Tag Archive for: apologetics

The Scandal of Elite Evangelical Compromise

A blogger I read regularly alerted me to Megan Basham’s new book Shepherds for Sale, subtitled How Evangelical Leaders Traded the Truth for a Leftist Agenda. It was released [at the] end of July. I was intrigued by the book because it claimed to be exposing compromise infecting many evangelical elites, especially among Southern Baptists. As it is, she is a Southern Baptist, and for over a decade I had moved in that world both at the more liberal Baylor University (the “largest Baptist university in the world”) and then at two of the main Southern Baptist seminaries (in Louisville and in Ft. Worth).

Baylor president Robert Sloan had hired me in 1999 to found and run an intelligent design think tank (the Michael Polanyi Center). The backlash from Baylor faculty was intense, and I was left for the five years on my contract to write and do research, but essentially as persona non grata, without even the option to teach (I was too controversial for any department to risk having me teach their courses). The biology department even had on its homepage a statement repudiating intelligent design and commending Darwinian evolutionary theory. If Basham’s book had been written about evangelicalism at Baylor, it would not be the “instant” New York Times bestseller it is now. Moderate Baptists, such as at Baylor, have a long history of accommodation with the prevailing spirit of the age.

In 2005 my contract with Baylor came to an end. My struggles at Baylor had gotten me some sympathy from conservatives in the Southern Baptist Convention, which had gained control of the seminaries. And so, in the fall of 2005, I started teaching at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, and then subsequently at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft. Worth. Though for a time I was a “golden boy,” featured in the Baptist Press and with my likeness in seminary ads, I lasted only seven years at these seminaries. In the end, it wasn’t a good fit.

The final straw for me was a meeting in which the president, provost, and dean called me into the president’s office because I questioned historical aspects of Noah’s flood, questions I had raised in a book on theodicy (The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World). I had never hidden that I was not a young-earth creationist. In fact, I had made my old-earth position on creation clear in the job application process. But when I was called in for that meeting, the president informed me that my job was on the line (the historicity of Noah’s flood being a point of orthodoxy at the seminary even if the age of the earth was not). I was able to finesse things enough to keep my job (you can find the details in an interview I gave), but it left a bad taste in my mouth, and I knew it was time to move on.

I give this background not to stir up bad sentiments, whether in myself or the reader, but to indicate that the world that Megan Basham is writing about is one I knew intimately. As a non-Baptist outsider, I was especially alert to the power politics, the scolding and shaming, and the thirst for respectability about which she writes. That is her world as well. It is the one she mainly focuses on. In a sense, her book makes an a fortiori argument: if she can demonstrate woke compromise in the Southern Baptist Convention, the only major Protestant denomination that ever took itself out of the liberal death spiral that had compromised all the other mainline Protestant denominations, then her case is made for evangelicalism generally.

A word about terminology. Basham ostensibly focuses her attention on American evangelicalism as a whole rather than the specifically Southern Baptist form of it. American evangelicalism is a broad movement within Protestant Christianity characterized by a focus on the authority of Scripture, the importance of evangelism (i.e., sharing the Gospel), personal conversion, and a belief in the necessity of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. In that sense, I am and remain an evangelical. Yet the term applies especially to any believing Southern Baptist, as can be confirmed by examining the Baptist Faith & Message 2000, to which Southern Baptists are expected to subscribe.

As a writer for the Daily Wire, Basham is not in the habit of mincing words. I found her tone a bit strident (though not overly). And yet, most of what she wrote rang true. I knew many of the personalities she described, whether directly or through mutual colleagues. Of the people I knew that she singled out for rebuke, I was not surprised about the charges she made. And of those whom she singled out as holding firm against woke encroachments, again they were people I would have expected to hold firm. There were a handful exceptions where Basham assigned someone to the class of compromiser where I thought she was likely being too harsh.

Basham is a journalist, and it’s clear that she did extensive research to write her book, reviewing many articles, posts, and videos as well as conducting numerous interviews. Her focus was on the hot-button cultural issues that animate our society’s more extreme progressives. With regard to climate change, illegal immigration, abortion, Covid-19 response, critical race theory, #MeToo, and LGBTQ, she details evangelical elites veering into a secular liberal agenda as they try to shift the thinking of the evangelical masses toward such an agenda or else keep them in the dark about the compromises they themselves are making.

You can read the book for yourself to determine whether she makes a compelling case for complicity and compromise among elite evangelicals. Interestingly, as I was looking on the web for reaction to her book, I punched into Google “Megan Basham Shepherds for Sale,” and the first item that came up was a 10,000-word response by former SBC president JD Greear (published three days ago, August 12).

Greear came in for extensive criticism in the book. Even though he took exception to Basham’s charges and replied to them in detail, he was respectful throughout and he did graciously underscore that there was validity to her efforts to hold church leaders like himself to account:

One of the things I appreciated about Basham’s book is that she pointed out the cultural pressure to appeal to elite progressives. That pressure exists in an educated, cosmopolitan place like RDU [where Greear’s Summit Church is located]. Nearly 70 percent of our community votes Democratic, and these are the people God has called us to reach. Since I am known as a political conservative, I do sometimes go to lengths to criticize my own political tribe because I don’t want there to be any encumbrances to the gospel. I need to heed the warning she offers and stand squarely on Scripture, saying exactly what it says, regardless of who it offends. That said, it is simply untrue that I don’t publicly criticize the Democratic party or critique the sins of the left. I’ve preached repeatedly on the sin of abortion, the sinfulness of homosexuality, and the destructiveness of gender confusion. Even just this year, I read from the Democratic platform in church and called it evil. The people of The Summit Church, who hear me week by week, know where I stand.

[Basham has posted a detailed reply to Greear at Clear Truth Media]

And that brings me to the point of this Substack post. As already noted, nothing that Basham described about evangelical elites succumbing to the temptations of power, prestige, money, and sex surprised me. And there’s a straightforward reason for my lack of surprise. Evangelicals, precisely because of their evangelical beliefs, occupy a second tier in our society, the first tier being occupied by the secular liberal elites that control the universities, the media, the levers of political power, and prime intellectual real estate such as the New York Times. It is a natural as well as potent temptation for the second tier to want recognition from the first tier.

