Tag Archive for: apologetics

Learning from Academics Who Left Mormonism

Most of my readers know my personal connection to Mormonism; I have six half-brothers and sisters who were raised in the Mormon faith. When I first become interested in Christianity, I investigated the claims of the gospels simultaneous to my investigation of the Book of Mormon. While the gospels passed the test I typically apply to eyewitnesses, the Book of Mormon did not. My journey led me to trust the Jesus of Christianity but reject the Jesus of Mormonism. As a result, I’m interested in the stories of others who have become similarly convinced Mormonism is evidentially false. That’s why a recent book, Leaving Mormonism: Why Four Scholars Changed Their Minds, caught my attention. I had the chance to interview one of it’s authors, Corey Miller, to see what motivated him to write the book.

J. Warner:
Corey, I know your work quite well, but there may be some in my audience who aren’t as familiar with you. Tell us about your current position with Ratio Christi and a bit about your ministry journey.

Corey:
I’m the President/CEO of Ratio Christi, which is a campus apologetics evangelism ministry. We desire to see lives transformed by thoughtful Christianity from campus to culture. I served on staff for several years at various churches, but have always had a passion for evangelism and a strategy to reclaim the voice of Christ in the university. I suppose you could say that this passion developed shortly after I left Mormonism and became a Christian. I was challenged in my newfound biblical faith and I encountered a short stint of skepticism. This led me into a trajectory to study philosophy and comparative religions and make an impact on the most influential institution of western civilization, The University.

J. Warner:
You’ve contributed to an interesting new book about your experience with Mormonism. Why did you want to be a part of this book, and how is this book different from other books about Mormonism?

Corey:
The book was an idea that captured me about a decade ago. But given some hostility that I faced in obtaining my PhD there was some delay. I noticed that there was a missing piece in the conversation between Evangelical and Mormons, namely, those who satisfied the criteria of being Christian scholars who once were Mormon insiders. There were but six I was aware of and four who decided to join the project. Speaking “Mormonese,” we use the language of experience and bear our testimonies in the book by sharing our stories. But we also have sections where we each give reasons relative to our disciplines and personal convictions as to why we reject Mormonism and pursue Jesus instead. Further, we offer a concluding chapter aimed at those in the Mormon exodus heading for neo-atheism. We want them to consider the proper detour, biblical Christianity.

J. Warner:
Is there something about your life as an academic that was an important ingredient in your journey away from Mormonism?

Corey:
Yes, prior to coming to Christ I had no academic bone in my body. Becoming a biblical Christian and being challenged by my Mormon friends and family to reconsider my apostasy from Mormonism and conversion to historic Christianity forced me into an insatiable quest for truth. Knowledge took on new meaning and interest for me. This is as it should be given that the ultimate end of life is the knowledge of God. I acquired three masters degrees and a PhD and now teach philosophy and comparative religions at Indiana University-Kokomo part-time while being the President of Ratio Christi full-time.

J. Warner:
Can you tell us what first caused you to doubt Mormonism and a little bit about your unique journey away from Mormonism?

Corey:
My Mormon heritage extends back to my ancestor being a body guard of Joseph Smith. I first began to doubt the Mormon community, not its theology. I wasn’t baptized at the standard age of eight because I was serious about eternity. Even at eight, I was aware of the internal contradiction between the philosophy I’d learned, “try, try your best and God will make up the rest,” and the real requirements of entering heaven. I wanted to spend eternity with Heavenly Father. Thus, desiring to be with him and knowing the goal was perfection, I figured I’d beat the system and wait until I was 88. Struggling for a year, knowing I needed to be baptized by proper priestly authority as a necessity, I capitulated at age nine and was baptized. My decision was well thought through and one of conviction, not tradition. But the tension was real. The hypocrisy I encountered in the community was real. So real that it drove me away, not from believing in Mormonism–but from church attendance to a lifestyle I’m not proud of where I found “acceptance.” Then, while not looking for another religion (even though I struggled with the religious community), Jesus revealed himself to me at a Christian camp and my life was forever changed! I moved to CA for my junior year of high school where I was discipled and came back to Utah my senior year to graduate. That is when the pressure was on and I had to consider whether I had made the best decision. I engaged in philosophy, science, and the study of comparative religions. I was also introduced to Christian apologetics and the rest is history.

J. Warner:
What advice would you give to people who still have family or friends in Mormonism to help them communicate the truth to the people they love?

Corey:
First, genuinely love Mormons. They are not the enemy, but are instead people for whom Christ died. If they are to convert, they need to see an alternative community for which they can belong. Second, be perceived by them as a truth seeker. That should be easy if you really are a truth seeker, but it is important to be perceived that way in the dialogue. Third, engage via Socratic dialogue. Like no one else, Mormons are accustomed to being in the role of teacher because most beyond high school have served two-year missions. Questions show personal interest and create an environment of reflective bridge building rather than deflective walls. Fourth, focus on the essentials of God and salvation. Fifth, last but not least, pray. Far too often we fail to realize the spiritual battle.

If you know someone who is still a member of the Church of Latter Day Saints, Corey’s new book might help you better understand the teaching and claims of Mormonism, as seen through the eyes of scholars who eventually became Christians. Leaving Mormonism: Why Four Scholars Changed Their Minds is yet another valuable resource to help you dialogue with Mormon believers.

 

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, Christian Case Maker, Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity, Cold-Case Christianity for Kids, God’s Crime Scene, God’s Crime Scene for Kids, and Forensic Faith.

/by
Hypocrisy Christianity Atheism

What Hypocrisy Teaches Us

,

By Al Serrato

Christians are all hypocrites!

How often do apologists for the faith encounter that objection? Yes, there are hypocrites in the church, at least in the sense that none of us can actually and fully live up to what the Christian faith commands.  But more significantly, hypocrisy isn’t about simply failing to live up to the rules; it’s about being duplicitous about it. It’s about celebrating the things we shouldn’t do, about not properly regretting the sins that we commit.  This prevalence of hypocrisy – and the recognition that it is wrong – are actually more consistent with the existence of God than with atheism.

