How can a good God exist when there is so much evil in the world?
Many people doubt the existence of God because of the existence of evil. But evil doesn’t disprove God—evil disproves atheism!
How so?
Evil can’t exist on its own, it only exists as a parasite in good. Evil is like rust in a car; if you take all the rust out of a car you have a better car; if you take all of the car out of the rust you have nothing. Evil is like cancer—it can’t exist alone, only in a good body. Therefore, there can be no objective evil unless there is objective good, and there can be no objective good unless God’s objectively Good nature exists. If evil is real—and we all know it is—then God exists.
We could put it this way: The shadows prove the sunshine. There can be sunshine without shadows, but there can’t be shadows without sunshine. In other words, there can be good without evil, but there can’t be evil without good; and there can’t be objective good without God. So evil may show there’s a devil out there, but it can’t disprove God. Evil actually boomerangs back to show that God exists.
While evil can’t disprove God, one can legitimately ask the question why does God allow evil to continue? That’s one of the topics I cover in the book, and the new Stealing From God online course I’m hosting that beings January 15 (you can start the self-paced version any time after that too). The course includes ten hours of video, and several live video conferences where I’ll be answering questions. Since we limit the size of the live classes to ensure every student has an opportunity to ask questions, you’ll want to sign up soon if you want to be a part of this.
In addition to the details on that link, I’ll be discussing some of the course content right here on this page in the few weeks leading up to the course. So keep checking back here for more.
There are many good reasons to believe we, as humans, are more than simply physical bodies. Humans are “soulish” creatures; we are living souls united to physical bodies. Even without the guidance of Scripture, there are good reasons to believe our lives will not end at the point of our physical death. The existence of an afterlife is reasonable, particularly given our dual nature as immaterial souls possessing physical bodies. But what precisely happens to each of us, as living souls, when our physical bodies cease to exist? What will we experience the moment we close our eyes for the last time in this temporal life? The Christian worldview offers an answer to this question, and it can be found by surveying the teaching of the New Testament:
Those Who Accept God’s Offer of Salvation Will Be United with Him Immediately
There is good reason to believe our afterlife experience begins the minute we close our eyes for the last time here on earth. For those of us who are believers, the instant our earthly bodies die our souls will be united with Jesus in the afterlife:
2 Corinthians 5:6-8
Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. We live by faith, not by sight. We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.
Luke 23:39-43
One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Christ? Save yourself and us!” But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.”
Those who have accepted God’s offer of Salvation will be with Jesus in what we commonly refer to as “Heaven”. But our experience in Heaven prior to the earthly return of Jesus (and the resurrection of our bodies), while much better than our life here on earth, will not be complete. It will only be part of the experience we will one day have when Jesus returns to earth and resurrects the bodies of those who are already with Him in spirit. While He’s at it, He’ll bring those of us who are still alive home as well:
1 Thessalonians 4:15-18
According to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.
Only then, after the resurrection, will our joy and satisfaction be made complete; only then will we be able to experience the full physical, the spiritual and emotional joy we were originally designed for.
Those Who Reject God’s Offer of Salvation Will Be Separated from Him
Unfortunately, our experience of the afterlife is instantaneous upon death even for those of us who have rejected God. While believers will be united with God, unbelievers will not. The New Testament describes two different places where the unrighteous go after death. One such place is called “Hades”. This is described as the place where the unrighteous go immediately upon death to await their final destination. Take a look at this story Jesus told in the Gospel of Luke:
Luke 16:19-24
“Now there was a certain rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, gaily living in splendor every day. And a certain poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. Now it came about that the poor man died and he was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away, and Lazarus in his bosom.”
While Lazarus, a God fearing and righteous man died and immediately went to be with God, the unbelieving and unrighteous rich man went immediately to Hades. But the Bible also mentions another place for those who have rejected God; it is called “Gehenna”. This was actually a real location (just south of Jerusalem) where, at one low point in the history of the Jews, disobedient Israelites offered their children as human sacrifices to the pagan God, Molech. Later, this infamous valley became a place where waste from the city was dumped and burned in fires stoked day and night. Jesus chose this place as a metaphor to describe another real place, the eternal resting place of those in Hades who finally receive their resurrection bodies and are judged forever. While believers receive their resurrection bodies and stay in heaven with God, unbelievers receive their resurrection bodies and are moved from Hades to Gehenna.
Matthew 5:29
“And if your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish than for your whole body to be thrown into hell (the word used for ‘hell’ here is ‘Gehenna’).”
Gehenna is the final resting place of all those who have rejected God in this life and in their unrighteousness have been judged at the return of Jesus.
I’ve written a lot about the reality of Hell and the nature of Heaven here at ColdCaseChristianity.com, and while that’s not the purpose of this particular post, this is a good pace to trace the path each of us will take after we die:
At the Point of Death
Each of us will leave our earthly bodies in the grave and our disembodied souls will go immediately into the presence of God or into Hades. Our destination is determined purely by our acceptance or rejection of God through our faith in Jesus Christ.
Prior to Jesus’ Return, the Resurrection and the Judgment
We will remain in Heaven or Hades until Jesus returns to earth and gives us all our resurrection Bodies. While our experience after death will be tangible, it will not be complete. A complete afterlife can only be experienced with both our body and our soul.
