Tag Archive for: apologetics

Historical Bias, Objectivity, And The Truth Of Christianity

“Historians are biased and choose what they report. As such, history can’t be known.” That’s a typical objection to the ability to know history. If such objections prove that we can’t know history, then we can’t know that Christianity is true since it is known through history and historical claims.

In his prologue, Luke says,

“Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:1-4).

The above passage demonstrates that Luke was writing as an historian. Words such as the ones underlined show his desire to write the truth of the events he wanted to convey. So, if history can’t be known, then we can’t know that Christianity is true. Let’s look at a typical objection.

The Most Popular Objection

Bias is probably the most popular objection to knowing history. It is claimed by some that historians are biased. It is not always clear what the objection is really getting at, but usually it is something like the historian holds certain views that in some way make his reporting subjective or unfair. For example, an historian may be writing about a religious issue and if he is part of that religion he is likely going to be accused of being biased. The disciples are often said to be biased regarding the events of the life of Jesus, particularly his resurrection. Since they knew him and had a vested interest they must have made up the claims of the resurrection.

Ironically, there are many assumptions (i.e. biases) about the nature of bias. It is more often than not used in a negative way and is equated with subjectivity and falsity. But why should this be the case? Why should the notion of either bias or subjectivity be equated with something being false? People could be biased because of evidence. If the disciples really did see Jesus alive after he was dead, then the reason they were biased was because of evidence and proof. But this bias would not be based on any subjectivity since their knowledge was based on objective and empirical evidence. Further, someone could have a subjective view of something and still be correct. There is nothing about being biased or subjective that guarantees that the belief is false. Such is an assumption in itself.

A Wrench in the Works

Consider this popular argument against objectivity:

  1.  To be objective one must be free from bias.
  2.  No one is free from bias.
  3.  Therefore, no one is objective.

 

This is a valid argument, meaning that the conclusion follows from the premises. But is it sound (i.e. is the argument valid and the premises and conclusion true)? Well, if no one is free from bias that means the one making this argument is not free from bias. But statements like “No one is . . .” is a universal statement that applies to everyone everywhere. But aren’t universal statements objective? What else would ‘objective’ mean other than something that is universal and not simply limited to the subjective beliefs of an individual? This whole line of argument is self-defeating. In other words, when using the argument’s criteria, the very argument itself fails. The objector in this case is objective in trying to argue that no one is free from bias and that no one is objective. However, the only way to make such universal statements is for the objector to make objective statements. If they were subjective, then they wouldn’t necessarily be universal. If they weren’t universal, then maybe some people aren’t biased. But this contradicts the argument. Assuming the argument holds water, because no one really denies that people are biased, it shows that one can be biased and objective. (Note, it is not guaranteed that one is going to be objective and biased, just that it’s logically possible. The objection is thus deflated.)

What do you mean “Objective”?

This raises another question that is rarely asked and usually assumed: What does it mean for something to be ‘objective’? By now it should be clear that it can’t mean free from bias since we’ve just seen that a person can be both biased and objective. So being free from bias is not necessary to be objective (in fact I would agree that everyone is biased in a general sense). So what does it mean? Most people think that it means being detached from a given circumstance so that one can see it as an objective outsider. In his fascinating work Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, drawing on other work on this topic (such as Samuel Byrskog’s Story as History—History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History), Richard Bauckham makes the surprising and unfashionable statement:

“A very important point that . . . for Greek and Roman historians, the ideal eyewitness was not the dispassionate observer but one who, as a participant, had been closest to the events and whose direct experience enabled him to understand and interpret the significance of what he had seen” (page 9).

He further notes that many historians wanted someone who was involved in the events in question because that person would have a vested interest. They wanted someone who was involved and really there.

This counters the usual desire or assumed need for detatchment, but it does not say what objectivity is. Objectivity is arriving at conclusions that are based on evidence and principles that have their foundation in external reality. Everyone can use and measure truth claims based on external (objective) reality. Put negatively, it is the opposite of one making conclusions that arise simply out of one’s subjective mind. Such evidence based on reality and the principles that follow is mind-independent. Since reality is objective, that is, everyone can know it (as long as their faculties are working properly), the conclusions based on reality can also be objective. When one uses universal (objective) principles to ascertain the truth of a conclusion, one can be objective. Such principles are the laws of logic (or being). One such law is the law of non-contradiction. It declares that if two statements are mutually exclusive one must be true and the other must be false. For example, Christianity teaches that Jesus died. Islam counters that Jesus did not die. These statements are mutually exclusive—one must be true and the other false since there is no third option. Thus, they are contradictory. (This is contrasted with statements that can both logically be false, such as “Buddhism is true” and “Atheism is true.” Such statements that can both be false are called ‘contrary’.) Regarding this principle and its application to historical objectivity, Maurice Mandelbaum says,

“Our knowledge is objective if, and only if, it is the case that when two persons make contradictory statements concerning the same subject matter, at least one of them must be mistaken” (The Anatomy of Historical Knowledge [Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins, 2019] 150).

The law of non-contradiction is based in the nature of reality. It is not just a principle of thought, but of being. A tree cannot exist and not exist at the same time in the same sense. That would be a contradiction. Such first principles of thought and being arise out of the nature of reality since something can’t simultaneously be and not be. It is not simply a made up principle. In fact it is undeniable since to deny it would require using it.

Thus, if one’s conclusions are based on external and objective reality and evidence, and the principles from such reality, those conclusions can be objective. There is, in a sense, an objective apparatus giving us the possibility of being objective. Again, this is contrasted with something arising only from one’s (subjective) mind rather than from external (objective )reality. There is, therefore, nothing about biases that preclude one from making objective historical statements. Biases do not guarantee subjectivity or falsity.

The Benefit of Bias

Back to Bauckham’s point regarding bias, it is often the case that people are indeed biased, but biased because of the evidence. They have seen so much evidence, that they are convinced that what they are saying is true. This, however, is not subjective bias or assumption, but rather the careful examination of objective reality and the evidence that all can investigate.

When looking at historical questions, such as the resurrection, one should not base his conclusions on notions such as the alleged bias of the ones making claims. Rather, one should examine the evidence for the claims to discover their veracity. We can recognize bias in every area and by all people. However, that alone is not enough to show that a person’s claim is false. To be good and responsible historians and investigators, we must follow the evidence.

(I would like to thank Norman L. Geisler for his direction regarding my MA thesis topic which was on this issue, as well as Thomas A. Howe to whom my thoughts and work are indebted greatly.)

Recommended Resources: 

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) 

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

 

J. Brian Huffling, PH.D. have 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.

/by

Was Jesus Really Born of a Virgin? Does It Matter?

“It doesn’t really matter if Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit or by Joseph’s seed. What matters is that Jesus came to earth, died, and was resurrected.”

This is more or less what was said in a conversation I had several years ago with a now self-proclaimed progressive Christian. At the time, he was trying to work out his theology. Today, his words ring with expectancy to be answered. Was Jesus born of a virgin? Does it matter in regard to our faith if He was?

Virgin Birth: Negotiable or Not?

The virgin birth of Jesus Christ has always been considered a non-negotiable core doctrine of Christianity and is mentioned in the earliest creeds. Among Christians, this doctrine wasn’t broadly questioned until a period of history referred to as “the Enlightenment”. Sometimes called “the Age of Reason,” the Enlightenment was an intellectual movement that took place primarily in the 18th century. It has had an incalculable impact on Western culture, profoundly affecting the way people think about philosophy, politics, religion, and science.

As science was given precedent over religion, one of the trends to emerge during the Enlightenment was skepticism towards anything miraculous or supernatural. In other words, believing in the miracles recorded in the Bible such as the virgin birth is superstitious and unscientific, so they must be mythological. This seems to be a popular view among progressive Christians today.

​Does the Bible teach that Jesus was actually born of a virgin? 

The prediction, 700 hundred years before Christ (Isaiah 7:14):

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

The fulfillment (Matthew 1:22-23):

Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel.

Seems pretty simple, right? Isaiah predicted the Virgin Birth and Matthew records that prediction coming true. Not so fast.

A common claim among skeptics is that the word translated “virgin” really just means “young woman” or “maiden,” and there is no reason to assume that Mary was a virgin.

Young Lady, Virgin, or Both?

This reasoning might make sense if we were only reading these Scriptures with a Western, American mindset. With any Scripture, however, we have to look at it through the lens of the culture in which it was written. The Hebrew word in question is almah, which does mean “young woman” or “maiden.” However, in ancient Hebrew culture, all young women of marriageable age were considered to be virgins. Strong’s Online Concordance notes:

There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin.

There is another Hebrew word that specifically means “virgin” (bethulah), but it’s likely that Isaiah preferred almah because he wanted to communicate that the virgin would also be young. Long before the virgin birth was an established doctrine, 70 Hebrew scholars must have agreed, because when they began translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, they translated almah as parthenos, the Greek word for “virgin.” Apparently, they understood exactly what that word meant in context.

Mary herself clearly stated that she was a virgin in Luke 1:34. When the angel told her she would conceive a child, she was perplexed and asked, “But how can this be, since I have not been intimate with a man?”

Does it matter if Jesus was born of a virgin?

As with most core doctrines, the case for the virgin birth of Jesus doesn’t just come down to one or two Bible verses. Scripture teaches that Jesus is fully God and fully human. He literally has two natures. It was necessary for Him to be born of a woman, to fulfill the promise God made to Eve in Genesis 3:15. If Jesus had not been born of a woman, He would not be fully human, and could not have been the promised Messiah.

