Tag Archive for: apologetics

The Conversion of Saul of Tarsus, and its Evidential Value, Part 2

[Editor’s Note: In part 1 of this series on the evidential value of Paul’s conversion, Dr. Jonathan McLatchie established that (Proposition 1) The accounts in Acts substantially represent Paul’s own conversion testimony, and (Proposition 2) Paul was not plausibly sincerely mistaken. In this second installment, McLatchie tackles the remaining two propositions, showing that Saul’s conversion to Apostle Paul is a remarkably value line of evidence for historic Christianity]

 

Proposition 3: Paul was not plausibly intentionally deceptive.

Sufferings, Toils, and Hardships: There exists an abundance of evidence that Paul voluntarily endured significant hardships, dangers, persecutions, toils, labors, imprisonments and ultimately execution for the sake of the gospel. This goes a long way towards establishing his sincerity. For example, Clement of Rome, in his sole surviving letter, addressed to the Corinthian church, writes (1 Clement 5) [1],

But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation… Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.

This epistle is generally dated to around the year 96 C.E., as the church emerged from the persecution under the emperor Domitian. Clement of Rome had been a companion of Paul, and is likely the individual referred to in Philippians 4:3: “Yes, I ask you also, true companion, help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life,” (emphasis added]. Paul’s letter to the Philippians was composed during Paul’s first imprisonment in Rome. The second century church father Irenaeus of Lyons writes the following concerning Clement (Adv. Haer. 3.3.3) [2]:

This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles.

Clement was thus someone in a position to know about Paul’s sufferings for the sake of the gospel.

Polycarp of Smyrna, in his epistle to the Philippians, also testifies to the persecutions endured by Paul (Poly 9) [3]:

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

Irenaeus informs us concerning Polycarp (Adv. Haer. 3.3.4) [4]:

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

Thus, given Polycarp’s acquaintance with the apostles, he was also in a position to know about the sufferings endured by Paul and the other apostles.

In addition to the foregoing, there is a lot of attestation to Paul’s sufferings in Acts and the Pauline corpus. For example, consider Paul’s list of his experiences in 2 Corinthians 11:24-27:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Colin Hemer comments, “Myra, like Patara again, was a principal port for the Alexandrian corn-ships, and precisely the place where Julius would expect to find a ship sailing to Italy in the imperial service. Its official standing here is further illustrated by the Hadrianic granary. Myra was also the first of these ports to be reached by a ship arriving from the east, as Patara had been previously from the reverse direction.”[5] [13]

Verses 13-14 indicate that they “…sailed along Crete, close to the shore. But soon a tempestuous wind, called the northeaster, struck down from the land.” In confirmation of Luke’s report, there is indeed a well confirmed wind that rides over Crete from the Northeast, and which is strongest at this exact time near the Day of Atonement in the Fall (Acts 27:9). Acts 27:16 describes how the ship was blown off course towards a small island called Cauda. What is impressive is that the island of Cauda is more than 20 miles west-southwest of where the storm likely struck the travelers in the Bay of Messara. This is precisely where the trajectory of a north-easterly wind should have carried them, and it is not the sort of information someone would have inferred without having been blown there. Ancients found it nearly impossible to properly locate islands this far out. Colin Hemer notes that[6],

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

There are many other points at which Paul’s voyage and shipwreck may be confirmed. For a much more detailed discussion, I refer readers to James Smith’s book, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul. [7]

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

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

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

Sir George Lyttelton notes [8],

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

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

Was Paul in it for the Money? In view of the voluntary sufferings of Paul, evinced above, it appears to be highly improbable that he was engaging in deliberate deception. And what motive could he have for had such a deception? Paul does not appear to have been in it for the money, as already seen from the reference to 1 Corinthians 4:11-13, and the foregoing discussion of Paul’s time in Corinth in Acts 18. We also read in 1 Corinthians 9:14-18:

14 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. 15 But I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing these things to secure any such provision. For I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of my ground for boasting. … 18 What then is my reward? That in my preaching I may present the gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel.

Similarly, Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 12:14: “Here for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be a burden, for I seek not what is yours but you. For children are not obligated to save up for their parents, but parents for their children.”

Paul also appeals to the Thessalonians’ memory of how Paul was among them: “For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you,” (2 Thess 3:7-8).

In Paul’s address before the Ephesian elders, Paul likewise states, “I coveted no one’s silver or gold or apparel. You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me. In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive,’” (Acts 20:33-35). The unity in style and mannerism between the account of Paul’s address to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:17-38 and Paul’s letters supports the substantial authenticity of this speech (particularly given the demonstrable independence between Acts and the Pauline corpus). Lydia McGrew comments [9].

The speech breathes the personality of the author of the epistles, including both his genuine love and warm-heartedness and what one might less charitably be inclined to call his emotional manipulativeness and self-dramatization. The same Paul who brings the elders of Miletus to tears with his references to his own trials and tears (Acts 20:19) and his prediction of never seeing them again (Acts 20:25, 36-38) is the Paul who attempts, probably successfully, to induce Philemon to free the slave Onesimus by telling him that he ‘owes him his own life’ (Philem vss 17-19). He is the same Paul who says so much about his own trials and distresses in 1 Corinthians and reminds his readers that he is their spiritual father (1 Cor 4:8-14). The same Paul who launches, at this intimate moment of farewell to his dear friends, into a spirited defense of his own blamelessness in financial matters (Acts 20:33-35) is the Paul who harps on this theme repeatedly in the epistles and who is almost painfully defensive about his apostleship in 2 Corinthians 11-12. The same Paul who urges the Corinthians to be imitators of himself (1 Cor 4:16), who says that the “care of all the churches comes upon him daily (2 Cor 11:28), and who earnestly uses his apostolic authority, his love, and the sheer force of his personality to dissuade the Galatians from yielding to the demand of circumcision (Gal 4:16-20) is the Apostle Paul who tells the elders in Acts 20:29-32 that after his departure they will be assailed by false teachers and should resist, remembering how he himself ‘admonished them with tears’ during his ministry.

We also see evidence of Paul’s integrity in regards to finances in Acts 20:1-4:

After the uproar ceased, Paul sent for the disciples, and after encouraging them, he said farewell and departed for Macedonia. 2 When he had gone through those regions and had given them much encouragement, he came to Greece. 3 There he spent three months, and when a plot was made against him by the Jews as he was about to set sail for Syria, he decided to return through Macedonia. 4 Sopater the Berean, son of Pyrrhus, accompanied him; and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy; and the Asians, Tychicus and Trophimus.

This text provides the longest list in the book of Acts of companions of Paul all travelling somewhere at the same time. Moreover, their respective locations are very carefully noted together with their names. Timothy is related to Lystra and Derbe, even though this information was already supplied in Acts 16:1, and there is no apparent reason why this should be repeated here. It is, however, quite plausible that these various individuals are intended as representatives of the various gentile churches who were contributing to the collection that Paul was gathering at this time for the relief of the saints in Jerusalem. We see throughout Paul’s letters that he desires that everyone know that he is blameless about money and has no agenda of extorting people. This is a major theme in the Corinthian epistles in particular. In 1 Corinthians 16:3-4, Paul writes concerning the gathered collection, “And when I arrive, I will send those whom you accredit by letter to carry your gift to Jerusalem. If it seems advisable that I should go also, they will accompany me.” In other words, Paul suggests that someone else, rather than himself, accompany the Corinthians’ contribution to Jerusalem — he will go only if it seems appropriate. It seems likely, therefore, that Paul was accompanied from Greece to Jerusalem by this large group to demonstrate that he had not absconded with any of the collection and to provide more security as he made the journey. Acts never mentions the collection at all, except in Paul’s cryptic allusion to bringing alms to his nation in his speech before Felix in Acts 24:17.

Was Paul in it for the Power? It does not appear that Paul was in pursuit of power either. In 1 Corinthians 15:9, he describes himself as “the least of the apostles.” There is no indication that he felt himself in competition for power with the other apostles. This is further expressed in 1 Corinthians 3:4-9:

4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human? 5 What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. 7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. 8 He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor. 9 For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building.

In fact, Paul went up to Jerusalem to those who had been apostles before him to confirm that the gospel he had been proclaiming to the gentiles was the same as theirs, “in order,” he writes, “to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain,” (Gal 2:2).

Even when Paul was in prison in Rome, and others were seeking to take advantage of Paul’s circumstances for their own gain, Paul wrote to the Philippians (1:15-18),

15 Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. 16 The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.

Paul cared more about the advance of the gospel than his own reputation or influence.

Paul wrote to the Thessalonian Christians and appealed to their own experience of his conduct among them (1 Thess 2:3-12):

3 For our appeal does not spring from error or impurity or any attempt to deceive, 4 but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts. 5 For we never came with words of flattery, as you know, nor with a pretext for greed—God is witness. 6 Nor did we seek glory from people, whether from you or from others, though we could have made demands as apostles of Christ. 7 But we were gentle among you, like a nursing mother taking care of her own children. 8 So, being affectionately desirous of you, we were ready to share with you not only the gospel of God but also our own selves, because you had become very dear to us. 9 For you remember, brothers, our labor and toil: we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, while we proclaimed to you the gospel of God. 10 You are witnesses, and God also, how holy and righteous and blameless was our conduct toward you believers. 11 For you know how, like a father with his children, 12 we exhorted each one of you and encouraged you and charged you to walk in a manner worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory.

Another text that argues against Paul’s motivation being power is Acts 14:11-15, in which we read about an episode that transpired while Paul and Barnabas were at Lystra:

11 And when the crowds saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in Lycaonian, “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!” 12 Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. 13 And the priest of Zeus, whose temple was at the entrance to the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates and wanted to offer sacrifice with the crowds. 14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out into the crowd, crying out, 15 “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them.

This text is historically credible. First, note that the crowds are said to have spoken in Lycaonian. Jefferson White explains,

“Concerning the crowd’s Lycaonian dialect, historical evidence reveals that the lower classes of the interior of Asia Minor still spoke in their native tongues as late as the first century. This was in contrast to the more heavily populated areas along the Mediterranean coast, where native languages had largely disappeared in favor of Greek. Thus Luke’s reference to a native dialect in this inland city is accurate.” [10]

Archaeological evidence also indicates that Zeus and Hermes were the local cult deities of Lystra — various inscriptions reveal dedications to these two deities, which were linked in common worship. Evidence also indicates that it was commonly thought in the ancient world that, when there was a visitation of two deities, the lesser deity was the spokesman — this explains why Barnabas was called Zeus, even though Zeus was the more prominent of the two deities.

Take note of Paul’s and Barnabas’ reaction to their being hailed as deities — this is not the reaction of a narcissist who is hell-bent on his pursuit of power.