After Jesus’ Return, the Resurrection and the Judgment
If we are saved believers, we will experience the fullness of the afterlife in our resurrected bodies. If we have rejected Jesus, we will move from Hades to Gehenna and experience the fullness of judgment.
The afterlife is the focus of much popular media. Books and movies describing Heaven or Hell are plentiful, but few of them are consistent with the teaching of the Bible. As Christians, it’s important for us to understand and defend the nature of the afterlife so people will understand the importance of the Gospel message. If we can articulate the existence and character of the afterlife accurately, God’s offer of Salvation will be all the more relevant and meaningful.
https://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Soul.jpg6281200J. Warner Wallacehttps://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ce_logo.pngJ. Warner Wallace2018-01-06 08:39:392024-11-14 11:01:55What Happens to Our Souls When We Die?
1 Peter 3:15 says that we are to give a ready defense for anyone who asks for the hope that is within. 2 Corinthians 10:5 says that we are to “demolish arguments that set themselves up against the knowledge of God.” Now with words like “defense” and “demolish,” it is not surprising that the field of apologetics has been dominated by men in recent years.
Apologetics is important for all Christians, including women, but that’s actually not what we’re here to talk about today. Whenever you hear people talk about “women in apologetics,” they are usually focusing on why we need to reach women with apologetics. And it’s true, we do! The mandate to love the Lord our God with all our hearts, souls, MINDS and strengths is a universal command. So yes, I get it. Apologetics for women is vital. However, there is a lesser talked about issue, and that is the one we will discuss today: why apologetics needs women!
For the record, whenever we include gender in a conversation, there are people who are ready to stand up and declare their non-conformity to gender norms. When I talk about the different qualities between men and women, I am of course speaking in generalities. I acknowledge that there are men and women who defy their gender stereotype. I’m actually one of those women. Let’s all embark on this conversation acknowledging that generalities are not absolutes. We are looking at trends, and every trend has an outlier. That’s my official disclaimer before we dive into why apologetics needs women.
Men pioneer, but women civilize.
It has long been recognized that women have a… shall we say, civilizing influence on men. Jokes are made at bachelor parties about the “end of wild times,” and the bachelor-pad transforms from a purely functional assortment of free and hand-me-down furniture to a home, full of lovely smells, pictures on the wall, and too many pillows for a man to understand.
Men have traditionally been the trail-blazers. They are the pioneers, and the ones who take pleasure in conquering uncharted territory. Apologetics is no exception. But what happens when a field remains predominantly male for too long? You get something that looks similar to the Wild West. . . or Lord of the Flies. Take your pick.
I have noticed many online conversations between skeptic and believer that have been less than civil. While truth itself must be fortified without compromise, the manner in which we express these truths requires sensitivity to the individual with whom we are speaking. For some of our amazing, warrior, pioneering men, this quickly becomes a bull in a china shop scenario. Difficult truths must be applied gently, with compassion, and with mercy—all qualities for which women are better known.
Women often have a higher EQ
Speaking of gentleness and compassion. . . There is a reason why females dominate the caretaking industry. Our ability to recognize facial expressions and social cues is much higher than men’s.[1],[2] A phenomena that I have seen emerge within the last 10 years (and especially the last 5 years) is the number of people who are in a perpetual state of fight-or-flight. We may balk at the idea of “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces,” but put the pieces together friends. There has been a fundamental change in our society’s ability to handle conflict and we can’t ignore it or wish it away. We are not out to win arguments; we are out to win people. When a person enters fight-or-flight, you have already lost ground.
You cannot reason with a person in fight-or-flight. This physiological response is accompanied by an activation of the amygdala (the emotional center) and literally competes (and often turns off) the pre-frontal cortex, the part of our brain that thinks logically.[3] A woman’s ability to sense distress and diffuse it during an apologetics conversation is a powerful weapon in a world going mad. Do not underestimate it.
Women can help make apologetics more practical
A common complaint I’ve heard from churches is that apologetics isn’t practical. When they say “practical,” what they usually mean is “I don’t see how this will promote new converts to Christianity or put more people in the pews.” Personally, I think the practicality issue could be addressed by adding more female voices to the mix. Women may not necessarily have something new or different to say about apologetics. However, they often approach it differently.
There is truth in the phrase “Men are waffles, women are spaghetti.” Waffles are made of a bunch of little compartments that don’t touch. With spaghetti, you cannot pull one noodle, without affecting allllllll the other noodles around it. Men have an amazing ability to compartmentalize, which is helpful in many ways. However, when it comes to presenting apologetics in a practical manner and showing how it affects everyday life, I think that women’s inability to compartmentalize actually becomes their strength.
I have rarely heard a woman speak on apologetics topics without including how the topic has affected her personal relationship with God, or how she uses it to relate to others around her. Most people don’t instinctively know how to incorporate apologetics into their everyday lives. They go to conferences, and are filled with knowledge, and go home and have no idea how to implement what they have learned. I’m not saying that women alone hold the key to application. However, I will make the case that it often comes more naturally for us. Thus, we could play a vital role in making apologetics more accessible to the common lay-person, and more attractive to the average pastor.
