apologetics Archives - Page 58 of 138

Tag Archive for: apologetics

More Reasons You Can’t Make the New Testament Up

How do we know the New Testament writers actually told the truth? Could the New Testament story be invented? Building on two previous shows, Frank gives five reasons why it takes more “faith” to believe that the New Testament writers invented the story. 1) non-Christian sources, 2) historical crosshairs and eyewitness details, 3) embarrassing details about themselves and even Jesus, 4) demanding sayings and commands of Jesus, and 5) the fact that they carefully distinguished their words from the words of Jesus.

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

June 11, 2021/by Frank Turek

Why Do Some Christians Say “All Sins Are Equally Bad” And “Everyone Is Equally Guilty”?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Wintery Knight

We were having a discussion about whether the Bible teaches that sex before marriage is morally wrong, and someone said “impure thoughts counts as adultery… there isn’t a virgin among us.”

Regarding her point that lust is equal to adultery, and so no one is really a virgin, here’s Ligonier Ministries:

In demonstrating that the seventh commandment was given also to prohibit lust, Jesus is not somehow saying that an unconsummated lustful intent is sinful to the same degree as an actual extramarital affair (though both sins merit punishment). The latter is a more blatant violation of the statute against adultery, and it has greater consequences in the form of divorce and the loss of one’s reputation as a trustworthy person.

Any serious student of the Bible is aware of Jesus’ tendency to exaggerate/use hyperbole.

Also, 1 Corinthians 7 says that wives are not supposed to make a habit of denying their husbands sex. Sex withholding is more of an epidemic today than pornography, and it should also be on the adultery spectrum. It isn’t as bad as adultery, but it definitely breaks the marital covenant.

So why would someone say that lust is the same as adultery and that there is no such thing as a virgin?

Dr. Michael Krueger recently blogged about this “all sins are equal” view.

Krueger says this:

First, to say all sins are the same is to confuse the effect of sin with the heinousness of sin. While all sins are equal in their effect (they separate us from God), they are not all equally heinous.

Second, the Bible differentiates between sins. Some sins are more severe in terms of impact (1 Cor 6:18), in terms of culpability (Rom 1:21-32), and in terms of the judgment warranted (2 Pet 2:17; Mark 9:42; James 3:1).

Krueger explains the motivation behind the slogans:

[S]ome Christians… use this phrase as way to “flatten out” all sins so that they are not distinguishable from each other. Or, to put it another way, this phrase is used to portray all human beings as precisely the same. If all sins are equal, and all people sin, then no one is more holy than anyone else.

In a world fascinated with “equality,” this usage of the phrase is particularly attractive to folks. It allows everyone to be lumped together into a single undifferentiated mass.

Such a move is also useful as a way to prevent particular behaviors from being condemned. If all sins are equal, and everyone is a sinner, then you are not allowed to highlight any particular sin (or sinner).

Needless to say, this usage of the phrase has featured largely in the recent cultural debates over issues like homosexuality. Yes, homosexuality is a sin, some Christians reluctantly concede. But, they argue, all sins are equal in God’s sight and therefore it is no different than anything else. Therefore, Christians ought to stop talking about homosexuality unless they are also willing to talk about impatience, anger, gluttony, and so on.

Krueger also posted this fascinating follow-up post, where he looks at how the phrase is being used by people on Twitter.

Look at these tweets:

All sins are equal. People tend to forget that. There is no bigger or smaller sin. Being gay and lying, very equal.
all sins are equal in God’s eyes. whatever you’re doing, is no better than what someone else is doing.
If you have sex before marriage please don’t come on social media preaching about the wrongs of homosexuality. All sins are equal
Need people to realize that all sins are equal… don’t try to look down on me or question my faith just cuz you sin differently than I do.
Don’t understand why you’re so quick to judge me, when all sins are equal. So much for family..
if you think being gay is a sin, let me ask you something, have you not done anything wrong in your life? all sins are equal. we’re sinners
Nope no difference at all. All sins are equal no matter what you’re running for. The bible says do not judge lest ye be judged
A huge problem I have with religion is the notion that all sins are equal. Like pre-marital sex and murder are the same amount t of bad.
people do bad things because they believe that all sins are equal and ~god~ loves y’all equally so he’s going to forgive you naman ha ha ha
It a sin to condemn another sinner and their actions. All sins are equal. So what makes you better than the person you’re condemning?
I think so b/c having sex before marriage doesn’t make you less of a women then if you waited until marriage.. all sins are equal soo
a friendly reminder, all sins are equal in god’s eyes so you’re not better than I am in any way. please worry about your own sins before mine.
People don’t like when I suggest abortion as an option. This is a free country and all sins are equal so mind your business!!!
What I do is no worse than what you do… all sins are equal no matter what it is… a sin is a sin
to god all sins are equal so you have no right to compare your sins to someone else’s bc in the end it doesn’t matter

The first thing that I noticed is that premarital sex and homosexuality are the most popular sins. I would think that divorce and abortion would be up there in the rankings, as well.

