apologetics Archives - Page 55 of 138

Tag Archive for: apologetics

Don’t believe me? Check for yourself!

By Andrew Cowley

When I was 14 years old, I publicly (and sincerely) denied the existence of God. I was wholly convinced that God didn’t exist and those who believed in God were delusional, unintelligent, naïve, and emotionally weak. Belief in God was the thing of fairy tales—not something intellectual or rational. As an atheist, I stood on the shoulders of giants like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens. I reveled in the idea that it was totally in my right to make snarky remarks to believers and to smugly laugh when a believer said they had “faith” in what they believed. “Faith”? That’s reserved for children and Santa Claus, not a modern intellectual who relies on empirical evidence and logic!

A month after my 28th birthday, I began to read books on the resurrection, historical Christianity, and Christian apologetics–objectively and with an open mind.

A funny thing happens when you start objectively looking and learning about the thing you so vehemently criticize and dismiss without a second thought… You begin to notice things you would never find in the New York Times, a blog post written by an Objectivist, or a meme that was shared thousands of times on Facebook that claims Jesus is just a rip-off of that pagan god that existed a long, long time ago. You start to take note of the historical evidence that seems to point to the same conclusion over and over again. You begin to read books by ancient historians that have nothing to do with the authors of the Bible, yet still talk about someone they called “Jesus” and what a group of “Christians” had been doing since His death and resurrection.[1] Books like The Resurrection of the Son of Man by N.T. Wright suddenly look like brilliant works of historical survey that can not only disprove empty claims that Jesus wasn’t unique but lay an irrefutable foundation of why Christ’s resurrection was a real event that took place and is the best explanation for why those closest to Christ lived and died for Him. The books of the Bible no longer look like manufactured pieces of fairy tales–they are pieces of history that can be attested to by the people that were actually there. The authors of the Bible are seen as independent eyewitnesses (and witnesses who actually spoke to those that were there) that are reliable and accurate.

It was an extremely hard thing to do to set aside my biases and look at the evidence for what it was: the Bible is a historical document written by real people that experienced real things. Jesus actually lived and walked on this earth, He had hundreds (if not thousands) of followers that were tortured and killed for believing He was the Son of God, and they wrote about it. The Bible (and more specifically, the Gospel) was written by people who were actually there. In fact, St. Paul makes a challenge to all those who doubt by telling us that if we don’t believe him, go and ask the hundreds of people who were there. They’ll most certainly agree with what he’s telling you.[2]

That’s quite the claim for a “fairy tale” and it’s certainly not belief in something that can’t be proved. Let’s not forget, St. Paul actively persecuted Christians and spoke out against Christ before his conversion. In other words, St. Paul didn’t want to believe Christ’s claims, but couldn’t deny it once he saw, and experienced it, for himself. Essentially, Paul hated Christ and His followers, yet couldn’t help but to believe.

Although, I must admit, believing in the resurrection does seem to fly in the face of what we experience from day to day. People don’t just resurrect from the dead, not in our experience anyway. As you read about the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord and Savior, you begin to seriously question what is or is not possible. For someone claiming to be God, they’d better have an amazing argument–and proof–on why we should believe them. After all, anyone can claim to be God and rise from the dead–but the claim alone doesn’t make it true. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, as they say.

Conveniently, Christ understood this and acknowledged our skepticism. Christ knew that there would need to be undeniable proof that he was the Son of Man and had fulfilled everything He set out to accomplish. Not only did Christ rise from the dead (just like He promised), he publicly revealed his resurrected body for all to see. Even still, some of the Disciples couldn’t believe their eyes[3]–frankly, I don’t blame them. Seeing Christ in His glorified form must have been truly terrifying and joyous all at once. Yet, Christ absolved all doubt. He told them to touch His body and feel His very real wounds. Not even the best scientific study under the best circumstances can claim to have such undeniable proof such as what the Disciples (and many others) experienced!

After Christ’s appearances, no one could convince the witnesses anything other than believing Christ Himself appeared to them in a glorified, resurrected body. Not torture, death, public execution, or anything else could change their minds. They know what they saw, and what they saw actually happened.

I think a completely fair objection to consider is that the disciples lied about seeing the resurrected Christ. Yet, we should ask ourselves, “Why would someone hold to a lie knowing full-well they’d be killed for holding that lie?”

Keep in mind there was nothing to gain from holding such a lie, yet everything to lose. Think about that for a moment… Would you hold to a lie that you know, for a fact, didn’t happen if you faced certain death and torture? I wouldn’t and I have a hard time believing anyone would.

However, this is not the same as someone dying for beliefs that they hold (i.e., dying for some cause). There is nothing equivocal between someone dying for an event they know didn’t happen and someone dying for a personally held belief. I hope you can see the difference between these two scenarios. The sincerity of the disciples (and subsequent Christians) plus Paul’s conversion is a testament to just how powerful this historical claim is and shows the resurrection of Christ really is the best explanation–especially when considering the historical backdrop of the story.

I’m not a Christian because I want to be one, I’m a Christian because I have no other choice. God has called me into his flock and I have answered that call with all my heart, mind, and soul. My sincere prayer is that all people can hear that call too.