Apologetics already has a bad reputation, and a feminine face could help
I cannot count the number of times my husband and I have told someone that we did apologetics, and the person reacted with warnings of, “You can’t argue people into the kingdom of heaven!” Friends, if I could reach out through your screen and shake you right now, I would. Listen up. This is important. If this many people think that apologetics is only about arguing, then we have not been doing it correctly.
I understand why men have retreated to apologetics. In many ways, the church has become very feminine, forcing men to hold hands and sing under candlelight.[4] I can fully understand why they would be drawn to apologetics. Rebekah and I joke about how some guys see it as a Christian Fight Club of sorts. #KiddingNotKidding
I get it. Men need a place in the church where they can be men. And contrary to what some guys might think, my push for women in apologetics is not about finding the last bastion of men, and invading it, too. However, we cannot ignore the missing gender dynamic that is at play. There is another phenomenon that I have observed, both in the workplace, and as a teacher. When it comes to leadership, men and women can do and say the exact same thing; the man will be seen as a strong leader, and the woman will be viewed as a [word I don’t say in polite company.] However, this exact same phenomenon is true on the flip side; there are a lot of harsh truths that people will more readily hear from a woman than they will a man. Why is that? Is it because we are less intimidating? Is it because we intuitively know how to soften the blow? Is it because I’m 5’2” and it’s hard for someone to really take me seriously? Who knows. All I know is that if a man and a woman both say something harsh with love, the love is often more readily perceived coming from a woman than it is from a man.
Our society is a mess right now and there are a lot of harsh truths that need to be said. A feminine spin on a harsh truth can sometimes break down walls that might otherwise have been impenetrable if approached in a masculine manner.
Women are more relational in their ministry
Apologist MaryJo Sharp has pointed out an interesting observation from talking with people at apologetics conferences. Men and women often have different reasons for getting into apologetics. While men are usually trying to answer their own questions, women are often trying to answer the questions of someone they love – a child, spouse, or friend. When it comes to the ministry aspect of apologetics, women seem to be more missional, but they do it in a relational way.
Positive versions of femininity must be displayed if for no other reason than negative versions of femininity must be refuted.
Calling our society “gender confused” right now is a massive understatement. Men don’t know how to be men, and thus women don’t know how to be women. It has a cyclical effect. Some women read the verse about having a “gentle, quiet spirit” and think that it means that they have to be a doormat, never speaking up, or never voicing their disagreements. If that’s how God viewed authority, then He would not want our prayers. He would tell us to just shut up and do what we’re told. But that is not how Scripture portrays God. Yes, we submit to His will, but we don’t remove ourselves from the conversation.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, we have the proponents of modern feminism who think that they can elevate the status of women by attacking the value of men. (Like a fish needs a bicycle, right? Ugh.) They react against the doormat stereotype of women, and fight back by emasculating every man in their lives in the name of gender equality. To use the cruder slang, we’ve got the ball-buster women. Let me be clear: “strength” gained by tearing someone else down is not strength. True femininity is neither extreme; it is a fierce strength wrapped in gentleness. As I mentioned in my blog on Wonder Woman, I believe that when women know how to be women, the men become better versions of men. Everybody wins. It is not a zero-sum game. As we women step into apologetics, we have the opportunity to model what truth wrapped in love looks like to a world that has forgotten what Biblical femininity should look like.
In conclusion, yes women need apologetics. Moms, studies show that you get more questions every day than doctors, nurses, or the British Prime Minister during an interview![5] So who do you think is getting the spiritual questions? You are! Apologetics is not a hobby; it is a need. However, this need is not a one-way street. Apologetics needs women just as badly!
My husband likes to talk about an episode of the 90’s TV show about Guiness Book World Records. In this particular episode, they highlighted the strongest teacup ever designed. This teacup was not just strong; it was ornate, beautiful, and extremely delicate. The host showed how with a flick of his finger, the tea-cup would chip. It was that delicate. However, to demonstrate the cup’s strength, they placed four of the teacups on the floor, put a wood palette on top, and then lowered a dump trunk onto it. The teacups remained intact. Ladies, our delicacy does not negate our strength. Our delicacy brings a beauty to our strength that brute masculinity will never have. Embrace who the Lord has created you to be. He did it on purpose. It is in the combination of our beauty and strength of spirit, that we can take the truth of Christ, and the aroma of his love, to transform a dying and decaying culture.
Notes
[1] Babchuk, W. A., Hames, R. B., & Thompson, R. A. (1985). Sex differences in the recognition of infant facial expressions of emotion: The primary caretaker hypothesis. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6, 89–101.
[2] Hampson, E., van Anders, S. M., & Mullin, L. I. (2006). A female advantage in the recognition of emotional facial expressions: Test of an evolutionary hypothesis. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 401-416.
[3] Hamilton, Diane Musho. “Calming Your Brain During Conflict.” Harvard Business Review. February 16, 2016. Accessed January 01, 2018. https://hbr.org/2015/12/calming-your-brain-during-conflict.