Hypocrisy is not a modern phenomenon. Jesus himself condemned it repeatedly in addressing the religious leaders of his day. They sought power and influence by using their elevated status to suppress and burden people. I would venture to say that every culture in the world, and throughout all periods of time, has recognized, and reviled, hypocrites.  The root of the word provides some explanation: the Greek word from which it derives meant a “stage actor,” a person who is not what he appears to be.  In modern usage it carries, of course, a very negative connotation: “a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs” or “a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.”

So, hypocrisy is not simply failing to live up to a set of expectations; that is inherent in human nature. No, hypocrisy involves something more calculated: a desire to exploit this feigned persona in order to accomplish some other purpose. It is, at its core, deception.

If secular humanism is true, and man is simply an accidental product of evolution, then it stands to reason that those traits which provide the most survival potential would be favored. The basis of hypocrisy is not difficult to understand. Like any form of deception, it confers an advantage on the one who employs it. By promoting virtue, but secretly not bound by it, the hypocrite can – at least in the short run – profit by his behavior. Virtue, of course, involves self-discipline and often self-denial. It is the process of saying no to what I want at present because I recognize that simply wanting it is not a sufficient reason, that competing interests are at stake that must be considered.  But why must they be considered? If the man is the measure of all things, and I am a man, why can I not decide that what is in my immediate best interest is what I should pursue?  Over time, shouldn’t it be the case that we would simply recognize that we all act in our own self-interest? There is, therefore, nothing to revile about hypocrisy, just as we don’t condemn the lion for devouring its prey. It is simply in the “nature” of things.

But virtue persists, as does the recognition that it is a better way – a more noble way – in which to live.  Virtue manifests itself in acts of self-sacrifice, altruism, and concern for others.  While these things tend to benefit a society, they confer little, if any, immediate reward to the one who does them. This, of course, is what makes such conduct virtuous, and worthy of our admiration and respect.  They are difficult to do.

Over time, then, the survival advantage hypocrisy provides should make hypocrisy a staple in society. And since it confers an advantage, it would be valued… and accepted as something that everyone does.  But that is not how we view it. Deep down, we know that such behavior is wrong and worthy of condemnation.  It is wrong because it is inconsistent with truth and honesty, and the way things “ought” to be. And if we are impacted by a hypocrite, we feel it viscerally. It makes us angry.

To borrow from CS Lewis, when we consider hypocrisy, it is hard not to see that it appears to be a law of behavior.  It is not a descriptive law, as in the law of gravity, which describes how a rock will fall if released from a height. It is instead a moral law – a law that says we should not act that way, that acting that way is “wrong” on a very basic level.

But natural selection cannot explain moral laws.  It may explain the evolution of preferences and opinions, perhaps, but not laws that all cultures and all people seem to intuitively recognize.  But if there is a God, by contrast, it begins to make sense. Having left his law written into the fabric of our minds, we should expect to have some sense of right and wrong.  Because this eternal God grounds truth in a transcendental and unchanging way, it makes sense too that this love of virtue is itself timeless and without boundary.

So, the next time you encounter the challenge, it might be worth reminding the skeptic where the hypocrisy challenge actually leads.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2wwunD6

/by
Things Kids God

10 Things to Say When Your Child Says They Don’t Believe in God Anymore

By Natasha Crain

This weekend I had the wonderful opportunity to speak at the ReTHINK Student Apologetics Conference (there are more of these conferences coming—be sure to check out the link and learn about them!). I always enjoy talking to parents after speaking and this weekend was no exception. One thing I realized this time was that at every event where I’ve spoken in the last couple of years, there have been parents who share with me afterward that their child has recently said they no longer believe in God. Sometimes the kids are very young, other times they’re well into their adult years. But the question parents bring to me is always the same: “What should I say to them?”

After having a couple of long conversations with parents about this over the weekend, I wanted to write this post for others who may be struggling with the same thing. While this is, of course, a complex topic, these are 10 of the most important things I think you can say to a child of any age when they say they don’t believe in God anymore. For what it’s worth, this isn’t some kind of theoretical exercise for me. One of my own young kids periodically struggles with this because God can’t be physically seen. We have several of these conversations regularly.

  1. “Thank you for sharing this with me.”

There’s no doubt it sends panic into a Christian parent’s heart to hear the words, “I don’t believe in God anymore” or “I’m not sure if I believe in God anymore.” But how we respond to our child at a time of spiritual crisis (whether they consider it a crisis or not) is critical. If our reaction is fearful, angry, panicked or condemning, we quickly let our kids know that expressing their doubts is not OK. As parents, we need to be the safest place in our children’s lives to have conversations about God or they’ll find another place to go—likely a place where you wouldn’t want to find them.

Simply saying, “Thank you for sharing this with me” lets them know you are happy they came to you, that you want to talk with them about their feelings, and that expressing doubt in your home is welcome. To be clear, that doesn’t imply you’re happy about the doubt itself, but that you’re happy to be a safe place for these conversations.

  1. “How have you come to that conclusion?”

Because we love our kids so much and want to quickly bring them back to truth, there’s a temptation to immediately start offering a response with reasons to believe in God. But imagine for a moment that you go to the doctor when you don’t feel well and the doctor starts prescribing medicine for a wide range of illnesses without first asking you questions or running tests. That, of course, would be crazy. In the same way, if we don’t know the source of our kids’ doubts and how they’ve come to their conclusions about God, we can’t have meaningful conversations to specifically address their concerns. Use this question to get the conversation going and ask as many follow up questions as needed to be confident that you truly understand what has led them to doubt God’s existence.

  1. “How long have you felt this way?”

This is a helpful diagnostic question because it lets you know the depth of the doubt. In some cases, doubt comes as a knee jerk reaction to a specific event—for example, experiencing an unanswered prayer. When there is a single, proximate source of doubt, it can be easier to untangle because you can address that concern directly. However, if it turns out your child has been doubting for years and you simply didn’t know until the day he or she verbalized it, there’s much more history you’ll need to dig into.

  1. “If I could give you good evidence to show that God exists, would you want to be convinced He exists?”