For the reasons surveyed above, I think it can be safely said that Paul was sincere in his belief that he had had an encounter with the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus — he was not setting out to intentionally deceive people. As Sir George Lyttelton concludes [11],

St. Paul could have no rational motive to become a Disciple of Christ, unless he sincerely believed in him, this observation: that whereas it may be objected to the other Apostles, by those who are resolved not to credit their testimony, that having been deeply engaged with Jesus during his life, they were obliged to continue the same professions after his death, for the support of their own credit, and from having gone too far to go back, this can by no means be said of St Paul. On the contrary, whatever force there may be in that way of reasoning, it all tends to convince us that St Paul must naturally have continued a Jew, and an enemy of Christ Jesus: if they were engaged on one side, he was as strongly engaged on the other. If shame withheld them from changing sides, much more ought it to have stopped him, who, being of a higher education and rank in life a great deal than they, had more credit to lose, and must be supposed to have been vastly more sensible to that sort of shame. The only difference was, that they, by quitting their Master after his death, might have preserved themselves; whereas he, by quitting the Jews, and taking up the cross of Christ, certainly brought on his own destruction.

Conclusion

I began this essay by making the case that the accounts in Acts 9, 22, and 26 substantially represent the claimed testimony of the apostle Paul himself. I then proceeded to show that, given this premise, it is incredibly implausible either that Paul was sincerely mistaken in his belief that he had encountered the risen Christ or that he gave false testimony with an intent to deceive. The best explanation of the evidence, therefore, is that Paul did indeed encounter Christ on the Damascus road, and was appointed to the office of apostle by Christ himself. Since Jesus identified as the one whom Paul was persecuting (Acts 9:5, 22:8, 26:15), it stands as an endorsement of the core beliefs of the group that Paul was persecuting — chief among which was the belief that Jesus had been physically raised from the dead. The evidence surveyed in the foregoing, therefore, provides an independent line of confirmation of the resurrection of Jesus.

I will conclude this essay with a final quote from Sir George Lyttelton, who wrote the following at the conclusion of his book on Paul’s conversion [12]:

Some difficulties occur in that Revelation, which human reason can hardly clear; but as the truth of it stands upon evidence so strong and convincing, that it cannot be denied without much greater difficulties than those that attend the belief of it, as I have before endeavored to prove, we ought not to reject it upon such objections, however mortifying they may be to our pride. That indeed would have all things made plain to us; but God has thought proper to proportion our knowledge to our wants, not our pride. All that concerns our duty is clear; and as to other points either of natural or revealed religion, if he has left some obscurities in them, is that any reasonable cause of complaint? Not to rejoice in the benefit of what he has allowed us to know, from a presumptuous disgust at our incapacity of knowing more, is as absurd as it would be to refuse to walk, because we cannot fly.

References: 

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

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

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

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

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

[6] Ibid., 331.

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

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

[9] Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (Tampa, FL: DeWard Publishing Company, 2017), 157.

[10] Jefferson White, Evidence and Paul’s Journeys: An Historical Investigation into the Travels of the Apostle Paul (Independently Published, 2001/2019), 14.

[11] Lyttelton 1747, 39-40.

[12] Ibid., 119-120.

Recommended Resources:

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

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

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

Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Is the Bible Historically Reliable? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, Mp3 Download.

 

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

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3DEJ7rr

/by

The Conversion of Saul of Tarsus, and its Evidential Value, Part 1

An argument for Christianity that seldom receives adequate attention is the conversion of Saul of Tarsus (also known as Paul) on the road to Damascus. There exist three accounts of Paul’s conversion in the book of Acts — in chapters 9, 22, and 26. The argument from Paul’s conversion has been laid out in most detail by Sir George Lyttelton (1709-1773), in his book Observations on the Conversion and Apostleship of St. Paul. The book is now in the public domain, and a free PDF copy can be obtained at this link. So strong and convincing is the argument from Paul’s conversion that Lyttelton wrote at the beginning of his book, addressing his friend Gilbert West [1],

 

In a late conversation we had together upon the subject of the Christian religion, I told you, that besides all the proofs of it which may be drawn from the prophecies of the Old Testament, from the necessary connection it has with the whole system of the Jewish religion, from the miracles of Christ, and from the evidence given of his resurrection by all the other Apostles; I thought the Conversion and Apostleship of St. Paul alone, duly considered, was of itself a demonstration sufficient to prove Christianity to be a Divine Revelation.

In this essay, I shall lay out in detail why Paul’s Damascus road conversion constitutes powerful evidence of the truth of Christianity.

When evaluating any set of testimonial claims, there exist three broad explanatory categories that might account for why the claim was made — that is, the claimant(s) was / were either lying, sincerely mistaken, or truthful in their testimony. These options are mutually exhaustive. In order, to evaluate those explanations, however, we must first establish what the original claimant(s) alleged. Thus, the argument of this essay will take the following structure:

  • Proposition 1: The accounts in Acts substantially represent Paul’s own conversion testimony.
  • Proposition 2: Paul was not plausibly sincerely mistaken.
  • Proposition 3: Paul was not plausibly intentionally deceptive.
  • Conclusion: Therefore, the best explanation of the evidence is that Paul did indeed encounter Christ on the Damascus road.

I shall now proceed to lay out the evidence for each of these propositions.

Proposition 1: The Accounts in Acts substantially represent Paul’s own conversion testimony.

For economy of space, the present article will take it for granted that Luke was a travelling companion of Paul. I and others have laid out this case in detail elsewhere. For those not familiar with the substantive evidence for this contention, I would suggest the following resources [see endnote 2].[2]

Given that Luke was a travelling companion of Paul — someone who spent a great deal of time with him — he would have been in a strong position to know what Paul’s testimony was. Paul also appears to have repeated his testimony on multiple occasions — it is given three times in the book of Acts, twice being attributed to Paul’s own words — before a Jewish crowd in Jerusalem, to whom he spoke from the steps of the barracks (Acts 22), and later to the governor Festus and King Agrippa (Acts 26). When we consider the evidence for Luke’s meticulousness as an historian and attention to detail (laid out in the aforementioned resources), together with the fact that he was laying his own neck on the line for the gospel (as evidenced by the fact that he was present with Paul during many of Paul’s own sufferings for the sake of the gospel — including his imprisonment in Caesarea Maritima (for at least two years according to Acts 24:27) and later in Rome, as well as Paul’s hearing before the Sanhedrin (Acts 23) and formal trials before governors Felix and Festus in Caesarea. Taken together, this provides a substantial reason to think that Luke very probably provided an accurate representation of Paul’s own testimony.

Paul also implies in his letters that his audiences were familiar with his background and conversion testimony — and, thus, that his testimony was widely known among the churches. Jason Engwer explains the implications of this:

[T]he account [Paul] gave of what he experienced with the risen Christ surely was widely disseminated and often reinforced by the time he died. It would be difficult to get even a large percentage of Christians to accept a change in Paul’s account. It would be even harder to do it with every or almost every Christian. And the larger the change involved, the more difficult it would be to successfully carry out the change.

For example, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 9:1, “Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” These are rhetorical questions. He does not take time to explain the circumstances under which he encountered Jesus — it is taken for granted that the Corinthians know the circumstances of which he writes. Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 15:8-9, he writes, “Last of all, as to one untimely born, he [Christ] appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.” It again seems implicit that his readers know something of the background. He writes to the Philippians, “If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless,” (Phil 3:4-6). Again, it seems implicit that Paul’s audience in Philippi were acquainted, at least to some extent, with the background to which he alludes — particularly in his relation to his having been a former persecutor and Pharisee.

The most striking example is in Galatians 1:11-17, in which Paul writes,

11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. 14 And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

Take note of Paul’s words in verse 13 — “For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it.” Paul’s readers had already heard about Paul’s background as a church persecutor and religious Jew. It is thus quite likely that they knew more about Paul’s conversion that transformed him into Christianity’s most ardent advocate. Observe too Paul’s words in verse 17 — “nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.” Paul does not take the time to explain to his readers why Damascus was the place to which he returned from Arabia. It is taken for granted that they already know the connection to Damascus — this is where he went immediately upon his conversion (Acts 9:8). William Paley remarks [3],

In this quotation from the epistle, I desire it to be remarked how incidentally it appears, that the affair passed at Damascus. In what may be called the direct part of the account, no mention is made of the place of his conversion at all: a casual expression at the end, and an expression brought in for a different purpose, alone fixes it to have been at Damascus; “I returned again to Damascus.” Nothing can be more like simplicity and undesignedness than this is. It also draws the agreement between the two quotations somewhat closer, to observe, that they both state St. Paul to have preached the gospel immediately upon his call: “And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.’ Acts, chap. 9:20. ‘When it pleased God to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood.” Gal. chap. 1:15.

This casual connection between Galatians and Acts is all the more striking when we consider that these two sources appear to be independent of one another — that is, the author of Acts did not use Galatians as a source, nor vice versa. As Paley observes [4],

Beside the difference observable in the terms and general complexion of these two accounts, “the journey into Arabia,” mentioned in the epistle, and omitted in the history, affords full proof that there existed no correspondence between these writers. If the narrative in the Acts had been made up from the Epistle, it is impossible that this journey should have been passed over in silence; if the Epistle had been composed out of what the author had read of St. Paul’s history in the Acts, it is unaccountable that it should have been inserted.

Indeed, the omission in Acts concerning the journey into Arabia for three years is quite surprising if the author of Acts was using Paul’s letter as a source. The accounts, though, are not mutually exclusive. The phrase “many days”, used by Luke in Acts 9:23 is most probably an idiomatic expression denoting an indefinite period of time. The equivalent phrase in Hebrew is used in 1 Kings 2:38, but the next verse indicates that those “many days” encompassed a three year period. It is also not particularly implausible that Luke simply was not aware of the journey into Arabia, or for some other reason chose not to write about it. Nonetheless, the apparent discrepancy between Acts and Galatians provides internal evidence of independence between the two sources. Paley offers another piece of evidence indicating independence [5]:

The journey to Jerusalem related in the second chapter of the Epistle (“then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem”) supplies another example of the same kind. Either this was the journey described in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts, when Paul and Barnabas were sent from Antioch to Jerusalem, to consult the apostles and elders upon the question of the Gentile converts; or it was some journey of which the history does not take notice. If the first opinion be followed, the discrepancy in the two accounts is so considerable, that it is not without difficulty they can be adapted to the same transaction: so that, upon this supposition, there is no place for suspecting that the writers were guided or assisted by each other. If the latter opinion be preferred, we have then a journey to Jerusalem, and a conference with the principal members of the church there, circumstantially related in the Epistle, and entirely omitted in the Acts; and we are at liberty to repeat the observation, which we before made, that the omission of so material a fact in the history is inexplicable, if the historian had read the Epistle; and that the insertion of it in the Epistle, if the writer derived his information from the history, is not less so.

