apologetics Archives - Page 61 of 144

Tag Archive for: apologetics

Why People Hate Being Judged

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

Is All Reasoning Circular Reasoning?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By David Pallman

Circular reasoning is generally understood to be fallacious. The reason for this is that circular arguments assume what they purport to prove. At least one premise in a circular argument depends upon the truth of the conclusion, making the argument lose any justifying force. For in order to accept the relevant premise, one would have to already believe the conclusion. But if one already believes the conclusion then one has no need for the argument, and if one does not already believe the conclusion then the argument will not yield any grounds for belief.

Despite the seeming obviousness of what I have just said, it nonetheless remains startlingly popular to claim that circular reasoning is, in some cases, acceptable and — even worse — ultimately unavoidable. This claim is common among those Christian apologists known as presuppositionalists (although it is, by no means, limited to them). It is not my purpose here to critique circular reasoning in general or to offer a non-circular alternative, although I have done this elsewhere.[1] My purpose here is to critique one popular argument which purports to show that circular reasoning is unavoidable.

The argument is typically phrased something like this: “You must use reason in order to prove reason.” The thrust of the argument seems to be that since one cannot prove reason apart from reason, circularity is simply inescapable.[2] Although I don’t encounter this argument much in scholarly literature (at least not in this form) it is rather popular among internet presuppositionalists. And while I generally prefer to discuss scholarly issues, the pervasiveness of this argument coupled with the fact that I am not aware of any direct interaction with it moves me to write this article in reply.[3]

In this article, I intend to briefly explain my motivation for addressing this argument. After that, I will try to disambiguate the argument and clarify both what it means and how one might respond. After disambiguating the argument, I shall argue that it either assumes a theory of epistemic justification which can be rejected or else fails to recognize an important distinction between two types of usage. Either way, circular reasoning can be avoided.

Raising the Stakes

Before engaging the argument directly, it will be helpful to provide some motivation for examining it at all. After all, why should the argument concern us? Is it really a problem if all justification is circular in the end? Or perhaps we should not even try to justify the reliability of reasoning. Perhaps it is simply a fundamental assumption of all philosophical inquiry which needs no justification.

It would be an understatement to say that many philosophers are content to say that belief in the reliability of reason can only be justified in a circular way.[4] Still, others take the essential reliability of reason to be a fundamental axiom which is incapable of justification and needs none. But I have never found such answers to be satisfactory. I have never been content to suppose that I should require justification for my beliefs down to the bottom level but then give the foundational beliefs a free pass. Such a move seems completely arbitrary and even inconsistent. If our most foundational beliefs are unjustified, then I take this to entail that all beliefs which depend on them for their justification are likewise unjustified. I suspect that many readers feel the same way.

But this conviction forces those who hold it to face the original argument. For if there is no non-circular means of justifying foundational beliefs, then we may well have to face the conclusion that none of our beliefs are justified. For those wishing to avoid such a gloomy conclusion, there is a strong motivation for addressing the original argument.

Clarifying the Issue

Having provided some motivation, let’s turn to assess the merits of the argument. Roughly we are concerned with the claim that one must use reason to justify reasoning. Stated thusly, the claim is quite incoherent. Reasoning is a deliberative cognitive process. It is not a proposition. It is not the sort of thing which can be true or false. As such, reasoning itself needs no justification since it is an action rather than a belief. Imagine how absurd it would be to demand justification for walking, or for driving, or for swimming. Such activities need no justification precisely because they are activities rather than propositions. Once we have understood that only propositions require justification due to their potential to be false, it becomes evident that the act of reasoning does not need justification.

Sometimes the argument is phrased as a question: How do you know that your reasoning is valid? But stated in this way, the argument is guilty of a category error. Validity is not a property of reasoning but rather a property of arguments.[5] To say that one’s reasoning is valid makes as little sense as saying that one’s driving is valid. Validity simply doesn’t apply to activities.

