Tag Archive for: apologetics

Faith Emotional Logical

Is Faith Emotional or Logical?

By Luke Nix

So many people, both religious and non-religious, believe that faith is purely emotional, and in most contexts people imply the word “blind” before “faith”. While few others believe that faith is logical- that it is firmly grounded on something. Lately, I’ve been reading the book “Emotional Intelligence” by psychologist Daniel Goleman and a few thoughts came to mind regarding this seeming dichotomy between faith being based on emotion versus being based on reason. Before I go into that connection or disconnection, though, I want to establish what I mean by “faith”.

Faith in Time

I hear people all the time say that they “have faith”. It seems to inspire them and those around them, but it often leaves me confused. Sure, someone can say that they “have faith”. But when I hear this, I am compelled to ask a few questions:

  • “What do you have faith in?”
  • “What makes you believe that thing is worth placing your faith in it?”
  • “Why do you need to put ‘faith’ in something anyway?”

Without answers to these questions, faith is empty, contentless, blind: merely a verbal platitude but ultimately vacuous. If faith is to be significant it requires content. From what I have seen, it appears that for faith to have content, three essential things must take place at three different points in time: the past, the present, and the future. All three are necessary; if one is missing, then we cannot say that someone has meaningful faith. So, if the “something” is identified at these three levels, this means that faith is not empty or contentless, there is something significant to it.

  • Past– Experiences with something or someone (foundation)
  • Future– The unknown (need)
  • Present– Trust (action)

Based on prior trustworthy experience, we must trust the person or thing in the present because the future is unknown. If we do not have any past trustworthy experience to justify trusting someone or something, yet we still say we have “faith”, then our faith is blind. If there is no future unknown, then trust is not really needed, thus any “faith” we say we have is imaginary. If we don’t actually place our trust in the person or thing with the unknown, yet we say we have “faith”, our words are not backed up by our actions. In all three of those cases, faith does not exist. All three -the past, present, and future- are required for faith to actually exist in a person.

Objects of Faith

Faith is that which is based on the rationality and the reasonableness of that which has already been revealed. What we decide to use as the object of our faith will depend on our experiences or revelations with different possible objects of faith. Some trust science. Some trust government. Some trust reason. Some trust themselves. Some trust God. Every one of these possible objects of trust is tested by the person. The test is as simple as reviewing past experiences with that object in situations when promises were made or understood. This is a very logical way to approach who or what to trust (or not to trust) with the unknown. Thus, we have a very reasonable and logical approach to faith.

Where The Emotion of Faith Meets The Logic of Faith
However, emotion plays a huge role here also. Goleman explains: “When some feature of an event seems similar to an emotionally charged memory from the past, the emotional mind responds by triggering the feelings that went with the remembered event. The emotional mind reacts to the present as though it were the past.” (Goleman, 295)

It is the emotional part of our brain that gives past experiences their thrust. We have a vivid recollection of experiences that impacted us regarding the trustworthiness of someone or something we depended upon. If we believe that something(one) followed through with the given or understood promise, then we associate positive emotions to that experience. But if we believe that something(one) did not make good on given or understood promises, we associate negative emotions to that experience. When faced with a similar future unknown, we will tend to act (place trust) based upon those previous experiences (revelations).

However, we are not stuck with certain emotions to certain objects once they are “written” in our memory. The brain is highly malleable. As we obtain more verifying experiences, the satisfaction with an object of faith grows, and our ability and willingness to trust it with the unknown future is more solidified. On the flip-side, As we obtain more experiences that confirm the untrustworthiness of a possible object of faith, the less we have the ability and willingness to trust it with the unknown future.

This has great implications for the Church in general and apologists specifically:

The Church– We need to be extremely careful in how we approach and treat people (believers or not). Every interaction that we have creates a memory with someone. If that interaction was negative, not only will people question your trustworthiness, but they will also question those you associate with (including your beliefs). We must take responsibility to properly represent Christ to everyone- even those in the Church. Not everyone who claims to be a Christian is one; they may be looking for a reason to reject Christianity, let’s not give them one by treating those we believe to be our brothers and sisters in manners that are not Christ-like.