People want to be free to follow their hearts when seeking pleasure, then quote the Bible (badly) afterward, to attack anyone who says that anything they’ve done is morally wrong. They would rather escape the judgment of their peers than admit fault and try to fix the mistake and do better next time. And they would rather tell people who are hurting themselves by breaking the rules that there are no rules. It makes them feel good to “not judge” – they feel as if they are being kind. Their compassion looks good to non-Christians. And they’re promoting moral relativism which, when it becomes widespread, prevents anyone from judging them.

It’s so bad now, that the people who have morals and who make moral judgments are seen as the real bad people. The immoral people are on the offense, and even trying to ban people from being able to disagree with them.

Book Review: Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Timothy Fox

In my last blog post, I shared some of the most important books regarding cultural issues that I read in the year since the COVID lockdowns began in March 2020. While those books dealt with the culture at large, my next two reads focused on cultural and theological issues impacting the church: Confronting Injustice without Compromising Truth by Thaddeus Williams, and the book I am reviewing here Another Gospel?: A Lifelong Christian Seeks Truth in Response to Progressive Christianity by Alisa Childers.

Content

Another Gospel? follows the story of former ZOEgirl, Alisa Childers, as her orthodox Christian faith was challenged in a study group led by a progressive Christian pastor. In the first two chapters, Alisa sets the stage of her spiritual journey and traces the history of progressive Christianity from its roots in the emerging church to its current form. While progressive Christianity has no set dogma, its hallmarks are the rejection, or at least questioning, of core classical Christian doctrines, such as the deity of Christ, Jesus’s physical resurrection, and the divine nature of the Bible. This key aspect of progressive Christianity, the process of rejecting or questioning Christian doctrines, is known as deconstruction, “where all beliefs someone was raised with and had never questioned are systematically pulled apart” (7). Another Gospel? subsequently explores the deconstruction and reconstruction of Alisa’s faith.

Chapters three through eleven each tackle a main question or issue raised against classical Christianity. Most topics are intellectual, such as the authority of the Bible, while others are emotional, such as spiritual abuse and disdain for traditional biblical morality. Alisa shows how progressive Christianity has imbibed the spirit of the age in that it offers a more “tolerant” and “inclusive” Christianity. Yet, it does so by ignoring or outright rejecting much that the Bible and historical Christianity has taught for centuries.

The book closes with Alisa’s reconstruction. By seeking answers to the questions that the progressive pastor raised, Alisa’s faith in Christianity became stronger than before. This is also Alisa’s hope for those reading her book, that they will have confidence that Christianity—classical, traditional, orthodox Christianity—is really true.

Audience

The target reader of Another Gospel? is obviously someone who is in the same position in which Alisa found herself, a person wrestling with the questions and challenges of progressive Christianity. Alisa shows us the types of objections that are raised and how Christianity can fully answer them all. It’s important to note, however, that none of the topics discussed are specific to progressive Christianity. The objections to which Alisa responds are also commonly raised by skeptics and atheists, such as the reliability of the New Testament or the fairness of Hell. This shows us that there really are no new objections to Christianity (that haven’t already been answered) and that progressive Christianity itself isn’t new. It’s just skepticism and postmodernism posing as Christianity. So even if someone is not interested specifically in progressive Christianity, one will still find Another Gospel? to be a great, accessible apologetics resource.

But what about someone who is already well-studied in apologetics and theology? While many of the objections to which Alisa responds are standard apologetics fare, they are framed within the context of progressive Christianity. Alisa explores the tactics and methods by which progressive Christians cause others to doubt their childhood faith. Another Gospel? shows us the progressive Christian mindset, as well as the types of arguments for which a Christian should prepare when engaging progressive Christians. So, even Christians who are familiar with the objections raised in the book can still benefit from reading it.

