apologetics Archives - Page 47 of 139

Tag Archive for: apologetics

These Viral Pro-Choice Memes Miss the Point and Fail the Test of Logic

Culture CrossExamined, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

With the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion potentially pointing to Roe v. Wade being overturned, social media is on fire with pro-choice advocates sharing memes intended to portray abortion “rights” as necessary, important, and even morally good.

For those of us who believe intentionally killing preborn human beings is murder (the unjustified taking of innocent human life), it’s absolutely heartbreaking to see so many people passionately advocating for the right to commit such an act. In response, many Christians have taken to private social media groups to share examples of pro-choice memes and discuss how best to respond.

While it’s not necessary to respond to every post you come across (there aren’t enough hours in the day!), I’m heartened to see so many Christians wanting to address what they’re seeing. That said, I’ve noticed that many people’s responses are missing the key point of the debate as much as the memes themselves are.

As such, I wanted to write this article to respond to several viral pro-choice memes and show how to maintain focus on the core issue without getting pulled into irrelevant other subjects. But first, a critical distinction must be understood.

Distinguishing Worldview Disagreements from Logically Fallacious Red Herrings

Imagine that you come across someone posting the following on social media: “I’m an atheist. I do not believe anything exists beyond the natural world, and therefore I do not believe in the existence of objective morality. Nothing is morally right or wrong, so I’m pro-choice because I believe there’s nothing wrong with ending the life of an unborn baby.”

In this case, the pro-choice advocate is merely being consistent within their own naturalistic worldview. They believe morality is only a matter of opinion, given their view of the nature of the universe. If a Christian is pro-life as a logical outworking of their biblical worldview and an atheist is pro-choice as a logical outworking of their naturalistic worldview, the ensuing conversation isn’t so much about abortion as it is about their respective underlying worldview assumptions.

Worldview-level discussions about the nature of the universe, the nature of humanity, and the corresponding rights (or lack of rights) held by preborn humans certainly transpire in some circles. And these worldview-level questions are ultimately what the debate comes down to.

But this is rarely the level of conversation floating to the top of social media.

In fact, I’ve seen virtually no pro-choice social media posts addressing these questions in popular discourse. Rather, emotion-driven memes carry the day—memes that are nearly always logically fallacious red herrings. In other words, they distract from the real issue with points completely irrelevant to the core (worldview) question at hand:

Is it morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being?

That’s it. That’s what the debate comes down to.

For clarity, the logic behind the answer for Christians with a biblical worldview is as follows:

It’s morally wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.
Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.
Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.

With this in mind, let’s look at brief responses to eight of the most popular pro-choice memes circulating right now to see how to highlight the red herring and point back to the real issue. As we’ll see, they all fail to address the core question: Is it morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being?

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 1: If you really care about babies, you should be working to provide extensive government and/or business support for their lives (and their families’ lives) after birth (and for much longer).

Social media example:

If intentionally killing a preborn baby is morally wrong, whatever a person does or does not do to support a child and/or their parents does not change the morality of the action itself.

Virtually everyone, for example, would agree that rape is morally wrong. If a person opposed to rape does absolutely nothing for rape victims, we still acknowledge that their opposition to rape is the morally correct position to hold. Logically speaking, the morality of an action must be evaluated on its own basis. The core question remains: Is it morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being?

[Avoid the trap: Don’t try to prove your motivations in response to the wording “if it was about babies…” If someone wants to question your motivations, they’re unlikely to be convinced otherwise by your words. The morality of abortion has nothing to do with any individual’s motivation for holding a given position. Also, don’t start breaking down each good we should supposedly provide (formula, diapers, etc.) to show why it’s unnecessary, unfeasible, or already sufficiently provided. All you’re doing is playing into the red herring.]

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 2: Being “pro-life” means you should agree to a bundle of other social/moral positions assumed to be the best for human beings.

Social media example:

This is logically quite similar to the first meme, but with a twist that often confuses people: equivocation on the term “pro-life” (equivocation is the use of ambiguous language—typically using the same word with two different meanings).

Pro-life, in the context of the abortion debate, means that a person is opposed to abortion. Here the writer wants to make the political point that if you really care about “life,” you’ll agree with a bundle of other positions (ones they assume to be the best life-sustaining positions). But Roe v. Wade is not about a bundle of issues related to human life. This is a question of one specific human life issue.

Again, intentionally killing preborn babies is either morally wrong or it’s not. Whether someone takes a morally right or wrong position on any other issue is irrelevant to whether they’ve taken a morally right or wrong position on abortion.

[Avoid the trap: Don’t start trying to defend that you really are pro “all life,” but that being pro “all life” doesn’t translate into supporting each of the particular positions listed. If you start trying to prove your pro “all life” credentials by getting into detailed discussions on all these other issues, you’re simply playing into the red herring.]

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 3: Caring about unborn babies is easier than caring about people already born.

Social media example:

The logic here is similar to that of the first two memes, but I wanted to include it because this one is especially popular, and it has a slightly different framing: It’s a “Christian” pastor presumably chastising fellow Christians for only caring about who is easiest to advocate for. Non-Christians of course like this because the accusation is coming from one of “our own.”

But regardless of who it’s coming from and regardless of how relatively easy or uneasy it is to advocate for any particular group, the morality of actions against that group remains the same.

That’s it. Even if advocating for the preborn were the easiest thing on earth relative to advocating for other groups, it doesn’t change whether intentionally killing those babies is morally wrong or not. If we’re talking about abortion laws, that’s the question that matters.

[Avoid the trap: Don’t get caught up in showing that this pastor is progressive and doesn’t hold a biblical view. That’s true, but the source of the comment is irrelevant. Also avoid debating how easy or uneasy it is to advocate for different groups—as I’ve shown here, that too is irrelevant.]

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 4: Babies born to parents who can’t afford them, don’t want them, or otherwise are unready for them are better off being aborted.

Social media example:

The basic logic here is that it’s better to kill a preborn human than to allow that human to be born into bad circumstances, ranging from poverty to abuse. But many humans live in and always have lived in bad—often terrible—circumstances regardless of whether their parents wanted them. The pro-choice advocate would almost certainly not say that we should kill every human who lives in or will live in a set of circumstances deemed to be insufficiently pleasant. Imagine the outrage if our society started pulling toddlers out of the homes of poor families to kill them! The only difference between that scenario and the one in the meme is that the child is already born.

Again, it’s either morally wrong or it’s not to intentionally kill an innocent human being. Whether a given human’s parents want to or are able to raise that human according to certain standards has nothing to do with whether killing them is right or wrong. We wouldn’t apply that logic to humans who are already born; there’s no logical reason to apply it before birth either.

[Avoid the trap: Don’t enter into debate about how good a child’s life can be even in bad circumstances. The morality of abortion doesn’t depend on how good or bad a child’s life turns out to be. That’s another red herring.]

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 5: Men have no right to tell a woman what she should or shouldn’t do with her body.

Social media example:

This idea comes in many different meme forms, but the basic logic is that men have no right to tell a woman what she should or shouldn’t do with her body because men can’t get pregnant. (As an aside, I’m not sure how long this argument can go unchecked today given that trans activists claim trans men–biological women–can be pregnant. Will feminists declare that there really are differences between trans men and biological men and allow trans men alone to speak, given their reproductive capabilities? Only time will tell.)

Once again, this avoids the question of the morality of abortion with an emotional red herring. Our society has laws against murder because we’ve collectively agreed that it’s wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being; our laws unashamedly restrain the freedom of citizens to kill one another. It’s no more “controlling,” therefore, to have restrictions on what would-be murderers do with their bodies to kill others than it is to have restrictions on what pregnant women do with their bodies to kill others. The only relevant question is whether it’s morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being, and the morality of an action doesn’t depend on the gender of who makes the law. (As many people have pointed out, it was an all-male Supreme Court that passed Roe v. Wade in the first place, so by this logic, pro-choice people should reject that court decision as well.)

[Avoid the trap: Don’t get distracted by the claim that “conservative Christianity” is about controlling bodies. That’s just a jab at Christians. Focus on the “my body, my choice” logic, which quickly fails for the above reasons.]

