Tag Archive for: apologetics

[Editor’s Note: In part 1 of this series on the Resurrection, Brian Chilton laws out five lines of evidence for the resurrection in the Acronym: RISEN – Records of Jesus’s resurrection, Irritating details about the resurrection that show its truthfulness, Sightings of the risen Jesus, Early testimony about the risen Jesus, and the Newfound faith of the disciples. He then presents and explains how ancient records and irritating historical details point to the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. In Part 2 of this series, Chilton will explore how early testimony, resurrection sightings, and the newfound faith of key Christians point to that same resurrection event.]   

 

Sightings of the Risen Jesus

The biblical texts reports many witnesses who saw Jesus alive. The resurrection appearances of Jesus were a very public affair. This makes it even more difficult to dismiss.

(15) 500 Eyewitnesses of the Risen Jesus     

In the NT Creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3–9, 500 people were listed as eyewitnesses who saw the risen Jesus at the same time. Often, women were not included in public lists. If this continued with the early church, then only men were counted in this number. This would mean that possibly over 1,000 people saw the risen Jesus at the same moment in time.

(16) Women at the Tomb      

As previously noted, the female disciples of Jesus were the first to see him alive after he had risen from the dead. They are universally listed as the first eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus in all the Gospel narratives.

(17) Twelve Disciples 

After the betrayal of Judas and his suicide, the church replaced Judas with Matthias. Nonetheless, these disciples are either called the Twelve, or the Eleven in the resurrection reports due to their diminished number (Matt. 28:16; Lk. 24:9, 33). The grouping of the disciples into a singular number was done earlier in church history rather than later. Usages of “the Eleven” or “the Twelve” denote an earlier timeframe.

(18) Sighting Reported by James      

James the brother of Jesus is listed in the report of eyewitnesses in 1 Corinthians 15. He was not a believer in Jesus prior to the resurrection. Yet he is later identified as a follower and the first pastor of the Church of Jerusalem.

(19) Family of Jesus   

Mary and the family of Jesus are also listed among the list of those who witnessed the risen Jesus. The brothers and sisters of Jesus became believers after the resurrection, indicating that something big happened between the crucifixion and the advent of the church.

(20) Sighting Reported by Paul         

Paul was an enemy of the church and even persecuted early church members. However, Paul became a believer and an early apostle of the church after seeing the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus.

Early Testimony

Skeptics often claim that the resurrection of Jesus was a later invention of the church. However, data strongly suggests that the message of the resurrection was proclaimed early in the life of the church. The report emerged at the creation of the church. The church flowed out from the belief that Jesus had literally risen from the dead.

(21) New Testament Creeds  

NT creeds are early confessions, statements of belief, hymns, and other formulations that flowed out of the early church and were recorded throughout the NT epistles. NT creeds are found in 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, Colossians, Philippians, Ephesians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, and various other documents. Some are even found in the Gospels and the book of Revelation. Among these formulations, one of the most important and most agreed-upon creeds is found in 1 Corinthians 15:3–9. The 1 Corinthians 15 creed lays out the fundamentals of the resurrection while also speaking of those who had encountered the risen Jesus. The creeds are strewn about the NT and date to no more than 5 years after the resurrection, with the 1 Corinthians 15 creed dating to within months of the resurrection itself.

(22) Oral Traditions of the Gospels  

The early church was founded in what was a largely oral culture. While I do believe that Jewish men had a higher literacy rate than the common Greco-Roman world at that time, the cost to publish materials was quite expensive. Dr. Craig Keener suggests that the publication of the Gospel of Mark or the book of Romans could have equaled around $2,000 to $3,000 in modern currency—twenty denarii in ancient currency. [1] A project like that would require group funding. Nonetheless, most material was passed along orally.

Now before you object, know that it has been shown that cultures can pass along volumes of information from one generation to another without changing any major detail. The Talmud is an example of that process. Even still, oral traditions, like the NT creeds, have certain traits that can be detected. Through my research, I discovered that the Gospel of Matthew contains many of these traits, especially with the teachings of Jesus. While I have not researched the resurrection traditions—but plan to do so—I did find that the statements referencing the resurrection itself found a strong root in early oral traditions. Thus, the statements referencing the resurrection arose prior to the writing of the book. The Matthean Great Commission statement offered by the risen Jesus holds all the traits of an NT creed, thus indicating its early nature.

(23) Sermon Summaries in Acts        

Oral traditions are not only found within the Gospels, they are also found in the sermon summaries of Paul and Peter in the book of Acts. Among these summaries include Paul and Peter’s proclamation that Jesus had indeed risen from the dead. The early nature of some of these proclamations places them in the 30s and 40s.

(24) Use of the Title “Lord” with Jesus         

NT scholar Richard Bauckham deduced that the “earliest Christology was the highest Christology.” By that, he meant that the early Christian movement held a high theological view of Jesus, equating him with the Father in some sense. This is evident with the thorough usage of the title “kurios,”—a Greek term meaning “Lord.” Gary Habermas has implied that this is one of the clearest examples that early Christians held Jesus to be in some part divine.

The title “Lord Jesus Christ” is often associated with the resurrection stories, including Thomas’s awe-struck response “My Lord and my God” when seeing the risen Jesus for himself. This title would not have been applied to one who was only crucified, seeing a person hung from a tree was believed to have been accursed. Something to the effect of a resurrection would have been necessary to show the divine nature of Jesus. In other words, a crucified man alone would never be elevated to the status of “Lord.”

(25) The Exclusive Use of “Son of Man” in the Gospels and Its Association with the Resurrection

Jesus almost exclusively uses the title “Son of man” about himself. The title is only used four times outside of the Gospels—once by Stephen the first martyr as he was being killed (Acts 7:56), a quotation of Ezekiel in Hebrews 2:6, and two references in the book of Revelation (Rev. 1:13; 14:14), both connecting Jesus to the Son of Man character in Daniel 7:13–14. In the Gospels, however, Jesus uses the title for himself 14 times in Mark, 10 times in Q, 7 times exclusively in Matthew, 7 times exclusively in Luke, and 13 times in John. Altogether, Jesus uses the title 51 times. [2]

Contrary to popular belief, the title does not refer to the humanity of Jesus. Rather, it speaks of a divine being who takes on a humanlike form as he approaches the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7:13–14. Furthermore, the title is connected to the idea that Jesus would rise from the dead (Lk. 11:30) and ascend to the right hand of his Father (Mk. 14:62). The title is so strongly connected with the teachings of Jesus that NT scholar Joachim Jeremias commented, “…the apocalyptic Son of Man sayings which we have recognized as the earliest stratum must in essentials go back to Jesus himself.”[3]

(26) Early Stratum in the Resurrection Record          

While many aspects of the resurrection report in the four Gospels may seem a bit confusing, a good chronology of events can be placed together. Nonetheless, there is a common stratum within all reports of the resurrection events that glues them together. The similarities between the reports include the puzzling and mysterious nature of the events, the eyes of people are opened to the identity of Jesus, beams of heavenly light sometimes accompany the divine presence, along with the mysterious appearance and disappearance of Jesus at will. Jeremias calls this stratum a chiaroscuro—a contrast between light and dark.[4] Additionally, these reports include Aramaisms, such as Mary Magdalene calling Jesus “rabboni” (Jn. 20:16) and the potential inclusion of Jesus’s historical name (“Jesus of Nazareth”) (Mk. 16:6).

(27) Early Belief that the Tomb was Empty  

In his magnum opus, Gary Habermas notes that around 75% of scholars maintain the historicity of the empty tomb, still clearly accepted by a vast majority of critical scholars. [5] Even still, a good deal of evidence suggests that the church proclaimed an empty tomb very early in its history. The empty tomb appears in three of the four Gospels. [6] Additionally, the acknowledgment of the empty tomb appears in one of the sermon summaries in Acts, which could quite well be an NT creed.

Paul states, “When they had carried out all that had been written about him, they took him down from the tree and put him in a tomb. But God raised him from the dead, and he appeared for many days to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people” (Acts 13:29–30, CSB). The sermon summaries in Acts are extremely early. Even if the summaries date to the 40s, we have very early testimony of an empty tomb. NT scholar James D.G. Dunn attests, “The story of the empty tomb was probably being told in Jerusalem shortly after the event.” [7]

(28) Church of the Holy Sepulchre    

Speaking of the empty tomb, this brings us to defense #28. Protestants often claim that the Garden Tomb in Jerusalem was the likely place of Jesus’s burial. But this simply cannot be true. The tomb is too old to have belonged to Joseph of Arimathea. Furthermore, it holds no historical grounding, contains no features of a first-century tomb, and was likely created in the 7th century BC. Remember that the tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimathea was newly cut (Lk. 23:53). Though the Garden Tomb does not match, the same cannot be said of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Due to repair work, the stone slab covering the tomb had to be removed temporarily. Underneath, researchers found remnants of an earlier tomb, labeled with a cross amid first-century limestone. The tomb was said to have been discovered by Helena, the mother of Constantine, once Christianity became a legal religion in Rome. Local Christians had been worshiping at the tomb for centuries as they acknowledged that the tomb belonged to Jesus. Earlier Roman authorities placed a statue of Venus to desecrate the site. However, this act did not deter the Christians from their worship activities. Later, the tomb was cut out and a cathedral was built around it. Archaeologist Ted Wright once said that he was 98% certain that the tomb was the authentic burial site of Jesus. [8]

Newfound Faith

The last letter of our acronym denotes the newfound faith of the early believers. Picture yourself as one of the early disciples. You invested yourself fully in the cause of Jesus. Despite your good intentions and wholehearted investment, your beloved leader dies on a Roman cross. Everything you worked for is now lost. Quite honestly, most of the disciples probably thought about going back to their chosen occupation before following Jesus. However, due to the resurrection, they embraced a newfound truth that they had not expected nor anticipated. Jesus defeated death and ushered in a new mode of existence. Light replaced dark, life overcame death, and the goodness of God triumphed over the powers of evil.

(29) The Transformation of Paul      

The transformation of Paul was quite baffling. Paul had been a persecutor of the church. Yet after seeing the risen Jesus, he not only accepted the tenets of Christianity, but he was one of the hardest-working Christian evangelists of all time.

(30) The Transformation of James   

None of the family members of Jesus, outside of Mary the mother of Jesus, believed him to be the Messiah prior to his resurrection (Jn. 7:5). However, oddly, Jesus’s siblings became believers after his resurrection. James became such a strong believer in Jesus that he became the first pastor of the Church of Jerusalem.

(31) The Willingness of the Disciples to Die for What They Knew to Be True        

Even though some people will die for something they mistakenly believe to be true, no one will die for something they know to be a lie, especially if that condemnation includes an excruciating death. Yet the disciples of Jesus were willing to die for what they knew to be true. They never wavered, and they never changed their minds. They knew Jesus to be the risen Son of God.

(32) Change of the Day of Worship from Saturday to Sunday        

Perhaps one of the most astounding defenses for the resurrection was the early disciples’ decision to change their day of worship from the Sabbath day (Friday evening—Saturday) to early Sunday morning. They called this day the “Lord’s Day” (Rev. 1:10). The change in worship times was done to commemorate the resurrection of Jesus. N. T. Wright maintains that 1 Corinthians 16:2 implies that the church began keeping Sunday as the Lord’s Day as early as the mid-50s if not earlier. [9] In the early church, leaders often waited until early Easter Sunday to baptize everyone who had come to faith the previous year. Easter Sunday became one of the most important days of the year for the early Christians because of the resurrection of Jesus.