Other Thoughts

Most importantly, Another Gospel? highlights just how dangerous progressive Christianity can be. As I mentioned above, many of the objections to which Alisa responds are the same objections of the typical skeptic. When challenged by a skeptic, though, a Christian may naturally know to keep up one’s guard, as the skeptic will be viewed as an opponent. But a progressive Christian may be viewed as a trusted friend, a brother or sister in Christ, and so the challenges raised will seem legitimate and not detrimental to one’s faith. This is the true danger of progressive Christianity. Another Gospel? is yet another reminder that challenges to Christianity do not always rise from outside, but also from within through wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matt. 7:15).

Conclusion

Alisa Childers has provided Christians an important resource for a growing challenge against the Church. She exposes progressive Christianity for what it is—a dangerous combination of skepticism and postmodernism that can easily destroy the faith of an uninformed Christian. Another Gospel? is a great safeguard against the objections raised by progressive Christians. Although Alisa grapples with difficult issues, she does so simply and clearly, making her book accessible to anyone, from apologetics veterans to laypersons. I highly recommend Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers to those concerned with the increasing influence of progressive Christianity within the Church, as well as to anyone who simply wishes for good answers to difficult questions.

Why Does the Church Need Apologetics?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Mia Langford

Apologetics is having an overdue moment in the spotlight, thanks in part to challenges from media influence on the culture. Dr. Ray Ciervo, apologist, pastor, and SES Alum, joins us this week to discuss how someone can help get apologetics training started at their local church, what issues should be prioritized in such an initiative, as well as some of the hurdles to watch for.

Questions

After college students in his congregation started bringing him their questions, Ray Ciervo made it his quest to find the answers. This decision completely changed the trajectory of his life and his sense of his mission as a pastor and culminated in his graduating with a Doctor of Ministry from Southern Evangelical Seminary.

After years as a pastor and apologist, Ciervo stresses that the ability to preach the Bible is a vital skill, but it cannot do the lifting particular to apologetics (the intellectual defense of the truth of Christianity). Preaching itself cannot deal with postmodernism, and it cannot by itself field all the questions one will encounter during evangelism. Despite this, he laments,

“The majority of churches that I come into contact with do not demonstrate that they are teaching their church how to defend the historic Christian faith. They’re not really dealing with answers.”

A Wake-Up Call

Critical theory has been a wake-up call in this respect, forcing a scramble for answers and the ability to defend against what people recognize intuitively as ideological poison. Christian culture, which for so long seemed a buffer against postmodern thought, has given way to a rush of secular dogma. In order to combat critical theory and other implications of postmodern thought one must understand the philosophical underpinnings involved, especially the nature of truth as objective.

The Way Forward

So where do we go from here? Apologetics must take its place, in Ciervo’s words, as “a regular part of the diet of the pulpit.” Ciervo adds that churches are either in “survival mode” or “mission mode,” and gives examples of ways to help make apologetics part of the mission of one’s local church, including:

Come with a Spirit of Humility

It’s important to come alongside and serve your pastor rather than coming in with the demeanor that you’re here to “fix” things. You must first win their trust by genuinely figuring out how you can help them in their current goals.

Whet Their Appetite

Don’t offer a year’s worth of material. Instead, offer to do an afternoon workshop or teach for a few weeks on a particular subject.

Start with the Resurrection

Apologetics is a rich field and can easily result in information overload, provoking people to think they just aren’t up to the challenge. For beginners, subjects like philosophy or science can intimidate or lose their attention, whereas something biblical like the resurrection is familiar and usually carries built-in interest.

Don’t miss the full interview with Dr. Ray Ciervo.

What’s in a name? Evidence!

Podcast

How do we know that the writers of the Gospels and Acts were eyewitnesses? One way we can tell is through a study of names in the New Testament. It may sound boring, but it’s actually fascinating. Dr. Richard Bauckham has done most of the work for us, and his conclusions are actually changing New Testament scholarship. Frank explores just one piece of evidence in Dr. Bauckham’s 700-page book. When you compare the names in the Gospels and Acts to names from other sources in and around Israel at the time, what do we find? Evidence that is quite compelling that the Gospels and Acts contain eyewitness testimony! 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

June 4, 2021/by Frank Turek

Why Does the Media Give A Pass To Biden’s Faith?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Jason Jimenez

Biden, the 46th president, is America’s second Catholic President. The first was John F. Kennedy—when he became President in 1961.

From the start of his campaign, Biden wanted everything to be about his faith. A favored campaign slogan for the Biden camp was the “battle for the soul of the nation.”

It didn’t matter the media outlet. They all loved reporting on how Biden was a “deeply devout Catholic” and that his faith is a huge factor in “shaping his politics.” Even Speaker Pelosi publicly praises Biden’s faith and willingly admits that his Catholic faith has shaped his career and public policies. An article in The New York Times stated, “President Biden, perhaps the most religiously observant commander in chief in half a century, speaks of how his Catholic faith grounds his life and his policies.”

