apologetics Archives - Page 54 of 138

Tag Archive for: apologetics

Who is the Leading Person of Interest?

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

Why are murders so interesting to us? Some of the most popular podcasts, videos, and news headlines are about high-profile homicides. We are often consumed with the primary suspect the cops often call “the person of interest.” Right now, the headlines are obsessed with Brian Laundrie? Where is he? Did he do it? If so, why? And will he get justice?

Unfortunately, over the long run, the person of interest is usually remembered much more than his victims. We remember names like Charles Manson, Jeffery Dahmer, and Ted Bundy, but we usually forget those they killed.

But what if there is one huge exception to that typical outcome? What if the most remembered and influential name in human history isn’t a villain but actually a murder victim himself?

Cold-Case Homicide Detective J. Warner Wallace makes that exact case in his astonishing new book Person of Interest. Wallace shows the unparalleled impact a murdered Jewish preacher from an obscure corner of the ancient Roman Empire has had on the world over the past two thousand years.

Jesus of Nazareth is not only the central figure of the world’s largest religion, but he is also the central figure of influence throughout human history. In a book filled with over 400 of his own illuminating drawings, Wallace shows that even if every Bible and manuscript suddenly vanished from the planet, you could reconstruct the “explosive” appearance of Jesus and his essential teachings from the “fuse” of ancient history and the “fallout” of the past two thousand years.

Consider for a moment the impact Jesus had on literature. Jesus has been written about more than any other figure in history. To date, there are more than 109 million books written about Jesus (George Washington is a distant second at nearly 59 million books). No one, and I mean no one, has inspired authors and writers like Jesus of Nazareth, and this influence started early.

Wallace illustrates a robust list of Christian and non-Christian voices found on ancient manuscripts in the earliest centuries of the Common Era – more non-Christian than Christian – who describes Jesus and his followers. From these early voices, the entire story of Jesus can be reconstructed even if every New Testament manuscript had been destroyed.

Jesus dominates another form of literature: screenplays. Wallace assembles the movies crafted about Jesus of Nazareth in an illustration that demonstrates the unparalleled impact of Jesus on moviemakers (The Jesus Film, for example, remains the most translated and viewed movie of all time). But there’s more. Great thinkers and theologians have written about Jesus over the centuries, establishing a robust Christian publishing industry that thrives to this very day. Even non-Christians are compelled to allude to Jesus in one way or another. Christ figures—parallels to Jesus—populate not just classical literature but even popular fiction.

You’d have to destroy much more than the New Testament to erase Jesus from the world’s pages. You’d have to destroy much of the history of literature.

But that’s only one aspect of the “fallout” indebted to Jesus. Wallace also describes and illustrates the monumental impact Jesus had on education, science, art, music, and other world religions. Unlike other books that simply explain the role Jesus played in human history, Person of Interest uncovers the hidden evidence you might not have considered in the aspects of culture most revered by non-believers. The impact of Jesus has been seismic, and from His fingerprints in each area of human history, His story can be completely reconstructed.

How did a man who never led an army, never held an office, never started a company, never wrote a book, never had children, never travelled more than 200 miles from where he was born—a man who was murdered two thousand years ago—become the most important person of interest and the greatest influence in all human history?

Maybe because he wasn’t just a man. Maybe because his murderers couldn’t keep Him in the grave. Person of Interest will leave you thinking and feeling that’s, by far, the most reasonable explanation.

Confronting Homosexuality in a Culture of Identity (Part 1)

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Josh Klein

Lil Nas X

Do you know the name? I do not know why you would, but Lil Nas X has become a bit of a cultural icon in recent years. He wrote a hit country/hip-hop song in 2019 called “Old Town Road” with country star Billy Ray Cyrus. The success of the hit propelled Lil Nas X into the modern spotlight. The song, and its remix, won him fourteen awards spanning from the Grammys to Kids’ Choice Awards[1].

As a result, Lil Nas X toured the country singing for elementary-age kids and was even quoted as saying young kids were his “core audience”[2] in early 2021.

Why am I writing about Lil Nas X on a Christian website?

Well, this man that vies for the eyes and ears of children recently released a new music video that is anything but “kid-friendly.” In his song Montero, Lil Nas X is seen flirting with the Devil, having the Devil lick his navel, pole dancing to Hell, and then giving Satan a lap dance in the underworld. At the end of the clip, Lil Nas X breaks Satan’s neck and removes his crown, declaring himself the king of Hell (which we know is inaccurate, theologically speaking… Satan does not rule Hell – see Rescuing Hell).

To capitalize off the viral video’s success, Lil Nas X also teamed up with a branding company called MSCHF (a play on the word mischief) to release a pair of Nike-branded shoes (Nike has since sued MSCHF for copyright infringement) dedicated to Satan[3].

Lil Nas X also happens to be a gay man. Which would not even be on the top list of problems with the aforementioned publicity stunt, but since Lil Nas X used his upbringing as a catalyst for the release of the new song and video, it is pertinent to the conversation[4].

This article, though, is not about Lil Nas X, or Satan shoes, or the increasing leftist dogma being thrust upon our children.

I wanted to look at the core issue around Lil Nas X’s song, and a core issue going on in Evangelical circles for the past decade-plus.

Homosexuality.

A few weeks ago, I got a text from a young person concerning this very subject:

“I want to do research into God’s view on homosexuality because I’ve been seeing a lot of different takes on TikTok and Instagram and such but it could be heresy or misinterpretation or something else and I want to find out for myself.”

In Sean and Josh McDowell’s book The Beauty of Intolerance[5], the two seek to tackle the issue of Truth and Love and use the example of a family’s argument about sexuality as the impetus for such a discussion. If you have not read the book, it is a good read and gets to the point of the current culture of a new tolerance that seeks compliance, rather than acceptance, to a narrative of subjective moral values.

But the argument on homosexuality within the Church goes back decades, so what is new? The newness of the issues stems from a poor approach to the issue of homosexuality in the 1970s-1990s from the conservative evangelical Church. Homosexuality was rarely talked about and was often seen as a political issue more than a sin issue. I highlight some of this in a previous article on Free Thinking Ministry’s website[6] (Cuties article) so I won’t go into all of the history here.

