Tag Archive for: apologetics

Early Church Persecution, and its Evidential Value: Part 2

[Editor’s Note: This blog was originally a single article. For the purposes of reposting it at Crossexamined, it has been divided into two parts. Click here for part 1. 

[Excerpt from Part 1:] In this article [series], I . . . discuss the evidence that the apostles did in fact encounter hardships, dangers and persecutions on account of their Christian convictions. [In part 1] I survey the evidence for a general context of persecution (what may be called the indirect part of the case). [In Part 2] I will . . . proceed to argue that the apostles in particular voluntarily submitted themselves to danger, hardship and persecution on account of their conviction of the gospel’s truth.

The Persecution of the Apostles — Evidence from the Apostolic Fathers  

We now turn to what may be called the more direct evidence — that is, the sources which indicate that not only was there a general persecution (and thus a reasonable expectation of danger) but that the apostles themselves voluntarily underwent sufferings and hardships on account of the gospel. Our first evidence is Paul’s statement in his letter to the church in Corinth (dating to around 53 C.E.), that

I think God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death, because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men. We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are held in honor, but we in disrepute. To the present hour, we hunger and thirst, we are poorly dressed and buffeted and homeless, and we labor, working with our own hands. When reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure; when slandered, we entreat. We have become, and are still, like the scum of the world, the refuse of all things (1 Cor. 4:9-13).

This indicates the peril encountered by the original apostles as they labored for the gospel.

Our earliest source, which relates the martyrdom of Peter, is John 21:18: “Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.” John adds, “This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God,” (v. 19). Though it takes the form of a prophecy attributed to Jesus, it seems unlikely (whether we take this saying to be authentic or not) that John would have attributed such a prediction to Jesus if Peter had not, in fact, died as a martyr (the early church held that John’s gospel was the last to be written, and it was likely composed towards the end of the first century).[1]

Towards the end of the first century, Clement of Rome wrote a letter to the church in Corinth. He wrote (1 Clement 5),

But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labors; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.[2]

Irenaeus of Lyons writes concerning Clement,

This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles (Against Heresies 3.3.3).[3]

Clement is plausibly alluded to by Paul himself in Philippians 4:3 (Paul wrote this epistle from Rome, and so there is a high likelihood this is the same Clement). Given Clement’s personal connection to the apostles, he was thus in an ideal position to know about their persecution and ultimate fate.

Another important source is Polycarp of Smyrna (69-155 C.E.). Like Clement, we have one surviving letter of Polycarp’s, which is his letter to the Philippians (dating to around 110 C.E.). In chapter 9 of this letter, we read,

I exhort you all, therefore, to yield obedience to the word of righteousness, and to exercise all patience, such as ye have seen [set] before your eyes, not only in the case of the blessed Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus, but also in others among yourselves, and in Paul himself, and the rest of the apostles. [This do] in the assurance that all these have not run in vain, but in faith and righteousness, and that they are [now] in their due place in the presence of the Lord, with whom also they suffered. For they loved not this present world, but Him who died for us, and for our sakes was raised again by God from the dead.[4]

Like Clement, Polycarp was also personally connected to the apostles. Irenaeus, himself a disciple of Polycarp, informs us that

Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.[5]

Irenaeus, in a fragment preserved in an quotation by Eusebius from a now-lost work, even recalls “how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance.”[6] Polycarp, therefore, was likewise close up to the facts and in a position to be informed regarding the fate of the apostles.

The Persecution of Paul — The Value of the Epistles

We now turn to what may be deduced about the persecution experienced by the apostle Paul from his own letters. Consider Paul’s list of his experiences in 2 Corinthians 11:24-27:

Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; 26 on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; 27 in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure.

Paul also expresses in 1 Corinthians 4:9-13:

9 For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death, because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men. 10 We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are held in honor, but we in disrepute. 11 To the present hour we hunger and thirst, we are poorly dressed and buffeted and homeless, 12 and we labor, working with our own hands. When reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure; 13 when slandered, we entreat. We have become, and are still, like the scum of the world, the refuse of all things.

Paul, moreover, writes to the Thessalonians, “But though we had already suffered and been shamefully treated at Philippi, as you know, we had boldness in our God to declare to you the gospel of God in the midst of much conflict,” (1 Thess 2:2, emphasis added). This raises the question of how the Thessalonians knew about Paul’s shameful treatment in Philippi. When we compare Paul’s letter to the account in Acts, we learn that the shameful treatment to which he was referring is his imprisonment and public beating, uncondemned, despite being a Roman citizen (Acts 16:16-40). We read in Acts 16:35-40:

But when it was day, the magistrates sent the police, saying, “Let those men go.” 36 And the jailer reported these words to Paul, saying, “The magistrates have sent to let you go. Therefore come out now and go in peace.” 37 But Paul said to them, “They have beaten us publicly, uncondemned, men who are Roman citizens, and have thrown us into prison; and do they now throw us out secretly? No! Let them come themselves and take us out.” 38 The police reported these words to the magistrates, and they were afraid when they heard that they were Roman citizens. 39 So they came and apologized to them. And they took them out and asked them to leave the city. 40 So they went out of the prison and visited Lydia. And when they had seen the brothers, they encouraged them and departed.

According to Acts 17:1, Paul’s very next port of call, after passing through Amphipolis and Apollonia, was Thessalonica. This was in fact on a major Roman highway (the Via Egnatia) and Amphipolis and Apollonia were overnight stops along that highway. One can envision Paul coming from Philippi to Thessalonica, still full of indignation, and reporting about his shameful treatment to the converts in Thessalonica. This undesigned coincidence between Acts and 1 Thessalonians is all the more striking given that the book of Acts does not appear to be dependent upon 1 Thessalonians, nor vice versa. For example, according to 1 Thessalonians 1:9, Paul writes, “For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God…” Notice the emphasis in this text on the conversion of pagans from idolatry. Acts, on the other hand, emphasizes the conversion of Jews and gentile God-fearers (Acts 17:4). If the author of Acts were using 1 Thessalonians as a source, we might expect emphasis to be placed on the conversion of pagans. The accounts are, of course, not mutually exclusive. In fact, there are allusions in the epistle to concepts that would not make much sense to gentiles who lacked acquaintance with Jewish eschatological thought (1 Thess 4:14-17). Paul also distinguishes believers from gentiles, whose ways they ought not copy (1 Thess 4:4-5). It makes sense, therefore, to understand the “you” that turned to God from idols to be an exaggerated statement — referring to one portion of his audience rather than another. Nonetheless, the surface discrepancy between Acts and 1 Thessalonians points to the independence of these sources.

We also read in Acts 17 about the persecution endured by Paul from a mob of Jews who stirred up trouble for him. According to Acts 17:5-9:

5 But the Jews were jealous, and taking some wicked men of the rabble, they formed a mob, set the city in an uproar, and attacked the house of Jason, seeking to bring them out to the crowd. 6 And when they could not find them, they dragged Jason and some of the brothers before the city authorities, shouting, “These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also, 7 and Jason has received them, and they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.” 8 And the people and the city authorities were disturbed when they heard these things. 9 And when they had taken money as security from Jason and the rest, they let them go.

Paul thus had to leave in haste to go to Berea (Acts 17:10). We read in Acts 17:13 that “when the Jews from Thessalonica learned that the word of God was proclaimed by Paul at Berea also, they came there too, agitating and stirring up the crowds.” Paul thus, again, had to leave in haste to travel to Athens — “Then the brothers immediately sent Paul off on his way to the sea, but Silas and Timothy remained there. Those who conducted Paul brought him as far as Athens, and after receiving a command for Silas and Timothy to come to him as soon as possible, they departed.” Acts leaves unexplained why Paul left behind Silas and Timothy. This unexplained allusion is itself a hallmark of verisimilitude in the text. It is the texture of testimony — one does not typically leave loose ends like this in a fictitious work. Moreover, Silas and Timothy are instructed to rejoin Paul “as soon as possible.” Presumably, then, they did rejoin Paul in Athens (though the text does not indicate explicitly). Nonetheless, they are next reported to rejoin Paul not in Athens but in Corinth — and they arrived not from Athens but from Macedonia, where the cities of Thessalonica and Berea are (Acts 18:5). What accounts for this gap in the text? An explanation is provided by 1 Thessalonians 3:1-5:

Therefore when we could bear it no longer, we were willing to be left behind at Athens alone, 2 and we sent Timothy, our brother and God’s coworker in the gospel of Christ, to establish and exhort you in your faith, 3 that no one be moved by these afflictions. For you yourselves know that we are destined for this. 4 For when we were with you, we kept telling you beforehand that we were to suffer affliction, just as it has come to pass, and just as you know. 5 For this reason, when I could bear it no longer, I sent to learn about your faith, for fear that somehow the tempter had tempted you and our labor would be in vain.

Thus, Paul indicates, under the circumstances, he had been concerned for the wellbeing of the Christians in Thessalonica, and so he commissioned Timothy to go back from Athens to Thessalonica to check on the believers there. This explains the gap in the account in Acts, and thereby corroborates the account in Acts. This undesigned coincidence is, again, all the more striking given the independence (as I have shown) between Acts and 1 Thessalonians. Connected to this, there is another undesigned coincidence relating to Paul’s time in Corinth (Acts 18:1-5):

After this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. 2 And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. And he went to see them, 3 and because he was of the same trade he stayed with them and worked, for they were tentmakers by trade. 4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks. 5 When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Paul was occupied with the word, testifying to the Jews that the Christ was Jesus.

Paul encounters Aquila and Priscilla in Corinth, who had been exiled from Rome at the instigation of the emperor Claudius. The Roman biographer Suetonius also mentions this episode: “He [Claudius] banished from Rome all the Jews, who were continually making disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus,” (Life of Claudius 25). Our text in Acts indicates that Paul worked with them as a tentmaker to earn his keep during the week, and that he engaged in his evangelistic work on the Sabbath day, when he went into the synagogue and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks that Jesus is the Christ. However, in response to the arrival of Silas and Timothy from Macedonia, he changed his ministry model such that he devoted himself entirely to the work of the ministry. What prompted this change? Acts does not inform us. However, we read in 2 Corinthians 11:7-9:

Or did I commit a sin in humbling myself so that you might be exalted, because I preached God’s gospel to you free of charge? 8 I robbed other churches by accepting support from them in order to serve you. 9 And when I was with you and was in need, I did not burden anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied my need. So I refrained and will refrain from burdening you in any way.

Apparently the brothers who came from Macedonia (whom we learn from Acts included Silas and Timothy) brought financial aid to Paul, which enabled him to devote himself entirely to the ministry. This detail, however, is not supplied by Acts. This is further corroborated by Philippians 4:14-16, in which we read (in a letter addressed to one of the churches in Macedonia),

14 Yet it was kind of you to share my trouble. 15 And you Philippians yourselves know that in the beginning of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church entered into partnership with me in giving and receiving, except you only. 16 Even in Thessalonica you sent me help for my needs once and again.

This, once again, serves to confirm the account in Acts — which reveals that Paul was willing to work for his keep as a tentmaker. In other words, he was evidently not in ministry for the purpose of extorting people for money. Moreover, the account in Acts continues with a note about another episode of opposition against Paul: “And when they opposed and reviled him, he shook out his garments and said to them, ‘Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the Gentiles,’” (Acts 18:6). This coincidence is all the more striking given the independence of Acts and 2 Corinthians, as demonstrated earlier in this article.

Another undesigned coincidence bearing on Paul’s sufferings relates to Paul’s statement in 2 Timothy 3:10-11:

10 You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, 11 my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra—which persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me.

The sufferings mentioned here are described in Acts 13:50-51 and 14:1-7, 19-21. Paul seems to imply, in his letter to Timothy, that Timothy had in fact witnessed the persecutions that he had endured in those cities. According to Acts, Paul embarked on a second missionary journey through the same country as the first journey. The purpose of his second missionary trip is given in Acts 15:36: “Let us return and visit the brothers in every city where we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are.” Thus, we learn, that the purpose of the journey was to check on those who had been converted during the first journey, to see how they were doing. In Acts 16;1-2, we further learn, “Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek. 2 He was well spoken of by the brothers at Lystra and Iconium.” We are thereby informed that Timothy’s hometown was either Derbe or Lystra. And it is apparent from the text that Timothy had already been converted by this time. Paul himself refers to Timothy as “my true child in the faith” (1 Tim 1:2) and “my beloved child” (2 Tim 1:2). This implies that Timothy was probably Paul’s own convert. It then follows that Timothy was very likely converted during Paul’s preceding missionary journey through these cities, at the very time when Paul had undergone the persecutions referred to in the epistle. This supports both the historicity of Acts, as well as the genuineness of the pastoral epistles (which are among the disputed Pauline letters). For a more detailed discussion of the authenticity of the pastoral epistles, see my essay here.