The one surprise in my reading of Basham’s book was the pains to which the first tier has gone to seduce the second tier to serve its political ends. Evangelicals, for all their incongruence with elite secular high culture, constitute a political bloc that politicians must enlist to win elections and that progressive influencers consequently must subvert if their secular liberal agenda is to succeed. To have evangelicals publicly seen as a constant disrupter of their best laid plans would not wash. As with all ideologies that seek complete domination, woke progressivism finds it unacceptable to have a group, even a fringe group, serve as a witness against their goals and aspirations. And so, the biggest surprise for me in reading Shepherds for Sale was the extent to which explicitly non-Christian secular groups, especially philanthropies, target evangelicals, especially their elite leadership, with funds, training, and attention to get them to veer from the straight and narrow.

The Bible talks about bribes and how they subvert truth and justice. Yet the Hebrew word שַׁחַד (shachad) translated bribe also means gift, reward, or donation. That’s what philanthropic organizations are all about—giving gifts, rewards, and donations to advance their agendas. And as Basham rightly notes, the biggest philanthropic organization of all is the US government.

Not all philanthropic agendas need to be for bad ends. But all of them come with strings attached. They come with obligations to look here and not there, to wish for and achieve certain preferred outcomes, to serve a given cause rather than to let evidence and truth go where they will. Basham details how various secular liberal organizations have exploited the cultural inferiority of evangelicalism to move it away from its traditional positions on the hot-button issues of our age.

My point in this post is not to name evangelical elites who have compromised themselves or the secular philanthropies who have tempted them into compromise. You can get the details in Basham’s book. But here’s an example that Basham gives that’s emblematic of the temptations faced by elite evangelicals. It’s the case of an elite evangelical being invited to dinner at the Obama White House. I knew this individual 20 years ago early in his career. He has since had a meteoric rise in elite evangelical circles. In the introduction to a recent book that he wrote, he inserts a paragraph that seems out of place about his dinner at the Obama White House (confirming Basham’s account). No doubt, it must be personally gratifying to be invited to the White House. But ego aside, is that really something for an evangelical to be proud of given that the Obama presidency was so opposed to core evangelical beliefs and practices?

Let me put this point more starkly. The Scriptures teach repeatedly that we should guard against recognition, accolades, and advancement from those hostile to the faith and that in fact we are on much safer ground when those hostile to the faith persecute rather than praise us. This is not to say that we should purposely make ourselves so annoying or distasteful that we receive the reproach of unbelievers (as when Christians act as hypocrites). But it is to say that by quietly and consistently living out our faith, we will naturally attract opposition (consider the ongoing saga of the Denver baker Jack Phillips).

The New Testament makes this point so consistently, as illustrated in the following verses, that it is hard to dismiss it simply as proof texting:

  • Matthew 5:10–12
    “Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”
  • Matthew 10:22
    “You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.”
  • Luke 6:22–23
    “Blessed are you when people hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.”
  • John 15:18–20
    “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.”
  • Acts 5:40–41
    “They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name.”
  • 2 Timothy 3:12
    “In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.”
  • 1 Peter 2:20b–21
    “If you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.”

At the risk of overburdening the reader with still more Scripture verses, yet to leave no doubt about what the New Testament is teaching here, not only is opposition from unbelievers seen as something normal and to be expected (showing that Christians are doing something right) but support from unbelievers at the very least requires scrutiny and at worst can become a trap or pitfall:

  • Luke 6:26
    “Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.”
  • John 5:44
    “How can you believe since you accept glory from one another but do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?”
  • John 12:42b–43
    “Because of the Pharisees, [many] would not openly acknowledge their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue; for they loved human praise more than praise from God.”
  • Galatians 1:10
    “Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.”
  • James 4:4
    “You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.”

So the prime lesson I take from Basham’s book, and one I would like readers of this post to take with them also, is that we do well not to sell our Christian birthright for a mess of liberal or progressive pottage. We should be better than that and our Christian faith demands better than that.

Northwestern University professor Gary Morson wrote a recent piece for Commentary on Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the great Soviet dissident and Christian believer whose Gulag Archipelago more than any other book (it was actually three volumes) tore the veil off of Soviet oppression and totalitarianism in the 1970s. As Morson writes in “Solzhenitsyn Warned Us”:

For his part, Solzhenitsyn could hardly believe that Westerners would not want to hear all he had learned journeying through the depths of totalitarian hell. “Even in soporific Canada, which always lagged behind, a leading television commentator lectured me that I presumed to judge the experience of the world from the viewpoint of my limited Soviet and prison camp experience,” Solzhenitsyn recalled. “Indeed, how true! Life and death, imprisonment and hunger, the cultivation of the soul despite the captivity of the body: how very limited this is compared to the bright world of political parties, yesterday’s numbers on the stock exchange, amusements without end, and exotic foreign travel!”

The West “turned out to be not what we [dissidents] had hoped and expected; it was not living by the ‘right’ values nor was it headed in the ‘right’ direction.” America was no longer the land of the free but of the licentious. The totalitarianism from which Solzhenitsyn had escaped loomed as the West’s likely future. Having written a series of novels about how Russia succumbed to Communism, Solzhenitsyn smelled the same social and intellectual rot among us. He thought it his duty to warn us, but nobody listened. Today, his warnings seem prescient. We have continued to follow the path to disaster he mapped.