But perhaps it will be objected that I have missed the point. After all, I am taking advantage of very poorly worded versions of the argument. And that is, of course, quite true. As I observed earlier, this argument is not as prominent among scholars as it is among those on the internet. But I do think that addressing these muddled versions of the argument is an important task because it helps us to clarify what is and what is not at issue. Moreover, it forces those who would use these problematic formulations of the argument to be more precise. Finally, pointing out the incoherence of these simplistic formulations of the argument can also serve to rob them of their rhetorical force.

Strengthening the Argument

So let me attempt to reconstruct a more sensible version of the argument. It seems to me that when someone says that we must use reason to justify reasoning, they mean that one must use their ability to reason in order to defend the proposition that reasoning is reliable. One must, in effect, assume that their ability to reason is reliable. Certainly, this is a much more robust argument. But to answer it, we must seek still greater clarification.

Before turning to answer the robust version of the argument, we must ask what is meant by the phrase “reason is reliable.” Taken quite literally it would mean that the cognitive process of reasoning itself somehow yields justification for beliefs by virtue of being reliable. Taken in this way, the argument is saying that one must assume that reasoning yields justification for beliefs by virtue of being reliable in order to reach the conclusion that reasoning yields justification for beliefs by virtue of being reliable.

Reliabilism vs. Evidentialism

Thus construed, the argument assumes a reliabilist epistemology. Reliabilism is a theory of epistemic justification according to which beliefs are justified if they have been produced by a reliable process. If this is what the proponent of the argument is claiming, then we may happily agree with him. It is not at all controversial that reliabilism is guilty of epistemic circularity. This is a well-known fact which is admitted by reliabilists and critics of reliabilism alike.

Notice, however, that if this is what the argument is trying to establish, then it assumes reliabilism and reaches the uncontroversial conclusion that reliabilism leads to circularity. However, not all philosophers are reliabilists. Reliabilism’s main contender is known as evidentialism. According to evidentialism, the justification that any subject has for a belief is always relative to the evidence which that subject possesses for that belief.[6] Evidentialism seeks justification in evidence – not in reliable processes. Hence, the argument considered above will simply not work against evidentialism because it assumes a theory of justification which the evidentialist rejects.[7] As such, one need only reject reliabilism in order for the argument to fail to establish that circularity is unavoidable.

Functional Usage vs. Justificatory Usage

Nevertheless, evidentialists still do use reason to arrive at justified beliefs. Does this indicate that there is still some circularity on the part of the evidentialist? In order to answer this, we will need to be clear on what is meant by using reason. There are two quite distinct ways in which we use things to justify our beliefs. We use things in a justificatory sense and we also use things in a functional sense. Something is used in a justificatory sense when it is offered as a rational justification for a belief. Something is used in a functional sense when it is employed as a tool in the process of offering rational justification. Crucially, nothing about a functional usage contributes to the rational justification for a belief. It is simply a means of helping a subject see that justification for what it is. The upshot is that functional usage doesn’t even have the potential to be circular because circularity can only apply to justification.

We can see the distinction more clearly through an illustration. Imagine that I am debating a friend over the existence of pencils. I am trying to convince him that pencils actually exist. Moreover, suppose that this debate is mediated by means of letters. In my attempt to convince my friend that pencils are real, I offer him numerous syllogistic arguments in support of the existence of pencils. Now let’s say that I use a pencil to write out these arguments for him. In this case, it would be quite correct to say that I used a pencil to justify my belief in the existence of pencils. But the usage was entirely functional. At no point did I use the proposition that pencils exist as a premise in an argument which concluded that pencils exist. The premises in my arguments are what I am using to justify my belief in pencils. Therefore, the justification of my belief in pencils is not circular even though I used a pencil to justify the belief. This is because the usage of the pencil was functional rather than justificatory.