This is another helpful diagnostic question because it gives you a window into the heart of your child. Sometimes doubt comes from not wanting to believe—and the reasons for not wanting to believe in God can be many. If a child says they wouldn’t want God to exist, it’s likely a sign that either 1) they have a misunderstanding of who God is (and wouldn’t want that God to exist), or 2) are engaged in behaviors they know aren’t godly and would rather live according to their own will. If a child admits that they wouldn’t want God to exist, the most important conversation you can have is getting to the bottom of why that’s the case. Only then will you know where to take the discussion next.

For those who do want God to exist but are doubting, go on to the next pieces of conversation.

  1. “Having doubt is normal and nothing to be ashamed of.”

One of the most difficult aspects of having doubt about our faith is feeling that we’re somehow abnormal—that if we experience doubt, we’re not a “real” Christian. But doubt is actually a normal part of faith. When we don’t have certainty about something, there is always room for doubt. For example, we can be confident that an airplane will safely deliver us to our destination, but we can’t be certain of that, so some doubt should necessarily exist. Even John the Baptist experienced doubt about Jesus being the Messiah when circumstances got tough and he was in prison (see Luke 7:18-30).

Sharing with your child that doubt is normal can put them at ease for further conversation. Rather than feeling something is wrong with them (or wrong with God!) because they’re doubting, they can feel hopeful that the doubt can be resolved.

  1. “Fortunately, God hasn’t left us to just guess whether or not He’s there. He’s given us plenty of evidence.”

If you haven’t had some deeper conversations about faith with your kids, there’s a good chance they’ve never heard the idea that there could actually be evidence for His existence. In the minds of many kids (and adults), believing in God is simply a blind choice—not something that is rooted in tangible evidence. Kids have to know this is not the case. Emphasize that they may not yet know the evidence, but that it exists and you want to lead them through it. This simultaneously takes the pressure off of them to make a decision about God they may have thought was rooted only in their own feelings and sets you up to suggest the following point.

  1. “Let’s study the evidence for God’s existence together.”

If you read the last point and thought, “That’s great, but I have no idea what to say…” have no fear. You don’t have to be a professional apologist (someone who knows how to make a case for and defend the truth of Christianity) to have this conversation. More than a lecture, kids need you to come alongside them.

There is an incredible new resource out this month to help you and your kids learn together. J. Warner Wallace and his wife Susie have released God’s Crime Scene for Kids, which is a book targeted at kids ages 8-12 and follows the topics of the adult book God’s Crime Scene. In the kids’ version, the Wallaces use a mystery around a box found in a grandmother’s attic to demonstrate how we can look at the evidence in the universe to draw conclusions about the existence of God. It’s engaging, clear, and unlike anything else available for this age group. There’s even a website with free videos and worksheets.

For what it’s worth, I had the opportunity to endorse it, which I enthusiastically did. Here’s what I said: “God’s Crime Scene is my go-to recommendation for anyone who wants to learn about the evidence for God’s existence. I was thrilled to hear that a kid’s version was coming out, but honestly wondered how Det. Wallace was going to translate some of the more challenging scientific and philosophical concepts into material for 8- to 12-year-olds. Now that I’ve read it, I’m blown away. This is brilliant! There’s nothing else like it, and I’ll be recommending it for years to come.”

If your kids are younger, the kids’ version would still be helpful for you to read and get ideas for how to talk about the evidence at your kids’ level. If your kids are older, they may already be ready to work through the adult version with you. If your kids are out of the house, they may not be willing to study anything together, but you can study and discuss with them as the opportunity arises.

  1. “If God didn’t exist, this is what reality would look like.”

In my experience with skeptics who have come to my blog over the years, many have dumped the idea of God without considering the necessary worldview implications of a world without Him—many of which run very contrary to our most basic intuitions. This led me to devote the final six chapters in Talking with Your Kids about God to helping parents show their kids “The Difference God Makes.” For example:

  • What is the meaning of life? (There is no objective meaning in a world without God.)
  • Do we really have free will? (There is little reason to believe we actually have free will in a world without God.)
  • What should we do with our lives? (There can be no should—no moral obligations—in a world without God.)
  • What is our responsibility to other people? (There are no objective responsibilities to others in a world without God.)
  • How should we make sense of evil? (There can be no objective right or wrong in a world without God—moral evil cannot exist.)

Why does biblical hope matter? (There is no ultimate hope in a world without God.)

When we show our kids the necessary implications of an atheistic world, it can help them see how the evidence for God is the best explanation for all the evidence we have.

  1. “What questions do you have about God?”

This is a question that should run alongside all the other points, and on an ongoing basis—whether your kids have doubts right now or not! The best way to avoid a spiritual crisis later is by facilitating conversations around kids’ questions regularly. For ideas on how to do incorporate an ongoing “questions night” in your family’s life, see my post How to Get Your Kids to Ask More Questions about Their Faith. As you work through the prior points with kids who are already doubting, more questions will surely arise. Make it a way of life to continually give them a forum for addressing whatever faith questions are on their mind.

  1. I love you and God loves you.

Ultimately, regardless of how all the prior conversations go, kids need to know we love them and that God loves them through their questions. In reality, some kids will struggle for years. But knowing that their doubts will never separate them from our love builds a relationship that will foster these important conversations for a lifetime.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2fHeLpC

/by

Yes, We Can Make the Case for Christianity with Music

,

At the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, we often talk about the importance of worldview. Each of us, as Christians, ought to allow our Christian beliefs to shape the way we think about every aspect of life, including the way we consider notions of beauty and artistic expression. That’s why I was delighted to hear about a new concept album from Aryn Michelle, a Christian pop and alternative rock artist. Aryn just released a series of songs (in a collection called The Realist Thing) inspired by William Lane Craig’s book, Reasonable Faith. That’s right, an apologetics album of sorts, walking through “several philosophical arguments for the existence of God and the primary evidences for Jesus Christ as his son.” Sounds interesting, right? Aryn agreed to let me interview her about this groundbreaking effort:

J. Warner:
Aryn, I will confess that I was not familiar with your work prior to this collection of songs. I was incredibly impressed with the creativity and quality of the effort, can you tell us something about your musical journey?