The internal evidence of independence between Acts and Galatians, together with the convergence of details relating to Paul’s conversion (particularly the reference to returning to Damascus) suggest that the accounts in Acts concerning Paul’s conversion are in alignment with Paul’s own testimony.

An additional reason for thinking that Acts and Galatians are independent is that Acts 9:27 indicates that, in Jerusalem, “Barnabas took him [Paul] and brought him to the apostles and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus.” Compare this to Galatians 1:18-19: “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother,” (emphasis added). On the surface, this appears to be a discrepancy. Of course, “the apostles” could be taken to refer to Peter and James (most scholars, including myself, are of the opinion that Galatians 1:19 identifies James the Lord’s brother as an apostle). We could also take it that Paul uses ‘saw’ to mean ‘conversed with’ or ‘met with,’ not that he did not even see any of the other apostles in a meeting, etc. We sometimes use ‘saw’ in this sense ourselves. One could imagine that perhaps Barnabas and Peter decided that they did not want to set Paul down in front of them like a tribunal and question him, so during that time he stayed, let us suppose, in someone’s home, met with James and Peter, and otherwise for those two weeks he was out rabble rousing, as it were, talking and debating with Jews in Jerusalem (Acts 9:28-29), and eventually was rushed away due to a plot to kill him. In any case, the surface tension between these texts adds additional support for the thesis of independence.

It is also of note that, in Galatians 1:18-19, Paul indicates that his visit to Jerusalem was quite brief. One wonders why Paul’s visit to Jerusalem was cut short such that he only remained there fifteen days and reportedly saw none of the other apostles besides Cephas (Simon Peter) and James the Lord’s brother. Acts 9:29 indicates that there was an assassination plot against Paul by the Hellenists such that he needed to leave Jerusalem in haste. This explains the account in Galatians in an undesigned way, such that it serves to corroborate the historicity of both accounts. This further supports that the testimony in Acts concerning Paul’s conversion and the events shortly thereafter reflect Paul’s own testimony. We also read in Acts 22:17 Paul’s statement that “When I had returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the temple, I fell into a trance and saw him saying to me, ‘Make haste and get out of Jerusalem quickly, because they will not accept your testimony about me.’” Paley remarks, “Here we have the general terms of one text so explained by a distant text in the same book, as to bring an indeterminate expression into a close conformity with a specification delivered in another book: a species of consistency not, I think, usually found in fabulous relations.” [6]

A further point, relating to our text in Galatians 1:18-19, is that Paul some verses later indicates that “afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia,” (Gal 1:21). The account in Acts 9 indicates that, when the brothers learned of the plot against Paul’s life, “they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus,” (v. 30). Paley observes that, “if he took his journey by land, it would carry him through Syria into Cilicia; and he would come, after his visit at Jerusalem, ‘into the regions of Syria and Cilicia,’ in the very order in which he mentions them in the epistle.” Caesarea, of course, was a major port city, and so it is plausible that he made at least part of the journey by sea, before perhaps continuing on land. It is also of note that Paul indicates immediately following this statement in Galatians that “I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only were hearing it said, ‘He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy,” (Galatians 1:22-23). Paley  observes, “Upon which passage I observe, first, that what is here said of the churches of Judea, is spoken in connection with his journey into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. Secondly, that the passage itself has little significancy, and that the connection is inexplicable, unless St. Paul went through Judea (though probably by a hasty journey) at the time that he came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. Suppose him to have passed by land from Cæsarea to Tarsus, all this, as hath been observed, would be precisely true.” [7]

Finally, it may be noted that Paul’s own account of the plot against his life in Damascus, in 2 Corinthians 11:32-33, dovetails with the account in Acts 9:23-25. Paul writes, “At Damascus, the governor under King Aretas was guarding the city of Damascus in order to seize me, 33 but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall and escaped his hands.” Compare this with the account in Acts 9:23-25: “When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night in order to kill him, but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket.” Notice that the account in Acts emphasizes the involvement of the Jews, whereas Paul, in 2 Corinthians, emphasizes the involvement of Aretas IV, the king of the Nabateans (who reigned from 9 B.C. to 40 C.E.). These are not mutually exclusive (presumably, there was a conspiracy involving both parties). Nonetheless, the discrepancy between Acts and 2 Corinthians points to independence, which renders the points of convergence of significant evidential value. Why might Aretas IV be involved in the conspiracy against Paul in Damascus? Aretas IV had significant political influence and authority in the region. Around the time of Paul’s conversion, Aretas IV was ruling Damascus, likely through a governor or ethnarch who was in charge of the Jewish community there. This authority over Damascus was granted to Aretas by the emperor Gaius Caligula. The event in Acts probably occurred around 37 C.E., based on evidence of Nabatean rule in Damascus commencing that year.

There are also additional reasons to believe that Acts and 2 Corinthians are independent of one another. For example, Titus is mentioned throughout 2 Corinthians (2:13; 7:6, 13, 14; 8:6, 16, 23; 12:18), but is nowhere mentioned in Acts. Moreover, the list of Paul’s sufferings in 2 Corinthians 11:23-29 cannot be readily correlated with Acts (though it is by no means mutually exclusive). For example, 2 Corinthians 11:25 indicates that Paul endured three shipwrecks prior to the beginning of Acts 20 (when he wrote 2 Corinthians from Macedonia). Acts does not record any of those shipwrecks, but instead narrates an entirely different one in chapter 27. Furthermore, a major theme in the Corinthian letters, as well as Romans, is the collection being prepared for the relief of the saints in Jerusalem. Though Acts agrees with the implied order of travel, there is no explicit mention in Acts of fundraising as a purpose of Paul’s travels (though there is a cryptic allusion to it in Paul’s speech before Felix, in Acts 24:17: “Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings”). Taken cumulatively, it seems near certain that Luke did not use 2 Corinthians as a source for the composition of Acts. As Paley notes, “Now if we be satisfied in general concerning these two ancient writings, that the one was not known to the writer of the other, or not consulted by him; then the accordances which may be pointed out between them will admit of no solution so probable, as the attributing of them to truth and reality, as to their common foundation.” [8]

As can be seen from the evidence provided above, several undesigned coincidences relate specifically to the account of Paul’s conversion in Acts 9. This further supports that the narrative concerning Paul’s Damascus road experience accurately represent Paul’s own testimony. When considered in conjunction with the other lines of evidence already considered (that Luke was a travelling companion of Paul and was thus in a position to know Paul’s testimony; Paul repeated his testimony multiple times and implies in his letters that his testimony was already widely known; Luke’s demonstrated meticulousness as an historian; and the fact that Luke was putting his own neck on the line), the evidence may be considered very convincing indeed.

Proposition 2: Paul was not plausibly sincerely mistaken.

Having established that the accounts in Acts concerning Paul’s conversion substantially represent what Paul himself testified to, we are now in a position to evaluate whether the specific set of claims recorded in Acts are the sort about which one might plausibly be sincerely mistaken.

Multisensory Experiences: Paul’s experience is alleged to have been multisensory — involving both a visual and auditory component (Acts 9:3-6, 22:6-10, 26:13-18; 1 Cor 9:1, 15:8). Moreover, it was intersubjective — affecting not only Paul, but also his travelling companions who were purportedly thrown to the ground, having heard the voice though seeing no one (Acts 9:7,  22:9; 26:14). Acts 22:9 indicates that Paul’s travelling companions nonetheless saw the light. Moreover, Paul was blinded by the experience for three days (Acts 9:8-9; 22:11) and later healed by Ananias who received a vision concerning Paul, and Paul a vision concerning Ananias (Acts 9:10-19; 22:12-16).

Miraculous Signs: Furthermore, Paul claims to have performed miracles. In 2 Corinthians 12:12, he writes, “The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works.” Note that this appeal is made to an audience who had in their midst individuals who doubted Paul’s apostolic credentials. It was risky to appeal to such miracles if there were no such convincing miracles to speak of that could be brought to the minds of his critics. There is a similar passage, indicating that Paul performed miracles, in Romans 15:18-19: “For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to bring the Gentiles to obedience—by word and deed, by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God—so that from Jerusalem and all the way around to Illyricum I have fulfilled the ministry of the gospel of Christ,” (emphasis added). Though Paul does not indicate what those signs purportedly involved, we read in Acts about the sort of miracles that Paul performed. For example, describing a curse that Paul placed on the magician Elymas (who had opposed Paul and Barnabas, seeking to turn the Proconsul away from the faith), Luke writes in Acts 13:9-12,

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

Among Paul’s other miraculous signs, he healed a man who had been crippled since birth (Acts 14:8-10), healed many sick (Acts 19:11-12), raised Eutychus from the dead after his fall from the third story of a building (Acts 20:9-12), and healed the father of Publius, who lay sick with fever and dysentery, on Malta (Acts 28:7-9). As I and others have demonstrated at length elsewhere (see the resource list at the beginning of this article), Luke was an incredibly scrupulous historian who had a high regard for historical accuracy. He also valued eyewitness testimony (e.g. Luke 1:2). The most probable source for the alleged miracles in Acts (besides those that he might have witnessed himself) is Paul.

When we consider the content of Paul’s testimony concerning his conversion experience on the Damascus road, together with his purported miracles, it seems to be difficult to account for on the supposition that he was sincerely mistaken — in particular given that he was not already predisposed to expect an appearance from the raised Christ. Paul was a persecutor of the church and a zealous Pharisee. What could have prompted him to so drastically change his mind, and reverse course 180 degrees? Sir George Lyttelton notes that “[Paul’s] mind, far from being disposed to a credulous faith, or a too easy reception of any miracle worked in proof of the Christian religion, appears to have been barred against it by the most obstinate prejudices, as much as any man’s could possibly be; and from hence we may fairly conclude, that nothing less than the irresistible evidence of his own senses, clear from all possibility of doubt, could have overcome his unbelief.” [9]

Though some have attempted to explain Paul’s experience by appeal to temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE), such a hypothesis is hardly credible. For one thing, TLE blindness is incredibly short — typically thirty seconds to ten minutes. Paul’s blindness, by contrast, lasted for three days and was healed on command by Ananias. It is also typical to quickly forget what happened during the seizure. Moreover, the fact that Paul’s companions also purportedly heard a voice and perceived a light and were thrown to the ground is surprising on the TLE hypothesis. The fact that something like scales fell from Paul’s eyes (Acts 9:18) also does not comport well with this explanation.

