

Losing the Case Before the Courtroom

But many remain unconvinced. When I have encountered such people, I have found that by and large they do not employ abductive reasoning as described above. They have not assessed and considered the piles of evidence from history to determine what other reasonable inference would better fit the known facts. Instead, they begin with the presupposition that miracles – which of course include resurrection from the dead – simply cannot occur. Consequently, any explanation of the historical facts and events which posit a miracle are to be rejected out of hand. The case is lost before it is even considered.

In short, many argue that relying on the possibility of a miracle is simply an admission of ignorance. If you cannot first explain how the miracle occurred, they argue, you should not be able to rely on it.

We can know THAT it happened without knowing HOW it happened.

This challenge to provide an explanation for the “best explanation of the facts” – that is, to explain the miracle – is clever but misplaced. There are many circumstances in which we can know something to be true, or to work, without knowing how it is that this is so. Take our ability to reason or our native sense of fair play: I make use of these things even though I have no way of explaining how reason works, or why I should be able to rely on it to reach true conclusions. I cannot explain how I know that “playing fair” is something that should matter to me. Consciousness is another example: in operating rooms around the world, anesthesiologists make use of drugs that can put people “under” and then restore them to consciousness without knowing how it is that this occurs. They understand the effect these drugs have on the cellular level, and they can measure differences in brain wave activity, but understanding how a grouping of brain cells goes from conscious to unconscious and back is still beyond scientific understanding. Though not usually considered as such, consciousness and reason are themselves “miraculous” – no sufficient naturalistic processes can account for them.

So, if the evidence that a man was put to death and then appeared again in a re-animated and enhanced body is sufficiently credible, then the fact that we cannot currently “explain” how it occurred does not prove that it did not occur. Consider for a moment the many medical “miracles” that have occurred. There are countless cases in which a disease process stops, or reverses, for reasons that are unclear, at least at present. As knowledge and technology advance, some of these miracles will be explained through naturalistic mechanisms. But how can the skeptic possibly know that this will always be the case? Would this not require perfect knowledge on his part, in order to know with certainty that departures from the laws of nature can never occur?

There is nothing wrong with wanting to know more, with seeking more knowledge and more information to get the “how” questions answered. There is nothing wrong with trying to rule out all naturalistic explanations before considering the supernatural. And it may be, in the end, that additional knowledge will modify, or perhaps even change, some of our views.

But refusing to go where the evidence leads because of a belief that supernatural events are “impossible” is a reflection of underlying bias, not an expression of enlightened thinking.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Miracles: The Evidence by Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

Two Miracles You Take With You Everywhere You Go by Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4

Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)

Debate: What Best Explains Reality: Atheism or Theism? by Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, and Mp3 

 

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

 

/by

Atheists’ Faith in Science is Misplaced

,

Most atheists I have encountered demonstrate an amazing “faith” in the power of science. They will often accuse believers of wishful thinking – or outright foolishness – when believers conclude that an intelligent being is the only reasonable inference to draw from the evidence of design that surrounds us. They do this because they have come to believe that only through “science” can anything be known, and that science will someday answer all of life’s mysteries. That is what’s called “scientism.” There is no need for a God, they assure themselves, because “science” has not provided for one.

Is Science the Only Way to Know?

The flaw in this thinking is the assumption that science is the only way one can know something. This is flawed on many levels. Science, broadly speaking, is a method of examining and assessing the physical world around us, using instrumentation and methodology to achieve repeatable results so as to confirm or negate a hypothesis. It is, therefore, an endless process of knowledge acquisition, but only in the physical realm. We employ it because we are first convinced that reality is fixed, and that repeatability is possible. But that is a philosophical belief, not something that science has itself proven.[1] If we didn’t already “know” this there would be no point in attempting to conduct experiments in the first place.

Can Science Handle Moral Values?