However, I think it is important to note that the argument that Christians got lost on during that time was whether or not Homosexuality was a choice or genetic.

The argument goes that if it was a choice, we could reform the homosexual; but if it was genetic, then we could not. This argument also implies that natural proclivity could equate to God-ordained behavior.

I remember growing up in the ‘90s hearing many evangelicals talk like it was absolutely imperative that no “gay gene” would ever be found. Almost as if that scientific discovery would shatter thousands of years of orthodoxy on the topic.

But the biblical case against homosexual behavior is not genetic.

It is spiritual and biblical.

Genetics are just as affected by the fall as our spiritual state, and we know this. When we say things like “in the end, there will be no more sickness or death,” we are not just referring to scripture (Rev. 21:4) but we are affirming that there is a physical component to the fallen nature of man. In other words: Our DNA, physical dispositions, and natural proclivities are fallen just as our soul is fallen.

I want to be clear, I am not calling homosexuality a sickness, at least not a mental illness anyway. But it, like many other “dispositional sins” is a sickness of the soul.

Homosexuality is a product of the fall[7] just as much as lying, cheating, or heterosexual promiscuity. Whether or not it is natural is of no relevance to the theological topic. There are many natural behaviors that we are called to curb as Christians. Covetousness, lust, greed, and pride are just a few of many natural proclivities that human beings are born with that must be dealt with overtime in the sanctification process of the Christian.

Homosexuality falls in line with many of those natural proclivity sins. The church argued against genetics when it never needed to, and as it argued against genetics it allowed a narrative of identity to undercut the nature of the issue.

And now we have a bigger problem.

No longer are we speaking to the activity, we are speaking to a person, and in their minds, we are asking them not to be themselves. We are telling them to release, not only a proclivity of human nature but their entire identity of belonging.

In a sense, we are telling them to call themselves evil.

But no Christian worth his/her theological salt would state that being gay condemns a person to Hell. No, we are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are constituted sinners, and thus, we stand condemned already (John 3:17). In a sense, it is not sin that makes us evil but our evil hearts that make us sin. God rescues us from our already moribund disposition. We are all basically bad and we all need a new identity to overcome this badness.

However, one can see why someone that identifies with being a homosexual would find it hard to follow a God that calls what they think is their defining nature a sin. If a person is basically good, then their core identity is also basically good.

But orthodox Christian doctrine teaches, and rightfully and logically so, that we are all basically bad and in need of saving. Our identity then is sin and we need an exchange of identity to be good! All of us.

Orthodox theology, to the LGBTQ+ people, screams that God made a mistake when He made them. And like Lil Nas X, they either hate themselves or rebel against the faith altogether:

The result of preaching behavioral modification instead of identity transformation is self-loathing and angst, not a conviction.

The natural result of this, then, is to capitulate to the offended; and the liberal theological movement sought to do just that. They sought to provide a theological landing spot for hurting homosexuals in the body of Christ.

God is love, and as a result, He would not want anyone hating themselves because of their identity. So, we must augment our hamartiology (the study of sin) to allow for behavior that was understood to be sinful over the history of the church because God does not make mistakes.

It is true that God does not make mistakes, but it is not true that His creation right now is perfected. Thus, we are inherently flawed and sinful. If we were not, why would we need a savior at all?

The mistake the liberal theologians make is to assume that there is any room for an identity other than “child of God”[8].

I am a man that is attracted to the opposite sex, but my identity is not wrapped up in that attraction.

My identity is either a sinner or saint. Blessed by God to be invited into His family, I can declare that I am a child of God that happens to be attracted to women. However, as a result, that natural proclivity of attraction must be curbed to reflect God’s design.

One woman for a lifetime.

I have embraced this limitation joyfully, because it is no limitation at all, but is a realization of the freedom found in the Godhead through Christ. And I believe, firmly, that those who are homosexuals can experience this same counter-intuitive freedom. More on that in the next few weeks.

The response to homosexuality in that regard should be simple enough. You can be a man or woman that happens to be attracted to the same sex (regardless of if it is a choice or is a genetic disposition) but if you are a child of God (believer in Jesus as your Savior) then that proclivity of attraction must be curbed to reflect God’s design.

Which, unfortunately for the person with natural homosexual proclivities, would be self-denial of acting on that attraction.

My heart aches for this person in a very real way and my empathy extends to them in more ways than they know. But the truth is the truth, and sin is sin. There is no such thing as having compassion on a lie, for entertaining a lie and letting it live is neither compassionate nor merciful. True compassion is lovingly, but firmly, confronting sin and falsehood in the name of Christ and offering freedom in His name.

Just as any heterosexual man that has struggled with pornography will attest, this self-denial of sexual pleasure is beyond difficult and nothing to be glossed over. But we do not deny sexual pleasure to punish ourselves, we do so to glorify God. Boundaries are not set to avoid Hell, they are set to glorify heaven. When we make the mistake of setting boundaries around sin to avoid sin instead of to glorify God we set ourselves, and others, up for fantastic failure.

And it is when we do this that we are tempted to empathize with the seemingly unwinnable battle. I have empathy for all who fight to avoid sin. I know how hard that is, but misplaced empathy can lead to a dangerous theological road and that is what we will tackle next week. How do we show empathy but hold fast to the truth? For that is true mercy and compassion. And that is the mission of the Christian.

Footnotes

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Lil_Nas_X

[2] https://www.gpb.org/news/2021/01/06/lil-nas-x-says-children-are-his-core-audience-right-now-and-thats-ok

[3] https://satan.shoes/

[4] https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/lil-nas-x-s-satan-shoes-trolled-some-christians-montero-ncna1262495

[5] https://www.amazon.com/Beauty-Intolerance-Setting-Generation-Truth-ebook/dp/B015F06DMS

[6] https://freethinkingministries.com/cuties-the-natural-progression-of-love-is-love/

[7] https://biblia.com/bible/esv/romans/1/26-27

[8] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+3%3A1&version=NASB1995

Person of Interest | with J. Warner Wallace

Podcast

Detective Wallace is back to show us through his new book, Person of Interest, the monumental and unparalleled impact Jesus of Nazareth has had on the entire world. But this isn’t a softball interview. Frank plays devil’s advocate with Jim to see how he responds to some tough objection’s skeptics might levy against some of his points, such as:

Sure, Jesus has had a big impact, but couldn’t Christianity be based on a lie and then promoted by the Roman empire?
You say Christians started science, but everyone was a Christian back then, so what’s the big deal?
Aren’t science and Christianity at odds? After all, look at how the church treated Galileo!