Internal Discrepancies? Before moving on, a word must be said about a couple of alleged discrepancies between the accounts of Paul’s conversion in Acts. It has been observed that, according to Acts 9:7, “The men who were travelling with him stood speechless, hearing [ἀκούοντες] the voice but seeing no one,” whereas Acts 22:9 indicates that the travelling companions “saw the light but did not hear [οὐκ ἤκουσαν] the voice of the one who was speaking to [Paul].” Though οὐκ ἤκουσαν can be rendered “did not hear,” another legitimate translation is “did not understand” (indeed, it is rendered this way by the ESV, NIV, NASB, and NET, though the KJV translates it “did not hear”). In Luke 6:27-28, Jesus says, “But I say to you who hear [ἀκούουσιν], Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.” Clearly, here, the meaning of Ἀλλὰ ὑμῖν λέγω τοῖς ἀκούουσιν  is “But I say to you who understand…” Likewise, in Mark 4:33, we read, “With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear [ἀκούειν] it.” Clearly, in context, the verb ακουω means to understand. Acts 26:14 indicates that the voice spoke in the Hebrew language. If Paul’s companions were Greek speakers, this could plausibly account for why they were unable to understand the voice.

Another alleged discrepancy is that, according to Acts 9:7, Paul’s companions “stood speechless,” whereas Acts 26:14 indicates that they were thrown to the ground. Most probably the phrase “stood speechless” is simply an idiomatic expression that means they were stopped dead, without insinuating that they were standing up the whole time.

Having established that Paul was not plausibly sincerely mistaken, only two options remain — either he was intentionally deceptive, or he really did have an encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus. It is to the hypothesis of deception that I now turn. . .

Stay tuned for Part 2. 

References: 

[1] George Lyttelton, Observations on the Conversion and Apostleship of St. Paul (The Institute Trust, 1747), 5.

[2] Three of the [following] books listed are in the public domain — namely, those by William Paley, James Smith, and William Ramsay. For those, I have linked to a free PDF copy. The PDF that I have linked to for Paley contains both his A View of the Evidences of Christianity, as well as his Horae Paulinae, or, the Truth of the Scripture History of St. Paul Evinced. Both are very much worth reading, but the most relevant of those to our discussion here is the latter volume.

[3] William Paley, Horae Paulinae or, the Truth of the Scripture History of St. Paul Evinced (In The Works of William Paley, Vol. II [London; Oxford; Cambridge; Liverpool: Longman and Co., 1838]), 382.

[4] Ibid., 380.

[5] Ibid., 380-381.

[6] Ibid., 293.

[7] Ibid., 383.

[8] Ibid., 359.

[9] George Lyttelton, Observations on the Conversion and Apostleship of St. Paul (The Institute Trust, 1747), 85-86.

Recommended Resources:

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

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

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

Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Is the Bible Historically Reliable? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, Mp3 Download.

 

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

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3DEJ7rr

/by

Why It’s Okay to Doubt Your Faith, Part 2

[Editor’s Note: In “Why It’s Okay to Doubt Your Faith, part 1” Miguel Rodriguez raised the question of how should we handle our doubts. He proposes we do Christian apologetics. He then defines “apologetics,” and points out how doubt can be a sign of a living faith. Doubt can be healthy. In this second installment, Miguel offers more practical advice on how to turn your doubt and questions into learning and spiritual growth through Christian apologetics].


Some Arguments for the Truth of Christianity

Today, like in Biblical times, apologist makes use of a multidisciplinary knowledge like cosmology, philosophy, ethics, biology, history and more. Some of those popular classical arguments are:

  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument: Seeks to show that the universe is not eternal, that necessarily had to have a beginning.
  • The Fine Tune Argument: Seeks to show that the universe fine tuning of its constants isn’t do by physical necessity nor chance and that it is by design.
  • The Moral Argument: Seeks to show that if objective moral values and duties exist, then God exist.
  • The Ontological Argument: Seeks to show that God exist in basis of what it means to be God as the maximally great being.
  • The Resurrection Argument: Seeks to show that the best explanation of the historical facts of an empty tomb, the postmortem appearances of Jesus and the sudden disciple\’s belief that Jesus rose are better explain by the hypothesis that Jesus rose from the dead.

These are some of the arguments and evidence people use to defend the truth of  Christianity.

Which Christianity Miguel?

There are hundreds of Christian denominations, so that’s a really good point. I’ve defined the term apologetics in “Christian Apologetics.” Now let’s define Christian.

With Christian apologetics we mean to defend only the essentials doctrine of Christianity held by orthodox Christians throughout history. We call these essential doctrines dogmas. Doctrines so foundational that to negate even one of them you will no longer be a Christian. Doctrines like the humanity and deity of Jesus, salvation by grace through faith in Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the gospel, human sinfulness and the Trinity. These don’t mean you must never question them or believe them differently. For example, two brothers in Christ believe that salvation was possible by the death and resurrection of Jesus, but they hold different theories to explain how Jesus made this salvation possible. One can accept the penal substitutionary atonement theory while the other the Christus Victor theory. These theories are the doctrines. Doctrines are the explanation and application of the dogmas.

The key here is that the focus of apologetics is the defense of the dogmas – the essentials – not necessarily the different (disputed) doctrines surrounding those dogmas. Apologetics is not the defense of a theological system. Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, and other -ism’s can hold to the same dogmas, yet differ greatly on the doctrines that explain and apply those dogmas.[1] Specifically in the doctrine of salvation. The response a Calvinist has for the relationship of God with evil and suffering is not the same as the Arminian.

We all need to believe in the dogmas. We can differ in the expressions of those dogmas.

The following succinct quote sums it up well.

In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.

 Although these theological debates are important, these is an intramural issue here. Granting that while in the act of debating you are defending a point that is technically an exercise in apologetics, the term has been coined only in its evangelistic and discipleship contexts with a focus on the dogmas of the faith.

In other words, “Christian apologetics” doesn’t normally refer to defending a denomination. Each denomination has their own liturgy, government and dogma’s expression. You can be Catholic, Pentecostal or Reformed and be united in the essentials of the faith.[2] In short, apologetics is the art of presenting arguments and evidence in favor and defense of mere Christianity.

Pitfalls to Avoid While Learning Apologetics

As I mentioned in the beginning, you are entering into a turbulent but exciting phase in your journey faith. In some sense, you’re going to re-discover your faith. You will appreciate the richness and power of your Christian faith so much that you will start to think you need to be rebaptize.

In this process you will learn new things, but equally important, you will unlearn others. Be patient. Discern judiciously. Don’t rush to adopt a new position because it’s new and shiny and don’t throw out what you know because it appears old to you now. And don’t lose your relationship with your Church.

Humbly share what you have learned with your brothers and sister in Christ but remember there might be some friction sometimes. Don’t be pushy. Be patient. It means nothing how much you know if you don’t have genuine love for others (1 Corinthians 13.2).

Above all else, don’t lose your relationship with God for learning about God. Your endeavor will not be fruitful. Never ever leave behind your devotional reading of Scripture, your praying life or any other spiritual disciplines and you will grow in knowledge and spirit. Now, let’s keep fueling the passion to know why you believe what you believe.

Now you know what apologetics is and is not. You’re fired up and ready to dive in into the classical arguments for the existence of God and Christian evidence. I recommend starting with the book On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision by Dr. William L. Craig to get your feet wet.

If you haven’t already, check the links about the popular classical arguments for God’s existence. Those are gorgeous short videos to start familiarizing with the arguments better. No more being ashamed. No more being terrified of witnessing to others. You’re not going to waste more of your time. You no longer are going to have a blind childish faith. As the apostles you will say “[I don’t] follow cleverly devised tales” (1 Peter 1.16). From now on you will have a smart faith.

References:

[1] Editor’s Note: The original author included “Open Theism” in this list. Since Open Theism is more than just a denominational dispute, it was deleted from the list here. The key reason is that Open Theism treats God’s nature as “open” and thus not fully actualized, that sort of “God” is more like a demigod – subject to time, change, error, spatial limitation, finite knowledge, finite power, growth, subjugation, dependencxe, etc. To my knowledge [John Ferrer] There is no Christian denomination, within the realm of historic and orthodox Christianity, that aligns on Open Theism.

[2] Editor’s note” And people from different denominations can discuss and debate different doctrines. That’s just not, normally, what would is called “Christian apologetics.”

Recommended Resources:

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

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

Defending Absolutes in a Relativistic World (Mp3) by Frank Turek

 

Miguel Rodriguez is the founder of Smart Faith, a platform dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith with clarity and confidence. After experiencing a miraculous healing at 14, he developed a passion for knowing God through study and teaching. He now serves as the Director of Christian Education and a Bible teacher at his local church while also working as a freelance email marketer. Living in Orlando, Florida, with his wife and two daughters, Miguel seeks to equip believers with practical and intellectual tools to strengthen their faith. Through Smart Faith, he provides apologetics and self-improvement content to help Christians live with wisdom and integrity.

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

 

/by

Why It’s Okay to Doubt Your Christian Faith

  • “Why is there evil and suffering in this world?”
  • “No one naturally can resurrect from the dead after three days. It’s impossible.”
  • “The Bible was written by fallible men thousands of years ago, how can I be sure that what I have is what was written?”
  • “How can I know that Christianity is the one true religion when there are thousands of other religions?”

 

Odds are, you don’t have an answer to these sorts of questions, or worse, they seem persuasive . . . compelling.

You feel some sort of shame to admit this. You have been a Christian for some time now but never knew the answers to these fundamental questions. Now you’re second guessing.

And why not? You already tried to ask your parents, your pastor and/or Bible study teacher of your questions and doubts, but their responses was, well, unsatisfactory (to put it mildly).

  • You need to have faith.
  • Don’t worry about those things, in Heaven we will have all our questions answered. Just believe.
  • (My personal favorite) The Bible is not to understand it, it is to obey it.

This is why you are terrified of witnessing. You are scared to death that someone may ask you a question you can’t answer. Sure, you’ve had positive experiences since you were born again, but these doubts are keeping you up at night, slowly eroding your faith. Now you’re starting to doubt even those positive experiences.

What if I’ve believed something that isn’t true? Maybe it’s all a fairy tale! How would I even know?

You don’t just need sleep. You need answers. Fortunately, there are some solid reasonable answers to your tough questions that will revive and bolster your faith. I’d like to show you, in this blog, that contrary to popular belief, faith is compatible with reason and consistent with reality. I’d like to show you the intellectual side of Christianity. Welcome to the exciting discipline of Christian Apologetics!

Apolo-what?

If you are new to the term, let’s get the first misunderstanding out of the way. No, this is not the course husbands should take, or apologizing for being a Christian. The word apologetics comes from the Greek word apologia which means “to give a verbal defense”. It’s a legal term. It was used when someone responded to an objection or accusation in a court. Dr. William Lane Craig, philosopher and theologian defines apologetics as the branch of Christian theology that seeks to provide justifiable reasons to the truth claims of the Christian faith.

