apologetics Archives - Page 52 of 138

Tag Archive for: apologetics

The Benefits of Active Listening and Moral Apologetics to the Chaplaincy Ministry

For the first article after having been named a Senior Contributor for MoralApologetics.com, it is only appropriate to acknowledge the tremendous benefit that moral apologetics has served in my present ministry as a clinical hospice chaplain. In September of 2020, I joined a team of nine other individuals who care for patients and their families at the point of death. Numerous individuals have inquired, “How do you do that? Don’t you stay depressed all the time? Isn’t that a heavy job?” Yes, the job can be intense emotionally and spiritually. A fellow chaplain told me that the average duration of a clinical hospice chaplain is generally 2-3 years because of emotional burnout. Ironically, I have found the job to be a blessing. I have seen God move in powerful ways to change lives and to impact people in ways that I was never prepared to see.

Two skills have served as a tremendous benefit for helping me help those most in need. By no means am I saying that I have these skills mastered. I am still learning. Nonetheless, I digress. The first is a skill acquired from my chaplaincy training. Fellow chaplain Jason Kline taught me the benefits of a practice known as active listening. Active listening is a technique that carefully listens to what the person is saying and observes non-verbal cues that communicate what the person is feeling and thinking. More on this in a moment.

While active listening is a tremendous tool, it becomes even more powerful when coupled with training in moral apologetics. This writer was highly honored to participate in Dr. David Baggett’s final course at Liberty University before he made his trek to Houston Baptist University. Truly, Liberty’s loss is HBU’s gain. For me, I wanted to take the course because I had already befriended Dr. Baggett but never had him as a professor. Even if Baggett taught a class on the benefits of chocolate ice cream, I would have taken it because I wanted to say that Dr. Baggett was my professor. Nonetheless, it could not have been more appropriate that the class was on moral apologetics. Furthermore, nothing could have prepared me for the enduring benefits that stemmed from this deeply philosophical and apologetic overview of the moral apologetic landscape. The field of moral apologetics prepared me in numerous ways to be able to help patients as a clinical chaplain and deal with the intense situations that I have encountered in my brief time in the profession. As a caveat, HIPAA laws do not permit the use of personal stories and examples in the chaplaincy field. Thus, this article will only speak in generalities as it pertains to the benefits of both active listening and moral apologetics to the task of chaplaincy ministry. As the article will show, the benefits are not only found in chaplaincy.

Benefits of Active Listening

As previously noted, active listening is a technique whereby a counselor actively participates in the conversation by observing both verbal and non-verbal cues that speak to the person’s emotional, spiritual, and physical condition. Healthline.com suggests that active listening requires eight tasks: 1. Give the person your full attention. 2. Use body language (show them you are interested in the person, don’t just say it). 3. Avoid interrupting the person. 4. Don’t fear the power of silence. 5. Reflect on the person’s communication, don’t parrot them. 6. Validate the person’s feelings. 7. Ask thoughtful questions. 8. Avoid passing judgment or offering advice.[1] All of these tips work well within the framework of moral apologetics. The eighth tip may sound counterintuitive to the apologist’s task because the apologist wants to guide the person to a personal relationship with Christ and/or strengthen his/her relationship with Christ. However, strategically asked questions can provide the same result and will allow the client to own the information for oneself. Furthermore, this fits well into the abductive argument for moral apologetics. Marybeth Baggett avers that the abductive approach “relies on and encourages bridge building, which isn’t helped by treated difficult questions as easier than they are.”[2] It just so happens that active listening works well within the abductive approach. From the brief time this writer has served as a clinical chaplain, it has been observed that the practice of active listening brings about four tremendous benefits.

Encourages dialogue. Just as Baggett argued for the abductive moral argument, so also active listening encourages dialogue. There is a distinct difference between dialogue and monologue. Monologues occur when a person gives a lecture. While this is nice in the university setting, it is not preferred for one-on-one communication. If the counselor or apologist only gives the person what-for, enshrouded in the ideology of “telling it like it is,” the listener will quickly turn off his/her ears and will no longer engage in the conversation. The conversation will quickly devolve and end. However, the effective communicator is willing to hear what the other person says and how they feel. Speaking as an apologist, this is something that is missing in many circles these days.
Identifies personal concerns. Active listening encourages the person to speak about their personal issues and concerns. The counselor and apologist will quickly learn why the person believes what they do. More often than not, a person’s experiences help shape one to become who they will be. Recently, an A&E documentary on the life of WWE legend Rowdy Roddy Piper spoke to the tragic events of Roddy Toombe’s early life that led to his self-destructive habits. Active listening helps to identify and detect those issues.
Allows for self-assessment. The best counselors and apologists are those that can lead individuals to own the information for themselves. This is the very tactic that Jesus used. For example, Jesus asked the disciples who others said that he was before asking them poignantly, “Who do you say that I am?” (Matt. 16:15, CSB). Simon Peter owned the information for himself which came from Jesus’s strategic inquiry.
Reveals personal biases and worldviews. In correlation with the second point, active listening reveals what the person believes. Non-verbal communication can serve as a huge help. Does the person wince or squirm when more difficult theological or spiritual questions are asked? What does this say about the person’s beliefs? Did the person have experiences that led them to their current spiritual reservations? Knowing the seven major worldviews is of immense value as it helps one know the foundation upon which the person’s belief system is based.[3]

Benefits of Moral Apologetics

As was shown, active listening is a powerful technique used to engage and develop a conversation with others. However, questions cannot be one-sided. Sometimes people want to know why a loving God would allow their loved one to suffer. Why is God allowing them to endure hardship and suffering? Simply answering, “Just believe God and all will be well” is not enough. Furthermore, the counselor and/or apologist needs to have a goal in mind. In the case of the moral apologist, the goal is to teach and move a person to accept the good moral nature of an Anselmian God.[4] The use of active listening within the framework of an abductive moral apologetic makes for a powerful means to assist those suffering from moral doubt for the following reasons.

Provides confidence to handle the most difficult situations. Nothing can prepare someone for the outpouring of emotions when tragedy strikes. Different people mourn in different ways. Some may become loud and boisterous, whereas others become depressed and guarded. Having a moral apologetic background grounds the counselor and apologist with the confidence needed to stand amid the turbulent chaos. Like CPR for the EMS worker, ingrained moral apologetic truths become second nature to the trained moral apologetic counselor and apologist and can be quickly accessed.
Grounds a person’s confusion and doubt. Eventually, the counselor and apologist will face a situation that causes them to wonder about why a certain instance occurred. This is natural. The person suffering through the tumultuous time is asking the same question with sevenfold intensity. Nonetheless, the tools in the moral apologist’s toolbox are readily available to assist both the counselor and client during the most difficult of days. Holding fast to God’s benevolent nature anchors one’s emotional and spiritual state.
Reminds of the loving character of God amid the storms. Moral doubt has led many to dark places. Habermas estimates that 70-80% of doubt comes from emotional doubt.[5] Moral apologetics affords the ability to focus on the benevolent nature of God even in a world full of evil and despair. In the end, God’s moral nature is the best explanation for knowing that moral good exists and the intrinsic moral value held by all people, as they are made imagio Dei. Baggett and Walls word it well, noting that “God’s nature as the best explanation of moral good, and the fact that he has created us in his image, constitute an excellent explanation both of why we cannot avoid making moral judgments about the world and of why we cannot escape seeing evil as a problem if there is indeed a gap between the way the world is and the way it ought to be.”[6] Rather than leading the counselor and client away from God because of their moral plight, moral apologetics equips them to come closer to God during the occasion because of the goodness of God and the necessity of God as the best explanation as to why one can make moral claims in the first place.
Acknowledges a better day to come. Hope can help a person through the most decadent times. Viktor Frankl reminisces on the power of hope after having survived the torturous Nazi death camps. He recalls, “The prisoner who had lost faith in the future—his future—was doomed. With his loss of belief in the future, he also lost his spiritual hold; he let himself decline and became subject to mental and physical decay.”[7] What hope does materialism offer with one’s suffering? Nothing. Moral apologetics acknowledges that a benevolent Anselmian God holds the very best in mind for his children’s future. While things may appear grim at present, a better day is coming. As I hope to show in a book I am currently writing—if God is that than which nothing greater could be perceived, then the final hope for his children is that than which nothing greater could be anticipated. The believer has hope for a perfect world created by a perfect God.