“Life and death, imprisonment and hunger, the cultivation of the soul despite the captivity of the body: how very limited this is compared to the bright world of political parties, yesterday’s numbers on the stock exchange, amusements without end, and exotic foreign travel!”
—Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

If Basham is right, elite evangelical compromise is helping to pave the way to “the same social and intellectual rot” against which Solzhenitsyn warned us. The woke, the progressives, the left have made no secret of their agenda. I hope Shepherds for Sale is widely read if only for pointing out the complicity of elite evangelicalism in their agenda. Is Basham overstating the problem of elite evangelical compromise? Perhaps. But perhaps it needs to be overstated so that elite evangelicals wake up to the fact that the spotlight is on them and they can no longer dance to the tune of those who are implacably opposed to them ideologically, whose purpose is to use and discard them and in the end to completely undermine the Christian faith.

Solzhenitsyn was a serious thinker who could never be accused of compromise. He suffered too much. He paid too big a price. He could not be bought. He is a fitting role model for elite evangelicalism. He provides a proper coda for Basham’s book.

Recommended Resources:

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

Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

 

Bill Dembski holds octorates in math and philosophy as well as an advance theological degree. He’s published in the peer-reviewed math, engineering, biology, philosophy, and theology literature. His focus is on freedom, technology, and education. Formerly almost exclusively an ID (intelligent design) guy, with most of his writing focused on that topic, he found that even though ID had the better argument, it faced roadblocks designed to stop its success. So his focus shifted to the wider social and political forces that block free human inquiry. Bill still writes a lot on intelligent design but his focus these days is broader.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3Xm9k49

/by

How to Love Your Neighbor Through Politics | with Wintery Knight & Desert Rose

What’s the best way to love your neighbor? Christians have a biblical responsibility to love their neighbors by being politically engaged, which is why we’re kicking off a series of very important podcast episodes this fall with the #1 goal of educating you on where each party stands on important cultural, moral, and economical issues.

On today’s episode, Frank is joined by special two guests, Wintery Knight and Desert Rose, who have experienced firsthand the negative implications of what happens when a country loses sight of biblical values and goes totally off the rails. How can we prevent the same mistakes from happening here in America? They’ll answer questions like:

  • What is socialism and was Jesus a socialist?
  • Is a forced redistribution of wealth the answer to America’s problems?
  • Does the Book of Acts prescribe some sort of communism or socialism?
  • How different (or similar) are the parties when it comes to pushing for socialism?
  • What are the problems we see in other countries with socialism and universal health care?
  • Based on her previous track record, where does Kamala Harris stand on the abortion issue?

 

When you hear about some of the things that are already happening in our country, it may seem like all hope is lost. But it’s not too late to turn the tide which is why this election cycle is so critically important! As Christians, our eternal hope will always be in the saving grace of Jesus Christ, but that doesn’t mean we should sit out the 2024 presidential election just because we don’t like either candidate. Be sure to share this episode with a friend and stay tuned for a future episode with Knight and Rose, along with the rest of our political series and the livestream with Frank and Pastor Jack Hibbs on THURS. 9/12 at 9:00 PM ET – How to Love Your Neighbor Through Politics: A Bold & Biblical Approach.

Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.

Resources mentioned during the episode:

WEBSITE: Wintery Knight
WEBSITE: An Affair With Reason
PDF with article links: https://bit.ly/LoveYourNeighborThroughPolitics
9/12 LIVESTREAM WITH JACK HIBBS: How to Love Your Neighbor Through Politics: A Bold & Biblical Approach

Download Transcript

/by

Becoming Skeptical of Modern Skepticism

,

Some skepticism is warranted. None of us want to live within a paradigm of naivety. No one wants to blindly accept every foolish notion that comes down the pipeline. A quick glance at social media along with the acknowledgment of the tweaks and twists that artificial intelligence can bring to videos and audio files only intensifies our need for discernment.

Even still, as believers, we must differentiate between discernment and all-out skepticism. Discernment evaluates data to see whether the information is valid and trustworthy. In contrast, skepticism doubts or denies claims that seem to be grandiose or beyond the status quo. Even more to the point, skepticism can deny propositional claims. When left unrestrained, skepticism could lead to doubt, which in turn can lead to the denial of propositions (i.e., truth claims). At worst, unrestrained skepticism can lead to cynicism.

The Infiltration of Skepticism in Conservative Apologetics

I have been troubled by the extreme form of skepticism that has entered the apologetic and theological world, especially within what has been considered conservative evangelical Christianity. When I first entered the apologetic world in 2007 and formally in 2012, apologists and conservative theologians alike were fairly settled on certain issues regarding miracles, biblical fidelity, and creationism. The pillars of the apologetic world, however, seem to be crumbling, instead adopting extreme forms of skepticism that deny veritable biblical truth claims.

At the same time, modern Christianity has adopted a celebrity culture. So, these icons of the time often go unquestioned by their fanbase. We would be well advised, however, to remember that truth is truth and error is error regardless of who speaks it. With that in mind, let us consider three avenues where we should be skeptical of modern skepticism.

Becoming Skeptical of Modern Human Skepticism (Miraculous Skepticism) [i]

David Hume was an English skeptic of the 16th century. Hume maintained that miracles could not be proven as historical events. While a full explanation of his view is beyond the scope of this article, Hume defined a miracle as “a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent.”[ii] Part of the problem in Hume’s analysis is that a Deity and/or invisible agent may work through the laws of nature to bring about certain ends. Gary Habermas offers a better definition, claiming that miraculous interventions should be understood as “the manifestation or presence of divine actions that temporarily or momentarily overrule or supersede nature’s normally observed, lawful pattern of events, or that appear to do so.”[iii]

Hume’s Circular Reasoning

A bigger problem with Hume’s assessment is that his argument is largely circular. Hume does not believe miracles can be proven because he does not believe miracles occur. And, like a self-fulfilling prophecy, if you do not believe that miracles occur, then you will deny any claim that purports to be miraculous.

Modern Hume in the Apologetic World?

While nearly all Bible-believing Christians will accept that God does perform miracles, the level of scrutiny that some biblical events have received by Bible-believing scholars is somewhat suspect. With modern scholars, the idea of a talking serpent seems absurd, even though the Bible is riddled with numerous miraculous events. Furthermore, for some, the idea that God could raise numerous saints from the dead around the time of Christ’s crucifixion appears beyond rational belief, all the while the same scholars defend Jesus’s own resurrection and His resurrection of others from the dead. So then, why is it that some stories appear absurd, and others don’t?