Apologists– This is a critical point in our defense of Christianity. Many skeptics do not trust God and/or the Church due to painful experiences with Christians (and/or those they believed to be Christians). We have to understand that when we ask them to trust Someone they believe has failed them, to them we are making the most unreasonable request of them. We would be equally put off if they asked us to place our trust in someone who had failed us in the past. Goleman explains again:

“The emotional mind takes its believes to be absolutely true, and so discounts any evidence to the contrary. That is why it is so hard to reason with someone who is emotionally upset: no matter the soundness of your argument from a logical point of view, it carries no weight if it is out of keeping with the emotional conviction of the moment.” (Goleman, 295)

The brain’s malleability is not quick, but it is strong. This is both good and bad. What is good is that someone who is placing trust in something that actually is untrustworthy (though their experiences with it may point to trustworthiness) can still redirect their trust away from that unreliable object and place it in someone that is truly reliable. Also, if someone does not trust a potential object of trust due to perceived untrustworthiness, it can be reversed.When we present negative arguments, we are attempting to show the unreliability of their current object(s) of faith. When we present positive arguments, we are attempting to show the reliability of alternative objects of faith. This is gone into more detail in my post “Positive and Negative Arguments“.

Patience Is A Virtue

When damaged, trust is something that is rebuilt slowly- the emotional associations to a particular type of event must be changed. More damage requires more time and more effort. We must be patient. We can present logical arguments, but only in their due time. That time comes as the emotional connections are being changed and the heart is being transformed through Christ acting in our lives to establish the positive emotional connections. Which prepares the person to accept the logical arguments used to demonstrate the reliability of the Christian God as an object of faith.

When the time comes to give the logical arguments, we can demonstrate the unreliability in their previous object of faith (further challenging and changing the emotional ties): the negative arguments. At the same time, we must offer logical arguments to trust in Christ: the positive arguments.

Timing is Everything

Notice that this is quite dependent upon timing; timing we cannot possibly know because we do not know the state of the person’s heart at any particular time. We can get hints based on behavior and conversations, but those can be purposely misleading or misinterpreted. It is only through prayer and the willingness to let Christ guide our delivery of the Gospel that a person may be added to the Kingdom. As I have said in previous posts, we cannot argue someone into the Kingdom. It requires a change of the heart, that only God has the knowledge and the resources to accomplish. We, as the members of the Body of Christ, should feel humbled and blessed that God has chosen us to be one of his many resources.

Why Is Faith Emotional and Logical?

Faith in anything is not just emotional or logical, it is both. Faith also is not practiced only by a certain type of people, it is practiced by everyone. In the words of Ravi Zacharias: “God has put enough into this world to make faith in Him a most reasonable thing. He has left enough out to make it impossible to live by sheer reason alone.” (17:39) There is a very specific design and purpose in this reality: that we can possess knowledge of reality, but never enough that we become too prideful to stop searching for the Source of everything that we know, to discover that the Source of that knowledge is personal, loves us and is worthy of our worship and trust. God created us to be both logical and emotional. It is only in the discovery and knowledge of who God is, that our insatiable search for knowledge is completed; and our faith in Him, no matter how emotionally difficult and painful it may be, is eternally vindicated and appreciated in the presence of the Source of all knowledge, the Foundation of reason, the Creator of our emotions, and the “Finisher of our faith.”

Another great post is by Carson Weitnauer: Is Faith Opposed to Reason?

Sources

Goleman, Daniel, Emotional Intelligence: 10th Anniversary Edition; Why It Can Matter More Than IQ

Zacharias, Ravi, Scorned For God- Part 1 (Let My People Think Podcast)

 

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

/by
Good God Hell

Why Did a “Good” God Create Hell?