Aryn:
I began writing songs when I was fifteen years old. Initially I had hoped that God would use me as a “light in the darkness” in that I would be a believer writing and working in the secular music industry while always maintaining artistry from a Christian perspective. I pursued this goal for almost ten years (and two albums) before I had the revelation that perhaps working within the secular music industry was how I wanted God to use me, but was not necessarily how God had gifted and equipped me. It took me that long to realize that I needed to approach God and ask him how HE wanted to use my life and the giftedness he had given me. I could see that God had brought me up in a background of church music (I’m the daughter of a music minister), and he has given me a heart for the church and for encouraging the people of God. Even when I was not making “Christian” music, followers of Jesus tended to be the ones who responded to my music. About 5 years ago I turned my attention to write explicitly faith-based music in order to encourage believers, dig deep into God’s truth and follow in obedience in using my gifts for God’s calling.

J. Warner:
In your video you mention being in a place in your life as a Christian where you had many questions. Can you tell us a little bit about that and how Christian apologetics literature helped you to answer some of those questions?

Aryn:
Several years ago I approached one of our pastors and asked to meet with him to talk about some struggles I was having. I told him that while I felt confident in my heart about my belief in Jesus, I felt like my head had not caught up with where my heart was. I felt like I had been neglecting the life of the mind in regards to my faith. I didn’t often have intellectual conversations with other believers about difficult questions where philosophy and theology converged. I was frustrated that it felt like no one around me was expressing an interest to seek out the answer to hard questions. He gave me the wise counsel that if I had a thirst for knowledge then I needed to ask God to reveal to me answers and also to seek out that knowledge. To read books, to dig deeper, to go out searching. He suggested a few books to start with and from that point I kept reading and eventually decided to tackle Dr. Craig’s book Reasonable Faith. This book was very helpful on my journey into a deeper life of the mind because it comprehensively covered a good deal of what I was hoping to learn. I want to clearly state that I believe the testimony of the Holy Spirit is the greatest witness one can give, but I was thankful to be able to also articulate philosophical arguments for the existence of God and evidences for Jesus Christ as God’s son after reading that book in particular

J. Warner:
It’s amazing to me that you actually wrote songs about the evidence for theism and Christianity. Can you tell our readers about the evidences that inspired you to write each song?

Aryn:
The album features a prelude and postlude (both entitled “Honesty”) that give the listener my personal perspective and state of mind as I began and concluded this project. Beyond those two songs each one of the songs aligns with a different argument featured in Dr. Craig’s book. “The Realest Things” discusses the ontological argument for the existence of God, summarized in the line “if something could be greater than God, it would be God.” The next song, “The Question,” discusses the cosmological argument when it asks the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” The teleological argument is featured in the song “Order,” where I give examples of intelligent design and fine-tuning in lines such as, “there’s a constant in the pull of gravity, a balance of the forces strong and weak.” Following that is the moral argument for the existence of God in the song “Good” which says, “If there is good, don’t you think there is God?” After that song I transition into two songs dealing with evidences for Jesus Christ as God’s son. The first of those songs, “Miracle Man” explores the miracles and eyewitness accounts of the works of Jesus. The next songs entitled, “The Story of Redemption” explores the self-understanding and resurrection accounts of Jesus. It was obviously a great challenge to condense such rich material into one song a piece for each argument, but my hope is that I’ve tried to grasp a key component of each argument in a memorable way.

J. Warner:
This is such an interesting project in that it has the ability to reach an audience that standard apologetics blogs, book and videos can’t reach. What is your hope for the concept album?

Aryn:
My primary hope for this album is that it can be an equipping tool and encouragement for believers. I wanted to give people a song in their hearts to go along with the deep thoughts in their heads. My hope is that when people are striving to call these arguments to mind that they can use the songs to help them remember and express what these arguments are about. Music is a powerful tool for engaging memory and emotions. I also hope that more artists will strive to create a marriage of creative expression and reason. Sometimes we may be tempted to think that creativity and rationality are mutually exclusive or working against each other, but I know that God has created us with a heart AND a mind to be engaged for service to him.

J. Warner:
This last question cheats a bit and includes a few related questions: Will you be singing these songs in live concert settings, ( and is it difficult to find venues that are open to such an interesting concept)? How can our readers learn more about you and what’s next, now that you’ve tackled Christian apologetics?

Aryn:
I primarily perform these songs in house concerts. For this project in particular I find private house concerts to be the best venues to share the music because it allows me an intimate setting to talk and really communicate the motivation behind the album and also the individual concepts within each song. I have also attended a few apologetics gatherings for students and been able to share the songs in that setting. I also hope to be able to take the music to churches or bible studies who may have an apologetics emphasis. I think the main point is having an environment where discussion and thoughtfulness can thrive. If people would like to stay in touch with me they can find me at my website: www.arynmichelle.com, or on Facebook at www.facebook.com/arynmichelleband.

Aryn’s new album is more than a great idea, it’s a great collection of songs and an excellent example of how a Christian worldview can shape every aspect of someone’s life. Aryn has employed more than God’s gifting to create this project; she’s allowed her Christian worldview to shape and inform the words in every song. The result is excellence in both word and melody. I cannot recommend it more.

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, Christian Case Maker, Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity, Cold-Case Christianity for Kids, God’s Crime Scene, God’s Crime Scene for Kids, and Forensic Faith.

Comment or Subscribe to J. Warner’s Daily Email

/by
Major Reasons People Atheism

4 Major Reasons Why People Become Atheists

By Brian Chilton

The psalmist David wrote, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There’s no God.’ They are corrupt; they do vile deeds. There is no one who does good” (Psalm 14:1, CSB). The psalmist claims that it is irrational for one to deny God’s existence whether it be by atheism or by alternative worldviews. Atheism has become popular in recent years. But, the pressing question is, why? Normally, people become atheists for four major reasons. I was influenced by some of these reasons to become a theist-leaning-agnostic for a period of time. While the atheist will claim to be a “free-thinker,” he or she is often imprisoned by emotionalism rather than reason.