Simply put, apologetics responds the question “Why should I believe Christianity is true?” Apologetics is an intellectual tool for evangelism and discipleship. It helps to remove intellectual objections against the faith for unbelievers and helps to intellectually anchor the faith of the believers.

“Apologetics” isn’t a modern made-up word. It appears 8 times in the Bible. In fact, did you even know that we are commanded in the Bible to give a defense of our faith? Of course not! Bet that not even your parents or Sunday school teacher knew this. 1 Peter 3:15 (NVI) commands us as Christians to defend the faith with gentleness and respect: “Always be prepared to give an answer [apologia] to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.”

This is not something for theology nerds or intellectuals in the church. This commandment is for the whole body of Christ. The fact that the church has largely abandoned this duty is a major reason why young people are leaving Christianity.

The 2016 Pew Research study shows that, and I quote,

“About half of current religious ‘nones’ who were raised in a religion (49%) indicate that a lack of belief led them to move away from religion. This includes many respondents who mention ‘science’ as the reason they do not believe in religious teachings, including one who said ‘I’m a scientist now, and I don’t believe in miracles.’ Others reference ‘common sense,’ ‘logic’ or a ‘lack of evidence’ — or simply say they do not believe in God.”

Some of the reasons why young people were abandoning their faith given in the study were,

  • Learning about evolution when I went away to college.
  • Rational thought makes religion go out the window.
  • Lack of any sort of scientific or specific evidence of a creator.
  • I’m doing a lot more learning, studying, and kind of making decisions myself rather than listening to someone else.

Check a more recent study of the pew research regarding parents and their teens answering if religion is very important in their lives

When there are religious differences between adults and their 13- to 17-year-old children, however, it’s usually the teens who are less religious than the parents. For instance, far fewer teens (24%) than parents (43%) say that religion is very important in their lives.

Less than one of four teens deems their religion very important in their lives. That’s a tragedy. It shouldn’t be this way since there are, in fact, reasonable responses to such doubts and questions. What if I told you, that doubting and questioning your Christian faith might be a positive phase you’re entering into?

Doubts: Sign of a Maturing Faith?

Rethinking one’s worldview is one of the most mentally turbulent phases in anyone’s journey of faith. This gets to the very core of your being, of who you are. While it can be scary, it can also be (and will be) exciting. Because when you doubt, it can be a sign of a maturing faith.

“Isn’t doubt the opposite of belief?”  Doubt is not the opposite of belief. The opposite of belief is nonbelief.

  • Faith is defined as complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
  • Doubt is the voluntary and transitionary suspension of judgement between decisions.
  • Reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for some belief, act, fact, event, etc.
  • Reason is the mediator between doubt as reflection and faith as trust, and these do not contradict.


“But how do I reason correctly?” Awesome question! In an interview with Dr. Dallas Willard by John Ortberg in 2010 about doubt and belief in the Christian life, Willard answers:

“Knowledge grows not only for doubting your belief and believing your doubts, but also from doubting your doubts and believing your beliefs.” (para. 135).

Use this like some sort of mental filter to see which questions and objections (as well as beliefs) are good ones and which are bad. Bad objections usually commit logical fallacies. Good ones don’t.

For example: Only science can give us truth. Is that a true statement? Because if it is, then its false. This truth was not acquired through the scientific method. This is a self-refuting statement.

Another example: faith is belief without or on in spite of evidence. As you already saw above (and will expand a bit more below), this is not true. This is what is called a strawman. Attacking the concept of faith by replacing the definition of what faith really is with an incorrect one.

As you can see, there is no logical contradiction between doubt and faith by definition.

Permission to Doubt

Let’s talk a bit more about what faith really is. “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” (Hebrews 11:1. NIV. Emphasis added). By this definition, biblical faith entails three components:

  • Understanding the content of the Christian faith,
  • Trust, and
  • Assent of the intellect to the truth of some proposition

You can’t have trust in someone or something you do not understand at all nor agree with. For example, some people would never go on a cruise ship vacation because of their fear that the cruise will sink. They do understand that cruise ships are way much safer than before, but since they watch the movie Titanic, they don’t assent intellectually to it.

Biblical faith is not an irrational blind leap into the darkness. The biblical notion of faith requires you to have confidence and assurance in that which you understand and have good reasons to assent to (in this case, the object of faith is God). Therefore, embrace your doubts. Go ahead, doubt your faith, but also doubt your doubts. Question your questions. See if they hold water.

God Wants You To Think

While doing this you’re transitioning from a childish faith to a mature faith. You’re owning your faith. You will know not only what you believe but why you believe it.

Recommended Resources:

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 

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

Defending Absolutes in a Relativistic World (Mp3) by Frank Turek

 

Miguel Rodriguez is the founder of Smart Faith, a platform dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith with clarity and confidence. After experiencing a miraculous healing at 14, he developed a passion for knowing God through study and teaching. He now serves as the Director of Christian Education and a Bible teacher at his local church while also working as a freelance email marketer. Living in Orlando, Florida, with his wife and two daughters, Miguel seeks to equip believers with practical and intellectual tools to strengthen their faith. Through Smart Faith, he provides apologetics and self-improvement content to help Christians live with wisdom and integrity.

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

/by

How to Raise Kids to Research Like a Pro

If you hang around parents long enough you’ll find that there are certain “mommy moments” that we moms all share. Kid running down the street naked? Check (mostly for boy moms…). An embarrassing family secret shared with the entire elevator by your darling little chatterbox? You betcha.

 

And it’s practically a Christian mom rite-of-passage that just when we’re about to switch out the light, your little Einstein suddenly goes final-jeopardy-mode with some obscure theological concept. Sure it’s probably a stalling technique, but one of the blessings we have as moms is pointing them back to the truth of Christ, even as we wrestle them into bed.

The thing is, just giving answers is not enough. Someday they’re going to get hit with a challenge and we aren’t going to be there to help. That’s why a vital part of healthy discipleship is equipping our children with the skills to navigate tough questions on their own.

Fair warning, this isn’t a skill that’s learned by letting them go nuts on the family tablet. Depending on the topic they’re looking up, things can go south quickly. That’s why we at Mama Bear love to help you foster the little question-askers in your lives.

First, before we dive in, if you haven’t read Alexa’s blog How to Respond When Your Child Stumps You with a Question, check it out. We, but the flip side of that coin is preparing our kids to not only know how to research, but to research well. (Because the internet will let anyone with a computer create their own blog! We’re looking at you, flat-earthers 😜)

Second, you’re going to have to adjust these to the age and stage of your child. Bigger kids can and should engage with heavier topics. The littles of the group are going to operate in the “observer” role in the beginning, but give them opportunities to practice these skills with increasing regularity under your guidance.

Ready? Let’s take a look at 5 tips to help your child be an information sleuth!

Tip #1 Research takes time

We live in an Instacart culture. With a few clicks we can have the world delivered to our doorstep. The problem with this luxury of convenience is it’s caused our patience and attention spans to atrophy. Often this means that if the answer to our kid’s question isn’t in the tagline of the first Google article, they just give up and move on. (Like the other night… during our homework session…*face palm*)

Our kids need to know that good research involves more than watching a YouTube short; it takes time, effort, and these crazy things called books. This skill is best passed-on by modeling first, especially when they’re little.

When your child asks a question, instead of immediately popping off with the answer, say, “That’s a great question! How do you think we can research this?” #mamabearapologetics #discipleshipClick To Tweet

When they shrug their shoulders, show them how to look up their question on multiple sources: digital and physical. Show them how to navigate popular websites like Got Questions. Grab a few books off your shelf and show them how to use an index (one you could practice with is our latest book Honest Prayers for Mama Bears). And don’t forget to point out the glorious footnotes. Seriously folks, I may sound like your high school librarian, but footnotes are worth their weight in gold! Don’t let your kid miss them!

This training might sound old-fashioned, but it causes our kids to pause and process what they’ve just heard, rather than falling for the nonsensical appeals of impassioned media starlets. So yes, it’s worth the effort.

Tip #2 Find Trusted Christian Sources

No surprises here, but when it comes to seeking answers to biblical questions, we should head to Scripture first. Translations like Life Application Study Bibles, Apologetics Bibles, and Cultural Background Study Bibles, which contain translator and commentary notes, are beyond helpful in these situations. There are also great ministries that have blogs, podcasts, and articles that address the most common questions believers have. (Check out our updated Recommended Resources Guide.)

But not everything that sports the title of “Christian” is solid. (There are supposed “Christian” witches, after all!) Teach your children to “test” their sources by looking at the background of the ministry. Is this organization tested, proven, transparent, and/or backed by leading philosophers, experts, and apologists? Is what’s being said supported in Scripture? Are disagreements over conclusions given charitably and with evidence? Are those behind the ministry trained, and if so, by whom?

Remember: degrees are nice but that doesn’t mean the person holding them will always speak truth. Which is why we test everything, including our pastors and favorite authors. #mamabearapologeticsClick To Tweet

Tip #3 Read Original Sources

A few days ago, I was reading the outraged opinion of a writer who couldn’t believe that NFL kicker Harrison Butker wanted to make wives the servants of their husbands.[1] The problem? That wasn’t what he said, but the only reason I found that out was because I went to the original source: the transcript of the commencement speech. If you don’t want to read it, you can watch the full speech here.

Today, it’s all too common to take a person’s second-hand perception as truth, rather than reading the original source itself. Don’t let your kiddos fall into this trap. Whenever possible, when a question is asked, go to the source. Take into context the setting, the people with whom it was being spoken to, the motivation behind the teaching, and the present application of objective truth principles today. If reading an article, see where the author got their information, especially when bold claims are made. With a little bit of practice, your little one will start to sound like a nerdy version of Tom Cruise, “Show me the sources!!”

Tip #4 Research the Opposition

There’s a pithy saying about what assuming leads to, which I won’t be sharing here because it’s a little sassy. But take it from me that assuming the motivations, conclusions, or intentions of someone who doesn’t agree with you is a quick way to make a fool of yourself. Sadly, our culture has turned this mistake into the standard form of interaction.

Don’t like someone’s views? No biggie: reduce them to a label and then commence destroying them and everyone remotely like them!

You don’t need a WWJD bracelet to know that’s definitely NOT what Jesus would do! As Christians, we understand that big conclusions about life have a history. Learning that history will help us understand why someone believes what they do, but it doesn’t make that conclusion right. Instead, we need to nurture truth-based empathy in our kids, and we do that by hearing what the other side has to say.

As they learn, have your kids reflect on why a person might come to this conclusion. What (if anything) did they share about their background? How did an experience cause them to question or reject a stance? What philosophical stance do they hold that’s shaping how they view evidence? Once our kids can understand what’s motivating the beliefs of another, then we can help them understand the other person while remaining rooted in truth.