There is also external evidence that corroborates the accounts in Acts concerning Paul’s suffering for the gospel. For example, Acts 22:25-29 describes Paul being before the Roman tribune:

But when they had stretched him out for the whips, Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, “Is it lawful for you to flog a man who is a Roman citizen and uncondemned?” 26 When the centurion heard this, he went to the tribune and said to him, “What are you about to do? For this man is a Roman citizen.” 27 So the tribune came and said to him, “Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?” And he said, “Yes.” 28 The tribune answered, “I bought this citizenship for a large sum.” Paul said, “But I am a citizen by birth.” 29 So those who were about to examine him withdrew from him immediately, and the tribune also was afraid, for he realized that Paul was a Roman citizen and that he had bound him. [emphasis added]

Note the tribune’s words to Paul, “I bought this citizenship for a large sum.” What is the historical background here? The second century Roman historian Cassius Dio informs us that, during the reign of Claudius it was introduced that one could purchase a Roman citizenship for a great sum. He writes (Historiae Romanae 60.17) [15],

For inasmuch as Romans had the advantage over foreigners in practically all respects, many sought the franchise by personal application to the emperor, and many bought it from Messalina and the imperial freedmen. For this reason, though the privilege was at first sold only for large sums, it later became so cheapened by the facility with which it could be obtained that it came to be a common saying, that a man could become a citizen by giving the right person some bits of broken glass.[7]

Thus, though the privilege of Roman citizenship sold at first for great sums of money, the price progressively came down, until it had become so cheapened that it came to be a common saying that one could become a Roman citizen by bringing the right person some pieces of broken glass. This adds color to the tribune’s words, “I bought this citizenship for a large sum,” insinuating that Paul was able to acquire his citizenship for much less. Paul, in turn, corrects the tribune that he was a citizen by birth. Acts does not explain, for the sake of his readers, this historical background. Cassius Dio, in providing this background, renders the narrative in Acts quite credible.

There is also a wealth of evidence for the authenticity of Paul’s voyage, as a prisoner bound for Rome, that ended in shipwreck (Acts 27). The report of that voyage notes, in verses 3-6, that,

3 The next day we put in at Sidon. And Julius treated Paul kindly and gave him leave to go to his friends and be cared for. 4 And putting out to sea from there we sailed under the lee of Cyprus, because the winds were against us. 5 And when we had sailed across the open sea along the coast of Cilicia and Pamphylia, we came to Myra in Lycia. 6 There the centurion found a ship of Alexandria sailing for Italy and put us on board.

Colin Hemer comments, “Myra, like Patara again, was a principal port for the Alexandrian corn-ships, and precisely the place where Julius would expect to find a ship sailing to Italy in the imperial service. Its official standing here is further illustrated by the Hadrianic granary. Myra was also the first of these ports to be reached by a ship arriving from the east, as Patara had been previously from the reverse direction.”[8]

Verses 13-14 indicate that they “…sailed along Crete, close to the shore. But soon a tempestuous wind, called the northeaster, struck down from the land.” In confirmation of Luke’s report, there is indeed a well confirmed wind that rides over Crete from the Northeast, and which is strongest at this exact time near the Day of Atonement in the Fall (Acts 27:9). Acts 27:16 describes how the ship was blown off course towards a small island called Cauda. What is impressive is that the island of Cauda is more than 20 miles west-southwest of where the storm likely struck the travelers in the Bay of Messara. This is precisely where the trajectory of a north-easterly wind should have carried them, and it is not the sort of information someone would have inferred without having been blown there. Ancients found it nearly impossible to properly locate islands this far out. Colin Hemer notes that,

As the implications of such details are further explored, it becomes increasingly difficult to believe that they could have been derived from any contemporary reference work. In the places where we can compare, Luke fares much better than the encyclopaedist Pliny, who might be regarded as the foremost first-century example of such a source. Pliny places Cauda (Gaudos) opposite Hierapytna, some ninety miles too far east (NH 4.12.61). Even Ptolemy, who offers a reckoning of latitude and longitude, makes a serious dislocation to the northwest, putting Cauda too near the western end of Crete, in a position which would not suit the unstudied narrative of our text (Ptol. Geog. 3.15.8).[9]

There are many other points at which Paul’s voyage and shipwreck may be confirmed. For a much more detailed discussion, I refer readers to James Smith’s book, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul.[10]

Paul rejoiced in his own sufferings for the name of Christ. He wrote to the Philippians, “Even if I am to be poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrificial offering of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all. Likewise you also should be glad and rejoice with me,” (Phil 2:17-18).

An additional point that bears mentioning is that Paul not only willingly endured hardships and persecutions himself, but he expected other believers to do the same. Consider the following texts:

  • Philippians 1:29-30: For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, engaged in the same conflict that you saw I had and now hear that I still have.
  • 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5: For when we were with you, we kept telling you beforehand that we were to suffer affliction, just as it has come to pass, and just as you know. For this reason, when I could bear it no longer, I sent to learn about your faith, for fear that somehow the tempter had tempted you and our labor would be in vain. This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering.
  • 2 Thessalonians 1:4: Therefore we ourselves boast about you in the churches of God for your steadfastness and faith in all your persecutions and in the afflictions that you are enduring.
  • Romans 3:3-4: Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope.
  • Romans 8:35-36: Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, “For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”
  • 2 Corinthians 6:4-10: but as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: by great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities, beatings, imprisonments, riots, labors, sleepless nights, hunger; by purity, knowledge, patience, kindness, the Holy Spirit, genuine love; by truthful speech, and the power of God; with the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and for the left; through honor and dishonor, through slander and praise. We are treated as impostors, and yet are true; as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold, we live; as punished, and yet not killed; as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, yet possessing everything.

Sir George Lyttelton notes,

But at that time when St. Paul undertook the preaching of the Gospel to persuade any man to be a Christian, was to persuade him to expose himself to all the calumnies human nature could suffer. This St Paul knew; this he not only expected, but warned those he taught to look for it too… How much reason he had to say this, the hatred, the contempt, the torments, the deaths endured by the Christians in that age, and long afterwards, abundantly prove. Whoever professed the Gospel under these circumstances, without an entire conviction of its being a Divine revelation, must have been mad; and if he made others profess it by fraud or deceit, he must have been worse than mad; he must have been the most hardened wretch that ever breathed. Could any man who had in his nature the least spark of humanity, subject his fellow-creatures to so many miseries; or could one that had in his mind the least ray of reason, expose himself to share them with those he deceived, in order to advance a religion which he knew to be false, merely for the sake of its moral doctrines? Such an extravagance is too absurd to be supposed; and I dwell too long on a notion that upon a little reflection confutes itself.[11]

Short of being, as Lyttelton put it, the most hardened wretch that ever breathed, how could Paul expect his fellow believers to voluntarily undertake tremendous hardships and sufferings, even martyrdom, unless he had a sincere conviction of the gospel’s truth?

The Accounts in Acts 

We now turn to the accounts of persecution in the book of Acts. For economy of space, I shall not regurgitate here the extensive case that I and others have made elsewhere for the high reliability of the book of Acts (though the points of internal and external confirmation given above contribute to this case). This case, though, confirms the author to have been an individual who was very well informed, close up to the facts, and in the habit of being scrupulous. We must, therefore, take what he says concerning the context of persecution — and, in particular, about the persecution of the early apostles, and their resoluteness to continue preaching despite this danger — quite seriously.

The author of Acts (i.e., Luke) provides a list in his opening chapter of the eleven disciples (Acts 1:13), even though he already supplied a list of the Twelve in his gospel (Luke 6:12-16). Moreover, in Acts 1:15-26, we read about a replacement for Judas being elected, because there had to be no fewer than twelve men who could bear witness to Jesus’ resurrection (Matthias is elected out of two candidates, the other contender being Joseph called Barsabbas). This confirms that, even in this very early period following Jesus’ resurrection and ascension, the twelve were acting in leadership capacities in Jerusalem.

In Acts 2:14, we learn that Peter stood up “with the eleven” at Pentecost to address the Jews in Jerusalem. This includes a clear proclamation of Jesus’ resurrection (v. 24, 32). In verse 37, we read that “when they [the Jews in Jerusalem] heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Brothers, what shall we do?’” Notice that this is addressed to Peter along with “the rest of the apostles.” In view of verse 14, this has to include all of the eleven. We may glean from this, then, that the twelve collectively declared the reality of Christ’s resurrection at Pentecost, and that they intended to have an ongoing leadership role that would be focused on proclaiming the resurrection. Even by this point, the twelve were taking upon themselves tremendous risks on account of the gospel. This was only six weeks since Jesus himself had been put to death at the instigation of the Jewish authorities. As Paley notes,

The ruling party at Jerusalem had just before crucified the Founder of the religion. That is a fact which will not be disputed. They, therefore, who stood forth to preach the religion must necessarily reproach these rulers with an execution, which they could not but represent as an unjust and cruel murder. This would not render their office more easy, or their situation more safe.[12]

And that they did. Peter’s speech, as reported in Acts, is very confrontational, repudiating the Jewish leaders for their rejection of their Messiah and their part in his execution. Consider the provocative nature of Peter’s statements:

This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it… Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified (Acts 2:23,36).

In verses 41-47, we learn that the apostles continued to minister publicly following Peter’s speech.

Acts 5:12 informs us that “many signs and wonders were regularly done among the people by the hands of the apostles. And they were all together in Solomon’s portico.” This indicates that Solomon’s Porch was a location where the apostles would commonly meet (as alluded to previously in Acts 3:11, and during Jesus’ own ministry according to John 10:23). According to Acts 5:17-18, the apostles were arrested and imprisoned by the high priest and Sadducees. That same night, they were liberated by an angel and they resumed their preaching work. In verse 28, the high priest cautions them, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” Peter replies,

We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him (Acts 5:29-32).

Verse 40 indicates that “when they had called in the apostles, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.” However, in spite of this warning, “every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus,” (v. 42). We are even told that “they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name,” (v. 41).

In the following chapter we learn that “the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, ‘It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables.” Seven individuals are selected to deal with this issue, for the reason that the chief focus of the twelve is preaching the word of God (v. 2) — prayer and the ministry of the word (v. 4).

Acts 7 recounts the stoning of Stephen, who was one of the appointed deacons. Though he was not himself one of the apostles (and was not, so far as we know, a witness to Jesus’ resurrection), his death by stoning would have served as a warning shot regarding the dangers that were associated with proclamation of the gospel in those early years. If the resurrection were a conspiracy, one would expect that some members of what must have been a relatively large conspiracy, would have cold feet about continuing. And yet, there is no record whatsoever about any of the apostles abandoning Christianity in those early years when we would most expect there to be some record of such a defection. Early Christian writers were not shy about calling out by name others who fell away. In 2 Timothy 4:10, Paul writes that “Demas, in love with this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica.” He further notes “You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me, among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes,” (2 Tim 1:15). Nowhere is there a record rebuking one of the original apostles for falling away from the faith, though they had every incentive to do so if they knew Christianity to be false.

We read in the following chapter of Acts that “there arose on that day a great persecution against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles,” (Acts 8:1). The text therefore clearly distinguishes between those other believers who were “scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria,” and the apostles who remained in Jerusalem amidst the context of persecution.

In Acts 12:1-3, we learn,

About that time Herod the king laid violent hands on some who belonged to the church. He killed James the brother of John with the sword, and when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter also. This was during the days of Unleavened Bread. And when he had seized him, he put him in prison, delivering him over to four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after the Passover to bring him out to the people. So Peter was kept in prison, but earnest prayer for him was made to God by the church.

The “Herod” referred to here is Herod Agrippa I, the son of Aristobulus and grandfather of Herod the Great. This account accords quite well with the character of Herod Agrippa I, as recorded by Josephus. In Antiquities 19.7.3, Josephus writes about Herod Agrippa’s character [21]:

But Agrippa’s temper was mild, and equally liberal to all men. He was humane to foreigners, and made them sensible of his liberality. He was in like manner rather of a gentle and compassionate temper. Accordingly, he loved to live continually at Jerusalem, and was exactly careful in the observance of the laws of his country. He therefore kept himself entirely pure: nor did any day pass over his head without its appointed sacrifice.[13]

Thus, Herod Agrippa I was particularly concerned about pleasing the Jews. This account of Agrippa’s character, therefore, dovetails with the account in Acts 12:3, which indicates that he proceeded to arrest Peter when he saw that it pleased the Jews.