(33) Jesus’s Fulfillment of Messianic Prophecies     

Last, but certainly not least, the early Christians professed that Jesus had fulfilled numerous messianic prophecies predicted about the Messiah. And they were absolutely on point! Space does not permit us to elucidate every prophecy at this time. But it can be said that Jesus fulfilled so many prophecies about the Messiah through his life, death, and resurrection that it is mathematically impossible to leave to chance. It is assuredly impossible for anyone by mere human means to fulfill the prophecies written about the Messiah, particularly concerning his resurrection.

Admittedly, this article turned out much longer than I anticipated. And in full disclosure, I took a shotgun approach to the defenses for the resurrection as I laid out multiple lines of defense.[10] Some are assuredly stronger than others. Nevertheless, given these 33 data points, a person can build a cumulative case for the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth literally rose from the dead on the first Easter Sunday.

There is much more that could be offered, such as the inability of alternative theories to explain all the details, further studies into oral traditions and their trustworthiness, enemy attestation, the chronology of Easter events, and other factors concerning Jesus’s post-Easter appearances. Suffice it to say, we have every reason to believe that Jesus is the risen Son of God. So, what will you do with the data that has been given? It’s one thing to accept that Jesus arose from the dead, but it is quite another to accept him as the Lord of your life. What will you do with the risen Jesus?

References: 

[1] Craig S. Keener, IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, 418.

[2] Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 259–260.

[3] Ibid., 266.

[4] Ibid., 303.

[5] Gary Habermas, On the Resurrection: Evidences, 141.

[6] Ibid., 47.

[7] James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 836.

[8] Look for Bellator Christi’s interview with Ted Wright on earlier episodes.

[9] N. T. Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 297, 579, 594.

[10] [Editor’s note: Originally, this 2 part series was a single blog article at Bellator Christi – https://bellatorchristi.com/2024/03/29/33-defenses-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus/]

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

Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)

Cold Case Resurrection Set by J. Warner Wallace (books)

 


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/3RFTCOC

Human beings are rational animals, according to Aristotle. As animals, human beings are sensible beings who have sensations and movements (in contrast to plants, which are living beings without true sensation and self-initiated movement). But human beings are not just any kind of animal. We have a special quality that separates us from animals, plants and the rest of the material world, which is that we have a rational soul.

Furthermore, leaving Aristotle aside (as we shall see later), this doesn’t mean that human beings are the summit of all that exists. God, who is infinite and intellect in its fullest form can alone claim his proper place at the top of the summit (although, technically speaking, He is the foundation) of all that exists. Still, since human beings are rational animals, but are also finite, it is natural (and by that I literally mean that it is part of human nature), to ask questions.

Why Metaphysics Matters

Now, human beings can and do ask questions about a lot of topics. But there are some questions that matter most not because of their necessarily immediate practical implication, but because of the effect their answers have on the questions that do possess an immediate practical implication. That is, we cannot properly begin to understand secondary matters until we first understand primary matters. And one of the most basic primary questions to answer is “what is (or are) the first principle of reality?”.

Metaphysics deals with these types of primary questions and its importance is by now evident. The results of every other discipline depend on resolving fundamental metaphysical questions. The Christian (let alone the trained Christian philosopher) can’t escape this reality. Simply put, a wrong move in metaphysics will affect doctrines about God, creation, and salvation.

This fact of metaphysics has become evident to me in the modern debate about divine simplicity. Dr. William Lane Craig rejects the Thomistic understanding of the doctrine of divine simplicity and this means his conception of God is different (very different) than that of an existential Thomist, and proper logic mandates that both conceptions of God cannot be correct. Dr. Craig says, “Deny the real distinction between essence and existence, and the nerve of Thomism is cut.[1]”  This claim strikes me as plainly true. I’m not talking about whether we should deny the real distinction between essence and existence (that’s a whole separate matter), but he is correct in that if we do so, the nerve of Thomism is cut, and with it, the Thomistic understanding of God must be denied.

This important matter, the distinction between essence and existence, is the central focus of this blog and my aim is to show how different views of this distinction lead to a different understanding of God, raising the stakes for the Christian (and the Christian philosopher) to ensure that his metaphysics is correct.

In this regard, human beings face a monumental task. Humans, as rational animals, must wrestle with the fact that they can ask questions beyond even their own limitations. For example, as any Christian should affirm, human beings (who only have a human essence) are contingent beings to whom existence owes nothing to make them exist necessarily, want to properly explain existence as a principle and its relationship with essences in general. Despite this limitation, we will see that even in this brief essay there is much that can be said in this regard.

Four Philosophers, Four Visions and Their Implications

Aquinas: Let’s start our brief analysis with none other than Thomas Aquinas. He maintained that there is a real distinction between essence and existence. This means that he believed that essence and existence are real and distinct principles that together constitute the being of a thing. A thing’s essence is what it is, and existence is that it is. Following Dr. Richard Howe’s use of human beings to illustrate this, essence is what makes you human; existence is what makes you a being.[2]

The only exception to this rule is God, in whom essence and existence are identical, and this has several implications. First, he is unique and totally distinct from everything else that exists. He alone is existence; everything else just has existence. Second, as existence itself, God is the only necessary being. Every other being is contingent and depends on God for its existence. Third, God’s omnipotence is evident in His ability to bring things into existence from nothing (creatio ex nihilo). Between existence and non-existence, there’s an infinite metaphysical chasm that only an infinite cause can bridge.

Scotus: Aquinas’ view of God, stemming from his real distinction between essence and existence, can be contrasted with that of John Duns Scotus. Scotus maintained that every essence has some degree of being, according to its (proportional) intrinsic perfection. This implies that the distance between any finite being and nothingness is not infinite. As a result, God’s omnipotence is primarily expressed not in sustaining beings in existence, but in freely determining which essences are actualized in reality. In other words, for Scotus, God’s power, is primarily evident in freely determining what comes to be, rather than in directly causing the act of being itself. It is worth noting that Aquinas integrates both perspectives, affirming divine volition alongside God’s continuous causal role in sustaining creatures in existence.

Plato: On the other hand, Plato did not conceive of existence as an act received from God. Plato believed that the forms—eternal, unchanging, immaterial, and universal realities—are the highest level of reality, while the material world is just an imperfect reflection of them. As such, Plato’s god is really a craftsman-like figure who does not create things (let alone via creation ex nihilo), he merely imposes order on pre-existing chaotic matter in accordance with the forms. He works with what already exists; he does not make things to be or define what they are. There’s no doubt that Plato’s God is a “smaller” God than that of Aquinas.

Spinoza: Benedict Spinoza’s views are also important to mention. He denied the distinction between essence and existence because he maintained that only one substance exists. The implications of this view are profound. If everything that exists is the same substance, that means that everything that exists collapses into a single substance. As a result, God is identical with nature. There is really no distinction between God and everything else, leading directly to pantheism.

It is evident that this view is incompatible with the metaphysical commitments required by Christianity. We need not delve into the implications of this view for divine omnipotence or the necessity of creation. Suffice it to say that since this view denies the distinction between God and His creation, this implies that you, I, and all human beings are part of the same divine nature. This position plainly contradicts Scripture —and, indeed, everyday experience.

Conclusion

There’s much more that could be said about this, and many other important philosophers throughout history could be cited. However, this brief analysis shows that one’s metaphysical conclusions can strongly influence one’s theology. Every Christian should desire to know God and reality as they truly are. To do so properly, one’s metaphysics must be correct. Therefore, we as Christians, must make sure to get our metaphysics right.

References: 

[1] William Lane Craig and Bishop Robert Barron, Bishop Barron & William Lane Craig Symposium, Part 1: Divine Simplicity, Reasonable Faith, accessed February 21, 2025,
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/videos/lectures/bishop-barron-william-lane-craig-symposium-part-1-divine-simplicity

Symposium, Part 1: Divine Simplicity. Reasonable Faith. Accessed February 21, 2025.
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/videos/lectures/bishop-barron-william-lane-craig-symposium-part-1-divine-simplicity

Gilson, Étienne. Being and Some Philosophers. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1952.

———.Craig, William Lane, and Bishop Robert Barron. Bishop Barron & William Lane Craig

[2] Aquinas on Existence and the Essence-Existence Distinction,” Southern Evangelical Seminary, accessed February 21, 2025, https://ses.edu/aquinas-on-existence-and-the-essence-existence-distinction/

———.Aquinas on Existence and the Essence-Existence Distinction.” Southern Evangelical
Seminary. Accessed February 21, 2025
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/videos/lectures/bishop-barron-william-lane-craig-
symposium-part-1-divine-simplicity

Recommended Resources:

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

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)

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

 


Diego Fallas earned his bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering. During his studies, he became passionate about Christian apologetics. He quickly found himself immersed in the field as he started taking seminary courses in apologetics and became a Reasonable Faith chapter director. Today, he is the Director of Operations for CrossExamined.org, and teaches and speaks in Latin America. Diego is the co-host of the weekly Livestream show Piensalo Bien and is currently completing his M.A. in philosophy from Southern Evangelical Seminary.

I told someone recently that Easter (aka., “Resurrection Sunday”) is my favorite holiday. It holds a greater prominence for the child of God than even Christmas. Up until the commercialization of Christmas, Easter was the central holiday for the Christian. One of my good friends recently stated that her pastor called Easter the “Super Bowl for Christianity,” and for good reason. Easter celebrates the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Are there, however, good reasons for believing that Jesus of Nazareth literally arose from the dead on that first Resurrection Sunday? The historicity of the resurrection and the Gospels were a major sticking point for me in my time of doubt. If the resurrection was only wishful thinking, then believers have no genuine hope for their eternity. Yet if the resurrection is true and did occur, then the believer has a hope that nothing else could afford. But do we know that it did happen?

In my book The Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics, I used an acronym to lay out the core fundamental evidence for the resurrection. However, my doctoral studies revealed even deeper reasons to accept the resurrection of Christ as a real event of history. Using the acronym RISEN as a launch pad, we will consider 33 defenses for the resurrection of Jesus. For those who are unfamiliar with Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics, the RISEN acronym stands for the following:

Records of Jesus’s resurrection,

Irritating details about the resurrection that show its truthfulness,

Sightings of the risen Jesus,

Early testimony about the risen Jesus,

Newfound faith of the disciples.[1]

Records of Jesus’s Crucifixion and Resurrection

Jesus’s resurrection maintains a high level of credibility when considering the early records that speak of this event. For this section, five groups of independent sources will serve as the first five defenses for the resurrection.

(1) Five Independent Testimonies in the Gospels    

Now, you likely read the above statement and asked yourself, “Five independent sources in the Gospels? How can there be five independent sources when there are only four Gospels? Within the four Gospels, scholars recognize five independent sources behind the texts.

  1. Q, the initial for the German word quelle,meaning source, contains the independent sources shared by the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke. Scholars maintain that Q may be among the earliest source material in the Gospels.[2]
  2. The pre-Markan material makes up the second independent source, and it could very well date to the 30s.
  3. The source material marked “M” represents the material that is exclusive to Matthew’s Gospel.
  4. The “L” material is source material that is only found in the Gospel of Luke.
  5. The independent source material found in John’s Gospel.

