Tag Archive for: apologetics

“How (Not) to Read the Bible” with Dan Kimball

A popular meme says that reading the Bible is the fastest way to become an atheist! On the face of it, the Bible does seem to have some verses that are pro-slavery, pro-violence, anti-women, and anti-science. Leaving aside the fact that atheists have no objective moral standard by which to judge anything wrong, these verses do seem to present a problem for Christians. Young people see these memes and are cast into doubt. That’s why you need to get the excellent new book by pastor and seminary professor Dan Kimball called 𝑯𝒐𝒘 (𝑵𝒐𝒕) 𝒕𝒐 𝑹𝒆𝒂𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑩𝒊𝒃𝒍𝒆: 𝑴𝒂𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑺𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑨𝒏𝒕𝒊-𝑾𝒐𝒎𝒆𝒏, 𝑨𝒏𝒕𝒊-𝑺𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆, 𝑷𝒓𝒐-𝑽𝒊𝒐𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆, 𝑷𝒓𝒐-𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒚 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑶𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝑪𝒓𝒂𝒛𝒚-𝑺𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑷𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒄𝒓𝒊𝒑𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆. Dan clearly answers these charges and shows us how to properly interpret these passages. This is a MUST read/listen!

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

Should Christians Use the Argument from Martyrdom? A Reply to Bart Ehrman

,

In a recent post on his blog, UNC-Chapel Hill professor Bart Ehrman re-posted a 2012 article of his on the argument, popular among many apologists, that the willingness of the apostles to die as martyrs is evidence of their sincerity in claiming that Jesus had been raised from the dead and appeared to them. Since the apostles claimed to be eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus, so the argument goes, the demonstration of their sincerity makes the resurrection more probable than it otherwise would have been, and therefore contributes some evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. Ehrman characterizes this argument in his article as follows: “the disciples would not have died for what they knew was a lie; therefore, it must have happened.” This is hardly a fair representation of the argument. The argument is not that the willingness of the apostles to die as martyrs for their testimony entails that, therefore, it must have happened. Rather, the argument is that the willingness of the apostles to die as martyrs is evidence (not proof) of the apostles’ sincerity in proclaiming that Jesus had risen from the dead, by virtue of the fact that the willingness of the apostles to die as martyrs is more probable given that they were sincere than given that they were not. It is not by any means the only evidence bearing on their sincerity (see this previous article for a discussion of some of the other evidences).

Ehrman notes that,

“Several other people have responded to this question on the blog by saying that we have lots of records of lots of people who have died for something that they knew, literally, not to be true. I am not in a position to argue that particular point. But I can say something about all the disciples dying for believing in the resurrection.” 

Again, however, the argument is not that the willingness of the apostles to die as martyrs guarantees that they were sincere. Rather, we are making the more modest claim that it is evidence that they were sincere. It hardly seems contestable that somebody’s willingness to die for a claim is more probable if they are sincere in making that claim than if they are insincere. Moreover, more people being willing to die for a claim constitutes stronger evidence for that claim than merely one person being willing to die.

Ehrman objects that, 

“The big problem with this argument is that it assumes precisely what we don’t know.   We don’t know how most of the disciples died.   People always *say* that the apostles were all martyred.  But next time someone tells you that, ask them how they know.  Or better yet, ask them which ancient source they are referring to that says so.”

We have, in my opinion, sufficient evidence to conclude that at least two of Jesus’ original twelve apostles died as martyrs (Simon Peter and James the son of Zebedee), in addition to James, Jesus’ brother (who, according to 1 Corinthians 15:7, met the risen Jesus), and the apostle Paul (who had an encounter with the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus as recounted in Acts 9 and alluded to in Paul’s letters, e.g., 1 Cor 15:8). 

There are two first-century sources that attest to Simon Peter’s martyrdom. One of those is John 21:18-19, where Jesus says to Simon Peter, “‘Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.’ (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And after saying this, he said to him, ‘Follow me.’” This text indicates that Jesus predicted that Peter would die as a martyr, presumably by crucifixion. This gospel was almost certainly written after Peter died (most scholars date the gospel of John to 90-95 AD). Leaving aside the question of whether Jesus actually spoke those words, it is therefore very unlikely that the author of the fourth gospel would have attributed this prophecy to Jesus had it not taken place in the prescribed way.

A further piece of first-century evidence concerning Peter’s death is the letter of Clement of Rome, addressed to the Corinthian church (dated by most scholars to around 96 A.D.). In 1 Clement 5, Clement notes that “Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labors; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him.” Clement, being one of the apostolic fathers, was personally acquainted with the apostles (as indicated by Irenaeus — Against Heresies Book III, Chapter 3). Thus, he was in a position to know about Peter’s fate, and it was probably known to the Corinthian Christians to whom Clement addressed his epistle, especially since the church in Corinth had previously been acquainted with Peter’s preaching (1 Cor 1:12; 15:11). 1 Clement 5 also mentions the martyrdom of Paul (and his sufferings for the gospel are discussed at length in the writings of Paul himself — e.g., 2 Cor 11:16-33; 2 Tim 3:10-11). Ehrman does acknowledge in his article that the evidence indicates that Peter and Paul died as martyrs.

The martyrdom of James, the son of Zebedee, who was beheaded by Herod Agrippa I, is supported by one first-century source (Acts 12:2). The martyrdom of James the brother of Jesus is also supported by a first-century source, namely the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus who informs us that James the brother of Jesus was stoned to death (Antiquities 20.9.1).