As for the book, it is truly a unique and inspiring work that helps you realize the tremendous influence of the historical Jesus, which is best explained by His resurrection from the dead. Person of Interest is wonderfully argued and illustrated (over 400 drawings). If you want to buy the book or view a sample chapter, go to www.personofinterestbook.com.

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: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

September 24, 2021/by Frank Turek

Serpents, Dragons, and the Bible

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

If you’re from an Appalachian snake-handling church, I’m sorry to disappoint. This is not THAT kind of post. Instead, it’s a post about how the Bible portrays snakes, serpents, and dragons. More than that, it’s about how a mighty warrior defeats the serpent to rescue his precious bride. If that story sounds familiar to you, it’s because so many great children’s tales of the past echo this same story.

You see, the Bible presents three main characters:[1] 1) The Serpent (the villain—Satan), 2) The Damsel in Distress (the people of God), and 3) The Serpent Slayer (the hero—Jesus).

It’s worth noting that “Serpent” is a biblical catch-all term that includes both snakes and dragons.[2] In other words, serpent is an umbrella category while snakes and dragons are more specific. Also worth noting is that the ancients did not think of dragons as fire-breathing creatures with wings. Rather, they thought of them as giant serpents. Throughout the Bible, serpents take on either form depending on the situation. Biblical scholar Andrew Naselli remarks, “As a general rule, the form a serpent takes depends on its strategy. When a serpent in Scripture attempts to deceive, it’s a snake. When a serpent attempts to devour, it’s a dragon.”[3]

With those anecdotes in mind, let’s start from the very beginning.

The Serpent in the Garden

The very beginning was pure bliss. A perfect, holy God decided to share his goodness so he created a universe ex nihilo. As the crowning jewels of God’s creation, humans walked in fellowship with him in the garden. However, they let their guard down and allowed the serpent to enter. Genesis 3:1 notes, “Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made.”

Crafty (or deceitful) describes this serpent perfectly. For immediately, he questioned Eve, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” Notice the serpent’s tactic. He called into question God’s Word. He implanted doubts in the woman’s mind so that she began to entertain alternative options. After the woman said that eating of the tree in the middle of the garden would lead to death, the serpent went on contradict God’s Word altogether. He declared, “You will not surely die.” And then he called into question God’s motives. “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

The serpent succeeded. Eve ate the fruit, gave some to Adam, and he ate too. And immediately everything changed. Their innocence was lost, and they knew they were naked. Because of their shame, they tried to hide themselves from God but to no avail. God confronted them over their disobedience. Adam blamed Eve, and Eve blamed the serpent. She remarked in 3:13, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” As a result, God banished them from his holy presence where they would live in exile. Now recall that when the serpent takes on the form of a snake, his primary tactic is to deceive. And this is what he has done.

God, however, would not allow the serpent to have the final word. He judged the serpent and promised to one day destroy him when he asserted, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” (Gen 3:15). The rest of Scripture traces the ongoing battle between the seed of the woman (the people of God) and the seed of the serpent (enemies of God and his people). Ultimately, the singular seed of the woman (Gal 3:16), will utterly destroy the serpent even though the serpent will injure him in the process.

Serpents Portrayed Negatively

Before we look at a few examples of the seed of the serpent waging battle on the seed of the woman, I simply want to draw our attention to the fact that serpents are associated with evil throughout Scripture.

Consider the following texts:

The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies. They have venom like the venom of a serpent, like the deaf adder that stops its ear, so that it does not hear the voice of the charmers or of the cunning enchanter (Psalm 58:3-5).

They make their tongue sharp as a serpent’s, and under their lips is the venom of asps (Psalm 140:3).

Serpents often symbolize God’s enemies:

The nations shall see and be ashamed of all their might; they shall lay their hands on their mouths; their ears shall be deaf; they shall lick the dust like a serpent, like the crawling things of the earth; they shall come trembling out of their strongholds; they shall turn in dread to the LORD our God, and they shall be in ear of you (Mic 7:16-17).

The seventy-two returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!” And he said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you (Luke 10:17-19).

As was alluded to earlier, the serpent takes on the form of a dragon when he wants to destroy. The following texts describe the dragon as a sea monster called Leviathan and Rahab.

In that day the LORD with his hard and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will slay the dragon that is in the sea (Isa 27:1).

By his power he stilled the sea; by his understanding he shattered Rahab. By his wind the heavens were made fair; his hand pierced the fleeing serpent (Job 26:12-13).

See also Job 41 which describes God’s sovereignty over the monstrous sea serpent Leviathan.

The Egyptian Serpent

The storyline of Scripture portrays the seed of the serpent (God’s enemies) in conflict with the seed of the woman (God’s people). Perhaps the clearest example of the seed of the serpent is Egypt and its Pharaoh. The Lord says to Pharaoh in Ezekiel 32:2, “You are like a dragon in the seas.” Remember that the dragon seeks to destroy the seed of the woman, and this is what he set out to do when he ordered the death of all the Israelite babies (Ex 1:15-22).

One also thinks of the episode where Aaron’s staff transformed into a snake and swallowed the staffs/snakes of Pharaoh’s magicians (Ex 7:8-13). Most likely, Aaron’s staff turned into a cobra which also happened to be featured on Pharaoh’s headdress. This headdress symbolized divine power and protection and was fashioned after an Egyptian goddess named Uraeus. By wearing the Cobra headdress, Pharaoh was able to channel the powers of the deity.