The Martyrdom of James the Brother of Jesus        

Josephus also informs us about the martyrdom of the other James, i.e., the brother of Jesus. He writes (Antiquities 20.9.1):

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.[14]

Craig Evans notes concerning this text that “There are no compelling reasons for rejecting this passage as inauthentic. There is nothing Christian, or positive, in the reference to James and Jesus. The whole point seems to be to explain why Ananus was deposed as High Priest. Furthermore, the designation, ‘brother of Jesus,’ contrasts with Christian practice of referring to James as the ‘brother of the Lord’ (cf. Gal 1:19; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 2.23.4).”[15] Evans concludes, “It is not surprising, therefore, that, in the words of Louis Feldman, ‘few have doubted the genuineness of this passage on James.’”[16]

Implications for Jesus’ Resurrection

What are the implications of all this for Jesus’ resurrection and the broader set of arguments for Christianity? The fact that the original apostles were willing to voluntarily undergo and endure hardships, dangers, and sufferings on account of the gospel goes a very long way towards establishing their sincerity. This drastically reduces the plausibility of one of three candidate explanations for the origins of early Christian belief in the resurrection — namely, that the apostles were lying about Jesus’ resurrection and other miracles with an intent to deceive. With this explanation off the table, the probabilities are redistributed between the two remaining options — i.e., that the apostles were somehow sincerely mistaken, or else the content of their testimony is true.

If it is the case (as I have argued in detail elsewhere) that the accounts that we have in the gospels and Acts in fact represent the testimony of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ ministry and, in particular, purported witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection, then this renders it quite implausible that the apostles were sincerely mistaken. The apostles are alleged to have encountered Jesus, alive after his death, at close quarters. They engaged with him in group conversations, were invited to touch him (Luke 24:39; John 20:27), handed Jesus a broiled fish which he ate in their presence (Luke 24:42), and ate and drank with Jesus (Acts 10:41). Moreover, Jesus is alleged to have even cooked breakfast for seven disciples on the shore of the Sea of Galilee (John 21). The experiences are also said to have been distributed over a forty day time period (Acts 1:3). The encounters with the risen Jesus occur in different settings — both indoors and outdoors, with and without prior appointment (see Matthew 28:16). These are not the sort of claims about which one can be plausibly sincerely mistaken.

I have also argued in detail elsewhere that the accounts of Paul’s conversion in Acts 9, 22 and 26 actually represent Paul’s own conversion testimony. This being the case, it is difficult to envision the apostle Paul being mistaken about the sort of claims he makes. His experience is multisensory (involving both a visual and auditory aspect) and intersubjective (affecting both Paul and those travelling with him, who are thrown to the ground). Paul is blinded by the experience and later healed on command by Ananias, who receives a vision concerning Paul, and Paul a vision concerning Ananias. Paul also writes about miracles that he had himself performed, which he describes as “the signs of a true apostle” that “were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works,” (2 Cor 12:12; c.f. Rom 15:18-19). We also read of various of Paul’s miracles in the book of Acts. Given the strong case (as I and others have developed in detail elsewhere) that the book of Acts was written by a traveling companion of Paul, who was well informed and habitually scrupulous, Luke’s most likely source for this material is Paul himself. This is, therefore, part of the testimony that must be accounted for. To take one example, Luke describes a curse that Paul placed on the magician Elymas (who had opposed Paul and Barnabas, seeking to turn the Proconsul away from the faith). Luke writes in Acts 13:9-12,

9 But Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him 10 and said, “You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord? 11 And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind and unable to see the sun for a time.” Immediately mist and darkness fell upon him, and he went about seeking people to lead him by the hand. 12 Then the proconsul believed, when he saw what had occurred, for he was astonished at the teaching of the Lord.

Among Paul’s other miraculous signs, he healed a man who had been crippled since birth (Acts 14:8-10), was freed from prison by an earthquake (Acts 16:26); healed many sick (Acts 19:11-12), raised Eutychus from the dead after his fall from the third story of a building (Acts 20:9-12), and healed the father of Publius, who lay sick with fever and dysentery, on Malta (Acts 28:7-9). This set of claims is difficult to account for on the supposition that Paul was sincerely mistaken.

Besides miracles performed by the apostle Paul, there are also miracles that are alleged in Acts to have been performed by other individuals. For example, Philip the deacon is said to have performed signs, healings, and exorcisms in Samaria (Acts 8:6-7), and his miracles are said to have impressed Simon the Magician (Acts 8:13). The spirit of the Lord later snatched Philip from the road to Gaza and placed him instead in Azotus (Acts 8:39-40). There is also an occasion of special providence (though not a miracle per se) when Philip encounters the Ethiopian eunuch. Luke’s most probable source for these accounts is Philip himself, particularly given that he apparently stayed at the house of Philip (Acts 21:8). Luke also encountered the original apostles, in particular the Jerusalem leaders James the brother of Jesus, Simon Peter, and John the son of Zebedee (Acts 21:17-18) and was in relatively close proximity for a subsequent two years while in Caesarea Maritima (Acts 24:27). Given the numerous specific details that may be corroborated not only in Acts but also the gospel of Luke, we have every reason to think that not only did Luke have access to eyewitnesses (recall also that he has a stated interest in eyewitness testimony — see Luke 1:1-4) but that he extracted accurate information from those apostles.

Other miracles performed by the apostles in Acts include Peter’s healing of the cripple, which even forces the authorities to recognize a miraculous event (Acts 3:2-10; 4:16,22); various other healings as well as exorcisms attributed to the apostles (Acts 2:43, 5:12-16), Peter’s striking Ananias and Sapphira dead after they lied about the price obtained for their land (Acts 5:1-11); the rescue of the apostles from prison (Acts 5:18-20), Peter’s healing of Aeneas in Lydda (Acts 9:33-34). the raising of Tabitha / Dorcas from the dead (Acts 9:36-41), and the rescue of Peter from prison by an angel (Acts 12:6-11).

There are also various other miracles, aside from the resurrection, that are alleged in the gospel accounts. For example, the disciples are represented as being present for the raising of Lazarus from the dead in Bethany in John 11, and the subsequent dinner with Lazarus along with his sisters, Mary and Martha, in John 12:1-7. There are good reasons to believe the fourth gospel to be written by a disciple of Jesus, and more specifically by John the son of Zebedee — but we will not digress onto that subject here.

My purpose in this last section has not been to defend in detail the crucial premise that these accounts in fact represent the testimony of eyewitnesses (I have offered that defense in detail elsewhere). Rather, it has been simply to show how the case given above for the willingness of the Christians to undergo and endure hardships, dangers and sufferings on account of the gospel fits within the broader set of arguments for Christianity.

References: 

[1] Editor’s Note: John’s Gospel is often thought to have been written in the late 1st century, c. 90-95AD, but that view is not unanimous among scholars. An increasingly popular view, in biblical scholarship, proposes a date around 60-70AD, seeJonathan Bernier in Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament: The Evidence for Early Composition (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2022), 87-129, 277.

[2] Clement of Rome, “The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 6.

[3] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 416.

[4] Polycarp of Smryna, “The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 35.

[5] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 416.

[6]  Irenaeus of Lyons, “Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenæus,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 568.

[7] Cassius Dio, Dio’s Roman History, trans. Earnest Cary, vol. 7, The Loeb Classical Library (London; New York; Cambridge, MA: The Macmillan Co.; G. P. Putnam’s Sons; Harvard University Press; William Heinemann Ltd, 1914–1927), 411.

[8] Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, ed. Conrad H. Gempf (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 134.

[9] Ibid., 331.

[10] James Smith, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul: With Dissertations on the Life and Writings of St. Luke, and the Ships and Navigation of the Ancients, ed. Walter E. Smith, Fourth Edition, Revised and Corrected (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1880).

[11] George Lyttelton, Observations on the Conversion and Apostleship of St. Paul (The Institute Trust, 1747), 36-39.

[12] William Paley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity: Volume 1, Reissue Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).

[13] Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), 522.

[14] Ibid., 538.

[15] Craig A. Evans, “Jesus in non-Christian sources” in The Historical Jesus, Vol. 4, ed. Craig A. Evans (London and New York: Routledge), 392.

[16] Ibid.

Recommended Resources: 

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

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

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

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

 

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/41NinxW

/by

Early Church Persecution, and its Evidential Value. Part 1

The argument from Christian persecution was developed most fully by William Paley, in his 1794 book, A View of the Evidences of Christianity.[1] Indeed, Paley devotes the first nine chapters of his book to defending the thesis

“that there is satisfactory evidence that many professing to be original witnesses of the Christian miracles, passed their lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief of those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of conduct.”[2]

This proposition, if true, goes a long way towards establishing that the early apostles — that is, those who were purportedly witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection — were sincere in their conviction that they had encountered the raised Christ. Indeed, people are unlikely to voluntarily endure hardship, dangers, and persecutions on account of a claim that they believe to be false. As Paley notes,

Then as to the kind and degree of exertion which was employed, and the mode of life to which these persons submitted, we reasonably suppose it to be like that which we observe in all others who voluntarily become missionaries of a new faith. Frequent, earnest, and laborious preaching, constantly conversing with religious persons upon religion, a sequestration from the common pleasures, engagements, and varieties of life, and an addiction to one serious object, compose the habits of such men. I do not say that this mode of life is without enjoyment, but I say that the enjoyment springs from sincerity. With a consciousness at the bottom of hollowness and falsehood, the fatigue and restraint would become insupportable. I am apt to believe that very few hypocrites engage in these undertakings; or, however, persist in them long. Ordinarily speaking, nothing can overcome the indolence of mankind, the love which is natural to most tempers of cheerful society and cheerful scenes, or the desire, which is common to all, of personal ease and freedom, but conviction.[3]

Of course, a successful demonstration of the sincerity of the apostles is not by itself sufficient to justify belief in the resurrection (though it is a significant step in that direction). If the apostles were sincere in their conviction that they had encountered the risen Christ and were witnesses to other miracles, it remains to be asked how they came to arrive at those beliefs. Having argued for the sincerity of the apostles, one can then proceed to mine details from the gospels & Acts (sources which, as I and others have argued in detail elsewhere, represent the testimony of the alleged witnesses of Jesus alive after his death) in an effort to evaluate whether the set of claims concerning his resurrection are the kind about which one may be plausibly sincerely mistaken. In this article, I will discuss the evidence that the apostles did in fact encounter hardships, dangers and persecutions on account of their Christian convictions. First, I shall survey the evidence for a general context of persecution (what may be called the indirect part of the case). I will then [insert link] [in part 2] proceed to argue that the apostles in particular voluntarily submitted themselves to danger, hardship and persecution on account of their conviction of the gospel’s truth.

The General Context of Persecution

There is abundant evidence of a general context of persecution in the first century, from both secular and Christian sources. There was also a reasonable expectation of persecution right from the very beginning. As William Paley explains,

Our books relate, that Jesus Christ, the founder of the religion, was, in consequence of his undertaking, put to death, as a malefactor, at Jerusalem. This point at least will be granted, because it is no more than what Tacitus has recorded. They then proceed to tell us, that the religion was, notwithstanding, set forth at this same city of Jerusalem, propagated thence throughout Judea, and afterwards preached in other parts of the Roman empire. These points also are fully confirmed by Tacitus, who informs us, that the religion, after a short check, broke out again in the country where it took its rise; that it not only spread throughout Judea, but had reached Rome, and that it had there great multitudes of converts: and all this within thirty years after its commencement. Now these facts afford a strong inference in behalf of the proposition which we maintain. What could the disciples of Christ expect for themselves when they saw their master put to death? Could they hope to escape the dangers in which he had perished? If they had persecuted me, they will also persecute you, was the warning of common sense. With this example before their eyes, they could not be without a full sense of the peril of their future enterprise.[4]

This reasonable expectation accords with reality, as historical records abundantly attest. Cornelius Tacitus (56-120 C.E), a member of the Roman senate and historian of Rome wrote about the first officially sanctioned state persecution of Christians under the emperor Nero. This ensued from a fire that broke out in Rome in 64 C.E. According to Tacitus, there was a circulating rumor among the populace that the conflagrations were the result of an order from Nero himself. Tacitus explains that “all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order,” (Annals 15:44). Thus, Nero needed a scapegoat in order to deflect the blame for the fire away from himself. Tacitus continues (Annals 15:44),

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man’s cruelty, that they were being destroyed.[5]

Suetonius (69 – after 122 C.E.), a biographer of the twelve Caesars, likewise writes that Nero “inflicted punishment on the Christians, a sort of people who held a new and impious superstition,” (Life of Nero, 16).[6] Notice that Tacitus indicates that Christians were already hated for their abominations, and were referred to as Christians by the populace — making them an easy scapegoat. William Paley notes,

These things, as has already been observed, took place within thirty-one years after Christ’s death, that is, according to the course of nature, in the lifetime, probably, of some of the apostles, and certainly in the lifetime of those who were converted by the apostles, or who were converted in their time. If then the founder of the religion was put to death in the execution of his design; if the first race of converts to the religion, many of them, suffered the greatest extremities for their profession; it is hardly credible, that those who came between the two, who were companions of the Author of the institution during his life, and the teachers and propagators of the institution after his death, could go about their undertaking with ease and safety.[7]

Confirming Paley’s inference, there are sources, dating prior to the persecution under Nero commencing in 64 C.E., which indicate a widespread persecution of Christians significantly before this time. The apostle Paul wrote a letter to the church in Philippi, a Macedonian city, during his first Roman imprisonment (60-62 C.E.). Therein, he writes, “For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, engaged in the same conflict that you saw I had and now hear that I still have,” (Phil 1:29-30). Paul’s letter to the Romans (dating to around 57-59 C.E.) likewise encourages his readers, “we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope,” (Rom 5:3-4) Further, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, ‘For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered,” (Rom 8:35-36). Even prior to this period, Paul wrote a letter to the Christians in Corinth (a Greek city), around 55 or 56 C.E., in which he states,

We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed, perplexed, but not driven to despair, persecuted but not forsaken, struck down, but not destroyed, always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies. For we who live are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. So death is at work in us, but life in you” (2 Cor 4:8-12).