That all said, we do have to be careful that the significance of this evidence is not over-stated. Even in those cases for which we do have sufficient evidence to conclude the apostles died as martyrs, the exact circumstances under which they died is less than clear. It is not obvious for those cases discussed above whether they had the opportunity to recant of their claim or not. One may also object that it is not clear whether they were dying specifically for the resurrection claim, though a Christian may respond to this by noting that the resurrection was so integral to the early Christian belief that to die for Christ was to die for the belief in Jesus’ resurrection. A skeptic may, however, fairly point out that Peter and Paul likely died as a result of Nero’s persecution against Christians in the 60’s A.D., which the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus tells us ensued after the fire of Rome in 64 A.D. when the emperor Nero blamed the Christians for the conflagrations in order to direct the blame away from himself (Annals 15.44). Peter and Paul (and perhaps other apostles of Jesus) may have simply gotten caught up in that event, which had little to do with their Christian belief per se and more to do with Nero’s attempt to steer the blame of the populace for causing the fire of Rome away from himself. If that is the case, there is no reason to think that recanting their Christian beliefs would have saved their life. In regards to the death of James, also, Josephus only reports that he was stoned on the basis of an accusation of breaking the Jewish law, so it is also not entirely clear in his case that his death was directly linked to his Christian testimony, though it very plausibly was.

What we can say, however, is that persecution against Christians seems to go back quite early, since the earliest church endured persecution by the Jews first, according to the book of Acts as well as Paul’s own testimony. Paul testifies that he himself persecuted the early Christians, imprisoning them and putting them to death (1 Cor 15:9; Gal 1:23; Phil 3:6). Paul also gives us his own eyewitness testimony of persecution by Jews against himself following his conversion (2 Cor 11:16-33; 2 Tim 3:10-11). The book of Acts itself speaks of the intense persecution endured by the early Christians, including the martyrdom of James the son of Zebedee (Acts 12:2), the imprisonment of Peter (Acts 12:3-5), the beating of Peter and John (Acts 5:40), and the many sufferings of the apostle Paul for the name of Christ. What we can therefore say with confidence is that, as William Paley puts it so eloquently, the “apostles passed their lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief of those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives to new rules of conduct.” [1] Since this fact is more probable on the hypothesis that the apostles were sincere than on the falsehood of that hypothesis, it may be taken as evidence confirming the sincerity of the apostles in their proclamation to have encountered the risen Christ.

It is a common misstep made by many atheists to think that if a particular piece of the evidence fails to logically entail a conclusion, then that same piece of evidence also fails to support the said conclusion. However, this is a poor epistemology. A piece of evidence may be confirmatory of a conclusion without establishing it. This is the case, I would suggest, with the evidence of the apostles’ persecution and martyrdom. With those nuances and caveats in mind, therefore, the Christian apologist may appeal to the persecution and martyrdom of the apostles as one aspect of the broader cumulative argument that the apostles were sincere in believing Jesus to have appeared to them alive following His death. This naturally leads to the question of how the apostles came to sincerely believe that, a question that I have addressed elsewhere.

Notes

[1] William Paley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity: Volume 1, Reissue Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 15.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates worldwide with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/7g7svAM

/by

Dealing with two arguments against Kalam

As I was reviewing one of the many emails we received, one of them raised two objections against the Kalam cosmological argument, specifically the argument offered for God as the cause of the beginning of the universe. A version of the Kalam cosmological argument can be formulated as follows:

  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
  2. The universe began to exist.
    2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite:
    2.1.1 An actual infinite cannot exist.
    2.1.2 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
    2.1.3 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
    2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition:
    2.2.1 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
    2.2.2 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
    2.2.3 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.
    2.3 Confirmation based on the expansion of the universe.
    2.4 Confirmation based on the thermodynamic properties of the universe.
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
  4. If the universe has a cause of its existence, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.
    4.1 Argument that the cause of the universe is a personal Creator:
    4.1.1 The universe was brought into being either by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions or by a personal, free agent.
    4.1.2 The universe could not have been brought into being by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions.
    4.1.3 Therefore, the universe was brought into being by a personal, free agent.
    4.2 Argument that the Creator sans creation is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent:
    4.2.1 The Creator is uncaused.
    4.2.1.1 An infinite temporal regress of causes cannot exist. (2.13, 2.23)
    4.2.2 The Creator is beginningless.
    4.2.2.1 Whatever is uncaused does not begin to exist. (1)
    4.2.3 The Creator is changeless.
    4.2.3.1 An infinite temporal regress of changes cannot exist. (2.13, 2.23)
    4.2.4 The Creator is immaterial.
    4.2.4.1 Whatever is material involves change on the atomic and molecular levels, but the Creator is changeless. (4.23)
    4.2.5 The Creator is timeless.
    4.2.5.1 In the complete absence of change, time does not exist, and the Creator is changeless. (4.23)
    4.2.6 The Creator is spaceless.
    4.2.6.1 Whatever is immaterial and timeless cannot be spatial, and the Creator is immaterial and timeless (4.24, 4.25)
    4.2.7 The Creator is enormously powerful.
    4.2.7.1 He brought the universe into being out of nothing. (3)
    4.2.8 The Creator is enormously intelligent.
    4.2.8.1 The initial conditions of the universe involve incomprehensible fine-tuning that points to intelligent design.
  5. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is “beginningless,” changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.

Now let’s look at the following objection to what I have called the Argument of Immutability Against a Personal Cause (AIAPC):

  1. If God is timeless, then He is immutable.
  2. If God is immutable, then God cannot act to bring the universe into existence.
  3. God is a personal being who without creation is timeless (given by the Kalam).
  4. God is unchangeable (from 1 and 3)
  5. Therefore, God cannot act to bring the universe into existence (from 2 and 4).

As you can see, the argument attacks the premises (4.1.3), (4.2.3), and (4.2.5) of this version of the Kalam by trying to demonstrate that there is an inconsistency between God’s properties of being personal, immutable, and timeless.

How solid is the argument? Well, not that good. First, the detractor seems to think that since there is no time without the universe, God is immutable, but this is not the case. What the argument says is this:

  1. In the total absence of change, time does not exist, and the Creator does not change. (4.2.5.1.)
  2. Therefore, God is timeless (4.2.5.)

Y

  • There cannot be an infinite temporal regression of changes. (4.2.3.1)
  • Therefore, God is changeless (4.2.3)

Note that the argument does not say that God’s immutability is inferred from His timelessness; rather, that immutability is inferred from the impossibility of an infinite regression of changes, and timelessness is inferred from His immutability. But what do we mean by the “absence of all change?” Simple, it is not doing something different. Some activities do not require either change or time, for example, knowing something (God can know all truths in that immutable state without time). And the same could be said about our intentions: as long as these do not change, we can sustain them timelessly. So, we can say that (1) of the AIAPC is false.

Second, (2) it is false too. The premise seems to assert that the immutability of God is equivalent to immobility, which would be true if we were talking about an impersonal cause, but we have seen that we can infer that the cause is personal, so that it has volition to simply decide to create the universe from eternity. As William Lane Craig explains when he uses the example of a man sitting from eternity

…my thought experiment serves to illustrate a point about free will. A person can exist unchangeably and then freely execute a certain intention because free will does not require some predetermined condition. The very nature of free will is the absence of causal determinants. So, a free action has the appearance of a purely spontaneous event. Man can simply and freely desire to get up. So, you can get a timeless effect from an immutable cause if that cause is a free agent. Now, in the case of God, God exists unchangeably without the universe. Creation is an act of free will which, when it occurs, brings time into existence along with the universe. Therefore, to say that “from a finite time a Creator endowed with free will could have wanted to bring the world into existence at that moment” does not imply that there was a time prior to that moment.[1]

Now, at this point, there is an objection that time then does not begin with the beginning of the universe, but at the moment when God decides to bring the universe into existence, which is contradictory to the implications of the beginning of the universe of the Big Bang. Now, even when Dr. Craig does not argue that God has to deliberate temporarily, he has responded to similar objections by making a distinction between physical time and metaphysical time:

Metaphysical time is independent of physical processes, for example, if God was counting down, he could say, “3, 2, 1, let there be light,” and in this case, we would have a sequence of mental events, we would have time prior to the beginning of the universe. What would begin at the beginning of the universe would be physical time, the time which is the subject of study in the field of physics.[2]

So, with all this, we can say that the AIAPC is not a solid argument after all.

Now let’s move on to the next argument which I have called the Argument of the Timelessness Against Causation (ATAC):

  1. If God is timeless without creation, time intervals do not exist (granted by the kalam).
  2. God is timeless without creation.
  3. Therefore, time intervals do not exist (from1 and 2).
  4. If the time intervals do not exist, the cause-effect relationship cannot occur without creation.
  5. The cause-effect relationship cannot occur without creation (from 3 and 4)

When one analyzes this argument, one will notice that in essence, it is similar to the first one, only the immutability is omitted, but the timelessness factor is still there, specifically, that it takes time intervals for a God-type cause and effect to exist by deciding to create the universe and then another time when the universe comes into existence. To this William Lane Craig has responded on another occasion that:

[…] it seems to me that this assumption is false. For under His omniscience, God’s choices are not events, since He does not temporarily deliberate nor does Him will move from a state of indecision to a decision. He simply has free will determinations to execute certain actions, and any deliberation can only be said to be explanatory, not temporary, before His decrees.[3]

Let us now return to the matter that the cause must precede the effect. I consider (4) to be false because it depends on the unjustified belief that cause-effect cannot be simultaneous and that the cause-effect relationship cannot exist without time. But Dr. Craig has already explained that there is no reason to accept these conditions and that it is possible to have cause and effect simultaneously[4] so that the creation of the universe is simultaneous with the origin of the universe[5]. Moreover, there is the possibility that every cause and effect relationship is ultimately simultaneous:

I do not see any conceptual inconsistency in thinking that a cause and effect can be simultaneous. Philosophers will often talk about how the direction of the causal influence between A and B is perceived when A and B are simultaneous. A and B may be at the same time, they may be simultaneous, but how do you draw the line of causal influence? Is A causing B, or is B causing A? Philosophers will argue about that. So, I don’t see any inconsistency in the notion of simultaneous causation. Some metaphysicists have argued that all causes are ultimately simultaneous because until the cause impacts some other object to produce an effect, there is no way that the causal influence can jump through time, from t2 to t1, to produce the effect in t1. That cause must last until the moment t1 and then produce its effect at that moment. But there is no way that a causal influence can travel through time and jump from t2 to t1 to produce the event. So many philosophers will say that all causation is ultimately simultaneous.

I think that’s a very persuasive argument. I can’t see how you can have a causal influence by jumping through time. It seems to me that effect will not occur until the cause impacts the thing to produce its effect; for example, the cue must hit the billiard ball to set it in motion. And until it does, there is no way that the causal influence of the cue’s movement will jump in time to make the ball move.[6]

Conclusion

We have seen that the AIAPC fails because of a misunderstanding of the meaning of immutability and how immutability is inferred. On the other hand, although the ATAC is a better argument, it is not entirely sound; since there are no good reasons to reject the simultaneity of cause and effect.

Notes

[1] William Lane Craig, “God and Time” on William Lane Craig: A Reasonable Response.

[2] An Explanation of Physical Time and Metaphysical Time.

[3] Timelessness and Creation.

[4] Causation and Spacetime.

[5] God, Time and Creation

[6] Misunderstandings About God and the Big Bang.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

God’s Crime Scene: Cold-Case…Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe (Paperback), (Mp4 Download), and (DVD Set) by J. Warner Wallace

God’s Crime Scene: The Case for God’s Existence from the Appearance of Design (mp4 Download Set) by J. Warner Wallace 

God’s Crime Scene: The Case for God’s Existence from the Appearance of Design in Biology DVD Set by J. Warner Wallace 

What is God Like? Look to the Heavens by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4) I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek

Jairo Izquierdo is an author and Community Manager for the Christian organization Cross Examined. He studies philosophy and theology, his current focus of study being classical logic, epistemology and molinism. He is co-founder of Filósofo Cristiano and editor at World View Media. Jairo resides in Puebla, Mexico and is an active member of Cristo es la Respuesta Church.

/by

Got Faith?

By Al Serrato

Sitting in traffic the other day, I saw once again the bumper sticker “Got Faith?”   It’s catchy, in a way, and in this age of sound bites, I can guess why people find it useful.  Perhaps it’s a good discussion generator, a way to invite a question or a response. But Christians should be careful to understand the unintended effect words like “faith” have on those whose worldview is intentionally secular.  

When we borrow from the famous milk commercial for a slogan, we risk reducing faith to a commodity – like milk.  Yes, we need it, and we can acquire it, and if we do, others things in life may go better, like the way cookies taste better with milk.  But is faith a commodity that we can acquire? Or is it something that all of us already have? Something we already make use of?

I recently talked to an atheist friend about these ideas.  She told me that in her view, faith and reason are opposites. Faith, she said, means accepting things you can’t understand or explain, and reason, by contrast, is the opposite, accepting only those things you can understand and explain.  With this view of the world, she will never be open to considering God, because by her definition to try to do so would be unreasonable. Those who “got faith” may be comforted, but they have nothing to tell her. Indeed, when she thinks about it, she feels a bit sorry for the “faithful,” because they’ve stuck their heads in the sand. They may feel safe and warm, she accepts, but the price of “not seeing things the way they really are” is just too high.

A more productive approach might be to let the secularist see that she is using “faith” as well, and to consider whose faith is more rationally based.  The first step, of course, is to clarify this misunderstanding about what “faith” actually means. I would suggest a definition of “faith” as the act of trusting in something that you cannot know with complete certainty.  It contains an action part – trusting – and a standard of proof part, for lack of a better term – the degree of certainty you attach to your conclusion.  Contrary to my secular friend’s view, the opposite of faith is not reason, it is disbelief.  In other words, to lack faith in something is to believe that what is posited is not in fact true, that it does not conform to the way things actually are. I don’t have “faith” that positive thinking will always allow me to achieve my goals. It doesn’t hurt to practice positive thinking, of course, but I do not actively trust that things actually work that way. In some instances, to lack faith would mean to go even further, to believe that the opposite is probably true. I lack faith in my ability to leap over a tall building because I know the opposite to actually be true.

Reason, by contrast, is not an act of trusting; it is act of thinking, a process by which we arrive at conclusions based upon evaluating evidence that we receive through our senses.  It can be inductive or deductive; it can be sound or fallacious.  But in the end, it is simply a tool that we have access to through the use of our minds, much like the tool of vision, hearing, or language acquisition. These things are simply available to any human being with a normally functioning mind.  The opposite of reason is not faith, it is irrationality. If I conclude, for instance, that a set of feathered wings will allow me to take flight, I am proceeding irrationally because the available evidence establishes that this simply cannot work, however much “trust” I wish to place in what I am attempting.

Far from being opposites, then, reason and faith coexist in a continuum, in which knowledge moves from things that are definitely known through observable evidence (trust with high certainty) to things that are not definitely known but highly likely to be true (trust with less certainty) to matters that are entirely speculative and can be taken only “on faith” (trust with little or nothing to support).   So faith in God, like any other conclusion a person reaches, is always the product of reason, because reason is simply the only way anyone can arrive at a conclusion.  What distinguishes sound faith from foolish faith is the strength of the evidence that supports the conclusion and the validity of the reasoning process that was used.

Let’s apply this approach to a real-world example, say a wife wondering whether her husband is worthy of her trust.  Because she cannot be with him all the time, she cannot know for certain whether he is cheating on her.  But she is not totally without evidence, either.  You would not say to her that she simply has “faith,” as if she has no reasons whatsoever for her beliefs.  Instead, you would view that situation as a continuum of knowledge.  In other words, her “faith” can be soundly based on available evidence – as in the situation where through long term observation and knowledge of the character, belief system and conduct of her husband, she can be confident in placing her trust.  Or her “faith” can be foolish – as in the situation where the husband claims to be true but has shown through prior behavior and through comments that he is not likely to withstand the temptation to stray.   This example shows two things: one, that faith is something we all use, even without necessarily thinking about it, because as limited beings we cannot know everything with certainty; and two, that the certitude of one’s faith depends on the facts and rationale that support the faith.  In this example, the one rests her faith on logic and reason, while the other holds it in spite of logic and reason.

Faith and reason are not inherently in conflict, as many secularists seem to believe. While faith requires a step beyond what can be known with complete certainty, it is not irrational to take that step, depending on the strength of the evidence to support it. Thoughtful and intelligent people throughout the ages have found no conflict in accepting that God exists and placing their trust in him.

As believers, we need to prepare ourselves to show others today that this is still the case.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Forensic Faith for Kids by J. Warner Wallace and Susie Wallace (Book)

Defending the Faith on Campus by Frank Turek DVD and Mp4  This is part of the complete package promote one or the other

Defending the Faith on Campus Complete Package by Frank Turek DVD

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

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

No one can be Happy without this

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

Unhappy?  It’s impossible to be happy unless you are thankful.  Frank uses the book of Romans and common sense to show why. Along the way, Frank addresses the politically incorrect passages in Romans 1 and asks questions to people who disagree with Paul and Jesus. Frank also addresses the following questions listeners have: 

  1. Why isn’t Jeremiah 29:11 a promise to us? 
  2. Does God condone concubines and polygamy? 
  3. Does God speak to Christians directly?  Why doesn’t He speak to me?