By Al Serrato

Many people today accuse God of unfairness.  Since God can foresee the future, they ask, why didn’t He simply never create all those he knows to be destined to spend eternity in Hell?   One skeptic I know put the question like this:

God supposedly knows everything that will happen before you are ever born, so if all your choices are set beforehand, how can they possibly matter? Furthermore, if God knows you will “choose” Hell before he creates you, why does he simply not create you? Personally, I would much prefer nonexistence to eternal torment. Is God deliberately creating people knowing they will end up in Hell? Then I would call him evil. Is he compelled to create people regardless of what he sees in their future? Then he doesn’t have free will, which would certainly be an interesting interpretation, but one I doubt many people share. Is there some other explanation? If so, I can’t think of it.

This challenge has a bit of intuitive appeal.  It seems to put God in a box, as it were, trapped between being “evil” for choosing to create rebellious creatures or lacking free will, by being unable to do otherwise.  Let’s take a closer look at the two horns of this apparent dilemma.

To the Christian, “evil” is the label we give to words, thoughts or actions that deviate from God’s perfect will.  If we were created robots, there would be no evil in the world; we would operate exactly in accordance with God’s desires.  But in creating man, God did something quite different. He gave us “free will,” the capacity to rebel against him in our thoughts, words, and actions. And rebel we did.  God “foresaw” this development, but only in a manner of speaking – a manner focused upon the waywe think.  This is because God is not bound by time. For him, there is no future to “foresee.”  There is only an eternal present.  All times – whether past, present or future – are accessible to him in this eternal present. Thus, at the moment of creation, God was aware that man would rebel, that he was rebelling, and that he had rebelled. He was aware of the acts and the consequences, the motivations, and the ultimate end, of everyone.  Consistent with his nature for perfect fairness, he created a means by which man – though in rebellion and deserving punishment – could nonetheless find reunification with him.  But in implementing this scheme, he did not force this choice upon us. He gives us the means to salvation but remains content in allowing us to choose which path we will follow.

Those who use their free will to turn toward him – more precisely, to accept his free gift of salvation – will find a welcoming father, ready to do the work needed to restore us. Those who use their free will to turn away from God – to reject his gift – will find that this choice too is honored.  Expecting God not to create those in this latter category would have two significant effects: it would show that God’s provision of free will is really a fiction, since only those who choose to do his will are actually created, and two, it would mean that Hell is a place of evil.  But Hell is a place – or perhaps more precisely a condition – which was created by God to serve a purpose. Since God does not create evil – i.e. he does not act against his own nature – then Hell cannot be a place of evil. Like a human prison, it may be inhabited by those bent on doing evil, but the place itself – and the confinement it effectuates – is actually a good, just as separating hardened criminals from society is a net positive for both the evil-doer and the society that is victimized.

Some will be tempted to argue that God should have forced this choice upon us anyway. Isn’t it better to be forced to love God than to spend eternity in Hell? Only, I suppose, if one believes it is better to be a robot than a thinking, self-aware and self-directed being.  There is no middle ground. Either free will is something real – with consequences attendant to the choices we make – or it’s a fiction.  One cannot have it both ways.

To recap: God is not trapped in an either/or dilemma. God is not “evil” for having created, because in the end, he treats his creation fairly, giving each what he or she deserves.  Since he values free will enough to have given it to us, he apparently intends to make that gift real by allowing some to reject him. Likewise, God is not lacking in free will, because he is not “compelled” to create against his will. Since Hell is not a place for eternal torture, but an appropriate destination for all rebellious human beings, God does not violate his own nature – does not engage in “evil” – when he separates himself from some of his creation.

What this challenge brings into focus is not some internal inconsistency in our conception of God. No, what it highlights is just how different our thinking is as compared to God’s. For like the skeptic, many would view the decision to create nothing all – neither good nor bad people – to be a better – a more noble – alternative.  Yet God sees things quite a bit differently, it seems.