At the end of the day, we must ask ourselves whether we actually believe that God can do anything within God’s moral limitations. Sure, even the Bible says that God cannot sin because of His moral holiness, and God cannot do something that goes against God’s character (e.g., Titus 1:2). But do we believe that God can part the Red Sea? Do we really believe that God can raise the dead? If so, why do we place limitations on what God can do?

Becoming Skeptical of Modern Bultmannian Skepticism (Biblical Skepticism) [iv]

Rudolf Bultmann was a German theologian of the 19th century who was highly skeptical of the biblical texts. Bultmann promoted the demythologization of the Bible. That is, Bultmann believed that the Bible must be stripped of all its mythological elements to make it more palatable for modern scientific minds. As such, Bultmann held an informal uncontrolled mindset when it came to the oral traditions undergirding the life of Jesus. The informal uncontrolled model means that, according to Bultmann, no one was concerned about preserving accurate information about Jesus, and no one was selected to authenticate the material. Thus, the Gospels tell us next to nothing about the historical Jesus and more about the church’s belief about Jesus. Therefore, no one can know anything about the life of Jesus.

Oral Traditions

In my dissertation work, not only did I discover that Bultmann’s theory on oral traditions was wrong, but the Gospels texts also indicate that something more controlled was at hand when it came to the preservation of Jesus traditions.[v] As such, the data suggests that the Gospels are based on eyewitness testimony. We have good reasons to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, as well as other events in Scripture.[vi] If the data suggests that we have reasons for believing in the fidelity of Scripture and the stories it contains, then why do we find it necessary to cast doubt on the authenticity of the traditions of Jesus?

Is Harmonization a Sin?

Why is it such a sin to harmonize the Gospels as Michael Licona suggests if the Gospels indeed contain eyewitness testimonies? It seems to me that attempts to diffuse the mystical and miraculous elements of Scripture are falling back into the unjustified skepticism of Bultmann and his desire to demythologize the pages of the Bible. But the greater question is, what are we left with if we remove the divine power of God from the testimonies of Scripture? We’ll discuss that in the conclusion.

Becoming Skeptical of Modern Darwinian Skepticism (Creationary Skepticism)

Lastly, it seems as if theistic evolution has become the fad of the day. Since William Lane Craig published his book In Quest of the Historical Adam, I have observed many young apologists and would-be scholars falling in line with endorsing theistic evolution, even though evolutionary theory still suffers from the same methodological flaws that it ever has.

What happened to the apologists’s endorsement of the work of Stephen Meyer and the Discovery Institute? Through the years, Meyer has given ample reason to question Darwinianism. His book Darwin’s Doubt is one such example. Do we now cast aside Darwin’s Doubt just because it is popular to now follow the idea that much of Genesis 1–11 is mythological? Do we now openly reject classic creationist concepts by scientists like Hugh Ross, the staff at Reasons to Believe, and Answers in Genesis just because a well-known philosopher says to do otherwise?

Conclusion

Most assuredly, I am not trying to lambast Craig, Licona, or any of their followers. I have been blessed by many of their works in time’s past and have many friends who follow along with the concepts presented by the two men. And it should be noted that many other scholars could be included in the three aforementioned categories. But I am troubled by the following question: At what point should we become skeptical of our own skepticism?

As I had the pleasure of editing the book Why Creationism Still Matters with my good friends and colleagues Dr. T. J. Gentry and Dr. Michelle Johnson, it struck me how strong the case can be made for creationism. And it further troubled me why others feel the need to reject such a defense when in fact numerous scientists are questioning evolutionary theory as well.[vii]

Additionally, consider that we have spent thousands of years trying to understand what it only took seconds for God to create. God spoke, and the universe came into existence with all its laws, physics, and numerical values. Thus, if God is God, and the Bible is God’s Word, wouldn’t it behoove us to believe what God said?

Final Analysis

As an apologist, I most assuredly believe that the resurrection and events of the Bible stand on their own merit. Thus, I am not a fideist. Have we, however, encountered God and known the power He holds? If so, at what point should we begin asking if our latent skepticism reflects our own doubt more than it does the evidence within the text?

So, to summarize, why should we become skeptical of our skepticism? When our skepticism begins to offer more reasons not to believe in God’s power and His revelation, that’s when our skepticism exposes latent doubt more than our faith. We must then ask ourselves if we really believe in what we are leading others to believe. If we don’t, then why encourage others to believe at all? But if we do believe, then what good is it when we continuously downgrade what God has given us in His Word? And if we do believe, then at some point, we must become skeptical of why we are so skeptical.

Furthermore, we must also question if our skepticism has caused an even greater naivety, wherein we blindly follow whatever our favored philosophers or scholars say without considering the validity of their claims. In a sense, our unrestrained skepticism could lead to greater gullibility. Just some things to consider from a fellow disciple as we journey this life together.

References: 

[i] Humean refers to the teachings of David Hume.

[ii] David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, in the Essential Works of David Hume, Ralph Cohen, ed (New York: Bantham, 1965), 1:129n3.

[iii] Gary Habermas, On the Resurrection: Evidences, vol. 1 (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2024), 242.

[iv] Bultmannian refers to the teachings of Rudolph Bultmann.

[v] Brian G. Chilton, “Semitic Residue: Semitic Traits that Indicate Early Source Material Behind the Gospel of Matthew” (2022), Doctoral Dissertations and Projects, 3874, https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/3874.

[vi] See my contribution for an extensive defense of the resurrection in the upcoming book Thomas J. Gentry, ed., Strong Faith (West Frankfort, IL: IHP Practica, 2024).

