Tag Archive for: apologetics

Live Your Truth and Other Lies | with Alisa Childers

We’ve all seen the memes that populate the internet: “live your truth”, “follow your heart”, and “authenticity is everything”. Sounds great, right?! Many come from mainstream authors and influencers with millions of followers. But what if these slogans are really just deceptions that unhinge us from reality and lead to our spiritual decline?

In this episode, the one and only Alisa Childers joins Frank to discuss her brand new book, Live Your Truth and Other Lies: Exposing Popular Deceptions That Make Us Anxious, Exhausted, and Self-Obsessed. In it, Alisa delivers an apologetic response to mainstream Progressive Christianity and the self-help industry, explaining that being the captain of our own destiny is a huge burden that we were never meant to bear because real freedom can only be found by choosing to live GOD’S TRUTH, not our own! You’ll also hear about Alisa’s life-changing experience visiting a women’s prison in Ecuador and a special offer just for our listeners if you order the book!

To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into some great discussions with like-minded Christians without fear of being canceled by your friends, family, co-workers, or boss!

Alisa’s book: https://a.co/d/3Ll1qoz

If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.

Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

 

 

Download Transcript

 

/by

La redefinición del amor como resultado de la pérdida de la verdad

Por Rich Hoyer

La mayoría de la gente está de acuerdo en que debemos amarnos unos a otros. Pero ¿Qué significa amar a los demás?

Amar no puede ser lo que nuestra cultura dice que es. Tampoco puede estar desconectado de un estándar moral y trascendental (por ejemplo, la Palabra de Dios y las Leyes naturales) dejando que nuestros sentimientos lo definan subjetivamente, darle la forma que las tendencias sociales actuales le den. El ciudadano promedio en los Estados Unidos de América es un Secularista Popular[i] y ha aceptado la definición de amor dada por el Secularismo Popular. Cuando se habla de amor hoy en día, se hace referencia a “amar a otros” y decir esto parece tener el siguiente significado. “Deseo que obtengas aquello que anhelas; y que supones que te hará feliz.” En estos tiempos el amor es entendido desde los principales valores del Secularismo Popular que son la comodidad y la felicidad y se han desechado los valores tradicionales de la bondad y la verdad. Asi, en nuestra cultura actual, ser incapaz de amar o ser cruel está relacionado con interponerse entre las personas y su elección de un estilo de vida el cual consideran que les brindará felicidad y satisfacción, basta con decirles que lo que anhelan es “equivocado” desde cierta perspectiva e invitarles a que por voluntad propia se abstengan de ciertos anhelos y deseos. Hoy en día a eso se refiere nuestra cultura Secularista Popular con ser “incapaz de amar.”

Cuando el concepto de verdad moral comprensible (una norma para diferenciar lo bueno de lo malo y el bien del mal cuyo origen se encuentra fuera del ser humano y de la opinión social) es rechazado por una cultura, nos quedamos sin una norma confiable para medir nuestros anhelos y deseos. Se vuelve imposible decir, “Mi deseo hacia esa persona es incorrecto,” o “Mi anhelo de hacer esto es dañino para mí y para la sociedad. “Lo único que queda es que la gente y la sociedad expresen su opinión.  Sin embargo, muchos de los integrantes de nuestra sociedad actúan sin considerar que su definición de amor es una opinión más. Algunos se esfuerzan por imponer sus opiniones sobre quienes están en desacuerdo con la perspectiva socialmente aceptada a pesar de que carecen de fundamentos filosóficos sólidos para sostener sus afirmaciones. La sociedad aún delibera sobre varios conceptos como el amor, pero se ha perdido la definición tradicional del amor que firmemente se vincula con la Verdad.

Todo esto deja al amor en la misma situación de un bote que carece de amarras y va de aquí para allá de acuerdo con el viento y las olas de las pasajeras modas sociales.

No obstante el amor y la Verdad van de la mano. Sin la Verdad, cualquier cosa que se afirme del amor es falso —muy parecido a lo que sucede cuando una persona confunde enamoramiento con amor. Amar a otro implica el deseo de todo tipo de bien en la vida del otro. Siendo más específico, amar a alguien es esforzarse por traer el bien a la vida del otro. Sin embargo para medir “el bien” es indispensable una norma que provenga de una fuente que no sea la opinión de la sociedad con esta norma podremos examinar cada opción que se presente. Afortunadamente, tenemos una verdadera vara de medir el bien en la forma de la revelación de Dios que se nos da a través de la Biblia y de la Ley natural.

Los cristianos deben saber qué es el amor y cómo se manifiesta. No debemos dejarnos engañar y aceptar la definición cultural del amor que se basa en los sentimientos y  no en la verdad. De hecho, podemos aprender mucho acerca del amor simplemente observando los aspectos que están en juego en la conversación cuando Jesús respondió a la pregunta de un  fariseo en Mateo 22:36 (LBLA), “Maestro, ¿cuál es el gran mandamiento de la ley?” La respuesta de Jesús la encontramos en los versos 37-40:

Mateo 22:37-40 (LBLA)

  1. Jesús le dijo: —”Ama al Señor tu Dios con todo tu corazón, con todo tu ser y con toda tu mente”.
  2. Este es el primer mandamiento y el más importante.
  3. Hay un segundo mandamiento parecido a éste: “Ama a tu semejante como te amas a ti mismo”.
  4. Toda la ley y los escritos de los profetas dependen de estos dos mandamientos.