As I’ve written previously, Scripture teaches that humans inherited a “sin nature” from Adam, and it would seem that sin nature gets passed down through the line of the father (Rom. 5:12, 17, 19). According to Hebrews 7:26, Jesus did not have a sin nature. Also, it’s important to note that Jeremiah prophesied that there would never be a king of Israel who was a descendant of King Jeconiah (Jer. 22:28-30). Matthew 1:12-16 tells us that Joseph was in fact, a descendant of Jeconiah.

If Jesus had been conceived by the seed of Joseph instead of by the Holy Spirit, He would have received a sin nature, and would not be fully God. As a descendant of Jeconiah, He would not have had a right to the throne of Israel, and He could not have been the promised Messiah.

Prophesied by Isaiah and fulfilled by Jesus, the virgin birth allowed for Jesus to be both fully God and fully human, unstained by sin, and God Incarnate. The doctrine of the virgin birth matters because it must be true for salvation to even be possible.

Recommended Resources:

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

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

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)      

Reflecting Jesus into a Dark World by Dr. Frank Turek – DVD Complete Series, Video mp4 DOWNLOAD Complete Series, and mp3 audio DOWNLOAD Complete 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.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4f3rRZP

/by

What Really Happened at the Council of Nicea?

For many years, the Council of Nicaea has been the subject of much confusion among laypeople. The misapprehensions which have come to be associated with the council of Nicaea have, in part, been fueled by popular fictional novels such as Dan Brown’s notorious The Da Vinci Code. No matter what group you are dealing with in your apologetic exploits (including atheists, Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Unitarians), you are almost guaranteed to encounter some of these misconceptions. For this reason, it is important for Christians to study and learn church history, so that they might correct common myths and falsehoods.

Did Constantine Invent the Bible and the Deity of Christ?

The Council of Nicaea was famously convened on May 20, 325 AD, at the request of Emperor Constantine (pictured above). What did the council of bishops meet to discuss? Contrary to common misconception (popularized particularly in Muslim circles) that has been widely circulated via the internet, the Council of Nicaea did not meet to discuss the canon of Scripture — that is, the decision about which books should make up the New Testament. In fact, there is not a shred of evidence that the canon of Scripture was even brought up at Nicaea. Another misconception is that the council of Nicaea, at the encouragement of Constantine, “invented” the deity of Christ or, at the very least, that the bishops in attendance at Nicaea were significantly divided on the issue, the matter being decided with a vote. This too, however, is completely inaccurate. In 325 AD, when the bishops convened at Nicaea, the deity of Christ had been affirmed almost unanimously by the Christian movement for close to three hundred years!

The bishops who met at Nicaea had just come out of an extremely challenging time of intense persecution by the Romans, having lived through the cruelty of the Emperors Diocletian (ruling 284-305) and Maximian (ruling 286-305). One of the bishops present at Nicaea, Paphnutius, had even lost his right eye and been given a limp in his left leg as a consequence of his profession of faith. According to one ancient writer, Theodoret (393-457),

“Paul, bishop of Neo-Cæsarea, a fortress situated on the banks of the Euphrates, had suffered from the frantic rage of Licinius. He had been deprived of the use of both hands by the application of a red-hot iron, by which the nerves which give motion to the muscles had been contracted and rendered dead. Some had had the right eye dug out, others had lost the right arm. Among these was Paphnutius of Egypt. In short, the Council looked like an assembled army of martyrs.” [Ecclesiastical History, 1.7.5]

It strikes me as odd, therefore, that one would suppose that the early Christian movement, having come out of such difficult times as those, would capitulate so easily to the emperor Constantine’s demands with respect to defining the very fundamentals of their faith!

It Was About the Aryan Heresy

The story of the Nicaean council begins in Alexandria in northwest Egypt. The archbishop of Alexandria was a man by the name of Alexander. A member of his senior clergy, called Arius, took issue with Alexander’s view of Jesus’s divine nature, insisting that the Son is, in fact, himself a created being. In similar fashion to modern Jehovah’s Witnesses, Arius maintained that Jesus was like the Father inasmuch as they both existed before creation, played a role in creation and were exalted above it. But the Son, according to the theology of Arius, was the first of God’s creations and was commissioned by the Father to create the world.

On this point, Alexander strongly disagreed, and publicly challenged Arius’s heretical teachings. In 318 AD, Alexander called together a hundred or so bishops to talk over the matter and to defrock Arius. Arius, however, went to Nicomedia in Asia Minor and rallied his supporters, including Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was a relative by marriage to Constantine the emperor, and a theologian in the imperial court. Eusebius and Arius wrote to many bishops who had not been involved in the defrocking of Arius. The effect was the creation of divisions among the bishops. Embarrassed by such bickering, the emperor Constantine convened the ecumenical council of Nicaea in 325.

Constantine’s primary concern was imperial unity rather than theological accuracy, and he desired a decision that would be supported by the greatest number of bishops, regardless of what conclusion was reached. His theological advisor, Hosius, served to get the emperor up to speed before the arrival of the bishops. Since Arius was not a bishop, he was not invited to sit on the council. However, his supporter Eusebius of Nicomedia acted on Arius’s behalf and presented his point of view.

Arius’s position regarding the finite nature of the Son was not popular with the bishops. It became clear, however, that a formal statement concerning the nature of the Son and his relationship to the Father was needed. The real issue at the Council of Nicaea was thus how, and not if, Jesus was divine.

The Deity of Christ was Never In Question
A formal statement was eventually put together and signed by the bishops. Those who declined to sign the statement were stripped of their rank of bishop. The few who supported Arius insisted that only language found in Scripture should feature in the statement, whereas Arius’s critics insisted that only non-Biblical language was adequate to fully unpack the implications of the language found in the Bible. It was Constantine who eventually suggested that the Father and Son be said to be of the “same substance” (homoousios in Greek). Although Constantine hoped that this statement would keep all parties happy (implying the complete deity of Jesus without going much further), the supporters of Arius insisted that this language suggested that the Father and Son were equal but didn’t explain how this was compatible with the central tenet of monotheism (i.e. the belief in only one deity).

Nonetheless, the Nicaean creed did indeed incorporate this language. It stated,

“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, visible and invisible; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down and became incarnate, becoming man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the living and the dead; And in the Holy Spirit. But as for those who say, ‘There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is from a different hypostasis or substance, or is created, or is subject to alteration or change — these the Catholic Church anathematizes.”

Aryanism Denounced by not Defeated

With just two exceptions (Secundus of Ptolemais and Theonas of Marmarcia), the creed was signed by all the bishops, numbering more than 300. Arius’s supporters had been overwhelmingly defeated.

Arius’s supporters, however, managed to find some wiggle room. A single letter “i” (iota), changes the meaning of homo (“same”) to “like” (homoi). The latter could be exploited by Arius and his followers to describe a created Christ. Moreover, it was argued, the creed could be interpreted as supporting Sabellianism, an ancient heresy which fails to discriminate between persons of the godhead. It was this in-house squabbling between bishops that ultimately led to the Council of Constantinople in 381.

Unity, But at What Cost?

A company of bishops started to campaign for the formal re-instatement of Arius as a presbyter in Alexandria. Constantine yielded to their petition and, in 332, re-instated Arius as a presbyter. Athenasius, who had recently succeeded his mentor Alexander as bishop of Alexandria, was instructed to accept Arius into the church once again. Needless to say, Athenasius did not comply with this order. The consequence was exile. Constantine had little interest in the precision of his theology — rather, it was the struggle for imperial unity that was his motivation.

In conclusion, although popular misconceptions about the Council of Nicaea are rampant, the idea that the Council of Nicaea determined which books comprised the New Testament or that it invented the deity of Christ to comply with the demands of Constantine are myths. Indeed, correct theology was of little concern to Constantine, who cared much more about imperial unity. Christians must make a serious effort to study and learn church history, so that when we encounter such claims in the media and in our personal evangelism, we may know how to present an accurate account of our history.

Recommended Resources:

How Can Jesus be the Only Way? Mp4, Mp3, and DVD by Frank Turek

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

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)      

 

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 around the world 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.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4isqk2b

/by

Jesus: Santa Claus for Adults?

It’s common for atheists to be a “Grinch” over the Holidays and exclaim that Jesus is just a “Santa Claus for adults!” When I hear that claim, I immediately respond with a question: “What do you mean by that?”

If one means that children often believe in fictional fairy tales and adults believe in fact-based evidence, then I agree – Jesus is for adults (and actually people of all ages)! But I don’t think that’s the intent behind this claim. I believe the intent of the atheist (“Grinch”) is to convey that little kids believe in a fictional Santa Clause and many adults believe in fiction too – Christianity.

How the Grinch Stole Christ out of Christmas

Well, why think a thing like that, Mr. Grinch? Is belief in Jesus — or belief in God — really no different than belief in Santa? To answer this question, we must first ask if we have any good reason to believe in Santa. What good reasons are there that would lead us to logically conclude, “Therefore, Santa exists”?