[vii] For example, read “Scientists Dissent from Darwinian Theory,” Discovery.org (Feb. 12, 2019), https://www.discovery.org/v/darwin-dissenters-speak/. Also consider the mathematical problems related to Darwinianism, David Berlinski, Stephen C. Meyer, David H. Gelernter, “Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, With David Berlinksi, Stephen C. Meyer, and David Gelernter,” Interview, Hoover Institution, Hoover.org (July 22, 2019), https://www.hoover.org/research/mathematical-challenges-darwins-theory-evolution-david-berlinski-stephen-meyer-and-david.

Recommended Resources:

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

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)

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

 

Brian G. Chilton earned his Ph.D. in the Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University (with high distinction). He is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast and the founder of Bellator Christi. Brian 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); earned a Certificate in Christian Apologetics from Biola University, and plans to purse philosophical studies in the near future. He is also enrolled in Clinical Pastoral Education to better learn how to empower those around him. Brian is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has served in ministry for over 20 years and currently serves as a clinical hospice chaplain as well as a pastor.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4e4KBrE

/by

Beware of People-Pleasing Christians – Plus Q&A

We were made to be the “salt and light” of the world, but if you find yourself getting too much praise from the culture are you really living your life for Christ? Last week, Frank tackled the subject of calling out shepherds that we know are in the wrong (be it theological, political, etc.). For this midweek episode, he continues the conversation by citing an article by Bill Dembski which explores passages in the New Testament that get into the promise of persecution and the dangers of being liked too much by the world.

Frank will also address listener questions on the topics of creation, including: Is the universe expanding AND contracting like an accordion? And how can we be confident that creation actually had a beginning? All this and more will be discussed in this follow-up midweek podcast episode!

Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.

Resources mentioned during the episode:

BILL DEMBSKI’S ARTICLE: The Scandal of Elite Evangelical Compromise
WASHINGTON STAND REPORT: Evangelicals ‘More Likely to be Shaped by Culture Than to Influence It’

 

Download Transcript

 

/by

Voting as a Kingdom Ambassador

During the presidential elections there are many voices “crying out in the wilderness,” as it were, proclaiming all sorts of weird ideas. One of those ideas is the thought that within this seemingly hostile and divided political and cultural climate even within the church, Christians who hold to a particular view are looking to crown a new political messiah and usher in some sort of a new kingdom.

Voting for President, not a Messiah

I cannot speak for all who claim to follow Jesus Christ. Perhaps there is some odd and rare breed of believers who sees the presidency as salvation. I do not! So I will speak for myself as to how I view the privilege and honor of voting not only as an American citizen, but more importantly as a citizen and ambassador of Heaven. As Christ followers, we are ambassadors who have dual-citizenship and should exercise this right, privilege, and power with wisdom.

“As Christ followers, we are ambassadors who have dual-citizenship and should exercise this right, privilege, and power with wisdom.”

As a citizen of God’s Kingdom and an ambassador of Heaven here on earth, when I vote I am NOT electing a “messiah” as some have flippantly asserted. That’s a gross misrepresentation and or misunderstanding of voting for a presidential candidate. It seems to me this is more of a distorted lens and skewed filter weaponized to silence or dissuade those who hold dissenting views. As ambassadors of Heaven who represent King Jesus, we should have the presence of mind to know that any form of deceptive manipulation, intimidation, gaslighting, or shaming to get someone to bow their knee to our way of seeing things is not a biblical practice.

There’s No Replacing Our Savior

I am NOT voting for a replacement of King Jesus here on this world as the Israelites did when they reject God and demanded an earthly king. I am merely exercising my ambassadorial rights as a representative of Heaven to vote secularly for policies and principles  (NOT a person or people) that approximate as near as possible to Heaven’s Constitution which is God’s Word. That’s what ambassadors do! An ambassador is to represent the King’s mind, His will, intent, and motives according to His Word. It’s that simple. For instance, God is the Author of life, therefore I will not in any way vote for a platform that peddles death through abortion. But what if both parties are for abortion? Then I choose the one that is at the very least attempting to mitigate this evil in some way as opposed to a wholesale free for all abortion policy.

The Litmus Test

Moreover, as Tim Stratton has recently noted:

“Abortion is *still* a litmus test issue. Not only has [one candidate] done the most for the Pro-Life movement than any other President in American history, [the other candidate] will overrule states and [re]codify Roe into federal law. [The former] will leave it as it is which allows We The People to be active in local government to continue the fight against the murder of baby humans.”

Again, as a citizen of Heaven, I am not voting to elect a savior, king, or messiah to somehow usurp Jesus Christ as King. I am seeking to rightly fulfill my duty and obligation as an ambassador of Heaven tasked to represent God’s will on this broken earth as it is in Heaven compelled by His Love, Word and Holy Spirit to the best of my ability. How do I best “love my neighbor?” What policies will point people toward the culture of heaven, by promoting life, goodness, purity, love, praiseworthiness, justice, mercy, righteousness, and joy for the flourishing and well-being of my neighbors?

Remember, there is no perfect party. There will never be one on this side of eternity. There is no perfect candidate running for the presidency. As ambassadors that is never to be the focus anyway. To represent Jesus faithfully and to promote policies that love our neighbors (the second greatest command) is the goal. We are to go into the voting booth as ambassadors representing God’s Kingdom and His never-ending government. When I choose to vote, I am not voting for a politician to replace The King of kings, Lord of lords, Creator, Owner, and Sustainer of all things. Ultimately it would be impossible, to replace Jesus, not to mention patently ridiculously.

Recommended Resources:

The Case for Christian Activism (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek 

Legislating Morality (mp4 download),  (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), (PowerPoint download), and (PowerPoint CD) by Frank Turek

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book)

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD) by Frank Turek

 

Tito Santiago is husband to his beloved wife Christina, and father to his awesome son Josiah David. He serves at Paul and Silas Ministries as a leader via Mentoring Winners and is also the host of Noize Radio Live, a developing online podcast of Kingdom urban music and talk.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3XlDuW9

 

/by

Is It Wrong for Christians to Call Out Shepherds?