Jesús dijo que amar a Dios y amar a los demás como a ti mismo es el mayor de los mandamientos, la mayor responsabilidad del ser humano.Es en este punto donde el secularista popular podría estar de acuerdo en decir: “¡Sí, el AMOR es el mayor valor!  Observa, que aún Jesús dijo eso. Ustedes los cristianos deberían mostrar más amor a la gente. Deberían aprobar lo que otros hacen y no criticar su estilo de vida ni sus creencias solo porque son diferentes a las suyas.” Tristemente, cada vez vemos a más y más cristianos aceptar estilos de vidas inmorales bajo el nombre  de ser  inclusivos,  accesibles y de mostrar más amor ¡incluso en el espíritu del Amor del propio Cristo! i

Sin embargo aquellos que adoptan esta postura han fracasado en considerar el contexto y LAS RAZONES IMPLÍCITAS tanto en la pregunta del fariseo como en la respuesta de Jesús. Ambos están de acuerdo en que la verdad moral PUEDE CONOCERSE… Ambos basan su definición de amor, no en la subjetividad de los sentimientos, sino en la clara revelación de la Verdad moral que  proviene de Dios mismos. Después de todo, la pregunta era, “¿Cuál es el mayor mandamiento de la Ley?” Así que debemos hacer la siguiente pregunta, “¿De qué Ley se refieren ambos?” La respuesta, es clara, ¡es la Ley que fue dada por Dios al pueblo de Israel! ¿Y de dónde vino esa Ley? ¡De Dios! En otras palabras, si tú deseas amar a Dios y amar a los demás, debes cumplir con las cosas que Dios mandó en la Ley que le entregó a Israel.[ii]Tal como dijo Jesús en el versículo 40, “Toda la ley de Dios está hecha para ayudarte a amar a Dios y a amar a los demás” (el parafraseo es mío). Esto no es otro concepto subjetivo del amor, sino que está basado en clara capacidad de acceder y conocer la revelación de Dios hacia hombre. En pocas palabras amar a Dios y amar a los demás implica obedecer la Ley de Dios.

Esta misma revelación hacia el hombre  es la que se niega en la cosmovisión de los Secularistas Populares. De acuerdo con el Secularismo Popular, puede que Dios exista o puede que no, pero estamos completamente seguros que no podemos decir “quién” es Dios, y mucho menos qué es lo que Dios quiere. Por lo tanto, el concepto del amor está a la deriva para ser definido por cualquier ola y viento de doctrina que la sociedad esté promoviendo en ese momento. Este amor se parece a un bote que por no estar amarrado anda de aquí para allá sin un rumbo fijo.

No nos sorprende que los no cristianos, como los Secularistas Populares adopten este punto de vista, lo que nos debería sorprender    es cuando los que profesan la fe cristiana acepten este mismo punto de vista. Y se debe en parte a que muchos cristianos no conocen las Escrituras porque no leen la Biblia, por ello son fácilmente arrastrados por los “vientos y olas” de falsas doctrina  que nace  de la cosmovisión de los Secularistas Populares. Algunos se dicen cristianos, yo me atrevería a decir que son, desde el fondo de su corazón Secularistas Populares aunque afirmen creer en Jesús. Sus acciones y actitudes, al igual que las de los demás, nacen de sus convicciones más profundas, que se alinean más con la cultura en general que con el cristianismo. Pero como cristianos, si en verdad lo somos, debemos aceptar las enseñanzas de la Biblia,  las palabras del propio Jesucristo, en vez de adoptar las convicciones de la cultura en la que vivimos. Debemos medir cada cosa que vemos y oímos con la norma que Dios nos ha revelado. Si no hacemos esto, no seremos transformados a la imagen de Cristo y nos conformaremos a todo tipo de falsas nociones —incluyendo distorsiones  de conceptos fundamentales, como el amor.

Notas:

[i] El Secularismo Popular es la cosmovisión dominante en el Occidente de hoy en día. El Secularismo Popular sostiene las siguientes suposiciones sobre la realidad:

  1. Dios puede que exista o puede que no.
    1. Si Dios existe, nadie sabe cuál es el Dios verdadero.
    2. Nadie puede decir con razón, si una religión es la correcta y otra está equivocada.
    3. Hacer tales afirmaciones es intolerante
  2. Nadie puede asegurar que sabe lo que Dios quiere de la humanidad y excluir las afirmaciones   de los demás.
    1. Por lo tanto, ningún libro religioso (la Biblia, el Corán, etc.) puede proclamar rotundamente ser la Palabra de Dios.
    2. Cada libro tiene el mismo peso, pero menos peso que la sabiduría
  3. Es probable que la moral exista pero tiene que ver más con la supervivencia de la sociedad y no con aquello que le agrada a Dios.
    1. Es innegable que el “mal” es real
    2. Como no sabemos si Dios es real o quién es, nadie puede afirmar que las acciones de otro son objetivamente erróneas a menos que la mayoría de la sociedad esté de  acuerdo.
    3. Por lo tanto, la moral es un constructor de la sociedad y no es el producto de lo que Dios nos ha revelado.
  4. La comodidad y la felicidad son las máximas consideraciones humanas.
    1. La humanidad debería esforzarse para lograr que todos alcancen la comodidad y la felicidad.
    2. Cualquier cosa que impida la comodidad y la felicidad debe ser evitada y en lo posible debe estar prohibida.
  5. Los fines económicos siempre deben estar por encima de cualquier reclamación religiosa.
    1. Las políticas y leyes públicas deberían decidirse  tomando en cuenta si traerá más dinero a la sociedad  y no basándose en las consideraciones morales de la “religión”.
    2. Como ejemplo moderno: Al legalizar los juegos de apuestas se generarán ingresos económicos que servirán de apoyo a los raquíticos presupuestos que se le otorgan a la ciudad, esta razón debe ser considerada como más importante que las directrices religiosas que afirman que los juegos de apuesta no son “buenos” para la sociedad.
    3. “El bien” se define en términos de la economía, lo sexual y lo ambiental.
  6. La (casi) total libertad sexual es algo que todos deben tener derecho.
    1. La homosexualidad, la transexualidad y el sexo fuera del matrimonio son estilos de vida y elecciones legítimas de estilo de vida, ya que las personas deben tener derecho a hacer lo que quieran.
    2. Solo las actividades sexuales que “lastimen” a otros son incorrectas.
    3. Un creciente número de Secularistas Populares creen que cada persona debería dársele el derecho a no ser ofendido, lo que implica censurar toda opinión contraria.
  7. La ignorancia y el abuso causado por “los ricos” son los dos principales problemas de la humanidad.
    1. Si educamos a la gente, mucha de la maldad del mundo y sus desigualdades desaparecerán.
    2. El gobierno también debe perseguir la redistribución de los bienes para establecer justicia económica.
    3. Si todos cooperamos, podríamos generar condiciones casi utópicas, y la vida mejoraría para todos.
  8. Nadie sabe lo que pasa cuando morimos.
    1. Si no existe Dios, no debemos preocuparnos por el Juicio Final.
    2. Por otro lado, algunos creen que casi todos van al cielo.