[4] Read the book Why Men Hate Going to Church by David Murrow. It is a real eye-opener, and he has nailed his assessment (in my opinion.)
[5] Agencies, Telegraph Staff and. “Mothers asked nearly 300 questions a day, study finds.” The Telegraph. March 28, 2013. Accessed January 01, 2018. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9959026/Mothers-asked-nearly-300-questions-a-day-study-finds.html.
2018 Women in Apologetics Conference:
Hillary Morgan Ferrer is the founder of Mama Bear Apologetics, and Vice-President of Women in Apologetics. Mama Bear Apologetics is a ministry aimed at providing busy moms with easy to access blogs and podcasts to help them raise children who understand why they believe in Christianity. Want to know how to get more involved in Apologetics? Mama Bear Apologetics is partnering with Women in Apologetics at their inaugural conference on January 19-20, 2018 at Biola University. To learn more about the conference, check out the video below, and visit the conference page at WomenInApologetics.com for more details!
https://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Women-in-Apologetics-Blog.jpg12562400Guesthttps://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ce_logo.pngGuest2018-01-05 19:15:042024-11-14 11:02:22Yes, Women Need Apologetics, But More Importantly, Apologetics Needs Women
The reliability of the Gospels is under attack. Skeptics seek to undermine the story of Jesus Christ by saying we cannot really trust the Gospel. “They were not written by eye-witnesses,” “They contradict each other,” “They have historical errors.” Those who have not studied this subject may be caught off-guard and begin to lose the footing of their faith. Frank interviews one of the leading scholars in the subject the Distinguished Professor of New Testament from Denver Seminary, Dr. Craig Blomberg! He shares some great insights on the topic during this podcast and tells us how to learn more about it directly from him on his new Online Course.
https://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Blomberg-Course-FB.png12562400Guesthttps://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ce_logo.pngGuest2018-01-05 17:19:412018-01-17 17:45:12The Historical Reliability of the Gospels with Dr. Craig Blomberg
My last post dealt with the belief, common among skeptics, that Christianity is simply a form of superstition. Modern “science-minded” people reject superstitions, and so religious belief holds no interest for them. Historic Christian doctrine is in fact much different, however; while some who claim to be Christian may indeed be superstitious, the faith itself is built not upon fanciful thinking but upon a bedrock of truth.
This distinction, and the importance of pursuing truth can be seen in the following analogy: imagine a person who is suffering from a medical disorder. One day he is fine and the next the disease begins the process of eventually killing him. Initially, he does not know he is afflicted.He “feels” fine. He continues to go about his business, concerned with the problems of everyday life and not suspecting that anything may be different, let alone dreadfully wrong. Eventually, symptoms begin to appear, but they are not particularly troubling to him. After friends insist that he have them checked out, he agrees to see a doctor.This is a big step for him, for he does not “believe” in doctors.He thinks that doctors are often wrong and that they rely too much on pills and not enough on just “living right.” He knows that others really believe in doctors, but he is “sincere” in his belief that doctors do more harm than good, especially when one doesn’t “feel” that anything is wrong. After running a battery of tests, however, the doctor identifies the illness and tells the patient what is wrong.
In addition to understanding the affliction, the doctor also has the means to provide the solution. The patient resists, however, insisting that he feels fine and that he doesn’t need any help. He views the surgery and medicines the doctor offers as “butchery” and “potions.” He sincerely believes that the doctor is practicing voodoo.Ultimately, the patient dies, blissfully unaware of his true condition, content in his belief that he was fine and proud of his refusal to resort to talismanic remedies to fix something he did not believe was wrong.
As this analogy demonstrates, how the patient feels about his situation is not particularly relevant. Nor is the sincerity of his belief. He may feel fine, physically and emotionally, but the issue would be his actual condition, i.e. the truth about his disease. Christianity needs to be assessed on these terms. Either the Biblical claims are true – we are in a world of trouble and only Jesus can save us – or they’re not. If they are true, how we feel about them is of little consequence. And ignoring and rejecting them will, in the end, not succeed.
Now some may object that doctors practice science, and so the analogy is misplaced. The patient was wrong not to rely on science. But science is simply one way of testing and developing knowledge.It is not the only way. Science cannot tell us whether we possess souls and whether these souls are in need of salvation.And science cannot tell us whether improbable past events actually occurred.The only way we can make that assessment is by considering the evidence upon which Christianity is based and becoming familiar with the philosophy that supports its claims.