Now, I’m not emotionally opposed to the existence of Santa Claus, and my life would not really have to change if Santa really exists, so if there were any evidence pointing to a jolly fat man in the North Pole who flies around with Rudolph giving gifts made by the elves, then I would happily follow that evidence wherever it leads. Even if there were logic-based arguments concluding that Santa PROBABLY exists, I would be very open to the existence of Santa. Come to think of it, Santa Claus would save me a ton of money on Christmas presents! Be that as it may, there is no evidence or any logic-based arguments concluding that Santa Claus exists — or even PROBABLY exists. So, although I am willing to be persuaded, there just doesn’t seem to be any evidence or logical reasons to believe in Santa Claus (sorry kids).

Now perhaps, Mr. Grinch, you’re saying to yourself: “That’s right! There’s no evidence for Santa Claus AND there is no evidence of God or Jesus either! That’s why it’s ridiculous to believe in Santa Claus or God!”

A False Equivalence

But is that true? Is the evidence — or lack thereof — for Santa Claus and the evidence for God really the same?

Well, if Santa does exist, we would know what to look for: A big, jolly, white-bearded, fat man in a red suit flying around in a sleigh being pulled by flying reindeer delivering presents to children on Christmas Eve. We would look for his factory full of elves at the North Pole too! So far (as far as I know), this evidence for Santa has never been detected. That in and of itself is not PROOF that Santa does not exist, but once we add to the fact that we have no other positive reasons to believe that Santa exists, then we can safely say that Santa does not exist.

But what about God? If God does exist, what would we expect to find? Do you even know what evidence you should start looking for?

Before stating that there is no evidence for something, Mr. Grinch, make sure you know what kind of evidence there should be if that thing does exist. If the God of the Bible exists, for example, he is not the kind of being you would see flying around in the clouds. He would not be some “sky daddy,” as many internet atheists seem to think. No, if the God of the Bible exists, He would not be some humanoid “Zeus-like being.” God (if He exists) is an immaterial unembodied mind – a “spirit” (John 4:24).

How Christ Saves Christmas, from the Grinch

So, what should we expect to find if Christian theism is true? We would expect to find scientific evidence for the beginning of the space-time universe. We have that! We would expect to find evidence for the fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the big bang so that intelligent life – not to mention matter itself – could exist. We have that! We would expect to have historical data showing that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person of history who was executed by the Roman government. We have that!

In fact, we would expect to be able to make a strong case — via the historical method alone – that Jesus actually rose from the dead. Historians have demonstrated that the resurrection of Jesus is the inference to the best explanation after examining all of the historical facts!

So, the things we would expect to find if Santa exists, do not exist. However, the things we would expect to find if the God of the Bible exists, those things DO exist!

After taking everything into consideration, although it would be irrational to believe in Santa Claus, one is quite coherent believing in the God Jesus revealed. That is to say, we have good reason to celebrate Christmas.

So, the next time Mr. Grinch compares Jesus to Santa Claus, just show him the evidence pointing to the reason for the season.

Have a reasonable (Isaiah 1:18) and Merry Christmas,

Dr. Tim Stratton

Recommended Resources: 

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)      

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

Reflecting Jesus into a Dark World by Dr. Frank Turek – DVD Complete Series, Video mp4 DOWNLOAD Complete Series, and mp3 audio DOWNLOAD Complete Series

How Can Jesus Be the Only Way? (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek

 

Tim Stratton (The FreeThinking Theist) pursued his undergraduate studies at the University of Nebraska-Kearney (B.A. 1997) and after working in full-time ministry for several years went on to attain his graduate degree from Biola University (M.A. 2014). Tim was recently accepted at North West University to pursue his Ph.D. in systematic theology with a focus on metaphysics.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/49fAu1O

/by

The Widening of God’s Mercy – Book Review

, ,

In the mid-1990’s a Theology professor at Duke Divinity School, named Richard Hayes, wrote a book called The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation, A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics. It made waves in the Evangelical world because it was the first time a relatively liberal theological scholar took a definitive stance on the biblical sexual ethic. For decades conservative Christian scholars and pastors have cited Hays’s work in this book as evidence that scripture speaks clearly on issues concerning human sexuality and morality.

There were other, more conservative, names that had come to the same conclusions as Hays prior to and after his book was published. However, the very fact that someone of his pedigree, hailing from such a scholarly institution as Duke University, so unequivocally stood on the orthodox understanding of scriptures concerning sexuality was seen as a sort of ace in the hole against the arguments of affirmation theology.

In his 1996 book Hays said this:

“Thus, in view of the considerable uncertainty surrounding the scientific and experiential evidence, in view of our culture’s present swirling confusion about gender roles, in view of our propensity for self-deception, I think it prudent and necessary to let the univocal testimony of Scripture and the Christian tradition order the life of the church on this painfully controversial matter. We must affirm that the New Testament tells us the truth about ourselves as sinners and as God’s sexual creatures: marriage between man and woman is the normative form for human sexual fulfillment, and homosexuality is one among many tragic signs that we are a broken people, alienated from God’s loving purpose.” (The Moral Vision, pgs. 399-400)

But Wait, There’s More

Recently, however, Richard and his son Christopher, a professor at Fuller Seminary, published a book called The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality within the biblical story. In it, Richard and Christopher lay out an argument for repudiating Richard’s previous work and leaning into affirmation theology. This seismic shift was heralded as a possible inflection point in the Evangelical Church’s defense of the biblical sexual ethic.

The book’s premise relies on understanding that God changes his mind throughout the history of scripture:

“Although these stories (OT stories, particularly Moses) are told as if God is ‘learning on the job,’ the portrait they create is consistent with a recurring image of God throughout the Bible. Even where judgment seems to narrow the scope of blessing, there are signs of the wideness of God’s mercy. God’s plan for the world is broader than some think.” (pg. 48)

God’s changing of mind and widening of his circle of inclusion is used throughout the book to support the claim that the next step in this widening work is through the full inclusion of LGBTQ+ people and their lifestyles:

“Those who do not conform to traditional expectations for sexual orientation should be the next to be explicitly included, as an extension of this ancient and traditional process.” (pg. 4)

In this book review, I will look at what it seems Richard and Cristopher intended to accomplish, the arguments in the book, and, as always, what the book does well and what it does poorly.

Purpose of the Book

Some might believe that the purpose of this book is to change conservative minds, but this is not the case. Richard and his son seek not to change staunch conservatives but to give hope to those in the middle or to the left on the issue of sexual identity and Christianity. The book is also meant to serve as a salve on the wounds of those who have felt alienated by the church’s traditional position on human sexuality. Thus, this is not an academic book, unlike Richard’s first work in 1996, but is, instead, a book focused on empathy, shifting the narrative in the conversation, and extending an olive branch to people either firmly in the affirmation camp or those that are on the fence.

At the outset, Richard and Christopher do not hide the ball as far as that is concerned:

“The reader will find few footnotes” (pg. 4).

“This book also starts from the recognition of the harm that modern conservative Christianity has done by fighting battles that God doesn’t call us to fight” (pg. 5).

“… after I suggested we write this book, he asked me, “who is the intended audience?” And I said, “Maddie.” That’s my daughter, whom we have raised to appreciate the strength that comes from diversity and who can see very clearly that the future will have no patience with debates over human rights for those whose sexual orientation does not conform to ‘traditional’ standards” (pg. 16).

Clearly, this book is not intended to convince me. And it did not, as that was not its aim.

What this book does well

Care for the LGBTQ+ Community to Come to Jesus

The book strikes a tone of love and care for people in the LGBTQ+ community. It shows a care for their eternal souls and is seemingly meant to serve as an apologetic for them to come to faith in Jesus Christ even if they have been hurt by the theology and/or actions of the Church in the past.

“…but the book is also for those who are already convinced that LGBTQ people are just as good as straight people but who are unsure about God and Christianity… To them -perhaps to you- we say: You’re not crazy to think you and yours are created equal and loved equally by God” (pg. 16).

I appreciate the heart of two individuals who desire to see all come to faith in Jesus Christ and seek to remove any unnecessary obstacles from their path. The question becomes though, what is necessary and unnecessary for the gospel? I have often said that homosexuality and LGBTQ lifestyles are the one sin the church has often told people they need to solve prior to coming to the cross of Christ. This is wrong and harmful. In that much, I agree, but going the extra step to affirm certain lifestyles because otherwise it would cost too much for people to follow Jesus, that is a bridge too far.

Jesus himself said we need to count the cost (Luke 14:28-33), so it is not readily apparent that the obstacles of a biblical sexual ethic should be glossed over. That being said, I believe Christopher and Richard’s heart for people not of the faith is on full display throughout the book. They have clearly been impacted by the stories of pain told to them by people in those communities and I resonate with that.

“A gay acquaintance tells the story of when he was first coming to grips with his sexuality as a grade-schooler, and his Sunday school teacher gave the class a coloring sheet with a little messy kid on it and the words, ‘God don’t make no junk.’ Most of the sheets probably wound up in the trash fairly soon, but he hid his under his bed. He would take it out occasionally, when we needed a reminder that he had been created as he was, and he’s never forgotten it. No one forgets when the church manifests the love and joy that God feels toward creation; nor do they forget when it doesn’t” (pg. 36).

“My own experience of participating in a church where gay and lesbian members were a vital part of the congregation’s life and ministry has caused me to stop and reconsider what I wrote before” (pg. 10).

“The more we have listened to friends, to our fellow Christians, and to respected voices in the culture more broadly, the more we have been compelled to recognize a tidal wave of evidence that same-sex attraction and partnering is, for some people, hardwired into their identity. And, at the same time, we recognize that the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit are abundantly present among our LGBTQ friends. That being so, we find ourselves compelled to say, along with Peter, “Who are we that we can block God” (pg. 213-14).

These personal experiences (Christopher shares, at length, multiple experiences of students at Fuller early in the book) seem to be the impetus for such a change of mind. Experience is of seminal importance throughout the book, and reading scripture through the lens of experience seems to be the preferred method. The desire is admirable, the empathy understandable, but the theology and methodology is flawed.

Unity of the Church

Another thing that seems to bother both Christopher and Richard is the division over this issue. In multiple spaces throughout the book, both authors indicate a desire to move beyond these debates and to the more important matters of the law of Christ. They see the fracturing within the church, rightly, as a bad thing. The divisiveness over such issues seems paltry and unnecessary to them.

Ultimately, it seems one of the goals of their book is to encourage people to let go of division and arguments so we can move forward much like the early church did with food sacrificed to idols.

“The repetitive arguments about the same set of verses, and the meaning of specific words, have reached an impasse; they are superficial and boring” (pg. 2).

They find exegetical arguments counterproductive to the unity of the church on these issues and thus, they do not make many, if any, throughout the book:

“We believe that this debate should no longer focus on the endlessly repeated exegetical arguments about half a dozen isolated texts that forbid or disapprove of same-sex relations. (The regularly cited texts are Gen 19:1-9, Lev 18:22, 20:13, 1 Cor. 6:9-11, 1 Tim. 1:10, and Rom 1:18-32). In this book we have not revisited them. It is relatively clear that these texts view homosexual sex negatively, even if they do not envisage covenanted same-sex partnerships as we know them today. But drawing conclusions based only on these passages would be like basing a biblical theology of slavery on Exod. 21:2 (which assumes one can buy a slave) and 1 Pet 2:18 (which tells slaves to be subject to their masters), or a theology of immigration on Ezek 44:9’s exclusion of foreigners from the sanctuary” (pg. 206-207).

“As a practical matter, it is difficult to see how strong differences over same-sex marriages could be maintained within an individual congregation, or even in some cases within an individual denomination. But it is not impossible to imagine that different Christian congregations might hold different norms and practices on this question while still acknowledging one another as members of the one body of Christ – just as Catholic and Protestant churches already do with respect to their different standards on clerical celibacy and women’s ordination” (pg. 216).

While there are certainly issues with these assertions, and certainly I do not agree that exegetical arguments concerning what is and is not a sin are pedantic in any way, I can appreciate the heart for unity behind the words. But unity in sin should not be the goal. This leads us to what this book does poorly.

What this Book does poorly

The entire argument is incredibly flawed

The most glaring issue with this book is that the argument is blatantly flawed. In fact, in arguing for the widening of God’s mercy to be extended to a certain group both Hays men fail in properly defining the word mercy and why mercy is needed in the first place. Not only that, but both men indicate that the passages of scripture outlawing such sexual activity do, in fact, say and mean what Richard claimed they did in 1996.

At one point Richard Hays quotes long passages from his previous work and then concludes said section with this statement:

“As a judgment about what these very few biblical texts say, that statement still seems to me to be correct” (pg. 8).

So, it is not that the interpretation of said scriptures are incorrect, but that God has simply changed his mind and widened his mercy beyond these passages. In other words, because of God’s ever-expanding mercy these passages no longer carry moral weight for how we view sexuality.

How do we know this to be true? Well, basically, because it seems to be true according to Richard and Christopher Hays and that if it isn’t true then our position is “harming” people:

“This book also starts from the recognition of the harm that modern conservative Christianity has done by fighting battles that God doesn’t call us to fight” (pg. 5).

“Any religious tradition that makes its peace with harming people is to be feared” (pg. 5).

These statements of seeming theological fact are devoid of scripture and devoid of clarification. For instance, who is to say that fighting the battle against sexual sin is a battle that God doesn’t call us to fight either personally or societally?

If the passages themselves retain their meaning (as Richard seems to believe) then it would be paramount to explain how 1 Corinthians 6:18 or 2 Timothy 2:22 mesh with this perspective as well as Ephesians 5:1-13. It certainly seems, from these and other scriptures, that the declaration that Christians ought not fight battles against sexual immorality of this kind is not based in proper hermeneutics.

Adding to that is the question of harm. What does it mean for a religious tradition to “harm people?” How has conservatism done so? Could it not also be the case that affirmation into sin could harm people even if said affirmation feels good and freeing to them in the moment? These are questions that Richard and Christopher never ask.

As for proper exegesis of specific texts, it seems that both Hays see these academic exercises as unnecessary. There is a “deeper logic” of the biblical story in their minds, but this logic is based on nothing other than experience and emotion as far as I can tell and makes leaps based on how one perceives certain threads of scripture and God’s changing of mind through the Old and New Testaments.

“Exegetical debates can become red herrings and distract us from the character of God” (pg. 12).

This is a particularly troubling quote as it assumes that one can adequately understand the character of God without proper exegesis. How do we KNOW God’s character at all without debating the proper exegesis of certain passages? It would seem we can import our idea of what God SHOULD be like, but we may never arrive at who he truly is without it.

For an answer to how God moves in history according to the Hays men a quote from the middle of the book will help the reader:

“Paradoxically, such conservatism proceeds as if God were dead, or were at least done with the world. If God were done with us, then we could simply add up the sum of the texts and arrive at the right answer, once and for all. (This, I’m afraid, is not too far from what Moral Vision did in regard to homosexuality, although it seems to me that my father was always uneasy about the answers” (pg. 92).

Many assumptions are made in this text. One, that conservatism proceeds as if God were dead. Nothing could be further from the truth. To understand what they mean by this, one has to grasp their argument that God changes and widens his scope of acceptance throughout history.

“The idea that God does not foresee and control everything, and feels pity and regret even concerning his past judgments, is troubling for some theological views, but if we take the Bible seriously, it is hard to deny” (pg. 86).

I may agree this seems to be a problem if one embraces [classical theism], but it is not a problem if one embraces middle knowledge or even open theism.[1] Whether the Hays duo are Open Theists I do not know (though much of their argumentation hints that this may be the case). I believe a robust understanding of God’s middle knowledge makes sense of the passages alluding to God’s changing of mind. Also, even if one is a theological determinist there are certain exegetical tools at one’s disposal to explain how an unchanging God might seem to “change his mind.”

Of course, it is ridiculous to say conservatism proceeds as if God were dead. Conservatism proceeds as if God were actively conforming us and others to his good, pleasing and perfect will (Romans 12).

There are many literary devices one might use to explain God’s interaction with humanity over time. For instance, when Jonah finally agrees to preach to Ninevah and the people repent God relents of his promised destruction. The question: did God really change his mind; it seems as if he did.

But the lesson of Jonah is that God is perfectly consistent. He will relent from deserving punishment if repentance occurs regardless of who the people are and how we feel about them (Jonah 4:2). God WOULD have destroyed Ninevah had they not repented but he relented because they repented. Since God knows all things then he knew they would repent but for them to repent they must hear of God’s impending judgement, thus, God sends Jonah. Does this point to fickleness on God’s part or a change of heart or character? No, exactly the opposite. God knows how we will respond based on his foreknowledge of our decisions and he knows how he would have responded if we had done otherwise.

But no such robust discussion on God’s character occurs in this book. The underlying assumption of the book is that human sexuality is as innate as race and thus “sexual minorities” are just as relevant to the expanding of God’s inclusion as the inclusion of Samaritans and gentiles:

[Block quote] “A reader working through the whole book of Isaiah has heard earlier that ‘[The LORD] will assemble the outcasts of Israel’ (11:12). Now, God is going to gather more – not just the outcasts of Israel, but other nations as well. God is going to enlarge the tent. Those who were once forcibly excluded from it are now meant to be ushered in” (pg.105).

“It bears repeating: Scripture reflects that God’s grace and mercy towards the whole world was always broader than one might expect. It also says that God may change his mind and his approaches to the world to broaden it further. So, faithfulness to God means sometimes doing the same” (pg. 108).

“A constant theme of these stories is that Jesus does not reject Israel’s scriptures; instead, like the prophets before him, he insists on reinterpreting them in light of the conviction that love and mercy lie at the root of God’s purposes . . . Here we should pause to reflect: Should this contrast of perspectives inform the church’s present conflicts over sexuality?” (pg. 151).

The theological gymnastics employed to reach these conclusions throughout the book are phenomenal. At one point they state that human sexuality has become a Romans 14 issue:

“The ‘strong’ ones today are the liberated advocates of unconditional affirmation of same-sex unions; they are tempted to ‘despise’ the ‘weak,’ narrow-minded, rule-following conservatives who would impose limits on their freedom. And the ‘weak’ ones today are the devout, strict followers of what they understand to be God’s law given in scripture; they are tempted to ‘pass judgment’ on the sinful laxity of the ‘strong’ who condone same-sex unions” (pg. 200).

What is their basis for this? Well, it is their reading of the “stories of scripture” through the lens of emotional harm rather than fleshly and spiritual harm.

Logical Leaps in Correlation

“The stories we’ve summarized in the foregoing chapters disclose a deeper logic, a narrative pattern in which God’s grace and mercy regularly overflow the prohibitions and restrictions that exclude and condemn fixed classes of human beings – even when those prohibitions were explicitly attributed to God in earlier biblical texts” (pg. 207).

One of the most damaging aspects of the book are logical leaps made without argument. The Hays duo consistently make claims of harm without defining what it means to harm someone with theology and how affirming uncomfortable or upsetting truth could be harmful even if upsetting.

“To say it one more time, our vision is this: The biblical narratives throughout the Old Testament and the New trace a trajectory of mercy that leads us to welcome sexual minorities no longer as ‘strangers and aliens’ but as “fellow citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God.’ Full stop” (pg. 207).

But this trajectory of mercy does not include affirmation of sinful behaviors in any sense. There is no acceptance of the worship of idols, there is no acceptance of fornication, of theft, of bearing false witness or greed. In fact, where mercy is extended in scripture, by Jesus or otherwise, with it comes an expectation of life change and repentance. From the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8) to the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) there is not a single example of God’s mercy widening so far as to include explicitly listed sins against God such as sexual immorality, something that Richard Hays even indicates is still considered sin if one simply reads scripture for what it says:

“It is relatively clear that these texts view homosexual sex negatively, even if they do not envisage covenanted same-sex partnerships as we know them today” (pg. 206).

The idea that Christians overcame slavery despite its supposed affirmation in scripture is leaned on as proof in the book as well:

“We could fill a whole book with discussion of such examples, but the general point is clear: Christians across time have found the Spirit-led freedom to set aside biblical laws and teachings they deem unjust, irrelevant, or inconsistent with the broader divine will. It is not hard to see how the prohibition of same-sex relations could fall into the same category” (pg. 212-213).

But even if that were the case, this is not a story of the broadening of mercy but of the restricting of behavior based on a better understanding of God’s ultimately revealed character in the scriptures and the Imago Dei held by each human through exegesis. Time and again the same leaps in reasoning are used to justify the newly held position.

God opening up worship to Eunuchs – embracing “sexual minorities”

God including gentiles in the promise – embracing “sexual minorities”

God embracing Samaritans in the covenantal promise of Christ – embracing “sexual minorities”

On this last example they do not go into detail on John 4 when Jesus does open up the plan of inclusion to Samaria but at the same time tells the woman at the well that the Samaritans are wrong, that she is in sin, and that future worshipers will worship in spirit and TRUTH.

[Block quote] “There is a powerful analogy, a metaphorical correspondence, between the embrace of LGBTQ people and God’s previously unexpected embrace of foreigners, eunuchs, “tax collectors and sinners,” gentiles, and people with conflicting convictions about food laws and calendrical observances” (pg 214).

But the issue with the above quote is that being a foreigner and eunuch is not inherently sinful and that God does not embrace “tax collectors and sinners” without changing them. Zacchaeus changes his lifestyle (Luke 19), so does the woman caught in adultery. The embrace of mercy is not without the expectation of shedding the shackles of sin even if it is a sin that we hold closely within our own constructed identity. It seems the Hays men confuse conversion with sanctification.

Unnecessary Political digs at conservatives throughout

A more minor issue with the book is the random and sudden inclusion of progressive political stances strewn throughout. Gun control, immigration and other politically conservative positions receive unnecessary blows as the arguments are made:

“These deaths, he says (Garry Wills) are an ‘offering, out of devotion to our Moloch, our god. The gun is our Moloch. We sacrifice children to him daily.’ Most people are capable of understanding the statistics about gun deaths, and the many things we could do to reduce them, but alas, they are sure that the Second Amendment means free access to all sorts of firearms. When we grit our teeth in the face of the death of children, we sacrifice them to false gods” (pg. 67).

Perhaps the above quote might be correct even if I disagree, but it is either tone-deaf, disingenuous, or both to include something about Moloch and guns without touching on abortion even once. This would be enough to make one think that perhaps this is simply an ideological work rather than a theological one. This is just one example.

There is no limiting principle

The final issue I want to highlight with this book is that even if the argument worked for same-sex relationships it does not seem that Richard and Christopher are content to stop there. They seem to employ a sort of Motte and Bailey technique of argumentation as they argue for same-sex unions specifically on occasions but then incorporate the entire gambit of sexual ideology (LGBTQ) throughout the book as well.

“Does Luke’s account of the Jerusalem Council offer a model for how the church today might address controversial issues concerning inclusion of sexual minorities?… If the church today looks to the council as a pattern – and if it decides that same-sex unions are no longer to be automatically classified as ‘porneia’ – we would need to ask what analogous transformative guidance the church would offer to its members of differing sexual orientations. . .  One reasonable suggestion is that same-sex relationships should aspire to the same standard of monogamous covenant fidelity that the church has long commended and prescribed for heterosexual marriage. And, at the same time, the church should be no less careful to uphold the same standard consistently for its members of heterosexual orientation” (pgs. 186-87).

To argue simply for same-sex inclusion might be one thing (though, I still believe their argument fails). But it seems they have their sights set not simply on this but on the entire progressive sexuality gambit. The constant use of terms like sexual minorities and LGBTQ leaves no guard rails to sexual behavior. Would pedophilia be off limits? Bestiality? Incest? One is left to wonder. Exactly how far does God’s mercy widen in this arena?

“As for the rest of us, when it comes to respecting other people, it’s not plausible to hold our nose at something as important as who people love most and still present ourselves as their friend, or their ‘brother (or sister) in Christ.’ Most people are not interested in that kind of grudging acceptance” (pg. 11, emphasis mine).

Would Richard and Christopher Hays really say it is never plausible to do this? If that is the case, then I suppose we must be open to polyamory, pedophilia and more? After all, who are we to “hold our nose at something as important as who people love most and present ourselves as their friend?” There is no limiting principle offered throughout the book. Only, the continuous and seemingly never-ending widening of God’s mercy in acceptance of previously outlined sin so long as the sin can be seen as an identity marker for a minority group.

“We believe that welcoming people of different sexualities is an act of faithfulness to God’s merciful purposes. Let’s not make God’s offer of grace a lie” (pg. 220-21, emphasis mine).

Conservative Christians would agree with the above statement, but Hays and Hays intimate that welcoming equals affirming. Of course, God’s grace is not a lie. Of course, it extends to all people regardless of their sexual past or their proclivities, but it does not follow then that these sexual sins are not sins and it does not follow that they are worthy of full acceptance and affirmation. Finally, what exactly is meant by “different sexualities”? This is not simply a call for including homosexual “marriage” but opens the door to a wide variety of sexual aberrations. Where does it end?

Conclusion

As the authors say:

“This book is therefore not just an argument about the meaning of the Bible in the past, but an invitation to readers to make new meaning in the present by listening to the Spirit and joining God now in saying, ‘I will gather others to them/besides those already gathered’ (Isa 56:8)” (pg. 221).

Clearly, this book is not about what the Bible means but simply what Christopher and Richard Hays believe God’s character SHOULD be based on their own experiences and feelings:

“The more we have listened to friends, to our fellow Christians, and to respected voices in the culture more broadly, the more we have been compelled to recognize a tidal wave of evidence that same-sex attraction and partnering is, for some people, hardwired into their identity. And, at the same time, we recognize that the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit are abundantly present among our LGBTQ friends. That being so, we find ourselves compelled to say, along with Peter, ‘Who are we that we can block God’ (pg. 213-14).

Because they have been influenced by people whom they love, who live sexually impure lifestyles, they seem to embrace the conclusion they desire and read the scripture through that. There is a reason exegesis is ignored in this book because, to come to the conclusion they desired, they could not practice it. Instead, they practice eisegetical approaches to narratives throughout scripture.

This book fails in academics, fails in rhetoric, and fails in discipleship. It is a net negative for the church and while the arguments should be understood, the book as a whole should be rejected as it is unreasonable, unbiblical, and illogical. I give this book a 4 out of 10.

References: 

[1] Editor’s Note: The author said, “theological determinism” here. But, the deeper more robust contrast here is with Classical Theism as that (traditionally understood) contrasts with both (1) Molinism and middle knowledge as well as (2) Open Theism. Classical theists can vary in how they relate to the doctrine of “theological determinism,” though they all agree that God foreordains everything in some sense, even if they can disagree about whether that is “compatible” with human free will.

Recommended Resources: 

Does Love and Tolerance Equal Affirmation? (DVD) (Mp4)  by Dr. Frank Turek

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) Book, DVD Set, Mp4 Download by Frank Turek

4 P’s & 4 Q’s: Quick Case FOR Natural Marriage & AGAINST Same-Sex Marriage (DVD) by Dr. Frank Turek

 

Josh Klein is a Pastor from Omaha, Nebraska with over a decade of ministry experience. He graduated with an MDiv from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his spare time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married for 12 years to Sharalee Klein and they have three young children.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3YTS3zM

/by

Did the Idols of the Old Testament Actually Have Power?

,

One of the questions that people ask when they read through the Old Testament is “did those little statues that people worshipped actually have any power behind them?” Many scholars agree that people believed that the idols themselves did not hold power but instead represented the pagan gods. The Old Testament itself has two major views on idolatry, one located in the prophets and another located in Deuteronomy.

Idolatry in the Prophets

The prophets identify idolatry as a major issue within both Israel and Judah during their time and argue that idolatry is worthless.[i] For example, in Isaiah 41, Isaiah 44, and Jeremiah 10, the prophets make it clear that idolatry is useless and meaningless. It holds no power because the idols themselves are created and the gods that they represent were also created by mankind. The gods cannot deliver the nations, cannot create, cannot predict the future, and therefore, should not be worshipped. Thus, if you only had the prophets, one would probably assume that there was no actual spiritual or supernatural power behind the idols or their gods.