En la mente de aquellos, solo las personas realmente malas van al infierno, si tal lugar existe.

[ii]  Hoy en día, no hay que instituir inmediatamente todas las leyes del Antiguo Testamento a la ligera. Debemos reconocer que existe una revelación progresiva de Dios. El Código Moral lo volvemos a encontrar en el Nuevo Testamento y aún es válido, mientras que las leyes Ceremoniales y Civiles están obsoletas porque han sido cumplidas por Cristo.

Recursos recomendados en Español:

Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek

Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Rich Hoyer es el Ministro Principal de la Iglesia Cristiana Lyndon en Louisville, Kentucky. También es presidente del consejo administrativo de la Reveal Conference, la cual se esfuerza por educar a la gente del área de Louisville en las evidencias y verdades del cristianismo. Rich obtuvo su título de maestría en religión de la Universidad Cristiana de Cincinnati. La apologética cristiana es la pasión más grande de Rich.

Fuente Original del blog: https://bit.ly/3EYaMC1

Traducido por Jennifer Chavez 

Editado por Monica Pirateque 

 

/by

Why Most People Would Rather Be Right Than Find the Truth

,

By Mike Taylor

Can we be honest with each other for a minute and admit that being right feels good?

It makes you feel powerful. When you’re right, it implies that someone else is wrong, which feels like you have a higher social standing than the other person. There’s a moment of elevation that happens in our minds when we feel like we’re right.

Most of the time, the facts don’t matter. We’ll throw out research and data for the sake of feeling right. It doesn’t even necessarily matter if we’re right or not just as long as we feel right.

But why is that?

The Science Behind Why Being Right Feels So Good

When you feel as though you’re right or that you’ve won an argument[i], your brain is flooded with adrenaline and dopamine[ii]. This chemical cocktail causes you to feel like you’re on top of the world. We feel in control, dominant, and powerful. That feeling becomes something we can easily become dependent on for self worth. Before we know it, we’re addicted to being right.

This is why some people poke and prod just to get a reaction out of someone. This is why people jump into an argument on social media to bicker over a point that is essentially meaningless. It’s because they’re addicted to the feeling of being right. And in a world where there are hundreds of micro moments where we can feel right on social media, we find ourselves in a digital buffet of vices that feed our addiction.

This is why the feeling of certainty can also become an addiction. Whenever we feel like what we’re doing is not 100% right or 100% certain, then we start missing our adrenaline and dopamine hits because we’re not feeling like we’re “right”. That’s when we’re likely to switch gears or change directions to find that ever-elusive high.

One study[iii] found that “a rush of dopamine accompanies fresh experiences of any kind.” Dopamine is a neurotransmitter that helps us feel pleasure, and anytime we find something new or feel like we’ve won an argument, that dopamine makes us feel important and victorious.

So we switch from one fleeting moment of feeling right, certain, and confident for the next exciting moment rather than doing the hard work of digging in, pushing through conflict, and dealing with the friction of uncertainty. And we wonder why we don’t see progress in our personal and professional lives – but it’s because we’ve become addicted to chasing “right” rather than the pursuit of what’s true.

How to Overcome the Addiction to Being Right

The first step to overcome the desire to be right is to understand what’s happening in your brain. Whenever you get into an argument with someone, your body is automatically sending signals to release cortisol, which is your stress hormone. Cortisol causes your thinking, reasoning, and compassionate side of your brain to go off-line.

When this happens, you go into what you’ve probably heard referred to as “fight or flight“ mode. Your body is in “lizard brain” and its only goal is to survive. It’s in that moment that we begin the hunt for dopamine through some sort of victory. That’s why most people’s reaction to conflict is to fight.

But if you can understand and harness how your body responds to conflict, then you can start to put measures into place that keep you from doing something that damages a relationship.

For example, one of the most effective things you can do when you’re in an emotionally charged situation is to take yourself out of that situation momentarily. You have to do what could be referred to as “emotionally sobering up”.

Whenever you’re in conflict, your brain naturally becomes emotionally drunk, and it can literally feel intoxicating to attempt to shut down the other person’s argument. But now that you know what’s happening, you can take a step away, take a breath, and give yourself the space you need to make a reasonable and compassionate choice rather than fighting for a dopamine hit.

An effective way to bring your thinking brain back online is to bring yourself to the present moment. Box breathing techniques[iv] are particularly helpful to bring your mind to the present moment. You can also take notice of the objects around you or start counting your fingers and toes. The goal of this is to engage the part of your brain that thinks rationally and compassionately so your survival-mode lizard brain can take a break.

Another effective way to bring yourself out of your emotions is to simply read something that isn’t emotionally charged. Take 15 minutes and read a boring article about something you’re mildly interested in. Read part of a chapter in that book you’ve been neglecting. Count to 100 backwards while you brush your teeth. Whatever it takes, do not ruminate on the situation, and don’t formulate potential responses.

Ruminating and dwelling on conflict only feeds your brain‘s desire to be right. Then, whenever you see the person you’ve been in conflict with, all of those built-up scenarios and emotions will overflow on them (and not in the way you pictured it in your mind when you were ruminating) and you’ll be right back in the same unhealthy conflict.