Interesting, isn’t it? How the media and every single big-time progressive politician have no problem mixing Biden’s faith with politics. But suppose you are a Christian who is pro-life and not in favor of the Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage. In that case, the response you get from the Left is the complete opposite. How was Judge Amy Coney Barrett (also a deeply devout Catholic) treated during the Senate confirmation hearings? Senator Dianne Feinstein and her colleagues didn’t praise Judge Barrett for her faith. Instead, Senator Feinstein expressed her concern about how Judge Barrett’s faith might influence her decisions by stating, “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.” But if the Left is so concerned about a person’s faith interfering with their public service, why isn’t the Left disparaging Biden from talking about how his faith shapes his public policies?

The main reason? Because President Biden is as much of a progressive as he is a Catholic. He is what I refer to as a “Progressive Catholic.” Don’t believe me? Listen to what he said in his book, Promises to Keep: On Life and Politics, “I’m as much a cultural Catholic as I am a theological Catholic.” Biden continues, “My idea of self, of family, of community, of the wider world, comes straight from my religion. It’s not so much the Bible, the beatitudes, the Ten Commandments, the sacraments, or the prayers I learned. It’s the culture.”

Because Judge Barrett is a conservative Catholic and not a progressive, liberal Democrats are concerned about her “dogmatic” positions embedding on her judgment. Therefore, she must be censored at all costs. However, in President Biden’s case, he gets a pass because he’ll keep on advancing progressive policies like the Equality Act (which will eviscerate religious freedoms in America), government funding of abortion, and the Green New Deal.

It’s not a question of whether President Biden has a right to express his religious beliefs. He has that right under the Constitution. It’s really about charging the media for being inconsistent by not allowing conservatives to do the same.

Let’s hope the media will admit to their intolerance and learn to be more receptive to Americans who hold conservative viewpoints.

Why Don’t the Synoptic Gospels Mention Lazarus?

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

By Ryan Leasure

Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead is one of the most well-known stories in the Gospels. Yet, for some reason, Matthew, Mark, and Luke don’t mention it. This head-scratching absence has raised a lot of doubts about its historicity. After all, this story seems too significant to leave out. As you can imagine, skeptics think John made it up. But could there be a good reason that the earlier Gospels left it out?

While it does seem strange that the synoptic writers would leave out this story, I believe we have a good explanation for its absence in what Gerd Theissen calls “protective anonymity.”[1]

Pre-Markan Tradition

Protective anonymity is based on the premise that a pre-Markan tradition stands behind the passion narrative in Mark 14-16. In other words, while Mark composed much of his Gospel based on Peter’s eyewitness testimony, the last few chapters came from another source that dates much closer to the time of Jesus’ death and resurrection. While biblical scholars are somewhat divided on this issue, the evidence tilts in favor of this pre-Markan source.

For example, scholars have long noted that Mark didn’t arrange the pericopes (e.g., miracles, parables, proclamations, narratives, exorcisms, etc.) chronologically. Rather, he ordered them in ways that suited his purposes. In fact, Matthew and Luke’s orders often diverge from Mark’s. Meaning, Mark could have easily rearranged the stories in a different order without impacting the overall message. However, when one gets to the passion narrative, the entire account presupposes a chronological order. Instead of one short story after another, the entire passion account (ch. 14-16, possibly ch. 11-16) flows like one continuous narrative. Certainly, Mark could have composed these last few chapters himself. But a few features from the text suggest that it was composed earlier and in Jerusalem.

One reason for adopting this view is that Mark mentions “the high priest” but never mentions him by name (Caiaphas). This phrasing would be akin to saying “the president” instead of President Biden. If I had a conversation with someone today and mentioned “the president,” no one would think I was talking about Trump, Obama, Bush, or any other previous president. They would assume I was talking about our current president. The same could be said for Caiaphas. Since he ruled till AD 37, the passion narrative that merely refers to him as “the high priest” must have been in circulation before his tenure ended.

Another reason for thinking that the passion account is early and from Jerusalem is the mention of “James the younger” in Mark 15:40. Theissen argues, “It would have been particularly necessary in Jerusalem to distinguish a ‘James the younger’ (or ‘the less’) from the ‘older’ (or ‘greater’).”[2] He suggests that “James the younger” was the brother of Jesus, and “James the older” was the Son of Zebedee. If Theissen is right, then the need to distinguish the two James would have been necessary in Jerusalem where “James the younger” was overseer of the church. Furthermore, the need to distinguish the two James would only be necessary until AD 44 when “James the older” died.