The Markan material briefly describes the resurrection of Jesus. Q may not explicitly reference the resurrection, but it does contain material where Jesus alludes to, if not boldly predict his resurrection. Additionally, M, L, and John’s material all speak of the resurrection of Jesus, even noting the risen appearances of Jesus. Altogether, these five sources alone offer a strong case for the resurrection of Jesus.

(2) Independent Testimonies in the Epistles

Like the Gospels, we must consider the individual epistles as singular documents of history. Paul discusses the resurrection of Jesus thoroughly in 1 Corinthians 15. James the brother of Jesus does not specifically discuss the resurrection. He does, however, call Jesus by the title “Lord,” indicating that he identified him with divinity. Only the resurrection could have convinced James of this association. Peter wrote two epistles. In those documents, he refers to Christ as the cornerstone (1 Pet. 2:6) and alludes to the resurrection with his teachings of God raising up those who had suffered. Likewise, John wrote three letters and identified Jesus with the Logos (wisdom) of God—a tremendously high theology that flowed from an understanding of the risen Jesus.

(3) Extra-biblical Christian Testimonies about the Resurrection     

Outside of the biblical texts, numerous Christian authors of the first and second-century, along with subsequent generations mentioned the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus This present exercise will not permit us to list all of them at this time. Some of the more prominent writers include Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr.

(4) Extra-biblical Roman Testimonies about the Resurrection        

Early Roman historians make mention of Jesus of Nazareth and the early Christian’s belief that Jesus had appeared to them alive on the third day after Jesus’s crucifixion. These historians include Tacitus (AD 55–120), Josephus (c. AD 37–97), Suetonius (AD 69–122), Thallus (c. AD 52; who mentioned the darkness that surrounded the region and tried to rationalize it), Pliny the Younger (late first-century through early second-century). Pliny’s letters to both Emperor Trajan and Emperor Hadrian talk about how the Romans were to deal with the Christian movement, especially seeing that they refused to worship the gods of the Roman pantheon.

(5) Extra-biblical Jewish Testimonies about the Resurrection         

Additionally, it may surprise some to find that early Jewish rabbis included comments about Jesus in the Jewish Talmud, although their comments were not that flattering. Many referred to Jesus as a sorcerer (speaking to Jesus’s miracles), a deceiver (speaking of the resurrection), and a bastard (speaking to the Virgin Birth). Certainly, their portrayal of Jesus was not that kind.

Irritating Details

We now move on to the second letter of our RISEN acronym, which is the “I” that indicates irritating details of the resurrection that would be embarrassing for the early Christians to proclaim. For our present venture, these irritating details also speak to details surrounding the resurrection that skeptics may have a difficult time explaining.

(6) The Testimony of Women as the First Eyewitnesses      

Nearly every record of the resurrection begins with the testimony of women. Living in an egalitarian society as we do in the United States, many may look over this truth as inconsequential. However, that is far from the case. The testimony of women did not enjoy the same strength as a man’s in the first-century. Therefore, if a woman testified to seeing something as phenomenal as the resurrection, her report may not be taken seriously. Yet it was the faithful women of Jesus’s troupe that first saw Jesus risen from the dead and encounter the empty tomb. Even the disciples scoffed at this notion at first. The early church would simply not invent this detail if it were not true.

(7) Joseph of Arimathea Offering the Burial for Jesus         

Another embarrassing detail for the church was that they could not offer Jesus a proper burial. In fact, a member of the very Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus, named Joseph of Arimathea, offered the family and friends of Jesus his newly cut tomb to inter the body of Jesus. According to the tradition of the day, families would leave a body wrapped in cloth for a year. After a year, the body decayed in the dry, arid climate of Israel. The family then took the cloth and poured the bones into a family burial box called an ossuary. The early church would not have shown and exposed Joseph of Arimathea as the caregiver of Jesus if it were not in fact true.

(8) The Testimony of the Resurrection Beginning in Jerusalem      

Skeptics like to infer that the resurrection is a later invention of the church. Yet another detail that is irritating for the skeptic is that the report of the resurrection flowed out of Jerusalem, Israel in AD 33. If a person did not believe the report of the empty tomb, all one had to do was to travel to the tomb and see for themselves. Jerusalem was ground zero for the resurrection event.

(9) The Fact That No One Expected a Resurrection Before the End of Time           

Another irritating detail for the skeptic is yet another detail that is often overlooked. Many skeptics posit that the early church presented Jesus as the risen Son of God to fulfill some preconceived expectation they had for the Messiah. However, data suggests that the early church would not have done such a thing because they never expected the Messiah to rise from the dead in the first place! The Pharisees’ and Essenes’ understanding of the resurrection was that the dead would rise at the end of time, not three days after the Messiah’s death. The messianic anticipation was that the Messiah would lead a revolt like Judas Maccabeus did to redeem the people from Roman rule and usher in the end of days. That did not happen. Their concept of resurrection did not match the resurrection of Jesus.

(10) The Understanding that a Man Hung on a Tree Was Accursed            .

Deuteronomy 21:22-23 states that anyone who is hung upon a tree is cursed. As such, Jewish believers would have scoffed at the idea that their hero would have been nailed to a tree. Seeing that they did not have an understanding of a resurrection in the here and now, the idea of a crucified Messiah makes no sense unless it was accompanied by a resurrection. Early followers of Jesus would have abandoned him as an accursed man unless they had reasons to believe that he had overcome death itself. The resurrection was the answer.

(11) The Crucifixion Nail       

Archaeologists discovered a portion of a heel bone that dated to a first-century crucified man named Yehohannon. Most interestingly, the heel bone contained a nail that was bent around a piece of olive wood. The nail is one of the first physical examples of the crucifixion. It also shows the brutality of the practice, which highly dismisses any idea that a person could have merely passed out on the cross and reawakened in a normal state after spending three days in a tomb. Additionally, another example of a crucified ankle was found a few years ago in northern Italy.

(12) The Nazareth Decree

Archaeologists also discovered another artifact of great interest to resurrection studies. It is a decree offered by the emperor. Scholars typically agree that it was decreed by Claudius between AD 41–54.[3] The decree states the following:

“It is my decision [concerning] graves and tombs—whoever has made them for the religious observances of parents, or children, or household members—that these remain undisturbed forever. But if anyone legally charges that another person has destroyed, or has in any manner extracted those who have been buried, or has moved with wicked intent those who have been buried to other places, committing a crime against them, or has moved sepulcher-sealing stones, against such a person, I order that a judicial tribunal be created, just as [is done] concerning the gods in human religious observances, even more so will it be obligatory to treat with honor those who have been entombed. You are absolutely not to allow anyone to move [those who have been entombed]. But if [someone does], I wish that [violator] to suffer capital punishment under the title of tomb-breaker.”

The decree reveals that the news of Jesus’s resurrection likely reached the ears of the emperor at least by the 40s. The decree was posted in Nazareth, Jesus’s hometown. Coincidence? I think not.

(13) The Ossuary of James    

The thirteenth defense isn’t as strong as others on this list, but it is still worth mentioning. A few years ago, archaeologists discovered an ossuary (i.e., a burial box) that contained the remains of a man named “James son of Joseph brother of Yeshua.” This “James” is identified as the brother of Jesus. The ossuary dates to the first-century, leading many to deduce that the ossuary contained the bones of James the brother of Jesus. While the ossuary of James does not necessarily prove the resurrection, it does show that the burial practices presented in the Gospels match those of the times. If the burial box is legitimate and is connected to the holy family, then it does show that James’s identity was tied to being a brother of Jesus just as James was identified in the biblical narratives.

(14) The Shroud of Turin       

Space will not allow us to give all the reasons to believe that the Shroud of Turin is legitimate. However, we can say that new data more strongly than ever suggests that the Shroud is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus. For those who are unaware of the cloth, the Shroud of Turin is a herringbone cloth that contains a faint, hair-length image of a crucified man that matches the same kind of crucifixion that Jesus experienced. Recent data suggests that a similar image can be made if a cloth is exposed to high doses of X-ray radiation. For the image on the cloth to be made, it would require that a high dose of light radiation luminated from the body and that the body dematerialized, leading to the cloth collapsing on itself. These details match what one would expect with a resurrection event.

Stay tuned for part 2 in this series!

References:

[1] Brian G. Chilton, Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics, 96–99.

[2] [Editor’s Note: While much of the scholarship community has moved away from “Q-theory”, it has had a lot of support over the last 150 years, with some supporters still today.]

[3] Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, 176.

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

Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)

Cold Case Resurrection Set by J. Warner Wallace (books)   

 


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/3RFTCOC

Dan McClellan is a Biblical scholar who has taken to creating YouTube content. He has a popular channel, with 127,000 subscribers at the time of this writing. He often produces short videos responding to conservative scholars and apologists. Unfortunately, McClellan often comes across as incredibly condescending towards conservative scholars, with a rhetorical tone that is, in my view, unbecoming of scholarly discourse. I know that other conservative scholars feel the same way. McClellan recently published a 17-minute video responding to a TikTok video by my colleague, Dr. Sean McDowell, on discrepancies in the resurrection narratives. In this article, I will address points raised in this video.

 

McDowell begins by observing, correctly, that “even if there were contradictions in the Bible, this wouldn’t prove that Christianity is false.” I agree with McDowell. I do not believe that the truth of Christianity hangs on inerrancy (see my essay on this subject here) and I am persuaded of the existence of a small number of minor good-faith mistakes in the gospels, none of which substantially undermine their overall trustworthiness.[1] More evidentially significant in undermining the reliability of the sources would be examples of the evangelists making assertions that are contrary to what they knew to be true (I do not believe the evangelists ever intentionally altered the facts).

McClellan responds to McDowell,

“[W]hile I’m sure that is the rhetorical goal of many challenges to the dogma of univocality, that’s certainly not the reason that I am challenging that dogma. But I will point out that, if you imagine that every challenge to the dogma of univocality is an attempt to disprove Christianity and you are an apologist for Christianity, that obviously means you’re going to be beginning from a position of dogma and you’re going to have a much harder time actually thinking critically about the data you’re engaging. And I think your use of the subjunctive mood in ‘if there were actually contradictions in the Bible’ is indicative of that dogmatic stance from which you’re engaging the question.”

McClellan appears to misunderstand the nature of our approach. The high reliability of the gospels and Acts is the conclusion of our argument, not the premise. We do not decide ahead of time that the evangelists did not make things up or intentionally alter the facts. Rather, this is the verdict we have arrived at after careful and extensive study of the data.

McDowell asserts that “If you want to prove Christianity is false, you’ve got to reproduce the body of Jesus.” I would not agree that this is the only way by which Christianity could be “proven false” (which I’m taking to mean “rendered improbable”). Generally, a complex proposition is not “disproven” by a single piece of data, but rather by an accumulation of evidences, each of which cuts against its plausibility. My verdict is that the preponderance of evidence very heavily confirms the truth of Christianity, though I can envision various scenarios where it could have been the other way (and, in fact, there are lines of evidence I could list which would sit on the negative side of the balance). In any case, it would be next to impossible to demonstrate that a body was, in fact, that of Jesus of Nazareth (a point McClellan himself makes), so this would not by any means be the cleanest way to refute Christianity.

Resurrecting Hume

McDowell asserts that “we can show Jesus rose from the grave, even if there were contradictions in the Bible.” I agree. McClellan, however, responds,

“No you can’t. That’s a dogma. That is not something that is supported by any data. That is a claim that directly contravenes everything we’ve ever been able to observe about the nature of life in the Universe. So that’s not saying I begin from the position that it’s impossible. It’s saying I begin from the position that that is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence and you have absolutely nothing even remotely approximating extraordinary evidence for this event that would overturn everything that we have consistently observe about the nature of life in the Universe.”