Once you’ve given yourself some space and brought your thinking brain back online, start thinking empathetically. In other words, put yourself in the other person’s shoes without defaulting to putting your desires over theirs.

Think about why they’re so adamant about their position. Chances are, they have a good reason. What were their expectations that were not met? What were your expectations that weren’t met? These unmet expectations are at the heart of all of our conflict, so getting down to that will do wonders for driving healthy conversations going forward.

Next time you feel the need to be right, remember it’s probably your brain craving the comfort of another hit of dopamine. Instead of giving into the craving, give yourself room to sober up emotionally, bring yourself back to the present moment so you’re thinking rationally again, then let empathy drive your thinking going forward.

If you do these things, you’ll find that conflict actually becomes productive, the truth becomes more apparent, and everyone will be better off for it – including you.

Footnotes

[i] https://www.mikeptaylor.com/personal-growth/how-to-win-an-argument/

[ii] https://hbr.org/2013/02/break-your-addiction-to-being

[iii] https://brainworldmagazine.com/the-importance-of-novelty/

[iv] https://www.webmd.com/balance/what-is-box-breathing

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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

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

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mike P. Taylor is an author from Nashville, TN who writes at mikeptaylor.com about biblical, practical, and relevant content that re-shape how modern culture understands the goodness of God.​

 

/by

Tweets Against Christianity

By Tim Stratton 

Scott Clifton is a Hollywood actor who has gained fame as a soap opera star (One Life to Live, General Hospital, and The Bold and the Beautiful). He has also gained the respect of both sides of the aisle in the “God vs. atheism” debate.

Clifton is an ardent, but philosophically inclined atheist who goes by the moniker “Theoretical BS” (TBS). He recently tweeted out an argument against Christianity that left the Church scrambling. Indeed, many Christians did not know how to respond to Clifton’s logically deductive argument. Moreover, and sadly, many Christians who did respond to his tweet, provided reason to place one’s face in one’s palm.

Consider TBS’s tweet raised against the knowledge of God:

​​

I must admit, Clifton provided a good argument for all to consider. It is based upon premises that many Christians affirm. Indeed, Theoretical BS was on his A-game to craft this argument, which, at the least, exposes the inconsistency of many churchgoers.

This led my friend Benjamin Watkins, who is also an avid atheist on Twitter, to Tweet the following:

To be clear, we are “born sick” and offered the cure. Each person is free to take the “red medicine” Christ offers, or to reject his love and grace. With that said, I was disheartened to see the lack of good responses from my fellow Christians on Twitter. I saw Calvinists suggesting that the first premise is false, and that “ought does NOT imply can.”

That’s a horrible move!

Discussing Premise (1)

Think about it: if someone says, “You really ought to fly like Superman and save the woman trapped on the 50th floor of a burning skyscraper.” You would look at him as if he were an idiot. Since you cannot fly like Superman, it makes no sense to say “you ought to fly like superman.” Now, if someone tells the trained lifeguard, “You ought to save the child struggling to keep her head above water in the 3-foot,” we know exactly why that makes sense — because the lifeguard has been trained and *CAN* help the child before she drowns.

Moreover, if you were in a boat and your wife said, “You really ought to walk on water,” you would not take her seriously because you can’t walk on water. However, if Jesus commanded you to get out of the boat and walk on water with Him, the reason why it would make sense for you to get out of the boat and run toward Him is because He would use His divine power to make it possible for you to walk on water. Thus, if Jesus says that you *ought* to walk on water, then it follows that you *can* walk on water.

Yes, the first premise of Clifton’s argument is intuitively obvious and true: “ought implies can.” To deny this premise makes Christians look foolish.

Discussing Premise (2)

Some Christians were trying to reject the second premise: “If Christianity is true, we ought to live without sin.”

Oh my! Whatever you do, do not reject premise (2). Think of all the commands to live a holy life and to avoid sin. Here is a small sampling:

Galatians 5:19-21
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 13:14
But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts.

Hebrews 12:1
Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us . . .

1 Thessalonians 5:22
abstain from every form of evil.

2 Corinthians 7:1
Therefore, since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God.

1 Peter 1:15-16
But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.”

John 8:11
And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

This list could go on and on, but TBS’s second premise is supported via ample biblical data. Christians ought to avoid sin.

Discussing Premise (3)

Some might try to reject Premise (3) which reads: “From (1) and (2), if Christianity is true, we can live without sin.”

I agree with TBS. That is to say, regenerated Christ-followers can live without sin. Indeed, with the first two premises supported, it makes no sense to deny (3). We can avoid sin. That is to say, through God’s love, grace, and regenerating power, all Christians can live a holy life.

Discussing Premise (4)

This leaves only one premise remaining before we reach the dreaded death-blow of a deductive conclusion, “Therefore, Christianity is not true.” The fourth premise reads as follows:

“We cannot live without sin.”

I was shocked to see so many Christians in the Twitter-verse accept this premise. Indeed, many Calvinists (who affirm exhaustive divine determinism) advance this premise because if God determines all things, then when God determines a Calvinist to cheat on his wife (for example), it is impossible for the Calvinist to do otherwise. I was screaming at my iPhone as I was scrolling through the comments. Indeed, here’s a counter-factual:

Because of the lack of proper responses, IF I had hair, I WOULD have pulled it out!

I could not take it any longer. So, finally, I tweeted my own reply:

Only three “likes”? What’s up with that?

Anyway, because the Apostle Paul rejects the fourth premise, so do I. Indeed, based upon Paul’s words in his first letter to the Corinthians, it is possible for a Christian to avoid any sin. Consider this important passage of Scripture:

1 Corinthians 10:13

No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

Consider this awesome promise: every time you are tempted to sin, God provides a “way of escape” so that you do not have to sin. Thus, when you sin, do not say that “the devil made me do it,” and whatever you do, do not say that “God determined me to commit this sin.” No! That response is downright blasphemous. Instead, take responsibility for your actions. You chose to fall into temptation, but you did not have to. You could have done otherwise and taken the way of escape God provided.