  1. The person desires moral independence. Often the person who becomes an atheist or agnostic wishes to make one’s decisions without anyone telling them otherwise, including God. The person metaphorically wants one’s cake and to eat it, too. The person desires moral independence. One wants to have as much sex, take as many drugs, drink as much alcohol, make as much money (even if it hurts another), without any need for guilt. If there is no God, then the person is free to choose their own morals. By claiming that morality is up to the person, the person claims absolute independence.

Unfortunately for the skeptic, humans are built with a moral code within them. The moral law is transcendent. People realize it is wrong to hurt others unnecessarily. Ironically, the skeptic’s worldview collapses the moment he or she begins to speak about social justice. Social justice means nothing if there is no transcendent morality. Transcendent morality cannot exist if there is no transcendent reality known as God.

  1. The person holds emotive reasoning. That is to say, the skeptic bases one’s decisions on emotions rather than reason and logic. When God does not rescue them from a bad choice, the skeptic becomes angry with God and leaves the faith (if he or she was in an organized religion) or refuses to come to faith (if one was not part of an organized religion). Emotive thinking is especially found in the claim that a good, loving God cannot coexist with a created world full of evil (e.g., the claims of Neil deGrasse Tyson). The skeptic may have been hurt by Christians in church and desired to get back at them by becoming an atheist. The choice is based on emotion rather than reasoning.

The trouble with this mindset is that it does not always consider all the facts. As I have entered doctoral studies, I have read authors who eschew a person “flaming” others. Flaming is the act of blowing up emotionally and irrationally bombarding another without considering all the facts in the discussion, an act that has only increased in recent years. Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, and many others have answered that a good, powerful, and loving God can coexist with a creation that is evil so long as such a God has good reasons for allowing it.

  1. The person desires global unity. That is, the person becomes an atheist, or at least agnostic because one does not want to tell a person of another faith that he or she is wrong. Some skeptics think that they can solve the world’s problems by holding that no religion is true, except their religion of atheism. The skeptic holds that their skepticism will unite people together globally rather than causing a divide. I am not a combative person. As such, this reason led me into agnosticism, at least to the idea that all religions could be true. People who hold this notion desire the love of people rather than the love of God.

Unfortunately, global unity is impossible as it pertains to religious views because all world religions and worldviews hold major differences. In addition, many have the notion that differences in religion cannot be discussed peacefully. However, if Christianity is true, then discussing these issues rise dramatically in importance. Unity should be sought by all believers, but it should not come by sacrificing truth. In reality, all worldviews hold major differences. Each worldview should be tested. It was my investigation and devotion to truth that God used to bring me back to faith. I then understood that Christianity holds good reasons for its authenticity.

  1. The person desires intellectual neutrality. As mentioned earlier, some do not test their beliefs. When the person’s beliefs are challenged, they are left without answers and hold that their previous worldview must not be true. This is the reason why many have left the church. Again, I had the same problem in the early 2000s. My faith was challenged by the Jesus Seminar. I had no way to answer their claims, thereby leaving me defenseless. None of my mentors could provide an answer to their claims. Thus, I naturally assumed that Christianity was false or at least deeply flawed.

A simple investigation using The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel and The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell launched me into the realm of Christian apologetics. I realized that Christianity does hold merit.

These are the four major reasons that individuals become atheists. Nearly all the reasons that people become skeptics are found in these four. Thankfully, answers are found in Jesus of Nazareth.

Video: William Lane Craig gives more reasons as to why people become atheists.

Check out Wintery Knight’s take on this issue and on the impact of these reasons upon former Christian, now an atheist, Dan Barker at http://bit.ly/2vqAnii

 

Brian Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian is a full member of the International Society of Christian Apologetics and the Christian Apologetics Alliance. Brian has been in the ministry for over 14 years and serves as the pastor of Huntsville Baptist Church in Yadkinville, North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2xI7Ftu

/by

Why Is God So Hidden?

As a young atheist, I denied the existence of God for practical, experiential reasons. During my elementary school years, I found it difficult to understand why anyone would believe in God without visible evidence. I knew my parents, teachers and friends were real, because I could see them and I could see their impact on the world around me. God, however, seemed completely hidden. I often thought, “If God exists, why would He hide in this way? Why wouldn’t God just come right out and make it obvious to everyone He exists?” As I examined these questions many years later, I began to consider other factors and considerations, particularly related to the nature of “love”.

I held love and compassion in high regard, even as an unbeliever. These were values I embraced as essential to our survival as a species, and values I considered to be foundational to human “flourishing” (as many atheists commonly describe it). But love requires a certain kind of world, and if loving God does exist, it is reasonable that He would create a universe in which love is possible; a universe capable of supporting humans with the ability to love God and love one another. This kind of universe requires a number of pre-requisites, however, and these pre-requisites are best achieved when God is “hidden” in the way He often seems to be:

Love Requires Freedom
True love cannot be coerced. We love our children and we want them to love us. We cannot, however, force them to do so. When we give our kids direction and ask them to accept this direction as a reflection of their love for us, we must step away and give them the freedom to respond (or rebel) freely. If we are “ever-present”, their response will be coerced; they will behave in a particular way not because they love us, but because they know we are present (and they fear the consequence of rebellion). If God exists, it is reasonable that He would remain hidden (to some degree) to allow us the freedom to respond from a position of love, rather than fear.

Love Requires Faith
Love requires a certain amount of trust; we must trust the person who loves us has our best interest in mind, even in times of doubt. There are occasions when trust requires us to accept something as true, even though we can’t immediately see this to be the case. In essence, trust often requires “hiddenness” on the part of the “lover” if love is to be confident, powerful and transformational.

Love Requires Evidence
Love does, however, require sufficient evidence. While we may not want to coerce our children, we do need to give them sufficient reason to believe we exist, support and love them. While many non-believers may deny there is any evidence for the existence of God, the natural world has provided us with sufficient (albeit non-coercive) evidence God exists. We have the ability, however, to deny this evidence if we choose.

Love Requires Response
In the end, we do need to show our children our promises have been reliable and their love and trust in us has been well placed. Even though we may have to be “hidden” at times in their lives, at the end of the day, love requires us to make a visible response. The Christian Worldview maintains that God will respond visibly at “the end of the day”. While He may sometimes seem “hidden”, He will ultimately be evident to all of us.