In the end, that he views things differently should not really surprise us. Our judgment as to right and wrong, good and evil, has been corrupted by our rebellion. Since we all share this fallen nature,  we should realize that we are not in the best position to render judgment as to the way eternal things “ought to be.” We wouldn’t ask a group of incarcerated rapists for guidance on issues of sexual mores; nor would we consult death row inmates for advice on how best to treat one another. Perhaps, in the same way, God has little need to consult with us to determine what ultimate “fairness” demands.

No, the Creator of the universe may occupy a slightly better position to judge matters eternal. We might be wise to heed him, rather than try to ensnare him in a “logical” trap.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2yXda71

/by
When Teens Wish They Could “Unpost” (Interview with Jonathan McKee)

When Teens Wish They Could “Unpost” (Interview with Jonathan McKee)

,

Have you ever regretted something you posted on social media? Don’t feel bad, 57% of Americans who use social media have posted something they regret afterward. And that’s just adults. Now jump into the brain of a 10-year-old. Yes, a 10-year-old. Nielsen research labels age 10 the “mobile adoption sweet spot” because the average age a child receives a smartphone today is 10.3 years-old. How is a 10-year-old supposed to make wise decisions with social media like Snapchat, Instagram, and Facebook? (especially when COPPA—Child Online Privacy Protection Act—regulates that you have to be at least 13 to be on Snapchat, Instagram or Facebook). Young people don’t think for more than 3 seconds before they hit SEND. Sadly, the pics they post, the rants they engage in… even the offhand comments they make… often have dire consequences. In law enforcement, we deal with the fallout of these posts daily. If you’re familiar with our work here at ColdCaseChristianity.com, you know how important we think it is to equip and prepare the next generation of Christian Case Makers. Part of this mission is to help young Christians understand how to navigate social media and post wisely in an insecure world. To help do this, I thought I’d ask the guy who literally just wrote the book on it.

Jonathan McKee is the author of over 20 books including the brand new, The Teens Guide to Social Media and Mobile Devices: Wise Posting in an Insecure World. Jonathan speaks to parents and leaders across the country about today’s teens and addresses the “smartphone generation” directly in school assemblies and events worldwide. Last week I had the opportunity to pick Jonathan’s brain about this important subject, and I think you’ll find the conversation eye-opening.

J. Warner:
Jonathan, I see you as one of the foremost experts and important voices in youth ministry today. Were you seeing something in the lives of students that prompted you to write this book? Why, of all the topics you could (and have) written about, did you decide to write this book now?

Jonathan:
Great question and the answer is because over three-quarters of teenagers now have a smartphone, yet very few people are engaging them in conversations about developing wise decision-making skills with this device. Most teens are learning lessons the hard way. They post a pic and regret it later. They use an app that brags “the pics disappear” and they interpret that as freedom from accountability. A screenshot later, they realize the post wasn’t as temporary as they thought it was.

It happens all the time. A boy asks a girl to send a sexy pic. Girl sends the pic. Girl and boy break up. Next thing you know, the boy sends a pic to the whole school with the caption, “What a whore!” The girl is devastated. Every high school has at least one story like this. Principals deal with this kind of drama continually. It’s why a whole generation of young people resonated with the Netflix Series, 13 Reasons Why. It mirrored much of what they saw in real life. If only parents were engaging their kids in conversations about these real-life situations.

J. Warner:
Parents aren’t engaging their kids in these conversations. Perhaps they feel ill-equipped. Is that why you address parents specifically in the beginning of a book written to teenagers—an interesting approach, by the way—briefly giving advice to the “caring parent or adult” who bought this book for the teen they care about?

Jonathan:
Exactly. The book is for teenagers, but the publisher and I know that it’s typically Mom, Dad, or Grandma who buys the book for the teenager and says, “Here, you should read this!” In fact, I’ve already been hearing lots of parents call this book their new “phone contract” their kids have to read before they get a smartphone. But yes, I addressed parents quickly at the beginning to answer some of the daunting questions they have, like what age should my kids get a phone, or what parental controls should I use? So I answer those quickly and then encourage them to use the book as a tool to engage their kids in conversation about this important subject. In other words, don’t just hand your kid this book, use the discussion questions at the end of each chapter to ask them, “What did you think about this Chapter on Snapchat?”