Should we criticize our fellow Christians? And when, if ever, is it appropriate to call out trusted pastors when they get something wrong? Contending for the faith can sometimes be seen as divisive, so how do you discern when to speak up and when to remain silent?

Megan Basham’s new book, ‘Shepherds for Sale‘ continues to spark controversy and this week, some of the controversy is coming Frank’s way! In this podcast episode, Frank responds to an email from a pastor and loyal listener who took offense to Frank and Megan’s criticism of the late pastor (and one of Frank’s favorite preachers) Tim Keller in a previous podcast episode. During the discussion, Frank will answer questions like:

  • Which issues should Christians publicly call out?
  • Where did Tim Keller go wrong politically, and was it reasonable for Megan to mention him in the book?
  • Did Tim Keller pull a “bait and switch” on Kirsten Powers? And what did her article reveal about her “Christian” worldview?
  • Why is it essential for pastors to discuss controversial cultural issues in church?
  • Is it fair to equate life and death laws with welfare laws?

Listen as Frank uncovers why the seeker-sensitive church model might be doing more harm than good, leaving both Christians and non-Christians confused. He’ll also dive into the real purpose of government and what it reveals about the true extent of human depravity. And next week, get ready for more as he continues the conversation about calling out beloved pastors, shepherds, and other Christians who occasionally stumble and misrepresent the essential teachings of Christ.

Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.

Resources mentioned during the episode:

FRANK’S BLOG POST: He Gets Us, But Do We Get Him?
KIRSTEN POWERS’ ARTICLE: My Complicated Feelings About Tim Keller
MARK TOOLEY’S ARTICLE: Church Transparency?
TIM KELLER’S Series of Political Tweets in April 2022
STEVEN BEGAKIS’ ARTICLE: Tim Keller is Wrong About Abortion

Download Transcript

/by

The Ethics of AI in Writing

When it comes to Artificial Intelligence, I’m a luddite. I’m analog over digital. Forget Pandora® and Spotify® or even CD’s. Vinyl LP’s rule them all. I grew up playing outside, climbing trees, chasing things, reveling over sticks – not joysticks, just sticks. If they look like a sword or a gun, even better. I’m a Labrador retriever, but literate. I have the tech-savvy of your average canine too. That’s because I’m Gen X. I was raised before the interweb, before social media and Netflix. I remember Atari, Nintendo, and Sega, and Alladin’s Palace. I slogged through the dial-up era. I even met my wife on Myspace. Rock on! When Sunday comes, I actually leave my house to go to church! I turn my phone off to listen to the sermon. And the sermon isn’t at 1.5x speed either. It’s at regular speed, and it takes forever. But that’s how I roll. There are some disadvantages to being an old-school luddite like me. But there’s one big advantage. We first learned about AI from The Terminator. We see artificial intelligence through the lens of Skynet killbots. We learned to fear it before we were ever tempted to love it.

We’re not surprised to find that ChatGPT, for example, poses some major threats to modern writing. It’s not all bad, of course. AI image-builders are great at stirring your creative juices. Writing engines can be a great research tool for summarizing big data into small bites. Long before ChatGPT hit the market spell-checkers and grammar assistants were helping to spot-clean our writing, on the fly. And I’m sure there is AI-tech is tracking down terrorists, blocking telemarketers, rejecting spam, and exterminating viruses. AI can be wonderful. But, technology can be used for good or evil, depending on how people wield it. So, when it comes to publishing, we should be aware of some of the ethical problems AI poses.

First, if you didn’t write it, you’re not the author.

The most glaring problem with AI writing is plagiarism. If you are writing a paper, and use AI to generate a sentence, a paragraph, or more, then that’s content you didn’t write. If you present that writing as your own, you are lying. That’s plagiarism. Ethically, you would need to report that AI program as a co-author. If you’re using AI to write your blog or online article, you should the least say: “Written with the assistance of AI/ChatGPT/etc.” And while that’s better than nothing, if that’s all you say about AI, it’s still misleading since you didn’t just use AI merely to fact-check or assist with research. The writing itself was produced by a writing-engine. So, you aren’t the sole author AI wrote a significant portion of the article, blog, or book while you are claiming sole authorship. In that case, AI didn’t just “assist” you. You two are co-authors. It’s misleading at best, and dishonest at worst, to claim authorship for written material that you didn’t author. Don’t be surprised then if publishers or professors reject your papers and accuse you of plagiarism if you ever claim AI writing as your own.

Second, if you didn’t learn it, you don’t know it.

AI is a Godsend when it comes to research. With AI you can get quick summaries, condense tons of information, and hunt down obscure quotes, authors, and books. I’m a big fan of AI as a research tool. But there’s a looming delusion with AI-infused research. People can radically overestimate their expertise to whatever extent they rely on AI to do the “thinking” for them.

Consider it this way. If you had a forklift and used it to lift thousand-pound loads, does that mean you’re strong? Of course not. A forklift is a tool for heavy lifting, and that’s fine. That’s what tools are for, to make work easier. But the machine did the hard work, not you. So you aren’t strong. The machine is. Now imagine you have a forklift, and not only do you use it to lift thousand-pound loads on the job site, but you also use it at your home gym to do your weightlifting. All your strength-training features you sitting in the driver’s seat, steering this forklift to move weights, pull loads, flip tires, push sleds, and carry you through the miles of jogging trail. You were using the forklift for exercise, so does that forklift now mean you’re strong? Still no. You’re no stronger, but likely weaker because that machine is taking over the hands-on work that you should have been doing to grow fit and strong. That’s how we often treat AI. Instead of wielding it as a tool in the hands of a skilled craftsman, it’s an artificial limb rendering us handicapped and codependent. AI, therefore, must be subordinated beneath the task of learning. It should function in service of our learning. As writers, publishers, and content creators, we should be learning about the subjects we’re writing about, we should be gaining experience and expertise. We do well, then, to take full responsibility for the learning task before us, so we’re not using AI to replace learning and knowledge with the appearance of learning substitute for learning and knowledge. Rather we should be using AI to help us learn and gain knowledge. At the end of the day, if you’re reposting AI content that you didn’t learn for yourself then you don’t know whether that content is correct, fair, or reasonable. If you didn’t learn it, you don’t know it.