If God exists, it is reasonable He would personify and fulfill the requirements of love, as described in Christian scripture:

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they (we) are without excuse.

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

God created a world reflecting His holy nature: We live in a universe where love is possible. This kind of universe can sometimes be a scary place, because it requires un-coerced human freedom. God offers us this dangerous liberty (and often remains hidden) so our love will be genuine.

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, Christian Case Maker, Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity, Cold-Case Christianity for Kids, God’s Crime Scene, God’s Crime Scene for Kids, and Forensic Faith.

Comment or Subscribe to J. Warner’s Daily Email

/by
Events Link Bible

5 Earth-Shattering Events Linked to the Bible

In the recent update to my father’s classic book Evidence that Demands a Verdict, we begin with a chapter on the uniqueness of the Bible. Unquestionably, in comparison to every book ever written, the Bible stands out as unique in a number of areas including authorship, literary genres, translation, geographical production, circulation, survival, and impact. The Bible truly stands in a category of its own.

And yet I was recently reading a new book (which is part of a larger series of books being released this fall as part of the opening of the Museum of the Bible in Washington D.C.) about the Bible’s influence on key historical events. The book is called 99 Earth-Shattering Events Linked to the Bible, and it’s fascinating!

The authors show how the Bible played a core role in scientific discoveries, ancient voyages, the founding of universities, and more. Here are five of my favorite examples:

  1. The Puritans found Harvard. On September 8, 1636, Puritans founded the first institution of higher learning in the American colonies, Harvard University. The purpose was to train pastors to serve their newly founded churches. According to the founders, “One of the next things we longed for and looked after was to advance learning and perpetuate it to posterity; dreading to leave an illiterate ministry to the churches when our present ministers shall lie in the dust.”
  2. A Christian monk helps abolish gladiatorial games. In the 5thcentury A.D., a Christian monk named Telemachus traveled to Rome and attended the gladiatorial games. He was horrified and deeply disturbed at the bloodshed and lack of value for human life, contradicting the biblical command not to murder (Exodus 20:13). He rushed into the arena, appealing for the games to stop, but in an uproar at the disturbance, the crowd stoned him to death. Because of his bold stance, the Roman emperor Honorius abolished the games three days later.
  3. The Magna Carta inspires universal human rights. In the early 1200s, King John signed the Magna Carta in England, which declared for the first time that kings would be subject to the law, and not above it. Although it was not initially successfully, “…it was revised in later years and eventually set a standard, based on the Bible, that laid the foundation for the English system of common law. Today, our modern democratic society continues to reap the benefits.”[1]
  4. Copernicus reveals order in the universe. Copernicus was convinced the natural world designed by a creator (Psalms 19:1-2). He said, “The universe has been wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator.” With the release of his book On the Revolutions, Copernicus challenged the belief that the sun revolves around the earth. He did this not to undermine the church or the university, but to proclaim the truth he had discovered through his scientific work. Copernicus is considered by many to be the founder of modern astronomy.
  5. Johann Sebastian Bach composes breathtaking music. Bach is one of the most influential composers in world history. His  Matthew Passionis considered one of the greatest achievements of western civilization. Bach was both dedicated and inspired by the Bible. In the margins of his Bible, next to 1 Chronicles 25, he wrote, “This chapter is the true foundation of all God-pleasing music.”

These five are only a smidgeon of the influence the Bible has had on world history. It also shaped the development of the Red Cross, motivated the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, inspired the civil rights movement, and much more.

These examples don’t show that the Bible is true, of course. But they do show that the book has shaped more lives and cultures than any book in world history. If you haven’t read it, don’t you think it’s time to personally see why this book has been so influential?

And not only have you read it but have you considered the evidence that the Bible is actually true? The impact of the Bible is surprising to people who are not aware of its impact. Similarly, if you are not familiar with the evidence, I think you will be pleasantly surprised as well.

Notes

[1] Christopher Hudson, editor, 99 Earth-Shattering Events Linked to the Bible(Washington D.C., Museum of the Bible, published by Worthy Publishing Group, 2017), 20.

 

Sean McDowell, Ph.D., is a professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University, best-selling author, popular speaker, part-time high school teacher, and the Resident Scholar for Summit Ministries, California. Follow him on Twitter: @sean_mcdowell and his blog: seanmcdowell.org.

/by
Jesus Problem Evil

Jesus on the Problem of Evil

By Aaron Brake

In Luke 13:1-5 we have Jesus’ clearest teaching on the problem of evil:[1]

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.

Not only is this Jesus’ clearest teaching on the problem of evil but we see Him addressing both moral and natural evil in His response. Notice that Jesus is first questioned regarding an example of what we would call moral evil: the murder of some Galileans by Pilate. In providing an answer, Jesus Himself introduces an example of natural evil: the falling of the tower of Siloam which killed eighteen.

How did Jesus answer the problem of evil presented to Him? His answer is short and to the point: “They weren’t worse sinners, they were just sinners. And unless you repent, you’ll die too.”

D.A. Carson in his book How Long, O Lord? provides several important insights into this passage. It would behoove us as Christians to reflect deeply on these points.

First, Jesus takes it for granted that the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23):

Jesus does not assume that those who suffered under Pilate, or those who were killed in the collapse of the tower, did not deserve their fate. Indeed, the fact that he can tell those contemporaries that unless they repent they too will perish shows that Jesus assumes that all death is in one way or another the result of sin, and therefore deserved.[2]

Second, because death is what we all deserve, it is only God’s mercy that keeps us alive:

Jesus does insist that death by such means is no evidence whatsoever that those who suffer in this way are any more wicked than those who escape such a fate. The assumption seems to be that all deserve to die. If some die under a barbarous governor, and others in a tragic accident, it is not more than they deserve. But that does not mean that others deserve any less. Rather, the implication is that it is only God’s mercy that has kept them alive. There is certainly no moral superiority on their part.[3]

Third, wars and natural disasters are always calls to repentance, and the fact that we question God’s goodness in times of calamity is a reflection of our own depravity and rebellion:

Jesus treats wars and natural disasters not as agenda items in a discussion of the mysterious ways of God, but as incentives to repentance. It is as if he is saying that God uses disaster as a megaphone to call attention to our guilt and destination, to the imminence of his righteous judgment if he sees no repentance. This is an argument developed at great length in Amos 4. Disaster is a call to repentance. Jesus might have added (as he does elsewhere) that peace and tranquility, which we do not deserve, show us God’s goodness and forbearance.