Moreover, science does not attempt to provide knowledge as to good and evil, for it is simply incapable of doing so. After all, Nazi scientists were making use of science, but we would hardly accept that what they were doing was good. Indeed, we would not look to the scientific method at all for answers to such questions.

Can Science Address Anything Besides Physical Nature?

Finally, since science is limited to the physical realm, it cannot be used to assess the transcendent. What existed before “time” began can no more be measured by science than can the morality of a decision to use science to achieve a particular end.

What Other Options Do we have?

There are other ways to obtain knowledge besides experimental science, especially in areas where testing and repeatability are not possible. We do this all the time in the study of history, or when we make use of abductive reasoning to arrive at the best explanation from the available evidence. One example often used in courtrooms involves rain: clothing gets wet when we walk in the rain, and we rightly infer that it is raining outside when someone walks into a building wearing a raincoat that is dripping wet. We use abductive reasoning intuitively and we take as a given that our sense of reasoning operates correctly to allow us to reach valid conclusions. This is so even though we cannot use reason (or science) to prove the validity of reason. Simply put, if I try to use reason to prove that reason is valid, I have to presuppose the validity of the very thing – reason – that I am trying to prove. No, reason is a starting point, a given that we must all utilize if we are to discuss – to think – at all.

Christians are not imagining a creator when they look at the evidence of the universe. Quite the contrary: modern science is unlocking more and more of the secrets of the universe and finding that it is incredibly fined tuned to support the existence of life. Mathematical formulae can model what is occurring in nature with remarkable precision, amounting to a “language” scientists use to understand reality. Medical science has peered into the complexity of life, and the billions of lines of a computer-like code – found in DNA – that directs the building of proteins and ultimately structures that allow the vast variety of life we see on Earth. Whenever we see signs of something that is designed and operating according to a finely tuned set of instructions, we quite properly infer that there is an intelligence behind it. For something as massive and breathtaking as this universe, populated as it is with intelligent life, that something must itself be immensely intelligent and immensely powerful. Science certainly addresses this physical domain; it seeks to answer the question how things occur? And science performs a valuable function. But science as a tool for discovering processes cannot explain what first set in motion the forces that it is examining; what the designer sought to accomplish with the laws of nature; and what the ultimate meaning and purpose of life really is. Science addresses the “how” of whatever already exists, but not the “why.”

If Nature were a Note

Consider: imagine a scientist examining the mail he receives every day. Over time, he learns everything there is to know about the type of paper that is used, how the paper was formed, the type of ink, its place of manufacture and its ingredients. Imagine further that he determines how the letters are grouped to form words. Seeking knowledge of this type is laudable. But if the scientist concludes that since he knows all there is to know about ink and letters and envelopes, that there is no need for a letter-sender, then he has done something worse than making a blind leap of faith – he has closed his mind to the obvious reality of what he is examining. Indeed, the only way the scientist can learn the point of it all, the meaning of the message, is to read what was written, for in it is embedded information, something that simply cannot arise through random or blind processes.

As Christians, we bear witness to a personal God, not because we are grasping at myths, but because we believe the evidence of Jesus’s life, death and resurrection are sufficient for us to know him in a personal way. In other words, we personalize the source of what physicists describe as the creation event not by myth or wishful thinking but by a combination of abductive reasoning – a creator is the best explanation – and specific revelation – he is the God described in the Bible.

In the end, science and the Christian worldview are not in conflict. It is the one who insists despite the evidence that there is no God – and ultimately no one to whom we will one day be called to answer – that is persisting in ignorance.

References: 

[1] Editors Note: The fixity, repeatability, and knowability of nature are preconditions for science. One can’t do science without them. That is, one must assume such a framework before one can use the scientific method to discover facts about the natural world. Since these sorts of things have to be assumed beforehand they are, properly speaking, the domain of philosophy, namely philosophy of science.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Why Science Needs God by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

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

Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Does Science Disprove God? by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

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

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

 

/by