Even before this time, Paul addressed the Christians in Thessalonica (in Macedonia), in a letter composed around 51 or 52 C.E. — “Therefore we ourselves boast about you in the churches of God for your steadfastness and faith in all your persecutions and in the afflictions that you are enduring,” (2 Thess 1:4).

Outside of the letters of Paul, there are also other early Christian references to first century persecution against Christians. For example, the writer to the Hebrews (an epistle, or perhaps more appropriately a Homily, which is difficult to precisely date but very probably was composed prior to A.D. 70) notes,

But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, sometimes being publicly exposed to reproach and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you know that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one (Heb 10:32-34).

The author further encourages these Jewish believers by reminding them of those Old Testament saints,

[W]ho through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. Women received back their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life. Others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated — of whom the world was not worthy — wandering about in deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth (Heb 11:33-38).

The book of James likewise encourages persecuted believers,

As an example of suffering and patience, brothers, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. Behold, we consider those blessed who remained steadfast. You have heard of the steadfastness of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful. The letter of 1 Peter further instructs believers, “do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you (1 Pet 4:12-14).

Thus, we have early Christian letters, addressing readers all around the Mediterranean, exhorting them to bear up in the midst of persecution. This is impossible to explain if there were no such context of early persecution against Christians to speak of. Though the first officially state sanctioned persecution began in 64 C.E., under the emperor Nero, there was a widespread disdain for, and persecution of, Christians long before this time. Paley notes,

What could all these texts mean, if there was nothing in the circumstances of the times which required patience,—which called for the exercise of constancy and resolution? Or will it be pretended, that these exhortations (which, let it be observed, come not from one author, but from many) were put in, merely to induce a belief in after-ages, that the Christians were exposed to dangers which they were not exposed to, or underwent sufferings which they did not undergo? If these books belong to the age to which they lay claim, and in which age, whether genuine or spurious, they certainly did appear, this supposition cannot be maintained for a moment; because I think it impossible to believe, that passages, which must be deemed, not only unintelligible, but false, by the persons into whose hands the books upon their publication were to come, should nevertheless be inserted, for the purpose of producing an effect upon remote generations. In forgeries which do not appear till many ages after that to which they pretend to belong, it is possible that some contrivance of that sort may take place; but in no others can it be attempted.[8]

Paul, of course, also speaks in his letters of his own persecution against the Christians in the early years prior to his conversion (Gal 1:13, 23; 1 Cor 15:9; Phil 3:6).

In addition to the aforementioned epistles, there are also references to the early context of persecution in the Olivet Discourse, recorded by the synoptic gospels. In Matthew 24:9, Jesus indicates that “they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake.” Mark 13:9-13 expands further:

But be on your guard. For they will deliver you over to councils, and you will be beaten in synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them. And the gospel must first be proclaimed to all nations. And when they bring you to trial and deliver you over, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit. And brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death. And you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.

One does not need to assume the historicity of these sayings of Jesus in order to make the argument that this evinces persecution within the apostles’ own lifetimes. As Paley rightly comments,

I am not entitled to argue from these passages, that Christ actually did foretell these events, and that they did accordingly come to pass; because that would be at once to assume the truth of the religion: but I am entitled to contend, that one side or other of the following disjunction is true; either that the Evangelists have delivered what Christ really spoke, and that the event corresponded with the prediction; or that they put the prediction into Christ’s mouth, because, at the time of writing the history, the event had turned out so to be: for, the only two remaining suppositions appear in the highest degree incredible; which are, either that Christ filled the minds of his followers with fears and apprehensions, without any reason or authority for what he said, and contrary to the truth of the case; or that, although Christ had never foretold any such thing, and the event would have contradicted him if he had, yet historians who lived in the age when the event was known, falsely, as well as officiously, ascribed these words to him.[9]

In other words, if there were no such early persecution to speak of, it is unlikely that the evangelists would have attributed these words to Jesus, regardless of whether the historical Jesus actually uttered those sayings.

This general context of persecution against Christians implies that there would have been a reasonable expectation of danger that would accompany the proclamation of the gospel in the first century. This already suggests that those who boldly proclaimed the resurrection, the Messianic identity of Jesus of Nazareth, and the exclusivity of salvation through Christ, were sincere — they declared those truths despite a hostile context and with full awareness that their activities could well result in imprisonment, suffering, or death.

References: 

[1] William Paley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity: Volume 1, Reissue Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Tacitus, The Annals and The Histories, ed. Mortimer J. Adler, Second Edition, vol. 14, Great Books of the Western World (Chicago; Auckland; Geneva; London; Madrid; Manila; Paris; Rome; Seoul; Sydney; Tokyo; Toronto: Robert P. Gwinn; Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 1990), 168.

[6] C. Suetonius Tranquillus, Suetonius: The Lives of the Twelve Caesars; An English Translation, Augmented with the Biographies of Contemporary Statesmen, Orators, Poets, and Other Associates, ed. Alexander Thomson (Medford, MA: Gebbie & Co., 1889).

[7] William Paley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity: Volume 1, Reissue Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

Recommended Resources: 

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

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

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

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

 

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/41NinxW

/by

Class Guide: How to Avoid Filth

As students around the country get ready to go back to school, our universities are eagerly awaiting their next round of freshmen. If you’re a parent or student, you will need to know how to find classes that help you become wise and lead a virtuous life. As a professor, I can provide you with some ideas.

First, go to your university’s course schedule and see what is offered. If a class interests you, check out its syllabus. If the professor will not make their syllabus public, that is a bad sign. You can email and request it. What you want to see is the reading list and the kinds of lecture materials that are used. That will tell you if there is bias.

For example, take a look at your university’s Honors College or Gender Studies courses to see if there are classes on left-wing advocacy, left-wing border and immigration theory, LGBTQ+ sex philosophy, and even gender problems for transhumanists. Doesn’t all of that sound delightful! You just know that employers are waiting with bated breath to hire graduates who can discuss transhumanist sex philosophy on the border.

A few of these courses post the books they use, which is where you’ll see thought leaders like Angela Davis—so you know you’re in for some unbiased critical reflection.

Look at that list of accomplishments! Parents, aren’t you excited to pay thousands for your children to learn by reading a feminist Marxist who lived in East Berlin!

When they are accidentally honest about their reading list you see that they are self-described Marxists. Not many syllabi are offered publicly, however. And that is what we need to change. A public university funded by public tax dollars should be required to make the content of its classes public. I’m working on it with the Arizona State Legislature.

Second, ask the professor (in a respectful manner) about their own personal bias and how it affects the class content. Ask if they are aware of their own spin when they interpret a text. Then, ask [if, or] why other voices aren’t included—such as conservatives and Christians.

Third, take note when, during the semester, the professor inserts personal opinions or takes shots at conservatives and Christians. Report this to the state legislature. Or, you can contact me and I’ll give you the contact info. I help many students navigate the leftist bias they encounter.

Fourth, look for any proof that the professor is wise. If you were taking a course on business, you’d want proof that the professor understands business. And so, with a humanities class, do you have any proof that the professor is wise? There are a few ways to do this.

Observe how this professor lives. Does this professor worship and honor God? Does this professor confess their need for Christ? Or does this professor worship an idol, or even a demon—perhaps the gods Eros and Bacchus? If the professor cannot tell the difference between God the Lord and Eros, they won’t be able to help you learn to be wise.

Next, ask the professor which philosophers influenced them. If they say Marx, Freud, Heidegger, or Habermas, then they cannot be wiser than their teachers. Those figures offered self-contradictory philosophies to the secular world. Their philosophies are empty of transcendent meaning and have only led to despair and collapse.

If a professor can’t see that their own beliefs are self-contradictory, and if they haven’t been able to lead a good life directed toward our highest end, then they won’t be able to help you learn [very much]. It is worth your time to do your due diligence and avoid these kinds of classes.

I’ll have more soon as we see syllabi begin to be published for the public . . .

Recommended Resources:

Defending the Faith on Campus by Frank Turek (DVD Set, mp4 Download set, and Complete Package)

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

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

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

 

​​Dr. Owen Anderson is a Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Arizona State University, a pastor, and a certified jiu-jitsu instructor. He emphasizes the Christian belief in God, human sin, and redemption through Christ, and he explores these themes in his philosophical commentary on the Book of Job. His recent research addresses issues such as DEIB, antiracism, and academic freedom in secular universities, critiquing the influence of thinkers like Rousseau, Marx, and Freud. Dr. Anderson actively shares his insights through articles, books, online classes, and his Substack.

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

/by

Why Philosophical Proofs For God Are Better Than “Scientific” Proofs

Let me first say that I think the “scientific” proofs for God’s existence are very good, as far as they go (I’ll explain why that word is in quotes later). Since middle school one of my hobbies has been backyard astronomy. I am very familiar with the intelligent design arguments from cosmology and biology. They are all very good and very convincing.

So, what’s the issue? Well, for one, natural science alone can’t prove God. It needs philosophy. What then makes the scientific arguments good? They are good because they show that the chances for the design (not existence) of the universe and life due to random events are essentially zero. But the jump from probability to cause is a philosophical one. Science, does after all, require the use of philosophy. As someone once said, philosophy is unavoidable. Science can give us probability, mathematics, and descriptions of how things are. However, by definition natural science studies nature and thus cannot make the move beyond nature to the supernatural. Again, that is a philosophical move.

While science can prove that there probably is a cause that accounts for the design in the universe and among life, it cannot move beyond the cosmos for an answer. Even adopting the philosophical notion of cause and effect, science cannot tell us what the cause is like. It cannot tell us there is only one cause. It also cannot tell us that the universe was created from nothing. The best it can do is to show that a cause, or causes, arranged the universe and life in such a way to allow it to exist the way it is now.

Objections to Scientific Proofs for God        

Maurice Holloway makes a general objection against proving God’s existence from natural science in his Introduction to Natural Theology. He declares,

“Because of its formal subject and method of procedure, a positive [natural] science as such is intrinsically and necessarily incapable of demonstrating God’s existence. Physics, for example, is no more capable of proving the existence of a suprasensible being than mathematics is of proving the existence of a non-quantified being. To do this, they would have to change their essence, for they would have to go beyond their proper subject and proper method; and then they would no longer be positive sciences” (455).

In other words, it is simply against the essence of natural sciences to go beyond their own study, and to do so would be to require a completely different discipline (philosophy).

Consider the specific objections to scientific arguments for God from Holloway’s work (456-457). The first objection has to do with the issue of probability and certitude. He claims,

“Since such [scientific] arguments are based upon the laws and theories of positive science, the arguments themselves can never achieve greater certitude than that of these laws and theories. And . . . the scientists dispute among themselves as to the relative truth or value of their laws and theories.”

In sum, the level of certitude of the conclusions reached are never greater than the certitude of the theories themselves. I personally think the big bang theory is on solid ground and demonstrates with practical certainty that the universe had a beginning. However, not all scientists agree with the big bang. It is in dispute. For example, does the second law of thermodynamics (see below for what this is) apply to the whole universe or not? Big bang proponents hold that it does. Opponents tend to say that it doesn’t. Such disputes bring scientific theories into question, which also brings the conclusions into question.

Holloway’s second objection states,

“Since the laws and theories of positive science are based upon sensible phenomena as in some way physically observable and measurable, they can never be used to transcend the phenomenal order. But God, as a term to be demonstrated, entirely transcends the phenomenal order. Thus any proof that is strictly and merely from positive science can never demonstrate his existence.”

This is saying what I said above, namely, natural science studies nature and, by definition, cannot rise above it. Science studies the things of this world, not the things other than this world. This is simply true, by definition. To study the cause of this world would not be natural science, but natural theology (philosophy). Science can certainly show that systems in this universe (and the universe itself) are highly designed and need a designer; however, the existence of that designer cannot be demonstrated beyond a level of probability.

His third objection is related to the second but shows that science could not tell us about the essence of the cause of the universe even if it could tell us about its existence:

“Even if we were to grant that positive science could establish the existence of some super mundane principle, it could never go on to prove that this principle is God; namely, a Necessary Being and Pure Act. To reach such a term (that is, to reach God) one would always have to resort to principles that are truly metaphysical.”