Conclusion

Quite honestly, this article has only skimmed the surface of the great depths that the combination of active listening and moral apologetics extends to the counselor and apologist. However, this combination is not only limited to chaplaincy, but it can also be useful for every field and profession. From the academic professor to the local pastor and everyday Christian, these practices can enrichen one’s life and relationships. Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, the practice of active listening disarms a person from being on edge from thinking that he/she must prove one’s intellectual prowess. In most cases, the active listener allows the other person to do the most talking. Additionally, the strength from having a moral apologetic background encourages both counselor and client alike that they are not defined by the bad situations endured, but rather they are defined by a God who loves them and cares for them more than one could ever realize. What could be better than that?

References:

[1] Crystal Raypole, “Active Listening: Why it Matters and 8 Tips for Success,” Healthline.com (December 15, 2020), https://www.healthline.com/health/active-listening.

[2] David Baggett and Marybeth Baggett, The Morals of the Story: Good News about a Good God (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008), 51.

[3] See Brian G. Chilton, Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics: Bridging the Essentials of Apologetics from the Ivory Tower to the Everyday Christian (Eugene, OR: Resource, 2019), 40-43.

[4] That is, “God is the ground of being without whom nothing else can exist.” David Baggett and Jerry L. Walls, God & Cosmos: Moral Truth and Human Meaning (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2016), 64.

[5] Habermas in Chilton, LMOCA, 75.

[6] Baggett and Walls, God & Cosmos, 96.

[7] Viktor E. Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning (Boston, MS: Beacon, 2006), 74.

Confronting Homosexuality in a Culture of Identity (Part 4)

Culture CrossExamined, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Josh Klein

Lil Nas X

Back to where we started.

What if I told you that the issue with Lil Nas X was not his being gay, but with how he perceived the Church’s response to his being gay?

He has somehow come away with the understanding that he should hate himself because he has a natural proclivity to same-sex attraction. For some reason, pointing out a lifestyle of sin has been equated to pointing out the evil of the person. I think this reason is tied to the idea of identity. In this final section of this series, I will attempt to offer a “better way” in dealing with these issues.

It is important to note, however, that these ideas are not original with me. Many who have come before me such as Christopher Yuan, Rachel Gilson, Preston Sprinkle, Leadthemhome.org and others champion these same principles, but I will attempt to outline a strategy here that is simple, straight forward, and yet extremely difficult.

In an attempt to assuage the conflation of sin and sinner Christians have come up with a pithy phrase that you may have heard (or even said): “Hate the sin but love the sinner.”

As I mentioned in part one of this series, sexuality is a different animal altogether. This is not some universally accepted vice that must be confronted like drug addiction or alcoholism. The world has done a bang-up job in making this issue one of identity, and the church, for some reason, has agreed to the terms. Therefore, when a Christian says, “Hate the sin but love the sinner” the non-Christian balks in disgust. Why? Because the non-Christian has no identity except that which is being called a sin. Thus, the non-Christian believes that the Christian is subtly saying, “hate their identity but love what they could be if we could change them,” but they are currently happy with their identity.

Of course, this is not the intention of the phrase, but its use has had an unintended consequence in the LGBTQ+ community for decades. A full generation of human beings that identify as their sexual proclivity have come away with the belief that Christians hate them for simply being “who they are.”

Their solution then, is to either hate themselves and try to be something they are not, or to leave the bigoted views of those who claim to love them behind and pursue a life of what seems to offer fulfillment and happiness.

To the liberal church’s credit, they recognized this reaction as unacceptable. After all, God wants all people to come to a saving faith in him, does he not (1 Timothy 2:3-4)?

While their diagnoses of the problem may have been accurate, in parts two and three I touched on why their response to the problem (affirming people in their sin) was not and is even doing more harm than good.

So, what then?

How does the church affirm the holiness of God and his moral framework for creation and minister to those that closely identify with the sin that drives their sexuality?

I recently listened to a podcast by conservative pundit Andrew Klavan, who is a Christian. Klavan has a gay son that proclaims a faith in Jesus Christ, thus, Klavan struggles with the idea that homosexuality is a sin.

I will not get into critiquing Klavan’s beliefs on this matter; however, I believe his response to a listener’s question regarding her own gay son deserves some consideration. In the midst of answering this mother’s question Andrew says something to the effect of:

“Homosexuality is the one sin that we don’t allow in our church. We don’t tell the fat man to stop being gluttonous, but we tell the gay man to stop being gay. My advice is to love your child with the love of Christ and pray that he will pray to God concerning his sexuality as we all should be bringing our sexuality before God” (paraphrased).

I believe Andrew is onto something here. We treat Homosexuality differently than any other sin.

Now, some might rebut Andrew’s statement by indicating (rightly so) that sexual sin is more severe and has an internal consequence that other sins do not (1 Cor. 6:18). So, gluttony may not be the best example, but the response to other sexual sins then should be considered.

How many young people in your church have had sex before marriage?

How many men (and women) are viewing pornography regularly?

How many marriages have crumbled due to infidelity or abuse?

How many teens struggle with opposite-sex attraction in a way that is sinful?

What would happen if we treated each of these people the same way we treat those struggling with (or embracing) homosexuality?

What if we did not think the answer to homosexuality was to make a person straight but to help a person become dedicated to Christ?

In the same response Klavan mentions a concept that is conspicuously foreign in some of our conversations regarding homosexuality. He says something to the effect of allowing God to confront the sin in people’s lives since we are all mired by some sin or another.

In the same vein, noted theologian and Dean of Theology at African Christian University in Zambia, Voddie Baucham is credited for saying this concerning the gospel:

“The gospel message is more about sin than about sins. The point is that I don’t need to approach a person on the basis of a specific sin that they need to quit but on the basis of a Nature that needs to change” (emphasis mine).

How often do we ask a person struggling with lying to stop lying before coming to Christ? How often do we ask someone that is addicted to drugs or pornography to quit their addiction before coming to Christ?

The way we handle homosexuality in the church, however, almost forces a gay man or woman to renounce their homosexual behavior before they can come to Christ.

What if we spent less time convincing people of individual sins and more time pointing to our own sin nature as the reason we need a savior?

This does not mean we ought to ratify sinful behaviors as good. If we did that then we are limiting the ability of the Spirit to convict individuals of individual sins. Tell an addict that their addiction is not only unproblematic but part of their identity and that they should embrace it and why would the addict ever seek a way out of their addiction?

The church has a nasty history of handling sexual issues poorly and we need to come to terms with that.