This illustration is fairly analogous to what I have in mind when I say that evidentialists “use reason” to justify their beliefs. While it is true that we must think critically — we must reason — in order to justify our beliefs, we are not using reason as the rational basis for any of our beliefs. The evidence provides the justification for our beliefs and reason is just the process of evaluating it. At no point does the process of reasoning itself justify a belief. Reasoning without evidence from which to reason gets us nowhere. Reason is not some mystical ability which leads us to truth in and of itself. Reason requires to facts to work with. It is simply a necessary means for reaching justified beliefs. Critically, since we are not attributing justification to the reasoning process itself, our use of it is not justificatory. It is functional. As such, our use of reason when seeking to justify our beliefs is not circular.

Summary and Conclusion

In this article, I have assessed the claim that epistemic circularity is unavoidable since one must, in fact, use reason to justify their beliefs about the truth-finding nature of reasoning. I have determined that the argument is usually framed in an unclear and incoherent way. When it is made intelligible, it assumes epistemic reliabilism and, therefore, it is forceless against evidentialism. Any attempt to press the argument against evidentialism will beg the question against evidentialism. Moreover attempts to modify it to face evidentialism on the basis that evidentialists “use reason” fail to acknowledge the distinction between functional and justificatory usage. Since evidentialists only “use reason” in a functional sense, they are not guilty of epistemic circularity.

It has not been my purpose here to assess all arguments for epistemic circularity or to provide a detailed account of a non-circular theory of knowledge. Others more capable than myself have done this elsewhere.[8] My purpose has been minimal. I have merely attempted to show that a single popular argument for the inescapability of circular reasoning does not succeed as long as evidentialism is a viable option.

Notes

[1] See my video “Internalism Versus Externalism” available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxOg5zKUYmU&t=12s

[2] For a cluster of arguments along these lines see Sye Ten Bruggencate’s video “How To Answer The Fool (full film)” available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQKjUzotw_Y&vl=en&t=329

[3] In particular conversations with Seth Bloomsburg and Tyler Vela convinced me of the need for such an article.

[4] Examples include William Alston, Alvin Plantinga, Michael Bergmann, and Andrew Moon

[5] To be sure, we sometimes speak of valid and invalid reasoning. But this sort of language refers not to cognitive processes, but rather to the validity of the logical inferences that the reasoning follows.

[6] Earl Conee and Richard Feldman, Evidentialism, Oxford University Press, 2004, Pg. 83

[7] See Berit Brogaard, “Phenomenal Dogmatism, Seeming Evidentialism and Inferential Justification,” in Believing in Accordance with the Evidence, Springer International Publishing, 2018, Kevin McCain editor, Pg. 55

[8] Examples include Richard Fumerton, Metaepistemology and Skepticism, Rowman & Littlefield, 1995; Timothy McGrew and Lydia McGrew, Internalism and Epistemology, Routledge, 2007; Paul K. Moser, Knowledge and Evidence, Cambridge University Press, 1989; Brie Gertler, Self-Knowledge, Routledge, 2011

The Gospels Are Embarrassing for The Apostles

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

By Erik Manning

If you want people to trust their leaders, you usually would try to paint them in the best light possible. You don’t go out of your way to undermine their authority. But that isn’t what we see at all in the Gospels. Those who would eventually lead the church often look impulsive, incompetent, boastful, and stupid. If the Gospels are supposed to be PR for the apostles, their propaganda team was a dismal failure.

This kind of information is what NT scholars call the criteria of embarrassment. In his book, Marginal Jew, Meier writes:

The point of the criterion is that the early church would hardly have gone out of its way to create material that only embarrassed its creator or weakened its position in arguments with opponents.

Marginal Jew

Those Faithless Disciples

Let’s look at the Gospel of Mark since most believe it is the earliest Gospel. Mark tells us that the disciples were often faithless. When encountered by a storm when crossing a lake, the disciples panicked. (Mk 4:35-41) They brazenly accused Jesus of not caring about them, and Jesus rebuked them for not having any faith. They were also terrified to see Jesus walking on the water only two chapters later. (Mk 6:50)

When a man brought his demonized son to his followers, the disciples were too incompetent to give the boy any help. Jesus chided them for their lack of faith. (Mk 9:17-19) Mark also tells us that Jesus’ own family thought that he was nuts. (Mk 3:21) Later we read in Acts, 1 Corinthians, and Galatians that James and Jesus’ other siblings became leaders in the church. (Acts 15, 1 Cor 9:5, Galatians 1-2) So far, the future heads of Jesus’ church look like a sorry bunch.