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

Gratitude is Easy…Contentment is Hard

,

By Natasha Crain

Every year between Halloween and Thanksgiving, I feel a little uneasy about the countdown of blessings so many people do. Something seems slightly “off” about it, but I’ve never been able to put my finger on what it is.

It’s like a gallon of milk that hasn’t actually expired. You know it should be good, but there’s enough of a strange scent that you pass it to the nearest person and ask them to confirm that it, indeed, does not smell right. (Why do we always do that?!)

I think I’ve finally put my finger on where the funny smell is coming from. It’s not that there is anything wrong with focusing on giving thanks every November. It’s great to have the reminder to think about the many wonderful things we have in our lives, and the Bible clearly calls us to give thanks to the Lord in all circumstances.

But the smell that’s slightly off for me is that gratitude alone is pretty easy.

It doesn’t require much sacrifice or change of heart to take inventory of our blessings. Gratitude is simply a measure of our perspective on the things we already have, and most of us can easily embrace those things with a seasonal reminder.

Gratitude is not what most of us struggle with most, however. It’s the closely related cousin named contentment that causes far more consternation.

While gratitude is a measure of our perspective on the things we already have, contentment is a measure of our perspective on the things we don’t have. It’s being able to say we want nothing more no matter how much or little we have.

But how is that possible? How can we ever genuinely say that we could want no more if we were to have almost nothing?

Such true contentment is only possible with a full dependence on Jesus. Every earthly thing can be taken from us, but Jesus can never be. We can always trust that He is all we need because His promises are for eternity; our earthly time is but a mist (James 4:14).

It’s amazing that as a society we go from gratitude in November to wanting more, more, more in December. What’s more amazing is that we’ve already been given the most we can have: the birth of Jesus.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the November counting of blessings naturally segued into the December counting of all the things we don’t need in light of the birth of Jesus?

I don’t need security. Or more money. Or more excitement. Or more kids. Or a different job. Or different schools for my kids. Or anything else.

I simply need the promise of an eternity with God, which is exactly what Jesus’ birth brought.

When we fully appreciate the promise that Christmas offers, we can say we are thankful for all we have and need nothing more. It is this gratitude with contentment that results in complete and lasting joy.

Each day this month, talk to your kids about something they don’t need in this world in light of the birth of Jesus. On Christmas, joyfully celebrate that we have ALL we will ever need in Him.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)   

Natasha Crain is a blogger, author, and national speaker who is passionate about equipping Christian parents to raise their kids with an understanding of how to make a case for and defend their faith in an increasingly secular world. She is the author of two apologetics books for parents: Talking with Your Kids about God (2017) and Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (2016). Natasha has an MBA in marketing and statistics from UCLA and a certificate in Christian apologetics from Biola University. A former marketing executive and adjunct professor, she lives in Southern California with her husband and three children.

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

/by

Why Celebrate Thanksgiving?

,

By Bernard Mauser

Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. Philippians 4:6

Thanksgiving means different things to different people. Some say it is about food, family, and football. Others, that it’s a break from work or a time to stand outside of your favorite store to get Christmas gifts for a great price. Tied up with this celebration in history is the religious element of giving thanks to God for His blessings.

There are two things to keep in mind about Thanksgiving. First, there is the holiday that people celebrate around the world. Second, there is the command that Christians are to be people who constantly give thanks in every situation. Although the history of the holiday is interesting, the more important is the second. Christians recognize, as did our founders, Thanksgiving should be a time to thank the true Ruler of the nations. Let’s look at both the historical and the Christian background.

First, when you ask kids what they know about Thanksgiving they’ll talk about turkey and Pilgrims. The first Thanksgiving in the New World was celebrated with the Pilgrims in 1621. There are only two original sources that mention this celebration. We discover this report (using modern spelling) from Edward Winslow:

“our harvest being gotten in, our governor sent four men on fowling, that so we might after a special manner rejoice together, after we had gathered the fruits of our labors; they four in one day killed as much fowl, as with a little help beside, served the Company almost a week, at which time amongst other Recreations, we exercised our Arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and amongst the rest their greatest king Massasoit, with some ninety men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five Deer, which they brought to the Plantation and bestowed on our Governor, and upon the Captain and others. And although it be not always so plentiful, as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far from want, that we often wish you partakers of our plenty.”[1]

William Bradford adds, “besides waterfowl there was a great store of wild turkeys, of which they took many.”[2] We find the original celebration lasted three days and the menu included deer, fowl, and turkey.

George Washington issued the following proclamation of Thanksgiving on October 3, 1789 to God for his protection and the blessings God has conferred upon us as a nation:

By the President of the United States of America. a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor—and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be—That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks—for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation—for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war—for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed—for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted—for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions—to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually—to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed—to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord—To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us—and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New-York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go: Washington[3]

After this time, various leaders in America proclaimed different days of Thanksgiving to be held throughout the United States. Yet there was no fixed day upon which all the nation would devote to such an observance until a woman named Sarah Josepha Hale wrote a letter to Lincoln which implored him to make “Thanksgiving a National and fixed Union Festival…. To become permanently an American custom and institution.”[4] On October 3, 1863, Lincoln declared a national day of “Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens” to be held the last Thursday of November. It has been held on this day in America ever since.

Long before any of these celebrations in America, the Israelites had instituted peace offerings to God as a way of giving thanks. Moses instructed the Israelites in Leviticus 7 about these peace offerings in order to maintain fellowship with God. This practice continued throughout history in many nations as men have recognized both that God is the ruler of all the nations and that every good and perfect gift comes from Him. (James 1:17) The Thanksgiving holiday is an excellent time to remind us of this important outflow of thanksgiving that should be sewn into every part of every day. Let us never go a day without giving our Maker and Ruler both thanks and praise.

Notes

[1] https://www.pilgrimhall.org/pdf/TG_What_Happened_in_1621.pdf

[2] Ibid.

[3] https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-04-02-0091

[4] http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/thanks.htm

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)   

Bernard Mauser became a Christian in 1999 after trying to refute Christianity. Upon finding out Christianity is true, I went on for my first Masters at Southern Evangelical Seminary (in Christian Apologetics) and completed my second Masters and Ph.D. (in Philosophy) at Marquette University. His professional publications are in the areas of natural law ethics, religious pluralism, and Biblical hermeneutics.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/7gXs6D6

/by

Live Not by Lies with Rod Dreher

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

For years, émigrés from the former Soviet bloc have been telling New York Times best-selling author, Rod Dreher they see telltale signs of “soft” totalitarianism cropping up in America. In his new book, Live Not by Lies: A Manual for Christian Dissidents, Dreher amplifies the alarm sounded by these brave men. “America is sleepwalking into soft totalitarianism. If we ignore the prophetic voices of those who survived Communism, we deserve what we get,” says Dreher.  We are walking into a trap, and the solution is much more than politics.   

Mr. Dreher joins Frank to expose this encroaching problem and offer some solutions.  All Christians need to listen to this!  If you begin to live by lies now, you will not resist when you’re pressured to deny Christ.  

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

How Should Christians Think About The Transgender Movement?

By Ryan Leasure

In this post, we’re asking the question: How should Christians think about the Transgender Movement? In many respects, this is a difficult question to answer because the movement is constantly in flux and definitions frequently change. Be that as it may, Christians must do their best to engage Transgenderism from a biblical worldview.

God’s Good Creation

From the outset, we must acknowledge that Transgenderism was not part of God’s pre-fallen creation. Not only did God create both male and female as a complementary pair, his assessment of his creation was that “it was very good” (Gen. 1:31). Both male and female, image-bearers of God, in perfect fellowship with God and each other.

In addition to their harmony with God and each other, both man and woman had perfect harmony with their bodies. Genesis 2:25 tells us that “The man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.” No disgust or confusion existed in humanity’s gender identity. They were comfortable in their own skin. So much so, that nudity was an afterthought.

Corruption Of Sin

Sadly, paradise was lost. Man and woman chose to usurp the lordship of God and declare themselves to be their own lords. Instead of submitting to God’s good direction, they carved out a new one for themselves. Unfortunately, we’ve been doing the same thing ever since — defying God’s authority and calling our own shots.

Immediately after the first humans sinned, the way they interacted with the world shifted dramatically. Genesis 3:7 reports this shift: “Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.” Before the fall, naked and unashamed. After the fall, bodily shame.

They experienced this shame, not simply because their bodies began a long journey of decay, but because sin ransacked their minds. Jeremiah says it most succinctly, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jer. 17:9). As a result, we can’t always trust our thoughts and feelings because sin has corrupted them.

At root, this is the underlying cause of the Transgender movement. We are a people who have been so radically affected by sin’s corruption, that we’ve become uncomfortable with our own bodies. This is especially the case for Transgender individuals who experience gender dysphoria.

Definitions

In order to think biblically about the Transgender Movement, we must have a basic understanding of the following definitions:1

Sex — Refers to one’s biological makeup and composition (XX or XY chromosome).

Gender Identity — A person’s self-perception of whether they are male or female (or something else entirely).

Gender Dysphoria — A mismatch between the gender that matched one’s biological sex and the gender one feels oneself to be.

Cisgender — A term used to refer to people who have a match between their biological sex and their personal gender identity.

Transgender — A term used to refer to individuals who identify or express a gender identity that does not match their biological sex.

The Perfect Storm

In order for Transgenderism to gain a footing in western culture, several factors had to coalesce to provide the proper soil for the movement to sprout.2 The first factor is the culture’s embrace of relativism. Relativism is the view that objective truth does not exist. Instead, everyone experiences their own individual truth. Hence, phrases such as “you can’t tell me what to do” or “you live your truth and I’ll live mine” pervade the cultural landscape.

Another factor is our post-Christian society. It’s no surprise that our culture is running away from its Christian roots at a rapid pace. While residual effects still linger, the dominating forces our our culture — the university, the media, and the entertainment industry — are increasingly leading us away from Christianity’s influence.

A third factor is our embrace of the sexual revolution. With the rise of no-fault divorce, the pill, and the separation of sex from procreation in general, western culture has embraced the mantra “if it feels good, do it.” That is to say, no sexual boundaries exist anymore except a consenting partner.

And fourth, a gnostic view of reality undergirds the Transgender Movement. The ancient heresy of gnosticism taught that the physical world is evil, while only the spiritual is good. In the same way, Transgenderism has embraced the idea that one’s feelings ought to trump one’s biology.

The combination of these various factors has provided the perfect storm for the rise of the Transgender Movement.

What Transgender Activists Won’t Tell You

I recently read an op-ed in the New York Times titled “My New Vagina Won’t Make Me Happy.” The author, Andrea Long Chu begins with a shocking admission:

Next Thursday, I will get a vagina. The procedure will last around six hours, and I will be in recovery for at least three months. Until the day I die, my body will regard the vagina as a wound; as a result, it will require regular, painful attention to maintain. This is what I want, but there is no guarantee it will make me happier. In fact, I don’t expect it to.

Notice how Chu admits that the surgery won’t actually reassign sex. Chu’s body will regard the vagina as a mere wound which will require ongoing treatment. That is to say, all that surgery and cross-sex hormones can do is provide cosmetic changes. They cannot change one’s chromosomes. People who undergo sex reassignment surgery, therefore, do not become the opposite sex. They simply masculinize or feminize themselves.

While the activists want to paint a beautiful picture of the Transgender Movement, the reality is much, much darker. Chu goes on to state in the article, “I feel demonstrably worse since I started on hormones. . . . Like many of my trans friends, I’ve watched my dysphoria balloon since I began my transition.” Statements like these ought to grieve us. People like Chu deal with deep emotional pain and they deserve our most sincere compassion. Gender dysphoria is no joke, and we ought not treat it lightly. What this article makes clear, though, is that transitioning away from one’s biological gender is not the solution to one’s problems. In fact, it often makes one feel worse.

Chu writes, “I was not suicidal before hormones. Now I often am.” Sadly, this is a reality for many Transgender people. Studies show, that no matter how accepting one’s culture is, risk of suicide remains astronomically high for those who undergo sex reassignment surgery.

I don’t mention any of these points lightly. I’m grieved over the pain many experience. But if there’s anything that we can learn from stories like Chu’s, it’s that embracing Transgenderism is not the solution.

Ramifications

While the Transgender Movement touts its desire to make sure everyone gets fair treatment, the reality is that the movement mows down anyone in its path. Consider Canadian psychologist Kenneth Zucker, former director of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) and its Gender Identity Clinic (GIC). While Zucker himself was not opposed to the Transgender Movement, activists pushed for his termination because he was insufficiently pro-trans. His sin? He believed that we should be cautious when transitioning children. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) pressured the Canadian government into shutting down his practice despite that fact that his patients gave him raving reviews.3

Of course, this raises this issue of children who experience gender dysphoria. Unfortunately, activists push for kids to transition despite the fact that 80-95% of all kids who experience gender dysphoria grow out it.4 As part of the treatment plan, they urge puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. Once kids reach the age of eighteen, then they can get sex-reassignment surgery if they like. But in what world with any moral decency is it appropriate to manipulate children’s physiology like this, not to mention their emotional state?

Bathrooms and locker rooms have also been front and center of this conversation. While the issue is probably most significant for schools, the debate went national with the North Carolina bathroom bill which stated that Transgender individuals had to have their birth certificate changed to their new preferred gender before they were allowed to use the opposite bathroom. This led to a massive outcry by cultural elites. PayPal terminated their expansion plans in North Carolina over this human rights violation. Of course, they kept their international headquarters in Singapore where private, homosexual sex will get you a two-year prison sentence.

Sports is another area affected by the Transgender Movement. Recently, Laurel Hubbard, formerly known as Gavin, won two gold medals in weightlifting at the Pacific Games. In Texas, Mack Beggs won her second straight wrestling state championship. Mack is biologically female, but transitioned to a male a few years ago by receiving testosterone injections. Mack went 36-0 in her final season. Controversies also surround Transgender track and field athletes because of their unfair advantage over biological females. And then there’s a Transgender UFC fighter who cracked an opponent’s skull and sent her to the hospital to receive treatment for severe head injuries.

In the end, the Transgender Movement isn’t all about fair and equal treatment. It holds no prisoners for anyone who opposes it. Doctors, employers, and politicians must toe the line lest they encounter the wrath of the activists. But perhaps the biggest victims of the movement are girls and women. Not only has their privacy been violated by allowing biological males to share locker rooms with them, they are also put at unfair advantages athletically having to compete against bigger, faster, stronger men.

Rebellion Against Our Maker

Deuteronomy 22:5 states, “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.” At root, the problem is a rejection of God’s creative design. God made us male and female (Gen. 1:27), and the very small number of intersex cases doesn’t undermine that.5

The command in Deuteronomy 22:5 couldn’t be any clearer. Don’t reject God’s biological design for you by pretending to be something you are not. Just like Adam and Eve, Transgenderism is a rejection of God’s lordship over us. It shakes its fist back at God and says “don’t tell me what to do!”

This rejection only comes by a willful suppression of the truth. Even though God has revealed his plans for sex in nature, people have chosen to go in a different direction. We read in Romans 1:24-25, “Therefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.”

Concluding Thoughts

Gender dysphoria is a real issue that has caused untold thousands deep emotional distress. As Christians, we should be sympathetic towards these unique struggles and provide support and encouragement with a spirit of grace. In my next post, I will go a bit further into this by asking: How should Christians lovingly engage those with same-sex attractions or gender dysphoria?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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

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)

Ryan Leasure holds a Master of Arts from Furman University and a Masters of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Currently, he’s a Doctor of Ministry candidate at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He also serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/ogSEK4E

/by

Divine Impassibility: God As Our Unaffected Fortress

By Brian Huffling

Several of my previous blogs have dealt with divine simplicity and some objections to the doctrine. As I have written, it is the most important divine attribute, even if it is hotly debated.

Those who accept simplicity are on a completely different theological trajectory from those who reject it.

I would argue that its acceptance puts one on the trajectory to classical theism while its denial puts one on the trajectory to process theology since its rejection implies or outright states that God changes and is thus in a process. If simplicity is true, then God is without potency, or the potential to change. If he is without the potential to change, then by definition he cannot change—it is impossible. He is thus immutable. He is in a state of being, not in a state of becoming.

This leads to another important doctrine, and almost as disputed as divine simplicity: divine impassibility. If God cannot change, then he cannot be affected by anything in a passive way. We cannot make God any different than he is. We don’t make him happy, sad, upset, etc. We don’t add or take away from him in any way. In other words, he is impassible.

In short, this doctrine denies there are passions in God that are changed by his creation. God does not have human emotions. Stating this doctrine, especially to those who have never heard it, usually upsets people. They tend to get emotional about it. After all, doesn’t the Bible teach that God gets angry, jealous, pleased, and the like? Yes, it does. It also teaches that God has a body if we take it literally. God “went down” to Sodom and Gomorrah to see what they were doing (Gen. 19). God is said to have nostrils (Ex. 15:8), ears (2 Sam. 22:7), fingers (Ps. 8:3), and many other body parts. However, orthodox Christians do not believe that the Bible is literal when it says this. After all, John 4:24 says “God is Spirit.” So, if the Bible uses such figurative terms for God having a body, why wouldn’t we take the emotional language to be just as figurative? Historically passions have been tied to physical bodies.

Since God is not physical, he has no passions.

But how do we know that the passages that talk about God being physical aren’t literal, and the passages that talk about him being spiritual aren’t figurative? The answer is in one word: philosophy. We use our philosophical views to interpret Scripture. Since we have arguments and reasons to believe that God is immaterial, eternal, immutable, omnipresent, etc., Scriptures that describe God in contradictory ways to these attributes must be figurative. This should not be surprising given the fact that the Bible tells us that we can know God’s “invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, [which] have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made” (Rom. 1: 20).

So, what does the Bible mean when it says things like God is angry or jealous? It is using figurative language to express a literal truth about God. God is described as angry because he brings about effects and results in a similar way that angry people do, such as wrath, judgment, and destruction. He is said to be jealous since he is against his people going after other gods. This is similar to describing God as a fortress. It should be obvious that God is not made of brick and mortar, but he is similar to a fortress in that he is immovable and stable.

Since the Bible is not a philosophy or theology textbook but rather a collection of letters to his people, it is not surprising that it describes God in such figurative ways. This is really not avoidable. Most people don’t have the time or inclination to study God on a metaphysical level. Thus, the writers of the Bible wrote it so that the words would resonate with its readers. They could have written a dissertation on God being immutable, or they could just say that God is a fortress or a rock. These figurative descriptions resonate with people since figurative language is so highly used. The same is the case with God being angry about sin. We all know what that means. It means that God is against sin and he takes action against it. Even if one didn’t have the metaphysical background to recognize the figurative use of the language, he would still be right in knowing that in some way God is against sin.

Let me say a word about the incarnation as it usually comes up in discussions on divine impassibility. Divine impassibility has only been attributed to the divine nature. It does not hold that Jesus’ human nature is without passions or is immutable. The one person of Jesus has two natures: divine and human. They are not confused (do not overlap). The divine nature is wholly divine while the human nature is wholly human (without sin). So, while it is true that Jesus is God, his human nature is still a human nature, passible, and changeable, while his divine nature remains untouched by human passions or changes in any way.

Like divine simplicity, divine impassibility has fallen on hard times. Many today hold that a being that cannot be affected by our plights, fears, problems, etc. is not a person, not the God of the Bible, and not worthy of worship. Such a God is often compared to the Unmoved Mover of Aristotle that did not care about the world but only contemplated himself. Such is the view of thinkers like William Lane Craig. Consider his answer to a question asked on his website:

“The view that God is in no way affected by creatures is called the impassibility of God. . . . God cannot suffer emotional pain. Divine impassibility was thought by medieval Christian theologians to be one of the attributes of God. So you would find many Christians historically who would agree with [this] view. But on the contemporary scene, there are very few theologians who would defend such a doctrine. There seems to be no good reason for taking the biblical descriptions of God’s emotions non-literally. Far from seeing susceptibility to emotional pain as a weakness, most contemporary Christian philosophers and theologians would say quite the opposite: that it is a weakness for a person to be unmoved by human suffering and a strength to feel emotions, including pain, indignation, compassion, etc. In fact, think of the etymology of the word ‘compassion’: to suffer along with. As the greatest conceivable being, God must be compassionate and share our sorrows and joys. Impassibility is actually a weakness, whereas compassion redounds to God’s greatness.”

This is a fairly typical response from those who hold that God is passible. Notice that there is no philosophical or theological argument here, simply an emotional appeal. It is indeed a weakness for humans to be “unmoved by human suffering,” but we are not talking about a human. We are talking about God. Such blurring of the Creator/creature distinction occurs when we reject divine simplicity.

Having said all that, it is not the case that God as an impassible being is uncaring toward our suffering. This is a mischaracterization of the God of classical theism and the God of the Bible. Being impassible does not equate to being uncaring or unloving. It simply means that given the kind of being God is (based on philosophical investigation that is legitimate even according to the Bible) he is not the kind of being to be affected. He is perfect in himself without any addition or subtraction to his being.

To be the kind of being to be affected he would have to be changeable, temporal, and composed (by whom?). But to be changeable and temporal is to be in a process of change, or just simply in a process. Thus, to agree that God is passible, changeable, and temporal would to agree on some level with process theology. How can God change and suffer along with us without being in a process? Again, either classical theism is true, or process theology is true. There is no third option as attributes like simplicity, immutability, impassibility, and eternality (in the classical sense) are contradictory with their opposites. In other words, either they are true or not.

To modify these attributes is to deny them.

Would we really want God to be moved or suffer along with us like other humans do? Surely he knows of our happiness and sorrows, but does that mean he must be sorrowful with us to understand or care about us? (Again I am speaking of the divine essence, not the human nature of Jesus.) Should we not want a God of stability who cannot be moved or changed by anything? Such would seem to be a God more worthy of worship as we can always count on him being the same. Such also seems to be closer to the God of the Bible.

It should be clear that the acceptance or rejection of simplicity and other classical doctrines such as immutability and impassibility are vital for classical theism, and their rejection leads one to the only other option: process theology.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

What is God Really Like? A View from the Parables by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

What is God Like? Look to the Heavens by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4) 

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)  

J. Brian Huffling, PH.D. has a BA in History from Lee University, an MA in (3 majors) Apologetics, Philosophy, and Biblical Studies from Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES), and a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from SES. He is the Director of the Ph.D. Program and Associate Professor of Philosophy and Theology at SES. He also teaches courses for Apologia Online Academy. He has previously taught at The Art Institute of Charlotte. He has served in the Marines, Navy and is currently a reserve chaplain in the Air Force at Maxwell Air Force Base. His hobbies include golf, backyard astronomy, martial arts, and guitar.

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

/by