But we must do so with an open and inquiring mind… for the consequences of ignoring our spiritual illness can be as devastating as the disease was for the unsuspecting patient.
https://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Christianity-Is-Based-in-Truth-Not-Superstition.jpg12562400Guesthttps://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ce_logo.pngGuest2018-01-02 20:20:332024-11-14 11:02:53Christianity Is Based in Truth, Not Superstition
A fantastic interview with prolific writer and professor of philosophy, Dr. Edward Feser. Called by National Review “one of the best contemporary writers on philosophy.” Feser gives a brief exposition and defense in this podcast of five of the historically most important (but in recent years largely neglected) philosophical proofs of God’s existence: the Aristotelian, the Neo-Platonic, the Augustinian, the Thomistic, and the Rationalist. This is one of the best podcasts of the year, don’t miss it!
https://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Feser_BLOG_FB.jpg12562400Guesthttps://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ce_logo.pngGuest2017-12-27 12:26:152024-11-14 11:04:38Five Proofs of the Existence of God with Dr. Ed Feser
Detectives create lists. As a cold-case detective, I’m no different. When investigating an event in the distant past (in my case, an unsolved murder), I collect evidence, make lists and do my best to reach the most reasonable inference. When I began to investigate Christianity at the age of thirty-five, I approached the gospels the same way I approached my cold-case files. Lists were an important part of the process. One New Testament claim was particularly interesting to me: the conception and birth of Jesus. When I first read through the gospels, the birth narratives seemed incredible and unreasonable. I’m not the only person to express such a concern. In an article posted in the Herald Scotland, Reverend Andrew Frater called the Nativity story a “fanciful, fairy tale” and called on Christians to “disentangle the truth from the tinsel”. Frater is a minister and a believer, and even he doesn’t believe in the virgin conception of Jesus. As an atheist, I was even more skeptical. I rejected supernatural claims altogether, and the first Biblical claim about Jesus was a supernatural one. But as I collected the evidence and formed my lists, I found there were many good reasons to trust the story of Christmas. I’ve assembled them here with links to longer treatments of each topic:
Reason 1: The Supernatural Nature of the Virgin Conception Shouldn’t Disqualify It
When I began to investigate the virgin conception, I was actually investigating my own philosophical naturalism. I was, in essence, asking the following questions: “Is the natural world all that exists?” “Is there anything beyond the physical, material world we measure with our five senses?” “Are supernatural events possible or even reasonable?” In asking these questions, I was putting naturalism to the test. It would have been unfair, therefore, to begin by presupposing nothing supernatural could ever exist or occur. If we want to be fair about assessing the virgin conception or any other supernatural aspect of the nativity story, we cannot exclude the very possibility of the supernatural in the first place. Our presupposition against the supernatural would unfairly taint our examination of the claim.
Reason 2: The Claim of the Virgin Conception Appears Incredibly Early in Christian History
It’s always easier to tell a lie once everyone who was alive to know the difference has already died. But if you’re going to make a claim early in an area where people are still available to debunk your claim, be prepared to have a difficult time getting away with misrepresentations. The virgin conception of Jesus is one of the earliest claims in Christian history. The students of the gospel authors cited the virgin conception as a true claim about Jesus. Ignatius, the student of John (an Apostle who chose not to write about the birth of Jesus in his own gospel), included it in his early writings to local churches. Other Church leaders repeated the claim through the earliest years of the Church, and the doctrine also appears in the most ancient Church creeds. Even early non-canonical documents include the virgin conception of Jesus.
Reason 3: The Birth Narratives in Luke and Matthew Are Not Late Additions
Critics, in an effort to argue the birth narratives in Luke and Matthew are not reliable, point to stylistic differences and “content shifting” within the gospels. Critics claim that the Greek language used in the birth narrative section of Luke’s gospel is far more Semitic than other sections. But the fact that this section of the gospel is stylistically or linguistically different than other sections does not mean it was a late addition. Luke told us he compiled the information for his gospel from a number of divergent sources (Luke 1:1-4). As a result, we should expect stylistic and linguistic differences within the gospel of Luke. In addition, any claim related to the late addition of the birth narratives defies all the manuscript evidence available to us; there is absolutely no evidence that the gospel of Matthew and Luke ever existed without the birth narratives. All manuscripts, translations, early Church documents and references to the gospels, along with every historic, reliable witness testifies to the fact that the birth narratives are ancient and part of the original record.
Reason 4: The Virgin Conception Was Not An Invention of Early Christians Some critics of the virgin conception argue that the earliest Christian authors inserted it in an effort to give Jesus a “heroic” birth consistent with other Old Testament heroes. But, not every Jewish hero from the Old Testament had an unusual birth story. Joshua, King David, and King Solomon are just three of the more obvious examples of powerful Old Testament heroes whose birth stories were less than surprising or unusual. In addition, there is no other character from the Old Testament who was born of a virgin through the miraculous conception of the Holy Spirit. This characteristic of Jesus’ conception is unique to Jesus and follows no pre-existing Old Testament pattern.
Reason 5: The Virgin Conception Wasn’t Borrowed from Another Source
Skeptics also attempt to discredit the virgin conception of Jesus by claiming it was borrowed from prior pagan mythologies such as those of Mithras or Horus. But any fair examination of pagan mythological birth narratives revels the dramatic differences between the virgin conception of Jesus and stories about the supernatural emergence of mythological gods. While “borrowing” may have occurred between belief systems, the weak resemblances between the Biblical account and pagan mythologies are far more likely the result of the Judeo-Christian influence rather than contamination from a pagan source. It’s irrational to believe the early Jewish readers of the gospels would embrace any part of paganism in the story of Jesus’ conception as continuous with the Jewish narrative from the Old Testament. In addition, early Christian converts were repeatedly called to a new life in Christ, told they were merely travelers passing through this mortal (and pagan) world, called to live a life that was free of worldly influences, and told to reject the foolish philosophies and stories of men. This group, in particular, would be the last to turn to pre-existing pagan stories and superstitions.