Tip #5 Practice How to Respond

Just like a chess player anticipates the moves of their opponent, so we should anticipate the objections of someone who doesn’t share the biblical worldview. Not so we can slam them with our Bible knowledge but to nurture good discussion should the conversation go that route. It’s also helpful for our own spiritual growth, too!

Kids have a natural ability to speak truth (sometimes too good!) but they’re not so great with tact. That’s why practicing how to discuss the topic with others is key to avoiding awkward conversations. How would you respond to Flora Feminist’s who doesn’t think that the unborn have the same right to life as an adult? What would you say to Nihilist Nick when he denies that the universe was made with telos (purpose)? How would you engage with Social Justice Susie as she defends the Marxist concept of oppressed versus oppressors?

We can’t know everything, but acquainting your child with counter-arguments will help them not be phased when their lunch room evangelism encounter doesn’t end like a Christian Hallmark movie (or a scene from God’s Not Dead).

Practice and Repeat!

Mamas, Satan is going to make you feel like training your kids how to research is boring or unimportant. This is a lie. Don’t let social media or YouTube steal your attention from the fruitful harvest growing within your home. Bring up your children in training and instruction of the Lord.

When they are small, show them how you research a topic and check to make sure the sources are valid. As they grow, help them evaluate the resources they’re using. Watch videos of someone who doesn’t agree with you and evaluate the claims being made. Let them see you wrestle with a question. Show them that there is more than just one page on a search engine. Most of all, make the most of as many opportunities as you can to grow in the knowledge of the Lord.

References: 

[1] https://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/sam-mcdowell/article288517451.html

Recommended Resources: 

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

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

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

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

 

Amy Davison is a former Air Force veteran turned Mama Bear Apologist. She graduated from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary with an MA in Christian Apologetics. She and her husband Michael (also former Air Force) have been married for over 17 years and have 4 kids. Amy is the Mama Bear resident expert on sex and sexuality, and she’s especially hoping to have that listed on her Mama Bear business card.

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

/by

Christianity and Abortion, Part 2: The Early Church’s View of Abortion

In Part 1 of this series on abortion, we discussed that abortion has been practiced for millennia. It is nothing new although the means of destroying a child in the womb have varied. We also briefly looked at why abortion has been a human preoccupation throughout history. For philosophers like Plato and Aristotle, they firmly believed it was to ensure that the best progeny would be born and eventually be leaders of the state. It was also because they feared possible overpopulation. For these reasons and several others, they thought abortion was justified.

 

Contrary to these pro-abortion views was the Christian view. Throughout the history of the church, abortion has been viewed as a wicked, sinful act, specifically because it was considered murder (i.e., the unjustified taking of an innocent life). The early church (second through fifth centuries) was known for its condemnation of abortion. From the early Christian document the Epistle of Barnabas to the theologian Augustine, Christianity viewed abortion to be murder, and as such, it should never be performed.

The Epistle of Barnabas

The earliest extant reference to abortion in Christian writing is the Epistle of Barnabas. Most scholars have dated this letter between the late first to early second centuries. The letter was viewed by many church Fathers, like Origen and Clement of Alexandria, as being associated with the Apostle Paul’s colleague Barnabas. Although it is uncertain whether the letter was penned by Barnabas, it was often included in some early copies of the Bible. Jerome, known for the Latin Vulgate translation, commented that it was valuable for instruction and edification but is not canonical.

The Epistle of Barnabas condemns abortion clearly. “Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring an abortion,” it says.[1] “Nor, again,” it continues, “shalt thou destroy it after it is born.” We see here a clear command not only to avoid abortion but not to kill a child by exposure after birth, which is in contradistinction to Aristotle and other Greek philosophers.

Barnabas does not end with this simple command but goes on to explain why abortion and exposure are not permitted. It states, “Thou shalt not withdraw thy hand from thy son, or from thy daughter, but from their infancy thou shalt teach them the fear of the Lord.”[2]  In other words, the duty of Christian parents is to raise their children in the instruction of the Lord, not kill them (“withdraw they hand from they son, or from thy daughter”).

Tertullian

One of the earliest church Fathers, Tertullian, lived and wrote in the mid-second to early third centuries. Many of his writings are extant. One of the most well-known is his Apology in which he defends Christians against unfounded accusations from Roman culture.

In a section where he expounds upon the sin of murder, he explains, “Murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the foetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance.”[3] Clearly, Tertullian is referring to abortion as his language of the fetus being in the womb when destroyed suggests. And if there is any doubt about his reference, he makes it clearer when he states, “To hinder birth is merely speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed.”[4]

Athenagoras

Writing at about the same time as Tertullian is Athenagoras. In the midst of Roman persecution under Marcus Aurelius, Athenagoras writes his Apology, also known as A Plea for the Christians. In a similar manner as Tertullian, Athenagoras defends Christians from unfounded accusations, like murder (!).

In part of his response to such a ridiculous idea, Athenagoras asks, “And when we say that these women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder?”[5] In effect, Athenagoras attempts to undercut the accusation of murder by explaining that Christians do not even practice abortion. How does this undercut the accusation? Because abortion is murder, and the person who commits such an act will have to give an account to God.

He further explains the reason why abortion is murder. He says, “For it does not belong to the same person to regard thy very foetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it.”[6] Furthermore, Christians are “not to expose an infant,” that is to say, give birth to a child and expose it to the elements to die. The reason? “Because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it.”[7]

The Didache

Probably the next earliest Christian writing to refer to abortion is the Didache (Greek, “teaching”), also known as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. It is unknown when the document was written, but we know it must have been before AD 300 since the church Father Eusebius of Caesarea quoted it in the early fourth century, and it is the basis for some of the fourth century document Apostolic Constitutions.[8] The Didache primarily provides instructions on church practices (like baptism and communion) and moral guidelines.

Considering that the Didache constitutes moral teachings, it is not surprising that it includes instructions on the teaching of children and catechumens. What may be surprising to some, however, is the clear prohibition of abortion. It states, “Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten.”[9] Note that the command isn’t merely to not kill a child who is born (“begotten”) but specifically a child not born yet (“abortion”). Moreover, it considers such action as murder as all the previous writings.

Augustine

One of the greatest Christian theologians and prolific writers, Augustine, did not leave the subject of abortion untouched. Amid a discussion on marriage, he chastises those who marry for the purpose of having sex only and finding children undesirable.

One reason Augustine chastises this action is because it may result in the conception and birth of unwanted children, who will then be left for dead via exposure. “Having also proceeded so far,” he reasons, “they are betrayed into exposing their children, which are born against their will.” This leads to “[hating] to nourish and [retaining] those whom they were afraid they would beget.” Such an “infliction of cruelty on their offspring so reluctantly begotten,” he continues, “unmasks the sin which they had practised in darkness,” i.e., the sin of marrying for purely sexual gratification.[10] The end result is leaving the child for dead.

But Augustine also argues that the sin of marrying for sexual gratification alone, or “cruel lust” as he refers to it, often results in the practice of abortion. In particular, it entices women to ingest abortifacients. “Sometimes,” opines Augustine,

“this lustful cruelty, or, if you please, cruel lust, resorts to such extravagant methods as to use poisonous drugs to secure barrenness; or else, if unsuccessful in this, to destroy the conceived seed by some means previous to birth, preferring that its offspring should rather perish than receive vitality; or if it was advancing to life within the womb, should be slain before it was born.”[11]

Because of this, those who marry ought to align their desires and passions with God’s intent for marriage: the propagation of children. To do otherwise, opens the gate to the sin of killing a child in the womb (abortion) or even infanticide. Those who practice such things are “flagitious,” Augustine says.[12]

Summary

From Parts 1 and 2 on this brief survey of abortion, we see (1) abortion has been practiced for millennia—it is nothing new and certainly not unique to our modern world, and (2) Christians from the earliest centuries have viewed abortion (and infanticide) as murder, and therefore it is a sin and ought not be practiced. The Christian view of abortion throughout the history of the church is consistent and clear. In Part 3, we will continue the discussion of abortion as it relates to contemporary arguments and objections.

References:

[1] Epistle of Barnabas, XIX, trans. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Buffalo, NY: The Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1885; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), 1:148. All references to The Ante-Nicene Fathers hereafter will be ANF.

[2] Barnabas, XIX, in ANF 1:148.

[3] Tertullian, Apology, IX, ANF 3:25.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Athenagoras, Apology, 15, ANF 2:147.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] See the good short article on the Didache in the Britannica Encyclopedia here: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Didache

[9] Didache, II, ANF 7:377.

[10] Augustine, “On Marriage and Concupiscence,” I:17; accessed at https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15071.htm

[11] Ibid.

[12] [Editor’s Note: Flagitious is a 19th century English adjective meaning “criminal, villainous.”]

Recommended Resources: 

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

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

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

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

 

Peter J. Rasor II is presently the Senior Pastor of Lilburn Christian Church in Lilburn, GA and is an adjunct professor of philosophy at Grand Canyon University (GCU). He previously served as Assistant Professor of Philosophy at GCU (2015-2023). He is co-author of Controversy of the Ages (2017), author of the fantasy novel The Plague of Kosmon: Rise of the Seer, and has a multiple-authored forthcoming book An Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Guide to the Things that Really Matter (Zondervan; 2025). He holds a ThM in theology and PhD in philosophy from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, KY) and a MA and MDiv from Cincinnati Christian University.

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

/by

Christianity and Abortion, Part 1: A Brief History of Abortion in Antiquity

It is always a temptation in an industrial and technological society such as America to fall into what C.S. Lewis called “chronological snobbery.” This is the belief that the present ideas and practices are superior to, or could never have been imagined by, those who went before us. This is no less true concerning the practice of abortion. Many believe abortion is a relatively new idea and that those who preceded our advanced age could never have imagined having the means to abort a human person in the womb. They did not, after all, have the biological and medical knowledge we have today. Right?

 

Nothing could be further from the truth. Abortion, or some equivalent practice, is just about as old as humanity. Those in antiquity may not have had the technology or medical practices to insert chemicals into a child in utero to kill her or even the means to pull off her legs, head, and arms and then vacuum out her parts from the womb. Nevertheless, they had their methods of performing abortions, and they had similar reasons for doing so as some do today.

The Long History of Abortion

Abortion has had a long history, dating back thousands of years. The earliest reference to the practice, notes ethicist John Jefferson Davis, seems to be during the time of the Chinese Emperor Shen Nung (ca 2737-2696 BC).[1] Evidently, some kind of oral abortifacient was recommended to kill a child in utero.