The best that something like intelligent design can do is to show that there is a designer. It does not show the designer to be separate from nature, or a single being, or that the universe as a whole was created. While the kalam argument coupled with big bang cosmology does the latter, even the big bang theory must make the jump from science to philosophy to show there was a creation. Science just tells us what this universe is like and how it works. Philosophy tells us about the nature of things, and that effects must have causes. Science certainly cannot tell us anything about the nature of the cause(s) other than it is (they are) intelligent. Categories such as “Necessary Being,” “Pure Act,” etc., are metaphysical (philosophical) categories unavailable to the natural scientist (without importing them from philosophy).

But Can the Question Be Scientific? 

The question of God’s existence is inherently philosophical. But is it a “scientific” question as well? Yes, in a way. I have used the word ‘scientific’ in quotes for a reason. Historically, following Aristotle, a discipline was considered scientific if it could demonstrate its conclusions through a rational process (logical argumentation) and from first principles (such as the law of non-contradiction). If such a demonstration could take place, that is, if there was a rational move from premises to a conclusion and the body of knowledge could be arranged systematically along with this demonstration, the body of knowledge was said to be scientific. Since philosophy can demonstrate its conclusions from rational demonstration, historically it has been thought to be scientific (as was theology . . . the queen of the sciences). However, the notion of something being scientific nowadays usually means that it is identical with natural science.

Further, many think that science is the only domain that provides knowledge. This view is called ‘scientism’. Notice that the claim that “only science conveys knowledge” is a philosophical claim, not a claim demonstrated by natural science. It is a claim about the nature of science (philosophy of science) and the nature of knowledge (epistemology). In short, since philosophy is a science in this broader sense, the issue of God’s existence is a scientific one, just not in the sense of the natural sciences.

Distinguishing the Scientific and the Philosophical Arguments: What’s the Difference?  

Let’s now look at an example of a scientific proof and contrast it with an argument from philosophy. An argument from natural science goes something like this (there are even some philosophical moves here, such as the move from effect to cause):

Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
The universe had a beginning.
Therefore, the universe had a cause.

Most of the effort is usually placed on the second premise to marshal evidence for the universe’s beginning. For example, the second law of thermodynamics (law of entropy) is often invoked. It says that energy in a closed system (a system that doesn’t get energy from the outside) converts from usable to unusable energy. In other words, when we take our cell phones off their chargers the battery begins to die until it is recharged. In the absence of a charger (energy from the outside), when it dies the phone will simply not work. The move in this argument is to show that there is nothing outside the known universe that provides energy. Thus, left to itself, the universe is running out of usable energy. If the universe existed from the infinite past, it would have already run out of energy by now. But it hasn’t. Therefore, the argument says that the universe has not existed forever into the past, but had a beginning. And if it had a beginning, it had a beginner.

Arguments like this are very strong, but they depend on the accuracy of interpretations and notions such as how the second law of thermodynamics works and to what extent it can be applied. Does the law apply to everything? Does it apply to the whole universe? Is the universe getting outside energy (whatever that would mean)? Thus, there is a degree of probability with this reasoning. It is based on induction and is thus not certain.

Philosophical proofs on the other hand lead to deductive (metaphysical) certainty. That is, scientific theories change, but the nature of the world does not. Not everyone agrees with such theories as the big bang (I for one do). But we can all agree (I know there are outliers) that things in the world change. From this concept of change we can deduce things about their nature and their cause. Consider the following argument that I have summarized from Thomas Aquinas that is referred to as the First Way:

Things change. In order for things to change they must be composed of act (existence) and potency (the ability to change). For a change to take place it must be brought about by something that already exists (is in act). A being in act causing change in another being cannot go backwards forever. Therefore, there must be a being that is not composed of act and potency, but is simply act. This being people call God.

Such an argument is based on the metaphysical nature of reality. Arguments like this start from existing things as effects and reason back to the nature of their causes. We can see that if this argument is sound, it shows God to be Pure Act, with no division of act and potency, and thus unchanging, and eternal (since time is classically understood to be a measuring of change).

Natural science on the other hand can at best only tell us that given what we know about the universe and life, there must exist some intelligent being, or beings, that in some way designed them (not even created them). Some iterations of the kalam argument attempt to show the beginning of the universe based on the big bang theory. There is much merit to this, but it is limited and still requires philosophical moves. Again, the scientific arguments are very strong, but they don’t go far enough to secure the God that Christians want to prove. We are not interested in simply proving a kind of god, but the God of Christianity, that is, the God just described above based on the first way.

In answering the question of whether or not the kalam cosmological argument gives us a being of classical theism based on natural science, Ed Feser retorts,

“It does not. for to get from the world to the God of classical theism, it is not enough to get from the world to a cause of the world. One must get to a cause that has the attributes distinctive of the God of classical theism—such as simplicity, immutability, and eternity—and one must get to a God who is not only the temporal cause of the world, but apart from whose sustaining causal activity the world could not exist even for an instant. And I submit that neither condition can be met without recourse to the distinction between actuality and potentiality that is at the core of Aristotelian-Scholastic philosophy of nature” (“Natural Theology Must Be Grounded in Philosophy,” in Neo-Scholastic Essays, 80).

Conclusion

I hope that I have been clear that I believe theistic proofs that involve natural science are strong, but limited. Natural science alone cannot make a case for God. Further, such arguments are not as conclusive as philosophical ones, nor do they give us the God of classical theism which we can discover through philosophy. I agree with Ed Feser when he says,

“To be sure, this is not to deny that considerations from modern cosmology—or from other natural sciences, for that matter—can be useful to the natural theologian; the kalam cosmological argument, I concede, shows that much. But I maintain that such considerations can never be sufficient, and that recourse to the philosophy of nature is necessary to get from the world to the God of classical theism” (Ibid., 80).

Recommended Resources:

Your Most Important Thinking Skill by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, (mp4) download

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)  

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

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

 

J. Brian Huffling, PH.D. has a BA in History from Lee University, an MA in (3 majors) Apologetics, Philosophy, and Biblical Studies from Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES), and a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from SES. He is the Director of the Ph.D. Program and Associate Professor of Philosophy and Theology at SES. He also teaches courses for Apologia Online Academy. He has previously taught at The Art Institute of Charlotte. He has served in the Marines, Navy, and is currently a reserve chaplain in the Air Force at Maxwell Air Force Base. His hobbies include golf, backyard astronomy, martial arts, and guitar.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/46cZJSz

/by

What is the Meaning of Life?

Ancient philosophy began when people started thinking about ultimate reality. These early philosophers proposed theories about the ultimate elemental stuff which everything else comes from or is made of. Some of the early theories were earth, air, fire, or water. One ancient philosopher, Democritus, even suggested that everything is made up of tiny particles he called atoms. If Christianity is true, however, and I believe it is, then when the final curtain of reality is pulled back, we won’t find earth, air, fire, water, or atoms. Instead, we’ll find loving relationships between three divine persons. Ultimate reality, from which everything else comes, is a God which exists as a Trinity: three divine persons united in one essence and united in Their loving relationships with Each Other.

I’ve become convinced that chapter 17 in the Gospel of John provides us the clearest window to look inside this trinitarian love. Peering through this window will help us understand the very meaning of life itself. In John 17 Jesus, God the Son, prayed to God the Father like this: “You, Father, are in Me and I in You…. You loved me before the foundation of the world” (John 17:21a, 24b). If God is ultimate reality, and I believe He is, and if He exists as three persons in loving relationships with each other, then love is a key part, if not the key part, of ultimate reality.

Since God existed as a loving fellowship of divine persons, it can seem puzzling why He bothered to create us. Though He didn’t have to, He chose to create us, human beings in His image, to expand this fellowship of love so we could share in the joy and love of the inner life of God. In other words, God created us for loving relationships, to love Him, to love each other, and to be loved back. Jesus continued in John 17, praying, “You [God the Father]. . . have loved them [Jesus’ disciples] as You have loved Me [God the Son]. . . . Father, I desire those You have given Me to be with Me where I am. . . . I made Your name known to them. . . .so the love You have loved Me with may be in them and I may be in them” (John 17:23-26).

Understanding that our very purpose as human beings is to have loving relationships with God and with each other gives us insight about the meaning of life. I’m convinced that the very meaning of life is to enjoy loving relationships with God and with others. All of us eventually recognizes that the most important thing in life is our loving relationships. These relationships change throughout our lives, of course; when we’re younger, our most cherished relationships are usually with our parents, later in life our friends, and then often a spouse. But on our death bed we all acknowledge that the most important part of life was our loving relationships, that they’re the very meaning and purpose of life. We all know this to be true, but Christianity explains why this is the case—because we were created by a God of love to enjoy loving relationships.

This purpose God had in creating us can be seen in the very first human relationship, the marriage of Adam and Eve. They were created in God’s image to reflect the Trinity in the sense that they were separate, unique, individual persons, but they were to come together in love to be united as one (Gen. 2:24). Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the famous German pastor put to death by the Nazis for opposing Hitler, wrote that in Adam and Eve’s union they expressed “the two complementary sides of the matter: that of being an individual and that of being one with the other.”[1]

One of the ways Adam and Eve were to express their love for God was through their obedience to Him. The Bible says loving God and obeying God are closely connected—1 John 5:3 says, “This is what love for God is: to keep His commands.” Some think God’s commands are harsh and authoritative, but such people fail to understand the purpose of His commands. As His creatures it’s true that God has authority over us, but His commands flow not from despotic desire to control us but from a desire that we’d enjoy the greatest thing there is—loving relationships with Him and with others. God’s commands are instructions for the path which best achieves the purpose He created us for—loving relationships. That’s why Jesus said the greatest commandments are to love God and to love others and that all the other commandments rest on this foundation (Matt. 22:36–40).

Unfortunately, Adam and Eve made a terrible choice and disobeyed the only command God gave them. If obeying God is the way we love Him, then disobedience is the opposite of loving God. Concerning the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, John Hare at Yale wrote, “…the basic command is not about the fruit, but is the command to love God that comes out of the experience of being loved by God. Refraining from the fruit is merely a symbol of that response.”[2] Because of Adam and Eve’s disobedience, and because of all of our own evil choices, humanity’s relationship with God has been ruined, and the consequences have been disastrous. Adam and Eve’s choice introduced physical death to the human race, but even worse, our loving relationship with God was broken. The Bible calls this eternal death because it means continuing forever in this state of being relationally separated from God.

Thankfully though, in spite of our evil choices, God still loves us. And because He loves us, He orchestrated a way to fix our broken relationship with Him. One of the divine persons, God the Son, became human and lived the perfect life of loving obedience that we’ve all failed to live. He loved God and loved others perfectly to give us an example to follow. But He went further than that and died on a cross to pay the punishment we all deserve for our evil choices. God promised that anyone who chooses to trust in Jesus and what He did for us on the cross will be forgiven of their evil choices, reconciled back to God, and welcomed into heaven to spend all eternity enjoying loving relationships with God and with others. This is all summed up by the most famous verse in the Bible, John 3:16—”For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” Jesus explained in John 17 what eternal life is all about; there He said, “This is eternal life: that they may know You, the only true God, and the One You have sent—Jesus Christ” (John 17:3).

God desires that everyone be reconciled back to Him through faith in Christ, but He doesn’t force this decision on anyone. Those who decide not to trust in Christ will continue to be relationally separated from God for all eternity. 2 Thessalonians 1:9 says those who die in this state “will pay the penalty of eternal destruction away from the Lord’s presence.” God lets them choose what they want, but that’s not what He wants. In John 17 Jesus expressed His desire to restore humanity back to the trinitarian fellowship we were created for. He prayed that “the glory which You [God the Father] have given Me [God the Son] I have given to them [Jesus’ disciples], that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me” (John 17:22-23).

Someday God will step into history to make all things right. We often cry out for that day when we see all the evil and suffering around us. But we need to remember that this is going to be a day of judgement where God will punish evil and hold humanity accountable for what we’ve done. For those, however, who’ve embraced His forgiveness through faith in Christ, He has promised that He’ll put an end to the death and suffering which we’ve caused by our evil choices. Revelation 21:4 says that “God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.” Sometimes we wonder what God is waiting for. Why doesn’t He do this now? Peter gives us the answer in 2 Peter 3:9—“The Lord does not delay His promise [His coming judgment], as some understand delay, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish but all to come to repentance.” The reason God hasn’t stepped into history to make all things right and judge humanity for our evil is that He’s patiently wanting more people to trust in Christ and through that faith be reconciled back to Him. Why not make that decision to trust in Christ for forgiveness today? If you do, please let me know. I’d be thrilled to know that through this website someone became a Christian and was restored back to a right relationship with the God who loves them.

References:

[1] Creation and Fall: A Theological Exposition of Genesis 1-3, ed. John W. de Gruchy, trans. Douglas Stephen Bax, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, vol. 3, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997, p. 99-100.