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 6: No one has a right to tell a woman what she should or shouldn’t do with her body.

Social media example:

The logic here is identical to that of the last meme except it takes out the gender-specific language. Rather than “men have no right to tell women what to do with their body,” it’s “no one has a right to tell women what to do with their body.” Once again, we have all kinds of laws in society that restrict the use of one’s body to intentionally hurt or kill other humans. Abortion laws are not unique in telling someone what they can or can’t do with their body when it comes to other human lives.

The relevant question is whether it’s morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being, not whether society is in a place to tell someone what they can or cannot do with their body. We already do that in all kinds of ways.

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 7: Legally restricting abortion is classist and racist.

Social media example:

I’m always shocked that someone would make this argument, but it always comes up, so let’s look at the logic: We should keep the intentional killing of preborn human beings legal because if we don’t, certain racial and economic groups will be better able to find illegal ways to kill babies than others. In other words, poor people and people of color won’t have equal opportunity to kill.

We simply do not apply this kind of thinking in other cases—we don’t make actions legal because some groups of people are better able to skirt the law! If we did that, we’d probably have no laws at all. As a society, we work to provide equal opportunity for good not for bad.

The question, therefore, remains: Is it morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being? If it is, there’s no need to give people equal opportunity to do what’s wrong.

[Avoid the trap: Don’t go down the rabbit hole of discussing which groups of people do or do not need abortion “access”—no one needs access to a moral wrong.]

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 8: There are all kinds of bad circumstances leading women to seek abortion, so we can’t and/or shouldn’t make blanket restrictions on it.

Social media example (this is a copy and paste post that is viral around Facebook):

I’m not pro-murdering babies.

I’m pro-Becky who found out at her 20 week anatomy scan that the infant she had been so excited to bring into this world had developed without life sustaining organs.

I’m pro-Susan who was sexually assaulted on her way home from work, only to come to the horrific realization that her assailant planted his seed in her when she got a positive pregnancy test result a month later.

I’m pro-Theresa who hemorrhaged due to a placental abruption, causing her parents, spouse, and children to have to make the impossible decision on whether to save her or her unborn child.

I’m pro-little Cathy who had her innocence ripped away from her by someone she should have been able to trust and her 11 year old body isn’t mature enough to bear the consequence of that betrayal.

I’m pro-Melissa who’s working two jobs just to make ends meet and has to choose between bringing another child into poverty or feeding the children she already has because her spouse walked out on her.

I’m pro-Brittany who realizes that she is in no way financially, emotionally, or physically able to raise a child.

I’m pro-Emily who went through IVF, ending up with SIX viable implanted eggs requiring selective reduction in order to ensure the safety of her and a SAFE amount of fetuses.

I’m pro-Christina who doesn’t want to be a mother, but birth control methods sometimes fail.

I’m pro-Jessica who is FINALLY getting the strength to get away from her physically abusive spouse only to find out that she is carrying the monster’s child.

I’m pro-Vanessa who went into her confirmation appointment after YEARS of trying to conceive only to hear silence where there should be a heartbeat.

I’m pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager.

I’m pro-Courtney who just found out she’s already 13 weeks along, but the egg never made it out of her fallopian tube so either she terminates the pregnancy or risks dying from internal bleeding.

You can argue and say that I’m pro-choice all you want, but the truth is:

I’m pro-life.

Their lives.

Women’s lives.

You don’t get to pick and choose which scenarios should be accepted.

Women’s rights are meant to protect ALL women, regardless of their situation!

I’ve saved this one for last because it’s like a capstone example for this article. I’ve seen so many Christians ask how to respond to this post, presumably because it looks so overwhelming. There are a dozen different types of cases given here, and the intent is clearly to confront the reader with too much to respond to. The writer wants to show that there are just too many difficult circumstances leading to a woman’s desire for abortion, so we shouldn’t make blanket restrictions; too many bad things exist that make abortion access necessary.

While the logical problems could be pointed out with each individual case (and I’ve seen people do that well), I think this is more simply and effectively dealt with by sticking with the high level logic the post is using: If difficult circumstances result in or from a human life being created, a woman needs the right to kill that preborn baby. To see the logical problem, apply that thinking to a human being already born…if difficult circumstances lead to one human wanting to kill another human, should we legalize that murder due to their difficult circumstances? As with an earlier meme, we don’t apply that logic in such cases. There’s no reason to apply it to the preborn either.

As one other logic point, to say that you’re not “pro-murdering babies” but are pro-women who want to be able to is a fallacy called distinction without difference. In other words, if you’re for women being able to kill a preborn baby, you’re “pro-(the ability to) murder babies.” Drawing a cursory distinction via word choice does not change the central issue of whether it’s morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being.

[Avoid the trap: There are certainly nuances to some of the cases listed here that could warrant further points. For example, in the case of Vanessa, the baby has already died; that’s not about abortion at all. However, most people posting this aren’t looking to get into conversation about the details. Their whole point is that there are too many considerations that warrant conversation, so we should leave the choice to women. In general, I’d recommend avoiding the trap of replying to each case and stick with the overall points of logic I described here.]

Christians are called to speak truth, but sometimes before we can even speak truth about the sanctity of life, we need to help people see the flawed logic of popular claims. Once we sweep away logical errors so we can clearly see the core question (Is it morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being?), we of course need to be prepared to make the case for life. For help in doing so, I highly recommend Scott Klusendorf’s book The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture.

Is It Possible To Break Through Apathy?

Apologetics for Parents, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

The biggest obstacle to most apologetics efforts is apathy. While there are indeed some ardent atheists, usually the ones who take the time to write a response to posts like these, by and large the response of the average skeptic is to figuratively throw up their hands. They usually don’t take the time to research and consider a specific truth claim that is being made, or to counter some argument with evidence to show that an argument is false or mistaken. Nor do they try to convince you that their worldview is in fact true. Instead, most skeptics I’ve dealt with have developed a comfort level regarding the “unknowability” of ultimate things. They often argue that the fact that people disagree about such things – that a range of people have differing views on the subject- is itself evidence that no one can ever know whether there is a God, what He is about, or most importantly, what He may want of us. And so, they often don’t bother to try to investigate these things for themselves.

But if the Christian worldview is correct, such apathy is itself hazardous to one’s spiritual health. Recently, I tried to make this case in a conversation with a skeptic. It went something like this:

“Let’s say this was 70 years ago, and when I saw you, you were chain smoking cigarettes with your children always nearby. I know where medical science is headed, so I tell you that you are hurting yourself, and your kids. You respond that no one can really know such things; after all, you can point to doctors who advertise cigarettes and smoke them themselves, and you feel fine when you smoke. I point to other doctors who think that it’s really bad for you. You respond, ‘See, it’s a tie, so stop bothering me. Each person believes what they were raised to believe, or what they want to believe.”

“Do you see,” I asked, “that the conflict between the doctors should not lead you to conclude that neither is right, or that the answer is not knowable? As a friend, should I keep trying to bring you back to the truth about cigarettes, or should I let you persist in believing something that is, in the end, hurting you and your loved ones?”

My friend’s response was not unexpected. It went like this:

“Have you ever noticed how so many things are bad or wrong only at certain points in a cycle? Eat eggs, don’t eat eggs; give your kids soy, soy is bad; babies should sleep on their backs, no their stomachs, no their sides, no their backs etc., etc. When my daughter was born I would put her on her back to sleep and when I left the room my mother would put her on her side and when my mother left the room my grandmother would put her on her stomach. Over time the answer comes full circle. Why go around and around with it? What I am saying is not just throw up your hands and quit; what I am saying is that I do what feels right to me and that is the best I can do. Sometimes I listen to friends (and doctors) and sometimes I don’t. I think the ‘answer’ to many of these things is unknowable.”

Fair enough. Some things are unknowable, and for some things, it doesn’t really matter. But that of course is the point of being thoughtful: deciding which is which. So, I conceded that for some things, the right answer might be “it doesn’t matter.” For example, a child might be equally safe on her side or her back. Eggs or soy might be good for you or bad, depending on your health and how much you eat.