Others promoting abortion (both the child in utero and disposing her after birth, i.e., infanticide) included the two Greek philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, in the third and fourth centuries BC. Both argued that abortion was a necessity in certain instances for the benefit of the State. Plato, for example, believed that the State was to be governed by the most intelligent and knowledgeable philosophers, and one of their duties was to regulate births of those who benefitted the state and dispose of the infants who were born to “inferior breeds.” In Nazi-like eugenic reasoning, Plato stated, “The offspring of the inferior, and any of those of the other sort who are born defective, they [i.e., the governing officials] will properly dispose of in secret, so that no one will know what has become of them.”[2]

In fact, the State was to oversee every aspect of the marital and sexual relationship of every citizen. Once men and women were past their “prime” for begetting children, Plato desired that the State regulate men to have sexual relations with whomever they wished (outside familial relations) as long as they did not “bring to light anything whatever thus conceived.”[3] If they were unable to “prevent a birth,” they were to dispose of the child.

Aristotle, like his mentor Plato, effectively agreed. The “lawgiver’s duty” was to develop children in the best physical way possible. To do this, he was to consider who ought to get married and when they ought to have children. Like Plato, Aristotle believed husband and wife ought to conceive children during their prime for the best chance of conceiving a strong, physically healthy child. In what sounded like an anticipation of some Americans’s view of abortion, Aristotle argued, “Let it be lawful that no cripple child be reared.”[4] If a crippled child was born, then she was to be abandoned.

Aristotle, also like many Americans today, worried about population size. To control human population, Aristotle contended that if “a copulation takes place and a child is conceived,” then “abortion should be procured before the embryo has acquired life and sensation.”[5] In an attempt to establish an ethical guideline, he concluded, “The presence of life and sensation will be the mark of division between right and wrong here.”[6]

Abortion Is Nothing New

As can be readily seen, abortion (and infanticide) is nothing new. It has been around for thousands of years. It seems to be one of the preoccupations of sinful humanity. To summarize the longevity of the practice, comments from John Rasmussen can serve as a good summary:

“Abortion was, then, a familiar practice in the ancient Mediterranean world. One of the most learned of Greco-Roman gynecologists, Soranos of Ephesus (c. A.D. 98-138), discussed two main categories of abortion. Abortion was practiced through an abortifacient (phythorion), which would destroy what had been conceived, or through (ekbolion), which would expel what had been conceived. . . . The conventional Roman attitude toward the fetus and infant was strikingly callous. Seneca referred to the drowning of abnormal or weakly children at birth as a commonplace and as a reasonable kind of action (De Ira, 1.15). Philo noted that it was not unusual for parents to strangle their infants, drown them with attached weights, or expose them in deserted areas to wild beasts and carnivorous birds.” [7]

We may ask at this point, why is it important to consider that abortion was practiced in antiquity? Primarily because it helps us understand how a Christian ought to view abortion. How so? Precisely because if abortion has been practiced for thousands of years, we would expect to find Christians responding to and interacting with the topic. And this is exactly what we find. In part 2 of this series, we will briefly look at what some of the early Christian Fathers and teachers had to say about it.

References: 

[1] John Jefferson Davis, Evangelical Ethics: Issues Facing the Church Today, 3rd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2004), 139.

[2] Plato, The Republic, Book V, 460, c in Plato: The Collected Dialogues including the Letters, ed. Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns, Bollingen Series LXXI (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005), 699.

[3] Ibid., 461, c; 700.

[4] Aristotle, The Politics, Book VII.16, trans. T.A. Sinclair, Penguin Classics (Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1962), 294.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] John A. Rasmussen, “Abortion: Historical and Biblical Perspectives” Concordia Theological Quarterly 43 1979:19, 21.

Recommended Resources: 

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

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

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

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

 

Peter J. Rasor II is presently the Senior Pastor of Lilburn Christian Church in Lilburn, GA and is an adjunct professor of philosophy at Grand Canyon University (GCU). He previously served as Assistant Professor of Philosophy at GCU (2015-2023). He is co-author of Controversy of the Ages (2017), author of the fantasy novel The Plague of Kosmon: Rise of the Seer, and has a multiple-authored forthcoming book An Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Guide to the Things that Really Matter (Zondervan; 2025). He holds a ThM in theology and PhD in philosophy from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, KY) and a MA and MDiv from Cincinnati Christian University.

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

/by

Why I Left The Word Of Faith Movement

When I was about fourteen I started listening to teachers such as Kenneth Copeland, Jesse Duplantis, Jerry Savelle, and Creflo Dollar. I had grown up going to church, albeit a very liberal church, but these guys were different than what I was used to. They had passion, zeal, and spoke with power and authority. They taught very differently than what I had heard before, but they used Scripture to back everything up (well, and some direct revelation from God, so they said).

 

They taught that Jesus had secured our physical healing for this life, that we had power over sickness and the devil, that we could transform our finances through our faith, and that we could even use faith the way God does—the God kind of faith. I really enjoyed listening to these teachers, particularly Copeland and Duplantis. I was even able to meet Duplantis and his wife at a meeting in Charlotte, where I gave him a letter thanking him for teaching the truth. Little did I know at the time that I was being sucked into a heretical mess. Since I did not know much at the time about orthodox theology, much of what was said sounded biblical and right. After having spent over a decade of learning theology in college and seminary (long after I left the movement), I began to realize how dangerous their doctrines really are. Let’s look at some of the main teachings of the Word-Faith movement.

God

While the orthodox, traditional view of God among Christians is that God exists as an immaterial being, one in essence with three persons, Word-Faith teachers state that God is a physical being who lives on a planet called heaven. According to Copeland, God stands around 6’2″ around 200lbs. Not only that, God is the “greatest failure in the Bible” since he lost more than any other being at the fall. Further, God has to use faith to do things, like create. God used the “force of faith” that according to Copeland “is a physical force” that is “perceptible to the touch.” We can use this same faith with our positive confession to bring about realities. Our confession, however, can also bring about sickness, disease, and death.

Jesus

According to Word-Faith teachers, Jesus is not divine. According to Dollar, if he were, he would not have needed any special anointing. Rather, he was adopted by God at his baptism. According to teachers like Copeland, Jesus died spiritually and was reborn in hell before his resurrection. He was the first to be born-again. Regarding this, Copeland makes the scariest, most heretical utterance I have ever heard:

“He [God] said, ‘A born-again man defeated Satan, the firstborn of many brethren defeated him.’ He said, ‘You are the very image and the very copy of that one.’ . . . And I said, ‘Well now you don’t mean, you couldn’t dare mean that I could have done the same thing?’ He said, ‘Oh, yeah, if you’d known that, had the knowledge of the Word of God that He did you could have done the same thing. ‘Cause you’re a reborn man too.’”

—From a sermon titled, “From the Cross to the Throne.”

Jesus did not accomplish his work because of his divinity, according to Copeland, but because he was reborn and had certain knowledge.

Jesus not only secured our salvation, he also secured our physical healing, according to such passages as 1 Peter 2:24 and 3 John 2. He is also our example to live by. But not just for holiness. We need to emulate his faith (through positive confession), attain knowledge (like him), and live the way he lived.

Man

Man is created by God, and so is in the god-class of beings. We are little gods, according to Copeland (and others like Benny Hinn). As already mentioned, man uses his positive confession to activate the force of faith to control his reality and bring about health and prosperity that was secured by Jesus. Man can function like God, since both man and God use the force of faith.

When created, Adam was just like God. After the fall, however, God lost his domain to Satan and had to work with people to covenant with him to get back what he lost (such as Abraham, Moses, etc.). As Robert Bowman says, “Copeland teaches that the true meaning of redemption is the restoration of human nature to godhood.”[1]  On that same page, he cites Copeland’s words:

“Peter said it just as plain, he said we are ‘partakers of the divine nature.’ That nature is life eternal in absolute perfection. And that was imparted, injected into your spirit man, and you have that imparted into you by God, just as same as you imparted into your child the nature of humanity. That child wasn’t born a whale—born a human. Isn’t that true? Well now, you don’t have a human, do you? No, you are one. You don’t have a God in you—you are one”

— Copeland “The Force of Love,” tape #02-0028.[2]

Overall Worries and Evaluation

If you are a Christian of the orthodox sort, then the worries should be obvious. If you are a follower of these teachers, it might not be so obvious. There are more worries and problems than I will address here. I’ll just choose a few.

Regarding God, if he is physical, he is necessarily limited. He can’t be everywhere all at once; he can’t know all things, etc. The Trinity can’t be true since a physical being is a being all to himself. But the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that God is one in being, but exists as three persons. If God the Father is physical, then there are at least two beings that make up the divine nature.

Jesus is taught to be a human with a special anointing and knowledge that allowed him to live the way he did, do miracles, and defeat Satan. The orthodox teaching, however, is that Jesus is completely God, and took on the human nature (without sin).

Finally, man is taught to be a little god, in the class of gods. He can use the force of faith (where did the physical faith that God uses come from?) in the same way God did. According to Copeland, man could have defeated Satan as Jesus did. It did not take God, just being reborn and having certain knowledge.

The Word-Faith teaching has striking similarities with Mormonism: Both teach that God is a physical being, people get direct revelation from God even today, we can become gods just like God, both deny the Trinity, and both downplay the role of reason and stress the spirit as a way of learning.

As you can see, while the positive confession and health and wealth teaching is bad, it does not compare to the heresies of the other teachings. And this is why I left the Word-Faith movement.

References: 

[1] Robert Bowman Jr., Word-Faith Controversy: Understanding the Health and Wealth Gospel, unabridged ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2000), 184.

[2] Bowman 2000, 184.

Recommended Resources: 

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

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

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

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

 

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

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

/by

From Peter to the Christian Apologist

To the Christian Apologist, 1 Peter 3:15-16 is a ‘mandate’ passage, used to demonstrate the reason we all study and become proficient with apologetics.

 

“But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.”
1 Peter 3:15-16 (NIV)

The REAL Reason for doing Apologetics

We tend to focus, however, on verses 15 and 16 and forget to consider the “lead in” context. The real reason we SHOULD do apologetics is actually shown in the second half of verse 14 and the first part of verse 15. If we take time to look there, we might notice a quote that comes straight out of Isaiah 8:12.

“But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.” 15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. “
1 Peter 3:14-15a

Isaiah and Peter were both facing significant persecution. Isaiah wrote, “Fear not what they fear, and don’t be afraid. Set apart the Lord of hosts Himself and let Him be your fear” (Isaiah 8:12).  But Peter, seeing the persecutions looming ahead  for himself and the Christian church he’s writing to, copies Isaiah’s template. But Peter adds a twist, “fear not their fear, neither be troubled; but set apart Christ as Lord in your hearts” (1 Peter 3:14-15a). Theologian Alexander MacLaren describes the significance here.