This essentially revives David Hume’s objection to justified belief in miracles. Hume argued that one could never be justified in inferring that a miracle had taken place (even if it did) because a miracle is, by its very nature, the least probable explanation (since it contradicts uniform human testimony) — thus, any naturalistic contender (no matter how intrinsically improbable) is going to be more plausible than the hypothesis that the routine course of nature has been interrupted. However, Hume was adequately addressed by his own contemporaries (e.g. William Paley, George Campbell, and John Douglas) as well as by modern philosophers (e.g. John Earman, himself an agnostic). William Paley, for example, noted,

Now the improbability which arises from the want (for this properly is a want, not a contradiction) of experience, is only equal to the probability there is, that, if the thing were true, we should experience things similar to it, or that such things would be generally experienced. Suppose it then to be true that miracles were wrought on the first promulgation of Christianity, when nothing but miracles could decide its authority, is it certain that such miracles would be repeated so often, and in so many places, as to become objects of general experience? Is it a probability approaching to certainty? Is it a probability of any great strength or force? Is it such as no evidence can encounter? And yet this probability is the exact converse, and therefore the exact measure, of the improbability which arises from the want of experience, and which Mr. Hume represents as invincible by human testimony. It is not like alleging a new law of nature, or a new experiment in natural philosophy; because, when these are related, it is expected that, under the same circumstances, the same effect will follow universally; and in proportion as this expectation is justly entertained, the want of a corresponding experience negatives [sic] the history. But to expect concerning a miracle, that it should succeed upon a repetition, is to expect that which would make it cease to be a miracle, which is contrary to its nature as such, and would totally destroy the use and purpose for which it was wrought. [2]

In other words, the purpose for which miracles are wrought (according to both the Old and New Testament) is to vindicate divine messengers. For them to function in this capacity, and grab our attention, they need to recognizably deviate from the way nature normally behaves when left to itself — otherwise, they would be robbed of their evidential value. Therefore, that miracles do, in fact, deviate from the routine course of nature cannot be taken as a serious rejoinder to the hypothesis under review. We need to look to other considerations to get a handle on the prior probability of God performing a miracle in Jesus’ case in particular (i.e., raising him from the dead).

If Jesus really is the Hebrew Messiah, then we would expect the God of Israel to raise him from the dead (cf. Isa 53:10). Jesus also indicated, on multiple occasions, that his Messianic self-claims would be vindicated by his resurrection from the dead. Therefore, arguments that (independently of the resurrection) bear on Jesus’ Messianic identity are relevant to the prior probability of God raising Jesus in particular from the dead — since they suggest that God plausibly has motivation for doing so. It is not my purpose here to provide a detailed elaboration of these independent arguments, but rather to articulate how this case can be developed.

The Case for Harmonization

Before delving into specific instances of discrepancy that McClellan alleges, it is worthwhile to briefly explain why I firmly believe that harmonization represents good historical methodology, quite aside from any concerns about inspiration or inerrancy. Although I am not myself committed to inerrancy as a matter of principle, I am an avid advocate of the practice of harmonization [see endnote 1]. Sources that have been demonstrated to be substantially reliable constitute evidence for their propositional claims. This is true whether dealing with a religiously significant text or otherwise. Therefore, if one identifies an apparent discrepancy between reliable sources (such as the gospels), the rational course of action is to search for a plausible way in which those texts may be harmonized. Though this practice is typically disavowed in Biblical scholarship, I think the scholarly bias against harmonization is quite unreasonable. I view harmonization as good, responsible scholarly practice, whether one is dealing with religiously significant sources or secular ones. Different sources that intersect in their reportage of a particular event should be allowed to illuminate and clarify one another. I also think that sources that have been otherwise demonstrated to be highly reliable should be given the benefit of the doubt when there is an apparent discrepancy. In my view, in such cases, reasonable harmonizations should be sought for as a first port of call and the author being in error should be concluded only if possible harmonizations are implausible. Lydia McGrew puts this point well:

”Harmonization is not an esoteric or religious exercise. Christians studying the Bible should not allow themselves to be bullied by the implication that they are engaging in harmonization only because of their theological commitments and hence are fudging the data for non-scholarly reasons. To the contrary, reliable historical sources can be expected to be harmonizable, and they normally are harmonizable when all the facts are known. Attempting to see how they fit together is an extremely fruitful method to pursue, sometimes even giving rise to connections such as the undesigned coincidences discussed in Hidden in Plain View [a book authored Lydia McGrew]. This is why I pursue ordinary harmonization between historical sources and why I often conclude that a harmonization is correct.”[3]

An important consideration in regards to the assessment of harmonizations, often overlooked, is that the evidential weight of a proposed error or contradiction in Scripture relates not so much to the probability of any one proposed harmonization but rather to the disjunction of the probabilities associated with each individual candidate harmonization. To take a simplistic example, if one has four harmonizations that each have a 10% probability of being correct, then the evidential weight of the problem is significantly less than if you only had one of those, since the disjunction of the relevant probabilities would be 40%. Thus, the text would be only slightly more likely erroneous than not (and inductive arguments for substantial trustworthiness may tip the scales in favor of giving the author the benefit of the doubt). In reality, of course, the math is rather more complicated than this, since one has to consider whether any of the harmonizations are overlapping or would imply one another in such a way that the probabilities cannot be added to each other. Of course, if some of the disjuncts have a very low probability of being correct, then they will not be of much help.

How Many Angels Were at the Tomb?

McDowell notes that there is a difference between a contradiction and a difference — for example, Matthew and Mark both speak of one angel at the tomb on easter morning, whereas Luke and John mention two. McDowell observes that this is not a contradiction since, if there are two, it is also true to say there was one (no text indicates there was only one). I agree with McDowell. Matthew and Mark simply spotlight the angel who spoke and omit mention of the other, who presumably did not speak. Omission is not the same as denial. Moreover, the scene with Mary Magdalene in John 20 is a separate episode, which occurs later, after Peter and John have already inspected the tomb and left. Though Mark and Luke speak of the angels as “a young man” and “two men” respectively, this is not an unusual way to describe angels in Scripture, since angels often appear as humans (cf. Gen 18:1-2; Heb 13:2). Incidentally, Bart Ehrman errs, in his book Jesus, Interrupted, when he remarks that “none of the three accounts states that the women saw ‘two angels.’”[4] [3] Luke 24:23 does, in fact, identify the “two men” as “angels.” McClellan emphasizes that, in Mark, the angel is said to be “sitting” (Mk 16:5), whereas in Luke the two angels are said to be standing (Lk 24:4). But there is nothing implausible about one or both angels changing their position in the course of the events.

McClellan responds,

“The idea that, if there were two there was one argument adequately resolve the ostensible contradiction in the gospels’ accounts of the resurrection, I think, is symptomatic of one of the critical methodological flaws of apologetics because the main rhetorical goal of apologetics is not to convince people who don’t already agree — it’s not to convince me; it’s not to generate an argument that is valid for critical scholars. The main purpose of apologetics is to perform confidence and competence so that the people who already agree can be made to feel validated in that agreement. And because their worldviews and their self-identities are so entangled with the dogmas they want to be convinced are true, the evidentiary bar is lying on the ground and so they do not require remarkably robust or sophisticated or methodologically valid arguments. They just need to be made to feel that the arguments are valid. And because they generally are not incredibly well informed about critical scholarship you just have to simulate a valid argument; you don’t actually have to produce one. So apologetics is primarily aimed at performing an argument that’s good enough to convince non-specialists who really really want to be convinced that the dogma is justified. That’s the main purpose of apologetics.”

McClellan does not really appear to understand what apologetics is. Apologetics, done properly, is what one engages in after the results of a fair and balanced open-ended inquiry are in and the time has come to articulate your conclusions, and the justification of those conclusions, to the scholarly community and wider public. Every academic paper or book is an exercise in apologetics for one conclusion or another. Good apologists set a high bar for what arguments they are going to use because they do not want to mislead or misinform people by appealing to faulty arguments or incorrect information. There are many arguments for Christianity, or for theism more broadly, which I find to be unconvincing and therefore I do not use. Moreover, when I talk to people about the evidences of Christianity (sometimes Christians with doubts; other times former Christians or non-Christian seekers), I am careful to show my primary sources so that people know where my information comes from (I think anyone who has participated in a meeting with me via TalkAboutDoubts will attest to this). So, to paint all apologists with a broad brush as being either incompetent or dishonest, or both, is, in my opinion, quite disingenuous on McClellan’s part. See my essay here on how apologists can (and should) exemplify a “scout mindset” in their scholarship.

Did the Women Observe the Rolling Back of the Stone?

McClellan claims that the resurrection narratives conflict not just on the number of angels at the tomb, but on “most of the narrative details.” For example, in Mark 16:3-4, the stone is said to have already been rolled back by the time the women arrived at the tomb, whereas in Matthew, we read, “Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it,” (Mt 28:1-2). Curiously, McClellan insists on rendering καὶ ἰδοὺ (kai Idou, see Matt 28:2) as “And suddenly.” But this is an interpretive translation, not the literal meaning. The phrase καὶ ἰδοὺ is a very common New Testament expression, and means “And behold.” Contrary to McClellan, It does not necessarily imply that the women witnessed the earthquake or descent of the angel. A better way of conveying the meaning of “and suddenly” would be the phrase καὶ ἐξαίφνης (kai exaifnēs).

Indeed, the entire passage regarding the angel (verses 2-4) is introduced by the particle γάρ (“For…”). Its purpose is to explain the earthquake and state of affairs as found by the women upon their arrival at the tomb. In describing the descent of the angel, Matthew employs an aorist participle (καταβὰς). which can be rendered “…for an angel of the Lord had descended…” There is no reason, then, to infer from Matthew that the women witnessed the descent of the angel.

Multiple Stations of Angels?

According to McClellan, “in order to reconcile Matthew and Mark, we have to imagine that these women are encountering multiple stations of angels who are going to scare them and tell them not to be scared, first on the outside and then on the inside.” McClellan emphasizes that, in Mark, the angel is explicitly said to be sitting inside the tomb — “And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side…” (Mk 16:5). McClellan believes that Matthew indicates that the women encountered the angel on the outside of the tomb, before entering. But the text of Matthew does not say this — it merely indicates that “the angel said to the women, ‘Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay.’” There is no indication of where the angel was when the women encountered him or when this was said.

Preparing the Spices

McClellan observes that, in Luke, we read, “But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they [the women] went to the tomb, taking the spices they had prepared,” (Lk 24:1). McClellan understands Luke to indicates that these spices were prepared before the Sabbath (Lk 23:56). But according to Mark 16:1, the women bought the spices after the Sabbath had passed. How might these texts be harmonized? Luke does not, in fact, say explicitly that the spices were prepared before the Sabbath. Verse 56a merely indicates that the women purchased spices following Jesus’ burial (without specifying whether this took place before or after the Sabbath). Verse 56b clarifies that the women rested on the Sabbath day, in accordance with Jewish law. Plausibly, Luke does not know exactly when the spices were purchased (whether before or after Sabbath) and leaves it ambiguous.