But for other things – like smoking – it will never “come back around.” Science will never say that smoking is good. It might say that it won’t necessarily kill you, but not that it will “balance your humours” like they said 200 years ago.”

“This analogy to smoking,” I continued, “is just one of many possible examples of the way consequences are built into the nature of reality. Take another example: if I embark upon a life of crime or drug addiction, I will eventually reap what I sow and the place I find myself might not be pleasant. We have the ability to foresee possible consequences through the use of our minds and imaginations. Is it really that much of a stretch to consider that this life will end at some point and to give some thought to what may await? Take my drugs example one step further – since you’re young and healthy, you might be able to abuse drugs for quite some time without being harmed. You might presently be indifferent to whether using drugs is a good or bad idea. But how smart a move would it be for you to say that you really don’t care what effect it will have on you in twenty years? Looking down the road to the consequence of our choices is something we all really need to do.”

“So,” I concluded, “the trick is, which is this? Are questions of eternal life like laying a child on her side, or are they more like smoking with my kids in the room or abusing drugs? I hope you see the answer matters. If you were smoking ten hours a day with your kids present, you would be harming them. Getting the right answer on that would matter. Getting the right answer on your relationship with God also matters, both to you and to the people you influence.”

I don’t think I persuaded her. As with smoking, not everyone bothers to read the warning label.

The Top 20 Discoveries About Jesus Outside the Bible

Podcast

What do we know about Jesus and the story of Jesus from outside the Bible? Much more than you might think! Archaeologist Dr. Titus Kennedy joins Frank to reveal the Top 20 discoveries about Jesus from outside the Bible.

Here they are:

The place and nature of his birth.
The murderous nature of Herod.
The synagogue where Jesus taught in his adopted hometown—Capernaum.
Peter’s house in Capernaum.
The pool of Bethesda.
The pool of Siloam.
The nature of the town of Bethany where Jesus raised Lazarus—Leper colony, “the place of Lazarus”, tomb that matches John 11:38.
The temple place of the trumpeting.
The Caiaphas ossuary (also the Miriam Ossuary—granddaughter of Caiaphus)
The James ossuary.
The gates of Hell.
The miracles of Jesus—he’s admitted as a miracle worker even by non-Christian sources.
The fearful nature of Pilate—Why was Pilate afraid of upsetting the Jews? Archaeological evidence of Pilate includes coins, a ring, an inscription, and ancient writers).
The nature and place of burial and resurrection: Tomb of the Shroud (nature of the burial), Church of the Holy Sepulcher, place of the burial and resurrection
Nazareth inscription.
Crucifixion—archaeology, writings (Acts of Pilate).
Christ the magician cup.
The murderous nature of Herod Agrippa I.
The early spread of Christianity and the belief in the Resurrection.
The graffiti found in Rome.

Due to time constraints, we only were able to discuss the first 15 of these. But Frank and Titus kept recording! To see the remaining five, join our new CrossExamined Community which is a private online forum where believers can interact with us and one another without the fear of being canceled. After the program will be posted there.

To learn much more, get Dr. Kennedy’s excellent new book, Excavating the Evidence for Jesus: The Archaeology and History of Christ and the Gospels.

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

May 20, 2022/by Frank Turek

When Hollywood gets God and virtue right

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Frank Turek

Imagine if there were a fun way to raise your kid’s interest in God while imparting some of the most important virtues every Christian parent wants their children to learn. There is. You can use an unlikely source that will help you get your point across without you sounding all “preachy.”

Pollster George Barna found that young people get their theology more from movies than the pulpit. So why not use the power of Hollywood to give them good theology where you can? Stories inspire and instruct more vividly than commands, which is one reason why Jesus not only gave commands but also told stories.

Yes, I know. Unlike Jesus, Hollywood’s stories often glorify much that is immoral. But Hollywood’s most successful movies often tell inspiring stories of sacrifice that borrow from the greatest story ever told. These movies also provide biblical life lessons, even movies not made by believers.

Here are a few kid-friendly examples.

If you want your kids to have the courage to stand for the truth even when the world is against them, watch any movie with Captain America. Steve Rogers (a.ka. Captain America) is the poster child for what we look for in a hero. He’s the leader of the Avengers despite clearly being outclassed in power by most of the other heroes on the team. His most important trait is that he is morally incorruptible — a trait he had even when he was just a scrawny kid who was too small to enlist in the Army in World War II. Once his mind is made up about what the right thing to do is, nothing will stop him. The guy is even willing to fight the evil supervillain Thanos and his entire army in Avengers: Endgame BY HIMSELF.

If you have kids who tend to impulsively follow their hearts, look at the moral progression of Iron Man. He starts off as a selfish playboy but is transformed into a hero who eventually sacrifices himself to save the world. Tony’s transformation requires him to stop impulsively following his heart, as the culture promotes, and to start guarding his heart as the Bible commands (Pr. 4:23). This is beautifully illustrated by the device implanted in Tony’s chest that is literally guarding his heart from encroaching shrapnel. When Tony guards his heart from distractions and his own selfish desires, he can focus on what’s really important — the responsibilities he has to others.

If your child isn’t the most popular or strongest kid in school, watch The Lord of the Rings. The heroes of Tolkien’s Fantasy Masterpiece are those who are weakest physically but the strongest morally. Sam and Frodo are three-foot hobbits who are dwarfed by everyone else. But weakness turns out to be a strength for them because it gives them the humility to ask for help. Tolkien is highlighting the biblical truth that when you are weak you are strong because when you are weak you rely on God for help (2 Cor. 12:10). Of course, Tolkien intended for The Lord of the Rings series to present a Christian worldview — including the fact that there is a God who often works behind the scenes — so watching the series will be rich theologically and morally in many other ways as well.

If you want your kids to see the beauty of grace, watch Wonder Woman. In her first feature-length movie, Wonder Woman spares an evil war criminal who is kneeling in repentance even though she is being egged on to kill this war criminal by her opponent Ares who wants to kill everyone because he thinks human beings do too much evil. Ares screams at Wonder Woman that people “don’t deserve your protection!”

But Wonder Woman responds, “It’s not about deserve; it’s about what you believe. And I believe in love.”

That reflects what God believes and did for us. God loves so much that He sent His only son to take our punishment so when we believe in Jesus we will not get what we deserve — we will not get paid back for the evil we’ve done — we will get grace, love, and eternal life.

It’s not just the movie franchises of Captain America, Iron Man, The Lord of the Rings, and Wonder Womanthat can help parents reinforce Christian truths and virtues. So do other franchises such as Star Wars, Superman,Batman,andothersas we show in our new book Hollywood Heroes: How Your Favorite Movies Reveal God.

Your kids are probably watching those movies anyway (if not, they are hearing about them from their friends or online). So why not use the aspects of these films that convey truth and virtue to reinforce those things in your kids? Knowing these movies will also give them launch points to direct their friends toward Christ. Knowing them can help you do the same with your friends. And the best thing about all of this is that having movie night is often a lot more fun and effective than getting all “preachy.”

How We Got Our Bible: Manuscript Tradition

4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

This article is part 6 in a nine-part series on how we got our Bible. Part 1 dealt with inspiration and inerrancy. Part 2 looked at Old Testament development. Part 3 investigate the Old Testament canon and the Apocrypha. Part 4 considered attributes of the New Testament Canon. And Part 5 inquired into the early church’s reception of the New Testament Canon. This post will consider the manuscript tradition and preservation of the New Testament text.

No Original Autographs

Sadly, none of the original autographs remain. Most likely, they wore out after constant usage and copying. Now, all that we possess are copies of copies of copies—a lot of them actually. Yet these copies differ in lots of different places. But do these differences render our Bible unreliable? Bart Ehrman thinks so. He asks:

How does it help us to say that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God if in fact we do not have the words that God inerrantly inspired, but only the words copied by scribes—sometimes correctly but sometimes(many times!) incorrectly?[1]

In response to Ehrman’s objection, I’d like to quote the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Article X reads:

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

In other words, through the manuscript tradition, we can recreate the original texts with a high degree of accuracy. The reason for this accuracy is that we have 5,000+ extant Greek NT manuscripts (and thousands more in other languages).