“Now, if we think for a moment of the Jew’s reverence for the letter of Scripture, and then think again of the Jew’s intense monotheism and dread of putting any creature into the place of God, we shall understand how saturated with the belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ, and how convinced that it was the vital center of all Christian teaching, this Apostle must have been when, without a word of explanation, he took his pen, and, as it were, drew it through ‘Lord God’ in Isaiah’s words, and wrote in capitals over it, ‘Christ as Lord.’[1]

Hallowed be They Name

What does “set apart Christ as Lord” mean in Peter’s letter?  Looking at the term “set apart,” (or “sanctify” in King James language) we see it elsewhere in the New Testament. The first sentence of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:9, says, “Our Father Who art in heaven, hallowed, be thy Name.” The exact same Greek word, used as “set apart,’ and as ‘hallowed,’ is hagiazo.

We set apart sanctify or hallow one who is holy already, when we recognize the holiness, and then honor it. Thus, the plain meaning of Peter’s text is, ‘elevate Christ to the pedestal; the place He deserves in your life, and then; bow down before Him with all reverence and submission. He is due your highest awe and reverence.

“Set apart Christ as Lord in your hearts” is the command. In Scripture the heart is that center node within a person that both affixes and produces your thoughts, words and actions. Remember the verse, “as a man thinks in his heart, so is he,” or when Jesus says “…out of the heart comes the things that defile a man.”  The heart then is the very core of our being. With that in mind, and looking at Peter’s command in the negative sense, he asserts that if we don’t set apart Christ as Lord, you cannot help being afraid of threats and terror, and hence will be inevitably troubled. But, if you do set Christ apart in your heart, then there is no fear that can plague you or render you impotent and ineffective.

MacLaren finishes his narrative with,

“The Apostle comes and says: ‘Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts; and then, and only then, will you be bold.’ The boldness which fronts the certain dangers and calamities and the possible dangers and calamities of this life, without Christ, is not boldness, but foolhardiness.”[2]

The Heartbeat of Christian Apologetics

The first part of my thesis then is: every Christian, not just the Apologist, should not fear . . . and won’t be fearful, if Christ is rightly placed in that singular, hallowed place at the core of your very being – your identity – and is given the reverence due Him. That is the foundation for studying Apologetics. He is the foundation for studying apologetics. Without that solid footing, your efforts to accumulate and dispense Christian apologetic knowledge will yield little for the Kingdom, and will yield nothing of eternal benefit in your own life.

From there, the rest of our referent passage says, “be prepared to give a defense for the hope that is in you, but do so with grace and truth.”  I finish off with this – the second part of my thesis; offering your apologetic truth to another, infused with genuine grace is only possible when the heart has Christ set apart, hallowed and elevated appropriately in the central place, the core, of your heart. His love will then be manifest in your interpersonal connections in the form of grace, truth and love. If not, only ‘a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal’ will be heard.

References: 

[1] Alexander MacLaren, “Hallowing Christ: 1 Pete 3:14, 15,” [Commentary], Blue Letter Bible [website], N.D., accessed 31 Jan 2025 at: https://www.blueletterbible.org/comm/maclaren_alexander/expositions-of-holy-scripture/1-peter/hallowing-christ.cfm

[2] Ibid.

Recommended Resources:

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

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

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

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

 

Dan Hodges has over 40 years of business experience in aerospace, sensor and communications technology. He is a published author and inventor with multiple patent grants in the areas of RADAR systems, telecommunications and intelligence. He had a 26-year career as a military officer and F-16 instructor pilot and likewise has very deep experience in business operations. He has managed more than 400 employees and 16 subsidiary companies simultaneously as an entrepreneur, and has founded and built-out multiple enterprises, both private and publicly traded. He is also the Chairman of two non-profit, ministry-related organizations – CrossExamined and Crossroads Conservation Corp.  Dan holds a Masters in Christian Apologetics from Biola University and both speaks and teaches at churches and schools and via online forums. He currently resides on a family farm in the Blue Ridge mountains with his wife and cultivates apple orchards and edible and medicinal mushrooms.

/by

Should Christianity Be Taught In Public Schools?

My sixth grader ran through the front door sounding slightly short of breath. “My teacher is teaching a unit on world religions,” he huffed. “He’s going to teach us about Islam, Christianity, Egyptian gods and who knows what else!” As a fifth grade teacher I was aware of the California standards for fifth grade but this surprised me. World religions was part of the sixth grade standards? Low and behold, written into the California content standards for sixth grade social studies is the requirement for students to learn “ancient civilizations, religion, slavery, and delving into Hammurabi’s laws, sections of the Torah (first five books of the Bible), and Confucius.”[1]

 

My surprise wasn’t because I was worried about him learning opposing worldviews. I was surprised the curriculum took the students deep into these world religions. I wondered how the teacher would present the information to the students. Will he be unbiased? Biased?  My son went forward with the unit, even taking a field trip to an Egyptian museum in Sacramento. It was an eye-opening experience that led us to deeper conversations about the Christian worldview in comparison to opposing worldviews.

Curriculum Change?

A few months ago, Texas became the latest state to integrate religion into their elementary school curriculum, joining states like Oklahoma and Louisiana.[2] As expected, the reaction to the news has caused a split of, let’s say, cheers and boos. But what I’ve seen is the revelation of false assumptions about worldviews in public education that I’ll address in this article.

  1. Assumption #1: Many people assume that religion and worldview hasn’t been taught prior to this decision.
  2. Assumption #2: Many people assume the public education system has always been neutral and must remain that way. I’ll explain why that’s not possible.

Worldview Integration

What Texas did was add an optional curriculum that infuses biblical stories and concepts into their lessons. It’s hardly teaching worldview, but I won’t split hairs. Schools do not have to adopt this curriculum but the Texas State Board of Education sweetened the deal by offering $60 per student if they do. For a teacher on a budget equivalent to that of a college student, that’s tempting. Consequently, this brought cheers from those who desire to see Christianity brought back into the public education system and boos from those who want to keep it out. It’s rare that anyone is neutral on whether or not religion should be taught in public education.

I want to pose something to think about for the cheerleaders and the boo hoo-ers of this decision. First, everyone needs to calm down because I don’t think it’s as simple as threading some Bible verses into a social studies unit and expecting you’ll get a student who thinks biblically. When it comes to biblical integration, we need to consider the three I’s of worldview formation:

  1. The instructor
  2. The instruction
  3. The integration

 

  1. Have you considered the instructor?

When it comes to education, and in this case, worldview development, it’s not only about what is being taught, it’s also about who teaches it. Every teacher has a worldview and just because she teaches some Bible verses from a teacher’s guide does not mean it will result in a student with a biblical worldview. As Martha MacCollough states in her book Undivided: Developing A Biblical Approach To Worldview Integration,

“Teacher and student must integrate their worldviews together, cooperatively measuring truth and reality by the standard of God’s word. If the teacher’s worldview does not align to the worldview behind the production of the curriculum, the program is fragmented, not cohesive. In other words, it lacks integrity or wholeness.”[3]

  1. Have you considered the instruction?

Teaching bible lessons is one thing; teaching students how to apply them is the necessary connection to worldview development. Therefore, MacCullough goes on to say that,

“Biblical worldview integration in an academic setting must be understood as a function of the curriculum.”[4]

In a public education environment this isn’t possible because the worldview behind the public education system is scientific naturalism. Again, a unit sprinkled with some Bible verses in elementary school is competing with Darwinian evolution in tenth grade science. And although according to The Texas Tribune the Texas Board of Education did add language that allowed students to pushback on evolutionary science, it’s still not a cohesive framework that provides integrity in worldview formation.

  1. Have you considered biblical integration?

To integrate means you “combine one thing with another so they become a whole.” In order to effectively teach from a biblical worldview so the result is a student with a biblical worldview, you must have a teacher with a biblical worldview, teaching a curriculum produced from a biblical worldview, across a school wide program with a unified philosophy of education. If that sounds a lot like the children’s book If You Give A Mouse A Cookie, it should.[5] An effective and cohesive program is going to set off a chain of events that puts everyone on the same page for worldview development. Otherwise, it’s not truly biblical integration. It’s just, as I said above, some Bible verses added into social studies content.

Addressing The Assumptions

From a biblical standpoint, the Bible is clear about whose responsibility it is to teach children about God and it’s not the school. But let’s not be so naive as to assume religion and worldview isn’t taught in school already. Darwinian evolution is taught to tenth grade science students every year and there isn’t one state in the United States where it isn’t. Where are the boo-hooers? Oh, they’re only upset if it’s content they disagree with.

Let’s get this straight: no one is neutral. Everyone is passionate about their passionately held beliefs and that’s to be expected. One side will always boo and the other side will always cheer; it’s just dependent on who gets their way.

So, for all of the Christian parents and educators out there where a biblical worldview is not only the correct framework for Christian education but is also expected, this is what I suggest: teach all of it. Teach Islam. Teach New Age. Teach Mormonism, Progressive Christianity, and competing worldviews. But do it on the foundation of biblical truth and teach kids why we shouldn’t be afraid to test the claims of all religions, including their own. After all, isn’t that what we want if we’re confident that what we believe is true? So no, the public educations system shouldn’t teach Christianity in school because they don’t have the framework for it to be effective. The reason my son’s 6th grade unit was enjoyable is because he was testing the claims of other worldviews in comparison with Christianity because we made sure it turned out that way. The school did not. Outside of that, we didn’t expect much else from the public education system by way of a Christian education. And neither should you.

New Course For 7th-9th Graders!

Are you looking for curriculum to help your 7th-9h grader test the claims of major worldviews and religions? Check out our brand new course Expedition To Reality beginning on February 24th at OnlineChrstianCourses.com. This is an 8 week course that builds on the foundation of the core tenets of Christianity while learning about Islam, New Age, Marxism, Progressive Christianity and more. Join the expedition before it’s too late!

Sign-Up Now for the New Course:
Expedition to Reality
Starting February 24th

References: 

[1] https://www.scoe.net/media/ykyfx3ri/parent_overview_hss_6-8.pdf

[2] https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/education/states-push-incorporate-religion-school-curriculums/; https://www.texastribune.org/2024/11/19/texas-sboe-bible-christianity-curriculum/

[3] Martha MacCullough, Undivided: Developing A Biblical Approach To Worldview Integration (Colorado Springs, CO: Purposeful Design Publications, 2016), ch. 1

[4] Ibid.

[5] Laura Numeroff and Alicia Bond, If You Give a Mouse a Cookie (New York: Harper Collins, 2015).

Recommended Resources:

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

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

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

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

 

Shanda Fulbright is a credentialed teacher and has a certificate in Christian Apologetics from Biola University, a certificate from the CrossExamined Instructor’s Academy as well as several certificates from Online Christian Courses. She hosts Her Faith Inspires podcast where she takes cultural issues and aligns them to biblical truth. You can read her blogs and find out more about her at shandafulbright.com.

/by