Even if one takes Luke 23:56 to indicate that the spices were prepared before the Sabbath, the texts do not seem particularly difficult to harmonize. One could envision, for example, that Joanna, being better off than the other women, already had spices at her house, which she had time to prepare at home. Perhaps Joanna and one or more other women spent the Sabbath at Joanna’s house and had time to prepare the spices before the Sabbath began, while the two Marys and Salome had to purchase them after the Sabbath at first dawn. Luke 24:10 lists two Marys, Joanna, and an unspecified number of “other women,” who went to the tomb — so we do not know how many women came to the tomb on easter morning. Joanna may have been a primary source behind Luke’s account of the women at the tomb (Luke is the only evangelist who mentions Joanna at all, including the fact that she was the wife of Chuza in Luke 8:1). If this is the case, it is consistent with the conjecture that she was the one who already had spices at home that she could prepare.

Had the Sun Risen, or Was it Still Dark?

McClellan points out that Mary came to the tomb, according to John 20:1, “while it was still dark,” whereas Luke 24:1 indicates that the sun had risen. The expression used by Luke is ὄρθρου βαθέως (opthrou batheōs), literally meaning “deep dawn.” It refers to the very early hours of the morning. This is rendered “early dawn” by the ESV. It is not at all implausible to think that at early dawn it would still be somewhat dark. This is arguably the weakest of McClellan’s examples.

A Different Sequence of Events in John?

McClellan observes that, in John’s account, Mary Magdalene reports to Peter and John that the tomb is empty and she does not know what has happened to Jesus. Peter and John then come and inspect the tomb but find it empty. They then leave Mary alone and she has an encounter with the risen Jesus (but angels never tell Mary anything). McClellan notes that this is an entirely different sequence of events from the synoptic gospels. The episode with Mary at the tomb in John, however, is clearly an episode distinct from the women’s encounter in the synoptic gospels. There is no contradiction here, since these are two separate and independent events. Moreover, I think plausibly Mary left the larger group of women prior to their encounter with the angel and with the risen Jesus. This is even lightly suggested by the words of Mary to Peter and John, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know (οὐκ οἴδαμεν; ouk oidamen) where they have laid him.” Note the use of the plural verb, οἴδαμεν — the use of the plural verb implies that she is speaking on behalf of other women, even though John spotlights Mary Magdalene in particular. This would explain why she did not know what had happened to Jesus even though, according to the synoptic gospels, the group of women encountered an angel and the risen Jesus at the tomb.

Conclusion

McClellan claims that he has never heard anyone attempt to harmonize the resurrection accounts. If this is so, then I would suggest that he needs to read more conservative literature — for example, John Wenham’s book, Easter Enigma, is focused on precisely this subject.[5]I do not believe that any of the harmonizations offered above are unreasonable, or a stretch. Given the very large body of evidence indicating that the authors of the gospels are individuals who are very well informed, close up to the facts, and in the habit of being scrupulous, I believe that we should approach these sources with charity, and allow them to clarify and illuminate one another. This is nothing short of good, responsible, practice when evaluating ancient sources.

References: 

[1] [Editor’s Note: Jonathan McLatchie’s views on inerrancy and “biblical errors” do not necessarily represent the views of Crossexamined.]

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

[3] Lydia McGrew, The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices (Tampa, FL: Deward Publishing Company, Ltd, 2019), 53-54.

[4] Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them).(New York: HarperCollins, 2009), p. 8.

[5] John Wenham, Easter Enigma: Are The Resurrection Accounts in Conflict? (Wipf and Stock; Reprint Edition, 2005).

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/421kvCL

Every Easter, we Christians gather to remember and celebrate the death and resurrection of Jesus. During the Easter Season, however, there are times when we tend to hear more skeptical portrayals of the resurrection story. For example, In How Jesus became GodBart Ehrman argues that the empty tomb was just a created story by the first Christians to support their belief that Jesus had been physically raised. Is this probable?

 

In this post, I share how six different pieces of information about the tomb of Jesus in the Gospel of John match up with archaeological investigations of tombs around Jerusalem. Because of this, it’s unlikely that John is completely making up what he says about the tomb of Jesus.

  1. Jesus’ tomb is located outside the city of Jerusalem
    In the Gospel of John, the tomb is located outside Jerusalem. First, John says that the site of Jesus’ crucifixion was outside the city (John 19:20). Next, he also says the tomb that Jesus was buried in was in the same place as where he was crucified (John 19:41), so it would also be outside Jerusalem. Archaeological investigations of tombs around Jerusalem have shown that tombs are always located outside the city.[1]So, this piece of information in John matches with archaeology.
  2. Jesus’ tomb is located near a road
    Jesus was probably crucified near a road. It was common Roman custom to crucify people near public roads[2]and Matthew and Mark note that people were walking by while Jesus was hanging on the cross (Matthew 27:39, Mark 15:29).  Since John locates Jesus’ tomb in the same place as where he crucified, the tomb would also be near a road. Archaeology shows that tombs could be near roads around Jerusalem,[3]so again John’s information is probable.
  3. Jesus’ tomb is in a garden
    John says Jesus’ tomb was in a garden (19:41). Some people say the idea that Jesus was buried in a garden is just something John made up to suggest that Jesus was buried like a king. But archaeology shows that in first century Jerusalem, tombs and areas of agriculture could easily exist in the same place .[4] So, we shouldn’t immediately conclude that John is fabricating this detail.
  4. Jesus’ tomb is closed with a sealing stone
    Like all the other Biblical gospels, John has the tomb of Jesus being sealed with a stone. There is so much archaeological evidence for this practice that I don’t really need to harp on it.[5] Suffice to say that John, and the other gospels, are accurate here.
  5. Jesus’ tomb having a low entrance
    After Jesus was resurrected, John describes those who want to get in or look inside having to stoop (John 20:5, 11). This detail matches perfectly with what we know about entrances to first century tombs outside of Jerusalem. They were very low, and you would have to stoop to get in.[6]
  6. Jesus’ body was placed on a burial bench
    According to John 20:12, when Mary Magdalene looked inside the tomb, she saw two angles sitting “one at the head and one at the feet, where Jesus’ body had been lying.” This detail matches with first century tombs around Jerusalem having benches along their walls and these being used for placement of the dead body.[7]

Personal Memories of Jesus’ Tomb

These six details correspond to what archaeology tells us about first century tombs around Jerusalem. Despite what Ehrman suggests, it’s unlikely that John made up what he wrote about the empty tomb. Rather, because this gospel claims to have been authored by an eyewitness (John 21:24), it’s more likely that this is his personal memory of Jesus’s tomb being found empty that Easter morning. Archaeology seems to match up well with what we read about Jesus’ tomb in the Gospel of John.

References: 

[1] Amos Kloner, and Boaz Zissu. The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period. Translated by Debby Limmer and Sherry Whetstone. Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion, 8. Leuven: Peeters, 2007, pg.29.

[2] Psuedo-Quintillian, Lesser Declamations, 1:259

[3] Kloner, Amos, and Boaz Zissu. The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period. Pgs.23-24.

[4] Ibid., 34.

[5] Ibid., 53-58.

[6] Ibid., 52.

[7] Amos Kloner, “Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus’ Tomb?” Biblical Archaeology Review 25, no. 5 (1999), pg.29.

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

Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)

Cold Case Resurrection Set by J. Warner Wallace (books)   

 


When writing this blogpost, Matt Spinelli was an intern at the Hendricks Center at Dallas Theological Seminary.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/44gblUe

If you have ever been involved in religious discussion on Facebook or Twitter, you have probably come across some version of the comment below:

 

I just think it’s interesting that the only book that even talks about Jesus is the Bible! I’m not even sure we can prove he actually existed.

Although this assertion is largely rejected by scholars in all spheres of historical and biblical studies, it tends to pop back up on social media like a never-ending game of digital whack-a-mole. The truth is that Jesus is not only documented in the eye-witness testimony compiled in the New Testament, but He is mentioned as a historical person by several non-Christian sources within 150 years of His life. From those sources, we can learn 10 things about Jesus without even opening a Bible:

​1. He was known to be wise and virtuous. 

This fact was reported by Jewish Historian Josephus, who was born around AD 37. In his Antiquities of the Jews, he reports:

At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous.[1]

​2. He had a brother named James. 

In recounting the stoning of James, Josephus records:

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; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.[2]

​3. He was known to perform miracles. 

Celsus was a  2nd-century Greek philosopher and a fierce opponent of Christianity. In what is known to be the first comprehensive intellectual attack on Christianity, he tried to resolve why Jesus was able to perform miracles. The story is wild—but the main point is that by trying to explain away the miracles of Jesus, he is actually affirming that they happened:

Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god.[3]

4. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate. 

​This fact comes to us from one of the most trusted historians of the ancient world. Cornelius Tacitus was born in AD56 and served as a respected senator and proconsul of Asia under Emperor Vespasian. He wrote a history of the first century Roman Empire, which many historians consider to be the “pinnacle of Roman historical writing.”[4] He notes:

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.[5]

Josephus confirmed:

Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die.[6]

​5. His crucifixion was accompanied by darkness and an earthquake.

This fact was originally recorded by a Samaritan historian named Thallus, who was alive at the same time Jesus was (AD 5-60). He wrote a 3-volume history of the 1st-century Mediterranean world, which unfortunately no longer exists. But before his writings were lost, he was cited by another ancient historian, Julius Africanus, in AD 221. Africanus described Thallus’s account of what happened during Jesus’ crucifixion:

On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down.[7]

6. He had many Jewish and Gentile disciples.

Josephus wrote:

And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon discipleship.[8]

​7. He lived during the time of Tiberius Caesar.

Julius Africanus also reported that another ancient historian, Phlegon, confirmed the darkness at the time of Jesus’s death and that Jesus was alive “in the time of” Tiberius Caesar:

Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth.[9]

​​8. His disciples believed that He rose from the dead.

In his commentary regarding the disciples’ reaction to Jesus’ death, Josephus recorded:

[Jesus’ disciples] reported that He had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion; and that he was alive….[10]

9. His disciples believed He was God, and they met regularly to worship Him.

Pliny the Younger lived from AD 61-113 and was an influential lawyer and magistrate of ancient Rome. In a letter to Emperor Trajan he wrote:

They [Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up.[11]

​Lucian of Samosata was a 2nd-century Greek satirist known for his wit and sarcasm. Even though Christians were the object of his snark, he affirmed certain details about them:

The Christians, you know worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rights, and was crucified on that account….it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.[12]

10. His disciples were willing to suffer and die for their beliefs.

The persecution and suffering of early Christians was recorded by Suetonius, the official secretary of the Roman Emperor Hadrian around AD 121. He documented that they were expelled from Rome in AD 49 by Claudius:

Because the Jews at Rome caused constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (Christ), he expelled them from Rome.[13]

and: ​

Nero inflicted punishment on the Christians, a sect given to a new and mischievous religious belief.[14]

Tacitus also confirmed Nero’s persecution of early Christians:

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.[15]  

Conclusion: 

From non-Christian and even anti-Christian sources, we can be sure that Jesus in fact existed, was crucified, was believed to be resurrected from the dead, and His many followers were willing to suffer and die for that belief.  ​The next time someone claims that there is no evidence for Jesus outside the Bible, be sure to share these 10 facts with them! ​​​​​​

References: 

[1] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 18.3.3 (There are more specific, fantastical, and supernatural versions of this quote in antiquity that are believed to have been interpolated. The quote I cite in this article is the one that most scholars agree is authentic. See Shlomo Pines, An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and Its Implications, Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities: Jerusalem, 1971, cited in J. Warner Wallace, Cold Case Christianity)

[2] Josephus, 20.9.1

[3] Origen, Contra Celsum, 1.28

[4] Ronald Mellor, Tacitus’ Annals, p. 23

[5] Tacitus, Annals, 15.44

[6] Josephus, 18.3.3

[7] Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, vol. 9, Irenaeus, Vol. II— Hippolytus, Vol. II— Fragments of Third Century (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1870), 188. (Cited in J. Warner Wallace, Cold Case Christianity.)