Thus, “when Moses had Aaron fling the rod snake before Pharaoh,” argues archaeological scholar John Currid, “he was directly assaulting that token of Pharaonic sovereignty—the scene was one of polemical taunting. When Aaron’s rod swallowed the staffs of the Egyptian magicians, Pharaonic deity and omnipotence were being denounced and rejected outright. Pharaoh’s cobra-crested diadem had no power against Yahweh.”[4]

Reflecting back on the Exodus out of Egypt, the biblical authors saw it as a victory over the serpent. Psalm 74:12-14 declares:

Yet God my King is from of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth. You divided the sea by your might; you broke the heads of the sea monsters on the waters. You crushed the heads of Leviathan; you gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness.

While the ultimate victory still awaited, God was already foreshadowing how he was going to one day crush the head of the serpent.

Goliath the Serpent

One of the best-known stories from the Old Testament is David’s defeat of Goliath. This story portrays Goliath as a giant serpent who seeks to devour the seed of the woman. We know this because as 1 Samuel 17:5 makes clear, Goliath “was clothed with scale-armor” (NASB and NIV). While some translations simply translate this as “a coat of mail” (ESV), the most literal rendering is “armor of scales.”

The Hebrew word for “scale” appears seven other times in the Old Testament, and each time it refers to the scales of fish—including sea dragons.[5] It’s noteworthy that God also calls Pharaoh the “great dragon” with “scales” in Ezekiel 29:3-4. Pharaoh and Goliath are the only two people in the Bible who are said to have “scales.”

As the story of 1 Samuel 17 unfolds, David proclaims that the battle is the LORD’s and then proceeds to sink a stone into the forehead of the giant serpent who then falls face-first into the ground to eat dust like the serpent of old (Gen 3:14) Once more God foreshadows how he will crush the head of the serpent and deliver his people.

The Serpent in the Gospels

We find several instances where the seed of the serpent tries to destroy the seed of the woman. Just like the ancient Pharaoh, King Herod tried to kill all the Bethlehem boys in an attempt to kill the singular seed of the woman (Matt 2:16-18).

Repeatedly, we find that the Pharisees and Sadducees are portrayed as the seed of the serpent. Jesus says to them, “You are of your father the devil” (John 8:44). When John the Baptist saw them coming from afar, he cried out, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our Father” (Matt 3:7-9). Similarly, Jesus cries out to the Pharisees in Matthew 23, “You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?” In short, the Pharisees and Sadducees are the seed of the serpent who wage war on the seed of the woman.

The Dragon is Slayed

We round out this discussion by going to the very end where the book of Revelation proclaims the final demise of the serpent. Revelation 12:3-5 notes:

Behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems. His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she bore her child he might devour it. She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne.

Here we read that that this powerful, red (blood-thirsty) dragon seeks to devour the seed of the woman. Yet, God delivered the seed from the dragon’s pursuits.

Revelation 12:7-9 continues:

Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back,but he was defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

Notice that the dragon is none other than Satan himself—that ancient serpent and deceiver of the whole world. And he is thrown down. But how? Did the archangel Michael destroy the dragon all by himself?

Revelation 12:11 declares

And they have conquered [the dragon] by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death.

Satan was ultimately defeated by the blood of the Lamb! It was Jesus Christ who conquered Satan. That moment on the cross, when it looked as if the serpent was going to prevail, his head was crushed by the seed of the woman (Gen 3:15).

Fast-forward to Revelation 20, right on the heels of the Millennium, we read in verse 10:

And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

In the end, the mighty serpent-slayer defeated the ancient serpent and rescued his bride so that she can no longer be deceived or devoured. Or to put it another way, the prince slayed the dragon and got his girl.[6]

Notes

[1] Andrew Naselli, The Serpent, and the Serpent Slayer, 18.

[2] Ibid., 18.

[3] Ibid., 18.

[4] John Currid, Ancient Egypt, 93-94.

[5] Andrew Naselli, The Serpent, and the Serpent Slayer, 90.

[6] Ibid., 15.

Do You Trust Science?

Podcast

Do you trust experts? Do you trust science? Why do we get conflicting advice from experts and scientists?

Frank investigates those questions by citing the bogus papers Dr. Peter Boghossian published in academic journals which exposes that experts, like the rest of us, are susceptible to biases, social pressure, ideological blindness, and groupthink. Be especially wary when people claim there is a scientific “consensus”! That normally means there really isn’t a consensus, and people will pressure dissenters into silence. But the history of science shows that our knowledge advances when we question the prevailing orthodoxy— when we ask for the evidence that people use to come to their conclusions.

Frank also cites evidence that science related to Covid has become politicized— that certain policies and treatment recommendations lead to contradictions and questions. The censors will be out for this episode!

Links cited:

My University Sacrificed Ideas for Ideology. So Today I Quit.

Politics Disguised as Science: When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’

The Grievance Studies Affair revealed

There is no American monarchy

Ivermectin Wins in India

Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19

A five-day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of illness

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

September 17, 2021/by Frank Turek

On Apologetics and Spiritual Warfare

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

In my experience, the typical discussion of “spiritual warfare” centers on the stuff of the old Frank Peretti novels like This Present Darkness or Piercing the Darkness. It’s all about gargoyle-looking demons snarling on our shoulders, power plays, and satanic influences. But the whole “devil made me do it” thing has always seemed a little over-the-top to me. For that reason, it’s a subject I have mostly ignored. It certainly never seemed to have much to do with the things I like to talk about here — arguments and evidence. But it turns out there is a direct connection between apologetics and spiritual warfare. And all of us need to understand what it is.

The Balanced View

As usual, C. S. Lewis encourages us to consider a more reasonable view of the spiritual warfare than the one we usually hear:

“There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them.”

~ C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

Balance is always good. And if you want an introduction to that view of spiritual warfare, there is no more entertaining way to get it than reading C. S. Lewis,’ The Screwtape Letters. The gist of the book is that Screwtape is a senior demon who is training his understudy, Wormwood, about how to best mess with humans. The book is a record of their dialogue. It’s a training manual for spiritual warfare — from the bad guys’ point-of-view.

Lewis said it was the most difficult book he ever wrote because it forced him to think backwards. God is the “enemy.” Promoting evil is Screwtape’s mission.

I’ve always enjoyed Lewis’ unique approach. But more recently, I’ve come to see spiritual warfare in an even more pragmatic way.