This also means that you possess libertarian freedom.

Now, some might respond and say that no one has ever gone the rest of his life free from sin. Really? Is that true? What about the guy who only had five minutes left to live and he spent every remaining second of those five minutes praying and praising God? It seems that this person avoided sin for the “rest of his life.”

So, if it is possible for a Christian to resist temptation for five minutes, is it possible for ten minutes? If not, why not? Is it possible for 24 hours? If not, why not? Is it possible for for a week, a month, a year, or fifty years? If not, why not?

It seems that if one grants that a regenerate Christ follower does possess the power to “take the way of escape” for the last five minutes of his life, then asserting that it would be impossible to refrain from sin for any longer period of time is just plain arbitrary and ad hoc. Indeed, if Paul is right, and in every circumstance when we are tempted to sin God also provides a way of escape so that we do not have to sin, then it is possible (it is not impossible) that a Christian who has been transformed by God’s amazing grace can live the rest of his life always choosing the way of escape God provides (again, by His grace).

Discussing the Conclusion

In conclusion, TBS’s conclusion does not follow. This is the case because the fourth premise is false. Therefore, not only does the conclusion not follow, the cumulative case of arguments for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity suggest the exact opposite of what his failed argument concludes:

Therefore, Christianity is probably true! 

Thus, it makes great sense to choose to put your faith in Christ alone.

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Dr. Tim Stratton

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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

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

How Can Jesus be the Only Way? Mp4, Mp3, and DVD by Frank Turek

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

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Timothy A. Stratton (PhD, North-West University) is a professor at Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary. As a former youth pastor, he is now devoted to answering deep theological and philosophical questions he first encountered from inquisitive teens in his church youth group. Stratton is founder and president of FreeThinking Ministries, a web-based apologetics ministry. Stratton speaks on church and college campuses around the country and offers regular videos on FreeThinking Ministries’ YouTube channel.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3gi0ann 

 

/by

Where is the Real Mt. Sinai? | with Tim Mahoney

Is there any evidence for the Exodus? Where is the real Mount Sinai? Our Bible maps and traditional Bible scholars think that the issue is settled, but does what they say match up with what we see?

Investigative filmmaker Timothy Mahoney has been searching for the true location of Mount Sinai for over 20 years. The Bible records that at Sinai, God made a covenant with Moses and the Israelites and gave them the Ten Commandments. While the majority of scholars continue to favor the traditional site of Jebel Musa (the mountain of Moses) in the southern Sinai Peninsula as the true location of Mount Sinai, many believe that the lack of evidence at that location gives us good reason to think again. In fact, some scholars question whether these events happened at all!

In this episode, Frank talks with Tim about his new film, ‘Patterns of Evidence: Journey to Mount Sinai: Part 1′ where Tim investigates three of the six most popular locations proposed for Mount Sinai in an effort to pinpoint the mountain’s true location. The film debuts in theaters this Monday and Tuesday (10/17-18) and is a truly interactive experience! Viewers are encouraged to put on their thinking caps and fill out their own scorecards to examine the “patterns of evidence” and come to their own conclusions on which mountain best fits the biblical criteria. You can find theater and ticket information on Tim’s website, PatternsOfEvidence.com.

Tim and Frank also discuss how the traditional location of Mt. Sinai was established, why finding the location of Midian is an important clue to finding the location of Mount Sinai, and why modern scholarship might be wary of finding the true location. Fascinating stuff!

To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST, and catch the BONUS INTERVIEW with Tim Mahoney, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into some great discussions with like-minded Christians without fear of being canceled by your friends, family, co-workers, or boss!

Tim’s website: https://patternsofevidence.com/
Movie + ticket information: https://bit.ly/3MEz7yI
Download scorecard: https://bit.ly/3g9yeSz

If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.

Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

 

 

Download Transcript

 

/by

15 Mistakes We Make Judging God’s Morality – Part 1

Is God nothing but a bully, a murderer, and a temperamental father? A quick scan of the Bible might alert us to some passages that on the surface seem a little unsettling. As a result, atheists and skeptics say that God is immoral because of some of the odd and disturbing things the Bible says. Some of these criticisms have even made their way into the church! So how do we respond to such accusations?

Join Frank as he begins to outline some of the false moral and theological assumptions we bring to the Bible as well as several mistakes we make when interpreting the Bible to help us see that the problem isn’t God, the problem is US!

To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into some great discussions with like-minded Christians without fear of being canceled by your friends, family, co-workers, or boss!

If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.

Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

 

Download Transcript

 

/by

Archaeology and Apologetics

By Deanna Huff

Upon entering the British Museum, the first display I encountered was the Assyrian section. The room was full of rocks voicing stories of the past. My breath was taken away as I realized I was standing in ancient history hearing the words of kings and their people.

The stones that surrounded me were the same stones that stood during the times of the kings of the Bible. Stones testify as memorials even in the ancient time period. Joshua was commanded,

Take twelve stones from here out of the midst of the Jordan, from the very place where the priests’ feet stood firmly and bring them over with you and lay them down in the place where you lodge tonight.…When your children ask in time to come, ‘What do those stones mean to you?’ Then you shall tell them that the waters of the Jordan were cut off before the ark of the covenant of the Lord. When it passed over the Jordan, the waters of the Jordan were cut off. So, these stones shall be to the people of Israel a memorial forever. (Josh 4:3-7 ESV)

Archaeology – The Black Obelisk

The Assyrian Black Obelisk memorial dates from 825 BC and it was discovered in 1846 in Turkey. The relief sculpture attests the military achievements of King Shalmaneser III and his chief minister. These monuments inspired people with patriotism and unity for their society. The obelisk reveals kings of surrounding nations paying tribute to King Shalmaneser III in five scenes on five rows. Foreign kings are bowing down to King Shalmaneser III to indicate he is the ultimate king of the land.