The Disciples Were Slow

Mark also tells us that the disciples were extremely slow on the uptake. They asked questions about Jesus’ parables that he expected them, of all people, to understand. His main points were often lost on them. (Mk 4:13, 7:18)

Jesus had previously fed a crowd of 5000 and later 4000 with a few loaves and fish. Shortly afterward, Jesus said that they should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees. What did the disciples do in response? They fussed with each other because they forgot to pack bread for their boat trip across the lake. Jesus had to remind them that food was neither his point nor an issue. That should’ve been obvious by then. (Mk 8:14-21)

The Disciples Were Rude

The disciples were notoriously bad-mannered. As I mentioned earlier, they accused Jesus of not caring about them when he was sleeping during the storm. Peter had the genius idea of rebuking Jesus when he said he was going to sacrifice himself. Jesus called Peter Satan in response, so yeah, that didn’t go over big. (Mk 8:31-33)

When people brought small children to be blessed by Jesus, like ogres, his disciples tried to run them off. (Mk 10:13-14) When the woman anointed Jesus’ feet with costly perfume, Mark tells us that “they rebuked her harshly.” Not a smooth move. Jesus emphatically told them to leave her alone. She had more value for Jesus than they all did put together. (Mk 14:4-9)

The disciples fought over who was the greatest, and John and James had the brass to ask Jesus if they could sit at his right and left hand when he came into his kingdom. (Mk 9:33-34, 10:35-37) They clearly didn’t understand the kind of servant-leadership that Jesus was modeling.

The Going Got Tough, The Disciples Ran

In Jesus’ darkest hour, they bragged about being willing to die before abandoning him. (Mk 14:31) While Jesus was praying they all fell asleep. (Mk 14:37-42) And when he was arrested, they all fled. (Mk 14:50) Peter ended up denying him three times when pressed by a servant girl (Mark 14:66-72), and they all were AWOL on the day of the resurrection. (Mk 16:1-9) Even though Jesus repeatedly told them he’d rise again three days later. (Mk 8:31-32, 9:30-32, 10:32-34, 14:28) Even atheist scholars like Gerd Ludemann use the criteria of embarrassment when arguing for the historicity of Peter’s denial. (The Resurrection of Christ, p 162)

Finally, who actually showed up at the tomb? The women (Mk 16:1). They were the first eyewitnesses to the empty tomb. This is itself an embarrassing detail, as a woman’s testimony in the 1st-century context carried very little weight.

“But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex” … (Josephus, Antiquities, 4.8.15).
“Any evidence which a woman [gives] is not valid (to offer)” … (Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 1.8c).

Luke tells us that the disciples thought the women’s testimony was “nonsense.” They didn’t believe them. (Luke 24:11) 100 years later Celsus would mock the Christians for believing the tales of a hysterical woman. (Contra Celsum 2.54)

Again, if this is supposed to be Christian propaganda to make their leaders look good, or make the resurrection story more plausible, the Gospel writers caused problems for themselves. In the words of scholar NT Wright:

“As historians, we are obliged to comment that if these stories had been made up five years later, let alone thirty, forty, or fifty years later, they would never have had Mary Magdalene in this role. To put Mary there is, from the point of view of Christian apologists wanting to explain to a skeptical audience that Jesus really did rise from the dead, like shooting themselves in the foot. But to us as historians, this kind of thing is gold dust. The early Christians would never, never have made this up.”