Close Encounters of a Different Kind

In lesson two of his 8-part course, The Bible Fast Forward, Greg Koukl makes a fantastic insight about this. He points out that much of the emphasis in the church on spiritual warfare has been on engaging in power encounters. We talk about binding, loosing, and casting out demons with specific kinds of prayers. Much like Frank Peretti, we focus on methods we can use to counteract the evil enterprises of the enemy.

But, Koukl says, Scripture suggests something different. His point is that the essential character of spiritual warfare is not about power encounters with the devil. It is about truth encounters. It’s about opposing lies and deception.

Paul’s Take on Warfare

In 2nd Corinthians 10:3-5, Paul addresses the issue this way:

“For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.”

Then, in Ephesians 6, the most famously quoted Bible passage on the subject, Paul goes on to describe the fight:

“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”

But in the plea that follows, Paul doesn’t tell the Ephesians to pray against the rulers, authorities, and powers. Rather, he tells them to pray for perseverance. He asks them to pray that he and those around him might speak the truth fearlessly.

Do you see the difference?

The Battlefield of Ideas

The weapons of spiritual warfare are thoughts. The battlefield is in our minds. And that means that an apologist — a defender of the faith — lives at the forward edge of the battle area. The battlefield is not just a place to make arguments about topics like the existence of God, the design of the universe, or the reliability of Scripture.

It’s a place to fight for the essence of truth itself.

Think about it. Normal, rationally thinking human beings could never come up with some of the ideas our culture accepts without question. Those who argue in favor of corruptions of human sexuality — things like same-sex “marriage” or gender fluidity — aren’t just arguing about the moral nature of their conduct. Reasonable people could debate that kind of thing. Instead, they are denying biological reality itself. And, as Carl Trueman puts it in his book, The Rise & Triumph of the Modern Self, “many in our society [insist that] to deny it or question it in some way is to reveal oneself as stupid, immoral, or subject to yet another irrational phobia.”*

In other words, the culture holds in contempt anyone who claims to see reality for what it actually is. We have arrived at the place George Orwell warned about 100 years ago, “In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

Not Just A Cultural Trend

Human sexuality is at the epicenter of the cultural battles that are raging around the topics of truth and reality. But it’s not the only issue. Our society has also accepted without argument the idea that science will solve all our problems. This philosophical view is called “Scientism.” And it’s based on the notion that science and faith are in a perpetual state of war. But, as I’ve discussed elsewhere, that is a lie. Science and theology are complementary ways knowing things about the world. They are mutually reinforcing allies in the ongoing battle for the truth.

Likewise, those who foment hatred in our society do so by disingenuously politicizing the news. They do it using incidents of racism, oppression, inequity, and inclusion. Surely, we can find blatant examples of abuse with each of these. No thinking person can deny it. But that does not mean our entire society can be reduced to them. Generalizations are never a good idea. You don’t define the whole by the abuses of outliers.

But the really troubling thing about all these trends is that they are not just cultural phenomena. They are also infiltrating our churches under the banner of “Progressive Christianity” and “social justice.” I guess we should expect the world to turn things inside out and upside down. But when the church goes along with it, I don’t see any other way to explain it except as the consequence of spiritual warfare.

The “Social Justice” Deception

Back to C. S. Lewis. In one of his training sessions with Wormwood, the indomitable Screwtape hits on the topic of how to remove spirituality from the Christian’s life. His method may sound familiar:

“We want men to treat Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their own advancement, but, failing that, as a means to anything – even to social justice. The thing to do is to get a man first to value social justice as a thing which the enemy demands, and then work him on to the stage at which he values Christianity because it may produce social justice … it is quite easy to coax humans around this little corner. Only today I have found a passage in a Christian writer where he recommends his own version of Christianity on the ground that ‘only such a faith can outlast the death of old cultures and the birth of new civilizations.’ … You see the little rift? ‘Believe this, not because it is true, but for some other reason.’ That’s the game …” (emphases mine)

Remember, Lewis wrote those words in 1942. It turns out the battle for our minds hasn’t changed much over the years. Screwtape’s minions have been wildly successful in their mission to deceive the world. Our challenges as defenders of the faith are complicated but they’re not new. When it comes right down to it, they’re as old as the Garden of Eden.

A Reason For Hope

When you see spiritual warfare this way you realize it never stops. The battle of ideas will continue far into the future. We can’t escape the battle. But we can embrace a battle plan that refuses to surrender. As Rod Dreher put it in his fantastic book, Live Not By Lies: A Manual For Christian Dissidents,

“You have to live in a world of lies, but it’s your choice as to whether that world lives in you.”

~ Rod Dreher

If you watch the news, this can all become very discouraging. But as an apologist, we don’t have time to be discouraged. Our charge is not just to give answers. It is to “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that you have…”

Hope.

In The Everlasting Man, G. K. Chesterton surveys the many forces that have threatened to destroy Christianity over the last 2000 years. “Time and again,” said Chesterton, “the Faith has to all appearances gone to the dogs. But each time, it was the dog that died.”

Our faith and our church have been under attack since the beginning of time. But the Bible and history are littered with examples of the saints who persevered in the face of both physical and spiritual warfare. Our time is unique in many ways. But from an eternal perspective the mission is still the same. Lies are still the enemy. And truth is still unchanging.

And that is the reason we have hope.

Resurrection Defense Series: Archaeological Evidences Supporting the Resurrection

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

We have examined various lines of evidence that support the notion that Jesus literally rose from the dead. As we wrap up the series, it may prove beneficial to describe a few pieces of archaeological evidence that supports the resurrection of Jesus. Archaeological evidence can neither prove nor disprove an event of history.[1] However, it can lend itself to probabilities that an event did or did not occur. The resurrection poses an additional problem as no one was present when the event took place. Even still, certain artifacts lend credibility to the belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

The Nail Spiked Ankle Bone of Yehohannan

In 1968, an ossuary was discovered that contained the heel bone of a young man named Yehohannan. Living 2,000 years ago, Yehohannan died by crucifixion at the hands of the Romans. Evidence suggests that he was only in his twenties when he died. The description of his crime has been lost to us. However, the nature of his execution was preserved by the young man’s extant heel bone. A traditional Roman spike pierced the heel of Yehohannan. But unlike other nails which were reused to crucify victims, this spike bent most likely after striking a knot in the wood. The heel bone, bent spike, and even a piece of wood confirm that nails were used, at least at times, to fasten victims to the cross. For Yehohannan, his executors nailed his ankles to the opposing exterior sides of the vertical beam rather than through the feet. The young man’s preserved heel bone reveals two things about Jesus’s death, burial, and resurrection.