The significance of the discovery for the biblical world is located on the second row of the obelisk. It identifies King Jehu (2 Kings 10:34) paying homage and presenting gifts to King Shalmaneser. This is the only contemporary carving of an Israelite king mentioned in the kings.

Apologetics – The Stones Provide Evidence

Archaeology like the Black Obelisk provides support for the reliability of the Old Testament. It offers a historical confirmation to the stories of the Scriptures. Dr. Price states, “archaeology aids in bringing the theological message of the Bible into a real world context where real faith is possible.”[1] Historical affirmations of the Bible can strengthen and enrich a person’s faith. Archaeology should not be overstated, at the same time it should not be understated.

The ancients left behind stones that speak truths of the past to the hearers of today. Discovering historical details of the ancients promotes accuracy of the biblical text. For example, “Excavations at Te Miqne uncovered an inscription that conclusively identified the site as biblical Ekron, a Philistine city mentioned in the Old Testament from the time of the conquest through the postexilic period.”[2] Other beneficial finds such as, the Merneptah Stele, the Rosetta Stone and the Sheba inscription confirm the world that interacted with the Bible.

Stones unearthed in archaeology today are sharing stories of the past and they are complimenting the historical accuracy of the Bible. Therefore, let us be awestruck when encountering the voices of the past as we walk through the halls of museums and use that knowledge to season our discussions with others to share the stories that matter for life.

Footnotes

[1] Randall Price, Handbook of Biblical Archaeology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 27.

[2] Ibid.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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

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

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Deanna Huff is a wife and mother. She has been teaching and training for the last twenty years equipping people to know their Christian faith and share it with others. She has led many seminars for the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Ladies Retreat, and the State Evangelism Conference. She taught high school students for ten years at Christian Heritage Academy, in Bible, Universal History, Apologetics and Philosophy. Deanna is a Ph.D. candidate in Apologetics and Theology at Liberty University. She holds a Master of Theology in Apologetics and Worldview from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, a Master of Divinity with Biblical Languages from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Oklahoma.

Original Blog: https://bit.ly/3CtW307

 

/by

10 Days in the Holy Land – Plus Q&A

What’s one way to know we can trust the Bible? Take a trip to Israel! Frank just returned from his first trip to the Holy Land since 2018 and shares the amazing sites his group visited with famous archaeologist, Eli Shukron. These incredible historical sites that confirm the Bible is true include the Dead Sea, the Sea of Galilee, Capernaum, Nazareth, Shechem, Jerusalem, and many others!

Frank also answers several questions from listeners, including those on obeying the Ten Commandments in modern times, the history of America as a Christian nation, the Bible vs. the Qur’an, the test of Adam and Eve, and why Christianity is always true regardless of your life circumstances.

Take a listen, and then check out some of Frank and Eli’s presentations from the trip on our YouTube playlist!

If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.

Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

 

Download Transcript

 

/by

How We Got Our Bible: The KJV Only Movement

By Ryan Leasure

This final post will consider the short-comings of the King James (KJV) Only Movement.

Nothing New Under The Sun

In many respects, the KJV Only Movement is hardly novel. People have been propping up certain Bible translations since the time of Jesus.

One early translation that received this exalted status was the Septuagint (LXX). After the Jewish people went into exile, many remained outside of Israel, even after they were granted permission to return and rebuild. Over the course of centuries, the Jewish people no longer had a grasp on the Hebrew language. Therefore, to make the Old Testament accessible to more people, Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew text into Greek. This translation happened sometime between the third and second centuries BC.

Legend has it that seventy-two scholars all translated the text independently. Yet when they convened to compare their translations, they discovered that they all created the exact same translation! It’s the stuff of legends. But the story stuck, and people revered it.

Therefore, when it came time for Jerome to create the Latin Vulgate, his friend St. Augustine scolded him for using the original Hebrew text and not the inspired LXX. Augustine complained that people had become so accustomed to the readings of the LXX, that Jerome’s text was causing too much controversy in places where the Hebrew did not agree with the Greek translation. In other words, tradition trumped accuracy.

Fast forward a thousand years, and Jerome’s Vulgate was now on the receiving end of being pushed out by a modern translation. The Greek scholar Erasmus created the first critical New Testament in 1516 and raised more than a few eye brows in the process. Fortunately for Erasmus, the Pope didn’t order his execution. Erasmus, after all, dedicated his new translation to Pope Leo X with the hopes of gaining his approval.

That said, many disliked Erasmus’ work because he “tampered” with God’s Word. Not only did he create a critical Greek New Testament, he used that Greek to update the Latin Bible! Erasmus’ desire to be as accurate to the original text as possible frustrated the churchmen because the original text differed from their beloved Latin Vulgate.

Now five hundred years later, those within the KJV Only Movement condemn others who prefer modern English translations for the same reasons that the church condemned Erasmus. Ironically, it was Erasmus’ text that was the base text for the King James Bible in 1611.

Not an Attack on the KJV Bible

Let me be clear. I am not attacking the King James Bible. I grew up using the KJV. The translation, as far as it goes, was a fine translation for a few hundred years. I believe that when people read the KJV, they are reading the Word of God.

Nor am I attacking those who prefer the KJV to other translations (though I think modern translations are superior).

Instead, this article critiques the position that the KJV translators were inspired, and that all other translations are corruptions of God’s Word.

The KJV Translators

It is my strong opinion, that if the KJV translators were alive today, they would reject the KJV Only Movement. None of the forty-seven Anglican scholars ever thought they were inspired by God as they created the translation. In the preface to the 1611 KJV, the translators defended their use of marginal notes when they wrote:

Doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? . . . Therefore, as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures. So diversity of signification  and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yeah, is necessary, as we are persuaded.

Of course, none of the modern KJV Bibles retain the over 8,000 marginal notes from the original KJV 1611. But the translators felt it necessary to include these marginal notes because they were less than certain of their translation in several places. In fact, they explicitly state that they weren’t perfect translators! Read carefully their own words in the preface:

To those who point out the defects in [the translators’ works], they answer that perfection is never attainable by man.

And if anyone needs proof that the KJV translators weren’t inspired, the original 1611 version underwent about 100,000 updates and changes before the 1769 edition—the edition people use today.

The KJV translators also wanted to give the people a Bible that was both faithful to the text but also readable at the same time. They say elsewhere in the preface:

Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; . . . that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most Holy place; . . . Indeed, without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob’s well without a bucket or something to draw with; . . . Now what can be more available thereto, than to deliver God’s book unto god’s people in a tongue which they can understand?

It was the goal of the KJV translators to give the people an understandable translation. Therefore, if they were alive today, they most certainly would encourage people to read a translation that doesn’t use words like “churl” (Isa 32:7), “cockatrice” (Isa 11:8), “sackbut” (Dan 3:5), or “crookbackt” (Lev 21:20). Those words made sense in 1611. In 2021, they’re gibberish.

The Greek Text

As previously mentioned, the KJV translators used Erasmus’ various editions of the Greek NT for their translation. Although, more technically, they relied heavily on William Tyndale’s English translation which they copied about 90% of the time.

That said, Erasmus’ Greek text was based on a handful (less than ten) of medieval texts. And none of these texts had the final section of Revelation. So Erasmus created his own Greek text for the ending of Revelation using the Latin text! Erasmus’ text has come to be known as the Textus Receptus (TR) and became the basis for the KJV.

Modern translations, however, make use of over 5,000 Greek NT manuscripts—many of which date to the second-fourth centuries. Modern scholars have access to P66 (2nd-3rd century text of John), P75 (2nd-3rd century text of Luke and John), P46 (2nd-3rd century text of Paul’s letters), Codex Sinaiticus (4th century complete NT), and Codex Vaticunus (4th century almost complete NT).

And Biblical scholars have discovered that while Erasmus’ text was quite good, his NT reflects later readings in several places that were not present in the earliest manuscripts.

Different Texts

Most modern Bibles are based off of the Nestle-Aland (NA) and the United Bible Societies (UBS). As mentioned previously, these critical texts are based off of thousands of Greek manuscripts—many of which date to the earliest centuries of the Christian Church. While there is strong uniformity between these texts and the TR, they diverge in several places. Allow me to share a few of them.

1 John 5:71

The KJV reads, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” The ESV reads, “For there are three that testify.” KJV Only proponents believe the absence of this clear Trinitarian reference in modern translations is a weakness. The problem is that the words “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost” are most certainly not original to John.

When Erasmus made his Greek text in 1516, he left out this phrase which is now dubbed the “Johannine comma.” This omission upset many because the Latin Vulgate contained it. Again, people get upset when changes are made to their precious Bible translations. Erasmus left out the phrase because he couldn’t find it in a single Greek manuscript. Erasmus took heat for trying to be as accurate as possible. He even promised that if he found it in a single Greek manuscript, he would include it in a later edition.

It just so “happened” that a Greek manuscript was produced that contained the phrase. Hardly anyone disputes that this manuscript was created by one of Erasmus’ contemporaries. And being true to his word, Erasmus included the phrase in his third edition in 1522. That said, no manuscript before the sixteenth century contains this phrase. For this reason, modern translations leave it out.

Mark 16:9-202

Another significant change between the TR and the NA and UBS is the ending of Mark. Modern translations bracket this text and indicate that earliest manuscripts do not include this section.

Why do modern translations bracket the text? First, both Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit it. These are the earliest manuscripts we have on Mark. Furthermore, the long ending is missing from other early Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, and Georgian translations.

Additionally, several manuscripts which do include the long ending place an asterisk beside it, indicating its suspect nature. It’s also worth noting that some manuscripts contain a different ending altogether. And this condensed ending is sometimes added to the longer ending, creating an even longer ending than verses 9-20.

And if that’s not enough, some manuscripts only include verses 9-11 as an ending, leaving off verses 12-20. And one manuscript adds an entire paragraph to the long ending between verses 14 and 15.

Why do the manuscripts have so many different endings to Mark?

It seems as if early Christian scribes thought that Mark ended rather abruptly, especially compared to the other Gospels. Over time, different endings were added on to Mark’s original work. Only if Mark originally ended at verse 8 can one explain the existence of all the different endings. In other words, if Mark truly did include verses 9-20, one has a difficult time explaining how the other shorter endings made their way into the manuscript tradition.

John 7:53-8:113

The woman caught in adultery was most likely not written by John. Early manuscripts such as P66, P75, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Sinaiticus each omit this story. Moreover, several early translations in Latin and Syriac omit the story as well. Some manuscripts which include it do with an asterisk demonstrating its questionable nature.

Another indicator that this text was not original is that while most manuscripts include the story following John 7:52, some manuscripts includes it after 7:36, others have it after 7:44, some have it at the end of the book after 21:25, and some put it in Luke’s Gospel!

Moreover, if these verses were removed from John’s Gospel, one would see that John 7:52 and John 8:12 fit together neatly. In other words, the story of the woman caught in adultery actually interrupts a larger story of Jesus in Jerusalem.

So how did this pericope make its way into the text? Probably, a scribe somewhere down the line included this story in the margins of the text and a later scribe thought the original scribe believed the story was part of the original text. While the story is most likely a true story about Jesus that was part of the oral tradition, it most definitely was not part of John’s Gospel.

Concluding Thoughts

Space permits me from looking at several other textual and linguistic issues (like the KJV saying that Jesus, instead of Joshua, failed to give people rest in Hebrews 4:8). That said, I believe I’ve provided enough evidence to refute the notion that the KJV translation is an inspired translation. It’s a fine translation. It was a great translation for its time. Modern translation, however, like the NIV, NASB, ESV, CSB, and NLT are based on a better Greek text and present the text in a more readable way

Footnotes

1. James White, The King James Only Controversy, 99-104.

2. James White, The King James Only Controversy, 316-320.

3. James White, The King James Only Controversy, 328-329.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Counter Culture Christian: Is There Truth in Religion? (DVD) by Frank Turek

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

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ryan Leasure holds a Master of Arts from Furman University and a Masters of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Currently, he’s a Doctor of Ministry candidate at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He also serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.

 

/by

Five Signs of Spiritual Maturity

By Melissa Dougherty​

We all want to be wise in our spiritual walk. We want to grow and make good choices that are right in the long run. We want to exhibit wisdom in all areas of life and be able to be an example for others. But I find it isn’t always the easy road that gets us there. In my experience, I have witnessed what I would consider very mature Christians who exhibit these qualities. I have also seen others who lack them. I want to share what I believe to be five signs of spiritual maturity. These are areas that I see that are scriptural and can be shown by how some Christians respond to certain situations.

1.) They base their reactions on Scripture and God’s character instead of their feelings and emotions.

The most spiritually mature people I know are usually the most emotionally mature. They base their choices on the wisdom of Scripture, and logic and exhibit fruits of the Spirit in their life, especially the “self-control” part. They take time to assess and evaluate situations and treat others how they want to be treated. They don’t deflect onto others their own issues and are aware of this in their interactions and judgments. They stop and think first before they act. They also tend to have a smart sense of humor and wit without degrading or putting down others. They’re an example of James 1:19, which says to be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry. They draw from and submit to Scriptural values. This takes over instead of emotions and helps prevent poor decision-making and emotional outbursts. Do you know how there’s an intelligence IQ? Well, there’s also something called “emotional IQ,” and I find that spiritually mature people have a high emotional IQ. Costi Hinn once said, “It is a mark of your maturity and self-control when you can manage your emotions enough to understand someone you differ with.”

2.) They listen more and talk less.

I mentioned James 1:19 before. People living out this scripture tend to be more interested in the person they’re speaking to and don’t get into unnecessary arguments. They’re not easily offended, either. I read a post on social media once that said, “An immature Christian is hard to please and easy to offend.” Luke 6:45 says that a good person brings up good or bad things depending on what’s in their heart. Out of the heart, his mouth speaks. Controlling your mouth has a lot to do with what’s in your heart, especially on social media. Everyone is a hammer looking for a nail. But these people are different. They are the people that are trying to understand before they’re understood. They try to respond to people out of love for others rooted in a love for God. They consider the other person’s perspective, even if they disagree. But they’re not doormats to lousy theology, either. They can navigate and discern what topics to avoid and which to engage in and can have thoughtful discussions without arguing all the time. Proverbs 15:1 says a harsh answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. These people also look to others for spiritual advice and accountability, allowing others to point out their flaws.

3.) They have a sense of humility to them.

They don’t put themselves above others. I’ve learned from watching these people that they’re here to serve, and that’s what ministry is about for them. Not being known or noticed. (Even if they are well known!) They have a healthy sense of confidence, but typically these people look to others. They’re not always doing this to teach them things but instinctively know to ask questions, get to know others, and respect people as being made in the image of God, especially if they disagree with them. They don’t demonize and rebuke everyone and everything they disagree with. They display love as outlined in 1 Corinthians 13. They’re kind, patient, not boastful, lovers of truth, and seek after God’s glory, not their own. In my experience, these Christians don’t just boast that they “have discernment” or “are humble.” They show it. They don’t need praise from people. They do what they do to please God and God alone. They’re just not jerks about it. This is typically displayed in how they treat, talk to, and love others. When they make a bad decision, they have enough wit and humility to know they need to make things right and admit they were wrong. They don’t get super defensive and take steps to change if needed.

4.) They have self-awareness.

A spiritually mature person can read the room and has the insight to know how they sound to other people. They display a careful social balance in their interactions with people. They can hold themselves accountable in conversations and know when they need to step back from any situation and reassess their feelings. They realize they’re representing Jesus and that their actions and words have consequences. More than that, they have enough insight to know how their actions and words affect others. James 3 has a lot to say about controlling our tongue. He compares the tongue to a rudder that controls an entire ship. Verse 5 says the tongue is a small thing that makes grand speeches. But a tiny spark can set a great forest on fire.” James 1:26 says, “If you claim to be religious but don’t control your tongue, you are fooling yourself, and your religion is worthless.”

5.) They have healthy boundaries and actual discernment.

Not every whim or feeling is seen as a sign from God or a move of the Holy Spirit, and don’t just take everything they think, feel or hear as the Holy Spirit speaking to them. They also don’t boast about how discerning they are. They just are. They model discernment instead of paranoia. They also don’t brag about how many spiritual experiences they’ve had, how intense they were, or how smart they are. They’re typically the people who enter a conversation thinking they can learn something from another person, even if they know a lot more than they do! That’s not the attitude they take. They also know when to say no and when to say yes. A spiritually mature person knows that “no” can be a very healthy word. They know how to honor God in their time and know their personal limits. They have enough sense to know when to engage in conversation, events, or activities and when they need to back off. In the same way, they also discern when they need to be where God wants them to be. They wait on God in prayer and Scripture reading instead of relying on feelings that change every day.

In short, they exemplify Galatians 5:22-23- “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things, there is no law.” And as well as Hebrews 3 in regards to holy living.

So by their fruit, you will recognize them.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Counter Culture Christian: Is There Truth in Religion? (DVD) by Frank Turek

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

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Melissa Dougherty is a Christian Apologist best known for her YouTube channel as an ex-new ager. She has two associate’s degrees, one in Early Childhood Multicultural Education, and the other in Liberal Arts. She is currently pursuing her bachelor’s degree in Religious Studies at Southern Evangelical Seminary.

 

/by