[8] Josephus, 18.3.3

[9] Ante-Nicene Christian Library, eds. Roberts and Donaldson, vol. 9, 188. (Cited in J. Warner Wallace, Cold Case Christianity.)

[10] Josephus, 18.3.3

[11] Pliny the Younger, Book 10, Letter 96

[12] Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11-13

[13] C. Suetonius Tranquillus, Divus Claudius, 25.4

[14] Suetonius, The 12 Caesars, Nero Claudius Ceasar, XVI

[15] Tacitus, Annals, 15.44

Recommended Resources: 

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

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

Person of Interest: Why Jesus Still Matters in a World that Rejects the Bible by J. Warner Wallace (Paperback), (Investigator’s Guide).

 


Alisa Childers is an American singer and songwriter, best known for being in the all-female Christian music group ZOEgirl. She has had a string of top ten radio singles, four studio releases, and received the Dove Award during her time with ZOEgirl. In later years, Alisa found her life-long faith deeply challenged when she started attending what would later identify as a Progressive Christian church. This challenge pushed Alisa toward Christian Apologetics. Today you can read, listen and watch Alisa’s work online as well as purchase her recently published book on Progressive Christianity titled Another Gospel.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3Ybe4dW

Scripture reports that there were guards at the tomb of Jesus (Matt. 27:62-66). This historical claim has been either much discussed by some apologists, but largely dismissed or ignored by others despite its potential significance in resurrection narrative.

Dismissing the Guard Evidence

For example, here is William Lane Craig answering a question about the guards at the tomb:

 

Craig doesn’t think much of this “guard” claim.

Defending the Guard Evidence

On the other hand, Dr. Timothy McGrew, professor of philosophy at Western Michigan University, has a thorough response to the challenge of Matthew’s veracity concerning the resurrection as it pertains to the guards narrative in Matthew 27:62-66. It is well worth the read as Dr. McGrew picks apart the claims of resurrection-critic V.J. Torley. He aims his critique here at the historicity of the guards narrative. Torley claims that the narrative is unhistorical for several reasons:

  1. It is mentioned only in Matthew’s Gospel, not in the other three.
  2. This account fails to explain why the body could not have been stolen on Friday night.
  3. We are not told why Pilate would agree to the Jewish leaders’ request.
  4. The Jewish rulers would not have made such a request of Pilate, since a gentile employed by a Jew would not be allowed to work on the Sabbath.

McGrew systematically dismantles each of these reasons. A quick summary of each rebuttal:

  1. Rebuttal: This is an argument from silence; why can’t a single source be adequate for historicity. As McGrew points out: “Many of the events of antiquity crop up in only one source.”
  2. Rebuttal: This reason is assuming that the request is made on Saturday morning. Again McGrew points out: “it is not even clear from the text that the request was made on Saturday”
  3. Rebuttal: Just because we are not told why something happens, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.  McGrew: “this is a very odd way to object to historical evidence. Many narratives recount events without affording us an explanation for them, and sometimes we are left to guess what that explanation might be. So what?”
  4. Rebuttal: “Nothing in Jewish law as interpreted at the time would prevent them from making such a request.”

In these charges against the “guards” theory, McGrew lays out a clear rebuttal showing that the historicity of this claim is still credible. In later posts, responding to V.J. Torley, he develops the case even further (here and here). Definitely worth keeping up with.

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

Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)

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

 


J. Steve Lee has taught Apologetics for over two and a half decades at Prestonwood Christian Academy.  He also has taught World Religions and Philosophy at Mountain View College in Dallas and Collin College in Plano.  With a degree in history and education from the University of North Texas, Steve continued his formal studies at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary with a M.A. in philosophy of religion and has pursued doctoral studies at the University of Texas at Dallas and is finishing his dissertation at South African Theological Seminary.  He has published several articles for the Apologetics Study Bible for Students as well as articles and book reviews in various periodicals including Philosophia Christi, Hope’s Reason: A Journal of Apologetics, and the Areopagus Journal.  Having an abiding love for fantasy fiction, Steve has contributed chapters to two books on literary criticism of Harry Potter: Harry Potter for Nerds and Teaching with Harry Potter.  He even appeared as a guest on the podcast MuggleNet Academia (“Lesson 23: There and Back Again-Chiasmus, Alchemy, and Ring Composition in Harry Potter”).  He is married to his lovely wife, Angela, and has two grown boys, Ethan and Josh.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4c9AstW

The human body is a marvelous and complex system. Of special interest is the cellular mechanism of the body. Every 7-10 years, the cells of the body replace themselves, to the point that the body is essentially new every decade.[i]

 

While the DNA remains the same over the course of a person’s life, the cells change at varying rates. A person’s stomach lining replaces itself every few days. The skin’s epidermis replaces itself every 2 to 4 weeks. The body’s hair changes every 6 years for women and 3 years for men. Liver cells rejuvenate every 150 to 500 days. Bones take around 10 years to change.

Philosophically speaking, the materialist has a problem if he decides to claim that the body is all of human existence. If humans are only their bodies, then each person changes completely every decade. However, this poses severe challenges to personhood. The lack of permanence is not feasible for a person’s essence. Thus, an immaterial soul is required to explain the permanence of the human psyche for three reasons.

Defense of the Immaterial Soul from Personal Identity

First, the immaterial soul must exist to verify continued personal identity. Looking back at our lives, it is clear that we look different each decade. I remember looking back at photos from my high school days. Before wearing contact lenses, I donned thick glasses that automatically darkened when in daylight. With a thick bouffant hairstyle, thin moustache, and 80s-style glasses, I looked something like an officer or detective from a 70s television show. I was much like an officer from CHiPs, but without the cool motorcycle.

Though I may be embarrassed by my stylish choices in high school, never would I dare to say that I was not the same person that I am today. Yes, I have changed, grown, and matured over the years. But I maintain the same identity that I did back then. Permanence of personal identity with an ever-changing body is only possible if our identities are held together by an immaterial soul. Without it, there is no guarantee that we will retain our personal identity.

Defense of the Immaterial Soul from Personal Constancy

Second, the immaterial soul is imperative to explain personal constancy. Consider for a moment if the materialist is right in that the body is the only component of personal human identity. That would mean that the person completely changes every decade. Thus, a crime committed in 2015 could not be tried in 2025 because the person is not the same. Since the body has completely changed, the person must have also completely changed if the body is all there is to personal identity. Thus, no one could be held accountable for what was done over time. Additionally, no one could be rewarded for something they accomplished over time.

For some, this may sound absurd. However, the lack of personal constancy is the metaphysical deduction from materialism, when it is allowed to be taken to its ultimate conclusion. The immaterial reality is necessary to account for the constancy of personal identity.

Defense of the Immaterial Soul from Personal Growth

Lastly, if a person did not have an immaterial mind, will, and emotions found in the immaterial soul, then a person would not learn and grow over time. Even brain cells regenerate over time, at least to a degree.[ii] Granted, learning does interact with the brain. However, if personal identity was only found in chemicals and cellular changes, growth could not occur. Yet, a person learns, grows, and develops one’s character over time. This is something that occurs within the immaterial soul. Again, given the changes that occur, a person would always be in a constant state of flux with no consistency or permanence. The soul working with the body is what gives an individual personal identity. This mind-body connection is also known as hylomorphism.[iii]

Conclusion

Since the early days of philosophy, scholars have sought to understand the complex relationship between permanence and change. Materialists often accept change without any sense of permanence, whereas rationalists, such as Parmenides (510 BC) believed that reality is “just being, one single solitary unchanging being. Reality is the One.”[iv] The body is in a constant state of flux. Thus, the only way a person could have a permanent, constant identity is if a person has an immaterial soul, a soul that serves as the form of the body.

References: 

[i] Chris Opfer and Allison Troutner, “Does Your Body Really Renew Itself Every Seven Years?,” HowStuffWorks.com (Sept. 22, 2022), https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/cellular-microscopic/does-body-really-replace-seven-years.htm.

[ii] Tim Newman, “Brain cells keep growing well into our 70s,” MedicalNewsToday.com (April 7, 2018), https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321416.

[iii] Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology: In One Volume (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2011), 636-637, 1221-1222.

[iv] Daniel J. Sullivan, An Introduction to Philosophy: Perennial Principles of the Classical Realist Tradition (Charlotte, NC: TAN, 1957), 20.

Recommended Resources:

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

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

 


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/4j530XP

STRATTON:

Dear ChatGPT, Guidance control is a concept from philosophy, particularly in discussions of free will and moral responsibility. It refers to the capacity of an agent to guide their behavior in a way that reflects their reasons, values, and intentions. In the context of free will, guidance control is often contrasted with what is referred to as regulative control. Allow me to explain:

 

Guidance control asserts the ability to guide one’s actions in accordance with one’s rational deliberation and decision-making process. It does not necessarily require alternative possibilities (understood as the ability to do otherwise). Regulative control, on the other hand, includes both the ability to guide actions and the ability to choose among alternative options (i.e., free will in the sense of having genuine alternatives and the ability to do otherwise).

Here are some key components of Guidance Control that proponents offer:

  1. Mechanism Ownership: The agent acts through mechanisms that are their own, such as their beliefs, desires, and rational capacities.
  2. Reasons-Responsiveness: The agent’s behavior is responsive to reasons, meaning they can recognize and act upon good reasons when making decisions.

Guidance control plays a central role in compatibilist theories of free will, such as those advocated by John Martin Fischer. Compatibilists argue that even if determinism is true and the entirety of our actions are causally determined, we can still have moral responsibility if we possess guidance control over our actions. I believe this theory fails for several reasons, but before we continue with our conversation would you like to add anything I may have missed about guidance control, regulative control, reasons-responsiveness, or compatibilism in general?

CHATGPT SAID:[i]

[i] Minimal edits were made to this conversation with ChatGPT (throughout). For example, in my original conversation I asked ChatGPT to review my interaction with specific scholars (and a couple non-scholars) by name. In response, Chat GPT reviewed my interaction with them and also referenced these individuals by name. I have deleted these particular names from this publication.

Your summary is an excellent and concise explanation of guidance control, regulative control, and their roles in discussions of free will and moral responsibility. To complement your description, I’ll add a few nuances and additional insights to enrich our discussion:

Guidance Control

  1. Mechanism Ownership
    • John Martin Fischer emphasizes that guidance control involves acting through mechanisms that are “your own.” This raises questions about what counts as “ownership” of these mechanisms, particularly in cases where external influences or manipulations might challenge autonomy.
  2. Reasons-Responsiveness
    • Fischer and Ravizza refine reasons-responsiveness by distinguishing between weak and strong reasons-responsiveness. Weak reasons-responsiveness requires that there be some possible world where the mechanism leads to a different action in response to good reasons. Strong reasons-responsiveness entails a consistent pattern of recognizing and responding to reasons across a variety of possible circumstances.