It is a mark of our lostness that we invert these two. We think we deserve the times of blessing and prosperity, and that the times of war and disaster are not only unfair but come perilously close to calling into question God’s goodness or his power—even, perhaps, his very existence. Jesus simply did not see it that way.[4]

Dr. Clay Jones in his class on Why God Allows Evil entertainingly replays the dialogue from Luke 13 like this:[5]

Questioner: Jesus, we have the problem of evil here, the great problem of the ages. People are being killed Jesus. What have you got to say?

Jesus: They weren’t worse sinners, they were just sinners, and unless you repent you’ll die too. Next?

Questioner: Whoa! Jesus, hold on for a minute here! This is the PROBLEM OF EVIL! The question of the ages! Philosophers have debated this forever! People are dying here Jesus! What have you got to say???

Jesus: They weren’t worse sinners, they were just sinners, and unless you repent you’ll die too. Next?

Questioner: No, Jesus, don’t you get it?!? Let me put it to you this way. You see, if God were all-loving, He would want to prevent evil. If God were all-powerful, He could prevent evil…

Jesus: They weren’t worse sinners, they were just sinners, and unless you repent you’ll die too. Next?

Jesus’ answer to the problem of evil is that all fallen, unregenerate sinners born in Adam are worthy of death. Whether we die by murder, accident, or disease isn’t anything more than we deserve. It is only by God’s grace that anyone is saved and it is only by God’s mercy that anyone is kept alive.

What implications does this have for Christian apologetics? At least three:

First, it means that Christian apologists need to take the consequences of sin and reality of human depravity seriously when addressing the problem of evil. Many Christians simply pay lip service to what the Bible has to say about these topics. It’s no wonder then we are often at a loss for words when someone asks, “Why do bad things happen to good people?” A completely biblical, though partial, rejoinder is this: no one is good but God alone! Bad things don’t happen to good people because no one is good. Jesus raised no qualms about our naturally born status as sinners before God, the universal corruption and guilt of humankind, or our need for repentance. He introduced these very issues Himself in addressing the problem of evil. He took it for granted that the wages of sin is death. Christian apologists should do likewise.

Second, when addressing the problem of evil, Christian apologists need to present a theodicy whichminimally includes the biblical teaching of original sin and human depravity. Why God allows evil won’t make sense unless we have the problem of sin clearly before us. J.I. Packer stated,

The subject of sin is vital knowledge…If you have not learned about sin, you cannot understand yourself, or your fellow-men, or the world you live in, or the Christian faith. And you will not be able to make head or tail of the Bible. For the Bible is an exposition of God’s answer to the problem of human sin and unless you have that problem clearly before you, you will keep missing the point of what it says.[6]

The same is true for the problem of evil. The subject of sin is essential because in raising the problem of evil, the skeptic must put forth an anthropodicy (justification of man) by arguing that man is “basically good” and God is unjust for allowing the suffering and evil He does. In response, the theist must show these assumptions to be false, and in their place put forth a theodicy (justification of God) which includes evidencing the depths of human depravity and arguing that God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing the evil that He does. Until we clearly articulate and defend the gravity of sin, as well as the universal corruption and guilt of humankind, many of our answers to the problem of evil will largely remain unpersuasive.[7]

Third, the present moral and natural evils we experience are appropriate segues into our need to practice and preach repentance in light of the final eschatological judgment. Those who experience such evils are not any more deserving. Rather, these disasters serve as warnings to all of us that finaldisaster awaits everyone who remains hardhearted and unrepentant:

So when disaster strikes, let us not wring our hands over the mysterious ways of God but encourage everyone to reflect on their sinful and doomed state in hopes that some will escape the Final Disaster that awaits the ultimately unrepentant.[8]

Notes

[1] I am indebted to Dr. Clay Jones for most of the material and insight presented here, as well as pointing me to the following passage by D.A. Carson.

[2] D.A. Carson, How Long, O Lord?: Reflections on Suffering and Evil (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006), 61.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] This is a loose reconstruction with some additions of my own.

[6] J.I. Packer, God’s Words, 71.

[7] For more on these first two points, I highly recommend reading Clay Jones, “We Don’t Take Human Evil Seriously so We Don’t Understand Why We Suffer” found at http://www.clayjones.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Human-Evil-and-Suffering.pdf.

[8] Clay Jones, “Disaster Is Always a Call to Repentance!” found at http://www.clayjones.net/2011/11/disaster-is-always-a-call-to-repentance.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2fOEhK1

/by

Who Wrote the Book of Jude?

, ,

By Brian Chilton

Over the past few months, we have been examining the authors and background information for the books of the New Testament. For this article, we will examine a little book towards the end of the New Testament known as Jude. What do we know about this book and whom it was that composed it?

Author:          Jude opens the book indicating that he is a “servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James” (vs. 1).[1] The quest for Jude’s identity is intricately linked with the identity of James listed as Jude’s brother. One can easily eliminate James the son of Zebedee because he was martyred early in church history (Acts 12:1-5). The only other viable James is Jesus’ brother. When people at Nazareth were questioning Jesus, they asked, “Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And aren’t his sisters here with us?” (Mark 6:3).

Mark 6:3 highlights a few facts. First, James and Jude were Jesus’ brothers. Second, they were both known by the church. If this is the case, then it stands to reason that Jude would identify himself as James’ brother since James was an influential leader in the Jerusalem church. Therefore, Jude the brother of James and Jesus is the most viable candidate to have authored this little book. Jude humbly designated himself only as the brother of James and a servant of Christ rather than elevate himself as Jesus’ brother.

Date:               Jude is a difficult book to date. Since Jude deals with false teachings that had entered the church, one would think that a later date would be more feasible. However, the book does not discuss Gnosticism outright. Thus, many have postulated a date between AD 65 and 80.  