A Short History of Islam

Podcast

Frank brings Bill Federer back to take us on a fascinating historical ride from the founding of Islam right up to the present day. Along the way Frank and Bill (mostly Bill!) provide insights into questions like:

Why don’t our leaders understand the beliefs of groups such as the Taliban?
How did Islam begin?
Who was Muhammad and what did he do?
How did Muslims conquer much of the Mediterranean in the first 100 years?
What are the differences between Sunni and Shiite?
What does “Peace” mean to the Taliban?
How did the discovery of oil reinvigorate jihad and groups like the Taliban?
Why would a four-star USAF General compare Trump supporters to the Taliban?
Don’t all religions kill? How do Islam and Christianity compare?

See this comparison between Sharia law and the U.S. Constitution from a recent email edition of AmericanMinute. Sign up for Bill’s email at AmericanMinute.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

August 27, 2021/by Frank Turek

What Are Students Learning At Yale? A Review of Dale Martin’s Introductory Lecture on the New Testament

Theology and Christian Apologetics

Dale Martin is a scholar of the New Testament, formerly a professor at Yale University until his retirement in 2018. Prior to his appointment at Yale, Martin was a faculty member at Rhodes College and Duke University. Yale University generously uploads many lecture series, covering various disciplines, to their “YaleCourses” YouTube channel. One of their series, uploaded in 2009, covers the discipline of New Testament studies and is instructed by Dale Martin (here is the link to the playlist). Watching Dale Martin teach his introductory lecture raised a number of concerns for me — not primarily because I disagree profoundly with many of Dr. Martin’s conclusions but because a significant number of the ‘facts’ he delivers in his presentation are quite simply false on a factual level, or otherwise misleading. This concerns me because of Dr. Martin’s position at the time as a faculty member and thus a position of trust in relation to his students. Undergraduate students are unlikely to fact-check the statements of one of their professors because it is assumed that the information being delivered at the college level, in particular at a prestigious institution such as Yale, will be factually correct. Imagine being a young Christian freshman student and, being interested in the New Testament, signing up for the course on “Introduction to New Testament History and Literature.” Is it any wonder that somewhere between sixty and eighty percent of young people in the church are losing their faith after going to college? Of course, intellectual concerns are not the only reason why a young student may walk away from the faith, but it is certainly a major factor that contributes to the youth exodus problem. In this article, I will discuss some of the assertions made by Dr. Martin in his introductory lecture, which one can presume is representative of what students in other institutions around the country are also being exposed to.

Dr. Martin begins his lecture by asserting that “the text of the Bible isn’t Scripture in itself. It’s only Scripture to a community of people who take it as Scripture.” This is nothing short of postmodern relativism (though Dale Martin himself elsewhere identifies as a postmodern Christian, so I doubt he would quibble with this). However, this position is not tenable — either the Bible is Scripture for everyone or it is not Scripture for anyone, irrespective of what any individual believes about it. It cannot be Scripture to a community of people who take it to be Scripture and not Scripture to everyone else.

Dr. Martin went on to give his class a quiz about whether certain ideas are found in the Bible or not. He claims that the doctrine of the Trinity is not found in the Bible. However, this is very misleading. Certainly, the word “Trinity” is not in the Bible, and neither are the philosophical categories that came to be associated with the doctrine of the Trinity in particular at the council of Nicaea in 325 A.D (i.e. the distinction between being and person). But the concept of there being one God who is manifest in three distinct persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is an idea that can indeed be found in the Bible. If the Scriptures uphold the doctrine of monotheism and also maintain that the attributes and titles of deity are associated with three distinct persons, I would argue that the Nicene formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity is the best way of understanding the Biblical text. Readers who are interested in a more thorough discussion of this topic are invited to peruse my articles on the subject of the Trinity, available here. Readers may also find useful the recording of my recent debate with an Islamic scholar, Dr. Shabir Ally, on the Trinity vs. Tawhid. Dr. Martin says that “Some people will say that at least the doctrine of the Trinity is hinted at in the Bible and that the later church was correct to read the New Testament to support it. And that might be right theologically. But read historically it’s not in the Bible.” It is not clear to me how Dr. Martin makes a distinction here between reading the Bible theologically and reading it historically. Good hermeneutics attempt to elucidate the meaning of the text as intended by the original author, historically. It is a mistake to draw any sort of distinction between what the text meant historically and what it means theologically.

Dr. Martin also brought up a popularly claimed contradiction between the resurrection accounts in Matthew and Luke. According to Dr. Martin, the gospel of Matthew “has Jesus appear to the disciples only in Galilee (not in Judea), and the gospel of Luke and Acts have Jesus appear to his disciples only in Judea but not in Galilee.” At the end of Luke, however, there is clear haste and a lack of specificity about time. The very end of Luke does not make it look like all of the appearances take place in one day. He’s either running out of scroll or in a hurry at that point, and he doesn’t appear to have full knowledge yet of exactly how long Jesus was on earth, so he just leaves it non-specific and clarifies in Acts 1. I would argue that it is entirely plausible that Jesus’ instruction to remain in Jerusalem (Acts 1:4) was said to the disciples after they had returned to the Jerusalem area from Galilee during the 40 days on which Jesus remained on the earth, perhaps shortly or even immediately prior to the ascension. By all accounts, the ascension occurred from the region of the Mount of Olives near Bethany, so evidently, they went to Galilee and then came back. I do not see a problem here.