Idolatry in Deuteronomy

The Book of Deuteronomy, however, lays out a different argument when it comes to idolatry. Deuteronomy 32:17 states, “They sacrificed to demons, not to God, to gods they did not know, to new gods, new arrivals that your fathers did not fear.” (NKJV) Paul similarly made this argument in 1 Corinthians 10:20 when he wrote, “Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons.” (NKJV) From this perspective it seems that the idols and their gods were not simply worthless creations of mankind but were instead powered by demons and Satanic forces.

How Do We Reconcile These Two Views?

The question then becomes “Were the idols and their gods worthless creations of mankind or supernatural beings empowered by Satan and his demonic horde?” The answer seems to lie somewhere in the middle. It is true that the idols, at least to some extent, did have some type of supernatural force behind them. The people of the ancient world called these supernatural powers gods, whereas the Bible calls them instead demons. Indeed, it is unlikely that the ancients would have worshipped idols for generations if there was not some kind of supernatural power behind them, probably coming from the demonic realm to trick people into worshipping these gods as divine. A possible example of this can be seen in the story of the Exodus, when Pharaoh’s magicians can replicate some of the supernatural abilities of Moses and Aaron, at least with the first few plagues, even if their power was limited and they could not duplicate any of the plagues after the plague of frogs.

The prophets, however, were also correct in their arguments that these false gods were not equal to YHWH.[ii] Demons are created beings that are fallen angels. They are not co-equal to YHWH and therefore are inferior to Him. While the prophets may have downplayed the supernatural elements that the idols could have exhibited, they were correct in arguing that these pagan gods were not comparable to YHWH. Michael Heiser said it well when he wrote, “No. These ‘denial statements’ do not deny that other elohim exist. Rather, they deny that any elohim compares to Yahweh.” [iii]

Therefore, the answer to the question did the Old Testament gods have power is yes, they did seem to have some type of supernatural power through the power of Satan and his demons. Nonetheless, this does not mean that they were equal to YHWH and deserved to be worshipped and trusted as true gods. Only YHWH is the one true God, incomparable within creation. Isaiah 44:8 clarifies this well, “Do not fear, nor be afraid; Have I not told you from that time, and declared it? You are My witnesses. Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock; I know not one.”

References:

[i] [Editor’s Note: He’s referring to the divided Kingdom, when Israel split into two kingdoms – the 10 tribes of the Northern Kingdom (Israel). versus the 2 Tribes of the Southern Kingdom (Judah). This split began with Solomon’s successor Rehoboam.]

[ii] [Editor’s Note: Yahweh is infinitely superior to the false gods, of course. But, more than that, the idolatrous statues and superstitutious icons of those false religious are also totally impotent. So, as the Prophets say in Isaiah 41, Isaiah 44, and Jeremiah 10, those idols have no power to harm or help people, just like any other lump of wood, stone or metal would be a helpless and harmless inanimate object.]

[iii] Michael S. Heiser, “Does Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible Demonstrate an Evolution from Polytheism to Monotheism in Israelite Religion?,” Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament 1, no. 1 (2012): 8-9.

Recommended Resources: 

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

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)     

Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

 

Daniel Sloan is an Assistant Professor at Liberty University. He was mentored by the late Dr. Ed Hindson. After Dr. Hindson’s untimely passing, Dr. Sloan was allowed to teach some of Dr. Hindson’s classes. In addition to his teaching duties, Dr. Sloan serves as an Associate Pastor at Safe Harbor Community Church in Lynchburg, Virginia. Daniel graduated with his PhD in Theology and Apologetics from Liberty University. His research and expertise is in Old Testament studies. He and his wife, Natalie, live in Lynchburg, Virginia. Along with his extensive knowledge of the Bible, Daniel is an avid sports fan.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3Aw0l9a

/by
Made into Christ’s Image or Do You Make Christ into Your Image?

Made into Christ’s Image or Do You Make Christ into Your Image?

,

By Brian Chilton

In a Patristic Exegesis class at Liberty University, Dr. Ken Cleaver was discussing the average-sized heights of individuals in first-century Israel. For the most part, the average height of most individuals was around 5’ 2”. It is quite likely that Jesus would have been much shorter than what most Americans would have expected. Even if Jesus were taller among the people of his day, he would have been around 5’ 8” or 5’ 10”. But he wouldn’t have been what most modern people would consider tall.

One of my classmates mentioned that the first painting of Jesus to date was found in a church in Syria. The portrait depicts Jesus healing a paralytic who was brought to him. Jesus is physically portrayed as a beardless, dark-skinned, short-haired man, who is also short in stature. The painting dates to around 235 and is among the earliest paintings of Jesus to date. The Shroud of Turin, if authentic, portrays Jesus as a long-haired, bearded man. Which depiction is accurate? Furthermore, does it really matter?

This exercise hBrianChilton261119as forced me to consider how much we seek to make Jesus into our own image. For a southern, Caucasian, American; one would feel comfortable seeing Jesus as a camouflage wearing, gun-toting, bandana adorning, Patriotic citizen. For a northern, black, American; one would feel comfortable a Jesus who was a civilized, pacifist, progressive defender of human rights. But the question is, do we make Jesus into our image ,or are we willing to be made into the image of Christ? Would we still love Jesus if he holds different perspectives than we do? Would we still love Jesus if he looked very different than us? As people, we like things that are like us.

The very nature of Jesus is far and away different from all of us. Remember, Jesus was perfect. We are not. No matter how he looked physically, he was the incarnate God and we are not. Paul notes that those whom God “foreknew he also predestined to be conformed into the image of his Son, so that he would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters” (Rom. 8:29, CSB). Our goal is to be made into the image of Christ and not to make Christ into our image. No matter whether Jesus was over six feet tall and light-skinned or five feet tall and dark-skinned, he is the Logos incarnate—God who came in flesh. Athanasius of Alexandria (AD 296–373), a man who was named the “black dwarf,” noted that the Logos of God

“accommodated himself to our nature and showed himself empty of all [his divine qualities] in the face of the anxiety of the threatening onslaught of his trials … [Christ] became Man that we might be made God: and He manifested Himself through the body that we might take cognizance of the invisible Father: and He underwent insult at the hands of men that we might inherit immortality” (Athanasius of Alexandria, On the Incarnation of the Word of God 54).

Isaiah reminds us that the Messiah did not come with an impressive form. The Messiah did not possess any “majesty that we should look at him, no appearance that we should desire him” (Isa. 53:2, CSB). In other words, Jesus did not come as a fashion model or bodybuilder that you would be impressed with his physical form. What made Jesus special was that he was the incarnate God who came to save us from our plight of sin.

It makes no difference whether Jesus was light-skinned or dark-skinned, tall or short, bearded or beardless, short-haired or long-haired. What matters is that Jesus was thoroughly perfect in his morality, impeccable in his character, and powerful in his theology. He was God who came in flesh. Thus, we should seek to be made into Christ’s image rather than seeking to make Jesus into our own image. No one has a handle on Jesus. No one ever could. As such, Jesus is far more impressive and far more challenging than you ever thought him to be.

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)

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

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com, the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast, and the author of the soon to be released book The Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics. 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 currently 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 been in the ministry for nearly 20 years and serves as the Senior Pastor of Westfield Baptist Church in northwestern North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/37Bnunj

/by

Is Deconstruction the Same Thing as Doubt?

A clip from Skillet frontman John Cooper has recently been making the rounds on social media. In it, Cooper is heard saying that “it is time to declare war on this idolatrous deconstruction Christian movement.”

And just like that, the Christian community split.

One set of people claims that Cooper is causing further harm to Christians who are already struggling with their faith. The other set of people is praising Cooper for taking a stand against the so-called “Christian deconstruction movement.” So which is it?

What Do We Mean By The Deconstruction Movement?

The process of deconstruction usually goes like this: an influential, self-proclaimed Christian announces to their thousands/millions of fans that they no longer believe in the faith on which their careers were built. Through the process of “deconstruction,” they now realize that X, Y, and Z questions have no good answers (usually things that theologians have been discussing for hundreds of years). [i] Due to this perceived lack of answers (and usually accompanied by stories of “harm” they have seen within the church), they can no longer call themselves Christian or trust the Bible. [ii] They are all about some Jesus, but they feel the need to apologize to all the people they may have hurt back when they adhered to biblical principles. [iii]

There’s another word for this phenomenon. It’s called apostasy or deconversion, and it’s not a new thing. [iv] Since the beginning of Christianity, we’ve seen some people who have apostatized (i.e., walked away) from the faith. The Early Church was dealing with this within the first generation of Christianity (2 Timothy 4:1, 2 Peter 2:20-22, 1 John 2:19, and more…).

But we are talking about more than a process here; we are talking about a genuine movement. If I were to break it down, I’d say a movement consists of 1) a group of people who are 2) journeying together 3) for a common purpose and 4) gaining adherents. The new category “Christian deconstruction” fits all the criteria.

Not only are people questioning the tenets of the faith, but they are finding community with others doing the same thing. That’s the whole point of adopting the label: it gives them a group to belong to.

Sometimes they see themselves as the only ones bold enough to question traditional Christian teachings. And when they meet others who are questioning like themselves, they lock arms and buckle down together. And like any movement, those who most fervently embrace the label are trying to get others to join them on the quest — in this case, by vocal and public “deconstruction” announcements intended to evangelize listeners into the club.

What are deconstructionists really questioning?

A lot of this comes down to the problem of word choice and linguistic theft. Classically, deconstruction involves a postmodern view of language. It denies that a text has any objective meaning, or if it does, that the meaning can be objectively known (see chapter 8 in Mama Bear Apologetics). This translates directly into how a person reads the Bible.

Once you doubt that you can even know what the Bible really says, very few people are willing to take the time to “reconstruct” their faith according to what the Bible teaches. It’s a catch-22.

The people who adopt the banner of deconstruction often deny (at least at first) that they are undergoing classic deconstructionism. They claim that their end goal is a purer faith, one which has stripped away the “traditions of men” that Jesus denounced in Mark 7:8. [v] They are like the reformers, or as reformers are called now, the “original deconstructionist.”

Mama Bears, this is not true (or even possible), and here’s why. First, anything which assumes that the Bible has original meaning to which we should return is by definition the opposite of deconstructionism. Deconstructionist philosophy claims that meaning and the text are separate and subjective.

Second, claiming to “reject” classic deconstructionism while redefining the word deconstructionist to include reformation is itself a classic deconstructionist move! It treats the meanings of words as moldable to a person’s subjective whims. This is literally the first step in the classic, postmodern, Jacques Derrida-style deconstructionist movement that they are trying to distance themselves from. A person may not know that’s the road they are walking down, but they are. And the end of that road is relativism, friends, not a “purer faith.”

Why We Need To Be Careful How We Identify

The words we use matter. The identities that we speak over ourselves matter. I understand why some people were offended by John Cooper’s comments. As one of my sweet friends put it:

“When someone says they are declaring *war* on a movement, the people who compose that movement or are considering ideas from that movement are reasonably likely to feel like they are perceived as the enemy.”

There is a very simple solution to this problem, and we shouldn’t be afraid of saying it: don’t claim to be a part of a movement that has always (until just recently) been associated with deconversion, apostasy, and rebellion against God. It will not go well for you.

Be a struggling Christian. Be a questioning Christian. Be a wounded sheep if that’s what you are. But when you start marching under the identity “deconstructing Christian,” you are taking on all the weighted baggage that comes with that word. It would be like saying, “I’m a wolf, and by wolf, I mean I’m a struggling Christian who needs care and compassion.” Just because you have changed the definition doesn’t mean that everyone else is now required to use a different word to denounce wolves. Or that the Bible is causing harm by warning Christians against wolves! (Luke 10:3, Acts 20:29)

How Do You Approach A Child Who Thinks They Are “Deconstructing” Their Faith?

We want to be loving toward those who are struggling in the faith, and we should actively be involved in helping to “snatch them from the fire” (Jude 1:22-23). So, what can we do as parents?

1. DO allow for verbal processing (the good, the bad, and the ugly).

The first thing to do is ask them questions and then just listen — without judgment. This means they may say things that are nonsense. Let them say nonsensical things. As verbal processors know, sometimes you need to get out a whole lot of things that aren’t really the issue to finally uncover the actual issue. If you keep stopping them in this process to address factual errors, neither they nor you will ever get to the bottom of what’s actually going on in their heart.

2. DON’T stop at the brain-dump conversation phase.

As I mentioned above, often people aren’t even sure what the real problem is. And who knows how long it’ll take to uncover the actual issue? A kid may list out everything they heard on some podcast as their “reasons” before you finally uncover the root problem, like how rejected they feel by their peers at youth group. Or how hurt they are over a parental divorce. Or how angry they are at an unanswered prayer request.

3. DO follow up with clarifying questions (after brain dump).

At some point, the nonsensical things will need to be addressed. The initial brain dump isn’t the time. After they start feeling some relief at being able to express their doubts, then you can start gently asking more clarifying questions (remember, 1 Peter 3:15 doesn’t just say give a defense…it says to do so with gentleness and respect).

4. DON’T agree with their faulty definitions or new identity.

If they say they are deconstructing, it is perfectly okay to ask them what they mean by that. If they are just questioning, then remind them, “It sounds like you just have questions. Do you mind if we use the word ‘questioning’ to refer to what is going on so that you don’t accidentally lump yourself in with a word that has a lot of baggage?” Or maybe they are a “wounded sheep.” Or maybe they are a struggling Christian who is having difficulty submitting their desires to God’s authority. Whatever the issue, how they choose to identify themselves matters.

The truth is words are not meaningless. Jesus Himself is called “the WORD made flesh.” Our enemy is like a roaring lion, seeing whom he can devour. He would absolutely love for us to assume a new identity and to march under his banner, even if we don’t know what we are doing. The more your child identifies him or herself as “deconstructing,” the more they will entertain the conclusions that other deconstructionists have concluded.

We can’t answer all their questions for them. But we can at least prevent them from assuming an identity which, in most cases, serves to woo them away from the faith. And even more, we can help protect them from feeling attacked when Christians speak out against the evils of deconstruction.

References: 

[i] See Marty Sampson’s deconstruction story.

[ii] Such are the stories from people like Marty Sampson (a former worship leader of Hillsong Church), Joshua Harris (author of I Kissed Dating Goodbye), Rhett and Link (comedians and popular YouTubers), and Jon Steingard (former frontman of the Christian band, Hawk Nelson).

[iii] For an example, see Joshua Harris’s deconversion story.

[iv] [Editor’s note: While people sometimes use these terms – “deconstruction and deconversion” – as synonyms, there aren’t always interchangeable. A person could be in a doubting phase that they describe as “deconstruction,” but they are haven’t rejected Christianity. Deconstruction and deconversion, however, are often so deeply interrelated that they overlap, or even become indistinguishable in practice.]

[v] There are a few stories of individuals who claim to have “deconstructed” their faith and rebuilt it into something stronger. I would still say that they are using the wrong word, however. True deconstruction does not leave room for reconstruction.

Recommended Resources:

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist’ [FOUR unique curriculum levels for 2nd grade through to adult] by Frank Turek👉📱https://bit.ly/3ZqepsR 

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek: Book👉📱https://cutt.ly/II4j464, 10 part DVD Set👉📱https://cutt.ly/FI4krhS, STUDENT Study Guide👉📱https://cutt.ly/jI4kp03, TEACHER Study Guide👉📱https://cutt.ly/5I4kjdA

Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek 👉📱https://bit.ly/3nUJYsP 

Correct, Not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism 2023 Edition by Dr. Frank Turek Book👉📱https://bit.ly/3qws2ZL  

 

Hillary Morgan Ferrer is the founder of Mama Bear Apologetics. She is the chief author and editor of Mama Bear Apologetics: Empowering Your Kids to Challenge Cultural Lies and Mama Bear Apologetics Guide to Sexuality: Empowering Your Kids to Understand and Live Out God’s Design. Hillary has her masters in Biology and has been married to her husband, Dr. John D. Ferrer, for 17 years. Don’t let her cook for you. She’ll burn your house straight to the ground. Image source: Hillary-Morgan-Ferrer-Square-2.jpg (1500×1500)

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4fhL7n6

 

 

/by

Top Apologetics Books for Beginners

Sean McDowell, professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University, on his blog, lists the top ten apologetic books for beginners with short descriptions of each.

He includes:

  1. Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis
  2. More Than a Carpenter, by Sean and Josh McDowell
  3. The Reason for God, by Tim Keller
  4. The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel
  5. Cold-Case Christianity, by J. Warner Wallace
  6. Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions, by Greg Koukl
  7. Love Thy Body: Answering Hard Questions about Life and Sexuality, by Nancy Pearcey
  8. On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision, by William Lane Craig
  9. Confronting Christianity: 12 Hard Questions for the World’s Largest Religion, by Rebecca McLaughlin
  10. Evidence that Demands a Verdict, by Sean and Josh McDowell

I would add the following books to the list:

  1. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek – One of the best complete introductions to apologetics that covers truth, God’s existence, reliability of the Bible, miracles, and the resurrection.
  2. Can We Trust the Gospels? by Peter J. Williams – A focused, but accessible small book on the trustworthiness of the Gospels.

Plus a Series of Books by Paul Copan

  1. True For You, But Not For Me: Deflating the Slogans That Leave Christians Speechless by Paul Copan
  2. That’s Just Your Interpretation: Responding to Skeptics Who Challenge Your Faith by Paul Copan
  3. How Do You Know You’re Not Wrong? Responding to Objections That Leave Christians Speechless, Paul Copan
  4. When God Goes to Starbucks: A Guide to Everyday Apologetics by Paul Copan

And of course, let’s not forget Sean McDowell co-authored work with Jonathan Morrow:

  1. Is God Just a Human Invention? And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists by Sean McDowell  (Author), Jonathan Morrow

[Editor’s note: Another Bestselling apologetics book, that’s been introducing people to apologetics (and I can vouch for it myself, JDF) is . . .

  1. Mama Bear Apologetics: Empowering Your Kids to Challenge Cultural Lies by Hillary Ferrer

Recommended Resources: 

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

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

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

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)      

 

J. Steve Lee has taught Apologetics for over two and a half decades at Prestonwood Christian Academy.  He also has taught World Religions and Philosophy at Mountain View College in Dallas and Collin College in Plano.  With a degree in history and education from the University of North Texas, Steve continued his formal studies at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary with a M.A. in philosophy of religion and has pursued doctoral studies at the University of Texas at Dallas and is finishing his dissertation at South African Theological Seminary.  He has published several articles for the Apologetics Study Bible for Students as well as articles and book reviews in various periodicals including Philosophia Christi, Hope’s Reason: A Journal of Apologetics, and the Areopagus Journal.  Having an abiding love for fantasy fiction, Steve has contributed chapters to two books on literary criticism of Harry Potter: Harry Potter for Nerds and Teaching with Harry Potter.  He even appeared as a guest on the podcast MuggleNet Academia (“Lesson 23: There and Back Again-Chiasmus, Alchemy, and Ring Composition in Harry Potter”).  He is married to his lovely wife, Angela, and has two grown boys, Ethan and Josh.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3UwH3ag

/by

The DNA Replisome: A Paradigm of Design

The DNA replisome is one of the most remarkable molecular machines, involving a complex of different proteins, each of which is very specifically crafted to fulfill its role in the process of replicating the genome in preparation for cell division. The rate of DNA replication has been measured at a whopping 749 nucleotides per second[1] and the error rate for accurate polymerases is believed to be in the range of 10-7 and 10-7, based on studies of E. coli and bacteriophage DNA replication.[2]

One of the best animations of this incredible process is this one by Australian animator Drew Berry. It is difficult to look at an animation such as this (which is drastically over-simplified) and not come away with the strong intuition that such an intricately choreographed machine is the product of masterful engineering. Stable and functional protein structures are astronomically rare in combinatorial sequence space, and DNA replication requires many of them. But not just any old stably folding proteins will do. These proteins have to be crafted very particularly in order to perform their respective jobs. Indeed, when one focuses on specific proteins, it takes the design intuition to new heights. For example, see these beautiful animations of topoisomerase, helicase, and DNA polymerase. One paper summarizes the engineering prowess of DNA replication thus [3]:

Synthesis of all genomic DNA involves the highly coordinated action of multiple polypeptides. These proteins assemble two new DNA chains at a remarkable pace, approaching 1000 nucleotides (nt) per second in E. coli. If the DNA duplex were 1 m in diameter, then the following statements would roughly describe E. coli replication. The fork would move at approximately 600km/hr (375 mph), and the replication machinery would be about the size of a FedEx delivery truck. Replicating the E. coli genome would be a 40 min, 400 km (250 mile) trip for two such machines, which would, on average make an error only once every 170 km (106 miles). The mechanical prowess of this complex is even more impressive given that it synthesizes two chains simultaneously as it moves. Although one strand is synthesized in the same direction as the fork is moving, the other chain (the lagging strand) is synthesized in a piecemeal fashion (as Okazaki fragments) and in the opposite direction of overall fork movement. As a result, about once a second one delivery person (i.e. polymerase active site) associated with the truck must take a detour, coming off and then rejoining its template DNA strand, to synthesize the 0.2km (0.13 mile) fragments.[3]

Irreducible Complexity on Steroids

DNA replication is an example of what we might call “irreducible complexity on steroids.” Genome duplication is a prerequisite of differential survival, which is necessary for the process of natural selection to even work. Thus, one can hardly appeal to natural selection to account for the origins of DNA replication without assuming the existence of the very thing one is attempting to explain. It is difficult to envision a viable replication system that is simpler than the DNA replisome shown in the animation above. Though the RNA world scenario (which maintains that RNA-based life predates life based on DNA and proteins) is a popular hypothesis, problems abound for this scenario, as has been discussed many times in various other publications (e.g., Meyer, Signature in the Cell, Ch. 14). For example, one of the foremost challenges is the inherent instability of RNA (being single-stranded, and possessing an additional 2’ OH group, rendering it prone to hydrolysis). RNA polymers are therefore extremely unlikely to have survived in the early earth environment for long enough to be of much value. Second, when RNA forms complementary base pairs to fold back on itself, part of the molecule no longer presents an exposed strand that can serve as a template for copying. Thus, there is a physical limitation on the capability of RNA to self-replicate.

A further reason why the DNA replication machinery exhibits irreducible complexity on steroids is that, by being so primitive, it is far more difficult to envision any kind of co-optation scenario than it would be for a system that arose much later, such as bacterial flagella. With the flagellum, one can at least point to alternative functions that might be performed by a number of the flagellar components (such as the Type-III Secretion System). However, with DNA replication, it is unclear what other systems any of the components might be co-opted from – since any other system would need to have arisen after the origins of DNA replication.

An even more striking enigma is that, across the three domains of life, the key enzymes (in particular, the replicative polymerases) are not homologous, which has led to the suggestion that DNA replication may have arisen more than once independently.[4] This observation sits more comfortably on a design paradigm than on one committed to naturalism.

Which Components Are Essential for DNA Replication?

What protein components that are involved in DNA replication are indispensable for function? First, there is the DNA polymerase that actually performs the copying of each strand. Without it, no replication would take place at all. But, the DNA polymerase is unable to begin replication without the presence of a free 3’ OH (hydroxyl) group. Thus, another enzyme — a form of RNA polymerase called a primase — creates a short RNA fragment (called a primer) from which the DNA polymerase can extend (unlike DNA polymerase, the primase does not require the presence of a free 3’ OH group). Thus, in the absence of the primase enzyme, no RNA primers would be laid down on either the leading or lagging strand, and DNA replication would be unable to commence. Furthermore, the DNA polymerase itself has to be attached to the DNA by a ring-shaped protein known as a sliding clamp (which prevents it from falling off the DNA template strand). But, the sliding clamp cannot directly attach to the DNA on its own. Instead, a protein complex called the clamp loader mediates the loading of the sliding clamp onto the DNA at the replication fork, utilizing the energy from ATP hydrolysis to open the sliding clamp ring and load it onto the DNA. In the absence of the sliding clamp or clamp loader, the DNA polymerase would frequently fall off the DNA template, rendering it extremely inefficient.

Of course, the replication process cannot begin unless the DNA double helix is unzipped, and this is accomplished by the enzyme helicase, which breaks the hydrogen bonds along the DNA molecule, thereby opening up and exposing the two strands for replication by the polymerase. In its absence, the DNA polymerase will stall, unable to separate the strands that lie ahead.

Even with the helicase enzyme separating the two strands, the strands are likely to reanneal during the copying process. Enter the single-stranded binding proteins which bind to the exposed DNA strands, preventing them from re-annealing during copying. Without them, the DNA strands would bind together again before they were able to be copied.

The topoisomerase enzymes are necessary for removing supercoils that are induced by the torsional stress. They do so by cutting one strand, passing the other strand through the gap, and then resealing the break. In the absence of the topoisomerase enzymes, the DNA would eventually break, thereby hindering the DNA replication process.

Because of the anti-parallel nature of DNA (and the fact that the DNA polymerase can only replicate in a 5’ to 3’ direction), one strand, the lagging strand, has to be replicated backwards (in order for the replication fork to move in a single direction). This is done discontinuously in small sections. RNA primers are laid down by primase, and from those are synthesized short fragments of DNA known as Okazaki fragments. The RNA primers are then removed and replaced with DNA, and the Okazaki fragments are stitched together by the enzyme ligase. We have already discussed the necessity of the primase enzyme for synthesizing RNA primers. It may be added that, in the absence of the RNA excision enzymes (which remove the RNA primers), the RNA fragments would remain covalently attached to the newly replicated fragments of DNA. Moreover, in the absence of ligase (which links the Okazaki fragments together), the newly replicated strands would remain as fragments.

If the removal of any of the aforementioned components would render the DNA replication machinery non-functional, how could such a system come about through an undirected Darwinian step-wise pathway, preserving selective utility at every step along the way? Whatever process produced the DNA replisome had to know where the target was. Such a cause would have to be teleological in nature.

A Paradigm of Design

The DNA replication machinery represents one of the most extraordinary examples of nanotechnology found in the cell. In any other realm of experience, such a complex and delicate arrangement of parts would be immediately recognized as reflecting conscious intent — that is, as being the product of a mind. Why should such an inference be disallowed when examining biological systems? For more detail on this fascinating molecular machine, see my interview on it from last summer on ID the Future. I also published an earlier series (more than a decade ago) exploring the various protein components in more detail. You can find these here:

If you enjoyed the animation by Drew Berry linked at the beginning of this article, here is a more detailed animation, produced by Oxford University Press. Here is a second animation which reveals how the DNA polymerases are coupled so that they can move in the same direction.

References: 

[1] McCarthy D, Minner C, Bernstein H, Bernstein C. DNA elongation rates and growing point distributions of wild-type phage T4 and a DNA-delay amber mutant. J Mol Biol. 1976 Oct 5;106(4):963-81.

[2] Schaaper RM. Base selection, proofreading, and mismatch repair during DNA replication in Escherichia coli. J Biol Chem.1993 Nov 15;268(32):23762-5.

[3] Baker TA, Bell SP. Polymerases and the replisome: machines within machines. Cell. 1998 Feb 6;92(3):295-305.

[4] Leipe DD, Aravind L, Koonin EV. Did DNA replication evolve twice independently? Nucleic Acids Res. 1999 Sep 1;27(17):3389-401; and Brown JR, Doolittle WF. Archaea and the prokaryote-to-eukaryote transition. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 1997 Dec;61(4):456-502.

Recommended Resources:

Why Science Needs God by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Does Science Disprove God? 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

 

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 around the world 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.

This article was originally published on March 21st, 2024, at Evolution News & Science Today.

And republished at: https://bit.ly/4f6pp5q

/by