One more reason for thinking the passion narrative is a pre-Markan tradition is the mention of “the insurrection” in which Barabbas was involved (Mark 15:7). Jews, however, were familiar with a significant uprising led by Theudas in AD 44-45 (Acts 5:36).[3] One would think that if Mark wrote this passion account in the 50s or 60s, he would have been careful to distinguish which uprising Barabbas participated in. The mere mention of “the insurrection” suggests that this narrative pre-dates the insurrection led by Theudas in AD 44-45.

Protective Anonymity

With the pre-Markan tradition established, we are now in a position to answer the question of why Lazarus is never mentioned. Theissen argues that people are left anonymous or unmentioned because if their names got back to the Jerusalem authorities, they could be implicated as accomplices in Jesus’ “revolt.”

Consider the person who cut off the ear of the high priest’s servant in Mark 14:47. Mark never mentions him by name. He simply notes that “one of those who stood by drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear.” Mark doesn’t even make it clear if this is one of Jesus’ disciples. It’s not until John’s Gospel—written around AD 90—that we discover that the identity of this sword-wielding character is none other than Peter himself. John no longer feels the need to protect Peter’s identity because he was long dead by now. Since Peter most likely would have faced arrest for this attempted murder on the high priest’s servant, this early pre-Markan tradition kept him anonymous.

Another case of protective anonymity is the woman who anointed Jesus in Mark 14:3-9. Her actions would undoubtedly make her an accomplice in Jesus’ messianic “revolt.” Bauckham remarks,

At the time when this tradition took shape in this form in the early Jerusalem church, this woman would have been in danger were she identified as having been complicit in Jesus’ political subversive claim to messianic kingship. Her danger was perhaps even greater than that of the man who attacked the servant of the high priest, for it was she who had anointed Jesus as Messiah.[4]

It’s worth noting that Judas immediately betrayed Jesus to the authorities following the anointing. Once again, it’s John who reveals the identity of this woman as Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus, when she no longer needed protective anonymity.

Lazarus

If we are right to believe that the pre-Markan passion narrative intentionally kept people anonymous for their protection, we could understand how it would leave Lazarus out of the story altogether. After all, John 12:10-11 notes that “the chief priests made plans to put Lazarus to death as well, because on account of him many of the Jews were going away and believing in Jesus.” That is to say, Lazarus was a thorn in the side of the Jewish leaders because he was convincing Jews to become Christians by simply walking around. Because Jewish leaders continued to persecute the early church for decades, this early passion narrative had to leave him out of the story altogether for his own protection.

However, some have argued that perhaps Lazarus does sneak into Mark’s passion narrative after all. During Jesus’ arrest, we read, “And a young man followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body. And they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked” (Mark 14:51-52). Without sounding too immature, I laugh every time I read about this anonymous streaker. Yet, this account is more significant than it may appear. With all the commotion going on (Peter had just whacked off someone’s ear), none of the disciples probably observed this scene. They had already “left him and fled” (Mark 14:50). Therefore, this story must go back to the eyewitness testimony of the streaker himself.

Again, his anonymity was necessary for his protection. After all, the only reason he must have fled naked is because he resisted the guards. Once they grabbed him, he was able to slip away, leaving his linen cloth behind. Undoubtedly, the Jewish leaders would have been looking to arrest this man who fought against them.

So who was this man? Some have argued that it was Lazarus. Wanting to still acknowledge Lazarus’ importance, this early account allows him this brief and very comical appearance. Others have argued that this person is John Mark himself. Like Alfred Hitchcock appearing in one of his own films or an artist painting himself into his picture, Mark inserted himself into the narrative. I don’t think we can know for sure. Although I kind of hope it’s Mark. That just makes for a better story.

[1] Gerd Theissen, The Gospels in Context.

[2] Gerd Theissen, The Gospels in Context, 178.

[3] Josephus, Antiquities, 20.97-98.

[4] Richard Bauckham, Jesus, and the Eyewitnesses, 2^nd ed. 290.

3 Reasons Why Christians Should Be Evidential Investigators Instead of Experience Junkies

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Alisa Childers

Two men.

Both grew up in Christian homes in suburban America. Both have famous Evangelical fathers. Both made personal decisions for Christ and became actively involved and well-known in ministry. One walked away from his faith and became a secular humanist. The other has become one of the top apologists and defenders of the Christian faith.