Purpose:         By Jude’s own admonition, he had desired to write an encouraging letter about the believers’ common salvation to the “loved by God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ” (vs. 1). The beloved of God refers to the recipients who were most likely Jewish believers of the time. However, due to false teachings that had entered the church, Jude felt compelled to write a letter “appealing [them] to contend for the faith that was delivered to the saints once for all” (vs. 3).

Jude’s letter is a polemical letter warning the believers to avoid false teachers. After giving the purpose for his letter in verses 1-4, Jude describes the apostates of the past and present time (vs. 5-11), the apostates’ doom (vs. 12-19), delivers an exhortation (vs. 20-23), before giving his benediction (vs. 24-25).

Connection of Jude with 2 Peter:    Most unique to the book of Jude is its link with 2 Peter. Much of the content of Jude matches that of 2 Peter, including a quotation from the pseudipigraphical book 1 Enoch (vs. 12-13) and an allusion to the apocryphal book the Assumption of Moses. Did Jude borrow from 2 Peter, did Peter borrow for Jude, or did both borrow from a common source?

As shown previously in the article “Who Wrote the Letters of Peter,”[2] Simon Peter is a good candidate to have written 2 Peter. If 2 Peter borrowed from Jude, then the book would have been too late to have been penned by Simon Peter. If Peter is a good candidate for 2 Peter’s authorship, then either Jude borrowed from Peter or both borrowed from a common source. There are less problems stating that Jude borrowed from 2 Peter or that both borrowed from a common source. It is likely that since Jude borrows heavily from the Old Testament and Jewish tradition, he most likely borrowed from Peter’s second letter since it was received by the church in his day.

 Notes

[1] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible(Nashville: Holman, 2017).

[2] Brian Chilton, “Who Wrote the Letters of Peter?,” Bellator Christi.com (August 23, 2017), retrieved September 14, 2017, https://bellatorchristi.com/2017/08/23/who-wrote-the-letters-of-peter/.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2wOfpry 

 

About the Author

Brian Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian is full member of the International Society of Christian Apologetics and the Christian Apologetics Alliance. Brian has been in the ministry for over 14 years and serves as the pastor of Huntsville Baptist Church in Yadkinville, North Carolina.

 

 

/by

Who Created God?

Richard Dawkins, the famous English evolutionary biologist and renowned atheist, revived an objection related to God’s existence in his book, The God Delusion. In the fourth chapter (Why There Almost Certainly Is No God), Dawkins wrote, “…the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable.” In essence, Dawkins offered a restatement of the classic question, “Who created God?” On its face, this seems to be a reasonable question. Christians, after all, claim God created everything we see in our universe (all space, time and matter); He is the cause of our caused cosmos. Skeptics fail to see this as a satisfactory explanation, however, because it seems to beg the question, “If God, created the universe, who (or what) created God?”

Part of the problem lies in the nature of the question itself. If I were to ask you, “What sound does silence make?” you’d start to appreciate the problem. This latter question is nonsensical because silence is “soundless”; silence is, by definition, “the lack of sound”. There’s something equally irrational about the question, “Who created God?” God is, by definition, eternal and uncreated. It is, therefore, illogical to ask, “Who created the uncreated Being we call God?” And, if you really think about it, the existence of an uncreated “first cause” is not altogether unreasonable:

It’s Reasonable to Believe The Universe Was Caused
Famed astronomer Carl Sagan once said, “The Cosmos is everything that ever was, is and will be.” If this is true, we are living in an infinitely old, uncaused universe that requires no first cause to explain its existence. But there are good scientific and philosophical reasons to believe the universe did, in fact, begin to exist. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, the expansion of the universe, the Radiation Echo, and the problem of Infinite Regress cumulatively point to a universe with a beginning. In the classic formulation of the Kalam cosmological argument: (1) whatever begins to exist has a cause, (2) the universe began to exist, therefore, (3) it is reasonable to believe the universe has a cause.

It’s Reasonable to Accept the Existence of An Uncaused “First Cause”
This “first cause” of the universe accounts for the beginning of all space, time and matter. It must, therefore, be non-spatial, a temporal and immaterial. Even more importantly, the first cause must be uncaused. If this was not true, the cause of the universe would not be the “first” cause at all. Theists and atheists alike are looking for the uncaused, first cause of the cosmos in order to avoid the irrational problem of an infinite regress of past causes and effects. It is, therefore, reasonable to accept the existence of an uncaused, first cause.

It’s Reasonable to Believe God Is the Uncaused, “First Cause”
Rationality dictates the ultimate cause of the universe, (even if it isn’t God), must have certain characteristics. In addition to being non-spatial, a temporal, immaterial and eternal (uncaused), it must also be powerful enough to bring everything into existence from nothing. Finally, there is good reason to believe the cause of the universe is personal. Impersonal forces cannot cause (or refuse to cause) at will. The minute an impersonal force exists, its effect is experienced. When the impersonal force of gravity is introduced into an environment, for example, its effect (the gravitational attraction) is felt immediately. If the cause of the universe is simply an impersonal force, its effect (the beginning of the universe) would occur simultaneous with its existence. In other words, the cause of the universe would only be as old as the universe itself. Yet we accept the reasonable existence of an uncaused first cause (one that is not finite like the universe it caused). For this reason, a personal force, capable of willing the beginning of the universe, is the best explanation for the first cause of the cosmos. This cause can be reasonably described as non-spatial, a temporal, immaterial, eternal, all-powerful and personal: descriptive characteristics commonly reserved for the Being we identify as God.

All of us, whether we are atheists or theists, are trying to identify the first cause of the universe. The eternal nature of this non-spatial, a temporal, immaterial cause is required in order to avoid the problem of infinite regress. It is, therefore, irrational to ask “What caused the uncaused first cause?” It is far more reasonable to simply recognize the attributes of this cause as an accurate description of God.

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, Christian Case Maker, Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity, Cold-Case Christianity for Kids, God’s Crime Scene, God’s Crime Scene for Kids, and Forensic Faith.

Comment or Subscribe to J. Warner’s Daily Email

/by