I believe that the message the world needs to hear is not that they are evil but that they are broken, and they cannot hear that message unless we first tell them how broken we are apart from Christ. In other words, it is not so much the desire to convince the post-Christian culture that they are morally bankrupt, but that they are without hope just as we were without hope.

Instead of shouting into the burning building that the people inside are going to die because they are inside, we offer a way out of the building. “If you don’t want to die, come this way!”

This is what Voddie Baucham is saying concerning how we ought to preach the gospel. The gospel is not the good news of behavioral modification. The gospel is the good news that the Almighty God of the universe has provided a way to life!

In my conversation with the former student concerning these things she expressed a concern about the “hate on the internet” from supposed Christians concerning the LGBTQ+ community. This concern stems from two things, a misunderstanding of what hate really is on her part, sure, but also an inability to engage with society in a way that draws them to Christ on the Christian’s part.

Take, for example, Paul’s sermon on Mars Hill in Acts 17.

Paul could have walked through Athens and chosen to address their polytheism and idolatry. However, he knew that this would not be a winsome way to express the good news of Jesus. Instead, he lauded their spirituality and passion and found a hook on which to hang the gospel.

Outside of the church we must start looking at conversations with the post-Christian American culture more like a Mars Hill conversation than a letter to the Corinthians conversation.

What is the difference?

In one, Paul was addressing unbelievers (Mars Hill) and in another he was addressing supposed believers that knew better (1 Corinthians).

The church has spent so much time convinced that homosexuality is a threat that we have lost the opportunity (in many ways) to minister in grace and truth. There is no real threat to the Church! The gates of Hell themselves pose no danger! (Matthew 16:17-19)

The liberal church has ministered to them in grace and has augmented the truth and thus, the job of the orthodox church is made that much more difficult. There are now competing gospels for the gay person. This is a failure of the Church not of God and not of those that are being confused.

One gospel that affirms their identity both sexually and as a child of God and one that affirms their ability to be adopted as children of God but insists a thorough reckoning of the self in regard to behaviors and appetites.

But in the reaction to pursue truth with passion we have left grace at the window in many situations.

We do not need to convince the homosexual that they are participating in a particular sin to win them to Christ, but we must convince them that they are a sinner (regardless of whether or not they are gay) that is in need of a savior. In other words, the conversation is the same with a young man living with his girlfriend as it is with a young man living with is boyfriend, and yet, we tend to handle the two situations very differently.

They need not renounce all of their sins prior to knowing Jesus, just that of their sin nature. They renounce slavery to sin and embrace slavery to righteousness as they place their faith in Christ. And then the Holy Spirit gets to work and, as we all know, they will likely continue the struggle!

If they come away with the idea that they ought to hate themselves, it is likely that we have handled the conversation poorly.

So what does this “better way” mean? Do we remain silent on the topic of homosexuality culturally? No, but we must cover the truth in love. Homosexuality is not the primary issue, just as sexual promiscuity or pornography use is not the primary issue. The primary issue is a heart that needs desperately to be transformed, fulfilled, and made new. Give us a heart of flesh instead of stone Lord! (Ez. 36:26) Too often, the church operates with a heart of stone towards those that are in the LGBT community.

I think the following are some (not all) ways that the church can start to make headway in the conversation on sexuality in our culture. These are not easy, but I believe they are simple and in line with scripture and the gospel.

Refuse to use the language of “identity” concerning sexuality. Simply do not do it. If a couple comes to your church and says, “we are a gay couple” treat them in the same way as you would an unmarried heterosexual couple that is cohabitating.
Abandon the idea that God will choose to make someone “straight” if they come to Christ. This puts an undue burden on a specific group of people. God may not take away my lustful desires, but I can pray that he curbs them to his will. The same can be said for people with a bent towards homosexuality. God may not (and probably will not) make them “straight” and that is okay. To be celebrated and supported even! These brothers and sisters will need our support more than most as they will feel stuck between two opposite worlds.
Reassure the gay person of the gospel, offer accountability (if they desire), and do not treat them as if they have something wrongwith them just as you would not treat a person struggling with any other sin that way.
Encourage faithful study of the word, not only on the issue of homosexuality, but on the whole counsel of God. If they want resources on the topic, offer to go through a book by Christopher Yuan or Preston Sprinkle with them (read it first for yourself!).
Pray, love, and befriend! Understand that you should not compromise on the truth, but that does not mean love and friendship should go out the window.
Encourage church leadership to think through this issue with a gospel mindset, not a moralistic mindset. Offer resources, like I mentioned above, and specifically consider leadthemhome.org.
Be cognizant of how you act online concerning these things and resolve to progress

Lastly, understand that this is an uphill battle. We will be bucking trends on both sides of the aisle. We could lose friends, we could accidently offend, and we could be called all sorts of names from those that believe homosexuality is a sin and from those that believe it is not. Stand firm on the truth, regardless of consequences, but do not abandon grace and love in the process (Matt. 5:10).

I believe that homosexual behavior is a sin, but I do not believe it is a sin beyond the grasp of an Almighty God. The Church needs to stop treating it as though it is the one sin that must be fixed before someone darkens our doors. May God grant us all grace and favor as we endeavor to glorify his name and bring others to the foot of the cross!

Cosmic Chemistry | with John Lennox

Podcast

One of the greatest myths regarding God and science is that science has somehow disproven God. The exact opposite is actually closer to the truth. If science has disproven anything, it has disproven atheism. How can that be? The Great Dr. John Lennox, Professor at Oxford University, joins Frank to offer answers by discussing his new book Cosmic Chemistry. They address questions such as:

What can science explain and what are its limits— what can’t it explain?
What are new developments in science that are pointing more toward intelligence as a cause?
How does atheistic materialism negate our ability to reason and our ability to do science?
Why does science depend on an intelligent being?
What is the origin of natural laws?
What is the origin of information and why can’t information be explained by natural laws?
Why does evolution fail to disprove God?
Even if macroevolution is true, how do we know there is an intelligence behind the evolutionary process?
What about the “God of the gaps” objection?

Dr. Lennox is his usual cogent and winsome self-offering analogies that help us all understand complex subjects.

Don’t miss this one and make sure to get his new book here: https://amzn.to/2YEp1ZU

For his movie “Against the Tide” click here: https://amzn.to/321wPqd

If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.

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

November 12, 2021/by Frank Turek

What Does It Mean That God Is “Jealous”

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

The Old Testament contains passages in which God is described as “jealous.” For instance, in Exodus 20, God’s Ten Commandments to the Israelites include the admonition not to worship false idols, with God explaining that “I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God.” Similar passages can be found elsewhere in the Bible. Joshua, for example, refers to God as both holy and “jealous.” Joshua 24:19. On first glance, this may seem a rather odd term to use, and make little sense to us, as we do not view jealousy to be an attractive, or appropriate, character trait. Certainly, it is not what we would expect of a perfect being. Indeed, theists often use these passages to make the case that a “jealous” God is petty and not worthy of our love or respect, let alone our worship.

But let’s take a closer look at what is at play. When we hear the word “jealousy,” it usually carries the connotation of a feeling of envious resentment, often brought on by another person’s rivalry or success. We are jealous of people whose accomplishments are well-respected, or who have found the means to acquire things that we too wish to possess. In some instances, it suggests a desire to possess exclusively, as in completely controlling a romantic partner. But even here, the underlying dynamic is that the person feeling jealous fears the loss of the loved one, or fears being made to look foolish if their loved one is unfaithful.

How, then, could such feelings apply to God? At the outset, it is important to recognize that our understanding of God is of necessity limited. We cannot fully know him. However, applying reason to our observations of the universe supports the belief that he is immensely powerful and intelligent, that he is a personal being (since he acted to bring us into existence), and that he transcends space and time. Reason also suggests that such a being must embody perfection. As St. Anselm once formulated in the Ontological Argument, God must be “that being a greater than which cannot possibly be conceived.” He is the ultimate, the supreme; the creator of all there is, was or ever will be. If this is indeed the case, then reason also tells us that there is nothing –simply nothing – that God wants or needs, for there is nothing that he does not already possess.

But there is another definition of “jealous” that makes a bit more sense in context, and interestingly the dictionary lists it as the “biblical” definition: “intolerant of unfaithfulness or rivalry.” But, the atheist may challenge, why should God be “intolerant?” This too seems to suggest that He is injured or diminished when his creatures turn away from Him to worship idols, when they reject him. But how can a perfect being experience injury, hurt… or even, for that matter, sad feelings?

I would suggest that there is another perspective from which to view these passages. Yes, God is “intolerant” of our worship of false idols, but he is so not because of any pettiness on his part or because of any need he experiences. Our turning away from him does indeed cause damage, but not to him; the damage caused is to us. When we make idols of things, we substitute the proper worship of God with the worship of lesser things. This causes us to turn away from God, and from the redemptive work He has planned for us. We were meant to spend eternity with God, but in our rebellion, we shake our fist at him and demand to have things our way. When we die in that rebellion, when we die with the worship of lesser things consuming our hearts and minds, we end up eternally separated from God.

Idol worship no longer involves figures made of gold. In its modern manifestation it involves love of career, success, wealth, possessions, power, sex… the list goes on and on. But the effect is always the same, to turn us away from the one true source of goodness and life. Idol worship points us back toward ourselves, as we grow increasingly selfish and separated from others, who we begin to view as means to our selfish ends, or perhaps as threats to what we have. God is not “intolerant” of this behavior because of some deficit in him. Instead, this intolerance is reflective of what is necessary for us. Loving us, he wants us to choose wisely, but because love requires free will, he will not coerce our choice.

Satellites like the one pictured above can derive energy from the Sun. But to do so, the satellite must first deploy its solar panels fully and in a particular way, and then orient them so that they are completely facing the Sun’s rays. This is not to accommodate the Sun, or to meet some “need” that the Sun has. Instead, it is to allow the thing in need of the Sun’s energy to be in the proper position, relative to the Sun, to receive what it needs.

So too with people. Only by re-orienting our hearts away from ourselves and instead toward the source of all life – the Son of God – can we hope to attain all the good that is promised to those who place their trust in Him.

Resources related to the topic:

How Can Jesus Be the Only Way? (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek

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

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he continues to work. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

November 11, 2021/by Guest

Should You Criticize Moral or Religious Beliefs?

Podcast

Is it wrong to criticize someone’s moral or religious beliefs? Many people think so. Frank takes this assertion head on and reveals that it is self-defeating, impractical, and unbiblical. For example, those who claim we can’t judge anyone’s moral beliefs are judging themselves and asserting a moral belief. If we can’t criticize someone’s moral beliefs then how can we say the Nazis were wrong or the Jihadists on 9-11 were wrong? How can you say your position on LGBTQ issues, racism, or climate change is right? How can we follow the teachings of the prophets and Jesus and the apostles? Tune in. There’s a lot of ground covered in this one!

If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.

November 5, 2021/by Frank Turek

The Fast But Quiet Creeping of Everyday Cancel Culture: 3 Things Christians Need to Know

Apologetics for Parents, Culture CrossExamined

By Natasha Crain

Last month, the CEO of video game maker Tripwire Interactive was made to step down from his job just 53 hours after he tweeted support for the new Texas abortion law (which banned abortion after the baby’s heartbeat can be detected). Here’s the offensive tweet that apparently warranted the loss of his job:

“Proud of #USSupremeCourt affirming the Texas law banning abortion for babies with a heartbeat. As an entertainer I don’t get political often. Yet with so many vocal peers on the other side of this issue, I felt it was important to go on the record as a pro-life game developer.”

That’s it.

That’s it.

He merely stated his view that he supports protecting unborn babies from being killed. But having a different view was too much for cancel culture to handle. The pressure came quickly. A co-developer, Shipwright Studios, tweeted a statement the next day in which they said they would be canceling any existing contracts with Tripwire Interactive because they could not in “good conscience continue to work with Tripwire under the current leadership structure”:

Almost unbelievably, Shipwright Studios’ About Us page has a section called “Moral Compass.” It states:

“STEM fields are notoriously unwelcoming for many demographics, but women and minorities are notably underrepresented in game industry as a whole, and game programming in particular. As a small business owned by three white men, we are not blind to the luxury of being able to keep our ‘politics’ separate from our work, as well as personal lives. But for many of our friends and colleagues, ‘politics’ are not some easily ignorable distraction.

As an industry, we can do better and we must.

While we don’t have the power to change the industry as a whole, we do have the power to change the way we conduct our business with it. We are ready to put our money where our mouth is and lend our voice to further causes that promote diversity and inclusion, preferring to work with clients working towards the same goals which only serve to enrich the industry to which we have devoted the entirety of our careers.”

I’m guessing you didn’t hear about this particular story, or if you did, you shook your head and moved on with your day. Maybe that’s what you’re doing right now.

But that’s the point of this article.

Similar actions are taking place every day across nearly every (if not every) industry. People are losing jobs for publicly sharing views that differ from what’s been deemed acceptable by secular culture.

This also happens in academia.

And Hollywood.

And in the press.

And even—if not especially—in personal relationships. Numerous people have been canceled by friends or family in the last couple of years simply because of what they believe (including myself).

You might collectively call all this “everyday cancel culture.”

Yes, there are still high profile cancel culture examples that grab sustained public attention, but it’s the everyday cancel culture that picks off person after person without national attention that’s far more insidious because the cumulative seriousness of what’s happening isn’t obvious to many people.

Meanwhile, everyday cancel culture rolls on with major implications that Christians need to understand. Here are three important things to know.

1. Cancel culture is deeply rooted in today’s pervasive secular social justice ideology, so it’s not going away any time soon.

It might be tempting to chalk all this up to mere social hysteria—a “this too shall pass” phenomenon. But that’s a really dangerous and incorrect assumption to have.

To see why, you have to understand that cancel culture’s major ideological roots grow several decades deep; this isn’t something freshly springing out of society’s top soil. And those roots are called Critical Theory.

Critical Theory as an academic subject is quite complex, but in its popular manifestations, here’s the basic idea (which is a worldview unto itself). The world is divided into two groups: those who are oppressed (the powerless) and those who are oppressors (the powerful). Those who are in the identity groups considered to be oppressed—for example, women, people of color, and the LGBT community—are victims of the social structure that has empowered the oppressors. You’ve probably heard quite a bit in the media, at least in passing, about Critical Race Theory in particular, but that’s just one Theory in the Critical Theory family—the one that deals with race-based oppression specifically. (For more on Critical Theory and its relationship to Christianity, see my article here.) The basic ideological structure of Critical Theory has become the de facto lens through which secularists view social justice, and it’s becoming entrenched in nearly every major cultural institution.

So what does that have to do with cancel culture?

In the context of Critical Theory, canceling is seen as a tool of the oppressed to deal with the sins of the oppressors.

That brings us to an important second point. But the bottom line in this one is that Critical Theory and cancel culture are integrally related concepts, and because Critical Theory is becoming firmly entrenched in society, cancel culture is likely here to stay as well.

2. Cancel culture sees itself as taking the moral high ground.

Those who aren’t steeped in the views of Critical Theory typically see cancel culture as a bad thing; it’s a dictatorial shutting down of opposing viewpoints. But if you understand it in the context of Critical Theory, it suddenly makes sense why proponents of cancel culture see it as a good thing:

The harsh actions involved with canceling people are assumed to be morally justified because they’re thought to be taken on behalf of the oppressed.

When everything is framed either implicitly or explicitly in terms of a fight against evil oppression, a lot of leeway will be given to what’s considered to be acceptable action.

The problem is how one defines oppression. Note that Shipwright Studios—the company that “canceled” Tripwire for having a pro-life CEO—said in their so-called “Moral Compass” statement that they want to lend their “voice to further causes that promote diversity and inclusion.” From a Christian perspective, it’s hard to imagine how they can’t see the irony in claiming they champion diversity and inclusion while canceling a relationship with a company whose CEO has a different view on the sanctity of life.

But once again, understanding cancel culture’s Critical Theory roots sheds light on why people like the Shipwright leadership don’t see it as ironic at all. They believe they have the moral high ground on this issue because they see it as a matter of reproductive justice. Within the framework of Feminist (Critical) Theory, it’s unjust for a woman to not have the choice to have an abortion.

In other words, the pro-life view is seen as oppressive to women.

Shipwright and others like them literally see themselves as the moral heroes and moral protectors of society, based on their own secular standard of justice (clearly, they don’t consider the injustice done to the preborn infant who is killed). When they say in their statement that they cannot “in good conscience” continue to work with Tripwire, they’re making it clear they believe they’re the good guys. And when they say would be doing the industry a disservice to “allow” a fellow industry CEO to have a public pro-life viewpoint, they’re making it clear they think canceling people for so-called oppressive views is actually a moral obligation.

3. Cancel culture will ultimately be at odds with Christianity because it has a different standard of justice.

Cancel culture proponents can make it sound like a good thing given the Critical Theory-based train of thought we just looked at. But Christians need to understand that it will continually be at odds with Christianity because secular culture has a different standard of justice (as we began to see in the last point).

Take, for example, these words from an article by progressive Vox writer Aja Romano: “The idea of canceling began as a tool for marginalized communities to assert their values against public figures who retained power and authority even after committing wrongdoing…In similar ways, both ‘wokeness’ and ‘canceling’ are tied to collectivized demands for more accountability from social systems that have long failed marginalized people and communities…Taken in good faith, the concept of ‘canceling’ a person is really about questions of accountability.”

Some people have tried to recast cancel culture as “consequence culture” to emphasize this idea of mere accountability. But accountability assumes a standard to be accountable to, and therein lies the problem.

As I explain in my upcoming book Faithfully Different (in which I have two chapters on social justice and cancel culture):

“One of the biggest problems with secular social justice from a biblical perspective is that it lacks an objective standard for defining justice in the first place. In secular social justice, oppression is often defined with respect to how people feel about dominant groups imposing their norms, values, and expectations on society as a whole, and that doesn’t necessarily correspond with what would be considered oppressive from a biblical perspective. As a result, people today are often being canceled for stating ideas that are wrong in the eyes of the world but not wrong in the eyes of God. When a person like Romano states that cancel culture is really just about accountability for when people ‘say or do bad things,’ it sounds reasonable on the surface, but it’s actually a very dangerous idea. It implies people are accountable to a mob that’s ready to take action as soon as someone’s words or actions stray from the mob’s own standard of justice.”

The mob’s standard will never be the same as God’s standard.

So where does all this leave Christians?

Given the factors discussed here, we can expect cancel culture to affect us personally and indefinitely. This mentality isn’t going away. We should just expect to be canceled in some way for stating what we believe because we’re seen as the bad guys now.

But that doesn’t mean we should be silent.

In fact, it means the opposite.

We need to be bolder than ever.

Bold enough to speak when people call us oppressors (by their own standard) and cut us off from relationships, positions, and opportunities.

Bold enough to act when people move to stop us in every way.

Bold enough to love according to what God wants for people rather than what they want for themselves.

It’s time for “salt and light” to really mean something. It’s not a cutesy phrase to put on the back of a t-shirt. It’s our calling to preserve truth in a decaying culture and shine light in a dark world. Let’s be sure we fear God more than we fear the temporal cancelation weapons of man.

For more on my upcoming book, Faithfully Different, check out pre-order details here! I wrote it to help Christians gain clarity about what it means to believe, think, and live differently as a worldview minority in a secular culture. Cancel culture and secular social justice are two of many subjects covered.

Confronting Homosexuality in a Culture of Identity (Part 3)

Culture CrossExamined, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Josh Klein

As we enter into the final section of critiquing the objections to the orthodox view of homosexual activity as a sin, it is important to note, again, why I am spending such a significant amount of time on these particular points. The rallying cry for the liberal theologian has been grace, mercy and love, but as I established in part one (HERE), I believe that true grace, mercy and love must be based on the Truth established in God’s word. In order to have proper compassion we can not entertain falsehood.

We intrinsically know this to be true. If your child believes with all his heart that he can fly and climbs to the top of your house to prove it do you let him jump because it is unloving or unmerciful to tell him he’s wrong? Or do you do whatever it takes to keep him from jumping even if it makes him cry, get angry, or hate you? A good parent does not even need to consider the problem. The correct response to the situation is natural.

In the same way, we must address sinful habits in our own lives and untruths in the world. We cannot be compassionate to the child by allowing him to plummet to his death and we cannot be compassionate to fellow believers as we watch them plunge their lives into unrepentant sin. That would be unloving. So we must first establish what is true and then we can place true empathy and compassion on top of that foundation.

The following are just a sampling of other objections I have interacted with in my time in ministry. I believe we should answer each with grace and truth and any subsequent argument ought to be handled the same way. I have attempted to do so here. I pray to God that he has empowered me to succeed in that endeavor. I answered one of the more technical objections in last week’s article that you can access by clicking here.

Homosexuality is just as much a sin as eating Shellfish in the Bible

This argument ignores New Testament scriptures on the topic completely, it is also incredibly flawed theologically and is primarily used only as an argument with which to denigrate those of the faith as inconsistent or hypocritical.

This, of course, is an argument that Christians still eat shrimp and mussels but will not agree that the homosexual act is good/right even though both come from the same book of the Bible. In Leviticus 11 we find that God forbids the consumption of shellfish to his people, likewise, just seven chapters later in Leviticus 18 God forbids men to lie with men and women to lie with women going to far as to call the act an abomination.

The difference in language of these two things is paramount to understand. While the Hebrews are to detest shellfish, they are not ordered to detest those who consume shellfish, just the shellfish itself. Consuming shellfish is detestable, but it is not an “abomination” but God does call sodomy (homosexuality) an abomination. We also find that God removes food restrictions from the believer (as well as eternal restrictions of faith!) to Peter in Acts 10:9-16, but God does not do the same thing for homosexuality.

Perhaps some might try to include homosexuality in the interpretation of Acts 10, however, the early church certainly did not. It seems that Peter and other apostles saw this vision as a twofold allowance of food consumption and God bringing salvation to the gentiles without forcing the gentiles to convert first to Judaism.

Furthermore, God had clearly defined rules for his chosen nation to set themselves apart from those around them. Simply put, part of the prohibitions in the Old Testament were simply made to distinguish God’s chosen people from the gentile nations around them. It is fair (and safe) to assume that God’s prohibition on clearly cultural differences (consuming shellfish, wearing certain fabrics, circumcision etc.) would dissolve over time as he ushered in the church age and Jesus became the fulfillment of what those laws were intended to convey, whereas his prohibition on moral issues (murder, theft, sex outside of marriage, homosexuality) would not change, because they are based on His character and His design for life, not simply on setting a nation apart for himself. There is, believe it or not, a hierarchical structure to the law of God.

Thus Leviticus 18 carries a much more relevant prohibition than Leviticus 11 because one has to do with God’s character and the other with establishing the theocracy of Israel specifically. Much has been written on this topic and I cover it only sparingly here but for a more comprehensive look at the subject the book The End of the Law by Jason Meyer is a good resource.[1]

Homosexual was not even a word in the Bible until 1946

We covered a bit of this argument in part 2, but will look at the lay argument here. Homosexual was not a word in the English dictionary until the late 19^th century, first appearing in the English dictionary in 1892. The term was coined by German psychologists in the 1860s in reference to the act of same-sex sexual relationships. Bible translations tend to run behind common vernacular by a significant time gap, thus, the fact that the first use of homosexual in an English Bible was in the mid-40s should not be a significant surprise to anyone if they honestly follow the linguistic history of scriptural translations.

Prior to the 40s the word that is translated as homosexual likely would have been translated as Sodomite or Sexually-Immoral. In fact, as we found last week, I believe those are still better translations than homosexual in many cases since they cover a broader range of sexual immorality rather than simply pointing to a homosexual relationship. However, to say that the word homosexual was not in the Bible until 1946 and that therefore it is a recent addition to the Bible is disingenuous on its face. The intent of the passages was clear prior to the 40s and helped to form the decision to insert the word in the translation history after the 40s. The interpretive history of these passages lent credence to the use of the word initially and, while it is not the best translation currently, I do not believe it to be a poor translation either, though, given the current cultural context of identity, I would still like there to be clarity in translation towards behavior and not simply attraction. My problem with the translation in general is that it is making an interpretive decision for the reader rather than simply translating the word, and this means that the narrowing of meaning could leave out important sin issues such as pedophilia, rape, cohabitation and more.

God Did Not Make a Mistake when He created Me

In fact, God did not make a mistake when he created anyone. However, to continue on the theme of Romans 1 from last week, we find that being born with a proclivity to a certain action does not necessarily make that action or desire good and right.

Being born as someone with a disposition to addiction would not make becoming addicted to pain killers good or right. In the same way, being born as someone who is highly sexually driven that desires multiple sexual partners does not make acting on those desires right and good.

In my opinion, homosexuality is the same sort of sin, but we have turned the discussion on its head. Making homosexuality a matter of identity rather than behavior did no one any good and we are currently reaping the “rewards” for such a miscalculation.

Romans 1 indicates that homosexuality is part of the fall, both for men and women. In fact, the entire first section of Romans 1-4 seeks to help the Roman church understand the depravity of man and why we need a savior. Romans 1 is not meant to indicate personal behavior, but it is meant to be read in the context of all human history.

If we read Romans 1 correctly, we will not argue and bicker about who was born what way and whether or not homosexuality is a choice. The fact of the matter is that homosexuality is a natural consequence of the original fall of man. Sin shattered God’s created order and introduced all sorts of behaviors that could be and have been deemed natural, but are, in fact, evil. (I use the word “evil” in the theological sense here – meaning rebellion against God).

No, God did not make a mistake in creating you. Scripture is clear that you are fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14), but scripture is also clear that you are a fallen human being with a natural bent towards sin that needs to be rescued from yourself and your own passions and desires. Romans 6-8 puts this struggle under the magnifying glass. The transition from death to life is immediate and permanent but it is also a process of understanding where we are broken and where we need to be mended by the Holy Spirit.

And as Paul indicates at the end of chapter 7 the only answer is through Jesus Christ, otherwise we are still under the headship of Adam and thus, in sin, and in death. Which is why having a dual identity is so problematic. This means God can remake only part of who we are, because we have eliminated him from impacting our other identity. It is sequestered off in a dark closet that his renovation crew is not allowed to touch. The exclusivity of Christ is of utmost importance in this discussion, but according to a survey recently conducted on supposed “born again” Christians, thus fundamental doctrine is also under attack. Ultimately compassion without adherence to truth ends up there. It is not a slippery slope fallacy if the slope is, in fact, slippery.

So no, God did not make a mistake in allowing any person to be born, but that also does not mean that we are all born perfect either. Two things can be true at once. God can have fearfully and wonderfully made a person and also that person could be irreparably damaged beyond repair with natural bents towards evil and self-destruction unless God intercedes on his/her behalf. All people are worthy of dignity and love because they are image bearers of the Almighty, but all people are also broken image bearers because of sin and must be repaired by their Creator.

I know this, because I am this. No, I am not a homosexual, but I am wickedly depraved. I need a savior, I have one in Jesus. This same savior is available to all who would believe, and he will make them a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17) with the ability to find victory over whatever sinful proclivities they may have been born under, because in Jesus we are offered a completely new identity.

A Homosexual in a Committed Consensual Relationship is Fulfilling a Marriage Covenant

This is the last one we will have room for in this section, and it is the easiest and most difficult to answer. The easiest, because I believe that understanding the actual meaning of Romans 1 and the passages in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy will ultimately lead one to the understanding that marriage can only be, and has only ever been, ordained between a man and woman and the marriage bed (Heb 13:4) must not include two of the same sex.

That said, it is the most difficult to answer because my heart genuinely aches for those that have those homosexual proclivities that desire to have a meaningful long-term relationship and have children and experience all that is good about those relationships. But empathy is all I can offer in that regard because scripture seems to be clear on the issue, and I do not know of a married couple that can (or should) abstain from sexual intercourse in order to maintain a pure relationship. If my answers to the previous two sections are biblically accurate, then the answer to this objection becomes obvious.[2] And as we will see next week, there are many professing gay Christians that agree with this.[3] Some resources are footnoted below.[4]

So what then?

I am sure I have not covered every single TikTok take in the previous sections. I am sure there are many more, but let us move on. What then, is the responsibility of the church? In Part 4 I want to look at a better way of handling these things than what the church has done for the past few generations. I believe the church has, and continues to have, fallen short in ministry to those that struggle in this arena and while I do not have all the answers, I do believe we can start down the path of a better way. One thing the book I mentioned in part 3 does get right is this: I believe the church’s handling of homosexuality has been myopic and graceless for many decades, and this needs to change (and it is changing), but it must change without compromise with the Truth.

References:

[1] https://www.christianbook.com/the-law-mosaic-covenant-pauline-theology/jason-meyer/9780805448429/pd/448429?event=AFF&p=1011693&

[2] https://www.amazon.com/Washed-Waiting-Reflections-Faithfulness-Homosexuality/dp/0310330033

[3] https://www.amazon.com/Born-Again-This-Way-Coming-ebook/dp/B0822YXJTC/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=born+again+this+way&qid=1630075251&s=books&sr=1-1

[4] https://www.amazon.com/Holy-Sexuality-Gospel-Desire-Relationships/dp/0735290911/ref=sxts_entity_rec_bsx_s_def_r00_t_aufl?cv_ct_cx=Christopher+Yuan&dchild=1&keywords=Christopher+Yuan&pd_rd_i=0735290911&pd_rd_r=16cfa890-064c-4ddb-ab8a-de32677f69d2&pd_rd_w=ye02G&pd_rd_wg=GblHm&pf_rd_p=923d3ad5-e62b-462e-9474-e4d7cf9b91ea&pf_rd_r=TXGCY9NT2B4VYJBZP87J&qid=1630075278&s=books&sr=1-1-795edd5f-cc24-47c7-9173-701523fd4bcf

Is Atheism Dead? | with Eric Metaxas

Podcast

Best-selling author Eric Metaxas (Bonhoeffer, Luther, Amazing Grace, Miracles) joins Frank to reveal highlights of his new book Is Atheism Dead? Eric covers the discoveries pointing to God from science and archaeology, and he does so by telling the stories leading to these momentous discoveries. It’s a delightful read, and it shows how much the script has flipped from science points away from God to now science strongly pointing toward God. On the podcast, Frank and Eric discuss the Big Bang, the fine-tuning of the universe, and the utter futility of trying to find a natural cause for the first life. The universe and life provide compelling evidence for supreme intelligence. They also cite a few of the more prominent archaeological finds, including the home of Jesus and Mary in Nazareth which was just discovered last year.

Get the book here: https://amzn.to/2Zvj5Ta

If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.

October 29, 2021/by Frank Turek

How We Got Our Bible

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

By Ryan Leasure

This article is the first in a series of nine blog posts that will unpack the story of how we got our Bible. That is to say, the Bible didn’t just fall from heaven into our laps. Rather, the Bible is the result of a long process that starts from the mind of God and ends with to our modern English translations.

The process involves inspiration of texts, collecting certain books, rejecting other books, copying of manuscripts, evaluating thousands of manuscripts to recreate the originals as much as possible, translating the Hebrew and Greek texts into English, and then creating translations that are readable in our modern vernacular.

As you may have guessed, this series will deal with some of the more crucial issues surrounding the Bible—issues such as canon, the apocrypha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, pseudopigraphical Gospels, textual criticism, the King James only movement, and so much more. I hope you will follow along with me as we trace the fascinating history of the Bible. If you’re not already a subscriber, click subscribe so you can get updates on future posts.

That said, we begin with Inspiration.

Verbal-Plenary Inspiration

Paul writes, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16-17). A few concepts are worth noting here.

First, Paul says that Scripture is “breathed out by God” (from the Greek word “theopneustos“). Technically, God “exhales” rather than “inspires” the text. In other words, he is the source behind all Scripture.

Second, notice that God inspires Scripture, not the authors themselves. This necessary distinction means that God’s inspiration extends to the final product of Scripture itself, not the human author’s day-to-day life. Meaning, the authors were fallible while their God-breathed Scripture was not.

Third, Paul notes that ALL Scripture is inspired, not just parts of it. Some have erroneously taught that inspiration only extends to the parts that touch of faith and morals. But that is not what Paul writes. When Paul says “all,” he includes the Canaanite conquests, a talking donkey, and the Levitical Code.

Biblical Authors Affirmed Inspiration

Several times throughout the Old Testament, authors acknowledged that they were writing God’s words. Consider these examples:

“Then the LORD said to Moses, “Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua”(Exod 17:14).

“Then the LORD put out his hand and touched my mouth. And the LORD said to me, “Behold I have put my words in your mouth” (Jer 1:9).

“The word of the LORD that came to Hosea, the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah” (Hos 1:1).

“On the fifth day of the month . . . the word of the LORD came to Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi . . . and the hand of the LORD was upon him there” (Ezek 1:2-3).

Furthermore, New Testament authors affirmed the Old Testament’s inspiration:

“And this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet . . .” (Matt 1:22).

“Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas” (Acts 1:16).

“But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled.” (Acts 3:18).

“David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet” (Mark 12:36).

This last quotation is from Jesus’ lips himself. That is to say, Jesus affirmed the Old Testament’s inspiration.

What About the New Testament?

When Paul writes that “All Scripture is breathed out by God,” he was most likely referring to the Old Testament since the word for Scripture (“graphe“) refers to the Old Testament when it’s used in the New Testament. We must also remember that when Paul wrote this letter, portions of the New Testament had yet to be written. Was inspiration, then, limited to the Old Testament? No it wasn’t.

Notice how Peter speaks of Paul’s letters in 2 Peter 3:15-16: “Just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” Peter appears to be lumping in Paul’s letters with the Old Testament and granting them equal authority.

First Timothy 5:18 is another crucial text on this matter. Paul writes, “For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,’ and, ‘The laborer deserves his wages.’” Paul quotes two passages in this verse and refers to both of them as Scripture. The first text comes from Deuteronomy 25:4. The second comes from Luke 10:7. That is to say, Paul thought the Gospel of Luke was Scripture on par with the Old Testament.

We even have some clues that suggest the apostles knew they were writing God’s Word. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 14:37, “If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.” Additionally, Paul declares in 1 Thessalonians 2:13, “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God.”

Peter also remarks, “You should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles” (2 Peter 3:2). The apostles, then, believed that they spoke authoritatively from God. And they could do this because Jesus promised them that the Holy Spirit would guide them in the process (John 14:26; 16:13).

Mechanical Dictation?

Peter notes, “Knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet 1:20-21). Some suggest that the Holy Spirit’s activity sounds an awful lot like mechanical dictation. But this would be a mistake. As I alluded to earlier, inspiration extends only to the final product of Scripture. Meaning, God worked within and through the human authors’ skills, personalities, and experiences as they wrote their various works. In short, the dozens of biblical authors produced their Scripture in different ways.

The author of Hebrews makes this point when he begins, “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets” (Heb 1:1). Notice how he affirms that the prophets spoke “in many ways.” And Scripture makes these different ways abundantly clear. Consider a few examples:

Investigation/Interpretation: “Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories” (1 Pet 1:10-11).
Dictation: “To the angel of the church in Ephesus write . . .” (Rev 2:1)
Research: “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus” (Luke 1:1-3).

Additionally, biblical authors wrote poetry, wisdom literature, letters, and prophecy. And in doing so, God worked through them in such a way as to not override their unique perspective. At the same time, he superintended the process to guarantee that his exact message was communicated. As the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy remarks, “We affirm that God in His Work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared. We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.”¹

Evidence of Inspiration

Some argue that inspiration appeals to circular reasoning because we must appeal to Scripture itself to affirm inspiration. While that’s a fair critique, Christians are right to appeal to Scripture because it is our highest authority. If we appeal to, say human reasoning, then we elevate human reasoning to a higher authority than Scripture.

That said, we have good evidence for inspiration in fulfilled prophecy. I could list dozens of fulfilled prophecies, but I will only mention two briefly. First, Isaiah 53 correctly predicts Christ’s crucifixion. Of note is the fact that Isaiah says that he will “pierced for our transgression” (Isa 53:5). This method of death is significant because at the time, Jewish methods of execution were stoning or hanging. How could Isaiah rightly predict the kind of death Jesus would suffer seven hundred years in advance?

Another example is Daniel 9. While I won’t go into detail, Daniel predicts the exact timing of Christ’s arrival. More than that, Daniel says that the Messiah will be “cut off” (killed) just prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. Jesus was crucified in AD 30. The Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70.

Inerrancy

Inerrancy naturally follows from inspiration. In other words, if God is the author behind the entire Bible, it must all be true because God always speaks truth. Consider the following texts

“It is impossible for God to lie” (Heb 6:18).

“You are God, and your words are true” (2 Sam 7:28).

“Every word of God proves true” (Prov 30:5).

“Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17).

Notice that Jesus doesn’t just say that God’s word is true, but it is TRUTH. It is the absolute standard of truth. And lest anyone thinks this idea of inerrancy is a modern invention, listen to a few of the church fathers:

“You have searched the Scriptures, which are true and given by the Holy Spirit. You know that nothing unrighteous or counterfeit is written in them.” — Clement of Rome, 1st century

“The statements of Holy Scripture will never contradict the truth.” — Tertullian, 3rd century

“It is the opinion of some that the Scriptures do not agree or that the God who gave them is false. But there is no disagreement at all. Far from it! The Father, who is truth, cannot lie.” — Athanasius, 4th century

In short, while Scripture does not give us exhaustive knowledge of all things (how to change a tire for example), it does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact.

The Next Post

The next post will consider how the Old Testament came to be. Specifically, it will address the unfolding nature of the Old Testament, its authors and editors, as well as its preservation.

Before You Hit Send by Emerson Eggerichs- Audio Book Highlight

Culture CrossExamined, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

If you consume a large portion of your material through audio, it is hard to get past a good deal on an excellent audio book. Twice every year ChristianAudio.com runs a sale on most of their collection, and you can usually pick up these great audio resources for $7.49. The time has come for the first sale of 2021 (and beyond), so I will be highlighting some of my favorite audio books. I’ll include a few of my favorite quotes from the books, my recommendation from my chapter-by-chapter reviews, links to posts that were inspired by the books, and, of course, I will include links to the audio book deal throughout the article. Today, I am highlighting Before You Hit Send: Preventing Headache and Heartache by Dr. Emerson Eggerichs.

Before You Hit Send– My Recommendation

I was first introduced to Dr. Emerson Eggerichs’ work about a decade ago when my wife and I were at the local Christian bookstore, and one of his books about communication in marriage was on sale. I picked it up and found that it was on target with what Scripture taught about male and female communication and what my wife and I had experienced in our own marriage. After reading his flagship book “Love and Respect: The Love She Desires Most; The Respect He Desperately Needs” and listening to the podcast he produced for a couple years, I (along with many others) realized that the communication principles he drew from Scripture rang true in all relationships, not just marriage.

When I found out that he wrote a book on general communication in all relationships and focused on communication in the age of social media, I was ecstatic! As a defender of the Christian worldview, I am constantly engaging skeptics and presenting the evidence for the truth of what I believe. The common passage of scripture that is quoted to support this aspect of evangelism is 1 Peter 3:15: “Always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you, and do so with gentleness and respect.” This passage emphasizes not merely the content of our defense but also the delivery of the content: “with gentleness and respect.” Learning to be wise communicators is necessary for anyone who wishes to obey Peter’s command in full.

“Before You Hit Send” is an incredible listen. Because of the fact that I have dedicated my life to defending the truth of the Christian worldview, which has eternal consequences for my audience, along with being in constant prayer, I am always looking for ways to ensure that I am communicating my case as persuasively as possible. As we defend the truth of Christianity, we may be removing intellectual stumbling blocks, but we may be introducing emotional ones. Kind, necessary, and clear communication are equally as necessary as true communication. In so thoroughly covering the possible pitfalls in all four aspects of our communication, Dr. Eggerichs has provided an indispensable resource.

The principles discussed, of course, apply to all of our communicative relationships on all topics, whether at home, at work, at church, at the coffee shop, or on social media. We must remember that every time that we communicate with another person, as Christians, we are giving them an impression of Christ, so we must guard that impression to ensure that we accurately reflect Him. Whether we are actively looking for the opportunity to evangelize and defend or not, at some point, we will be called upon to give a reason for the hope that we have to those we have communicated with, and we do not want our past failures to taint the answer that we provide. I highly recommend “Before You Hit Send.” Every Christian needs to listen to this book thoughtfully and prayerfully.

You can read the complete chapter-by-chapter summary review by clicking or tapping here.

Before You Hit Send by Emerson Eggerichs- Favorite Quotes

“When people cannot win on the merits of their performance, products, or positions, they are tempted to cross a line and speak horribly of the opponent, perhaps even lying.”

“Some people enter politics because they derive personal fulfillment from the ‘gotcha’ approach to issues. It isn’t about what is true but about the political chess game. The key is to put a better spin on a matter than the other candidate and to put the opposition in checkmate.”

“It makes no difference if our spin is compelled by our compassion or career advancement or the suppression of opposite positions; little good comes to us when we refuse to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”

“Being a person who communicates what is true frequently demands tact, and at times it can feel like side-stepping land mines. It takes work to be both truthful and tactful.”

“When you are truthful all day long while being unkind, hateful, and contemptuous, you are making more enemies than friends…Our hostility and disdain close off the spirits of others to the very truth we wish them to hear.”

“Truth carries its own weight, and we should feel confident about this. When we yield to ‘might makes right,’ there is something inherently wrong in what we believe, and we know it.”

“Perhaps in many cases we didn’t know it was untrue. No harm, no foul. Even so, an honest error in judgment does not make it okay, especially when we repeatedly make such mistakes. The real point here is to the lazy and neglectful individuals who keep making mistakes and claim they did not know the truth. They may be innocent, but one becomes guilty of carelessness and inattentiveness. We must aggressively get our facts straight to avoid a routine of ‘honest’ mistakes.”

“The more important the communication the less I can afford making glaring mistakes.”

“Our communication is very important to God. As odd as this sounds, God is reading our mail, and when we are not truthful, we are not truthful with Him. It isn’t that we cannot lie, but we ask, Why would I when I love God and He loves me, and my communication is really a reflection of my communion with Him? This is our deepest mind-set before hitting send. We have an audience of One.”

“Truth without love is comparable to heart surgery without anesthesia.”

“The Golden Rule says, ‘Treat others the same way you want them to treat you.’ (Luke 6:31).. What I find fascinating is that some people—some very smart people—compromise at this juncture. They want to be treated with the Golden Rule of true communication but do not want to be bound by it.”

“Oftentimes, other’ perceptions behind our communications are just as important as our intentions behind what we were sharing. Though we may have spoken truthfully with kindness and respect, and at the necessary time, if the communication is not perceived in the way we intended, then we must ask ourselves if we were as clear as we could have been.”

“When we conclude the other person needs the light of the truth, and we can speak it lovingly, respectfully, and coherently, then we ought to communicate it. We must speak up for the sake of the truth and for the sake of the other person.”

Tag Archive for: apologetics

Benefits of Active Listening

Benefits of Moral Apologetics

Conclusion

References:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

So, what then?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Resources related to the topic:

1. Cancel culture is deeply rooted in today’s pervasive secular social justice ideology, so it’s not going away any time soon.

2. Cancel culture sees itself as taking the moral high ground.

3. Cancel culture will ultimately be at odds with Christianity because it has a different standard of justice.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Homosexuality is just as much a sin as eating Shellfish in the Bible

Homosexual was not even a word in the Bible until 1946

God Did Not Make a Mistake when He created Me

A Homosexual in a Committed Consensual Relationship is Fulfilling a Marriage Covenant

So what then?

References:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Verbal-Plenary Inspiration

Biblical Authors Affirmed Inspiration

What About the New Testament?

Mechanical Dictation?

Evidence of Inspiration

Inerrancy

The Next Post

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Introduction

Before You Hit Send– My Recommendation

Before You Hit Send by Emerson Eggerichs- Favorite Quotes

Recommended resources related to the topic: