Tag Archive for: apologetics

Is the Bible Our Highest Authority?

Is the Bible Our Highest Authority?

,

By David Pallmann

Many Christians believe that it is wrong to offer unbelievers evidence for the truth of Christianity.[1] They argue that the traditional method of apologetics dishonors Scripture by not giving it the respect it is due. The concern is that offering evidence for the truth of Scripture gives evidence more weight than Scripture. The argument might be framed this way:

  1. If some activity requires us to treat something as a higher authority than Scripture, as Christians, we should not do it.
  2. Giving evidence for the truth of Scripture requires us to treat evidence as a higher authority than Scripture.
  3. Therefore, as Christians, we should not give evidence for the truth of Scripture.

Michael Krueger expresses the basic sentiment when he says,

“If the method of argumentation communicates to the unbeliever that he should believe the Bible only because it has received the stamp of approval from science, archaeology, and historical criticism, those disciplines, not the Bible, will be his ultimate authority.”[2]

In this article, I hope to show that the traditional apologist can answer this type of argument in a two-fold fashion. Once we clearly understand what it means to say that Scripture is one’s highest authority, it will become clear that this belief is not in conflict with presenting evidence for the truth of Scripture. In short, traditional, evidence-based, apologetics is harmonious with the affirmation that Scripture is the Christian’s highest authority.

Two Types of Authority

It will be helpful to begin by distinguishing between two types of authority. The Polish philosopher Józef Maria Bocheński made an important distinction between deontic authority and epistemic authority.[3] A deontic authority is roughly an authority which is able to tell you how you should act. Examples would include your boss or a police officer. These are individuals who can, to some extent, tell you what to do.

An epistemic authority is quite different. Epistemic authorities can tell you what you should believe. Examples would include a scholar, a doctor, or some other sort of expert. These are knowledgeable individuals who can be appropriately called “authorities” in their respective fields.

The key distinction between a deontic authority and an epistemic authority lies in the domains over which they exert their authority. Deontic authorities tell you how to behave. Epistemic authorities tell you what to believe.

Applying the Distinction

Armed with an understanding of these two types of authority, let’s explicate what it means to say that Scripture is our highest authority. It seems quite evident that this typically refers to Scripture as a deontic authority. To say that Scripture is one’s highest authority is, in essence, to say that one ought to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). Scripture will dictate a Christian’s behavior even when Scripture conflicts with another authority (e.g the government).

Thus construed, it becomes evident that the original argument is guilty of equivocation. Premise 1 refers to deontic authority while premise 2 refers to epistemic authority. As such, under a deontic understanding of Scripture as one’s highest authority, the conclusion of the argument simply doesn’t follow.

Scripture as an Epistemic Authority

Although on a deontic conception of Scriptural authority, the argument is flawed, there is one complication. Scripture does not merely tell us how to act, but it also tells us what to believe. Thus, while it is true that Scripture is a deontic authority, it also appears to function as an epistemic authority. Should we regard Scripture as our highest epistemic authority as well?

To answer this question, we need a clearer understanding of the role that epistemic authorities play in the formation of justified beliefs. In the first place, we need to observe that beliefs which are held on the basis of epistemic authorities inherently have weaker justification than beliefs held on the basis of evidence. This is because, when information is gained via authority, there is a further link in the chain between the believer and the truth of the belief. When one believes a proposition on the basis of evidence, then his connection to the truth of the belief is much stronger. When one relies on an epistemic authority, they are trusting the authority to accurately relay his own beliefs which (hopefully!) are based on a body of evidence to which the believer does not have direct access. The indirectness of the belief allows more opportunities for mistakes to be made. So whenever a belief is held on the basis of an authority, it necessarily has a lower probability of being true than a belief based directly on evidence. The upshot here is that epistemic authorities are not valuable because of anything intrinsic to that authority. They are valuable because they are a means of connecting us with truth. Epistemic authorities are only useful insofar as they achieve that goal. As Richard Feldmen observes,

“Inferential rules aren’t good ones simply because experts use them. Rather, experts are good guides to good rules simply because they have the best insight into the matter.”[4]

Now, none of that is meant to disparage the importance and value of epistemic authorities. Clearly, we cannot become acquainted with all the relevant evidence for every possible belief. Epistemic authorities, therefore, provide us with a convenient way of gaining knowledge about something without examining it in detail. The cost of that convenience, however, is that one incurs a greater risk that their acquired belief is not true.

To minimize this risk, it is crucial that we have good reasons for regarding an authority as reliable. If there were no way for recognizing an authority as reliable then we would either have to blindly follow anything that claimed to be an authority, make an arbitrary selection about which authorities to believe, or else reject epistemic authorities altogether. As John DePoe notes,

“Authorities play a valuable epistemic role because they are avenues for justified beliefs and knowledge that are inaccessible to us without them, or they make the procurement of such epistemic good more convenient. … Importantly, however, for me to embrace [an] authority justifiably, I must have good reasons to trust the source as an authority in the domains where I regard it as an authority.”[5]

So it is not possible, in principle, to have a highest epistemic authority if this is meant to be understood as an authority being one’s primary source of knowledge. A subject must always choose to believe what an authority says. And to make an informed decision about which authorities to believe, one needs access to independent evidence.