J. Warner:
Great chapter, by the way. So what do you think is the one most pressing risk you see for students and their use of social media?

Jonathan:
I’ll answer that by summarizing several chapters into one soundbyte: think before you press SEND. So much of where kids get into trouble is when they snap a pic, send a tweet or post a comment without giving it any thought whatsoever. Their pic gets circulated more than they thought, their tweet gets misinterpreted and their comment starts a fight. We need to teach our kids to pause before they post.

J. Warner:
That’s a nice soundbite.

Jonathan:
Ha. Thank you. Parents need to help their kids consider the permanence of their posts (again with the alliteration). They need to begin to understand: nothing you post is temporary. So don’t post anything you don’t want your principal, Grandma, your future boss… and Jesus seeing (Jesus is on Instagram, you know).

J. Warner:
What would you say to parents who are concerned their kids are spending too much time on Social Media?

Jonathan:
Parenting is a balance of bonding and boundaries. Bonding is hanging out with our kids, playing with our kids… eating greasy French fries with our kids. Boundaries are when we say, “Sorry, but you’re not going to that party,” or “Nope, you’re not going to have your phone by your bedside at night; I’m going to charge your phone for you.  It’s a free service I provide as your Mom.”

J. Warner:
Nice.

Jonathan:
Both bonding and boundaries are vital. So, if your kid is glued to their phone so much it is interfering with their sleep, their grades, and their relationships, Mom or Dad should respond in both areas. Parents can have the boundary of “no tech at the table,” and conversation tends to eventually emerge at family meals. At the same time, parents can engage their kids in conversation by asking them questions about their own technology, not lecturing, but asking questions and listening. Maybe read a relevant article like this one, Half of Teens Feel Addicted to Their Phones, and ask:

How do you think this survey would have turned out if they asked young people this question at your school?

What would you have answered?

What is a sign of being addicted to your phone?

What is a good way to make sure your phone doesn’t hinder your relationships?

Teens don’t want to be lectured. So, offer them information and ask their opinion. Become good at spotting relevant articles and asking, “Do you think this is right?” Don’t tell them the answer, lead them to the answer.

J. Warner:
How do you see the use of social media shaping the culture in the years to come, and what advice do you have for Christian kids to make the best use of these platforms?

Jonathan:
I think our world is still figuring out the ramifications of what they created. It’s like seatbelts. Cars were invented in the early 1900s. It wasn’t until January 1, 1968, those car companies were required by law to provide seatbelts in all seating positions. Then it wasn’t until 1983 that laws kicked in to require people to actually wear them. That’s decades upon decades!

Consider the history of the Smartphone. In the early 2000’s very few people had Smartphones. Then Jobs announced the first iPhone in 2007. American didn’t even cross the 50% mark for Smartphone ownership until 2012. When it comes to young people carrying around everything at their fingertips… we’re talking about something most young people have experienced less than five years. I think in the next decade our world is going to experience some life-changing consequences that will result in some severe adjustments. Hopefully, we will adapt and become smarter than our smartphone. As for Christians, the main lesson we need to learn is the lesson of loving others. We need to learn that a smartphone is a great tool for connecting with people outside the room… when it doesn’t interfere with the relationships of people inside the room.

Jesus was a man who noticed the unnoticed. When he was walking through a crowd of people he noticed the slightest touch from a woman who just barely brushed his garment. He stopped and said, “Who touched me?” And everyone thought he was crazy. But he persisted. “Who touched me?” And he gave attention to a woman that everyone else was ignoring. He did the same to a swindler named Zacchaeus and a promiscuous woman sitting at the well. Jesus didn’t ignore the least of the people in the room. Hopefully, Christians will learn to put their phones in their pocket and follow that lead.

Few people have more experience with young Christians than Jonathan McKee. You can get a weekly dose of Jonathan on his blog, and read more from him about teens, parenting and youth ministry in his numerous helpful books available on Amazon.com and a bookstore near you.

 

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

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