Who are these two men? The first is Bart Campolo, son of evangelist and author Tony Campolo, and the other is Sean McDowell, son of evangelist and author Josh McDowell. Why did their fairly similar paths lead them to such radically different destinations?

Recently, the two came together to have a discussion on Premier Christian Radio entitled, “Why Bart Lost His Faith, Why Sean Kept His.” It was a fascinating discussion, and the thing that most struck me was the reason they each gave for having become a Christian in the first place. Campolo described how he converted to Christianity after finding a youth group he connected with and attending one of their retreats:

There’s hundreds of kids there. It’s Saturday night, there’s candlelight and firelight and everybody’s singing “Our God is an Awesome God,” and “We Love You Lord.” And in the midst of that kind of environment I had what I guess you would call a transcendent moment…I felt something. It felt like there was something happening in that room that was bigger than the group. I felt like I was connecting to something. And in that moment ….that was God.

I heard something. It was real to me. People that don’t believe in transcendent experiences—I always think like, “You haven’t been to the right concert… You haven’t used the right drugs. You haven’t fallen in love with the right partner.”

These experiences are real, and I think whatever narrative you’re in when you have one, it confirms that narrative. If I would have had that same transcendent moment with my friends in a mosque in Afghanistan, it would have confirmed Islam to me. But I was in the Christian world, so from that point on, Jesus was real to me.

In Campolo’s own words, he became a Christian because of a transcendent experience….a feeling that resonated deeply in his heart.

Later in the conversation, McDowell gave his reason for becoming a Christian. Having believed in Christianity as far back as he can remember, he experienced some serious doubts about his faith when he was a college student. When he shared his doubts with his father, his dad encouraged him to not believe something simply because it’s what he was told. He urged him to investigate the evidence for the truthfulness of Christianity for himself, and to reject anything that was untrue.

After doing some significant evidence investigation, McDowell arrived at the conclusion that Christianity is true….and this is the reason he is a Christian. His faith was not built upon a “transcendent moment,” but on a painful search for objective reality.
Campolo’s Christianity was confirmed by experience, while McDowell’s was confirmed by evidence. Here are 3 reasons why Christians should be evidential investigators, instead of experience junkies:

1. You can be talked out of an experience.

Like Campolo, actor Brad Pitt was raised in a Christian home by Evangelical Christian ministers. In an interview with GQ magazine, he remembered experiencing some of the same feelings at rock concerts that he felt in Christian worship services:

I remember going to a few concerts, even though we were told rock shows are the Devil, basically. Our parents let us go, they weren’t neo about it. But I realized that the reverie and the joy and exuberance, even the aggression, I was feeling at the rock show was the same thing at the revival. One is Jimmy Swaggart and one is Jerry Lee Lewis, you know? One’s God and one’s Devil. But it’s the same thing. It felt like we were being manipulated. What was clear to me was “You don’t know what you’re talking about—”

Pitt wondered if the whole thing was a manipulative sham, which led him to ask some serious questions at a very young age.

If a feeling or experience is what a person’s faith is built upon, it can be easy to re-interpret that experience or explain it away—especially when confronted with the arguments of a smart skeptic, or the crushing reality of suffering and evil.

2. Your heart and feelings lie.

The prophet Jeremiah described the human heart as “deceitful above all things and desperately sick.” Proverbs 3:5-7 tells us not to “lean on our own understanding.” Jesus described the human heart as being filled with thoughts like murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander. Proverbs 28:26 tells us that whoever trusts his own mind is a fool.

In other words, do not, under any circumstances, follow your heart.

This, of course, stands in stark contrast to the themes we are constantly encountering in entertainment and on social media. However, when it comes to spiritual beliefs, trusting our hearts and following our feelings can lead to all sorts of aberrant theology, sinful choices, and a distortion of true Christian faith.

3. You can fall back on evidence in times of doubt or suffering.

One of the greatest apologists and evangelists in recent times is a man named Nabeel Qureshi. Qureshi grew up in a Muslim home, and after years of testing the claims of Christianity and the claims of Islam, he left Islam and became a Christian. He paid a dear price for his obedience to Christ, leaving his devout Muslim family heartbroken and relationships strained.

At the peak of a respected, growing, and fruitful ministry, Qureshi received news that he had stage 4 stomach cancer….at the age of 33, and with a new baby in tow. He believed God was going to heal him—that there would be miraculous intervention and an amazing testimony to tell about the healing power of God. A little over a year after receiving his diagnosis……he died.