Highest Epistemic Authority

As the above discussion makes clear, evidence has primacy when it comes to justification. There is no highest epistemic authority comparable to a highest deontic authority. It is by means of evidence that we adjudicate between various epistemic authorities and determine which one’s are to be trusted. This is not to deny that there can be a highest epistemic authority from among a range of authorities. For example, suppose I have a medical condition which two doctors wish to diagnose. One doctor has only examined my condition superficially while the other has examined me thoroughly. Both doctors are authorities, but the one who has examined me thoroughly is the higher authority, and, as such his diagnosis will be taken more seriously. In this situation, I could be said to have a highest epistemic authority. However, notice that the word “highest” is being used in a comparative and contextual sense. I regard one authority as highest from among other authorities with respect to a specific topic. In the same way, the Christian can make Scripture his highest authority from among other authorities (pastors, theologians, etc.) with respect to the nature, will, character, and revelation of God. Thus, there is a sense in which Scripture can be considered a highest epistemic authority when this is meant to be understood as an authority among others which is given the most epistemic weight.

But since evidence is required to adjudicate between competing authority claims, it retains an epistemic priority over any authority. Notice, however, that this entails that evidence is not itself an authority. Thus, under this conception of evidence and authority, the second premise of the original argument is false. It confuses justification with authority. While authorities can play a justificatory role, not all justification comes in the form of authorities. If it did, we would be without justification for trusting any purported authority as such.

A Final Consideration

It seems to me that Christians who use this sort of argument mean something rather different by “highest authority” than I specified above. They don’t mean that Scripture is merely their highest epistemic authority from among a range of authorities about some particular subject. They appear to mean that Scripture should actually be our primary source of knowledge. To make belief in Scripture conditional upon sufficient evidence does indeed admit that Scripture is not one’s primary source of knowledge.

But I don’t see why this should be a concern for the traditional apologist. Having faith in an authority on the basis of evidence does not compromise that authority’s status nor does it somehow make evidence a “higher authority” in any meaningful sense. It is simply to acknowledge that one needs justification for believing that an authority is authoritative. Perhaps some will find this objectionable. But what is the alternative? To believe on the basis of nothing? This is epistemic irresponsibility. Moreover, it seems impossible. For surely before one can believe the teachings of Scripture, one must become acquainted with them through either hearing or reading Scripture. This shows that Scripture cannot be one’s primary source of knowledge.

If the critic still wishes to maintain that the traditional apologist is making evidence a higher authority than Scripture, then we may simply respond that he has equated “highest authority” with “primary source of knowledge.” This is a definition of “authority” that the traditional apologist is entitled to reject. If the critic still wishes to retain this definition of the word, then it is evident, I think, that he is deliberately defining words in such a way that he can accuse those who dispute his conclusions of lowering the status of Scripture. In this case, he is deliberately muddying the waters. Under the critic’s definition, the traditional apologist need feel no discomfort for not making Scripture his “highest authority.” The critic is now using this term to get the traditional apologist to say something which the traditional apologist never believed.

Summary and Conclusion

In this article, I have briefly outlined an objection to traditional apologetics which states that the traditional method turns evidence into a higher authority than Scripture. We have seen that the traditional apologist may give a two-fold response. First, he may respond by stating that he takes Scripture to be his highest deontic authority, but not necessarily his highest epistemic authority. If the critic replies by pointing out that Scripture is also an epistemic authority, the traditional apologist may reply by saying that epistemic authorities are limited in scope to specific topics. Thus, while he may well regard Scripture as his highest epistemic authority with respect to truths about God, he need not regard it as his highest epistemic authority with respect to the belief that Scripture yields accurate information about God. Moreover, he may argue that evidence does not function as an epistemic authority but rather functions as a means of recognizing an authority as such. Obviously, if evidence is not a type of authority, then it cannot be a higher authority than Scripture.

I conclude, therefore, that once we have clarified what is meant by “the authority of Scripture,” arguments such as that offered in the introduction either equivocate, are insensitive to the nature of epistemic authorities, or else mistake all justification for being a type of authority. In each case, the argument fails to establish its conclusion. Hence, the traditional apologist may confidently present evidence for the truth of Scripture without thereby sacrificing the authority of Scripture.

Notes:

[1] In particular I have presuppositionalists in mind. However, similar arguments can be found among critics of apologetics more generally. Such arguments are, by no means, limited to presuppositionalists.

[2] Michael J. Krueger, “The Sufficiency of Scripture in Apologetics,” TMSJ 12/1 (Spring 2001) Pg. 69-87

[3] J. M. Bocheński, The Logic of Religion, New York: New York University Press, 1965, Pg. 164-167

[4] Richard Feldman, “Authoritarian Epistemology,” in Earl Conee and Richard Feldman, Evidentialism, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2004, Pg. 127

[5] John M. DePoe, “A Classical Evidentialist Response to Covenantal Epistemology,” in Debating Christian Religious Epistemology, New York, NY: Bloomsbury, 2020, Pg. 167-168

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels by J. Warner Wallace (Book)

The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (MP3) and (DVD)

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (mp4 Download)

The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth mp3 by Frank Turek

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)    

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

David Pallmann is a student at Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary. He is also a member of the Society of Evangelical Arminians and directs the YouTube Apologetics ministry Faith Because of Reason.

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

 

/by

The Key to Your Life in One Verse

John Stonestreet, President of the ColsonCenter.org joins Frank to unpack one verse in the Bible that will determine the fate of your life.  To the extent that you can control your life, this one verse says it all (and it’s NOT John 3:16— in fact, it’s not even in the New Testament).  This is a very practical show that will help you and your loved ones set the right path for life.

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

 

/by
The 5 Most Illogical People You Will Meet on the Internet

The 5 Most Illogical People You Will Meet on the Internet

,

By Alisa Childers

It has happened to many of us. We post an encouraging Bible verse like Psalm 145:9 on Facebook: “The Lord is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made.” By noon an atheist from somewhere in social media land has found the post and leaves a lovely comment:

Really? Your god is good? He’s so good and compassionate that he decided to literally drown the whole world in a flood? So good he’s okay with slavery? That god? Yeah—he sounds awesome. 

​The person who leaves comments like these probably isn’t looking for a real conversation, but they are a great example of the abundance of bad logic waiting to be discovered in the dark corners of cyberspace. Here are the 5 most illogical people you will meet on the internet, and how to spot their fallacies:

1. The Straw Man

How easy do you think it would be to knock down a pretend man made entirely of straw? It would be a lot easier than knocking down a real man—that’s for sure. This happens in the world of social media disagreement All. The. Time. The “Straw Man” is a fallacy in which someone oversimplifies or misrepresents the view of their opponent (builds a straw man), and then argues against that false view (knocks the straw man down). Straw men can often be found in discussions about abortion:

  • You: “I think there is good scientific evidence that life begins at conception.”
  • Straw man: “So what you’re saying is that women should lose their rights and this country should be sent back to the ‘50s? That’s ridiculous.”

You made a claim about scientific evidence—not women’s rights. The straw man has misrepresented your argument and created one that is much easier to refute.

2.  The Red Herring

The “Red Herring” fallacy is committed when someone brings up an irrelevant point that diverts attention from the original point being made. Changing the subject doesn’t actually win an argument, but it can make people forget what they were disagreeing about in the first place.

  • You: “I believe the Bible teaches that Jesus claimed to be God.”
  • Red Herring: “The Bible is just a human book—no different from any other book.”

The red herring has diverted attention away from what the Bible teaches to the credibility of the Bible as a book. It’s a worthy discussion, but it’s a different discussion—don’t take the bait.

​3.  The Character Assassinator 

This fallacy is called “Ad-Hominem,” and attacks the character of the person making the claim, rather than addressing the person’s actual argument.

  • You: “I believe it’s in the best interest of children for marriage to be between one man and one woman.”
  • ​Character Assassinator: “You only believe this because you’re a bigot.”

The character assassinator has shifted the focus from your claim to their perception of the motive behind it—thus avoiding the actual argument. The straw man, red herring, and character assassinator can all be handled in a similar way—by gently bringing them back to your original point.

​4.  The Self-Defeater

The self-defeater is a person who makes a statement that refutes itself. You can spot a self-defeating statement by taking the claim that is being made and applying that claim to the statement itself.

  • You: “I believe Christianity is true.”
  • Self-defeater: “There is no such thing as truth”

​If you can spot this self-defeating statement, one simple question will bring the fallacy to the surface: “Is that true?”

5. The Gish Galloper

The “Gish Gallop” is a fallacy in which someone introduces so many (often individually weak) arguments in one space, that you could never possibly answer them all. This tends to happen more often in live-debate settings, but there are internet gish gallopers as well!

  • You: “I believe Jesus was resurrected from the dead.”
  • Gish galloper: “We can’t trust anything the Bible says because the Gospels were written hundreds of years after the apostles were alive, and they all tell different stories. In fact, the Old Testament flood and creation stories were simply copies of myths from the surrounding culture, and frankly, resurrection can’t happen because science has proven that miracles are not possible. The story of Jesus is just a re-telling of other myths about dying and rising gods in agrarian Mediterranean societies. Paul wasn’t really an apostle so we can’t trust what he said, and Jesus probably never even existed anyway.”

Notice that the gish galloper has introduced several possibly related but unsupported statements which no person with a life or a real job would be able to sit down and answer in one sitting—it would take all day! There are a few different ways to handle a gish galloper but the simplest would be to stay within the scope of your original claim. You didn’t make any claims about the Bible, flood or creation narratives, or Paul’s status as an apostle. You DID make a claim about a miracle, so that’s a good place to start.

Conclusion:

It’s easy for any of us to fall into some of these traps, so be looking for these 5 illogical people as you interact on social media—and be careful to not be one yourself!

Recommended resources related to the topic:

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek 

Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl (Book)

Defending the Faith on Campus by Frank Turek (DVD Set, mp4 Download set, and Complete Package)

So the Next Generation will Know by J. Warner Wallace (Book and Participant’s Guide)

Fearless Faith by Mike Adams, Frank Turek, and J. Warner Wallace (Complete DVD Series)

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Alisa Childers is an American singer and songwriter, best known for being in the all-female Christian music group ZOEgirl. She has had a string of top ten radio singles, four studio releases, and received the Dove Award during her time with ZOEgirl. In later years, Alisa found her life-long faith deeply challenged when she started attending what would later identify as a Progressive Christian church. This challenge pushed Alisa toward Christian Apologetics. Today you can read, listen and watch Alisa’s work online as well as purchase her recently published book on Progressive Christianity titled Another Gospel.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/lcXvn9j

 

/by
Are There Prophets In The Church Today?

Are There Prophets In The Church Today?

By Jason Jimenez

Turn on your T.V., and you are bound to come across a religious show with someone declaring they speak for God. Go to your local bookstore, and there I’m sure you will find several books written by people who say they have received divine revelations from God. Jump on YouTube, and you will definitely see videos of preachers proclaiming, “Thus saith the Lord.”

This barrage of “prophetic words” from thousands of voices has undoubtedly caused many Christians to become confused. In one camp, you have Christians who get caught up in the sensationalism of prophetic words espoused by the Word of Faith movement. In another camp, you have Christians who doubt prophecy altogether because they lack the faith to understand its intended purpose in the body of Christ. While still, some don’t know what to believe.

Therefore, let’s turn to the Bible to see what it has to say about prophets.

The first thing we notice from Paul is that there are prophets in the church today. Recorded in Ephesians 4:11-13, Paul mentions the prophet’s office in the church. And not only that, but Paul also describes the gift of prophecy in 1 Corinthians 12:10. As a matter of fact, the gift of prophecy is mentioned more than any of the other spiritual gifts. You can find it in these passages: Romans 12:6, 1 Corinthians 12:27-29; 13:1-3, 8; 14:6, and in Ephesians 4:11.

That said, it’s vital to understand that the prophet’s office in modern times is not the same as Old Testament prophets. Before Jesus came to earth, God raised up prophets (Hebrew, nabi, “to utter”) or seers (spokesmen) as national leaders who spoke with specificity and with 100% accuracy in their prophecies (Deut. 18:20-22; Jer. 23:28, 31-33). But after the ascension of Christ to heaven and the completion of the written Word, God utilizes his modern prophets in different ways than he did with Samuel, Daniel, and Isaiah. The writer of Hebrews clears this up when he opened his letter with these words: “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world” (1:1-2).

Furthermore, according to 1 Corinthians 14:3-4, a prophet’s primary role now is to edify, comfort, and uplift the church. However, that does not mean predictive prophecy is not exercised among some prophets of God. Like Agabus (in Acts 11:27-28), there are times when a prophet will give a prophetic word from God about the future. That is why we are not to neglect prophecy in the church (1 Thessalonians 5:19-21). But again, the primary purpose of the gift of prophecy in the church age is to encourage and exhort one another (1 Cor. 14:31). Prophets are not called by God to generate visions that others in the church cannot judge (1 Corinthians 14:29).

Therefore, we are not to look to prophets for new revelation but for exhortation according to Scripture’s illumination.

In closing, here are six indicators to help you distinguish between a true prophet and a false prophet.

  1. A true prophet’s word will come to pass. A false prophet’s predictive word will not come to pass (Deut. 18; Jer. 23).
  2. A true prophet never gives a word that contradicts the Bible. A false prophet will twist Scripture to validate a dream or vision they had. For example, false prophets will take prophecies explicitly intended for Israel and apply them to the United States—directly contradicting God’s promises in the Bible.
  3. A true prophet does not brag or is greedy for gain. A false prophet brags about receiving a “prophetic word” or vision from God as if they are divinely anointed and exploits the church for financial gain.
  4. A true prophet’s ministry aligns with what the Bible teaches. A false prophet talks more about their heavenly visions and “prophetic words” than they teach contextually from the Holy Bible. Lamentations 2:14, “Your prophets have seen for you false and deceptive visions; they have not exposed your iniquity to restore your fortunes, but have seen for you oracles that are false and misleading.”
  5. A true prophet edifies the church and points people to Jesus Christ. A false prophet doesn’t call people to repentance but shares messages that appeal to their wants and desires. 2 Timothy 4:3-4, “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.”
  6. A true prophet’s defense comes from the Holy Spirit. A false prophet continually tells people they are not a false prophet.

 

Recommended resources related to the topic:

How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide

Can We Understand the Bible? by Thomas Howe Mp3 and CD don’t promote

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (MP3 Set), (mp4 Download Set), and (DVD Set) 

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Jason Jimenez is president of Stand Strong Ministries (www.standstrongministries.org), a faculty member at Summit Ministries, and a best-selling author who specializes in apologetics and biblical worldview training. Connect with him on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/YcZ8J25

 

/by
Giving Atheists a Hand

Giving Atheists a Hand

,

By Al Serrato

My seventh-grade nephew needed some help the other night on social studies. He was working on the Paleolithic Age – the Old Stone Age – a time when man first started working with stone and bone tools. That got me thinking about the greatest “tool” of all – the human hand. It’s something that most people take for granted, but I don’t think it’s an overstatement to say that modern civilization would never have arisen without it.

How can the atheist explain something as complex as the hand? Like the human reproductive system that I discussed in my last post, in his worldview, the hand is the product of a slow, random set of mutations occurring over a long period of time. We just happened to be lucky enough for everything to fall into place so that we – modern humans – are the beneficiaries of this entirely happenstance outcome. But think for a moment about the staggering complexity of the hand. Consider first the intricacy of the nerves that allow not just for feeling but for the fine sensitivity of feeling that exists in the fingertips. Consider the placement of the hand at the end of a flexible wrist on an arm that is also flexible. Five fingers provide the ability to grip and to manipulate objects, and the five can be used in unison or individually. Two matching hands are vastly superior to one, and the hands just happen to match in size, shape, and function. The opposable thumb may be its greatest feature, as it allows for tools to be gripped. There is a versatile muscular system that allows for objects to be firmly, or lightly, gripped, and a feedback mechanism in the nervous system that allows us to know whether we are gripping something so hard as to crush it or softly enough to caress it. All the while, it provides information on warmth and cold. On and on the list goes. It is truly a marvelous tool, and despite the best efforts of modern-day scientists, there is no way at present to even begin to replicate its complexities.

Yet we are to believe, according to the atheist, that this amazing feature of human beings is not the product of an intelligent designer, who foresaw and anticipated our use of tools to build and shape the world around us, but was instead the result of random processes occurring over time. By why should this be so? Well, the atheist will say, the hand is simply the descendent of more primitive appendages. Small, random changes conferred an advantage on some descendents, which allowed them to succeed and pass on this modification. Really? If this is so, then why haven’t monkeys, and these other more primitive forms, gone extinct, if their appendages were so unhelpful to their survival? Clearly, the development of a hand that could use tools, as opposed to one suited for climbing trees, was not needed by them in order to thrive and reproduce. Or conversely, why haven’t modern monkeys, which apparently predate humans, not yet evolved human hands, hands finely suited for using and manipulating tools?

More importantly, what happened before monkeys with primitive hands evolved? What was that earlier mammalian life form from which the arm and hand emerged? A squirrel? A rodent? What were these life forms doing, earlier still, when they had mere stumps on the ends of their limbs? Or no limbs at all? How did they survive? And why aren’t there other examples in nature of animals who randomly produced hands? Or animals that have partial hands that are somewhere on the road to evolving a complete hand?

To be fair, atheists probably think they are doing the believer a favor by arguing that science is the source of all knowledge, and that with enough time and study, answers to the questions I pose will someday be found. I suspect that most have not considered deeply the difficulty with this position. After all, the human hand is just one of dozens of fine-tuned systems in the body, each of which was constructed according to instructions embedded in the millions of lines of coded DNA information that directs the body to grow from a single cell to an adult person.

To conclude that the evolution of life forms happened randomly might have made sense in Darwin’s day, when those considering the question had no idea that information-rich DNA was directing the process of building and sustaining life. But today? Science can tell us many things about DNA and how it works. But the original source of the code, and the identity of the coder who wrote the language of DNA to provide for the life that is teeming on Planet Earth, is not something that science will find, certainly not if scientists insist on assuming that DNA assembled itself.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek 

Answering Stephen Hawking & Other Atheists MP3 and DVD by Dr. Frank Turek 

Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl (Book)

Defending the Faith on Campus by Frank Turek (DVD Set, mp4 Download set and Complete Package)

So the Next Generation will Know by J. Warner Wallace (Book and Participant’s Guide)

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

 

/by

Your God is Too Small

Well, this is going to be provocative. Frank says that your God is too small if you can’t understand why Jesus is the only way. Your God is too small if you can’t imagine that God would disagree with you on certain moral matters. Your God is too small if you can’t understand why God would kill a man for simply preventing the Ark of the Covenant from falling into the mud. This episode will help you comprehend who the true God really is.

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

/by
The Christian Celebrity And The Psychopath

The Christian Celebrity And The Psychopath

By Bob Perry

If you were looking for a completely trustworthy Christian apologist to follow, would you pick someone who had risen to the status of global celebrity because of his unparalleled ability to articulate the Gospel? Or would you gravitate toward someone who is a well-documented and self-confessed psychopath? The best choice is not as obvious as it might at first seem. In this case, I’d pick the psychopath. And I say that based on the advice of … the psychopath. But if that sounds strange to you, keep reading.

The Christian Celebrity

This past month we learned that the world-famous Christian apologist, Ravi Zacharias, led a double life. The ministry he founded, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM), has admitted as much. On one hand, Ravi was a gifted communicator of the Gospel. A deep thinker. He defended the faith with clarity and a wealth of experience he drew from an eclectic cultural background. He was the complete package. A man who could handle the most aggressive skeptic with humility, grace, and truth. He was a model apologist. The kind of person every defender of Christianity longs to emulate.

At least on the outside.

Behind closed doors, it turns out that Ravi was a pervert. An abuser of women. His creepy sexual proclivities have been exposed for the world to see. Ravi’s post-mortem fall from grace is sad. But it is also proof that the prophet Jeremiah was right when he wrote (Jeremiah 17:9) that “the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?”

The Psychopath

Though not as popular as Ravi Zacharias, David Wood is also a phenomenal communicator. He is best known as the go-to guy on the subject of Islam. But there is way more to David Wood than that. Wood has a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion with a concentration on “the problem of evil.” He’s an expert on that subject too — mostly because he has lived his entire life as a psychopath. That’s not my opinion. It’s a clinical diagnosis. You can listen to his testimony about it here. The thirty-four minutes you spend doing so will blow your mind.

David Wood feels no emotion when his pets die or, for that matter, when his friends die. He admits to his struggles at being a husband and a father. In his words, he is a “screwed up individual.” He gives details for why he says that here (starting at the 30:30 time mark).