[2] God’s Command, Oxford Studies in Theological Studies, Oxford University Press, 2015, page 30

Recommended Resources:

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

What is God Really Like? A View from the Parables by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

What is God Like? Look to the Heavens by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4) 

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)  

 

[Adam’s unedited bio from his website: About Adam Lloyd Johnson – Convincing Proof] Adam Lloyd Johnson has served as the president of Convincing Proof Ministries since 2023. Prior to that, Adam was a university campus missionary with Ratio Christi at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. He has also taught classes for Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and has spent time living and teaching at Rhineland Theological Seminary in Wölmersen, Germany. Adam received his PhD in Theological Studies with an emphasis in Philosophy of Religion from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in 2020. Adam grew up in Nebraska and became a Christian as a teenager in 1994. He graduated from the University of Nebraska–Lincoln and then worked in the field of actuarial science for ten years in Lincoln, Nebraska. While in his twenties, he went through a crisis of faith: are there good reasons and evidence to believe God exists and that the Bible is really from Him? His search for answers led him to apologetics and propelled him into ministry with a passion to serve others by equipping Christians and encouraging non-Christians to trust in Christ. Adam served as a Southern Baptist pastor for eight years (2009-2017) but stepped down from the pastorate to serve others full-time in the area of apologetics. He’s been married to his wife Kristin since 1996, and they have four children – Caroline, Will, Xander, and Ray. Adam has presented his work at the National Apologetics Conference, the Society of Christian Philosophers, the Evangelical Philosophical Society, the International Society of Christian Apologetics, the Canadian Centre for Scholarship and the Christian Faith, the American Academy of Religion, and the Evangelical Theological Society. His work has been published in the Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics, Philosophia Christi, the Westminster Theological Journal, the Canadian Journal for Scholarship and the Christian Faith, the journal Eleutheria, and the journal Religions. Adam has spoken at numerous churches and conferences in America and around the world – Los Angeles, Chicago, Charlotte, Boston, Orlando, Denver, San Antonio, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland. He is the editor and co-author of the book A Debate on God and Morality: What is the Best Account of Objective Moral Values and Duties? published in 2020 by Routledge and co-authored with William Lane Craig, Erik Wielenberg, J. P. Moreland, and others. He is most recently the author of the book Divine Love Theory: How the Trinity is the Source and Foundation of Morality published by Kregel Academic in 2023.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4n2AwA5

/by

Answering Stephen Law’s Evil God Challenge

If you’ve followed the problem of evil at the popular or academic level, then there’s a good chance you’ve come across the rather interesting objection from Stephen Law which he terms the “Evil God challenge.”

In essence he contends that skeptics can reverse any efforts from theists to explain God’s goodness in spite of the facts of evil in the world. The conventional problem of evil claims that God doesn’t exist or probably doesn’t exist given the facts of evil (gratuitous evil, animal suffering, moral evil, etc.) in the world. While theists typically appeal to things like free and sublime unknown divine purposes to explain away these evils, the skeptic can counter that these evils are equally good evidence that there exists a maximally evil God. Free will is the accommodation that this maximally evil God permits since deterministic evils aren’t as evil as freely chosen evils. And that supreme Satan wants the worst evils.

I consider Stephen Law’s “Evil God Challenge” to be one of the smarter objections within the Problem of Evil (PoE) debate. That said, his argument does have some limitations.

Independent Evidence          

As Bill Craig rightly notes, and Law unwisely dismisses, there could exist independent reasons for believing in God’s existence (such as the Cosmological, Teleological, and Moral Arguments), wherein a cumulative case could assimilate the Free will theodicy but would rebut the Evil God Challenge. Considered together these arguments point to a tremendously powerful, intelligent, and good creator God. The evil god hypothesis doesn’t fit theological picture from these arguments.

The Moral Argument

The Moral Argument is stronger than how Law treats it. Only some versions/elements of the Moral Argument submit to his “evil God” recasting. I’d suggest that we have preliminary knowledge of at least some moral facts whereby some things are good and some things are bad even if a whole society were to legalize that evil or prohibit that good. Yet the existence of moral facts (i.e., a category of truth) requires a moral truthmaker. Nature seems wholly incapable, in itself, of mustering the requisite teleology for enabling the referential relation needed for any such “truth” to exist. In other words, there’s nothing nature that could make a moral truth “true.” (i.e., “Raping women is evil. As such we ought not do it. But nature never mustered a single ‘ought.’ Therefore, that “oughtness” originates from outside of nature). So, I take the moral argument to be strong evidence of a morally good God.[i]

Fallenness

Brute theism doesn’t predict the Fall of Man (Gen. 3), but more specific brands of theism in the Abrahamic tradition predict the Fall of Man, the Angelic Fall, heaven, hell, and the subsequent problems in nature. I don’t pretend to have a ready answer here for the many and sordi problems related to animal suffering, pre-adamic pain, hell, etc. But, it’s worth noting that Christian theism does not predict that this earth would be heavenly. It’s atheists who think that Christianity should predict a heavenly/morally perfect created order. Christianity instead predicts that this earth would look like perfection tainted, goodness flawed, like a cracked looking glass for gazing at greater things.

Law and other atheists often present the problem of evil like the fact of evil in the fallen world are supposed to scandalize us Christians as if we had no biblical-Christian reasons to expect such things. Instead, I’d suggest the existence of any moral facts whatsoever should scandalize atheists for whom nature’s red tooth and claw is as much the “moral law” as anything–if nature were all that exists.

Law is smart enough to use his ‘evil god’ hypothesis as a kind of argument by analogy. He’s not directly refuting the free will theodicy. He’s using the free will theodicy to prove an objectionable conclusion. If the facts of free will and evil equally predict an evil god as a good God, then they are not (together) strong unique evidence for either. Law has a smart argument here.

And the doctrine of fallenness doesn’t directly address the core of Law’s argument. The fact of fallenness, however, is still part of the biblical Christian explanatory package. And it would be scandalous to Christian theists if the world looked like what atheists think theism should look like. There’s an underlying disconnect between Biblical-Christian theism and the atheists conception of what such a ‘god’ would look like. In this way, Law’s ‘evil god’ might not be a strong or helpful analogue to the biblical God. Law’s evil god might be only a symmetrical foil for the abstraction that atheists label “god.” But this “god” – as conceived among atheists – is acaricature compared to the nuanced personal God of historic Christian theism.

Privation Definition of Evil    

Given the evidence of the Cosmological, Teleological, and Moral arguments, we have sufficient independent evidence for thinking that God is the more ultimate reality, beyond even nature itself. And this God is the metaphysical grounding for moral goodness. An interesting implication of this conception of moral goodness is that goodness and evil aren’t ontological parallels. Goodness has independent substantial existence whereas evil has only dependent insubstantial existence as a privation of goodness. They don’t share the same metaphysical spectrum, rather evil exists only as a descriptor for the lack of  goodness. Evil needs goodness, but goodness doesn’t need evil. Goodness is the metaphysical substance and evil is just the description for the lack of whatever goodness that should exist, but doesn’t. Rocks are blind, but that’s not “evil” since rocks aren’t supposed to have sight. Blind infants are an example of ontological evil. It’s somehow wrong that they are blind since infants are supposed to be able to see. Evil is still real, but it’s a real lack of metaphysical goodness. This idea is called the privation definition of evil, and is attributed to St. Augustine in his 4th-5th century address of the problem of evil. I agree with Augustine on this because every single evil I’ve yet encountered or imagined appears to be a corruption of a metaphysically prior goodness. Rape is a corruption of sexual love. Death is a corruption of life. Any brokenness is a disordering of proper form or function. Divorce is a corruption of marriage. Diseases is a corruption of health. Etc. etc.

The impossibility of “maximal evil” 

Following from the last point, a privative sense of evil prohibits the “existence” of a maximally evil being. Maximal privation is literally nothingness. If we took the whole bag of all coherent, possible, actual, necessary or contingent goods and started subtracting each one of them–that’s what privation is, it’s the substraction of something–we would not end up with some maximally evil “thing.” No, we’d have literal nothingness, a wholly privated remainer wherein nothing whatsoever exists. The very notion of “maximal evil” is incoherent, and intrinsically self-defeating (not in the logically self-defeating sense, but in the metaphysical sense of depriving itself till it can no longer exist). A parasite without a host is lives no long in this world.

The Euthyphro Dilemma       

William Lane Craig makes an interesting use of the Euthyphro Dilemma to rebut Law’s “evil god.” Skeptics are familiar with the euthyphro dilemma as a way to object to traditional forms of theism, whereby God is either “beneath” goodness answering to some external objective moral standard or God is “above” goodness arbitrarily choosing what is “good” or “bad” and mandating those standards for his creation. Conventional responses have suggested that this is a false dilemma since God, instead of being beneath or above goodness, could be identical with goodness. God is good. He does not have goodness from some external source, or invent goodness as an arbitrary creation. He just is good. Craig takes this classic dilemma and applies it to Law’s “evil god” to interesting effect.

Suppose we concede for the sake of argument that an evil Creator/Designer exists. Since this being is evil, that implies that he fails to discharge his moral obligations. But where do those come from? How can this evil god have duties to perform which he is violating? Who forbids him to do the wrong things that he does? Immediately, we see that such an evil being cannot be supreme: there must be a being who is even higher than this evil god and is the source of the moral obligations which he chooses to flout, a being which is absolute goodness Himself. In other words, if Law’s evil god exists, then God exists.

Craig doesn’t mention how theists escape the problem, but he allows Law to get trapped in it. Augustinians like myself, can admit that evil is a privation. It’s a wholly contingent entity that cannot exist without being hosted by a good substrate. Evil can’t exist without goodness, but goodness can exist without evil. A good God can split the horns of euthyphro’s dilemma, but an evil God could not. One is left to wonder what is the more basic moral substrate that enables the existence of that god’s evil. Does that god derive evil from some higher moral standard, perhaps a Good God whom this demigod (Satan?) has rebelled against? Or does this evil god first encounter ‘evil’ as an arbitrary creation though he himself isn’t good or evil, right or wrong? Either of these options leave Law’s argument handicapped. And because the nature of privative evil doesn’t allow a maximally evil independent god, then Law’s god cannot split the dilemma. He’s gored on either horn.

Conclusion

Summarizing the course of argument so far, Law has a clever rebuttal to the Free Will Theodicy, but it can only stand by conceiving of evil substantially (as opposed to a privation), and only then if there do not exist other independent reasons for expectng God to be Good instead of evil. In this way, the cumulative case method and the moral argument specifically reinforced the conventional Free Will Theodicy to the exclusion of Law’s ‘evil god.’ The Problem of Evil is a serious philosophical objection to classical theism, but Stephen law’s “evil god challenge” has only limited value in reinforcing that avenue of anti-theism.


Additional Resources

References: 

[i] Some atheists agree that nature cannot produce (or be known to produce) what’s required for objective morality (moral realism) but instead of granting the moral argument for God’s existence, they appeal to some mysterious third option between nature and supernature. G.E. Moore calls this occult realm “non-naturalism.” The most famous proponent of the non-natural, non-theistic, moral realism is Erik Weilenberg. Non-naturalism has it’s own problems (see, the critique of his position in Philosophia Christi). Stephen Law’s position, however, doesn’t appeal to non-naturalism. So, his use of ethics falls well within the conventional critiques of naturalistic evolutionary ethics (namely, nature is “at bottom, blind pitiless and indifferent” rendering human ethics relativistic at best, and illusory nonsense at worst. See my “Nature is a Jerk” blog or presentation). Law has not allowed himself the liberty of appealing to immaterial brute moral facts as the truthmakers for his moral system.

Recommended Resources: 

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

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

Reflecting Jesus into a Dark World by Dr. Frank Turek – DVD Complete Series, Video mp4 DOWNLOAD Complete Series, and mp3 audio DOWNLOAD Complete Series

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

 

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

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

/by

Four Ways that Middle Knowledge Helps to Explain Unanswered Prayer

Country singer Garth Brooks popularized the song, “Unanswered Prayers.” The song recounts how he prayed to have the love of a young woman earlier in his life. His prayer, however, was declined. While he didn’t understand why God did not allow him to have the love of this young woman when he was young, he later reflected on why God did not answer his prayer when he looked upon his wife and valued the love they had for one another. Brooks then sings, “One of God’s greatest gifts is unanswered prayer.”

In his book Luis de Molina: The Life and Theology of the Founder of Middle Knowledge, Kirk MacGregor recounts the life and belief system of Luis de Molina. Unfortunately, much of Molina’s works are still left untranslated. MacGregor, who is able to read the languages in which Molina wrote, digs into the writings of Molina. Of particular interest is the way Molina examines divine providence through the lens of middle knowledge. Middle knowledge is understood as “God’s knowledge of all things that would happen in every possible set of circumstances.”[1] Molina averred that middle knowledge helps to explain unanswered prayer in four different ways.

Some Prayers May Go Unanswered Because They are Logically Impossible         

Molina argues that some things for which people petition God are impossible for God to bring about.[2] As has been noted by numerous theologians and philosophers, certain things lie outside the realm of possibility for even God to answer. For instance, it is impossible for God to make a round square or a married bachelor. Such instances are logically impossible. MacGregor adds that prayers that an enemy was never born, for events such as the Holocaust to have never happened, or that God would commit some form of evil to avenge a person lies outside of possibility or the character of God. As such, some prayers may go unanswered because a person asks God to do something that lies outside his character to do. Remember, God is the absolute good and, thereby, does not commit evil acts.

Some Prayers May Go Unanswered Because They are Logically Infeasible          

Second, Molina holds that some prayers are logically infeasible for God to answer. [3] For instance, a person may pray that God changes another person’s life. While it would be possible for God to force his love and grace on another person, it would not be feasible to do if God grants individuals free will. As such, God will do everything possible to bring a soul to salvation without sacrificing the freedom of the will. If human free will is accepted, then it can be said that God’s desire is for all souls to be saved. Because of the essence of love itself, love must be freely given and freely received. Due to its inherent characteristics, prayers asking God to force a person into a divine relationship would inhibit the nature of love itself. If true, middle knowledge ensures that God will place each person in the best possible circumstance to receive God’s love, particularly those whom God knows would respond to his grace.

Some Prayers May Go Unanswered Because They are Individually Detrimental 

Molina argued that some prayers are unanswered by God because, if answered, they would be detrimental, if not disastrous, to the person requesting it. [4] MacGregor gives the illustration of a girl who prayed to marry a certain boy. God, however, did not answer the prayer. It may have been that if God had answered the prayer, the boy would have cheated on the girl, divorced her, causing her to question her faith. [5] The same may be said for prayers to win the lottery. Suppose that God answered a person’s prayer. It may be that if the person won the lottery that the individual’s children would become addicted to drugs, the person’s relationship with his/her spouse would become strained and that the person may leave their faith. What the person thought would have been a blessing would result in a disaster. Thus, God realizes that it would be better for the person if he or she doesn’t win the lottery rather than winning it. Therefore, the prayer goes unanswered.

Some Prayers May Go Unanswered Because They are Globally Destructive        

Molina also argues that God may not answer one’s prayer because the prayer would become disastrous to the world at large. [6] Suppose that a farmer prays for extra rain for his crops. But the rain does not come. Imagine that a dam was damaged, and the extra rain could have caused the dam to burst, causing devastation and the loss of lives to countless thousands. Perhaps God waits to answer the prayer until the time that he knows that a dam worker comes by to observe the defect and calls for the dam’s repair. Through God’s middle knowledge, he knows how the worker would respond in such an instance. In like manner, he also knows what the extra rain would do to the dam’s integrity. Some prayers may go unanswered because, unbeknownst to the petitioner, they could bring harm to others.

Conclusion

Middle knowledge has been called “the most fruitful theological ideas ever conceived.” [7] It has many beneficial applications even beyond the scope of balancing divine sovereignty and human freedom. As noted, middle knowledge can provide a means of understanding why God may not answer certain prayers at certain times. Since God knows every factual and counterfactual, God’s refusal to answer our prayers according to the way that we desire may actually turn out to our benefit. When we get to heaven, I imagine that all of us will sing along with Garth Brooks as we thank God for unanswered prayers.

Dive Deeper

Brian Chilton, Curtis Evelo, and Tim Stratton, “Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism,” BellatorChristi.com (8/8/2021), https://bellatorchristi.com/2021/08/08/sis-s1-e7-human-freedom-divine-knowledge-and-mere-molinism-w-dr-tim-stratton/

Brian Chilton, “What is Molinism?,” BellatorChristi.com (5/15/2018), https://bellatorchristi.com/2018/05/15/what-is-molinism/ 

References: 

[1] Kirk R. MacGregor, Luis de Molina: The Life and Theology of the Founder of Middle Knowledge (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 11

[2] Luis de Molina, Concordia 2.14.13.26.14; Ludovici Molina, Commenteria in primam divi Thomae partem (Venice, 1602), 25.3.

[3] Molina, Concordia 7.23.4/5.1.13.6; Molina, Commentaria 25.4.

[4] Molina, Concordia 6.22.4.10; 7.23.4/5.1.14.8–10.

[5] MacGregor, Luis de Molina, 127–128.

[6] Molina, Concordia 7.23.4/5.1.6.23.

[7] William Lane Craig, The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1987), 127. [Editor’s Note: While Molinism is popular in Christian philosophy and some academic circles, it is not the “consensus” view, nor established orthodoxy. It is an “option” within historic Christianity, but it’s worth noting that other historic Christian traditions, notably, Classical Theists, Scholastics, and Thomists, tend to reject Molinism and the concept of “middle knowledge.” They, instead, explain the content of middle knowledge in other ways, without granting any middle realm of “knowledge” distinct from God’s self-knowledge and his knowledge of creation. Nevertheless, that disagreement is a family feud between Christian brothers and sisters. The point is, even if William Lane Craig is impressed with middle knowledge thinking it is especially “fruitful,” that opinion isn’t necessarily heresy but neither does it represent the consensus or even the majority view across historic Christian orthodoxy.]

Recommended Resources:

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

The Great Book of Romans by Dr. Frank Turek (Mp4, Mp3, DVD Complete series, STUDENT & INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, COMPLETE Instructor Set)

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

How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide

 

 

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

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

/by

Let’s Help Harvard Understand Intelligent Design

,

Last week, my wife and I spent an afternoon at the Harvard Museum of Natural History, in Cambridge, MA, near where we live. We both were generally impressed by the exhibitions, particularly the dinosaur section, and would recommend the museum to anyone visiting Boston. I was, however, quite disappointed to see this notice at the entrance to the display on evolution:

It was disappointing to see the inaccurate representation of intelligent design (ID), along with the poor scientific epistemology.

A “Super-Natural Explanation”?

First, proponents of ID have long stressed that ID, in its purest sense, does not necessarily postulate a supernatural cause but is consistent with a natural or supernatural intelligence.

Furthermore, I would contend that the natural / supernatural distinction is problematic. What precisely is meant when a phenomenon is described as supernatural, and by what set of criteria is it distinguished from the natural? Often, the word “supernatural” is used to describe the capacity to perform miracles, defined as violations of natural law. I would, however, offer a more nuanced definition of a miracle, which is that a miracle describes an interruption in the way nature normally behaves when left to itself. A miracle does not violate natural law, because natural law only describes what happens when nature is left to itself – not what happens when there is an intervention by an external agent. I am not by any means the first to define a miracle in these terms. Indeed, the atheist philosopher John Mackie in his classic book, The Miracle of Theism, defines a miracle along similar lines.[1] As agents ourselves, we have the capability of interrupting the normal course of nature, determined by natural law. When I consciously choose to catch a ball with my hands, I am interrupting the trajectory it would have otherwise taken if left to itself. Agency itself is not governed by natural law, nor can it be reduced to material constituents. Human free will — my belief in which I take to be strongly justified by direct acquaintance — is, in my view, utterly incompatible with a materialistic reductionist perspective on the mind. Since, in my judgment, the strong burden of proof required to demonstrate that the strong appearance of free agency is merely illusory has not been met, this provides a strong prima facie justification for believing the mind to not be reducible to material components. Few would want to use the term “supernatural” to describe the human mind. A more helpful distinction, then, is between material and non-material causes. But non-material causes — assuming my judgment about the non-reducibility of agency to be correct — are already demonstrably a part of the natural world, since all of us have minds. Thus, the fact that ID postulates a non-material entity cannot be used to exclude ID from the natural sciences. Moreover, if our epistemology arbitrarily excludes one possible answer to an inquiry a priori, there is a real danger of being led to an incorrect conclusion about the natural world.

“Observation”

Second, the invocation of an unobservable entity should not be a demarcating factor that renders ID unscientific, for that would exclude other scientific disciplines, such as particle and nuclear physics, as well. Unobservable entities can often be detected by their effects, even without direct observation. For example, black holes are not directly observable since they do not emit electromagnetic radiation that can be detected with telescopes. Their existence and presence, however, is inferred by the effects that they exert on nearby matter, since gas flowing around a black hole increases in temperature and emits radiation that can be detected (their gravitational effects on surrounding objects, such as nearby stars,  and the bending of light passing by a black hole, can also reveal the presence of a black hole).

“Testing”

Third, ID is testable in the same way that other hypotheses purporting to explain events in the distant past (including evolution by natural selection) are tested — by the historical abductive method of inference to the best explanation.[2] Given that functionally specific information content is, in every other realm of experience, habitually associated with conscious activity and no other category of explanation has been demonstrated to be causally sufficient to account for its origin, ID is the most causally adequate explanation of the relevant data.

“Predictions”

Fourth, a scientific theory can be well justified even if it does not make strong predictions; it just needs to render the evidence significantly more probable than it would have otherwise been. For example, the hypothesis that you were in the vicinity of a nuclear plant does not strongly predict that you will have radioactive poisoning (few such workers suffer this). But if you did have radioactive poisoning, it would be significant evidence that you were in the vicinity of a nuclear plant since that data is more expected (or, less surprising) given the truth of the hypothesis than given its falsehood. Thus, even if ID only weakly predicts the observed data, it can still be strongly justified if the data is extremely unlikely if ID is false. ID, I would argue, also has a reasonably high intrinsic plausibility (what probability theorists call prior probability) given the independent evidence of there being a mind behind the universe who has an interest in creating complex life (that is, the evidence of cosmic fine tuning[3] and prior environmental fitness.[4] It shouldn’t be too surprising, then, if the data also indicate that life was purposely brought about.

An “Inherent Conflict”?

Fifth, ID is not postulated because there is a perceived incompatibility between evolution and religion, but rather because we understand it to be the best interpretation of the scientific evidence. That being said, the “many scientists and religious leaders” who “do not perceive an inherent conflict between religion and the scientific theory of evolution” are correct that God and naturalistic evolution are logically compatible. However, naturalistic evolution, if true, would constitute significant evidence against theism and by extension religion. Why? First, if the conclusion that teleology best explains biological phenomena is evidence for theism, it necessarily follows that the falsehood of this conclusion would be evidence against theism. Second, atheism, and in particular naturalism (which, I would contend, is the most consistent version of atheism), strongly predicts that there be a naturalistic evolutionary account of life’s origins and development on earth. However, this is significantly less well predicted by theism. Therefore, though not by itself sufficient grounds on which to reject theism, unguided evolution — being more surprising given theism than given atheism — would, if true, constitute significant evidence against theism.

It is unfortunate that the administrators of the Harvard Museum of Natural History seem to have failed to do their due diligence to understand the claims of ID, and how its advocates propose to test it, before dismissing it as being outside of the scope of science.

References: 

[1] John L. Mackie, The Miracle of Theism: Arguments For and Against the Existence of God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), kindle.

[2] Stephen Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2010).

[3] Geraint F. Lewis & Luke A. Barnes, A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017).

[4] Michael Denton, The Miracle of Man: The Fine Tuning of Nature for Human Existence (Seattle: Discovery Institute Press, 2022).

Recommended Resources:

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

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

Macro Evolution? I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be a Darwinist (DVD Set), (MP3 Set) and (mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek

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

 

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.

This article was originally published at Evolution News & Science Today (http://bit.ly/45uuqkO).

This version was originally posted at: https://bit.ly/46L71xL

 

/by

Sending Your Kids to College on F.I.R.E. for Their Faith!

If you are the mom of a soon-to-be-college freshman, hang on. You will survive! But the more important question might be: Will your child survive college. . . spiritually? Even if he or she has checked all the boxes associated with growing up in the church, there’s always the possibility that their faith will end up no more intact than the couch at the frat house. But rest assured, I have walked in your shoes. Twice. And I can happily say that my young men thrived in college and graduated, still walking with Christ. (Thank you, Jesus!) We know this isn’t true of all of our kids, though, and we’re not trying to make anyone feel bad; rather, we hope that these blogs will help prepare you for what’s to come as a parent of a college-aged child.

Here’s the thing: We moms are experts at ensuring dorm rooms are well-equipped, meal plans are sufficient, and laundry bags are ready. After all, we’ve been doing this for the last 18 years, right? Unfortunately, statistics and experience show that we are not doing as good a job as we thought we were in one key area: spiritual preparation for college.

It’s never too early to begin this prep work, but don’t get discouraged if you think it’s too late. It’s not. The summer months, in particular, are a great time to prepare while also having bonding time with your almost-adult child before you send him or her off.

It’s never too early to begin this prep work, but don’t get discouraged if you think it’s too late. It’s not. #collegeprep #discipleship Click To Tweet

This can be an emotional time, especially if you are sending your first fledgling out from the nest. The inner conflict of letting your baby go often competes against the inner celebration of more freedom for yourself and celebrating your job well done. You will, however, feel better after that last hug, knowing you wrapped your child in tactical armor to navigate the spiritual landmines ahead. So, what do you say? How about engaging in a summer spiritual boot camp for college prep?

In this blog, we’ll introduce you to the FIRE method of preparing your kids, and then follow up with more in-depth blogs describing how to accomplish each step. FIRE is an acronym that stands for faith, environmental, intellectual, and relational. These are the four most important areas of prep work to prioritize before sending your freshman off to orientation. Now, before you throw your hands up in despair or throw your face in a bowl of Ben & Jerry’s, ask God for help, hope, and discernment. He knows your child even better than you and is willing to show you what to accomplish before the first-year orientation week.

Now, before you throw your hands up in despair or throw your face in a bowl of Ben & Jerry’s, ask God for help, hope, and discernment.Click To Tweet

Foundation #1: FAITH Preparation

Basic Spiritual Disciplines: Develop or reinforce Bible study and prayer. While this sounds like a no-brainer, we must remind our kids that having the discipline of personal Bible study and personal prayer goes a long way toward helping them retain the faith. In fact, six spiritual disciplines have been identified as helping youth who graduate from youth ministry to not leave the faith. These all focus on making their faith personal and not program-based. But at a minimum: Bible Study and prayer!

The six areas we alluded to above are referred to as “H.A.B.I.T.S.”: Hanging out with God, Accountability (with peers and intergenerational relationships), Bible study, Involvement in the church body (through ministry and missions), Tithing/stewardship (not just financial), and Scripture memorization.[i] And by the way, modeling these disciplines is key. Your kids are watching to see if you practice what you preach. Consider this a spiritual meal plan. Your child will be ingesting enough “junk food” on their own from peers and professors. He or she is a big kid now. No more milk. Time for solid food (see 1 Corinthians 3:1-2). Help your child lay a foundation that will support their beliefs when (not if) the ground around them shakes them to their core.

Foundation #2: INTELLECTUAL Preparation             

Apologetics and worldview training: Build confidence for the truth and evidence of Christianity and a biblical worldview through the study of apologetics. If you have been following Mama Bear Apologetics [or Crossexamined.org] already, you are well on your way. High five! If you’re new to us and apologetics in general, we’re here for you. How about a different sort of ACT review before campus — Apologetics College Training!

Apologetics is a form of discipleship that gives confidence to the Christian that their faith is a reasonable, viable, and trustworthy worldview. It helps answer the “why” behind the “what” of what we believe. Be aware of other worldviews beliefs, what questions all worldviews have to answer, and how Christianity does that. Your kid’s faith will NOT survive as a hand-me-down faith on the college campus. They need to try it on for themselves.

Your kid’s faith will NOT survive as a hand-me-down faith on the college campus. They need to try it on for themselves.Click To Tweet

Conversation training: Be ready for challenging conversations by training in tactics for defending the faith and bridge-building. Greg Koukl’s book, Tactics, is a great tutorial in having faith conversations calmly and respectfully. Our own Mama Bear Lindsey Medenwaldt’s book, Bridge-Building Apologetics, can help in this area as well.

Sharpen critical thinking skills: Can we admit that we, as a society, have almost completely lost the ability to think critically? Our kids are bombarded with information, but they do not know how to differentiate between the true and almost-true (or sometimes flat-out false!). The entertainment industry and its “professors” are two of the most influential worldview shapers our students will encounter. Does your child know how to spot logical fallacies? Do you? Merely familiarizing yourselves with these and discussing them as you encounter them in what you watch, read, and listen to will develop the brainpower to decipher false claims. And don’t forget to revisit or teach the Mama Bear ROAR method!

Discuss a biblical view of sexual ethics and why gender matters: These are two of the key issues facing the church today and may be the greatest moral issues on the college campus. Moral issues are a key way your child’s faith can be derailed in college. Help them stay on track through prayer and honest discussions. We’ll discuss this further in our breakout blog on Intellectual Preparation. To get you started, we recommend the Mama Bear Apologetics Guide to Sexuality. You might also be interested in our series about biblical sexuality on The John Ankerberg Show (a new episode drops each week this summer).

Foundation #3: RELATIONAL Preparation    

Open communication: Create a healthy atmosphere, attitude, and action plan for doubts[ii] about faith and for potential moral failures. Create a checklist[iii] of things to ask when they call home or visit. I pray no parent will ever have to deal with their child seriously doubting their faith or even walking away from it, but I have talked to too many parents and heard too many stories of it happening to know that it is a reality. Make sure your child knows he or she can come to you with their doubts and questions. And in the meantime, prepare yourself for responses if tough situations arise. Foster an atmosphere where their moral failures are not shamed but dealt with lovingly and biblically so that they will not hide them but confess them and be led to repent.

Foster an atmosphere where their moral failures are not shamed but dealt with lovingly and biblically so that they will not hide them but confess them and be led to repent. Click To Tweet

Pray: No, really. Start or join a Moms in Prayer group for moms of college kids. This benefits your child, the campus, and you! This is the only “approved” way to “go to college with” your baby. (Be honest, there’s a part of you who wants to.) Praying for your college child and the campus is one of the most intentional, strategic things you can do. If your child is open to it, it also can foster communication between you two as you ask how you can be praying for him in your weekly group prayer time. A great resource to begin with is our Honest Prayers book.

Foundation #4: ENVIRONMENTAL Preparation       

Campus ministry and college church connections: Did you know your student can have a game plan for church and campus ministry involvement before they ever set foot on campus? This can be done with your own research or the help of ministries like Every Student Sent or Ratio Christi. According to Mark Whitt at Lifeway, your child’s involvement with a local church and campus ministry during the first two weeks of college is crucial to her spiritual health.

Additionally, maintaining intergenerational relationships at a local church bolsters faith and makes it more “sticky” down the road. Keep in mind that a campus ministry and a nearby campus church are not substitutes for one another. They play different roles in your student’s life. If a child has the foundational prep we mentioned above, it will be a natural transition to look for and attend a local church as well as a campus ministry. Have your student talk to returning college students at their home church about the campus ministries they are involved in.

Home church engagement: Do what you can to foster engagement between your home church and your student, both when they are at school and when they return home on breaks. Once they graduate from the youth group, encourage them to move on to a small group at your church. Does your church have a college group they can attend when they are home? As a young adult, can they move into a singles/young adult small group? Also, consider encouraging senior adults to “adopt” students while they are at college and foster ongoing contact through notes and care packages (because college students love snacks!).

The campus buzz: Know the latest issues on public and private campuses. These issues may catch your student off guard if they are not familiar with them and ready to respond. What is the spiritual, social, and political climate like on their college campus? Even a Christian college needs to be carefully vetted. What are the major events on the campus — for example, do they have a Sex Week? What does their student government support? What is their DEI policy? Are campus ministries allowed to meet on campus?

The Bottom Line                    

Reality check: If it’s June when you’re reading this, you’ve got about two months to prepare if you have a soon-to-be freshman. [Editor’s Note: If it’s August already, well, better late than never!] You can do it! As our mama bear-in-chief, Hillary, always says, “We’re all in this together.” Grab your spouse, a friend, and God, and go do this. If your child is headed to college in the not-too-distant future, consider this your Spiritual College Prep Guide. If your kid is already in college, you can still put many of these pointers into practice. Take this just as seriously, if not more so, as AP classes, building the resume, campus visits, applying for scholarships, and College Board exam prep.

Intentional spiritual preparation will go a long way toward helping all our college students leave campus without leaving their faith behind. Stay tuned for our next blog in this series – a deeper look into faith-based preparation. For now, tell us in the comments how you and your kids are getting ready for college.

Intentional spiritual preparation will go a long way toward helping all our college students leave campus without leaving their faith behind. Click To Tweet

(NOTE: This blog series originally appeared in 2016. Since then, the warp speed at which culture has accelerated in reaching even the youngest of children demands we start early in our training, just as the Mama Bear books have taught. Use our suggestions now for prep right before college if it applies to your family, but start this as early as possible with your younger children.)

References: 

[i] These HABITS were originally found in Doug Fields, Purpose-Driven® Youth Ministry (Zondervan, 1998).

[ii] Over half of teens and adults (so, the U.S. general population ages 13+) report that they’ve experienced doubts about their religious beliefs at least sometimes (12% frequently, 16% occasionally, 24% sometimes) in the past few years. Similarly, exactly half of those who are Christian or who have some Christian background or experience (50%) say they have gone through a “prolonged” period of doubt. Barna, “What Do We Do with Doubt?” February 28, 2023. Read an excerpt here: https://www.barna.com/research/doubt-faith/.

[iii] For Gen Z, the top four causes for their doubt are: human suffering, hypocrisy of religious people, science, and conflict in the world. Barna. See excerpt here: https://www.barna.com/research/doubt-faith/.

Recommended Resources:

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

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

Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl (Book)

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

 

Julie Loos combined her passion for prayer and apologetics in her contributions to three Mama Bear Apologetics books. Her apologetics training came from campus ministry and certificates from Biola University and the Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Julie has been teaching, writing, and speaking on prayer for Moms in Prayer International for more than 23 years. She lives in Missouri with her husband, Todd, has two married sons, two grandchildren, and enjoys working out, Bible study, chocolate, coffee, and deep conversations.

 

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

/by

Why Biblical Authorship Matters: A Test Case

On April 14th 2025, Christianity Today published an article entitled “Was Jesus Crucified with Nails?” In the article, the author asserted that it was likely that Jesus was not nailed to the cross but was instead tied to the cross with ropes. He argues this by appealing to an authority, a professor from Gordon College, who has made this argument based solely on some limited archaeological data. Indeed, in the article, the professor is cited as saying, “he wanted to explore the issue because it’s good to question tradition and people can benefit from closer scrutiny of history.”[i]

 

Did the Article Miss the Johannine Reference to the Nailprints?   

When the article was published, it immediately came under fire on social media. After all, John 20:25 clearly states,

“The other disciples therefore said to him [Thomas], ‘We have seen the Lord.’ So he said to them, ‘Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.’”

Thomas claimed that he would not believe Jesus rose from the dead unless he saw the very nail prints in Jesus’ hands and feet. This seems to be clear evidence in one of the Gospels that Jesus was crucified with nails. The question, then, is how could someone have missed this passage prior to publishing the article?

The simple answer is that they did not miss this passage. Indeed, the passage is addressed in the article. The article states, “Going back to the Bible, García said there is one place in the New Testament that mentions nails. In the Gospel of John, the doubting apostle Thomas says he would have to see and touch the “marks of the nails” (20:25), before he would believe that Jesus rose from the dead.” A few sentences later, however, the article states, “García said many scholars also think John was written later—perhaps after crucifixion with nails had become more common.”

The Implied Message of the Article: An Attack on Biblical Authorship      

The article thus implies one of two things: either John, who was present at the crucifixion and was inspired by the Holy Spirit, got it wrong or the Gospel of John, which has been attributed to the apostle John since the early church, was not written by John as an eyewitness but was written much later by someone who was not present for these events and was just making up the story based on events of his own day instead of the events that actually occurred in history. Either one of these views is not something that should or needs to be held by believers.

Now, this is not an attack on Christianity Today. They acknowledged the article was incorrect, retracted some of the assertions and apologized for its assertions. However, how could this have happened in the first place when the text of Scripture seems so clear? Two years ago, I wrote an article entitled ”Why Biblical Authorship Matters?”. One of the assertions that I made in that article was that authorship mattered because “it gives us eyewitness accounts that help to establish historical reliability for many of the key events throughout the Bible.”

In this context, we know that Jesus was crucified with nails because John was both present for the crucifixion itself and was present for Thomas’ statement. He, as the author, serves as our eyewitness to these events. When you deny Johannine authorship, as Garcia asserts in the article, you open the door to destroying the reliability of the historical events presented in Scripture.

Conclusion

This should remind us once again that biblical authorship matters. It helps us to hold to the eyewitness accounts of many of the events of the Bible and should not be something that we just haphazardly throw away because critics argue against it. Otherwise, we end up doubting whether events in the Bible happened as they were written. That is a place that we do not want to end up in. Instead, we should trust the authority and inerrancy of Scripture, in part because many of the stories are documented by eyewitness testimony.

 References: 

[i] https://www.christianitytoday.com/2025/04/was-jesus-crucified-with-nails/

Recommended Resources:

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

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

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

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

 

Daniel Sloan is an Assistant Professor at Liberty University. He was mentored by the late Dr. Ed Hindson. After Dr. Hindson’s untimely passing, Dr. Sloan was allowed to teach some of Dr. Hindson’s classes. In addition to his teaching duties, Dr. Sloan serves as an Associate Pastor at Safe Harbor Community Church in Lynchburg, Virginia. Daniel graduated with his PhD in Theology and Apologetics from Liberty University. His research and expertise is in Old Testament studies. He and his wife, Natalie, live in Lynchburg, Virginia. Along with his extensive knowledge of the Bible, Daniel is an avid sports fan.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/40edPzX

/by