Third, if you don’t lead it, you’re led by it.

A third problem facing AI-usage is that it “has a mind of it’s own.” I’m not talking about actual autonomous life. We’re probably not at the point of iRobot or even Skynet. I’m talking about how AI isn’t neutral or objective, and it’s often laughably mistaken. If you followed Google’s “Gemini” launch fiasco then you know what I’m talking about. In February 2024, Google launched an AI-engine called “Gemini.” It could generate images, but never of white people. Apparently, it had been programmed to avoid portraying white people and, instead, to favor images of black people and other minorities. Allegedly, this is from a DEI initiative written into its code. So, if you asked for images of the Pope you might get one of these instead:

Now I’m not too worried about Gemini 1.0. I’m more concerned about the AI engines that are so subtle that you’ll never realize when they skew information in favor of a political narrative. For all writers, editors, authors, and content-creators, we need to do more than take credit for our content. We need to take responsibility for it too. That means we take leadership over the tools used in research, fact-finding, and learning. Instead of letting those tools lead us whichever direction they’re programmed to go, we decide for ourselves whether those directions are worth going, change course as needed, and refuse to let a Google algorithm determine what we are going to think or believe. Another way to say this is that we should expect that AI introduces some degree of slant and bias to the equation. So instead of trusting AI to tell the truth, and report events accurately, we need to keep a healthy dose of skepticism on hand and be ready to correct against our own biases and the bias we find in AI programming.

At an innocent level, an AI writing program might be biased in favor of formal writing – replacing all contractions like “aren’t,” “we’re” and “y’all” with “are not,” “we are,” and “youz guys.” At a more insidious level, AI can insert a decidedly partisan slant – especially when it comes to progressive political agenda items. It would be naïve to think that Google, Bing, Microsoft, etc. aren’t willing and able to let political and religious bias slip into the programming.

There’s No Going Back to the Stone Age

Now I may be a luddite, but I’m no fool. I understand that unless there’s a nuclear fallout, or something comparable, there’s no way we’re going back to the days of dot matrix printers and analog typewriters. We aren’t going back to the stone age as long as these time-saving tools are still functional. I write these warnings to you, not as a prophet but as a minister. I don’t foresee technological disasters crashing down on us. Rather I’m a hopeful Christian encouraging all of you aspiring writers out there to model academic integrity, write well, own your material, and grow through the writing process.

Oh, and Analog > Digital. Long live Vinyl!

Recommended Resources:

Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )

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

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Frank Turek (Mp3/ Mp4)

 

Dr. John D. Ferrer is a speaker and content creator with Crossexamined. He’s also a graduate from the very first class of Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD), he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

/by

Why Aren’t Christians Better People? + Politics Q&A

If Christianity is true, why aren’t Christians better people? Why are there so many hypocrites in the church? Why haven’t they been transformed by Christ?

Skeptics often question how transformative Christianity truly is when they see Christians behaving badly. But is this a fair critique of the faith itself? When a musician plays Beethoven poorly, do you blame Beethoven?

This week, Frank is diving into your listener questions! Tune in as he responds to an email from a concerned Christian husband whose wife is currently deconstructing her faith, due in part to Christian hypocrisy and “a lack of transformation among Christians as a whole.” During the episode, Frank will answer questions like:

  • How did C.S. Lewis address the “Christians behave poorly” objection?
  • Why is comparing the behavior of “Christians” to “non-Christians” not a fair assessment?
  • What’s the difference between justification and sanctification and why does it matter?
  • Why do some people appear more ‘sanctified’ than others and what can Michael Jordan teach us about the sanctification process?
  • What does Barna Group research reveal about professing Christians in America?
  • What should we make of “bad” Christians and “good” atheists?

Later in the episode, Frank will address a question about politics and the so-called “separation of church and state.” What 8 key pieces of advice does he have for a woman who wasn’t allowed to set up a voter registration table at her church, how can the Christian church use politics to love our neighbors, and will going political impact your church’s tax exempt status? All of this and more will be covered in this timely edition of ‘I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist!’

For more on “Hypocrites in the church”, see this short video of Frank at Calvary Chapel Chino Hills.

Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.

Resources mentioned during the episode: iVoterGuide.com

 

Download Transcript

 

/by

In the Gospels, Jesus is Pro-Life

When you encounter Jesus in the gospels, it’s not hard to see why the world would be a better place if everyone was more like him. And in the gospels, Jesus is pro-life. In fact, life is the issue for Jesus. ‘Life’ is why Jesus came into the world.

The Bible is About Life

The Bible’s most famous verse even says:

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16 NIV)

Humans weren’t originally created to face death (Romans 5:12), and Jesus hates death – that’s why he conquered it (Romans 6:9; 2 Timothy 1:10). Jesus’ mission is to bring dead people to life (Mark 10:45; John 5:24; 1 Timothy 1:15) – that’s why he came.

So when our world, and our leaders, say that it’s actually better for some innocent people to be killed and moved from life-to-death rather than from death-to-life, we can know that they are not in agreement with the most loving person in history.

Most people want Jesus on their side. But, as Greg Koukl writes:

“What we cannot do, though, is reject the Gospel accounts out of hand and then advance our own personal opinion of the Jesus of the Gospels, since there will be no Jesus left to have a personal opinion about” (para. 17).

So, here is what the gospels say about Jesus, and the beginning and end of life.

Jesus, the Gospels, and the Beginning of Life

In the gospels, we are chronologically introduced to Jesus when the angel Gabriel appears to Mary to tell her that she will miraculously conceive (Luke 1:26-38).

Then we see an example of an unborn baby (John the Baptist – about 22-24 weeks gestation) alive and leaping in the womb (Luke 1:41-44), because of the news that Jesus is going to be born.