If there exists a supernatural Being capable of bringing all space, time and matter into existence from nothing, such a Being could certainly accomplish the virgin conception of Jesus, the Resurrection of Christ, or any of the other “lesser” miracles described on the pages of the New Testament. In addition, there is no historically, textually or philosophically necessary reason to reject the claims of the New Testament authors. If you’re a Christian this Christmas season, celebrate the birth of Jesus with confidence and certainty. The virgin conception is not a fanciful, fairy tale. It is a true story. In fact, there are five good reasons to trust the story of Christmas is factual, reliable and true.
To download a FREE, printable, Bible-sized insert summarizing these five reasons, visit the homepage at www.ColdCaseChristianity.com and click the link in the right column.
https://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Nativity.jpg6281200J. Warner Wallacehttps://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ce_logo.pngJ. Warner Wallace2017-12-20 09:45:472022-12-02 16:01:33Five Reasons You Can Trust the Story of Christmas Is True (Free Bible Insert)
The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” If this passage from Psalms is correct, then many people today are fools, for they insist that God does not exist. But the ranks of non-believers include many scientifically minded and highly intelligent people, not the sort we would normally consider as foolish. So, what makes such a person a “fool,” and not merely someone with whom we disagree?
Well, let’s begin with a look at the definition of “fool,” which includes “a person who has been tricked or deceived into appearing or acting silly or stupid.” Now, sometimes we trick ourselves, and thereby make fools of ourselves. And other times we are misled. But either way most would agree that someone who holds contradictory views has deceived himself. Imagine a person proudly proclaiming that the prime rib he is about to eat is an important part of his vegetarian diet. Or the person who says that the only medicine that can save him is the one with no ingredients.
But sometimes contradictions aren’t as obvious. Why, then, is it a contradiction to insist there is no God? It doesn’t appear to be contradictory – at first glance anyway. For the answer to that question, we are indebted to St. Anselm of Canterbury, who lived and pondered these questions some ten centuries ago. I can’t do justice to Anselm’s argument in this brief piece, but perhaps some concepts borrowed from Anselm may help make the point.
The first requires consideration of just what the mind does. Anyone who has seen a baby develop realizes that the human mind comes preprogrammed with an “operating system” of sorts. This allows us to acquire language, to reason, to recognize concepts such as fairness and truth and beauty, and other intangible things, and to make use of imagination. This ability for abstract thought lends itself to “got it” moments when a problem that has been puzzling us all of a sudden makes sense. We all use these systems intuitively; of course, there is no other way, since we could never use reason, for instance, to prove the validity or usefulness of reason.
One aspect of this ability for abstract thought is the ability to conceptualize. Food, for instance, can encompass a million different things, but to qualify it must be edible and serve to nourish, and not poison, us. We can call an ashtray “food”, but the underlying thing is not a matter of what we call it, but of what it consists.
So, with this observation in view, consider for a moment not what a definition of God might be, but what the conception of God is. What is it that we are struggling to grasp when we use that term? Anselm’s definition was simply this – God is that being a greater than which cannot be conceived. Whatever attributes God would have – omnipotence, omnipresence, perfect goodness, etc. – if you can conceive of a being with all those attributes plus an additional one, then the latter would be God. So, imagine two beings then – each with exhaustive, infinite powers. One of the two has the attribute of necessary existence, while the other may or may not exist. Clearly, the former – the one with necessary existence – would be the greater. Consequently, to fully conceive of God, we must be conceiving of a Being who can’t not exist, whose existence must always have been and will always continue to be. Anything else simply cannot fit the conception of God.
So, what does that prove? Maybe this conception of God is imaginary. Not so, Anselm would contend. And here’s why: the mind is not capable of conceptualizing something that does not correspond to something real. Now, this premise is a bit harder to get one’s mind around. The normal response to this part of the argument is that we create imaginary things all the time, from unicorns to tooth fairies to Jedi Knights. But each of these things, while imaginary, is the combining of things that are real: a horse and a horn; a person with wings and unusual powers; a warrior with special abilities and unusual weapons. And, moreover, neither a unicorn nor a tooth fairy nor a Jedi Knight would possess the attribute of necessary existence. If a unicorn did exist, it would have to consist of a horse with a single horn in its head; but its existence could have occurred briefly in the distant past, or could arise in the distant future or could not occur at all. We can fully conceptualize such a creature without the need that the creature itself actually exist because the conceptualization does not require necessary existence.
This concept of “necessary” existence is not easily grasped at first. Many skeptics will contend that “existence” is not an attribute at all. Imaginary things don’t actually exist, they will say, so they consist of nothing. This line of argument can quickly devolve into an argument over definitions, with the skeptic insisting that it is nonsensical to consider a thing which does not exist. This assumption allows them to defeat Anselm’s argument – they write “necessary existence” out of the set of characteristics of God – but a moment’s reflection should reveal that this comes at too high a price. I can conceive in my mind of many past historical figures whose attributes I can describe in detail but who do not presently exist, for they have passed away. More importantly, every scientific discovery or invention must first begin in the mind of a person who sees the attributes of the thing before it actually takes form. The automobile, for instance, did not create itself; it first appeared in the mind of an inventor who could see what it would consist of if it did exist and then set about adding “existence” to its attributes.
Letting our minds approach the concept of what “God” must be, the only way to conceptualize Him, is as a necessarily existent being. If we are not seeing Him that way – if we are insisting that there may be a God, but then again maybe not, then we are not yet thinking about God, but about something else, something less than God.
This foray into philosophy can be difficult. Fortunately, there are many other proofs for God’s existence, ones much easier with which to grapple, but this one stands out for its elegance. For if it has merit, then God has embedded within us the means to find Him in the one place we have exclusive and special access to our very minds.
If Anselm is right, then the fool who denies God is saying something like “I believe that the Being who must necessarily exist does not exist.” A rather foolish thing to say, when you see it clearly.
The Bible says that God has written his law on our heart. Perhaps if we probe a bit deeper still, we can also begin to see in its depths the first faint scratching of His signature.
https://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/How-the-Ontological-Argument-Proves-the-Existence-of-God.jpg12562400Guesthttps://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ce_logo.pngGuest2017-12-19 20:19:572024-11-14 11:07:30How the Ontological Argument Proves the Existence of God
Atheists often appeal to evolution in an attempt to explain the primate complexity we observe today without a need for an Intelligent Designer — God! Indeed, many say the reason they affirm atheism is because they believe evolution is true. Since their hypothesis does not include God as a designer, atheists feel justified in affirming that God does not exist and that Christianity is false. With that said, however, if evolution is true, it does nothing to prove that God does not exist or do anything to disprove the historical resurrection of Jesus (the two essential ingredients of “mere Christianity”). Moreover, what atheists fail to comprehend is that by appealing to evolution in an attempt to “prove” atheism, they ultimately prove too much!
Evolution simply means change over time. Most evolutionists and young earth creationists will agree that some things do genuinely change over time (even if they disagree on how much some things change over time). What is important to note is that Darwinian evolution requires a genuine change over dynamic time — at least if one is hoping to explain primate complexity. With that in mind, I contend that if evolution is true, then atheism is false!
Consider this: I believe that some things do genuinely evolve and change over time. In fact, we currently exist in a world in which things are constantly changing right in front of our eyes! That is to say, we exist in an evolving state of affairs (change happens)!
The problem, however, is this: it is logically impossible for a changing state of affairs to be extrapolated into past infinity! In “English” that means that if we currently exist in a changing state of affairs and things are really happening one event after another, then it is impossible for things to happen chronologically in this manner without a first change. If we exist — right now — in a changing state of affairs, then it is impossible to go on and on forever in the past. Logically, there must have been a beginning or a first change.
If there never was a first change, then the present moment — “right now” — would not exist. To help illustrate why the concept of past infinity is incoherent, consider two thought experiments.
Infinite Jumpers & Steppers
First, is it possible for someone, say a superhero with infinite jumping powers, to jump out of an infinitely tall bottomless-pit? Of course not. There is no launching pad or foundation from which to jump. When it comes to things changing over time (evolution), if the hole at ground level represents the present moment and the idea of past infinity means there is no foundation to jump from (a first change over time), then the present moment of change could never be reached. The jumper could never get out of the hole because there is no starting point for him to progress upward. Because the present moment does exist and things do change over time (evolution) it logically follows that a foundation exists for the first change to occur leading to the evolution (change over time) we notice today.
Second, suppose a man walks up the steps to your front porch and rings the doorbell. You answer the door and ask if you can help him. He states, “I have just walked an infinite number of steps and finally completed them right here on your front porch.” Of course, you do not believe him, yet he insists that he has accomplished this feat. You ask for proof and he invites you to join him on a journey to retrace his infinite number of steps. He tells you that once the two of you reach this infinite point, you will then follow those same footsteps all the way back to your front door. You adamantly reject his offer because you realize that if you were to retrace an infinite amount of steps you will never get back home! In fact, you will never turn around to begin your journey home!
Consider the steps involved . . . you would take one step, then a second step, then a third step. Eventually, you would take a millionth step, and eventually a billionth step, and then a trillionth step. Whatever step you were currently taking you could always take one more and count it — never reaching actual infinity. Whenever you decide to turn around to come back home you will be on a countable step. So, if you do ever make it back home, your steps would not be infinite.
Just as it would be logically impossible for you to retrace all the steps this pedestrian claims to have made, it is just as impossible for this pedestrian to traverse an actual infinite amount of steps ending on your front porch. A rational person will know that one who makes such a claim is either delusional or deceptive. The “stepper” must have taken a first step.
Change over time (evolution) has the same problem. If a first change occurred, then it logically follows that a first change resulted from an unchanging, eternal, and beginningless state of affairs. Think of this as a frozen/static state where nothing happens and nothing has ever happened logically prior to the first change (I know this is hard to imagine). This might not seem like a “big deal” but the implications are enormous! This is the case because if things are not changing in a frozen/static state, then nothing would ever happen. This is because if things are not evolving, emerging, decaying, growing, or becoming unstable (which are words implying change over time), then these things would never be able to cause the first change. Change over time cannot account for things starting to change over time. That is to say, if nothing is happening, then nothing can describe or account for the first change that resulted from a static, frozen, and unchanging state! UNLESS…
… a volitional agent existed in this static state who had the power to act.
Other than a volitional agent, what else could cause a change from an unchanging state of affairs? At the least, a volitional agent with the power to act could exist in a static state and then cause something to happen. That is to say, if nothing is happening, but a volitional agent with free will exists in this static state, then this volitional agent can freely choose to act and cause the first change. This is what Aristotle meant by the “Unmoved Mover.”
Volitional agents are personal types of “things” or rather, “beings.” If a being is personal in nature, then this being is the kind of “thing” in which you can have a personal relationship — that is, at least if you are a person! Thus, if you are a person, then it is at least possible that you can have a personal relationship with this unmoved mover!
An Argument from Change Over Time
We can summarize this entire argument in a step-by-step syllogism:
1- Things change over time (evolution).
2- A changing state of affairs cannot be past infinite.
3- Therefore, a first change resulted from an unchanging state of affairs.
4- Only a volitional agent can cause a change from an unchanging state of affairs.
5- Volitional agents are personal.
6- Therefore, this personal agent existed in an unchanging state of affairs.
7- Anything existing in an unchanging state of affairs never began to exist and is eternal with no beginning.
8- Therefore, the cause of the first change (and ultimately the change of affairs in which we find ourselves) is a personal agent who is eternal with no beginning and was in a changeless state of affairs logically prior to causing the first change.
This final deductive conclusion should be eye-opening! Why should this get one’s attention? Because this personal agent who caused things to start evolving and changing over time is God! The Bible does not just note the possibility of having a personal relationship with the Unmoved Mover — God — it explains exactly how you and I can know God personally through Jesus Christ!
Bottom line: If you believe that things actually do evolve and change over time, then you should reject atheism!
https://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Did-God-Use-Evolution-Is-the-Earth-Old-.jpg12562400Guesthttps://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ce_logo.pngGuest2017-12-17 13:00:502024-11-14 11:10:22If Evolution is True, Atheism is False
Superstition is as old as man. An incomplete picture of why things work the way they do fuels the imagination to conjure up hidden forces at work behind the scenes. Pull back the curtain and perhaps one will find an “all-powerful” being at work pulling the strings. Accessing – and eventually perhaps cajoling or influencing that being – can easily become the basis for a religious belief system.
Does Christianity fall into this same category? Some unbelievers, observing the behavior of professional athletes, might believe that superstition is at play. Praying and acknowledging one’s deity, they assume, is a way of seeking to influence the outcome of the contest. For some, it seems like a cheap – and silly – trick.
But this is not what Christian players are doing when they acknowledge God, nor is it what a mature devotion to Christianity would include.
Some non-believers who consider this behavior will ask themselves a very basic question: will becoming a Christian “improve” my life? Is it a ticket to greater wealth and prosperity, better relationships, a future filled with every type of goodness and blessing? For many, this seems too good to be true, but they pursue it hoping for the best; for others, it appears to be a shell game or cheap con, and they reject it without ever considering what it really entails.
The nutshell answer is: probably yes. In most cases for most people, developing a relationship with God in which you accept His gift and then living a life that reflects His will, as best you can achieve it, will improve your life in some important and significant ways. But having a “better” life is a by-product of belief and not the main point of devoting one’s life to Jesus.
If prosperity or other rewards become the main point, Christianity begins to be marketed as a product, a method of achieving some desirable end. A person identifies a need in his or her life and Christianity fills that need, the way any product might do. But this is not the message of Christianity. The Bible is not a “how to” manual on achieving financial or worldly success. It does not promise riches in the here and now, nor an end to all hardship… nor a victory in every football contest. Quite the opposite, in fact, as the early fathers of the church, and their followers could have attested. (Except of course for the football part.)
In short, Christianity tells the story of man’s broken relationship with his Creator. It claims to speak the truth about the nature of God and of this broken relationship and what is needed to fix it. The Old Testament provides the backdrop as God prepares a people to serve as the vehicle for redemption. Jesus comes – not to make my life profitable or more fulfilling in some modern sense or to help me nail down a spot in the Super Bowl- but to fulfill the ancient prophecies, to give His life as ransom for us, and to thereby restoring our relationship with the Father.
Christianity should be assessed on its merits – are its claims true? – not on what it can achieve for you. The Apostle Paul said as much when he said that we are to be pitied as fools if Christ did not rise from the dead. Everything rests on that truth claim. Once we see that Christ did rise, and we place our trust in Him, He will do a work in us and will eventually welcome us into His Kingdom. But Paul himself remained physically afflicted, and there is no reason to believe that by following Christ, our problems will disappear.
We will, however, look at them differently, and by living Biblical values, we will probably have a better life than we might otherwise have had – and certainly a more fulfilling one.
https://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Untitled-design.jpg12562400Guesthttps://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ce_logo.pngGuest2017-12-17 12:33:342024-11-14 11:10:45Is Christianity a Form of Superstition?