Qureshi documented his cancer journey on youtube, and in one of the early videos, he expressed being a bit rattled by this grim news. However, he went back through his theology and the evidence for his belief in Christ. On his deathbed, looking worn and like a shadow of his former self, he glorified God by doing the exact same thing. He expressed his wonder and disappointment that he hadn’t been healed, but he testified to the existence of God and the truthfulness of Christianity based on what he knew was true.

Qureshi was faithful to the end—despite his suffering and despite any doubts that crept into his mind in his last days. This was because he had a firm understanding of truth to which he submitted his feelings. His faith was not dismantled by doubt, suffering, or even excruciating pain.

At the end of the day, Christianity isn’t always going to feel good. Just ask the apostle Paul who was kidnapped, beaten, whipped, imprisoned, ridiculed, shipwrecked, and stoned—all before he was finally beheaded. Christianity isn’t always going to feel like it’s “working.”

Becoming an evidential investigator rather than an experience junkie led former atheist J. Warner Wallace to an unshakeable conclusion:

I’m not a Christian because it “works” for me. I had a life prior to Christianity that seemed to be working just fine, and my life as a Christian hasn’t always been easy.

I’m a Christian because it is true. I’m a Christian because I want to live in a way that reflects the truth. I’m a Christian because my high regard for the truth leaves me no alternative.

In times of deep doubt or great suffering, it’s wonderful to know that Christianity is true— whether we feel it or not!

Woke Soldiers?

Podcast

Is the US Military going woke? Is it getting too political? If it is, why should Christians care?

Some say that the Pentagon’s “Countering Extremist Working Group” is targeting conservatives, and maybe even Christians in the military, painting everyone as a right-wing extremist. The head of this task force has let his leftist political leanings known. Moreover, a Lt. Col. in the Space Force has recently been relieved of his command for writing a book exposing Marxism in the military. Did he have the authority to do that? Is he telling the truth?

Join Frank as he addresses these issues and points out that the kind of “diversity” and “equity” demanded by the Left does nothing to advance the mission of the US military and may even hurt that mission.

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

May 28, 2021/by Frank Turek

Resurrection Defense Series: Reasons to Accept the Empty Tomb

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

Gary Habermas is no stranger to those who study the historicity of Jesus’s resurrection. He is a world-renowned scholar on the resurrection who serves as a Research Scholar teaching in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University’s School of Divinity. Habermas’s claim to fame is his six minimal facts concerning the resurrection of Jesus. His minimal facts are not the only facts available to defend the resurrection. However, they do serve as the six facts that over 90% of historical scholars accept as valid. Surprising to some, he also adds a seventh minimal fact which holds greater than 75% acceptance among historical scholars. The seventh minimal fact argues that the tomb was found empty.[1] Yet, one may ask, is there any evidence that the tomb was discovered empty on the first Easter Sunday?

The historian holds solid reasons to accept the empty tomb as a historical fact. Stemming from the research conducted in one of Habermas’s classes, I would like to submit twelve reasons why you should accept that the disciples discovered the tomb empty on the first Easter Sunday morning.