Dr. Martin also claims that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is not found in the Bible and that the New Testament does not teach that souls go to be with Jesus after death. This, however, is nonsense. Paul says in Philippians 1:23-24 “My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account.” Jesus says to the thief on the cross, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). The alternative reading of that text, which puts the comma after “today” (i.e. “I say to you today…”) is possible but unlikely since that construction is not found anywhere else in the New Testament. The parable of the rich man in Lazarus in Luke 16 also seems to indicate a conscious experience post-death. Even though the story is a parable, parables reflect actual real-life scenarios. There are no other parables in the gospels where Jesus literally invents a fantasy world which does not reflect actual realities.

Dr. Martin then went on to claim that the book of Acts reads like a Greek romance novel. This is material straight out of the late Westar Institute fellow Richard Pervo, who was, to be candid, a fringe scholar. Craig Keener, who is arguably the world’s leading authority on the book of Acts, comments[1],

“In the end, most scholars reject the characterization of Acts as a novel. Ancient readers knew the genre of the novel but, in the overwhelming majority of cases, could distinguish between the narrative genres of history (where facts are important to the genre) and novel (where they are not). Even when historical works have incorrect facts, they do not become fiction, and a novel that depends on historical information does not become history; what distinguishes the two genres is the nature of their truth claims. Yet Acts is certainly entertaining history, recounting ‘a dramatic and absorbing story.’ The literary public was not large enough for political and other historians to gain an audience by simply recounting bare events. ‘The historian therefore had to recount in lively fashion events beyond his reach, and qualify ethically the personalities involved.’”

The fact of the matter is that the book of Acts is spectacularly well supported by extrabiblical corroborating evidence (one could give more than a hundred examples lifted from works by Craig Keener, Colin Hemer, James Smith, and others).[2] It is also supported by dozens of undesigned coincidences with the letters of Paul (indeed, one could adduce more than forty examples if one were limited to using only Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, and Galatians, never mind the numerous examples found in the other epistles).[3] There are also unexplained allusions (such as Acts 18:18), which further support historicity. For further discussion of this subject, I refer readers to Tim McGrew’s excellent lecture on the reliability of Acts, as well as the discussion I had on the same subject with Craig Keener (see also the interview I did with Wesley Huff on the evidence for the historical trustworthiness of Acts). I have also discussed this subject in detail elsewhere on this website (e.g. see here, here, and here), so I need not repeat myself in this article. Furthermore, the best way of interpreting the “we” passages in Acts 16:10ff as indicating that the author was a travelling companion of Paul. Besides the clear inside-knowledge that is demonstrated by the author of Acts throughout his volume, the “we” passages trail off in Acts 16 when Paul is in Philippi and then begin again in Acts 20 when Paul returns back through Philippi (strongly suggesting that the author had remained in Philippi and rejoined Paul when Paul returned through Philippi).[4]

Dr. Martin then claims that Paul was not considered to be an apostle by the guy who wrote the book of Acts. However, the author of Acts does indeed identify Paul as an apostle, since he refers to “the apostles Barnabas and Paul,” (Acts 14:14). Even without that reference, however, it would not demonstrate that Luke did not view Paul as an apostle, since Luke does not say anything to the contrary. And Paul implies in his letters that the Jerusalem leaders recognized Paul as an apostle (e.g. Galatians 2:7). Luke was present with Paul when he met with the Jerusalem leaders, including James, in Acts 21.

Dr. Martin also claims that the epistle to the Hebrews (which he correctly recognizes is more like a homily) is not addressed to Jews but is addressed to gentiles. This too is indefensible. The whole point in Hebrews is that the author is explaining the superiority of the new covenant over the old because the audience to whom the homily is addressed are in danger of going back to their former ways of Judaism. Even the opening verse of the book of Hebrews suggests that the intended audience is fellow Jews: “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets.” The book also presupposes certain things that the author can take for granted would be familiar to a Jewish audience, but which he cannot take for granted to have been familiar to a gentile audience.

Dr. Martin further asserts that the New Testament books were written between the year 50 and the year 150 A.D. One has to wonder what book(s) Dr. Martin thinks were written as late as 150? It seems unlikely to me that any of the books were written later than the close of the first century, and I am not aware of any contemporary scholars who would date any of the New Testament books that late. At the very least, Martin’s view here is extremely out-dated. Though it was once thought by the Tubingen school that the gospel of John was composed towards the latter end of the second century, this view has now been universally abandoned, in part due to the discovery in 1934 of the John Rylands fragment, p52, a small fragment of the gospel of John that may be dated to, give or take, 125–175 A.D.

It is quite disappointing to see a scholar of Dale Martin’s caliber mislead his students in regards to the text of the New Testament. If this lecture is representative of what freshman students are being told at institutions of higher learning such as Yale, Duke, or Harvard, then it is no wonder that so many young people are falling away from the faith. Now, to be fair, I am also aware of misleading and factually inaccurate statements being made at evangelical seminaries as well, so this problem is not unique to secular institutions. However, this does teach us how imperative it is that students, no matter what institution of higher learning they attend, when it comes to worldview-sensitive subjects such as New Testament studies or philosophy of religion, should always do their own fact-checking and not take the word of their professor at face-value. It also reveals how important it is for parents to equip their children with a robust, though balanced, education of their own in regards to the Bible in order to adequately equip them for the intellectual challenges they will face in college.