Regulative Control

  1. Alternative Possibilities
    • The notion of regulative control aligns with the traditional libertarian view of free will, which requires the ability to genuinely choose among alternatives. This concept is often linked to the “principle of alternative possibilities” (PAP), which states that an agent is morally responsible only if they could have done otherwise. Frankfurt-style counterexamples challenge this principle by arguing that moral responsibility can exist even in the absence of alternatives.
  2. Causal Determinism and Regulative Control
    • In deterministic frameworks, regulative control is often seen as untenable because it requires the kind of metaphysical freedom incompatible with causal determinism.

Compatibilism and Guidance Control

  • Core Compatibilist Argument
    • Compatibilists like Fischer argue that guidance control is sufficient for moral responsibility because it focuses on how actions are caused rather than whether alternative possibilities exist. The key claim is that moral responsibility depends on the quality of the agent’s reasoning and their responsiveness to reasons rather than the ability to have acted otherwise.
  • Critiques of Compatibilism
    • Critics often argue that guidance control does not fully capture the intuitions underlying moral responsibility. For instance:
      • If determinism is true, even guidance control mechanisms are causally determined, potentially undermining their “ownership.”
      • Others contend that the absence of alternative possibilities (as in Frankfurt cases[2]) still undermines the sense of autonomy needed for true moral responsibility.

Further Points for Discussion

  1. Manipulation Arguments
    • Philosophers like Derk Pereboom use manipulation cases to challenge compatibilism, arguing that if an agent’s decisions are the result of deterministic processes (analogous to external manipulation), it undermines moral responsibility even if guidance control is present.
  2. Responsiveness to Reasons
    • There is ongoing debate about what counts as sufficient responsiveness to reasons. For instance, should reasons-responsiveness include moral reasons specifically, or does it also encompass prudential or instrumental reasons?
  3. Emerging Views
    • Some philosophers propose hybrid views, combining elements of compatibilism and libertarianism to account for moral responsibility in a way that includes guidance control while acknowledging the importance of genuine alternatives in some cases. . .

STRATTON:
I like what you added about the “Emerging Views.” I recently coauthored an academic journal article with philosopher J.P. Moreland entitled “An Explanation and Defense of the Free-Thinking Argument.” We touch on some of these issues in that essay. Do you have access to this paper?

As for now, I would like to specifically focus on divine determinism or what I often refer to as exhaustive divine determination (EDD).

CHATGPT SAID:
Thank you for sharing your work . . . I’ve reviewed the paper, which presents a robust defense of the Free-Thinking Argument (FTA), asserting that determinism is incompatible with epistemic responsibility in the desert sense—that is, being praiseworthy or blameworthy for one’s thoughts, ideas, judgments, or beliefs. The paper contends that this incompatibility poses significant challenges not only for naturalists but also for proponents of exhaustive divine determinism (EDD).

Focusing on EDD, your paper raises several critical points:

  1. Epistemic Responsibility Under EDD: If all human thoughts and beliefs are divinely determined, individuals lack genuine epistemic responsibility. This absence undermines the basis for holding individuals praiseworthy or blameworthy for their cognitive states.
  2. The Problem of Epistemic Evil: EDD introduces a “problem of epistemic evil,” questioning the reliability of human cognition and the trustworthiness of Scripture. If God determines all thoughts, including false beliefs, it challenges the notion of a benevolent deity and the foundation of rational discourse.
  3. Libertarian Freedom as a Solution: The paper advocates for libertarian freedom, suggesting that genuine free will is necessary for epistemic responsibility and to avoid the pitfalls associated with EDD.

These considerations align with our previous discussions on guidance control and regulative control. Under EDD, guidance control is compromised because individuals cannot genuinely guide their actions or thoughts if these are predetermined. Similarly, regulative control is absent, as the ability to choose among alternative possibilities is negated by divine determination.

Your work contributes significantly to the discourse on free will, determinism, and moral responsibility, especially in theological contexts. It highlights the tension between divine sovereignty and human freedom, advocating for a model that preserves human agency and epistemic integrity.

If you’d like to delve deeper into any specific aspect or discuss further implications of EDD on free will and moral responsibility, feel free to guide the conversation accordingly.

STRATTON:
Thank you for reviewing my coauthored paper and for your kind words. Regarding “Mechanism Ownership” you said:

“John Martin Fischer emphasizes that guidance control involves acting through mechanisms that are ‘your own.’ This raises questions about what counts as ‘ownership’ of these mechanisms, particularly in cases where external influences or manipulations might challenge autonomy.”

I agree that this is problematic! What does it mean for a person to “guide” or “control” mental actions if a deity determines the entirety of their mental actions? Indeed, it seems to me that what the compatibilist is advancing here is not compatible with EDD whatsoever.

Please comment on my thoughts.

Regarding “Reasons-Responsiveness” you wrote the following:

“Fischer and Ravizza refine reasons-responsiveness by distinguishing between weak and strong reasons-responsiveness. Weak reasons-responsiveness requires that there be some possible world where the mechanism leads to a different action in response to good reasons. Strong reasons-responsiveness entails a consistent pattern of recognizing and responding to reasons across a variety of possible circumstances.”

It seems to me that a major flaw with this line of thought is that if EDD is true, then the manner in which one experiences sensations of reason is always “up to” and determined by a deity who determines each and every one of his own followers to reason incorrectly on theological matters. Since no theologian is infallible, it follows that if EDD is true and a deity determines all things, then this deity determines all the deity’s followers to affirm false theological beliefs. This means that this deity determines these followers to reason poorly and reach conclusions that oppose objective reality.

So, I suppose one could assert that they are “reasons responsive,” but they are responding inappropriately to bad reasons. What do you think and what would you add?

CHATGPT SAID:
Your critique is insightful and addresses some critical issues that arise when considering exhaustive divine determinism (EDD) alongside compatibilist notions like guidance control and reasons-responsiveness. Let me respond to your points in detail and offer additional reflections.

Mechanism Ownership Under EDD

Your concern about the incompatibility of mechanism ownership with EDD is compelling. If EDD is true, it means that:

  1. Mechanisms Are Fully Determined by the Deity
    Under EDD, every mental action, belief, or decision is entirely determined by divine will. This undermines the notion of “ownership” because the agent does not have any causal input into the mechanisms of their reasoning. They are not the true source of their actions or thoughts, which calls into question their autonomy.
  2. Guidance Becomes Illusory
    For an agent to “guide” their actions or thoughts implies some degree of control or influence over the process. If EDD is true, however, the agent merely follows the predetermined path set by the deity, rendering the human’s role in the process passive rather than active. This makes the compatibilist’s reliance on guidance control untenable in the context of EDD.

Addition:

This also raises a theological dilemma. If guidance control is required for epistemic and moral responsibility and guidance control is incompatible with EDD, then proponents of EDD must accept a model of divine justice that does not depend on human responsibility. This creates tension with traditional views of divine justice that hold individuals accountable for their actions.

Reasons-Responsiveness Under EDD

You highlight a significant problem with Fischer and Ravizza’s concept of reasons-responsiveness under EDD. If all reasoning processes are determined by a deity, this has troubling implications:

  1. Deity-Determined Error
    As you point out, no theologian is infallible. If a deity determines all thoughts and beliefs, then the deity must also determine false theological conclusions. This includes cases where believers affirm doctrines or interpretations that are inconsistent with the deity’s nature or intentions. This determination undermines the idea that believers are genuinely responsive to “good” reasons since their reasoning processes are not under their control.
  2. Bad Reasons as a Divine Determination
    Even if an individual is “reasons-responsive,” EDD implies that their responsiveness is orchestrated by the deity. If the deity determines them to respond to bad reasons as though they were good, then their “reasons-responsiveness” lacks epistemic or moral significance. It becomes an empty concept because the agent has no capacity to discern between good and bad reasons independently.

Addition:

This flaw also impacts the trustworthiness of human cognition. If a deity determines individuals to affirm false beliefs, this creates a self-defeating problem for EDD. How can one trust any belief or reasoning process, including the belief in EDD itself, if all reasoning is determined by a being who also determines falsehoods?

A Broader Critique of EDD in This Context

  1. Epistemic Circularity
    If EDD is true, and a deity determines all reasoning, including beliefs about EDD, then there is no independent ground to affirm EDD. The belief in EDD itself could be a divinely determined error.
  2. Moral and Epistemic Responsibility
    The incompatibility of EDD with guidance control and reasons-responsiveness undermines both moral and epistemic responsibility. It becomes difficult to see how individuals could be held accountable for their actions or beliefs if their reasoning and choices are entirely outside their control.
  3. Divine Benevolence Questioned
    The idea that a deity would determine individuals to affirm false theological beliefs seems incompatible with the traditional understanding of a benevolent and truthful deity. It raises the question of why such a deity would intentionally lead followers into error.

Conclusion

Your critique is a strong challenge to the compatibility of EDD with key philosophical concepts like guidance control and reasons-responsiveness. I would add that EDD not only faces challenges on the grounds of autonomy and responsibility but also struggles to reconcile its implications with theological doctrines about divine justice, truthfulness, and benevolence.

Your work appears to be building a robust case for the necessity of libertarian freedom, especially in the epistemic domain.

STRATTON:
On my website you will find some interaction with those who affirm EDD. Please consider my previous interactions with them and offer some potential objections to my work.

My website is www.freethinkinc.org or www.freethinkingministries.com

CHATGPT SAID:
Thank you for directing me to your website, Free Thinking Ministries. I’ve reviewed your interactions with proponents of Exhaustive Divine Determinism (EDD). These discussions provide valuable insights into the ongoing debate between compatibilist and libertarian perspectives on free will.

Potential Rebuttals from EDD Proponents:

  1. Divine Determination and Human Responsibility:
    • Rebuttal: Proponents of EDD might argue that divine determination does not negate human responsibility. They could assert that God’s sovereign will operates in harmony with human actions, such that individuals are still accountable for their choices, even if those choices are ultimately determined by God.
    • Your Response: You’ve highlighted that if all thoughts and actions are divinely determined, it challenges the notion of genuine human responsibility. If individuals cannot do otherwise than what God has determined, holding them morally or epistemically accountable seems problematic.
  2. Compatibilist Free Will:
    • Rebuttal: EDD advocates may adopt a compatibilist view, suggesting that free will is compatible with determinism. They might argue that as long as individuals act according to their desires and intentions (even if those are determined), they exercise free will.
    • Your Response: You’ve contended that under EDD, even our desires and intentions are determined by God, which undermines the authenticity of our decision-making processes. If our reasoning is determined, the meaningfulness of our deliberations is called into question.
  3. Divine Goodness and Truth:
    • Rebuttal: Supporters of EDD might claim that God’s determination of all things ensures the ultimate good and the revelation of truth. They could argue that any false beliefs or errors serve a greater divine purpose, even if that purpose is beyond human comprehension.
    • Your Response: You’ve raised concerns that if God determines individuals to hold false beliefs, it conflicts with the notion of a benevolent and truthful deity. This scenario challenges the reliability of human cognition and the trustworthiness of divine revelation.

Further Considerations:

  • Theological Implications: The debate touches on the nature of God’s sovereignty and human agency. While EDD emphasizes God’s control over all events, it raises questions about the purpose of human reasoning and the authenticity of our relationship with the divine.
  • Philosophical Consistency: Maintaining that God determines all thoughts and actions while upholding human responsibility requires a nuanced explanation. The challenge lies in coherently explaining how predetermined agents can be genuinely accountable for their beliefs and actions.