Mary is also called “mother” by Elizabeth (Luke 1:43) before Jesus is even born, which presumes the existence of a human being for Mary to be the mother of.

The infancy narrative of Luke’s gospel affirms life in the womb.

In addition, we have a couple of verses in the gospels where Jesus himself (now all grown-up) specifically mentions scenarios of pregnant women.

Speaking about future difficulty, Jesus says: “How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!” (Mark 13:17 NIV)

Jesus sympathizes with the hardship that comes with pregnancy and motherhood, particularly during difficult times, and we know how accommodating Jesus is of the women who follow him and listen to his teaching.[i]

Jesus champions women in the gospels. But Jesus is also a champion of the birth of human beings. He says, “When a woman is giving birth, she has sorrow because her hour has come, but when she has delivered the baby, she no longer remembers the anguish, for joy that a human being has been born into the world.” (John 16:21 ESV)

Jesus recognizes the pain that comes with pregnancy, but he also says that the joy of a human being born into the world is greater than this agonizing pain – to the point that the anguish of pregnancy is not even remembered when measured against the birth of a new human being into the world.

Jesus’ statement in John 16:21 is non-particular and absolute. He is saying that there is joy when any human being, made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27), is born into the world. Jesus views human life too highly for us to say that he is anything other than pro-life.

And Jesus is also clear that testing circumstances and the inevitability of suffering is no reason not to live (John 16:33). In fact, the meek life Jesus himself chose to live demonstrates this (just read Isaiah 52:13-53:12 and Philippians 2:6-8). Life in-and-of-itself is precious to Jesus and not to be discarded.

The only time Jesus says someone would be “better off” not to be born is when he speaks about Judas (Mark 14:21) – someone who is not innocent, and someone of whom Jesus is foreknowingly aware of the consequences for his betrayal.

Jesus, the Gospels, and the End of Life

Jesus’ mission is to bring dead people to life, and this is patterned in the gospels when Jesus raises a little girl (Mark 5:41-42), a young man (Luke 7:14-15), and a weak-and-ill grown man (John 11:43-44) from the dead.

In our culture, we hear the argument that some (weaker) people are better off dead because the suffering that they will continue to face in their lives is ‘intolerable’. The argument presents death as the best, and even the only, ‘solution’.

Those whom Jesus healed all eventually died again. But he never treated death as the ‘solution’ for their situations.

Jesus admits that life will be hard: “In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world” (John 16:33 NIV). But “take heart” connotes perseverance, endurance, and trust in God – the opposite of opting for death.

Opting for death as the solution to life’s sufferings is not on Jesus’ radar. In fact, Jesus is the only (truly) innocent person who needed to face physical death to fix the problem of suffering. And even in his story, life triumphs over death.

The gospel message in its most basic form is that Jesus came to save us from death and give us life. But those who champion death as a solution want the reverse: they want death to ‘save’ someone from life.

Such an attitude is an affront to the love of Jesus, because it runs completely counter to the power of the gospel message. Jesus came that people may have life (John 10:10), which you can’t have if you opt for death as a solution.

Societies that Pursue Jesus Flourish the Most

‘Life’ is not a peripheral issue for Jesus. If ‘life’ matters to history’s greatest person, it should matter to us. Peoples and nations who have followed the principles that matter to Jesus have succeeded in history. Pray that Jesus would be placed at the heart of our society. Apart from him, we are told by the God-man himself that we can do nothing (John 15:5). Pray that our nation would value life. Life matters.

“In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.” (John 1:4 NIV)

References:

[i] For more on this see, Rebecca Mclaughlin, Jesus Through the Eyes of Women (Austin, TX: Gospel Coalition, 2022).

Recommended Resources:

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

Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )

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

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

 

Sean Redfearn is a former Community Youth Worker who now works for Christian Concern in Central London, UK. He completed an MA in Religion at King’s College London, is in the process of completing the MA Philosophy program at Southern Evangelical Seminary, and is a 2022 CrossExamined Instructor Academy graduate. Passionate about Jesus, he is grateful for the impact that apologetics has had on his faith.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/4dzGX9y

/by

How Philosophy Helps Theology & Apologetics | with Dr. Richard Howe

Do Christians really need to understand philosophy? Can’t we just read our Bibles and share the Gospel? The answer depends on how successful you want to be at doing both of those things!

This week, our friend, CIA Instructor, and Southern Evangelical Seminary professor, Dr. Richard Howe, sits down with Frank to explore why philosophy is a MUST in our current day and age if we want to be more effective in studying the Bible and reaching a society that no longer believes in truth, absolutes, or objective morality. Listen as Frank and Richard discuss questions like:

  • Why does good theology start with good philosophy?
  • What’s a self-refuting statement and why should Christians learn how to identify them?
  • Does the Bible instruct Christians to avoid philosophy? And if so, which philosophies are to be avoided?
  • What are the components of philosophy and how should we use it to interpret the Bible?
  • Why does science need philosophy? And how has the Church historically used philosophy in evangelism?
  • What’s the difference between ontology and epistemology and why does it matter?
  • What are some of the biggest philosophical mistakes that average people and even famous atheists, like Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins, make today?

This easy-to-follow and light-hearted dialogue will introduce you to the world of philosophy, inspire you to incorporate it into your study of the Scriptures, and embrace it as a tool to help you discern the truth about morality, science, reason, and every other aspect of your life. You’ll also learn the importance of using your mind to glorify God, make disciples in a postmodern society, and remain rooted in the objective truth of Christianity. Get ready to elevate your evangelism with your newfound philosophy superpower!

Did you enjoy this episode? HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING THE PODCAST HERE.

Resources mentioned during the episode:

Travel to Mt. Sinai in Arabia and Egypt with Frank: LivingPassages.com
Learn & Teach Logic and Apologetics with your kids this Fall: OnlineChristianCourses.com
Richard’s Website: RichardGHowe.com
Book: An Introduction to Philosophy
Southern Evangelical Seminary: SES.edu/frank

 

Download Transcript

 

/by