Footnotes

[1] Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Vol. 1 (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2012), 431, 80–81.

[2] Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Vols 1-4 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012–2014). Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, ed. Conrad H. Gempf (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990). James Smith, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul: With Dissertations on the Life and Writings of St. Luke, and the Ships and Navigation of the Ancients, ed. Walter E. Smith, Fourth Edition, Revised and Corrected. (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1880).

[3] William Paley and Edmund Paley, The Works of William Paley, vol. 2 (London; Oxford; Cambridge; Liverpool: Longman and Co.; T. Cadell; J. Richardson; Baldwin and Cradock; Hatchard and Son; J. G. & F. Rivington; Whittaker and Co.; Hamilton, Adams & Co.; Simpkin, Marshall, and Co.; Smith, Elder, and Co.; E. Hodgson; B. Fellowes; R. Mackie; J. Templeman; H. Washbourne; Booker and Dolman; J. Parker; J. and J. J. Deighton; G. and J. Robinson, 1838). Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (Tampa, FL: Deward Publishing Company, Ltd, 2017)

[4] Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Vol. 1 (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2012), 431.

A Short History of Tyranny

Podcast

How do you take power from the people and consolidate it in a dictator or government? There are known tactics to do this, and they have been demonstrated since the time of Plato. Historian Bill Federer joins Frank and identifies these tactics. He then takes us on a fascinating ride through history to show us how these tactics have been used in the past and how they are being used right now. Among the questions they discuss are:

What is socialism?
What are the two ways you can take power from people gradually?
Does it require a grand conspiracy to do it?
Who in the Bible invented identity politics?
Where does Critical Theory come from and what does it teach?
How did the Nazis arrest power from the people?
How are those tactics being used in the US?

Don’t miss this podcast. History is repeating itself! Bill’s new book here. His website is: www.AmericanMinute.com The first of his recent presentations at CCCH can be found here. 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

August 20, 2021/by Frank Turek

Are Christians the New Extremists? Yes, and That’s Okay

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Natasha Crain

My blog and podcast have been quiet since April because I was finishing writing my new book, Faithfully Different: Regaining Biblical Clarity in a Secular Culture.

Faithfully Different is about the fact that Christians with a biblical worldview are now a minority in America and how the secular worldview that surrounds us is putting significant pressure on what we believe, how we think, and how we live. I wrote it to help Christians more clearly understand the fundamental differences between the secular and biblical worldviews, both for the strength of our own faith and for our ability to be salt and light to others. I’m really excited to share it with you! Faithfully Different comes out in February and I’ll be posting pre-order details here in the next few weeks.

In reading that, you might wonder if Christians really are a “minority” in America. I discuss this at length in my first chapter, but here’s the bottom line. About 65 percent of Americans self-identify as Christians—certainly not a minority. But when researchers ask questions about specific beliefs and behaviors, only about 10 percent of Americans have what would be considered a “biblical worldview” (holding basic beliefs consistent with the historic Christian faith and exhibiting corresponding behaviors). Furthermore, researchers have found that not only are those with a biblical worldview now a small minority in America, they’re a small minority within the church.

Now, there are plenty of minority groups that people don’t care much about. I’m sure there are only a handful of people, for example, who eat pickles every morning for breakfast. No one cares. But it’s becoming clear to Christians with a biblical worldview that secular culture does care about our existence…because it hates all we represent.

In a very real sense, we’re increasingly being seen as a small and extreme faction of society.

Understanding Christian “Extremism”

Read or watch anything in mainstream media that mentions “conservative Christians” and you’ll immediately know from the tone that the term isn’t being used as a neutral descriptor. It’s now a pejorative that comes with a knowing nod and eye roll among the supposedly more enlightened culture. (Note that I’m not necessarily talking about conservative in a political sense; in secular usage, “conservative” is a blanket label to reference Christians who disagree with mainstream secular views. There’s often a correlation with politics, but it’s not exclusive to that.)

The implication is that we’re those people—the hold-outs who won’t get on board with where the rest of society wants to go. We’re seen as an impediment to culturally-defined progress because of how different our views are relative to today’s mainstream secularism.

The result is that secularists now see us with various degrees of indignation. As strange as it sounds to many Christians, we’re the new extremists—a minority group whose views are seen as 1) fundamentally different from the “average” view of secular culture and 2) concerning to the rest of society.

When you sense that this is how culture sees us, it can seem pretty bizarre. After all, Christianity has been the dominant religious influence in America for the last 400 years, but now it’s extreme (and concerning) to believe that the Bible is God’s Word?

While there’s no reason to agree with secularists that our views are concerning, there are many reasons to agree that our worldview is extremely different relative to the dominant secular worldview culture now holds. We’re certainly “extremists” in that sense—and should gladly embrace the fact if we fully understand the nature of a biblical worldview.

More specifically, we’re extreme in three major ways.

First, we’re extreme in our source of authority

The most foundational difference between those with a biblical worldview and those with a secular one is our source of authority. Every person, as part of their worldview, has an ultimate authority for what they believe to be true about the world and how they should function within it. For Christians with a biblical worldview, that source of authority is God, and we believe that He’s revealed those truths in the Bible.

In secularism, a person’s source of authority is the self. Secularism isn’t what you get when you simply subtract so-called religious beliefs from a person’s worldview. When you take away the authority of God, you aren’t left with no authority—you’re left with the authority of you.

This difference in authority is at the root of almost every difference between a biblical and secular worldview.

When the vast majority of people’s authority for truth is themselves, it shouldn’t be surprising that Christians are going to come to some very different conclusions about the nature of reality than culture. Even uttering the words “The Bible says…” with the assumption that what follows is objective truth that supersedes personal opinion is extreme relative to today’s average view that the individual reigns supreme.

And for those who assume the Bible is merely a written record of man’s thoughts about God (and nothing more), such extremity is concerning. How can Christians be compelled to follow new societal directions if they don’t view truth as something subject to change? With fellow secularists whose feelings determine truth, society can “progress” through the push and pull of changing popular consensus. But Christians who believe they have un unchanging authority for all time? That’s an infuriating barrier that secularists resent.

Second, we’re extreme in our understanding of morality.

It follows from the first point that Christians with a biblical worldview are going to be at great odds with secularists in matters of morality.

For those whose authority is God and who believe He’s revealed Himself and His will in the Bible, what the Bible says is right or wrong is going to be the final word…regardless of what we think, regardless of what any other individual thinks, and regardless of what society thinks. From a secular perspective, what a stubborn view!

When your authority is yourself, there’s no objective basis for defining morality for all people. In essence, each person is their own God. What’s right or wrong isn’t a matter of what someone else has said—God or not—it’s a matter of what you’ve said.

But wait! Wouldn’t that mean that secularists should accept the Christian view of morality as just one more valid view?

Absolutely.

But they don’t. And this is where secularists fail to live consistently within their own worldview rooted in the authority of the self.

If they were consistent, they’d say this: “Hey, we understand that your Christian view is just as valid as anyone else’s since every individual is their own authority and there’s no objective basis for claiming that anything is right or wrong for all people. But a bunch of us have (fill in the blank) view on (fill in the blank) issue, and we want to try to convince you to change your opinion! Yet even if you don’t change your mind, that’s OK, since everyone’s view is equally valid anyway. Have a great day.”

Instead, they’re saying this: “The (fill in the blank) view on (fill in the blank) issue is the objectively right view for all people, and if you disagree, you’re wrong…and evil.”

Without an objective basis for morality from a higher-than-human moral lawgiver, the closest thing secularists can have as a moral standard that applies to all people is popular consensus. That’s why it’s so important for secular culture to continually push their views of morality through every conceivable channel—education, media, entertainment, business, and more. The more people get on board with any given view of morality, the more the popular consensus is achieved, and the more secularists have a new supposed standard for what’s right.

But once again, Christians with a biblical worldview aren’t subject to that shift. No matter how prevalent any new idea of morality is, if it conflicts with what Christians believe God Himself has said, the popular consensus won’t become our new standard. And that “extreme” viewpoint relative to average culture is mind-numbingly frustrating to nonbelievers.

Third, we’re extreme in believing that judgment can be objectively valid.

This point follows from both of the prior points. Because Christians look to God and His word as the source of authority for our lives, and because views of morality are an outworking of those beliefs, Christians believe that judgment on matters of truth can be objectively valid—not just a matter of opinion.

In Faithfully Different, I describe the tenets of a secular worldview this way: Feelings are the ultimate guide, happiness is the ultimate goal, judging is the ultimate sin, and God is the ultimate guess. Judging is the greatest sin in secularism because when feelings are your guide and happiness is your goal, no one has the ability or right to tell you what only you can know (how you feel and what makes you happiest). From the worldview perspective that the authority is the self, it’s absurd and insulting for someone else to come along, look at a person’s life journey, and claim to know better than they do how they should or shouldn’t be living.

But that assumes there’s no God who has provided a reliable and authoritative source for that information.

From a biblical worldview perspective, God has provided that in the Bible. And if the God of the universe has told us what’s true about reality, it’s not absurd or insulting to share what He’s said—it’s literally the only reasonable thing to do given that the God who created everything would assuredly know more than any human.

Jesus never said that the world would understand us. To a large degree, secular culture’s views here are to be expected. What concerns me far more is when Christians don’t understand how extremely different a biblical worldview should be from a secular one. In many ways, secularists who think those with a biblical worldview are extreme relative to average society understand this more than self-professed Christians who see only marginal differences.

When we truly have a biblical worldview, we should understand that we really are “extremists” in today’s culture…and embrace it. Not only is it okay to be extreme in this way, it’s beautiful—because it’s what God Himself calls us to.

Why People Hate Being Judged

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

“Don’t judge me” seems to be an increasingly uttered, and accepted, refrain in our society, reflecting what appears to be a universal and deep-seated human tendency. Even Christians, who should know better, seem to be jumping on board, believing somehow that Christian compassion requires us to be more understanding and more accepting of bad behavior.

But when you think about it, the phrase is not quite apt. Most people don’t really mean that they don’t want to be judged. In fact, they do. What they mean is that they want others to approve of their conduct or behavior. What they don’t want is to be judged and found wanting. Whether its sports or academics or work, again and again we see that people want to compete, want to be praised for their performance, and want to come out on top. It is losing – being told that they didn’t measure up or that they did something wrong, or bad – that they seek to avoid.

This inclination to seek praise and to avoid condemnation is apparent from a child’s earliest days: praise him and he smiles, admonish or scold him and he cries. He doesn’t need to be taught how to react; he simply knows it. And when he learns to express himself, one of the first things he will intuitively grasp is that there is this thing called “fairness” by which all behavior is judged. He will make use of this early and often, as he condemns actions that do not meet his expectations. “That’s not fair!” he will exclaim, without fully understanding the power of that phrase to influence others. And when he himself is accused of being unfair, he will not respond by saying that it’s okay to be unfair; instead, he will say that he is being fair, as he attempts to justify his conduct. It’s only as he gets older that he will learn the clever parry that is so popular today of claiming that judging itself is wrong.

What explanation does atheism have for this obvious human condition? Since the vast majority of people seem inclined to want to shake off judgment and be free to do what they wish, wouldn’t natural selection have eliminated this condition of feeling constrained to act a certain way long ago? In other words, when we seek to avoid judgment, what we are really saying is that we do not want to feel guilt. We don’t want that nagging sense that, as CS Lewis put it, we are aware of a law that is pressing down upon us, a law that we did not create and that we cannot evade, for it resides within our minds. But if there is no God, what evolutionary benefit would possibly derive from feeling guilty about not acting as we should? Would this not inhibit us from future acts that might benefit us in a direct and personal way at the expense of others? If natural selection operates as Darwinists suggest, then those early humans who lacked a sense of guilt would have been free to vigorously pursue their self-interest – to enhance their ability to survive and to procreate – as contrasted with their fellows who were inhibited because they did not want to feel the guilt that comes from hurting other people. With survival of the fittest as the rule, behaviors that limit our choices and prevent us from putting ourselves first make us weaker, not stronger. In a universe in which we are simply an accident of evolution, pursuit of self-interest would be the default setting.

The Christian worldview, by contrast, can and does make sense of guilt. We intuitively know that there is a right and wrong, that there is good and evil and fairness and unfairness, because the absolute standard for goodness made us in His image. He left within us – written upon our heart as it were – intuitive access to this standard and a desire – a need – to conform to it. Our fallen nature prevents us from ever fully achieving this, but the knowledge of this law, and of our need to yield to it, is part of the very fabric of our minds.

God left within us the desire to find our way back to Him, and an innate fear of condemnation for failing to meet His standard. Though we may not realize it, we long to hear Him welcome us home with words of praise, a hearty “well done my good and faithful servant.”

What we seem to have forgotten, however, is that we need not fear ultimate condemnation, for He also sent His Son to provide us the way home, the path to redemption. But we cannot make it there on our own and pretending otherwise by trying to avoid feelings of guilt does no one any good.

Proving Jesus without the Bible

Podcast

Suppose none of the New Testament survived to this day. Would we know anything about Jesus and his teachings? Yes, much of what we know today about Jesus and his teachings we would know even without any of the New Testament documents. How? Cold-Case Homicide Detective J. Warner Wallace joins Frank to show you how. Drawing from his amazing new book, Person of Interest, Wallace shows the unparalleled impact Jesus has had on culture in six different areas: literature, art, science, music, education, and even other world religions. To cite just one example from art, you could reconstruct the entire Gospel of Mark just from paintings and drawings done in the first several hundred years following Jesus. Wallace lays out several other examples. And the conversation is just getting started. This is just the first show on this topic. Check back in September for the next one. In the meantime, if you pre-order the book, you’ll get some free stuff that you can get nowhere else! 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

August 13, 2021/by Frank Turek

What did Jesus think about the Old Testament?

4. Is the NT True?, Jesus Christ

By Ryan Leasure

It’s not uncommon for Christians to throw shade on the Old Testament. These Christians say they love Jesus, but they could do without those primitive Jewish texts. In fact, many Christians suggest that much of the Old Testament is ahistorical. Events such as the flood, Jonah being swallowed by a big fish, or the fiery judgment of Sodom and Gomorra never happened. And then there’s the infamous quote that Christians simply need to “unhitch themselves from the Old Testament” because much of it is embarrassing or difficult to understand. Why can’t we just focus on Jesus instead?

We can certainly sympathize with these sentiments. After all, the flood and Sodom’s judgment seem pretty incredible and kind of harsh to boot! Wouldn’t it just be easier to disregard this ancient corpus? This position seems reasonable until one realizes that the same Jesus these Christians adore also happens to hold the Old Testament in high regard. Not only does he affirm the Old Testament’s inspiration, he also affirms its historicity and authority.

The Old Testament is Inspired

Historically, Christians have affirmed the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible. That is to say, they recognize that every word of Scripture is “God-breathed” (2 Tim 3:16-17). At the same time, God spoke through human agency. Therefore, Scripture not only has a divine author, it has human authors as well.

Jesus affirmed the human authors of the Old Testament. Repeatedly, he recognizes that Moses is the one who gave the Law (Matt 8:4; 19:8; Mark 1:44; 7:10; Luke 5:14; 20:37; John 5:46; 7:19). He’ll say things like “do what Moses commanded” (Mark 1:44). Or “Moses said, Honor your father and your mother” (Mark 7:10). With respect to other Old Testament authors, Jesus declares, “Well did Isaiah prophesy . . .” (Mark 7:6). Also, “David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared . . .” (Mark 12:36). And “So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel . . .”(Matt 24:15). It’s worth noting that just about all critical scholars call into question the authorship of these individuals in clear contradiction to Jesus.

At the same time, Jesus affirms that these individuals wrote divinely inspired Scripture. As was just alluded to, Jesus noted in Mark 12:36, “David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared, . . .” In other words, David wrote, but his writings were the result of the Holy Spirit’s work (2 Pet 1:20-21). He also declared “Well did Isaiah prophesy . . .” (Mark 7:6). The mere mention of prophecy suggests that Isaiah wrote from God. Prophecy, after all, is by definition “a word from God.” The same could be said for Matthew 24:15 when Jesus refers to Daniel as “the prophet.” Moreover, when speaking to the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus asserts, “You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men” (Mark 7:8). He then goes on to clarify that the commandment of God was what Moses wrote in Exodus 20.

As John Wenhan notes, “To [Jesus], Moses, the prophets, David and the other Scripture-writers were truly inspired men with a message given by the Spirit of God.”¹

The Old Testament is Historically Accurate

While many are willing to grant the Old Testament’s inspiration, many of these same individuals deny that it’s historically accurate at every point. They might affirm its historical nature in general (God created the world, called Abraham and the Jewish people, the Jews were exiled, etc.), but they balk at some of the more challenging texts (the flood, Sodom, Jonah, etc.). That said, Jesus has no qualms about affirming the historical nature of the Old Testament—even the most difficult texts to believe. Here are a few examples:

He believed that Cain killed Abel (Luke 11:51), that God sent a flood but spared Noah in the ark (Matt 24:37-39), and that God destroyed Sodom because of their wickedness (Matt 11:23-24). He even adds, “Remember Lot’s wife” (Luke 17:32). Additionally, Jesus believed that God sent down manna from heaven (John 6:31), the Israelites were healed by looking at the serpent (John 3:14), and that Jonah was swallowed by a big fish only to be regurgitated three days later (Matt 12:39-41).

The last text about Jonah is especially significant because it demonstrates that Jesus didn’t simply view these events figuratively. For the end of the text reads, “The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here” (Matt 12:41). It’s hard to imagine how Jesus could assert that Ninevah would rise up in the final judgment against the people who rejected him if they were make-believe. The same could be said for Jesus’ statement in Matthew 24:37: “For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.” In other words, just as God’s judgment was poured out in the days of Noah, so it will be again in the final judgment.

Again, Wenham remarks, “It is evident that [Jesus] was familiar with most of our Old Testament and that he treated it all equally as history.”²

The Old Testament is Authoritative

Because Jesus believed the Old Testament was divinely-inspired, he also affirmed its full authority. He demonstrated this authority by appealing to the scriptures dozens of times.

When asked what were the greatest commandments, he declares that “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart with all your soul and with all your mind. . . And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt 22:37-39). Jesus said that these two commands (Deut 6:4-6; Lev 19:18) sum up the totality of the Old Testament and are the guide to all ethical matters.

When facing temptation, Jesus appealed to the authority of Scripture to do battle against Satan. He repeatedly declares, “it is written, it is written, it is written” (Matt 4:1-11). Even as he was facing death, the final words on his lips were words from the Old Testament (Psalm 22:1; 31:5).

Jesus appeals to Genesis 1-2 when speaking about marriage and divorce. He asks, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matt 19:4-6). By alluding to Genesis 1-2 here, Jesus asserts that his position on marriage and divorce is rooted in the authority of the Old Testament text. By contrast, Jesus’ opponents rooted their position in different Rabbis (Shammai and Hillel).

When disputing with the Sadducess about the resurrection, Jesus scolds them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matt 22:29). In other words, the Scriptures give us the definitive, authoritative word about the resurrection. Jesus goes on to question them, “Have you not read what was said to you by God, I am the God of Abraham . . .?” (Matt 31-32) Again, Jesus appeals to the Old Testament text to assert God’s power over the resurrection.

Jesus goes so far as to state that “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). For Jesus, Scripture is so powerful, nothing can undo it.

Jesus and the Old Testament

All the evidence taken together suggests that Jesus held a high view of the Old Testament. Those who claim to hold Jesus in high regard but reject some of the Old Testament’s teachings are being inconsistent. If you hold Jesus in high regard, you must hold the Old Testament in high regard as well. As John Wenham notes:

“To Christ the Old Testament was true, authoritative, inspired. To him the God of the Old Testament was the living God, and the teaching of the Old Testament was the teaching of the living God. To him, what Scripture said, God said.” ³

*For more on this topic, see John Wenham’s book Christ and the Bible.

The Three Fatal Flaws of Equity

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Jason Jimenez

All this talk about more equity in our institutions seems like a good thing, right?

Not so fast.

On the surface, equity seems to be fair, just, and impartial. But upon further investigation, you find that the outcome of equity is anything but fair, just, and impartial.

There are undoubtedly those within the debate over diversity, inclusivity, and equity who genuinely try to reduce discrimination and attempt to unite people of different backgrounds. That’s a good thing. But let’s not be fooled into believing that we must embrace the Left’s dangerous views of equity hook line and sinker.

To prevent you from believing the secular lies of equity, I’ve put together three areas that expose the faulty thinking and the dangerous results that come with this unchecked justice referred to as “equitable treatment.”

The Unequal Treatments of Equity

Equality, as we’ve known it to mean, is treating everyone the same. But that’s no longer the case. Instead, the Left has hijacked equality by socially engineering it into something predicated on equal outcomes (i.e., equity), not based on equal opportunity.

The Austrian-British economist, Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992), distinctively communicated the difference between equality and equity by writing, “There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. While the first is the condition of a free society, the second means, as De Tocqueville described it, a new form of servitude.”

The idea of a “new form of servitude” is to mistreat the fortunate to treat the less fortunate fairly. But how is that just and fair? If equity is about the “systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals,” how is the unequal distribution of benefits to low-income individuals considered equitable? This equitable posture is the classic “fair share” philosophy that has its roots in socialism.

Just because inequities exist doesn’t give the government or some social justice system the right to step in and attempt to level the playing field so that everyone ends up in the same place. That, my friends, is not equality, nor is it following the impartial mandates of the law.

The Injustice of Equity

In his book, Prosperity and Poverty, Calvin Beisner proves this point, “The only way to arrive at equal fruits is to equalize behavior, and that requires robbing men of liberty, making them slaves.”

The truth is equity (according to the Left) doesn’t promote fairness, equal opportunities, or equal outcomes. As a matter of fact, it snubs individuality, stifles creativity, cheapens competition, steals from hard earning workers, lowers the standards of achievement, and actually advances partiality—and often, promotes racism.

On his blog, Neal Hardin writes, “In order for total uniformity of results to be achieved, there would have to be a uniformity of our characteristics and desires. In other words, true equality of outcome could only result if there were no meaningful differences among human beings or the choices we would make, which seems to go completely contrary to the diversity which God intended in creation. Clearly, on some level, God created us with these diverse characteristics and desires expecting different outcomes.”

To ignore each person’s uniqueness, giftedness and not to embrace diversity is in itself an injustice that (if left unchecked) leads to more discrimination and oppression.

The Inconsistencies of Equity

“Black Lives Matter stands in solidarity with Palestinians,” the protest group declared in a tweet. The tweet went on to say, “We are a movement committed to ending settler colonialism in all forms and will continue to advocate for Palestinian liberation (always have. And always will be).”

But here’s the thing. If BLM is for equity, then why don’t they stand with Israel?

Or how about female athletes (who have XX chromosomes) that are losing to transgender athletes (who have XY chromosomes)? How is that equitable treatment? From the start, women athletes are being placed at a disadvantage and have no real chance to arrive at an equal outcome. Where’s the equity in that?

What about Mayor Lightfoot of Chicago? In the spirit of equity, she, a black woman, only gave interviews to black and brown journalists in celebration of her two years in office. Say what? How is that being fair while discriminating against white journalists? Not to mention is that honest journalism?

Here’s the bottom line. No one denies there are disparities among people. We come from different backgrounds, ethnic groups, families, etc. But just because we are created equal doesn’t mean we are all created the same. We are not all the same. And it is feasibly impossible to make everyone end up at the same place.

Individual freedom doesn’t guarantee equal outcomes. It does, however, provide equal opportunity for people to succeed in life. Our nation was founded on the solid conviction that equality of humanity retains and sustains the essence of human rights in a civil society. That’s the kind of equity Christians should support and defend.

However, when the culture measures human rights based on color, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, that culture will not survive. The more America moves further away from God and his truth, the deeper our nation will slip into spiritual corruption and generate more inequalities and inequities within society.

As Christians, we are to honor the fact that each human is made in the image of God. We need to remember that God has made each of us diverse in color, ethnicity, and personality and learn to appreciate the uniqueness and difference in each of us.

What’s the Solution to the Identity Crisis?

Podcast

Why are people denying that there are differences between men and women? Why are people struggling with their identity? What’s the solution to all this?

Join Frank as he addresses these questions and others. Along the way he points out how transgender ideology presupposes fixed genders: how living “my truth” is self-defeating; and why “following your heart” is usually unwise. There is a better way forward, not only in this life but right into eternity.

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

August 6, 2021/by Frank Turek

Tag Archive for: apologetics

Don’t believe me? Check for yourself!

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Notes

A Short History of Islam

What Are Students Learning At Yale? A Review of Dale Martin’s Introductory Lecture on the New Testament

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

A Short History of Tyranny

Are Christians the New Extremists? Yes, and That’s Okay

Understanding Christian “Extremism”

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Why People Hate Being Judged

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Proving Jesus without the Bible

What did Jesus think about the Old Testament?

The Old Testament is Inspired

The Old Testament is Historically Accurate

The Old Testament is Authoritative

Jesus and the Old Testament

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Three Fatal Flaws of Equity

The Unequal Treatments of Equity

The Injustice of Equity

The Inconsistencies of Equity

Recommended resources related to the topic:

What’s the Solution to the Identity Crisis?

QUICK LINKS

FEATURED RESOURCES

SUPPORT CROSSEXAMINED