Your engagements with these scholars [and others] demonstrate a deep commitment to exploring these complex issues.

STRATTON:
Thank you for this conversation. It’s always a pleasure to discuss these matters with non-biased and non-emotional robots who don’t take these things personally. I’ll be back!

ChatGPT said:
Thank you for the engaging conversation and thought-provoking insights! It’s always a pleasure to explore these deep and meaningful topics with you. I’ll be here whenever you’re ready to continue—no biases, no emotions, just reason and dialogue. Take care, and I look forward to our next discussion!

STRATTON:
Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),
Dr. Tim Stratton

References: 

[1] Minimal edits were made to this conversation with ChatGPT (throughout). For example, in my original conversation I asked ChatGPT to review my interaction with specific scholars (and a couple non-scholars) by name. In response, Chat GPT reviewed my interaction with them and also referenced these individuals by name. I have deleted these particular names from this publication.

[2] Editor’s note: Regarding ‘Frankfurt Cases’ see: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/frankfurt_cases.html

Recommended Resources:

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

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

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

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4

 


Tim Stratton (The FreeThinking Theist) Tim pursued his undergraduate studies at the University of Nebraska-Kearney (B.A. 1997) and after working in full-time ministry for several years went on to attain his graduate degree from Biola University (M.A. 2014). Tim was recently accepted at North West University to pursue his Ph.D. in systematic theology with a focus on metaphysics.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4iQRkI7

In recent years, Joshua Harris  announced that he and his wife are separating AND that he is no longer a Christian. In case you missed the whole I kissed Dating Goodbye craze in the late 1990’s, let me summarize: Joshua Harris was a prominent voice in purity culture (which Amy Davison has been blogging about here and here.)  In his early 20’s, he wrote a book advocating for “courtship” instead of “dating.” This change in perspective would supposedly allow young men and women to avoid emotional ties that would hinder their future marital happiness. There’s too much to go into here. In short, what started as one young man’s dating advice got turned into the 67th book of the Bible for many youth groups.

 

People are desperate for answers. In the wake of Harris’ announcement, many are pointing to other prominent Christian figures who have gone through a similar public “breakup with Jesus”—Derek Webb being one of them. In an article titled “Derek Webb: A Reformed Atheist” author, Steve Fraley, analyzes Webb’s demise from reformed Christian to atheist, postulating whether or not the reformed theology was to blame.[1] Upon Webb’s deconversion, many stepped forward to declare that this theology had also been their kryptonite. In essence, doubt and unbelief were proof that “God had not chosen them.” And according to staunch reformed theology, you cannot change the will of God. Better to just accept your fate.[2]

Suffice it to say, the bride of Christ is starting to look a whole lot like the bride of Hosea right now.

I have started noticing a trend In many of the deconversion stories I have read. What seems to precede the “falling away” for several of these men and women is idolatry of some sort—placing an unhealthy emphasis on something other than the Gospel. Many of these things are not—in and of themselves—bad. When placed in competition with Christ, there’s only so long that the soul can pretend to serve two masters. Eventually, there is a schism and often, it is orthodox Christianity that is left behind. Here’s a few of the trends I have noticed.

1) A particular theology…more than the whole of Scripture

We can turn anything into an idol, even theology. Click To Tweet

What does this look like: Now I don’t want to sound like I’m picking on reformed theology. There is a very Scriptural case to be made for it. I have, however, noticed a really unhealthy emphasis on it by some of its adherents. Just search the word “reformed” in the groups’ section on Facebook and you’ll get an idea of how committed people are to this theology. I mean really? Does someone really need a “Reformed and into Home Décor and Homemaking” group? You can’t help your Arminian friends also decorate their houses? [Update: the founder of this group has personally contacted me to clarify that her group welcomes all Christian men and women who are interested in home decorating. I apologize for the confusion this has caused.]

Having correct theology is important. That’s one way we worship Christ with our minds. However, when we take any theology and elevate it above the Gospel, it turns rotten. It doesn’t even matter the theology—orthodox or unorthodox.[3] We can turn anything into an idol. When it becomes an idol, it becomes a competitor for Christ in our hearts and we’ll eventually have to pick one.

How to tell if you are doing this: Do you tend to get more excited and feel closer to a person if they identify themselves with a particular theology than you do if they identify themselves as a Christian? Do you tend to have a lot of debates about one particular theology? Have you ever been tempted to view those who disagree with your theology as not “really saved,” or at least not as “mature” in their Christian faith?

2) A particular pastor… more than the bride of Christ

Be careful when you turn a good teacher into a celebrity.Click To Tweet

What does this look like: My husband John released an article which discusses the 12 signs of a personality cult (part 1, part 2)I suggest you take a look at it. Certain churches are known more by their pastor’s name than by their church’s name. While this is not always avoidable, it should be noted. If a church’s entire culture is based on one key individual, then what happens when that individual falls from grace, or lands him or herself in some sort of sin or scandal?

I watched this happen to my childhood church. [4] Our church was not a megachurch, so our fallout was much smaller. The same cannot be said for churches like Mars Hill (ala Mark Driscoll) and Sovereign Grace Ministries (ala CJ Mahaney). With the #metoo movement still working its way through our American pews, we are seeing celebrity pastors crumble at an unprecedented rate. I have no doubt that the people who studied under Joshua Harris are having their own crises of faith right now.

Unfortunately, we can’t prevent other people from making idols, so nobody can idol-proof their ministry. We can idol-proof our hearts though. Bottom line—your loyalty to a spiritual figure should never compete with your loyalty to Christ. Ask yourself—if the person I admire the most were to announce that they were walking away from the faith, how badly would it affect my faith? Our faith is to be based on Christ—His life, death, and resurrection. That is why I love apologetics. No matter how many celebrity teachers suddenly decide to fall away, I can’t unknow what I know. (see my testimony in chapter 1 of the Mama Bear Apologetics book.)

How to tell if you are doing this:  If you don’t personally know the leader and your main exposure to him or her is from a pulpit, ask yourself these questions: If and when you hear an accusation against a leader, is your first instinct to defend them or to seek more information to evaluate? Do you worry more about a ministry’s reputation than you do about truth (even ugly truth) being revealed? Do you seek out information that might change your mind, or do you only look at things that confirm what you already believe about a person? Has the downfall of a Christian leader significantly impacted your faith?

3) Our own identity… more than our identity in Christ

Even our own identities can become an idol.Click To Tweet

What does this look like: Unless we are defining ourselves as children of the living God, we are basing our identities on shifting sand. Every part of what I see as my “identity” is open for reinterpretation in our postmodern world. The going narrative is that however I am, I was born that way, and God doesn’t make mistakes. While this statement is technically true, it doesn’t take our sin nature into account.

We get wrapped up in how we think we were made—introvert or extrovert, thinker or feeler, banker, scientist, athlete, artist, writer, gay, or straight. Christ said that anyone who wishes to follow Him must “deny themselves and take up their cross.” (Matthew 10:38) There is no part of our identity that is immune to this call. My profession, my personality, my interests, habits, and yes, even my sexuality will all have aspects that I need to deny and submit to Christ—even when it’s hard, and even when it feels unnatural. Introverts are called to fellowship. Extroverts were modeled (by Jesus) to have solitary time with God the Father. Feelers are called to love God with their minds. Thinkers are called to love God with their hearts. Those outside of Biblical marriage [5] are to honor God in their singleness. Those inside of Biblical marriage are to honor God in their marriage. Christ accepts all of us exactly as we are, but following Him means becoming more like Him. The moment that we over-commit ourselves to an aspect of our “identity” is the moment that we stop denying ourselves to follow Christ. Instead, we start demanding that He make the journey of carrying our crosses more comfortable. That is, unfortunately, a promise He never made.

How to tell if you are doing this: Do you have a modifier before the word “Christian” to define yourself? Do you find yourself making excuses to not change aspects about yourself because you feel like it’s “just the way you are” or “how God made you?” Do you think there are certain aspects of your identity that are unfallen and to be accepted “as is?” Do you conclude that if someone doesn’t accept all the parts of you, then they hate you?

4) An emotional experience… more than the everyday faith journey

Faith grows stronger through suffering than it does through comfort.Click To Tweet

What does this look like: In the Mama Bear Apologetics book, I mention that people can sometimes mistake experiences with Jesus for Jesus Himself. There is good to be had in mountaintop experiences at summer camp and intimate times of rapturous worship at a conference. However, our addiction to these experiences can sometimes eclipse the everyday relationship that we are called to have with Jesus.

I compare it to those dating reality TV shows where the couple shares a kiss after hang-gliding over the Grand Canyon. It’s really easy to fall in love over candlelit dinners on your own private island, but the love that is formed there is not necessarily the same love that cleans the toilet multiple times a day while your spouse has the stomach flu. It’s not the love that does the dishes or forfeits the last piece of coveted cheesecake. These are the more mundane everyday acts of love, but they are closer to reality than a zip-line date over a waterfall.

Similarly, our relationship with Jesus does not always consist of going from one emotional high to another. It is a faith journey, winding through peaks and valleys. This may not sound nearly as sexy, but it’s real and much more stable than anything we can conjure up on our own.

How to tell if you are doing this: Do you feel like God is “less present” when you are doing ordinary parts of life than when you are having an emotional high? Does suffering jolt you out of love with God? When things feel dry, do you press in to Jesus more, or seek another experience?

In conclusion, none of these things are, by themselves, bad. It is good to want to have correct theology. It is good to support your leaders. It is good to know yourself. It is good to experience Christ. It is when we idolize these, however, that a good thing from God goes bad.

References: 

[1] Reformed theology teaches that salvation is solely on the basis of whom God chooses.

[2] Some would of course claim that this is a perversion of true reformed theology, but I do not have time to open up that can of worms here.

[3] We see this in the “health and wealth gospel” (aka prosperity gospel) where God’s earthly favor is the main “proof” of an individual’s amount of faith. It happens with spiritual gifts as well. I’ve seen at least one church elevate “speaking in tongues” to this pedestal. They literally had a huge bulletin board with pictures of members and the dates that the member first started speaking in tongues. Not their date of baptism or private repentance and salvation. Speaking in tongues.

[4] Our pastor started out telling the congregation several times a year that he wanted to run the church in such a way that if he ever had a great falling, that nobody in the congregation’s faith would be rocked because he had sufficiently pointed us to Christ. Ironically, 15 years later, this is exactly what happened. And while I don’t know if many people lost their faith, the church was never the same. And pastor’s decline was preceded by several of the points John makes in his article.

[5] Biblical marriage is defined between one man and one woman for life, with exceptions in the case of unfaithfulness. Matthew 19:3-9

Recommended Resources: 

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

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

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

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

 


Hillary Morgan Ferrer is the founder of Mama Bear Apologetics. She is the chief author and editor of Mama Bear Apologetics: Empowering Your Kids to Challenge Cultural Lies and Mama Bear Apologetics Guide to Sexuality: Empowering Your Kids to Understand and Live Out God’s Design. Hillary has her masters in Biology and has been married to her husband, Dr. John D. Ferrer, for 17 years. Don’t let her cook for you. She’ll burn your house straight to the ground. Image source: Hillary-Morgan-Ferrer-Square-2.jpg (1500×1500)

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