The Gospel was first preached in Jerusalem, the very place where Jesus was crucified, which would have made it easy for an inquirer to check the tomb. If a person desired to invent a story, the last place they would tell the story would be in the very location where the event supposedly occurred. The enemies of Jesus would only need to check the tomb to see if it was empty.
If Jesus’s disciples had only hallucinated, Jesus’s body would have still been in the tomb.[2]Because Jesus’s body was never retrieved and Christianity continued, then one must assume that the tomb of Jesus was empty. Hallucinations cannot account for an empty tomb.
The message that Jesus had risen from the dead is extremely early. The creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 dates early (within months to a couple of years after Jesus’s death, burial, and resurrection) and to the Jerusalem church.[3]Given that the resurrection message began in Jerusalem and that it began early, people could have easily checked to see if the tomb was empty. Some may inquire, “Would the people have known where the tomb was located?” To answer that question, see the next point.
Joseph of Arimathea was a popular person in first-century Israel. Being a prominent member of the Sanhedrin (Mk. 15:43), everyone would have known where his tomb was located, and where Jesus’s body was placed. Remember, the crucifixion of Jesus was a very public event. The tomb was found very near to the crucifixion site.
That women were reported to be the first to have seen the tomb empty strengthens the case for an empty tomb as the testimony of women was not trusted as much as the testimony of men.[4]This has been mentioned before, and for good reason. The women’s testimony not only strengthens the resurrection message, but their testimony also intensifies the validity that the tomb was found empty.
Jewish authorities did not respond to the claim that Jesus’s tomb was empty. Rather, they concocted a rebuttal which argued that the disciples stole the body (Mt. 28:11-15). Ironically, their rebuttal actually strengthens the claim that the tomb was found empty.[5]Why concoct a story that the body of Jesus had been stolen if the body of Jesus was placed in a shallow grave, as suggested by John Dominick Crossan, or still remained entombed?
The early creeds of Acts 13:29-31 and Acts 13:36-37 indicate more clearly than 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 that Jesus was buried in a tomb, raised, and appeared without experiencing bodily decay.[6]The book of Acts contains sermon summaries that are almost as early as the 1 Corinthians 15 creed—depending on the date given to the creed. These texts denote that the body of Jesus was no longer found in the tomb.
Historian Paul Meier indicates that two or three sources render a historical fact “unimpeachable.”[7]The empty tomb is verified in four sources Mark, M (Matthew), John, and L (Luke),[8] with 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 and Acts 13’s sermon summary adding two more. Historically, the more sources one holds, the greater probability that the event in question occurred. In this case, at least 6 sources suggest that the tomb was empty, doubling what historians would call “unimpeachable.”
The Jewish and Roman leaders never produced a body which at least implies an empty tomb.[9]If they were opposed to Christianity and possessed the body, why would they not expose it? Even if the Jews wouldn’t, the Romans would squelch what would be perceived as a new uprising.
While the empty tomb does not enjoy unanimous support from scholarship, a strong majority still consider the empty tomb hypothesis valid including Michael Grant, James D. G. Dunn, and Thomas Torrance.[10]Habermas notes that over one-hundred contemporary scholars accept at least some of the arguments for the empty tomb.[11]
The story of Jesus’s burial is simple without any form of theological development. Its simplicity argues for the empty tomb’s authenticity.[12]Signs of legendary development are simply not found in the empty tomb hypothesis.
The resurrection story and the empty tomb are part of the pre-Markan passion story which is extremely early which precludes any time for legendary development.[13]Legendary claims do not apply to the empty tomb hypothesis. This suggests that the tomb was not something that came later in the Christian story but was rather found at ground zero.

Conclusion

The twelve points noted in this article are not the only lines of defense that could be construed. However, they strongly indicate that the story of the empty tomb was not something that developed over time, but it was rather a component that accompanied the earliest stories of the Messiah’s resurrection. Perhaps time will see more contemporary scholars accepting and adopting the empty tomb as part of the historian’s scholarly consensus. But even if they do not, 75% of the scholarly agreement is strong. Furthermore, the historical data concerning the empty tomb hypothesis cannot simply be ignored. No matter the consensus of agreement, the empty tomb is as steadfast a historical fact of antiquity as any other. If the Church of the Holy Sepulchre contains the actual burial place of Jesus, then not only can it be known that Jesus’s tomb was found empty, but it can also be visited. If people realized that the tomb was literally found empty, then maybe churches wouldn’t.

Notes

[1] Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996), 158.

[2] Gary R. Habermas, The Risen Jesus & Future Hope (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003), 11.

[3] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove; Nottingham, U.K.: IVP; Apollos, 2010), 227-228.

[4] Habermas, 23.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time: A Historian Looks at Christmas, Easter, and the Early Church (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1997), 197.

[8] Habermas, 23.

[9] Ibid., 25.

[10] Ibid., 24.

[11] Ibid., 45, fn127.

[12] William Lane Craig, “The Empty Tomb of Jesus,” In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case for God’s Action in History, R. Douglas Geivett and Gary R. Habermas, eds (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1997), 250.

[13] Ibid., 254.

Tag Archive for: apologetics

More Reasons You Can’t Make the New Testament Up

Why Do Some Christians Say “All Sins Are Equally Bad” And “Everyone Is Equally Guilty”?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Book Review: Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers

Content

Audience

Other Thoughts

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Why Does the Church Need Apologetics?

Questions

A Wake-Up Call

The Way Forward

Recommended resources related to the topic:

What’s in a name? Evidence!

Why Does the Media Give A Pass To Biden’s Faith?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Why Don’t the Synoptic Gospels Mention Lazarus?

Pre-Markan Tradition

Protective Anonymity

Lazarus

Recommended resources related to the topic:

3 Reasons Why Christians Should Be Evidential Investigators Instead of Experience Junkies

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Woke Soldiers?

Resurrection Defense Series: Reasons to Accept the Empty Tomb

Conclusion

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

QUICK LINKS

FEATURED RESOURCES

SUPPORT CROSSEXAMINED