First, the find proves that Romans did nail victims to the cross, confirming the details of the Gospel narratives related to the death of Jesus. Crucifixion was a nasty form of execution. The victim would slowly die from asphyxiation which led to heart failure. The chances of Jesus surviving crucifixion, as proposed by some, are slim to none.

Second, the find also proves that the Romans permitted families to grant crucified victims a proper burial. In ancient Israelite culture, a body was buried in a tomb. A year later, the bones were collected in the linen wrappings and placed in a common family ossuary (bone box). It was not until the time of Emperor Caligula that the practice of granting proper burial to crucified victims ceased. Caligula began his reign in AD 37 which was 4-7 years after the time of Jesus’s crucifixion and resurrection. Thus, the claim that Jesus was merely buried in a shallow grave rather than a tomb loses its impact in light of the discovery of Yehohannan’s heel bone.

Nazareth Decree

The Nazareth Decree is a fascinating find. In 1878, a French scholar acquired a slab of stone in Nazareth dating to AD 44.[2] The decree was given by Emperor Claudius (AD 41-54) who charges that if anyone is found extracting or exhuming bodies from tombs, then the graverobbers would be charged and promptly executed. Interestingly, the decree also mentions one moving stones enclosing tombs. The Gospel of Matthew notes that the Jewish leaders deceitfully contrived a rumor that the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus (Matt. 28:11-15). While a direct correlation cannot be drawn between the Nazareth Decree and the rumor arranged by the Jewish Sanhedrin, one still finds a strong probability that the growth of Christianity accompanied with the rumor could have necessitated such a decree in the emperor’s mind.[3]

Church of the Holy Sepulchre

Protestants often prefer the serene location of Gordon’s Tomb over the iconic and liturgical nature of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. However, if one pursues truth over preference, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is hands-down far more likely to be the actual tomb of Jesus rather than the irenic counterpart. In AD 132, Emperor Hadrian barred Jews from Jerusalem and attempted to eradicate evidence of both Judaism and Christianity by building Roman temples and statues over sacred spots. In AD 313, Constantine legalized Christianity. His mother Helena, a devout Christian, sought to discover the most sacred sites of Christianity. Hadrian had placed a statue of Venus atop the tomb of Christ in an effort to desecrate the tomb. When Helena asked local believers where the tomb was located, they pointed her to the tomb with the erected Venusian statue. Helena immediately ordered the removal of the statue and the preservation of the tomb. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was later built around the tomb and crucifixion site. A few years ago, in an effort to restore key sections of the holy church, researchers were allowed to peer inside the slab of marble used to protect the bedding. The upper part was removed. Underneath, they discovered a broken piece of metal with a Crusader’s cross engraved. Under the metal, they found a stone bedding that dated to the first century. The discovery proved that the Edicule of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre has been revered as the burial place of Christ for two millennia. This adds considerable weight to the idea that the empty tomb of Jesus is either in the Edicule or very nearby. Personally, the Edicule holds a strong probability of being the actual burial site of Jesus—a probability greater than 95%.

Shroud of Turin

Finally, we end with one of the most mysterious archaeological finds of all time. Just when skeptics seem to debunk the Shroud of Turin, something comes along that later confirms it. The Shroud of Turin is a highly controversial linen cloth that measures 14 feet, 5 inches by 3 feet, 7 inches. It bears a negative three-dimensional image of a crucified man in his thirties and includes bloodstains of actual AB hemoglobin.[4] Additional discoveries have found pollen grains of plants based in Israel and dating to the first century along with evidence that the Shroud had been exposed to a high dose of radiation, perhaps from the resurrection event itself.[5] Although the Shroud had been dated to the medieval ages in a carbon-14 test conducted in 1988, those tests have proven false. The debate surrounding the Shroud of Turin will most certainly continue until the return of Christ himself. The Shroud of Turin is not necessary to prove that Jesus rose from the dead, as has been shown by this series. Nonetheless, if the Shroud of Turin is authentic, it not only proves that Jesus rose from the dead, but it also provides a snapshot as to how Jesus may have looked.

Conclusion

Admittedly, the archaeological evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is largely circumstantial. The only direct piece of archaeological evidence for the resurrection would be the Shroud of Turin, if genuine. However, the Shroud is enshrouded in mystery (pun intended). Because of the nature of the resurrection event, one should not expect a slam dunk discovery to be made. Why? Because Jesus is no longer in the tomb. The most direct evidence has been removed and is no longer available. Regardless, the data provided when taken together affords a strong case that something mysterious and amazing transpired on the first Easter Sunday. The artifacts described prove the high probability that Jesus died by crucifixion, was buried in a tomb, the tomb was found empty, and that the tomb was revered for two millennia. Taken together, that is a compelling case for the resurrection event. For more information on the archaeological evidence for the Bible, see chapter 13 of the Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics, and be sure to check out Ted Wright’s page EpicArchaeology.com.

Notes

[1] Randall Price and H. Wayne House, Zondervan Handbook of Biblical Archaeology, 26.

[2] Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 48; Ted Wright, “10 Significant NT Archaeological Discoveries,” EpicArchaeology.com.

[3] To read the full transcript of the Nazareth Decree, see Brian G. Chilton, Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics, 123.

[4] Chilton, Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics, 127-128.

[5] Ibid., 128.

Is There Really a Tree of Life?

Podcast

When evolutionist Richard Dawkins was asked for the most powerful evidence for evolution, he cited the tree of life. We see it in all the textbooks— all living things are ancestrally related in a tree of life. But what is the evidence for that tree of life? Is there any counter-evidence to it?