Important Early Manuscripts

While listing all the manuscripts would be an impossible task, allow me to highlight some of the more prominent ones:

P52

P stands for “papyri” taken from a reed-like plant in the marshes of Egypt. All the oldest NT manuscripts are on papyri. P52 is probably the oldest surviving manuscript and most likely dates to the second century. The manuscript is extremely small (about the size of a credit card), and contains portions of John 18:31-33, 37-38 on a two-sided fragment. It was discovered in 1934 and is currently housed in the John Rylands Library in Manchester, England.

P66

This manuscript contains almost a complete copy of John’s Gospel. The manuscript contains 104 in tact leaves and fragments from forty other leaves. This manuscript dates to somewhere between the late second and early third centuries. It is currently housed in the Bodmer Library in Cologny, just outside Geneva, Switzerland.

P75

This manuscript contains most of Luke and John’s Gospels and dates somewhere between the late second and early third centuries. Discovered in the 1950s, this manuscript made a significant splash in the text criticism world as it closely resembles the fourth century Codex Vaticanus, demonstrating that the copying of early scribes wasn’t as uncontrolled and inaccurate as many previously thought. This manuscript is housed in the Vatican Library.

P45

This manuscript is a highly fragmented portion of a four-Gospel and Acts codex (book with pages) and dates to somewhere between the late second and early third centuries. It was originally 220 pages, but only thirty survive. This codex, along with others like P46 demonstrate that the early church started collecting their canonical texts into single book forms. No early codex, for example, contains the canonical Gospels and the Gospel of Peter or Thomas. This manuscript was discovered in the 1930s and is housed in the Chester Beatty Museum in Dublin, Ireland.

P46

This manuscript contains eight of Paul’s letters and Hebrews. Many in the early church thought Hebrews was Pauline, so it was often lumped in with his other letters. This manuscript is very early and probably dates to the second century, though third century is a possibility. It was discovered in the 1920s in the ruins of an old monastery in Egypt. Fifty-six leaves are housed in the Chester Beatty Museum in Dublin, Ireland, and thirty are at the University of Michigan.

Codex Sinaiticus

Unlike the previous manuscripts, this one is on parchment (stretched and dried animal skins) and is extremely elegant. It dates to the fourth century. The manuscript includes about half of the OT, Apocryphal texts, the entire NT, the Shepherd of Hermes, and the Epistle of Barnabas. It contains over four hundred leaves of parchment measuring 13 x 14 inches in size. In 1844, Constantine Tischendorf supposedly discovered it in a waste basket that was set to be burned in a fire to keep the monks warm. Along with Vaticanus, this manuscript is the best one in our possession. It is currently housed in the British Library in London.

Codex Vaticanus

Similar to Sinaiticus, Vaticanus dates to around the middle of the fourth century. It contains almost the entire OT, Apocryphal texts, and almost the entire NT (parts of Hebrews and Revelation are missing). Most text scholars regard Vaticanus as the most trustworthy manuscript of the NT. As mentioned previously, it relates closely to P75. This manuscript has been housed in the Vatican Library since the 15th century.

Texual Variants

With thousands of manuscripts comes thousands of textual variants (about 500,000 in total). A variant is simply a different reading in the text. And as Bart Ehrman likes to point out, “There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”[2] While there are only about 138,000 words in the New Testament, Ehrman’s quote is misleading. First off, we wouldn’t have any variants if we only had one manuscript. With 5,000+, we’re bound to have thousands upon thousands of variants. And second, Ehrman wrongly compares the total number of variants in ALL the manuscripts to the total number of words in only ONE complete manuscript.

Peter Gurry has calculated that when you add up all the words in the 5,000+ manuscripts, and divide it by the total number of variants, you come out to “just one distinct variant per 434 words copied.”[3] That’s a far cry from having far more variants than words in the NT.

Types of Variants[4]

With all the variants in the manuscript tradition, how do scholars determine which readings represent the original text? To help you make sense of this process, I think it will be helpful to place the types of variants into four different categories:

1. Neither Meaningful nor Viable

This category represent variants that don’t change the meaning of the text and obviously don’t reflect the original reading. For example spelling errors are easy to detect and aren’t original to the text. Or, occasionally a scribe got careless and repeated a word like the scribe who copied Galatians 1:11: “For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel.” These types of variants make up about 75% of all variants (roughly 400,000 variants).

Even Ehrman admits, “To be sure, of all the hundreds of thousands of textual changes found among our manuscripts, most of them are completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance for anything other than showing that scribes could not spell or keep focused any better than the rest of us.”[5]

2. Viable but not Meaningful

These variants could reflect the original, but they don’t affect the meaning of the text. Variants of this sort include synonyms, different spellings, changes in word order, and the like. Allow me to offer you a few examples:

John 1:6 either reads, “There came a man sent from God.” Or it reads, “There came a man sent from the Lord.” Either could reflect the original, but meaning remains the same.
The movable nu is either present or absent in several instances. This variant is equivalent to the English use of the article “a” or “an.” No translation is affected.
Sometimes John has two n’s and sometimes it has one n. It can be spelled either way. This could be equivalent to spelling it “color” or “colour.” Technically, both are acceptable. But again, the spelling of Ἰωάννηςdoesn’t affect translation.
One popular group of synonyms are words translated as “and” (καὶ, δέ, τέ). The variants could reflect the original, but the translation and meaning are not affected.
Word order changes don’t affect meaning either because Greek is an inflected language. Meaning, the form of the word determines its place in the sentence. For example, I can write “God loves you” twelve different ways in Greek (θεός ἀγαπᾷ σε / θεός σε ἀγαπᾷ / σε ἀγαπᾷ θεός / σε θεός ἀγαπᾷ / ἀγαπᾷ θεός σε / ἀγαπᾷ σε θεός / ὁ θεός ἀγαπᾷ σε / ὁ θεός σε ἀγαπᾷ / σε ἀγαπᾷ ὁ θεός / σε ὁ θεός ἀγαπᾷ / ἀγαπᾷ ὁ θεός σε / ἀγαπᾷ σε ὁ θεός). That is to say, changes of word order don’t affect translation.

3. Meaningful but not Viable

These variants would change the meaning of the text, but they obviously don’t reflect the original. For example, most John 1:30 manuscripts reads, “after me comes a man.” One manuscript, however, reads, “after me comes air.” And I don’t think John the Baptist was talking about some bad locusts he ate. This variant would change the meaning, but it obviously does not reflect the original. The copyists simply left out a letter (ἀήρ vs. ἀνήρ).

Again, Erhman remarks, “Most of the changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the results of mistakes, pure and simple — slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort or another.”[6]

Of all textual variants, 99% of them fall into these first three categories. The remaining 1% fall into the final category.

4. Meaningful and Viable

These variants would change the meaning of the text and they very possibly could reflect the original. Furthermore, most Bibles include these variants in their footnotes. Let me give you a few examples of what these variants look like and the process that textual scholars go through in making their decisions:

Mark 1:2

Either it reads: (A) “as it is written in Isaiah the prophet” or, (B) “as it is written in the prophets.”

Most of the early manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Bezae) support reading A. Later Byzantine texts support B. This one seems pretty straight forward to me. A is the more difficult reading because the following quotation comes from both Isaiah and Micah. Therefore, it’s easy to see how a later scribe would try to smooth this out by changing “Isaiah” to “the prophets” because of a perceived mistake in the manuscript he was copying. Since it’s the more difficult reading, and since it is well represented among the earliest manuscripts, reading A is to be preferred.

Luke 22:43-44

Either: (A) it includes Jesus agonizing and sweating drops of blood in the garden, or (B) it omits it.

The manuscript evidence is somewhat divided on this issue. Good manuscripts support both A and B, although church father quotations support A. Moreover, its difficult to understand why a scribe would insert this scene if it wasn’t original to the text. On the flip side, it’s easier to make sense of why a scribe would omit the scene because it makes Jesus look weak compared to other Christian martyrs who boldly went to their deaths. Option A seems like the better reading in my opinion.

Romans 5:1

Either it reads: (A) “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” or, (B) “let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Most of the early and better manuscripts favor reading B. That said, the context of Romans 5 suggests that A would be a better reading. In other words, Paul doesn’t seem to be exhorting the believers to pursue peace with God, but declaring that they already have peace with God. The difference is one letter (ἔχομεν or ἔχωμεν), and they would have sounded almost identical as they were read aloud. It’s easy to see how a copyist mistakenly heard the wrong word as someone read it aloud to him as he copied the text. Therefore, A seems like the better reading.

A Reliable Text

I hope these examples give you a little idea of what the process of textual criticism looks like. I should also note that none of the meaningful and viable variants leave any Christian doctrine hanging in the balance. That is to say, the Trinity isn’t up in the air if a Bible translator chose the wrong variant. God’s word is redundant (in a good way) so that every major Christian belief is well-represented across a wide spectrum of texts. Thus, while biblical scholars are less than 100% certain in a few places, you can have confidence that God’s word has been reliably preserved.

The next post will look into the history of the English Bible.

Notes

[1] Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, 7.

[2] Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, 90.

[3] Peter Gurry, Myths and Mistakes, 196.

[4] These categories come from Dan Wallace.

[5] Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, 207.

[6] Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, 55.

Does Political Power Contradict the Cross? Plus Q&A

Podcast

Some Christians are saying that since Christ saved the world through weakness by agreeing to go on the cross, Christians should not use power in politics or culture wars. Christianity Today leader Russell Moore recently wrote a column titled, “THE CROSS CONTRADICTS OUR CULTURE WARS: The victory of Christ was won by crucifixion, not societal conquest.” Is Moore correct? Is it unchristian to seek political power to right wrongs in society through law?

Frank points out several problems with Moore’s position, which is becoming more popular among Christian intellectuals (to the delight of secularists and Leftists everywhere). He also answers listener questions including those on how to answer scoffers and how to honor parents who are not Christians.

Links mentioned in the show:

The Cross Contradicts Our Culture Wars by Russell Moore
Christianity Today Had an Easter Message: We’re Just … Better Than You by Eric Metaxas

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

May 13, 2022/by Frank Turek

Moloch: Bruised but not Defeated

Culture CrossExamined, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Josh Klein

For decades our country has been mired by a decision that enshrined the sacrifice of human babies to the god of Moloch (also known as Molech). You might know this practice by its current moniker, abortion, but the practice is essentially the same. Sacrificing our children on the altar of prosperity is a tail as old as human civilization. Instead of molten hands the altar is often a Planned Parenthood operating table.

We have chosen, as a nation, to ignore the obvious humanity of the infant in utero and have embraced the lie that sex is a right but having children as a result is anathema. That is, unless you want the baby.

In 1973, possibly the worst decision in the history of the Supreme Court was handed down in Roe v. Wade. I do not mean worst in merely the moral sense, though it is that, but also the legal sense. Finding the right to an abortion in the constitution took mental and philosophical gymnastics that would make Simone Biles jealous.[1] If you don’t believe me, perhaps you would believe Ruth Bader Ginsberg, not exactly a bastion of conservatism, when she said of the decision in 1992, “Doctrinal limbs too quickly shaped… may prove unstable.”[2]

This decision enshrined the murder of innocent children and the racially motivated eugenics of Margaret Sanger,[3] the founder of Planned Parenthood. If there is a social justice issue worth fighting, it is this one. Abortion effects minority communities more than any other in our society, in fact, over 40% of all abortions since 1973 were people of color.[4]

For decades this decision has meant the belittling of pre-born life, the slaughter of millions of babies, and the attempted genocide of the African American people. It is, in my opinion, one of the most corrupt and heinous failings in our country’s history. The decision to abort has been called a “woman’s right to choose.” Representative Ilhan Omar tweeted that “the Republican party supports forcing women to give birth against their will,” on May 3^rd 2022.

The euphemistic language is by design, sure a woman might give birth against her will (unless the sex was consensual), but the baby is killed against his/her will every time. Which is worse? Saying the reality engenders discomfort. In reality “women’s reproductive rights” is simply a cover for worship of self and a desire for prosperity by sacrificing a life on the altar of convenience. The ease of life was always the goal of sacrifice to Moloch, abundant harvests were promised as the babies were laid on the glowing hot hands of the idol. “Give us prosperity because we give you our first-born children” has turned to “give us prosperity as we suck my preborn child lifelessly from the womb.”[5] Life will be easier for everyone if this child does not exist. Interestingly enough, I notice the child never has a say.

When pro-abortion advocates feel they are losing ground they often use extreme examples like rape or incest to insist that abortion must be kept legal if only for these cases. Only 1% of abortion cases are because of rape and even fewer are because of incest[6]. This Red Herring has proven effective, but it should not be. When granted the exception, it becomes obvious that limiting abortion to only cases of rape and incest would never be acceptable. The goal of this objection is to get the pro-life advocate to admit that the baby is not a real baby. If you are willing to allow a pre-born child to be killed due to a crime, then what is the point of limiting the act to only those that are victims of a crime. A life is a life is it not? In this argument they concede the point, not the other way around. However, murdering an innocent because he/she reminds you of a horrific crime you suffered is not moral. Committing a second evil does not negate the first evil committed. But most pro-lifers are willing to grant the exception. Why? It is not because they believe the personhood changes based on the condition of conception, but because when faced with the prospect that such a compromise might save 99% of babies that would otherwise be killed we say this, “It is not perfect, but it is a start.”

Other objections are similarly shallow. “Why force a woman who already has children to carry another child and make her life harder?” Perhaps because murder is never an excuse to make life easier, and then we pretend like adoption is not an option. Or, “wouldn’t it be better to have never been born than for a child to be born in abject poverty?” This is assuming the child will never amount to anything and, logically, we might as well exterminate all drug addicts and homeless people then because… wouldn’t it be better for them in the long run to simply be dead? All of these are Red Herrings, and houses of cars that easily crumble under slight scrutiny, but they are not meant to stand, they are meant to obfuscate by putting the pro-life person on the defense having to explain the position. And we often fall for it.

For many years overturning Roe v. Wade seemed like a political pipe dream. Something always talked about but never coming to fruition. Recently, notable theologian and pastor Tim Keller exemplified this thought with a twitter thread that seemed to indicate such a position:

While I disagree with Keller on many of his points here, I believe his position is one that took into account the pipe dream that was Roe v. Wade being overturned.

But now, all of that has changed. An unprecedented leak of a drafted Supreme Court decision to Politico[7] has forced many to recognize the pipe dream might become reality. But what does the accomplishment of this pipe dream do?

Well, contrary to popular belief on the left, the decision would not make abortion illegal on a federal level. Though, to be honest, I wish it did. All it will do is remove abortion as a “right” enumerated by the constitution under the guise of privacy. This would send the decision on whether to make abortion legal or not to individual states. All in all, it would only make it a little harder to get an abortion. Some states would maintain their laws while others would make abortion illegal. States already have the purview to put limitations on abortion after the first trimester.

However, this is a necessary first step in ending the idolatry of self and sex without consequences in our society. But, when the god of Moloch is challenge, his worshippers fight back. Death threats are sure to make their way to the Supreme Court in an attempt to dissuade the justices from maintaining their ruling. Let us hope that threat is where it stops. Regardless, the clear objective of the leak is to effect the decision of the courts in more than one way.

Clearly, this leak is an effort to pressure the House and Senate to do something the left has wanted them to do for some time now: end the filibuster, and pack the supreme court and codify Roe as law. This leak makes that desire more urgent and puts pressure on middle of the road Democrats like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema to toe the party line and get the deal done. This is a delicate time in our nation’s history, and, in particular, our Republic. As of this writing members of congress are already setting the stage:

We would be mistaken, as believers, to think that this is a death knell to the abhorrent practice of abortion even if the decision comes out as the leak indicates it will. Abortion will still be practiced in many states and that, unfortunately, will not change.

While abortion has been made into a political and human rights issue (and it is), it is so much more than that to the Christian. While abortion is a clear evil in our society, and in culture at large, it is representative of a larger issue in society – the worship of self.

Self-actualization, self-identity, self-care, self-improvement, self-indulgence. Self, self, self, self, self.

We are a me-oriented society and thus, the idea that a person cannot choose for herself whether or not to kill another human being to ease the burdens of life is anathema. This is not simply about a culture war, this is a war concerning the gospel. Our battle is not against flesh and blood but against the rulers of this day and the worshippers of Moloch will not relinquish their grip easily.[8]

Plenty of states will harden their hearts and continue to come down with extreme legislation allowing abortion up to and possibly after birth[9]. This is not the end of the war, it is only a battle.

If we view this issue as primarily political, we miss the forest for the trees. We ought to be engaged in politics (see: Separation of Church and State Deception), but we must not make politics an end unto themselves. This has always been and will always be about the gospel, about being salt and light! What we will see in the coming days will be tantamount to spiritual revolution for the ardent Molochites. We ought not wilt in the periphery but stand on the hill. The truth, and life, is on our side. Compromising on murder for the sake of peace is not progress, it is surrender.

The worshippers of Moloch did not go quietly in the night during Israel’s time and the 21st century version will not go quietly into the night either.

To be clear, not everyone who is pro-choice is serving Moloch, but make no mistake, for the passionate abortion-at-all-costs radicals this is more about worship than it is about supposed rights. But don’t take my word for it:

“The right to an abortion is sacred.” This is sacramental language. And this avenue of worship has taken many forms throughout history, from Moloch, to Baal, to Baphomet, to the cult of self, whatever the Enemy can offer as a counterfeit to the real worship of God almighty in a given culture he will. Different times, different cultures, same methodology. Why fix what isn’t broken? The schemes of the devil are simple yet effective.

The promise is alluring, the worship is self-gratifying, and the outrage is intoxicating. But the end, as always, is death and misery, but most do not even recognize they are participating in the worship of darkness. They think they are enlightened humanists and many do not believe in the spiritual at all and that is just the way the Enemy wants it. Not many would knowingly bend a knee to Satan but if he can get them to worship the created rather than the creator it is just as well.

So what do we do?

Pray – A lot.

Keep the five justices of the Supreme Court and, in particular, members of Congress in your prayers continuously. Specifically pray for Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito to remain safe and pray for the hearts and minds of the dissenting justices to be softened. Pray also for safety in our nation. Pray for an opportunity for the gospel to be heard. Pray that pro-life people, such as myself, will stand for life but also for the care of each person in the name of Christ. Pray that pastors and theologians, such as Tim Keller and many others, with a wide reach will find confidence and courage. This could be an inflection point in our nation’s history, pray that it is not squandered.

Do not fight the lies of Satan with half-truths and do not give ground. Be courageous. The darkness always hates the light but its power is fraudulent and without substance.

And finally, stay heartened, faithful, and committed to the cause of Christ!

[1] https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3681&context=mlr

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html

[3] https://www.frc.org/op-eds/margaret-sanger-racist-eugenicist-extraordinaire

[4] https://www.bostonherald.com/2022/01/28/franks-high-abortion-rate-strikes-blow-at-black-community/

[5] https://allthatsinteresting.com/moloch

[6]https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/24/rape-and-incest-account-few-abortions-so-why-all-attention/1211175001/

[7] https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473

[8] Ephesians 6:12

[9] https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/31/politics/ralph-northam-third-trimester-abortion/index.html

I’m Having Doubts. Is that Okay?

Apologetics for Parents, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Levi Dade

Is doubting sinful?

If you have ever asked this question, you’re not alone. It’s an important question because doubt is part of the human experience. Therefore, Christians should ponder the question and seek to find out if God condones his people to have doubts.

If so, to what extent? What are the boundaries if doubt in itself is not sinful? What should God’s people do with their doubts?

Before we get too far, let’s define some terms:[1]

Doubt: 1) verb. To be undecided or uncertain. 2) noun. A feeling of uncertainty about the truth, reality, or nature of something.
Unbelief: noun. The state or quality of not believing; skepticism, especially in matters of religion.
Faith (or belief): noun. 1) confidence or trust in a person or thing. 2) belief about someone or something with good reason. 3) belief that is not based on proof.

For most Christians, it is clear that the Church does not have a positive attitude toward doubt. Many Christians have left the faith altogether from festering doubts which were never addressed because they felt there was no safe space in the Church to make their concerns known.[2]

Indeed, in recent years, the Church has, by and large, neglected to seriously consider the question of whether doubt (or asking questions) is sinful.

The result has been damaging: Those who have doubts and questions don’t trust the Church enough to be honest and open. If there is one place in the world Christians should feel safe exposing their doubt, it’s with the Church. Rather, they go outside the Church to ask their questions, where they are welcomed with the open arms of a tolerant, inclusive, and diverse world.

Maybe this is your story. Maybe you have doubts in the back of your mind, but you feel like addressing them will make you a bad Christian or make God mad at you. Maybe you know people whose doubt led to deconversion.

That would understandably cause fear in anyone. Please hear that you are not alone. There is hope in Jesus, and you will see how addressing your doubt is actually what will keep your faith strong in the long run.

With some exceptions, the Church has sidestepped the question of doubt by labeling all doubt as sinful, setting doubt in direct opposition with faith. Hence, the common mantras such as “just have faith” and “don’t ask questions” are believed without any reservation as biblical truth.

Taking a step back and examining the question of doubt is valuable because it forces us to ask ourselves if our theology is accurately reflecting the true teachings of Scripture. Examining our beliefs, which we often put little to no thought toward, is critical if we want to grow in our knowledge, understanding, and love of God and others.

The Source of Doubt

When having doubts about faith, we first have to ask, “Where did this doubt come from?” Identifying the source of doubt will help you determine how to deal with it. All doubt is spiritual, but there are two “categories” of doubt: emotional doubt and intellectual doubt.

Emotional Doubt

In short, emotional doubt is caused by an emotional impact on your life. For example, when people experience the deep loss of a loved one, the emotional impact causes them to question God’s love, goodness, or his existence altogether. You may have this doubt yourself, and that’s okay.

A good test to see if doubt is caused by an emotional impact is to ask, “What is my primary emotion toward God when I think about this?” If it’s anger or resentment or grief, it’s probably emotional doubt. When addressing this doubt, you would seek assurance that Christianity is good.

Intellectual Doubt

Intellectual doubt deals with what you do or don’t know about God. In other words, intellectual doubt is focused on facts rather than pure emotion. Intellectual doubt can indeed cause some emotions, but in this case, the source of the doubt is intellectual while the effect of the doubt is emotional.

For this doubt to be addressed (which can also help emotional doubt), you would seek assurance that Christianity is true. Again, ask the question, “What is my primary emotion toward God when I think about this?” If it’s uncertainty or confusion, your doubt is probably intellectual.

Doubt, Faith, and Unbelief

As mentioned in the introduction, doubt is often used as the opposite of faith in the Church. However, this is not the case. The opposite of faith is unbelief. In the New Testament, the words “faith” and “believe” are the same in the original language (Greek). A good example is Romans 4:4:

Now to the one who works, pay is not credited as a gift, but as something owed. But to the one who does not work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.

In the English language, “believes” and “faith” are different words, yet in the Greek language, they are the same. “Believes” is the verb form (pisteuō), and “faith” is the verb form (pistis). When we say we have faith in Christ, we are synonymously saying we believe in Christ. (Just as important, when we say we believe in Christ, it’s not merely a cognitive belief or recognition, as if we are saying we believe that, say, air exists. Rather, we are saying that we believe in Jesus and align our lives in accordance with that belief. It changes who we are from the inside out.)

How does it follow that doubt is the opposite of faith? Doubt is uncertainty about something. Unbelief is a conviction that something isn’t true, while faith is a conviction (or assurance) that something is true. In other words, doubt is the middle ground of faith and unbelief.

The Direction of Doubt

It is hard to see how doubt is sinful when one reflects on it long enough. As mentioned in the opening, it’s part of the human experience. People are going to doubt no matter what. The sin is not the doubt. The sin is what you do with the doubt, or where you decided to let the doubt take you.

We have seen how doubt is the middle ground, or tension, of faith and unbelief. This implies there is a decision to be made to go toward one (faith) or the other (unbelief). In our doubt, we can decide to go to many sources and voices that can lead us to unbelief. Conversely, many places are available to go to for answers to our doubts that keep our faith intact.

Ignoring doubts also can lead to unbelief. In the same way, we can choose to go to the object of our faith, Jesus, and see what he has to say about the matter.

Sin comes when our conclusions drive us toward unbelief. When our conclusions cause us to trust Christ and go deeper in our pursuit of God’s truth, our faith is strengthened, and the doubt is answered. In other words, sin enters the picture when uncertainty turns to unbelief, while stronger faith is produced when uncertainty turns to assurance.

Jesus’s Response to Doubt

In the seventh chapter of Luke’s Gospel, he records a story about John the Baptist. John the Baptist is regarded as a great spiritual model in the Church as he “prepared the way” for Jesus to begin his ministry.

Yet, in this story, John the Baptist is recorded as having doubts himself!

What? Not John the Baptist!

In this story, John was in prison for his faith. Things were not turning out as he hoped they would. It’s not a huge stretch to assume John knew he was nearing the end of his life, and understandably, he wanted assurance that Jesus was the Messiah. He wanted to make sure his death would not be in vain, since Jesus was not doing the things that the average Jew thought the Messiah would do at that time in Israel.

John decided to send some of his disciples to ask Jesus, “Are you the one to come, or should we expect someone else?”

Once his disciples asked Jesus the question, Jesus’s response was very telling. It was not, “You go tell John to just have faith and quit asking questions! Doubting is sinful!”

Instead, Jesus’s response was to “go and tell John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, and the dead are raised…”

Jesus did not want them to have blind faith in who he was. The point of his miracles was to point to the fact that he is “the one who is to come.” He provided evidence for the divine claims he made through his miracles. That’s what he pointed to when he was questioned.

Lastly, in verse 28, Jesus said about John, who had just doubted him, that “among those born of women, none is greater than John.” Even after doubting and needing assurance, Jesus commends John the Baptist!

Conclusion

Although doubt is seen as a negative in a large portion of the Church, be encouraged that the Lord’s attitude about doubt is very different. You aren’t a “bad Christian” for doubting. I have a podcast and blog aimed at providing reasons for the hope that we have in Christ, yet I wake up some mornings and question if it is true, or at least if some of my central beliefs about who God is are true.

I’ve learned to take my doubts, questions, and concerns to the feet of Jesus. If I go anywhere else, the answer I receive will likely lead me away from Christ. This does not mean we can’t get helpful insight from other resources (that’s what you’re doing right now!).

Other resources are good, and God can use them for our spiritual growth and understanding. These are resources that reflect the true teachings of Scripture. However, when we do so, our hearts and minds should be in submission the lordship of Christ to direct us and give us discernment when we do go to those resources.

That’s why it is critical to know Scripture for ourselves: to be able to discern what’s true and false in the world. It’s also critical to pray for the Lord’s wisdom and help in seeking answers. This is a practical way to bring your doubts to the Lord.

Be assured, brother and sisters, when you doubt, you are still a child of the Living God. When you take your doubts to him who created you, he will supply you with whatever answer your heart needs. Sometimes we may not like the answers to certain doubts.

However, every day, every Christian must answer the same question: who has ultimate authority in my life? Myself and my desires, or Christ?

In most cases, he knows what we need better than we do. Be encouraged that when you have doubt, you can let it be known, for our Savior invites you to bring them into the light so that he can assure you of all things concerning himself.

Amen.

Reliable resources to start addressing doubt:

CrossExamined.org

Cold Case Christianity

Stand to Reason

Alisa Childers

Sean McDowell

[1] Definitions adapted from dictionary.com.

[2] Ed Jarrett, “Can a Christian Doubt God and Still Have Faith?” https://www.christianity.com/wiki/salvation/can-a-christian-doubt-god-and-still-have-faith.html.

Why Has the World Gone Mad? C.S. Lewis & Paul Tell Us

Podcast

What explains the super extreme—even mad—positions we’ve seen people take publicly in recent years? For example, how did we go from abortion being “safe, legal, and rare” to “shout your abortion” and laws even allowing the murder of babies 28 days AFTER they are born? How did we go from “believe every woman” to “what’s a woman?” in just four years? How did we go from considering gender dysphoria a mental condition to affirming 3-5 year-olds in it and shouting down anyone who makes common-sense distinctions about gender?

The answer has to do with the revenge of our own consciences. Drawing on C.S. Lewis, Dr. J. Budziszewski, and the Apostle Paul, Frank reveals that the madness we see is rooted in our rebellion to our own consciences, and how our own psychology amps up our response to promote extreme positions. Lewis, Budziszewski, and, of course, Paul, have very profound insights into this. In the end, the only lasting solution to rebellion is repentance. Don’t miss this one.

And pick up a copy of Frank’s new book out this week, written with his son Zach, called Hollywood Heroes: How Your Favorite Movies Reveal God.

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

May 6, 2022/by Frank Turek

The Need for Apologetics in the Local Church

Apologetics for Parents, Culture CrossExamined, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Maggie Hendrick

Apologetics, when done with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15), is beneficial in evangelism as we see the Holy Spirit use it time and time again in the Scriptures through Paul’s “reasoning” and “persuading” to draw souls to the Lord. However, in this article, I will show how apologetics in the local church has other benefits: equipping the saints and preventing apostasy. Of course our entire Christian walk should be dedicated toward evangelism; that is a given. But, not to sound too inwardly focused, I want to show that apologetics has benefits for the believers themselves and why the local church is the best source to implement them.

Apologetics is Useful in:

Making Disciples

The Great Commission in Matthew 28 commands believers to make disciples, not converts. This is an important distinction to make for apologetics as it has many benefits and goals. We know apologetics can be used in evangelism to make converts as Paul did throughout Acts, but it doesn’t stop there. The church needs to stir up one another to love and good works (Hebrews 10:24), equip the saints for the work of ministry (Ephesians 4:12), help them hold their faith firm to the end (Hebrews 3:14), and encourage them to love God with their minds (Matthew 22:37). Apologetics can be used in all of these, not confined to a classroom or specialty ministry, but all throughout the local church.

The local church is essential in equipping believers. But what are we to be equipped with? Ephesians 6 tells us to put on the WHOLE armor of God so we can stand against the devil’s schemes. Apologetics helps to strengthen our faith, “which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one” and helps us “stand firm” with the “belt of truth.” Many times local churches focus on “the breastplate of righteousness” and the “helmet of salvation”, but we need the full armor of God.

The church stands on God’s Word, and they must compare everything to it. Apologetics is another aid in helping us know our Creator through studying his creation and loving Him with our minds. Apologetics does not replace Bible Study or preaching, it’s a helpful tool to be used simultaneously to produce richer study and preaching. Thus, it is not only useful in evangelism as Paul used it, but also through making stronger, wiser disciples with a faith built on solid ground.

Evangelism+

Apologetics isn’t just used in the moment of evangelism, but also leading up to it. This is a huge benefit of incorporating apologetics into the church. Fear cripples their congregants more than pastors want to admit. Of course, no matter how much we know, we may still feel nervous before sharing the gospel. However, the confidence in being able to defend our faith, through apologetics, eases those fears and can lead to more gospel conversations and encounters with unbelievers. I experienced this very thing as a 16 year old girl headed to Utah to share my faith with Mormons. I knew very little, and never wanted to be the one initiating or talking in the conversations. The more I studied, my confidence and ability to share and defend my faith increased. This made me WANT to initiate conversations and continue sharing the gospel even when I got home. Having a congregation who can more effectively and clearly share the gospel, while increasing the number of times they actually share it, should be an encouragement for pastors to embrace apologetics.

If the focus of apologetics in a local church setting is geared towards benefitting believers (not just for reaching unbelievers) the church will have stronger congregants, who can better spur one another on to love and good works. This is because apologetics equips the saints to live out the Christian worldview outside of the church’s walls…which includes evangelism! It is not a means of which believers fight with one another over trivial matters, but rather used to sharpen one another to better withstand the false ideologies and evils of the world.

Preventing Apostasy

“As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away” Matthew 13:20-21

Another important aspect of a local church is to help the saints persevere and hold firm their faith to the end. Apologetics is a helpful tool in preventing apostasy. I have experienced this benefit of apologetics personally. Had I not attended a youth group so committed to equipping us prior to college, I would have been eaten alive at my college. Ultimately, being a Christian at a secular college is HARD. Our sinful hearts sometimes don’t “feel” like living out the Christian faith or even “want” to. But I felt like Peter, when asked by Jesus, if he would like to go away as well. Peter replies: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” (John 6:68-69) It did not matter how I felt each day, the gospel was true, and my faith was built on truth and not feelings.

A local church may feel that they are growing and that their congregants are evangelizing, so apologetics isn’t needed. I would caution against such a belief because as much as apologetics helps to equip us to share the Good News, it also protects us. Even if it appears that everyone has a strong faith and aren’t wrestling with doubt, we know that many have left and will leave the faith because they don’t feel like they have a good reason to believe it’s true.

If we are not giving believers good reasons for their faith, it will be much easier for the world to shake it when life gets hard. While discussing apologetics as a way to train, William Lane Craig says: “Unfortunately, our churches have largely dropped the ball in this area. It’s insufficient for youth groups and Sunday school classes to focus on entertainment and simpering devotional thoughts. We’ve got to train our kids for war.”[1] The world is at war with us. This is why we need the full armor of God.

Apologetics aids us in formulating sufficient answers to the world’s tough questions. At some point (if not already), we will be faced with tough questions. If our faith resembles a blind faith, or is built upon feelings, it can be more easily shaken. Therefore, the local church must cultivate strong faiths in their congregants so that they “may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.” (Ephesians 4:14)

How Might Pastors Incorporate Apologetics?

Everyone has questions. Only those who know everything won’t have questions, and that of course, is none of us. Even pastors and church leaders have questions…and questions are a good thing! The local church should encourage their congregation to ask questions at church so they can come alongside them in finding quality answers. Pastors ought to share questions they’ve had, how they found answers (within the church body and not the world), and even invite his congregants to ask him questions to emphasize the benefits of asking and faithfully seeking truth. This type of culture within a church will lead to loving God with their minds, and not shrink in doubt. After all, we know JESUS IS THE TRUTH and therefore know we have true and genuine answers to give. No need to be scared of the questions when truth is on our side.

Apologetics can be implemented in all teaching ministries at a local church. Of course they can do specific series on apologetic topics or host apologetic events, but apologetics can be brought into all areas without disregarding expository preaching. Find time in all teaching moments at church to pull in some apologetics. Even if it isn’t blatant apologetics, it is about creating a culture where congregants can grow in their knowledge of the Lord, while getting their questions or doubts addressed within the church walls.

If Not for You, Do it for them

As I have discussed many benefits to apologetics in a local church and practical ways to implement it, I cannot stress enough that apologetics must be taught early. Apologetics isn’t just for adults and shouldn’t be confined to the main pulpit. It shouldn’t even be confined to college or high school students. Apologetics begins when children’s questions begin. As a mother to four young children, I can attest to how early that begins!

We should not answer any of our children’s questions with “because the Bible says so” for the same reason we rejected our own parents’ “reason” of “because I said so”. These types of explanations didn’t satisfy us then, and they certainly won’t satisfy our children, ESPECIALLY if the question is pertaining to big issues of life and not just why they have to make their bed. John Stonestreet and Brett Kunkle write:

“Challenges that undermine the authority of God’s Word cannot go unanswered. And we cannot merely assert that the Bible is the authoritative book from God and hope kids will simply take our word on the matter. Young people must understand the nature of biblical authority. They must have good reasons to trust the Bible as God’s Word.”[2]

We have better answers than “because the Bible says so”, so let’s give them!

Another important reason to start young is because we need to begin before we feel an urgent need to. As J. Warner Wallace writes, “According to the statistics, young Christians decide to abandon the church long before they ever tell anyone and usually before they leave the home of their parents…That’s why it’s so important for us to start early- even before your kids are verbalizing their questions.”[3] Many times, parents get into apologetics when it is too late. Even if your children do ask you their questions, if we fail to give sufficient answers, they won’t stop asking questions, they’ll just stop asking YOU questions. We must steer them to the truth in a satisfying and complete way, or we will see them seek answers elsewhere.

Conclusion

Apologetics is needed in the local church, in all ministries, and for all ages. Even if a believer doesn’t personally believe they need apologetics or good reasons for their own faith, why take the risk and not guard themselves against apostasy that the Bible warns against regularly? And even if they ultimately don’t need apologetics for themselves, someone they love does. And in order to be a wise “discipler”, we must have good answers to give or risk them turning to the world for answers.

We need apologetics in the local church to equip us to better know and love God with our minds, train and encourage us to evangelize, prepare us to better disciple young believers, and protect us (and others) from the deceitful ideologies of this world and falling into apostasy. The church is responsible for equipping their congregation, and thus, should implement apologetics regularly.

Now let us fasten on the belt of truth and get to work!

[1] William Lane Craig. “Christian Apologetics: Who Needs It?: Reasonable Faith.” Who Needs It? Reasonable Faith, www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/apologetics/christian-apologetics-who-needs-it/.

[2] John Stonestreet and Brett Kunkle. A Practical Guide to Culture. David C. Cook, 2020. 309.

[3] Sean McDowell and J. Warner Wallace. So the Next Generation Will Know. David C Cook, 2019. 41.

c40000

Proverbs: Making Your Paths Straight Complete 9-part Series by Frank Turek DVD and Download

God’s Crime Scene for Kids by J. Warner Wallace and Susie Wallace (Book)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Maggie is a stay-at-home wife and mother to her husband Curtis and children Troy (in heaven),Ty, Jay, Palin and Boyd. She received her BA in Religious Studies from Chapman University and her Masters in Christian Apologetics and Evangelism from Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary. She currently serves as the Biblical Immersive Experience Coordinator at Maven where she has the joy of planning trips for Christian youth to share their faith with Mormons in Utah. Along with her love for Christian youth and Mormon ministry, she is a pro-life and adoption advocate. She has a deep love for babies and has been nicknamed “the baby whisperer”. You’ll likely find her snuggling on the couch with one of her kiddos while eating bacon and drinking a glass of chocolate milk (Nesquik of course).

Original blog: https://bit.ly/3kwocJS

May 3, 2022/by Guest

Tag Archive for: apologetics

Distinguishing Worldview Disagreements from Logically Fallacious Red Herrings

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 1: If you really care about babies, you should be working to provide extensive government and/or business support for their lives (and their families’ lives) after birth (and for much longer).

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 2: Being “pro-life” means you should agree to a bundle of other social/moral positions assumed to be the best for human beings.

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 3: Caring about unborn babies is easier than caring about people already born.

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 4: Babies born to parents who can’t afford them, don’t want them, or otherwise are unready for them are better off being aborted.

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 5: Men have no right to tell a woman what she should or shouldn’t do with her body.

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 6: No one has a right to tell a woman what she should or shouldn’t do with her body.

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 7: Legally restricting abortion is classist and racist.

POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 8: There are all kinds of bad circumstances leading women to seek abortion, so we can’t and/or shouldn’t make blanket restrictions on it.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

No Original Autographs

Important Early Manuscripts

P52

P66

P75

P45

P46

Codex Sinaiticus

Codex Vaticanus

Texual Variants

Types of Variants[4]

1. Neither Meaningful nor Viable

2. Viable but not Meaningful

3. Meaningful but not Viable

4. Meaningful and Viable

Mark 1:2

Luke 22:43-44

Romans 5:1

A Reliable Text

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Source of Doubt

Emotional Doubt

Intellectual Doubt

Doubt, Faith, and Unbelief

The Direction of Doubt

Jesus’s Response to Doubt

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Apologetics is Useful in:

Making Disciples

Evangelism+

Preventing Apostasy

How Might Pastors Incorporate Apologetics?

If Not for You, Do it for them

Conclusion