Wood tried to bludgeon his father to death with a ball-peen hammer. He served time in prison as a result. That’s where he met Randy, a fellow prisoner, and Christian who challenged him to answer questions. To think about the implications of his self-proclaimed atheism. Wood idolized reason and rationality. But Randy forced him to reason his way to the existence of objective morality — and to its Source. His story is a powerful example of why pursuing the truth should be our primary objective. It’s a reminder that Truth is found in Jesus of Nazareth … and only in Him.

Reacting To Ravi

The case of Ravi Zacharias has received a lot of press. Some of it comes from Ravi sycophants who deny the charges against him. People in that camp have to believe that multiple women around the world, all interviewed privately, have miraculously come up with identical descriptions of his methods and tastes. Continuing to believe that is just delusional.

Then there are the critics of Christianity who are weaponizing Ravi’s story. It’s just the latest iteration of the false argument which claims that hypocritical Christians render Christianity unbelievable. That’s ridiculous. As David Wood put it: “If you tell me that 2 + 2 = 4 and then punch me in the mouth, that shouldn’t make me doubt that 2 + 2 = 4. And if you tell me that 2 + 2 = 5 and then buy me a new car, that shouldn’t make me start believing that 2 + 2 = 5.”

The truth Ravi articulated is still the truth, even if it came out of the mouth of a diabolical sexual predator.

Those are the extremes. The more reasonable and predictable commentary has come from those who have given wise advice about personal and professional accountability. No one who claims to be a minister of the Gospel should ever have demanded the unchecked liberty Ravi Zacharias did. And no ministry leadership team should ever have allowed him to receive it. Both Ravi and RZIM are responsible for the consequences. The heart to which Jeremiah 17:9 refers lives in all of us. Even those who are Christian “celebrities.”

Contrasting Characters

Pride is a powerful drug. It allowed Ravi Zacharias to rationalize his own perversions. And he used the reach of his global ministry as justification for covering them up. After all, millions of people would be “disappointed” if the women he abused told the world what he was doing. Thus, the Christian celebrity spiraled deeper and deeper into a sewer of his own creation and never admitted he was drowning. No apologies. No remorse.

Meanwhile, the unemotional rationality of a psychopath led him to recognize his own vulnerability to the pitfalls of pride. In this case, at least, he is the one to trust. But in his wisdom, he knows better than to encourage us to trust him. Instead, his message is a word of warning: Don’t place your trust in any man.

The Unchanging Truth

Celebrity status has never been a measure of moral virtue. Ravi Zacharias is certainly not the first Christian celebrity to prove that point. And he won’t be the last.

Neither does being a sinner negate anyone’s capacity to know and live the truth … even if they’re a psychopath.

The lesson for all of us here is that the truth, goodness, and beauty of Christianity don’t reside in any human being. They rest only on the objective reality that is their Source — the character of God himself. Men will disappoint you. But the Truth doesn’t change.

And it never will.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity – Episode 14 Video DOWNLOAD by Frank Turek (DVD)

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4

If God, Why Evil? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek 

Why Doesn’t God Intervene More? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

Why does God allow Bad Things to Happen to Good People? (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek 

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and the culture at truehorizon.org. He is a Contributing Writer for the Christian Research Journal and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of military and commercial flying experience. He has a B.S., Aerospace Engineering from the U. S. Naval Academy, and an M.A., Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown sons.

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

 

/by
Resurrection Defense Series: Embarrassing Details

Resurrection Defense Series: Embarrassing Details

,

By Brian Chilton

We began an investigation into the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. When investigating any claim of history, whether recent or of antiquity, historians use historiographical tools to decipher the probability of the event in question. The criterion of embarrassment is one of the tools used by historians to determine the legitimacy of the claims presented. The logic behind the criterion is that writers will attempt to make their cause look as attractive as possible. If the presented event contains details that are embarrassing to the writer, the earliest leaders, the founder, or the cause; then it could be said that the event is authentic. Craig Evans writes, “This criterion is easily misunderstood. All it means is that material that potentially would have created awkwardness or embarrassment for the early church is not likely something that a Christian invented sometime after Easter. ‘Embarrassing’ sayings and actions are those that are known to reach back to the ministry of Jesus, and therefore, like it or not, they cannot be deleted from the Jesus data bank” (Evans 2006, 49). When it comes to the resurrection of Jesus, numerous embarrassing details are discovered. Ten such embarrassing details will be presented in this article.

1. Women were the first eyewitnesses (John 20:11-18).

Seeing that this topic was the focus of the last article, not much will be said. For those who have not read the article, see the first part of this series. As a recap, the testimony of women did not hold the bearing that the testimony of men in the first century. Thus, if one is inventing a story, women would certainly not be used as the first witnesses. Yet all four Gospels note that it was the women, particularly Mary Magdalene, who first witnessed the risen Jesus. For this reason, the testimony of women serves as an embarrassing detail that speaks to the authenticity of the resurrection event.

2. The cowardice of the first disciples (Mark 15:40-41).

The women watched the crucifixion of Jesus from afar. They attended to the needs of Jesus up until the very end. However, the male disciples were nowhere to be found with the sole exception of John of Zebedee who was instructed to care for Mary, the mother of Jesus (John 19:26-27). Peter and the men ran and hid while it was the women who were brave and remained steadfast to Jesus. In the first century where male bravery was held in high esteem, it is unthinkable that this aspect of the Easter story would have been told unless it were, in fact, true.

3. The inability of the disciples to give Jesus a proper burial (John 19:38-42).

Proper burials were important to ancient Jews. Milton Fisher notes that “a society’s burial customs are a reflection of its spiritual views about death and the afterlife” (Fisher, 386). Failing to give a beloved person a proper burial negatively portrayed the value that the person/people placed on the dearly departed. It was Joseph of Arimathea, one of the members of the Sanhedrin, who gave Jesus a proper burial. A member of the very same Sanhedrin gave Jesus the burial that the disciples could not afford. This is incredibly embarrassing especially in an honor/shame culture found in the Middle East and Asian nations.

4. Doubt of the first eyewitnesses (Matt. 28:16-17).

After Jesus’s resurrection, the Evangelists (the Gospel writers) are honest about the doubts that some disciples hold. In the Gospel of John, Thomas is singled out and identified as one of those who doubted (John 20:24-25). Thomas is often ascribed with the title “Doubting Thomas.” This is unfortunate as Thomas demonstrated his faith by most likely giving his life. Good traditions suggest that Thomas was martyred for his faith by being speared in Mylapore, India on July 2, 72 AD. Even still, the Evangelists would not have reported the first witnesses’ doubt if it had not occurred.

5. The crucifixion is considered a curse (Deut. 21:23).

If a Jewish group was going to invent a movement, the last thing they would do is have their hero die on a cross. The book of Deuteronomy holds that any person who is hung from a tree is cursed (Deut. 21:23). An invented hero of Judaism crucified on a tree would not have been viewed as an admirable man, much less for one claimed to be the Messiah. For this reason, even the skeptical John Dominic Crossan states, “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be” (Crossan, 145).

6. Ignorance of the first disciples of the Scriptures (Luke 24:45-49).

If the age of social media has shown anything, it is that people do not like to be wrong. Furthermore, if they are wrong, they will most likely not broadcast that fact. However, the Evangelists often describe their need for Jesus to explain the Scriptures to them to explain why the things occurred as they did. The disciples anticipated a military hero like Judas Maccabeus. What they received was far from what was expected—he was even better!

7. James did not believe in Jesus during his earthly ministry (John 7:5).

Serving as one of Gary Habermas’s six minimal facts, James was radically transformed by the resurrection event. James, Jesus’s half-brother, served as the first pastor of the Jerusalem Church and was a notable figure in Judea. However, this early Christian leader was not originally a disciple of Jesus. John records that none of Jesus’s brothers and sisters believed in him during his earthly ministry (John 7:5). Furthermore, his family thought that Jesus was “out of his mind” (Mark 3:21) at one juncture. This is not something that a person would record unless it is grounded in some historical truth.

8. The Jewish leaders invented the story of the disciples stealing the body (Matt. 28:11-15).

The Gospel of Matthew records the fabrication of a story by the Jewish leadership. When the guards reported the events to the Jewish leaders, they told the guards to tell everyone that the disciples stole the body of Jesus. This is tremendously problematic. The Roman guards would have been executed if they had fallen asleep or permitted the disciples to steal Jesus’s body. Furthermore, there is little chance that the disciples could have overtaken a fully armed Roman guard which may have consisted of as many as sixteen soldiers. The recording of the story itself illustrates an embarrassing detail that finds merit in history.

9. Jesus’s anxiety in the Garden of Gethsemane (Luke 22:42-44).

Jesus was not presented as a hero heading to the cross with no fear or anxiety. Rather, the picture portrayed by the Evangelists is quite different. Jesus was extremely brave going to the cross as he did. Evidence from the geographical layout suggests that Jesus could have easily escaped the Garden of Gethsemane through the shroud of the night. He would have seen the soldiers coming from Jerusalem at a distance. Even still, the Evangelists report that Jesus was so anxious that he sweated great drops of blood (Luke 22:42-44). Hematidrosis is a rare medical condition in which the capillary blood vessels that feed the sweat glands burst under extreme fear and stress. Luke notes that the angels of the Lord came to minister to him before heading to trial. This would not have been recorded unless true as this story counters the hero legends of the day.

10. Peter’s denial of Jesus (Luke 22:54-62).

All three Synoptic Gospels record the betrayal of Simon Peter. Simon Peter was considered to be the first major leader of the Christian church after Jesus ascended to heaven. Nevertheless, the one and same Peter is shown to have denied that he even knew Jesus three times in the courtyard outside of where Jesus was tried. This is extremely embarrassing and would not have been documented unless it was grounded in historical truth.

Conclusion

The ten embarrassing details presented here only scratches the surface of what could be mentioned. Nonetheless, the Evangelists’ willingness to document stories that cast the earliest disciples, and sometimes even Jesus himself, in a bad light illustrates the value they placed on recording the biographies of Jesus accurately. Additionally, the resurrection of Jesus is not based on legendary and mythical data. Rather, it is grounded in historical facts, at least what the early disciples and Evangelists believed to be true.

Sources

Crossan, John Dominic. Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 1991.

Evans, Craig A. Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels. Downers Grove: IVP, 2006.

Fisher, Milton C. “Burial, Burial Customs.” Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)

Cold Case Resurrection Set by J. Warner Wallace (books)

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity – Episode 14 Video DOWNLOAD by Frank Turek (DVD)

The Footsteps of the Apostle Paul (mp4 Download), (DVD) by Dr. Frank Turek 

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com, the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast, and the author of the Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics. Brian is a Ph.D. Candidate of the Theology and Apologetics program at Liberty University. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has served in pastoral ministry for nearly 20 years. He currently serves as a clinical chaplain.

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

 

/by

Jesus a Racist?

A “woke” pastor recently released a popular TikTok video charging Jesus with racism.  After all, in Mark 7 Jesus appears to call a Canaanite woman a “dog.”  On the face of it, that appears to be at least slander, if not racism.  What do we make of this?  Frank addresses that question as well as:

  • Should we just take Christianity on blind faith?
  • How should we respond to pastors blessing sexual immorality?
  • And should United Airlines have a racial and gender quota for their pilots?  They just announced that they are planning on it!

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

 

/by
No God, No Justice

No God, No Justice

,

By Karsten Friske

The idea of protesting in an attempt to garner support to make a moral change is not new. With each movement, there exists a side that champions a series of issues and a counter-protest that opposes the change. In recent days, some have advocated for racial justice by marching to affirm the value of Black lives. Others are concerned about election integrity and the rule of law in that area. Both of these primary causes are attempting to evoke social reform and call for justice in the midst of perceived injustice. Yet, undergirding both of these cries for justice is an assumption that justice matters, that we as humans matter.

This may seem like I am stating the obvious, but the implications are buried and broad.

The fight for justice assumes that objective moral values (i.e, it is a good thing to be a firefighter) and obligations (i.e., if you see a house burning, you should call the fire department) actually exist. In other words, these moral obligations and values exist independent of subjective human opinion. If moral values and obligations were all subjective (such as your favorite genre of film), one is merely advocating for a personal preference. Yet, it seems absurd to suggest that Black lives only have subjective worth or that election integrity is a matter of preference.

It’s All Relative…Except When It Isn’t

However, in a world that increasingly follows a cultural philosophy of post-modernism and post-Christian thought, the consequences for such thinking tend to go unopposed. You may ask yourself, “what does it all really matter? People can do good things without a belief in God and can collectively make moral progress by reasoning together!”

Yes, people can do good things without ever affirming God’s existence. People can also join together and make a more just society without ever consulting Scripture. However, they cannot ground why these pursuits matter without an objective starting point.

In a world where subjective (relative) life goals and one’s own “truth” reigns supreme, there exists no room for objective meaning, purpose, truth, value, or even justice. Although this is done in the name of tolerance to prevent a violation of one’s own sovereign will, the implications are far more catastrophic than what it is trying to prevent.

In short, since nobody can be right in a relativistic framework, nobody can be wrong. If nobody can be wrong, there exists no basis to decry injustice or celebrate justice.

If all life is devoid of objective meaning, there is no difference between someone who fights for justice or works to suppress it. In the end, they are simply two groups of humans exerting energy over causes they feel deserve more attention. The signs they carry display words that demand a moral change in a world without the possibility of moral progress or absolutes. The causes that motivated protest are also just as insignificant as the people doing the marching.

The “Noble Lie”

As I hope you can see, the above worldview is incompatible with any activist or anyone who has ever felt wronged. It is for this reason that the proposed solution of a “noble lie” was introduced. In a nutshell, the view proposes that we all know life is meaningless, so we tell ourselves lies that everything we are interested in has some sort of significance, even though it ultimately does not.

The problem with the “noble lie” is that it promotes self-delusion and is self-defeating.

Remember, the problem that the “noble lie” supposedly solves is the incapability of living in a world without absolutes. Yet, it is proposed that we absolutely (or objectively) all create “noble lies” to live in the world. Furthermore, it is viewed by proponents as being “noble” or a benefit to society. How can we know it is noble when we have no ground on which to base what is noble and what is not??

This is the self-defeating web that is woven when one marches without a foundation.

So What’s The Solution?

First and foremost is to notice the great consequences these various views hold. With God, we have an objective basis for meaning, morality, truth, and justice, as these are all rooted in His nature. This is only heightened by looking at this whole problem from a Christian worldview where humans are made in the image of God and are of infinite worth. Moreover, the cross of Christ for the forgiveness of sin is open to all (old, young, rich, poor, and any color or creed).

Lastly, Christianity offers a solution to unpunished evil that occurs on Earth (remember, we have grounding to say something is evil in this worldview). God is the ultimate Judge to whom all are called to give an account. Some may choose to live what appears to be an ethical mantra of trying to “be a good person,” but these attempts are in vain.

Although they appear attainable in relation to other humans (such as comparing your sins to that of a serial killer), these aspirations soon fall short when matched to a Holy and Perfect God who is the standard of good. This is why salvation, offered through Jesus Christ as a result of His death on the cross, is a gift. It comes after surrendering a false hope in a subjective standard of good and humbly asking to receive the pardon of which none of us is worthy.

So to conclude, when calls for justice are given with an impassioned plea of “No justice, no peace!” it is my hope that the points raised here will remind you of the foundations needed to even argue for such justice. Additionally, I hope that the consequences of holding a purely relativistic or subjective worldview are clearer to you now than before your reading of this article.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Frank Turek (DVD/ Mp3/ Mp4)

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book)

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Erik Manning is a Reasonable Faith Chapter Director located in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. He’s a former freelance baseball writer and the co-owner of a vintage and handmade decor business with his wife, Dawn. He is passionate about the intersection of apologetics and evangelism.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/uxXF0cM

 

/by