The Resurrection of the Son of God

Embarrassing Details In Acts

And it’s not like things are hunky-dory in the Book of Acts, either. You know, that book about the apostles taking over after Jesus. You would think Luke would make them look like they finally got their act together. Instead, we see that Paul and Barnabas got in a big tiff over bringing Mark (the future Gospel writer!) because Mark got homesick and left them in the middle of ministry earlier. (Acts 15:36-40) Mark is later mentioned in Paul’s letters, so apparently, things got patched up later. (Philemon 24)

There was also racist bickering going on in the infant church in Jerusalem because the Hellenized Jewish widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food. (Acts 6:1)

And even though Jesus told them to take the Gospel to the entire world it took a special vision for Peter to finally understand that it was OK to preach to those unclean Gentiles seemingly years later. (Acts 10)

What Real Christian Propaganda Looks Like

Luke and Mark hardly make the apostles out to be saints. Now compare this to other Christian propaganda. Eusebius wrote a biography of Emperor Constantine that was very charitable, to say the least. He slyly omits that Constantine had his own son Crispus and his other wife Fausta killed. Eusebius instead makes Constantine out to be a super saint. Now that is what real propaganda looks like.

It is hard to imagine the early Christians inventing embarrassments for themselves when they already had enough problems from persecution! And yet, it is difficult to read the Gospel of Mark without getting a negative impression of the apostles. Again, this is the earliest of the Gospels according to most scholars. Eyewitnesses would still be around, including some of the apostles. These negative statements are strong indications that these things were really said. NT scholar C.E.B. Cranfield concludes:

“The fact that the perplexing and offensive material…was preserved at all and reached Mark says much for the general reliability of the sources used by him.”

These self-damaging materials are one more reason why we can trust the Gospels. This kind of evidence doesn’t by itself prove that the Gospels are reliable, but it does lend some support to that view. It’s one part of a much larger cumulative case.

A Scientific Way to Show that God Exists

Podcast

What do you say when someone says, “What evidence do you have that God exists?” Frank believes the answer to that question is a philosophical principle that is the ground of all science: the law of causality. Every effect has a cause.

So what effects point back to God? That’s what Frank unpacks in this show to the point where you can demonstrate several attributes of God by just looking at the effects around you. In other words, you can show someone that the Creator God of the Bible most likely exists, and you don’t even need to open the Bible to do so. Frank also answers objections to God being the cause of some effects, such as “god of the gaps” and “the law of causality doesn’t always apply”.

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

July 30, 2021/by Frank Turek

Contradictions In The Life of a Christian

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

The Christian Church is no stranger to hypocrisy. The Church is comprised of sinners who do not always practice what they preach, and sometimes such practice is in stark contradiction to what we preach. Some of the most heinous acts have been committed by Christians while they speak truth. It seems that sexual misconduct within the Church is always on the radar. Ever since I can remember being able to comprehend it, I have been made aware of numerous sexual scandals within the Church. Like just about any person, some have hit close to home and others further away. The ones that are closer to home tend to be particularly devastating- not just physically and emotionally, but spiritually and intellectually.

It is important for those who are affected to hold to a worldview that can objectively condemn such actions and provide healing for the victims. In these emotionally trying situations it is easy to entertain doubts of the truth of Christianity. Today, I want to take a few moments to show how such hypocrisy actually reveals the truth of the Christian worldview and how the Christian worldview offers the only possible answer to hypocrisy.

The Objectivity of Evil

First, a sexual predator’s actions must be called out as objectively evil, not merely something that a group of people do not like or prefer. The claim that what they did was evil is not just an opinion that can be dismissed by those who do not see anything wrong with the actions. That such actions are objectively evil is a feature of reality that must be faced, explained, and answered by every worldview.

No worldview can escape this obligation. No worldview that is missing an anchor for objective morality can provide any meaningful judgment of “evil”- those who hold to these worldviews can only render opinions, which is no more valid or true than the person, who may also hold to the same worldview, who says the actions were “good.” Any worldview that is missing such an anchor is demonstrably defeated by any sexual predator’s actions (whether they are members of a church or not).

The Scars Sin Leaves and The Cost of Moral Agnosticism and Relativism

Every single victim of sexual misconduct, molestation, rape, etc. is created in the Image of God, thus they are intrinsically valuable. Their violation is objectively evil, and justice must be served. The devastation of violations like these take years and even decades for healing to take place, if it even does. These men, women, boys, and girls will bear the scars for the rest of their lives. These scars will stand as a testimony to the truth that objective evil exists.

Any worldview that remains agnostic or ambivalent about the moral status of these actions makes the victims victims over and over again. Worldviews without an anchor for objective morality objectively devalues the violations and raises them to moral equivalency with love, honesty, and integrity. Worldviews that cannot call evil “evil” in any meaningful sense of the word (or for that matter, cannot call good “good” either) encourages the creation of more victims and compounds the suffering of those who are already victims.

Such sins in the life of a Christian demonstrates conclusively that no morally relativistic or agnostic worldview deserves to have a place in a culture, government, or even at the table of intellectual inquiry because it perpetually violates reality by violating the victims time and time again.

What If God Does Not Exist?

Sexual sin is detestable, despicable, and heinous, and we all know that intuitively. The person who commits evil is ultimately, eternally damnable because they have violated the intrinsic worth of a human being created in God’s Image, and by doing so, they have violated the eternal, morally perfect God. God is the only source for morality that is independent of any and all human beings. He alone is the anchor that allows anyone to objectively identify such actions as morally “evil.”

Simply put, if God does not exist, then nothing that these Christians did is evil. Nothing that they do is worth condemnation or even discussion since they are merely dancing to their DNA- the victims will continue to be victims because they are not really “victims” of anything good or evil. This is not to say that someone has to believe that God exists to condemn a Christian’s sexual violations; rather this is to say that it is only because God does exist that even an atheist can accurately condemn such actions as objectively evil. If God does not exist, not even the theist can condemn sexual abuse as objectively evil.

The Cognitive and Emotional Dissonance of Evil

When the stories of a perpetrator’s heinous acts are recounted, the moral law that is written on all our hearts will emotionally and powerfully rise to the surface. The emotions we feel are not there merely because we feel that these actions are evil, but because they objectively are evil, and our outrage is a most appropriate reaction to such violations. The head and the heart, logic and emotion, converge in perfect harmony to reveal the truth of reality and the truth of God’s existence. Unless God exists, a person’s “evil” deeds bring nothing but cognitive and emotional dissonance.

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

If the grotesque moral failings of ministers of the Gospel are to serve any purpose, it is to attempt to shock our culture back from its moral and intellectual stupor and remind us of the contradiction in every Christian life. But in stark contrast to every Christian, in God there is no contradiction: not in His actions and not in His words. We all long for someone to be fully consistent with what they say and what they do. But this simply will not happen when we look to man, even Christian leaders. We should not be surprised when ministers of the Gospel morally fail. We should be surprised that despite the evidence all around us of humanity’s fallenness that we still try to look to humanity for perfect consistency.

Rather, we must look to the morally perfect Creator, against whom every human has sinned. This God loves us and desires an infinite, personal relationship with us so much that he became one of us to take upon Himself our sins and the wrath that we deserve because of our sin. Justice was served for every sin we could ever commit when Jesus Christ died on the cross. And in His bodily resurrection from the dead, we have forgiveness (1 Cor 15). The resurrection of Jesus provides us proof of the truth of His claim to be the Creator God of the universe- the Way, the Truth, the Life, without whom no one can come to the Father (John 14:6).

Conclusion- My Two Prayers

Sin, hypocrisy and betrayal in the life of any Christian minister does not demonstrate or even indicate that Christianity is false. Rather the opposite is the case: they provide severe tests of a worldview against reality, which Christianity alone passes. Christianity never makes the claim that Christians will be perfect; in fact, it makes the contradictory claim: that Christians can and still do heinously evil things. This is the reality that we live in, that we are a part of, and that Christianity uniquely, among all the worldviews of history, accurately describes. It is only through Christ that the sinner is healed, that the victim is healed, and that both can be reconciled to God.

It is my prayer that all victims will find understanding ears in today’s culture- people who recognize, validate and anchor the objectivity of the evil and suffering they endure, people who recognize that full healing can only be found at the Cross.

It is also my prayer that as more revelations of moral failings within the Church come, that it will cause unbelievers to consider the foundations of their moral outrage, investigate the evidence, and realize that they too are in need of Christ’s atonement, forgiveness and Resurrection.

Finally, remember that it is not Christ who has failed us; it is members of His Church who have failed us. It is time that we stop misplacing our trust in people and start properly placing our trust where the evidence tells us it should have been in the first place: in Christ. I implore you to follow the moral, philosophical, historical, and scientific evidence where it leads: surrender your life fully and completely to Christ to find both healing and forgiveness.

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/Pm5hRad

July 26, 2021/by Guest

Five Tips for Teaching Christian Apologetics

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Doug Potter

I have taught Christian apologetics to seventh graders through seminary students. I have done this in a Christian school, church, home, and graduate school; in-person and online. I even helped put it in print. I still find teaching apologetics challenging. Sometimes I feel I have forgotten more apologetics than my students will ever know.

Over the years I have found that apologetics, in the realm of Christian education, is often misunderstood. For example, apologetics while related to these subjects is not a study of Creationism, Worldviews, Christian Doctrine, Ethics, Evangelism or the Bible. Don’t get me wrong, I am not opposed to any student studying these vital subjects. What I am opposed to is calling the study of all or any of these an education in apologetics. So, what is Christian apologetics education? It is a distinct subject of study that concerns the “application of knowledge to demonstrate that Christianity is true.”

As such, this applies knowledge from three distinct but interconnected subjects: truth from philosophy, the existence of God from natural theology, and Christianity from history. The foundation of philosophy establishes the absolute nature of truth. Upon that is built a theistic worldview that is grounded in the reality of God and miracles. Upon this is the historical claim of Christ to be God incarnate, His resurrection from the dead and teaching that the Bible is the word of God.

**Reasons to teach Apologetics**

If asked, I offer three reasons why every Christian school, church, and home should start teaching a systematic course in Christian apologetics. First, the Bible says every believer needs to prepare to give reasoned answers.

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.

(1 Pet 3:15) NASB; emphasis added.

The justification for Christian education incorporating the study of apologetics hangs on the hook that it can help a student be prepared more effectively and efficiently than any other way.

Second, history demonstrates its use and success. In the 1^st century, the Apostle Paul used arguments to respond to Judaism, Hellenism, and early Gnosticism. In the 3^rd century, Origen used it to defend the resurrection. Augustine (335-430) used it against Paganism and Thomas Aquinas (1224/5–1274) used it against the intellectual spread of Islam. There are no reasons today’s apologists cannot experience the same level of success if it is used.

Third, a contemporary need exists. Today’s critics leave no room to ignore their objections to Christianity. The thinking person must take them seriously. Apologists must strive to give good answers. Many Christian youths go into the world not knowing why they believe. It does not take long before they question a faith for which they never hear well-reasoned answers. If they go to the University they will be taught so-called “scholarly” views contrary to the Christian faith. If they go elsewhere their non-Christian friends and the media will promote such “scholarly” views as established facts.

In view of these reasons, I offer the following five helpful tips that may pave a smoother path towards the educational goal of demonstrating the truth of Christianity.

1. Apologetics education must be geared towards the believer.

This may seem obvious, but I have watched a teacher, who gets all the answers right, talk right over the heads of their students to the intellectual atheist who is not even in the room. My apologetics teacher was a master at taking the complex and making it understandable. Not simplistic or dumbed down, just understandable. He instilled in me the desire to develop and practice that same skill set. Apologetics education is not about creating a professional apologist anymore than our goal in teaching physics is to create a professional physicist. Teaching apologetics must defend the faith, but it must also strengthen those with faith. The Gospel of Luke shows the careful planning that goes into preparing and delivering knowledge to and for the benefit of the believer:

“I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, …Theophilus so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught”

(Luke 1:1-4 NIV)

2. Apologetics education must be age-appropriate.

I take Jesus’ words and warning in Matthew 18:5-6 seriously,

And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

(Matthew 18:5-6 NASB)

As a professional teacher of apologetics, I don’t think we have any business teaching apologetic arguments to children below the age of developed abstract reasoning. Just let a normal Christian education take its course. Let nothing, including apologetics, disrupt the authoritative faith structure the child has between their parents, teachers and the Bible. That does not mean there is nothing related to apologetics to teach at this age. But even when they are older, don’t dumb apologetics down and don’t let reason replace faith. When they’re old enough move to tip #3.

3. Apologetics education must follow a systematic plan.

Not all approaches to apologetics are created equally. Given the definition and reasons above, an educational approach must use a method that shows there are sound and valid systematic arguments to make from ground zero to the absolute truth of Christianity. As shown in the verses above this educational approach must build a positive case for Christianity (Luke 1:1-4) geared towards the believer and answer questions or objections (1 Peter 3:15) of the unbeliever.

Everything one would experience in studying any other subject should be a part of learning apologetics. It is a branch of knowledge to be mastered. On the part of the teacher that includes, objectives, lesson plans, creative teaching techniques, and evaluations. On the part of the student that includes reading a text, writing, listening, working on projects—individually and in groups, as well as taking tests.

4. Apologetics education must be activity-based.

We learn best when we put into practice what we are taught by a respected and knowledgeable teacher. The teacher must provide students the opportunity to succeed and the security to fail with apologetics, all with a view of developing a lifelong apologetics learner. One thing I realize; I really do not “know” something until I use it, repeatedly. The more I use it, the more it becomes a part of me. My students often tell me that the most meaningful thing I did was “force” them to use apologetics and then reflect and report on it. This can be done in many ways. For youth, I use games and role-playing. For older students, I use in-house debates, mock radio or TV programs or have them talk with someone with a non-Christian worldview. Learning apologetics is also a great opportunity for integrating knowledge from many other subjects.

5. Apologetics education must recognize its limitations.

Apologetics can only show that Christianity is true in its central claims such as “truth is absolute,” “God exists,” “God raised Jesus from the dead” and “the Bible is the word of God.” It cannot cause someone to believe in Christ. That is left to their will and the work of the Holy Spirit. Doctrine discovered solely in Scripture must be accepted on the authority of God and His word. But as my apologetics teacher always reminded us, “God never bypasses the mind on the way to the heart.”

Sometimes I am asked if apologetics will keep a son or daughter from leaving the faith. People may walk away from the faith for all kinds of reasons. All I can say is that if they received apologetics education, especially as outlined above, at least it was not because of a failure to teach them good reasons why Christianity is true.

Keep in mind, young people tend to be what their parents are. The most important person to help youth stay in the faith is you. Don’t forget to ask yourself, what are you doing to improve your knowledge and skills in Christian apologetics?

Tag Archive for: apologetics

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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 Unequal Treatments of Equity

The Injustice of Equity

The Inconsistencies of Equity

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Raising the Stakes

Clarifying the Issue

Strengthening the Argument

Reliabilism vs. Evidentialism

Functional Usage vs. Justificatory Usage

Summary and Conclusion

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Those Faithless Disciples

The Disciples Were Slow

The Disciples Were Rude

The Going Got Tough, The Disciples Ran

Embarrassing Details In Acts

What Real Christian Propaganda Looks Like

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Introduction

The Objectivity of Evil

The Scars Sin Leaves and The Cost of Moral Agnosticism and Relativism

What If God Does Not Exist?

The Cognitive and Emotional Dissonance of Evil

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

Conclusion- My Two Prayers

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/Pm5hRad

Reasons to teach Apologetics

1. Apologetics education must be geared towards the believer.

2. Apologetics education must be age-appropriate.

3. Apologetics education must follow a systematic plan.

4. Apologetics education must be activity-based.

5. Apologetics education must recognize its limitations.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

**Reasons to teach Apologetics**