Dr. Stephen Meyer joins Frank to point out three massive problems to conclude that there really is a tree of life, one of which is that the computers that generate the tree are programmed to do so regardless of what genetic evidence you input. In other words, no matter what data you put in, you will always get a tree! Steve then identifies evidence against common ancestry and offers three scientific arguments for the existence of God.

Frank and Steve also discuss the resignation of atheist Professor Peter Boghossian from Portland State University. According to his resignation letter, Dr. Boghossian resigned because “brick by brick, the university has made this kind of [free] intellectual exploration impossible. It has transformed a bastion of free inquiry into a Social Justice factory whose only inputs were race, gender, and victimhood and whose only outputs were grievance and division.”

Articles/websites discussed:

Why God is still the best scientific theory to explain our life on Earth

Steven Weinberg and the twilight of the godless universe

My University Sacrificed Ideas for Ideology. So Today I Quit.

ReturnOfTheGodHypothesis.com

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

September 10, 2021/by Frank Turek

Why is everything political?

Podcast

Why is everything political? How much should the Christian be involved politically? The truth is, like many other endeavors, we can be involved too much or too little.

Frank pulls insightful points from a WWII C.S. Lewis sermon to encourage us to do our civic duty while reminding us where our ultimate loyalties should lie. Frank also explains why everything is political and why Christians have to be involved without making politics, party, or the nation an idol.

Here are the links mentioned, including Frank’s column on leaving Americans in Afghanistan: https://cutt.ly/dWQRKxZ

Abigail Shrier: https://cutt.ly/TWQRUd8

C.S. Lewis, Learning in Wartime: https://cutt.ly/pWQRR4N

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/SWQGDUc
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

September 3, 2021/by Frank Turek

Does Jesus Devastate An Old Earth?

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

Science and faith issues are no doubt a hot topic of discussion when it comes to defending the truth of Christianity. Many Christians hold many different views about the timing and mechanism of God’s creative acts. Some views hold numerous details in common while others may hold only many details in common. It is the few differences here and there that cause much heat in this internal debate and cause unbelievers (and some Christians) to question the truth of the historic Christian faith as a whole. Today, I want to look at one of the more common distinctives between Christians who believe that the universe is young (6,000-10,000 years old) and those Christians who believe that the universe is ancient (~13.7 billion years old).

But before I get to the specific challenge, I need to set a foundation. First, I am an old earth creationist (OEC), so I will defend the latter of the two views above; however, I will not appeal to God’s actions (creation) today; rather I will limit my appeals to Scripture alone. Second, there are numerous areas of agreement among young and old earth creationists just within the doctrine of creation (not to mention the rest of the Christian worldview), and I feel that the differences, because of their ability to undermine the truth of the Christian worldview, tend to get more of the focus than the common ground. I have a list of more than forty areas of agreement in my article “What Do Young Earth and Old Earth Christians Agree Upon Regarding Origins?” to help Christians remember these area of unity and be more gracious in our discussions with each other. The primary two areas of agreement that are important for today’s topic are that both young- and old- earth creationists affirm biblical inerrancy and that Adam and Eve were historically the first humans. With those in place, here we go!

The Claim: Jesus Was A Young Earth Creationist

In Mark 10:6 Jesus teaches, “But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female.” Many young earth creationists (YEC) use this passage as a proof text that demonstrates that their interpretation of Genesis 1 is the interpretation that Jesus held (see this article from the YEC organization Answers In Genesis: Jesus Devastates An Old Earth). Young earth creationists believe that God created Adam and Eve between 144 hours and 168 hours after He created the universe. Old earth creationists believe that God created Adam and Eve between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago. So, the YEC argument goes like this:

Jesus taught that Adam and Eve were created at the beginning of creation of the universe.
The YEC creation of Adam and Eve is closer to its date of creation of the universe than is the OEC creation of Adam and Eve to its date of creation of the universe.
Therefore, Jesus was teaching the YEC interpretation of Genesis 1.

The Fatal Flaw

On the surface, the argument does seem legitimate and is certainly persuasive. I’m sure many have seen and some have used this argument, sometimes with a slightly different second premise, but the first premise and the conclusion are always the same. However, there is one fatal flaw to all these versions. “144 hours later” is not the same as “the beginning of creation of the universe,” and, to be fair, neither is 100,000 to 200,000 years later either. The first premise (the one premise that appears in all the versions of this argument) is simply false. The falsehood of the first premise is what logically undermines the conclusion. But is the defeat of the first premise really that cut-and-dried? Perhaps not. The doctrine of biblical inerrancy may have an allowance that permits the first premise to be true.

Finding The Proper Interpretation

A statement can be true but not complete in its precision, just like 3.14 or 3.14159 both accurately represent pi even though they have different levels of precision. A lack of precision does not necessarily undermine the truth of a claim, nor does a lack of precision necessarily undermine the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. In the case of Mark 10:6, it is true; however, it is not explicitly precise. “The beginning of creation…’of what'” is where the debate on interpreting Mark 10:6 hinges. There are two ways to address this. First, let’s examine an argument for what the object of creation is, and second, let’s examine an argument for what the object of creation is not.

What Is Jesus Talking About?

When we read the passage, it is obvious that Jesus is describing the features of humans: “God created them male and female.” So, the specific portion of God’s creation that is in view is that of humans. Notice that there is the pronoun “them” in the passage as well. A pronoun must have an explicit or implicit antecedent. If we are to interpret Jesus’ words to mean “From the beginning of creation of humans God made them male and female,” we see that the antecedent (implied by Jesus’ words but explicit in the interpretation of Jesus’ words) matches that of the object of creation that Jesus is obviously referring to in the passage.

What Is Jesus NOT Talking About?

But is there a way that the universe could be the object of creation yet Jesus be making a point about the creation of humans? The doctrine of biblical inerrancy certainly allows for truth without precision, so could the YEC simply say that Jesus was truthfully but imprecisely equating the time of the creation of man with the time of creation of the universe, making the object of the creation the universe? The answer is “no,” and here is why. It is generally recognized that there is a difference between “lack of precision” and “false.” This distinction is not always easy to identify, but in many cases, rules or methods can be used to identify the line. Back to my example of pi, the rules of rounding provides the boundary that logically judges that 3.15 is not a lack of precision but is a falsehood. In the case Mark 10:6, we can use the perspicuity of Scripture (allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture) to identify where the line of distinction precisely lies and can judge for us whether the proposed interpretation is a lack of precision or is a falsehood.

Genesis 1 clearly defines the location of the line of distinction for judgment. Genesis 1 places a hard line between “lack of precision” and “false” for any timing claim regarding the universe’s creation event at the beginning of the next “yom” (“day”). A lack of precision of another passage of scripture is permitted by Genesis 1 as long as the lack of precision is still within the boundary of the “yom” (“day”) of the creation of the universe. So, on the YEC view, “lack of precision” is biblically and doctrinally permitted if and only if the imprecise claim of Mark 10:6 falls within that first 24 hours. However, the claim is false if the lack of precision of timing is outside of the 24 hour window following the creation of the universe.

Genesis 1 states that Adam and Eve were created on Day 6. Since Day 6 falls outside that 24 hour window, claiming that the creation of Adam and Eve and the creation of the universe are imprecisely at the same time is outside the allowable limits of a lack of precision, thus it is outside the boundaries of an interpretation that is guided by biblical inerrancy and the perspicuity of Scripture. So, Genesis 1 judges that Mark 10:6 cannot be interpreted to mean “the beginning of creation of the universe” even with the doctrine of biblical inerrancy allowing for a lack of precision.

So, the interpretation of Mark 10:6 which includes the universe as the object of creation is false- not permitted as judged by the doctrine of biblical inerrancy via the perspicuity of Scripture. If anyone was to insist that the universe is the object of creation in Jesus’ statement, this would place them (YEC or OEC) in the position of denying not only the truth of biblical inerrancy but the use of biblical inerrancy in interpretation.

The Proper Interpretation Within the Bounds of Biblical Inerrancy and Genesis 1

We see that the object of creation cannot be the universe but rather is humans. When we understand “humans” as the antecedent of “them” and that it is the specific creation of which Jesus is describing both the beginning and features, the passage remains true, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy has properly guided to our interpretation of Mark 10:6, and Genesis 1 has rightfully judged our interpretation of the passage.

A Vital Decision

However, with this proper interpretation, the YEC loses claim to this passage as a proof-text of their view and as a defeater of other views. They also lose it as a supporting premise of their argument(s), and they lose the claim that Jesus was a YEC. The young-earth creationist has a choice: they can either give up the idea that Jesus held and taught their view, or they can surrender biblical inerrancy.

It is important to understand the ramifications of each of these options. If a YEC were to surrender Jesus as an infallible authority who holds their particular doctrinal interpretation, that is not a big deal. Why? Because Jesus did not speak to every doctrinal issue while on earth, and just because He did not speak to it while on earth does not mean that it is not true (its truth may be able to be established another way- including with the rest of Scripture, which Jesus, being God, did inspire). However, if the YEC surrenders the inerrancy of Scripture, then they lose the reliability of the accounts of Jesus teaching anything while on earth or inspiring human authors to teach while He was not on earth…so none of Scripture can be used to argue for the truth of any doctrine. With the first option, what is lost has the possibility of being regained, but with the second option everything is lost and nothing is regained.

It Gets Progressively Worse – Threats to the Church

Insisting upon the YEC interpretation of Mark 10:6, undermines biblical inerrancy (without even appealing to raw scientific data recorded from God’s creation). Such a position is essentially the same as the position of Progressive Christianity. Insisting upon an interpretation of any passage of the Bible that logically implies the denial of biblical inerrancy opens the door wide to this heretical movement within the Church. If a Christian recognizes the problem described in this post with the YEC interpretation and use of Mark 10:6, this could play a vital role in their “deconstruction” (see the book “Another Gospel: A Lifelong Christian Seeks Truth In Response to Progressive Christianity” by Alisa Childers about Progressive Christianity) should they not also be presented the viable alternative described above. And their rejection of the Bible as a whole as being “God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16) and their rejection of the historic Christian worldview will not be far behind.

Now, does this mean that Genesis is not history? No. Does it mean that the early chapters of Genesis are not to be interpreted literally? Not at all. Does this mean that we are taking man’s word over God’s word? Not a chance. These and several other common concerns are addressed in these posts:

Conclusion – The Implications for Evangelism

We’ve seen in this article that it is simply false that Jesus devastates the old-earth interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. Jesus did affirm the historicity of a literal Adam and Eve in Mark 10:6, but He did not say or imply anything about the time of their creation. The proper interpretation of Mark 10:6 has great apologetic significance. For when the correct interpretation of Mark 10:6 is recognized (Jesus did not teach that the universe is young, here), when unbelievers and Christians in the process of deconstruction test Jesus’ claims about creation against the revelations of creation, they cannot use Mark 10:6 as an excuse to say that Jesus’ claims about reality (including His claim to be God and the only way to the Father [John 14:6]) are false. Romans 1 remains true in its claim that the unbeliever is without excuse, even (or especially) when they look at the creation. Ultimately, if this passage is brought up as a defeater for Christianity, then we can simply demonstrate the misinterpretation, then get back to the evidence that answers the one question that the truth of the historic Christian worldview depends upon: Did The Historical Jesus Rise From The Dead?

Tag Archive for: apologetics

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Serpent in the Garden

Serpents Portrayed Negatively

The Egyptian Serpent

Goliath the Serpent

The Serpent in the Gospels

The Dragon is Slayed

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Balanced View

Close Encounters of a Different Kind

Paul’s Take on Warfare

The Battlefield of Ideas

Not Just A Cultural Trend

The “Social Justice” Deception

A Reason For Hope

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Nail Spiked Ankle Bone of Yehohannan

Nazareth Decree

Church of the Holy Sepulchre

Shroud of Turin

Conclusion

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Introduction

The Claim: Jesus Was A Young Earth Creationist

The Fatal Flaw

Finding The Proper Interpretation

What Is Jesus Talking About?

What Is Jesus NOT Talking About?

The Proper Interpretation Within the Bounds of Biblical Inerrancy and Genesis 1

A Vital Decision

It Gets Progressively Worse – Threats to the Church

Conclusion – The Implications for Evangelism

Recommended resources related to the topic: