apologetics Archives - Page 70 of 138

Tag Archive for: apologetics

Do Your Spiritual Conversations Become Frustrating Arguments?

We need to bring truth and love together in our apologetics

I once had lunch with actor and filmmaker named Alex Kendrick. He’s best-known for his movies like Fireproof, War Room, and Overcomer. Few people realize what undergirds his ethos of engagement. Afterwards, we recorded an episode of the Table Podcast called “Faith, Work, and Filmmaking,” where he explained how 1 Peter 3:15 became his life verse. He told me this story:

During college, I was talking to someone of the Baha’i faith. They believe there’s a number of ways to get to heaven…I found myself growing in frustration that he couldn’t see what I saw in the gospel. We began arguing and…we both left frustrated.

But the Lord convicted me…when I saw 1 Peter 3:15. “But in your heart, sanctify Christ as Lord.” In other words, set Him apart as more important than anything else. “Always be ready to give an answer to anyone that asks you of the hope that you have, but do this with a gentleness and respect.”

His experience isn’t rare. A lot of Christians aren’t sure how to show both truth and love when talking about faith. I’m a big advocate of seeing apologetics not as a debate but as a conversation. In fact, I wrote a variety of journal articles on dialogical apologetics with my mentor, Darrell Bock. This just means “what apologetics looks like in everyday conversations.”

In this post, let me just mention four guidelines for bringing truth and love together in your spiritual conversations: Engaging in conversational apologetics includes asking good questions, listening to understand, considering our character, and reflecting God’s heart in every encounter. These points came out of discussions we had with apologists like Stand to Reason President Greg Koukl and Staff Apologist Amy Hall.

1. Ask good questions

How can we lovingly begin spiritual conversations? Rather than rushing to explain the evidence for Christian truth claims, it is best to initially let the other person share their views. This allows you to better understand their spiritual concerns. What are their pains and longings? This helps you know how to better connect with them and build trust. On an episode of the Table called “Approaching Spiritual Conversations,” I sat down with Greg Koukl and Amy Hall to discuss how using questions can help you engage in a more personal way. Greg explained:

When I meet somebody… I’m not [immediately] thinking about getting to the gospel. My first step is to gather information…if I hear something that seems like an opportunity, I’m going to use my key question: “What do you mean by that?”

I saw a woman wearing a pentagram…I asked her, “Does that jewelry have religious significance?” Turns out, she was a witch. But she was happy to talk about her jewelry and her Wiccan convictions. How did I find out about that? I just asked a pleasant question about the thing: “What do you mean by that jewelry?” basically. Showing interest in people.

As they’re talking, I’m starting to get a spiritual topography…if there is an opportunity, now I have an idea of where I might go with my next question.

The challenging thing for many people is turning down their truth meter, because a lot of Christians will feel like, “Okay, they just said something I disagree with. Now I have to defend the entire contents of the Christian worldview because they have an opinion different than mine.” And this brings me to my next point: The importance of understanding the person.

2. Listen to Understand

After asking good questions, the next step is to actively listen to the answer with the desire to minister to the person. How did they come to hold their beliefs? Sometimes, we can miss out on the answers to our questions due to internal communication noise. This can include distracting thoughts or merely listening with the intent to refute challenges. My mentor, Darrell Bock, talks about what he calls “triphonics”:

Difficult conversations have three layers to them: There’s what you’re talking about. Then, there’s the filter through which you’re looking at what you’re talking about. And then, there’s the way your identity or your perception of yourself—what’s at stake in what I’m talking about—your perception of that. Oftentimes, people think they’re only talking about the top layer, and they don’t think about the other two layers. But the other two layers are driving what’s happening in the conversations. So, how do you move past the top layer and think about what’s underneath?

There’s a test that I run…[to] tell whether I’m in the right mode or not to advance the conversation: When the person is talking to me, am I paying attention to what they’re saying? Or am I thinking through my response? Usually, if I’m in a combative mode…then [I’ve defaulted to] rebuttal mode in terms of engaging with the person.

One helpful exercise is to repeat the person’s view back to them in order to insure that you are engaging fairly with their view. We need to develop an awareness of factors beyond the subject matter—including worldview filters and identity issues—which may be influencing the discussion. A patient, listening ear can do much to demonstrate courageous, yet compassionate engagement.

3. Consider Your Character

How should we respond when a difficult conversation gets tense? Peter writes, “For it is better to suffer for doing good, if God wills it than for doing evil” (1 Peter 3:17). We shouldn’t react with hostility. The character we display during spiritual conversations needs to match up with the fruit of the Spirit and the way Jesus himself suffered. Think about how your character plays a role in defending the faith. I really like what Amy and Greg told me on the show:

Amy Hall

Character is an apologetic because we are representing Christ. 1 Peter [2:9] says, “We were called so that we can proclaim the excellencies of Him who called us.” That’s sandwiched among behavioral commands and saying, “Prove yourself to be someone with good behavior so that they’ll glorify God” (1 Peter 2:12).

Our character represents Christ…we can show the gospel to them by responding in ways that they don’t deserve. Because that’s how God responded to us.

Every time they’re rude to us, and we respond with grace, we’re giving an apologetic for Jesus’ character that people need to see…[1 Peter 3:15, which says] to give a defense with gentleness and respect, begins with saying sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts. And that’s your obedience to Christ; that’s your character that begins this whole process.

When we respond to them, character is a huge part [of that]. We want to represent Christ; we want to be truthful; we want to be humble. We want to show all the things that make Christ great so they can see who He is…

The key thing you have to remember is the dignity of the human being you’re talking to…we’re speaking to someone who is made in the image of God, no matter how rude they’re being.

Greg Koukl

Proverbs [15:1] says, “A harsh word stirs up anger, but a gentle answer turns away wrath.” … You don’t want to be poking people in the eye in the way you’re communicating…

Here’s the deal: If I get mad, I’m gonna lose. What if I don’t get mad and they get mad. Well, then I’m still going to lose. If anybody gets mad, then we’re going to lose. That is, we are not going to be able to have the positive impact as ambassadors for Christ we want to have.

Sometimes, it’s not our fault; they get mad. It’s the message’s fault. And we have – we live with that. But we want to try to avoid anything that makes them unnecessarily angry. We want to maneuver in a way – with the kind of grace that’s appropriate to the message of grace that we’re communicating.

So true. Spiritual conversations aren’t very productive when either person gets angry. Rather than respond in anger, let’s reflect God’s heart and model a different way of relating to people who reject our message. When we demonstrate a Christ-like character, it could very well be the most effective way to overcome negative Christian stereotypes.

Think about the stereotype some people have that “Christian” equals “intolerant, homophobic bigot.” One way we can work to deflate this stereotype for the sake of the Christian message getting a hearing is to engage in such a way that if a person hears this charge against Christians, they might pause and say, “I don’t know about that. The Christians I know don’t seem like that to me at all.”

I always like to say that our apologetic arguments or explanations of the faith are not heard in a vacuum. They come in this wrapper called “your life.” A quiet confidence in the truth of Christianity and a character that matches Jesus’ example carries a persuasive force that just refuting arguments won’t match.

4. Reflect God’s Heart

We should reflect God’s heart for all people. This means presenting the Christian message as a positive one. One the one hand, there’s a tension between how the gospel challenges our beliefs and actions. On the other hand, it also includes an invitation to know and experience God in a personal way. Unfortunately, some people just emphasize what is wrong with society and end up minimizing our hope in Christ. Others want to talk about this hope as only a future thing, instead of something you can have in your life right now.

Christian hope should result in humble engagement and genuine love for the people we challenge with the gospel message. Reflecting God’s heart means engaging difficult spiritual conversations with gentleness and respect rather than with fear, anger, or resentment. Before entering a difficult spiritual conversation, ask God to help you reflect his heart as your minister to your conversation partner.

This was the example of Jesus. Peter wrote, “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit” (1 Peter 3:18). Indeed, God took the initiative to reach out to us before we embraced him or his message. Let’s navigate difficult spiritual conversations while remembering the gracious way God treated us.

The “How” of Apologetics Matters

Remember that conversation Alex Kendrick had with a Baha’i student during his college days? He told me: “I could articulate the faith, and I was ready to defend it, but there wasn’t the meekness or the gentleness the Scripture talks about.” He ended up communicating an attitude like, “You’re crazy because you don’t see my way.” This is a bad way to engage that seems easy to fall into. But today, Alex tells everyone that “truth and love should go together,” and he says, “now, I try to incorporate a very loving but truthful approach.”

We must help Christians understand what influences popular ideas about God, Jesus, and the Bible and equip them to engage the culture and defend the truth. At the same time, we must also help believers understand the importance of reflecting God’s loving character at all times. Our character in spiritual conversations should match the way God took the initiative to pursue us before we ever embraced him or his message. Engaging in conversational apologetics includes asking good questions, listening to understand, considering our character, and reflecting God’s heart in every encounter.

Is it Unbiblical to Argue for God?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Doug Potter

In my earliest days of attempting to do apologetics, I was confronted in the church with the objection that relying on philosophy, particularly arguments for the existence of God, was not only unwise, it was unbiblical. Upon inquiring why, they attempted to persuade by pointing me to the Apostle Paul, who seems to discourage the use of philosophy. In I Corinthians, Paul wrote:

And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified…and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men but on the power of God. (1 Corinthians 2:1-5)

Hence, well-meaning believers expected me to toss out my human arguments for God’s existence and focus on the truths of Scripture, even if we must just presuppose them to be true. At least then, they reasoned, you will have the confidence that the Holy Spirit’s power is in your teaching and gospel presentation. Furthermore, they thought it wise, like Paul, to avoid the weak human reason relied on by the so-called wise men of his day which are like the philosophers of our day. After all, he wrote in Colossians:

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. (Colossians 2:8)

Rhetorically these well-meaning believers asked, does that not close the case on using philosophy in ministry?

I have since learned, to the contrary, this often-spoken objection fails in three ways.

First, it not only misses the mark of correct biblical interpretation but approaches the kind of sophistry the apostle Paul was trying to avoid in Corinth. Second, it reveals an inadequate understanding of the Apostles’ overall apologetic method found in Scripture, which allows and anticipates the use of good philosophy. Third, it fails to see that while no one in the Bible gives a deductive argument for the existence of God, it does anticipate their use by providing reasons for the existence of God.

Biblical Interpretation

To properly understand any text, one must understand the context. For any ancient text that means learning about the history, culture, language, words, and grammar of the text. When it comes to the above passage in First Corinthians, just knowing the historical context fixes the above misinterpretation.

The apostle Paul arrived in Corinth in 49 BC, just after the Isthmian games had concluded. He would have observed a Roman colony steeped in the second sophistry movement (1^st Cent. AD). The first sophistry movement (5^th Cent. BC) grew out of classic Greek philosophy, relied on rhetoric, arguments of persuasion, effective communication, and regardless of success, at least considered the pursuit of truth a worthy endeavor. This first movement declined over the next three centuries. The second movement never revived what the first movement held dear and instead degenerated to persuasion to win admiration and disciples for their schools in hopes of taking down their competition.[1] The truth, for them, was irrelevant. Dio Chrysostom (c. 40 – c. 115 AD) arrived in Corinth about 40 years after Paul and observed:

So, when the time of the Isthmian games arrived, and everybody was at the Isthmus…That was the time when one could hear crowds of wretched sophists around Poseidon’s temple shouting and reviling one another, and their disciples, as they were called, fighting with one another, many writers reading aloud their stupid works, many poets reciting their poems while others applauded them, many jugglers showing their tricks, many fortunetellers interpreting fortunes, lawyers innumerable perverting judgment, and peddlers not a few peddling whatever they happened to have. (Discourses 8.5-10)

Paul was observant of the culture in which he reasoned and preached the gospel (Acts 17:22). He likely decided to lay aside his rhetorical skills and persuasiveness of speech (all of which he used in his letters) so as not to confuse the messenger and message with the “debaters of this age” (1 Corinthians 1:20). This way, he might be heard, the power of the gospel clear, and the signs of a true apostle (2 Corinthians 12:12) evident. In doing so, Paul in no way discounted or denied the existence of a good philosophy that allows arguments and persuasion to precede the truth of the gospel.

To suggest that Paul would permanently jettison good reason and argument is to approach the stupidity of the sophists of his day.

The passage from Colossians, likewise, has a context of dealing with some “one.” This is a term Paul uses for specific false teachers (Galatians 1:7) even though the false teacher is unnamed. Paul also is using the two parallel substantives “[the] philosophy and empty deception” which most likely suggests some close association between the words. Hence, Paul is not discounting all philosophy, but “philosophy” that is deceitful or runs counter to Christ. Indeed, Paul affirms earlier in this letter that in Christ is “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:3). Paul’s use of the term “philosophy” like others in his day, is broader (then it is used today) and can be applied to any system of thought including religion and division within.[2] Hence, Paul cannot be refereeing to all philosophy, but a philosophy from a false teacher that is according to the tradition of men which is against Christ. In other words, bad philosophy.

As C.S. Lewis persuasively preached in a 1939 sermon on the brink of a second world war: “To be ignorant and simple now — not to be able to meet the enemies on their own ground — would be to throw down our weapons, and the betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.”

The Apostle Paul’s Apologetic Method

Paul was a first-century apostle fixed on the proclamation of the gospel (1 Corinthians 2:2; 15:3-7). But such, many times was preceded or followed up by intense argumentation, reason, and evidence. Most who Paul met to preach the gospel either believed that there was one and only one God (the Jews) or believed there were many gods (the Greco-Roman Pagans). To the Jews he could appeal to the Hebrew Scripture to argue and reason from fulfilled prophecy that Jesus was the Christ and His appearances that proved the one true God raised him from the dead. Indeed, Acts is replete with descriptions of Paul’s defense (apologetic) of the gospel that involved “reasoning” (Acts 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8, 9; 26:23) and “persuasion” (Acts 17:4; 19:26; 18:24). To the Pagans he could appeal to creation as to why there was only one God and the claim of Christ to be the Son of God, his death, burial, and appearances as evidence and proof for the miracle of the resurrection (Acts 14:15-17; 17:22-34). Paul lays out in Romans his understanding of Pagans: why they know the true God from creation (not Scripture) but because of their sin have exchanged this truth for a lie:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened…Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator. (Romans 1:18-25)

Even though Paul held that Pagans had exchanged knowledge of the true God for a lie, he still appealed to the reason for the true God from creation (Acts 14:15-17; 17:22-34) before giving the gospel to them.

Biblical Reasons for the Existence of God

I read a book that said nowhere does the Bible give reasons for God’s existence. His existence is just assumed everywhere. While I agreed that there are no deductive arguments for God’s existence to be found in Scripture, I do not agree that the Bible merely assumes His existence everywhere. Indeed, the fact that the Bible and Jesus say creation had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; Mark 10:6), implicitly entails a cosmological reason for there to be a Beginner of Creation. The Psalmist poetically declares a teleological reason for God to be, “The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands” (Psalm 19:1f). And the apostle Paul implies a moral law Writer if every human has a “law written in their hearts” (Romans 2:14-15). Rhetorically I ask, does this not open the case to use reasons for God’s existence?

As shown above, the Apostle Paul does not negate the application of reason in philosophy. Therefore, such can be done in at least two ways. First, to use philosophy for proving the existence and nature of God. Second, to illustrate the consistency of revealed doctrines in Scripture and argue against false doctrine. Hence, human reason and evidence can support faith and the preaching of the gospel. No passage illustrates this better than First Peter 3:15:

Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense [apologetic] to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.

Luke explains to the faithful his method and reason for writing his Gospel,

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:2-4)

Indeed, we must acknowledge that faith is more certain than human reason when the authority is God himself since there is no higher authority. Hence, faith can be supported by reason and evidence, but it is never based on reason and evidence. As the professor, Norman Geisler, often taught, “apologetics can show that Christianity is true, but it can never be the basis for anyone to believe in Jesus Christ.” This must be left to the internal work of the Holy Spirit in a person’s life.

Hence, I agree that anywhere the Bible prohibits the use of philosophy, I will be the first to stop and obey. However, I am certain that the Bible nowhere prohibits Christians from using any valid and sound demonstration for God’s existence and any other truth that is evident to us or established apart from Scripture. As God not only inspired the Bible as His word, he also created the world, including rational human beings, who know, judge, and reason, and therefore can be persuaded by the truth. For anyone to limit you or me in ministry to the truth that is only found in the Bible, is to be cut off from all the truth God has revealed in and through and by creation.

Reference

[1] Bruce W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth (Eerdmans, 2001), chapter 2.

[2] Douglas J. Moo, The Letter to the Colossians and to Philemon (Eerdmans, 2008), 185f.

Does the Bible Condone Slavery?

Podcast

Passages in the Old Testament mention buying “slaves” or servants. One even states “If a man sells his daughter as a female slave (Ex. 21:7) ….” What? Buying and selling slaves? Selling your daughter? This is crazy and obviously immoral! But are we understanding the passages correctly? Are people really considered property in the OT? Was “slavery” in the OT the kind of institution we had in America up to the Civil War? No. Dr. Paul Copan, author of Is God a Moral Monster? joins Frank and sets the record straight. They cover many of the objections that skeptics raise in Frank’s answer to the slavery question in this short video from the University of Nebraska.

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

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

September 4, 2020/by Frank Turek

How Should The Church Engage Those With Same-Sex Attraction Or Gender Dysphoria?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

How should the church engage those who experience same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria? In response, I want to highlight seven basic principles that the church must embrace.

Affirm The Divine Image

Genesis 1 is clear that everyone, without qualification, is made in God’s’s image. That is to say; whether someone is attracted to the opposite sex or the same sex, they are equally image-bearers of God. The same goes for individuals who experience gender dysphoria. One’s’s feelings or attractions in no way mitigates against this universal status.

As Christians, we should enthusiastically embrace this truth. Nobody — not the government, the church, or anyone else — can bestow a higher status on each person than God already has. Moreover, not only did God create all people in his image, he thought so much of his people that he paid a steep price for their redemption by shedding his own blood for their sins.

Acknowledge Our Collective Sinfulness

While God created everything good, we all possess a sin nature because of the fall. David acknowledges that he inherited this sin nature from the time of his birth (Ps. 51:5). Romans 3:23, likewise, affirms that we have all sinned and fallen short of God’s glory. And lest we think we’re just a little sinful, Scripture paints a much gloomier picture than this. Sin pervades our entire being (Rom. 8:7-8).

One of the ramifications of our fallenness is that we have a tendency to minimize our own sins while maximizing the sins of others. Yet, Jesus clearly condemns this hypocrisy (Mt. 7:1-5). Instead, we must take a realistic assessment of our own hearts. And when we do, we realize that if it weren’t for the grace of God, we would all die in our sins.

All that to say, just because we may not experience homosexual or transgender temptations doesn’t mean that our sin isn’t just as wicked. Lusting after other women, harboring bitterness, lashing out in anger, and spreading gossip are all acts of rebellion against God. It’s’s unbiblical to treat others as if they have a log in their eye and pretend we only have a speck. When we do this, we’re being judgmental hypocrites.

Know Jesus’s Universal Expectation

Jesus preached “Repent and believe the gospel” (Mk. 1:15). To claim Christ as Lord, one must abide by these words. Unfortunately, many have watered down this message by excluding repentance.

Yet, Jesus never suggested that we could follow him without turning from our sins. Elsewhere, he states, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me” (Mk. 8:34). In other words, whether you self-identify as gay, transgender, or as straight, Jesus demands that you deny yourself daily. And the reason we are called to deny ourselves is because we don’t actually own ourselves. We belong to Jesus. Not only did he make us, he bought us with his blood.

The very message of repentance and denying oneself daily implies that ongoing temptations and struggles will persist throughout the Christian life. But the true sign of a Christian is that they recognize their temptations as contrary to the will of God, repent if they succumb to those temptations, and seek to obey Jesus moving forward.

Recognize That Holiness Is The Goal

First, Peter 1:16 states, “You shall be holy, for I (God) am holy.” Holiness is the calling for all believers. But this raises the question: “What does holiness look life for those with same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria?” Does holiness mean they will stop being attracted to members of the same sex or that their gender dysphoria will disappear?

I believe holiness can manifest itself in different ways for people with these struggles. One way is living a celibate lifestyle. British pastor Sam Allbery, and author of Is God Anti-Gay? Has chosen this path. Even though Allberry continues to experience same-sex attraction, he knows that pursuing those attractions would be sinful and so chooses to remain celibate. It’s noteworthy that Jesus indicated that celibacy was the only alternative to marriage (Mt. 19:10-12).

Others have chosen to marry persons of the opposite sex and start families despite ongoing same-sex attractions. Rebecca McLaughlin, author of Confronting Christianity, has chosen this path. In her book, Rebecca acknowledges she still experiences same-sex attractions but knows that pursuing those attractions would be disobedience. She even admits to still dealing with temptations towards members of the same sex. But she has chosen to deny herself to follow Jesus.

And sometimes, people stop being attracted to members of the same-sex altogether. We must acknowledge that this doesn’t happen in most cases, but for people like Rosaria Butterfield, it has. Rosaria details this transformation in her book Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Paul lists several lifestyles that will not inherit the kingdom of God — one of which was “men who practice homosexuality.” But in verse 11, he asserts, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ by the Spirit of our God.” I take this to mean that there were people in the Corinthian church who used to practice homosexuality but turned from that lifestyle upon conversion.

I don’t believe this means that the struggles and temptations completely go away. Anyone with a half-decent understanding of biblical theology knows that Christians continue to struggle as we await future glory (Rom. 8:20-23). This is certainly true of me. So we should have realistic expectations that those who experience same-sex attractions and gender dysphoria will often continue to struggle as they face temptations the rest of their lives.

Therefore, the goal for the same-sex attracted person isn’t that they become “straight.” The goal is that they be holy as God is holy. And we should have enough room in our understanding of sanctification to know that this will look different for different people.

Be People Of Love

One of the surest signs of a Christian is their love for others (Jn. 13:35). It is never appropriate for us to be condescending or harsh (Prov. 15:1). Unfortunately, many of us have really missed the mark on this one. While not all the criticism is fair, we haven’t always been known as people who demonstrate the love of Christ towards the LGBTQ community.

As we think about Christ, he was the most loving person to ever live. And we’re told that he was full of both grace and truth (Jn. 1:14). Biblical love perfectly balances these two.

We read in 1 Corinthians 13:6 that love “does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.” Therefore, it is not loving to affirm homosexuality or transgenderism in the same way that it’s not loving to affirm a woman’s anorexia and encourage her to get liposuction because she feels overweight. The loving thing to do is to gently speak the truth to her and remind her that her feelings are deceiving her. In the same way, Christians must speak the truth in love to those who experience same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria (Eph. 4:15). It is not loving to encourage a lifestyle that does not promote spiritual flourishing.

But while we speak the truth, we must do so with a spirit of gentleness. Paul reminds us in Galatians 6:1-2, “Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. . . . Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.” No one should beat anyone over the head with a Bible. No one should “come down hard” on another. Doing so contradicts the clear commands of Scripture.

Bearing one another’s burdens requires a great deal of empathy. It requires putting oneself in someone else’s shoes in an attempt to understand the challenges they face. It requires having conversations with those who experience different temptations than us and seeing that person as a fellow human being who bears God’s image.

And if we approach people with a spirit of gentleness, we will make it easier for them to share their struggles with us. Imagine how hard it must be for people to open up about their same-sex attraction when people in the church speak about their struggle so harshly. Empathizing doesn’t mean accepting sin. But it does mean being gentle. After all, Jesus was “gentle and lowly in heart” (Mt. 11:29).

Be Like Their Family

For many who experience same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria, celibacy may seem like the only real option for them. While God has changed people’s orientation, and while many have gotten married despite ongoing same-sex attraction, celibacy is the most realistic option for many. But with singleness, comes the fear of loneliness. And we must understand that loneliness is one of the greatest struggles single people deal with — same-sex attracted or not.

But this shouldn’t be. If the church lived out its mission, nobody would ever be lonely. Unfortunately, we have idolized the family with the minivan at the expense of our single brothers and sisters. This is wrong. The church should champion singleness. After all, Jesus himself was single. Paul champions singleness in 1 Corinthians 7. He goes so far as to say that singles are an incredible gift to the church.

Jesus declared in Mark 10:29-30, “Truly I tell you, no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much as this present age.”

Sam Allberry writes, “The gospel can be relationally costly. But it is also relationally generous. What we leave behind does not compare to what we receive back from Jesus.” ¹

As churches, we must do a better job of inviting singles into our families. No single should be alone on holidays. No single should eat Sunday lunches by themselves. If we say we want to help same-sex attracted people, we need to do everything we can to make sure they feel like they’re part of our family.

Find Our Identity In Christ

You’ll notice I haven’t labeled anyone as “gay” or “lesbian” in this blog series. Instead, I use the phrase “same-sex attracted.” It’s a bit tedious, but I want to make it clear that nobody is defined by their sexuality. This message, though, runs counter to our sexed-up culture. The culture says you are your sexuality. And that not expressing yourself sexually is unhealthy.

Of course, when we buy the narrative that our identity is wrapped up in our sexuality, then not embracing one’s sexual desires seems untenable. Celibacy seems so “old-fashioned.” But when we understand that our identity is rooted much deeper than our physical attractions, we realize that we don’t have to embrace those attractions to live a fulfilling life.

Our relationship with Christ supersedes everything. And because I am in Christ, and Christ is in me, then no matter what earthly relationships I experience, my identity remains unshakeable. Jesus is clear that our familial relationships will pass away in eternity (Mt. 22:30). But our relationship with Christ remains forever.

Concluding Thoughts

My hope is that God has used these articles in your life for good. If you’re someone who experiences same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria, I hope you will see that Jesus offers you so much more than this world has to offer. He is so much more fulfilling and satisfying than any earthly relationship. People will disappoint. Jesus will never let you down. I also hope you will see that your attractions or feelings don’t disqualify you from faithful Christianity. More important is how you respond to those feelings. And my prayer is that you will find a healthy local church that will be your family and encourage you in your daily walk with Jesus.

If you’re someone who agrees with me that God has designed marriage and sexuality to exist within a heterosexual marriage, I hope you will see there are good reasons for believing what you believe. I also hope that you’ll see yourself as a fellow sinner who daily relies on the grace of God.

Can We Know Anything for Sure?

1. Does Truth Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Doug Potter

The following is an excerpt for our Why Trust the God of the Bible? Ebook.

Many today fail to see the importance of grounding their reasoning process in reality in spite of the fact that whatever is not based on reality is un-reality, in other words, unreal. The slippery slope of subjectivism and relativism is the result of such “reasoning” manufactured in the imaginations of the mind rather than in reality, on Truth. This distinction is especially important for Christians who desire to share their reasonable faith. Sadly, subjectivism has crept its way into the church with the assumption that we do not need to defend our faith with reason; we only need the Bible.

Despite the claims of subjectivism and “blind” faith, one of the most fundamental observations anyone can make of physical reality is that it changes, and yet something about it remains the same. This observation is the first step in a complete apologetic for Christianity. What remains the same in this physical piece of reality is its essence. What changes are called accidental properties. We can observe anything in reality, natural or man-made, for example a real tree, and see that it changes over time—grows larger, develops branches, colorful leaves, etc.—and yet it remains the same tree such that it is distinguishable from all the other trees. Its change is accounted for by the principles of actuality (act) and potentiality (potency) that are present in all created things. Actuality is the existence of some thing. Potentiality accounts for the capacity of some thing to change or become other than what it is. Change could be substantial, in that I could destroy the tree, and it could no longer exist. Or it could be accidental, such as cutting off a limb. The change could be internal, such as its growing a new limb, or the change could be external if I cut the tree down.

Everything in the world that we experience is a composition of form (actuality)—or what something is—and matter (potentiality to change) that individuates the form to be this thing and not that thing. For example, a cat is a cat because of its form or catness (what it is), and its matter individuates it to be this cat as opposed to that cat. Matter, as used here, should not be equated with physical matter, and form should not be equated with the shape of something. Instead, these are principles found in things or substances. As already explained, there are things essential and accidental to a particular substance. Something essential cannot be removed without changing what it is. Something accidental could be otherwise and would not change what something is. For example, it is essential to the nature of a cat that it be an animal nature. If that is changed or removed somehow, it ceases to be a cat. But it is accidental if the size and color of the cat change. Despite the change, it stays a cat. Such a description is possible for every created thing, from the smallest subatomic particle to the largest galaxies.

We come to know reality in an act of existence, in other words, by its actual existence. This knowing relates to its form (essence) and its matter (potential to change). The form of something is related to its actuality. Again, form is what something is (i.e., an essence). For example, a cat has the form of catness, and a dog has the form of dogness. Matter is related to the individual potentiality (to change). It is that which individuates an essence to be this cat or that cat. The form of a substance is immaterial. The matter of a substance is what individuates the essence to be a particular thing that gives it extension in space, which is limited to its form. We can say a dog is not a cat because of their different form or essence. We can say this cat is not that cat because of their different matter or individuation of matter.

The Process of Knowing

The soul is the substantial form of the human body. The way in which we know something is by its form, which is united to matter. We know things via our five senses. Since the form of a substance is immaterial, it is able to enter our mind, and we are able to know the thing, know the form extracted (in our mind) from its matter, as it is in itself. Contrary to what some philosophers have proposed throughout history, the form that enters the mind is not a different substance or copy of the substance that comes to exist in the mind of the knower. Rather, the same form that is united with matter unites with the mind of the knower; in a sense, the knower and the thing known become one.

Once the form enters our minds, in an act of existence, our internal senses combine all the available external sensitive input. Our intellect is able to extract the universal catness, for example, from the particular cat. We are able to form mental images (phantasms) of particulars by using the internal senses combined with other intellective powers such as remembrance and the abstracted universal. We are able to make judgments and form concepts and ideas about the known thing. All of this and much more happens effortlessly, almost without awareness.

This process of knowing can be applied to sensible reality and to the interpretation of any text or spoken word. We come to know a written or spoken word the same way we come to know any other thing in sensible reality. First, the author or speaker has an idea. Meaning exists as form (immaterially) in the mind of the author/speaker. The author/speaker causes a text to exist by imposing form (meaning) upon language (combining it with matter) to create a text or spoken word in sensible reality. The speaker expresses his thought, then the mind of the reader or hearer extracts the form (meaning) from the text or spoken word in reality through the senses, and then the meaning is processed by the intellect. In this way, a reader or hearer is able to know the meaning that is in the text or spoken words.[1]

Why Is This Important?

All humans have the same nature/essence; therefore, all human intellects have the same basic capacities. Since the forms, in reality, are the same as what comes to exist in the human mind, what something is is determined by reality and not the knower. This is what we mean by truth. Truth is that which corresponds to its object, or, more specifically, truth is the conforming of the intellect to reality. Knowledge, meaning, and the intended purpose of all things are grounded in reality and are objectively verifiable. This explanation supports all human endeavors in the sciences and humanities and particularly makes Christian apologetics, theology, and ethics worthy endeavors.

This unity of existence between intellect and reality is the basis for the two extremely important great apologetic goals: to demonstrate the existence of God and to demonstrate the historical truth that God raised Jesus of Nazareth from the dead.

Reference

[1] For a fuller treatment of epistemology, consider Frederick Wilhelmsen’s Man’s Knowledge of Reality: An Introduction to Thomistic Epistemology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1956).

The Strongest Argument for God

Podcast

There is an argument for God that works even if the universe is eternal, even if macroevolution is true, even if a person believes that science is the supreme source of knowledge. It’s an argument that is as old as Aristotle, yet few talk about it today. Tricia Scribner, co-editor of the new book, Answering the Music Man, joins Frank for a fascinating discussion that unpacks this ancient argument in modern terms. Frank and Tricia show that science wouldn’t even work unless the premises of this argument were true.

This is Tricia: https://bit.ly/3gG9lsa

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

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

August 29, 2020/by Frank Turek

The Woke-ing Dead and the Futility of Reason

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Tim Stratton

The COVID-19 “quarantine” wasn’t all bad. Sure, no one likes being sentenced to “house arrest,” but I enjoyed spending some extra time with my wife and 17-year-old son (I did not take those moments for granted). The dreaded coronavirus, however, shut down Hollywood, movie theaters, restaurants, and sporting events. Being sequestered at home, my family and I considered other entertainment options.

A friend told me about The Walking Dead — a series featuring survivors of a zombie apocalypse fighting to survive amidst a constant threat of attacks from mobs of the undead, colloquially referred to as “walkers.” I went to Netflix and saw nine seasons awaiting our binge-watching pleasure. My wife and I decided to give the first episode a shot, and the next thing you know, we had watched all nine seasons in just a few weeks.

I think there is much one can learn from this series. During “insane times,” for example, it is good to have several others to partner with to ensure mutual survival and flourishing. It is also vital to realize the importance of sharing the same set of core values and agreeing upon the same set of “rules” or morality for any group to flourish. If a group does not possess an agreed-upon “constitution,” the group will fall.

“I know this sounds insane, but this is an insane world!”

— Rick Grimes (The Walking Dead, Season 6: First Time Again)

Oh, and one of the most important take-aways is this: guns and ammunition are vital; never surrender your weapons!

Learning from Zombies

Aside from these practical lessons, The Walking Dead also provides a good opportunity to philosophize about the nature of zombies. These “walkers,” as the title implies, are technically dead. It seems the soul (the person) who previously inhabited the body has “left the building.” Thus, the zombies do not possess the ability to reason or think logically (the FreeThinking Argument Against Naturalism describes how the human soul makes rationality possible). The walkers (also referred to as “biters”) simply respond to stimuli, namely, to consume flesh and blood.

A single walking corpse is not a serious threat to a seasoned survivor. Even a handful of zombies can easily be dispatched by Rick Grimes and company. However, when the zombies accumulate to the size of a mob, all bets are off. These mobs are extremely dangerous and will overwhelm and destroy rational humanity with sheer brute force.

After binge-watching the entire Walking Dead series, I went to sleep that night, finding solace reminding myself that mobs of non-rational “walkers” seeking to destroy humanity do not exist. To my horror, I woke up the next day to the realization that zombies do exist! That is to say, mobs of seemingly non-rational “woke-ing dead” have taken to the streets seeking to destroy rational civilization as we know it.

If one attempts to reason with the woke zombies, the mob will simply raise their voices, scream louder, destroy property, break more windows, and physically assault those who disagree. Reason is not an option. Rational conversation is futile. In fact, appealing to logic, reason, and rationality is rejected as merely “western” or “racist” by the mob.

“You ever heard about the broken window theory? Boils down to this– you keep the windows intact, you keep society intact.”

— Rick Grimes (The Walking Dead, Season 5: Spend)

James Lindsay notes why it seems to be impossible to have a logical or reasonable conversation with a “woke zombie.” Lindsay explains that: “Debate and conversation, especially when they rely upon reason, rationality, science, [and] evidence . . . are not their methods and they reject them.” This irrationality is exemplified by Margaret L. Anderson’s assertion in Race, Class, and Gender: “The idea that objectivity is best reached only through rational thought is a specifically Western and masculine way of thinking.” In other words: rational thought is “racist” because it’s merely the product of old white males.

Not only is this lack of critical thinking sad, it is extremely dangerous. It is sad because if one rejects reason, they become unreasonable. If one rejects rationality, they become irrational. If one rejects science and evidence, what remains? Indeed, one can see that the comparison to modern mobs in the streets and zombies is not an extreme comparison at all. This rejection of rational thought is dangerous because, as I have noted elsewhere: “If one rejects logic, all one is left with is gibberish, temper tantrums, and perhaps physical violence.” Given the growing woke mobs of non-rational zombies flooding the streets, I fear mass-violence is on the horizon. Prepare for battle!

An Un-Perfect Analogy with the Un-Dead

Unlike the zombies in The Walking Dead, the mob of The Woke-ing Dead in the streets of America today — although they behave remarkably similar to the zombies in the show — are each human being created in God’s image. Believers are called to love them and to attempt to reason together with them (Isaiah 1:18). With that said, be careful — zombies are bad, but sometimes humans are worse.

Be that as it may, Christ-followers are called to love those who consider you an enemy (even when it’s not your greatest desire). You are called to share the Gospel and fulfill the Great Commission. But even if these “zombies” are not willing to listen, all hope is not lost. Rational Christians must be a loud voice of reason in the public square and on social media (while it is still possible) and reason with those who have not yet been infected with poisonous Marxist philosophy. Inoculate humanity with an epistemic foundation and reasons for reality before they are exposed to this pandemic of irrationality. Start here:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

The Moral Argument

The Teleological Argument

The Ontological Argument

The Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism

The Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism

The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus (The Facts)

The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus (The Explanation)

When one has a proper grasp of ultimate reality — God — then certain political and cultural views usually fall into their proper place. When this occurs, the woke-ing dead often becomes born again and typically begin thinking clearly. Sharing the Gospel intertwined with apologetics is more important today than ever before. So be proud, loud, logical, and loving while telling the masses about the Good News! Be strong and courageous, for the Lord is with you (Joshua 1:9).

“We’ve been praying together. Praying that God will save our town. Well, our prayers have been answered. God will save Alexandria because God has given us the courage to save it ourselves.”

— Father Gabriel Stokes (The Walking Dead, Season 6: No Way Out)

If you succumb to fear, however, the zombies will eventually eat your face!

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Dr. Tim Stratton

Why It Is Foolish To Insist There Is No God

Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

“The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” If this passage from Psalms is correct, then many people today – including numerous scientists and other well-educated folks – are fools, for they insist that God does not exist. While name-calling is never productive, is there a way in which one might conclude that a person who denies God’s existence is indeed a “fool,” and not merely someone with whom we disagree?

Well, let’s begin with a look at the definition of “fool,” which includes “a person who has been tricked or deceived into appearing or acting silly or stupid.” Now, sometimes we trick ourselves and thereby make fools of ourselves. We might insist that a steady diet of fast food isn’t the reason that our clothes no longer fit the way they used to. On other occasions, it may be that we are misled. That tanning solution that promised to save you hours in the sun as left you looking a bit too orange to venture out in public. But whatever the source of our being misled, I think most would agree that a person who holds views that are inconsistent and contradictory has allowed himself to be deceived. Imagine a person proudly proclaiming that the prime rib he is about to eat is an important part of his vegetarian diet or the person who says that the only medicine that can save him is the one with no active ingredients. A person who proudly expresses views that are so in conflict has fooled himself, whereas a thoughtful observer would see things as they truly are.

Now, of course, some contradictions are not as obvious as the examples I just provided. Why, then, is it a contradiction to insist there is no God? It doesn’t appear to be contradictory – at first glance, anyway. For the answer to that question, we are indebted to St. Anselm of Canterbury, who lived and pondered these questions some ten centuries ago. I can’t do justice to Anselm’s argument in this brief piece, but perhaps some concepts borrowed from Anselm may help make the point.

The first avenue of inquiry requires consideration of just what it is that the human mind is capable of doing. We need to think about what “thinking” actually entails. Anyone who has seen a baby develop realizes that the human mind comes pre-programmed with an “operating system” of sorts. This system allows us to acquire language, to use reason, to recognize concepts such as fairness and truth and beauty, and other intangible things. It allows us to organize creation into categories, and perhaps most amazingly, to make use of the imagination. This ability for abstract thought lends itself to what we experience in an “I get that now” moment when a problem that has been puzzling us all of a sudden makes sense. We all use these systems of thought naturally and intuitively; they are part and parcel of the normally operating human mind. Of course, there is no other way since we could never use reason, for instance, to prove the validity or usefulness of reason.

One aspect of this ability for abstract thought is the ability to conceptualize or to place things into understandable categories. Food, for instance, can encompass a million different things, but to qualify as food, the object in question must be edible and serve to nourish, and not poison, us. We can call an ash tray food, but the underlying thing is not a matter of what we call it, but of what it consists. A tree trunk in the woods can function as a “chair,” but the surface of a swimming pool cannot.

So, with this observation in view, let’s turn to the question of God. Let’s consider for a moment, not what a definition of God might be, but what the conception of God is. What is it that we are struggling to grasp when we use that term? Anselm’s definition was simply this – God is that being a greater than which cannot be conceived. Whatever attributes God would have – omnipotence, omnipresence, perfect goodness, etcetera – if you can conceive of a being with all those attributes plus an additional one, then the latter being, the being with the greater attributes, would be God. So, imagine two beings then – each with exhaustive, infinite powers. Both beings have every possible attribute of perfection that can be conjured up in the human mind until one reaches the attribute of necessary existence. As I make use of my imagination and my ability to reason to flesh out what I am thinking about when I consider God, I realize that one of these two superlative beings has the attribute of necessary existence – it is not possible for this being to not exist. The other being, on the other hand, lacks this attribute. This latter being may or may not exist, or he may come into existence at some point and go out of existence and some other point. Now, as I compare these two conceptions, I immediately and clearly can see that the former – the one with necessary existence – would be the greater of the two. Consequently, to fully conceive of God, we must be conceiving of a Being who can’t not exist, whose existence must always have been and will always continue to be. Anything else –anything less – simply cannot fit the conception of God.

So, what does that prove? Maybe this conception of God is imaginary and, consequently of no value. Not so, Anselm would contend. And here’s why: the mind is not capable of conceptualizing something that does not in fact exist, that does not relate to something real. Now, this premise is a bit harder to get one’s mind around. The normal response to this part of the argument is that we create imaginary things all the time, from unicorns to tooth fairies to Jedi Knights. These things aren’t “real,” even though we can conjure them up in our fantasies. But each of these things, while imaginary, is the combining of things that are real: a horse and a horn; a person with wings and unusual powers; a warrior with special abilities and unusual weapons. And, and most importantly, neither a unicorn nor a tooth fairy nor a Jedi Knight would possess the attribute of necessary existence. If a unicorn did exist, it would have to consist of a horse with a single horn in its head; but its existence could have occurred briefly in the distant past, or could arise in the distant future or could not occur at all. We can fully conceptualize such a creature – we can place it in its proper category mentally – even if the creature does not presently exist. This is so because the conceptualization of these things does not require that them to actually exist in the here and now. For God, by contrast, the only way to properly conceptualize Him is as a necessarily existent being. If you are not seeing Him that way, says Anselm, you are not yet thinking about God, but about something lesser.

This foray into philosophy can be difficult. Fortunately, there are many other proofs for God’s existence, ones much easier with which to grapple, but this one stands out for its elegance. For if it has merit, then God has embedded within us the means to find Him in the one place we have exclusive and special access to: in the recesses or our very minds, there for us to uncover with a bit of critical thinking.

Getting back then to the initial question, if Anselm is right, the fool who denies God is saying something like, “I believe that the Being who must necessarily exist does not exist.” A rather foolish thing to say, when you see it clearly.

The Bible says that God has written His law on our hearts. Perhaps if we probe a bit deeper still, we can also begin to see in its depths the first faint scratching of His signature.

Was Jesus a Jerk? A Response to the Friendly Atheist

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

A few weeks ago, CNN Tonight host Don Lemon said: “But here’s the thing, Jesus Christ, if that’s who you believe in Jesus Christ, admittedly was not perfect when he was here on the Earth. So why are we deifying the Founders?”

As you can imagine, this caused quite a stir over social media and on the blogs, since the Bible clearly teaches Christ’s sinless perfection. While a few right-wing Christian leaders went a little overboard in their denouncements of Lemon, “The Friendly Atheist” took it as an opportunity to take some jabs at Jesus.

Hemant Mehta, the author of the blog, writes:

“Let’s talk about what Jesus did.

* Jesus once got so angry he flipped over tables and benches.

* Jesus cursed a fig tree because it didn’t have anything to eat — because figs weren’t in season — and then the tree died. Jesus killed a tree because He was hangry.

* Jesus admitted to speaking in parables that were difficult for people to understand… and then got mad when people didn’t understand them.

* Jesus got snippy when people asked Him why He didn’t wash His hands.

* Jesus’ actions led to the deaths of a whole bunch of pigs, angering an entire town.

So… either we have to acknowledge Jesus could be a jerk at times despite whatever other redeeming qualities we want to assign Him. Or, like the conservative Christians are doing, we can pretend Jesus was perfect because our faith requires it… even when the Bible itself has plenty of evidence to the contrary.”

So according to Mehta, Jesus was a jerk. But is he really being fair to the texts?

Jesus the table flipper?

Was Jesus just throwing an unjustified temper tantrum when he cleansed the Temple? To answer that, we need to give a little background. The temple market was established after the Babylonian captivity. JB Lightfoot says “There was always a constant market in the temple in that place, which was called ‘the shops;’ where, every day, was sold wine, salt, oil, and other requisites to sacrifices; as also oxen and sheep in the spacious Court of the Gentiles”

Josephus estimated there would be up to 3 million Jews traveling to Jerusalem for the Passover. Seeing their devotion, the money-changers saw an opportunity to get rich. They made a business of accommodating those who didn’t have the half-shekel temple tax. (See Mt 17:24)

Everyone was expected to pay it, rich or poor, in the month of Adar. So it became necessary to change a shekel into two halves, or exchange foreign money for the Jewish half-shekel. (Money that bore the image of “Divine Caesar”, in some cases) These men made a nice profit by charging a percentage for the exchange. The animals were in the courts to be sold as a sacrifice since people traveling from afar weren’t usually able to bring them.

Jesus was upset that in the Court of the Gentiles, the place where non-Jews were designated to worship, people were being deprived of the opportunity to pray because of greedy, irreverent people and this happened under the watch Jerusalem’s religious leaders. Jesus quotes Isaiah 56:7 that the temple was to be a place of prayer for all nations.

This would be like trying to have worship in the middle of Walmart on a normal Black Friday. The Gentiles were pushed out of participation with the Passover. Matthew previously writes “I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.” (Mt. 8:11)

This event is called “The Cleansing of the Temple” for good reason. Jesus was purifying the temple from defilement. Nearly 200 years before, Judas Maccabeus cleansed the Temple after it was defiled by Antiochus Epiphanes. By cleaning out the Temple, Jesus is saying that the present Jewish leadership had defiled the Temple in the same way the Greeks did when the sacrificed a pig inside of it. Talk about an act of defiant protest! Shortly afterward, Jesus predicts the destruction of the Temple and the coming judgment upon the nation for their lack of response to Jesus’ Gospel. (Mark 13, Matthew 24)

So to sum up, you have noisy people who care nothing for God there to make an easy buck in the place where Gentiles were to worship, exploiting the poor in the process. Jesus taught that we can’t serve both God and money, and to him, this was both oppression, greed, and idolatry blatantly in his Father’s own house. Jesus said that this was to be a place of prayer, not a den of robbers. (Jeremiah 7:11) He was rightfully ticked off.

Not only that, but there’s not a hint that Jesus harmed any human or any animal. He flipped some tables. He fashioned a whip and gave it a good crack or two, but this would sort of like firing a gun in the air in a crowd. It would clear the people and the animals out in a hurry.

Was Jesus angry when he cursed the fig tree?

So what’s going on with the cursing of the fig tree? Jesus and his audience knew the writings of the prophets. They would’ve picked up on what Jesus was laying down. The Old Testament prophets used fig trees and vineyards to typify spiritual fruitfulness (or a lack thereof). Just see Isaiah 28:4, Jeremiah 24:1-10, Hosea 9:16-17, Micah 7:1. Let’s read Micah 7:1 to illustrate.

Woe is me! For I have become as when the summer fruit has been gathered, as when the grapes have been gleaned: there is no cluster to eat, no first-ripe fig that my soul desires.

Jesus cursing the fig tree was allegorical of judgment on fruitless Israel. How do we know that? Just look at the story. First, Jesus curses the fig tree. Then he cleanses the Temple, itself a symbolic judgment of the religious leaders. Then the disciples come back and notice the tree is withered. Shortly after that in Mark 12:1-12 and Matthew 21:33-46, Jesus tells the parable of the vineyard.

This parable tells of Israel’s unfaithfulness, their rejection of God’s prophets and ultimately God’s Son, and their impending judgment. Sandwiched between this is the cursing of the fig tree.

Now you might think this is me stretching things, but I’m not. Here are just a few examples of God’s prophets acting strangely to drive home a serious point:

The prophet Ahijah ripped his clothes in twelve pieces, symbolizing that God was going to tear the kingdom from Solomon and give Jeroboam 10 of the 12 tribes of Israel. (1 Kings 11:29-31)
Isaiah walked around basically naked for three years to warn the Egyptians and Cushites of impending doom against Assyria. (Isaiah 20:1-6)
Ezekiel publicly cooked his food over cow poop (!), warning Jerusalem of impending judgment and famine. (Ezekiel 4:1-15)
And who could forget God commanding Hosea to marry a prostitute as a symbol of Israel’s unfaithfulness? (Hosea 1:2)

Jesus cursing a fig tree is pretty tame in comparison. You might not like that God commanded his prophets to do weird stuff, but extraordinary incoming judgments call for unusual warnings to get people’s attention. God isn’t willing that any should perish and apparently is willing to go to great lengths to shake up the complacent so they would repent and be saved. Last I checked, a nation is more important than a single tree that lacks a nervous system.

So what about the pigs?

Was Jesus a pig-killer? If this incident with the demoniac and the pigs happened today, I can just imagine the headlines: NAZARETH PASTOR CAUSES DEATH OF 2000 PIGS, PETA LAUNCHES PROTEST. Does this put Jesus in the same category as Michael Vick?

For starters, the demons asked if Jesus was going to torment them now, meaning that their time hadn’t yet come to be judged, so he couldn’t make them just go away. (Mark 5:7) While Jesus is omnipotent, he chose not to fully operate that way as a man. For instance in Mark 6:1-6, we read that Jesus could do no mighty work in Nazareth due to their unbelief. So asking why Jesus didn’t just get rid of the demons is like saying, “why didn’t Jesus get rid of all evil people, evil spirits and every disease and affliction while he was here?”

Not only was Jesus not functioning in full-omnipotence, but he also wasn’t operating in omniscience, either. In the same chapter, he asks, “who touched me?” when the woman with the issue of blood is healed. (Mark 5:31) How can we be sure that Jesus knew what was going to happen to the pigs? That seems unclear.

There’s also nothing in these passages that show that Jesus drove the pigs into the sea and caused them to drown. Satan is the killer, not Jesus. (Jn 8:44) And it doesn’t make a lot of sense to say the demons caused the pigs to commit suicide since they just pleaded with Jesus to use them as their new hosts. One answer that Greg Boyd offers is that the demons just drove the pigs crazy, just the same way that parasites can drive animals crazy and cause them to hurt themselves.

I mean, these demons already drove two men into living naked in tombs, screaming and cutting themselves, and they couldn’t be restrained by chains. This is pretty freaky stuff. If Jesus felt like he had a better option, we can see from his character elsewhere in the Gospels that he would’ve taken it.

What stands out is that after seeing the destructive power of Satan and the delivering power of Jesus, the townspeople ask Jesus to leave. They could see the man now clothed and in his right mind, but they seem to care more about the pigs than the people!

In Matthew 10:31, Jesus says that human lives are worth more than many sparrows, and the same can be said for the pigs. While the man delivered begged to follow Jesus, the townspeople urged him to leave. They valued their unclean livestock more than Jesus and the man.

This shouldn’t need to be said but people are more important than pigs. You see this animals-first attitude in our day with groups like PETA, who’ve said tons of outrageously weird things.

This isn’t a case of Jesus acting carelessly. The man went from cutting himself to testifying throughout the region about what Jesus had done for him. This is an epic battle scene in the spiritual war that was being fought for the souls of people in the city. Don’t miss the deliverance for the pigs.

Was Jesus getting snippy over hand-washing?

There’s a lot more going on here than sanitary issues here, but Mehta conveniently leaves that out. Let’s look at the hand-washing passage in question:

“Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites!” (Matthew 15-1-7)

The concern has little to do with the spread of disease, it’s regarding Jewish laws about uncleanness. If you ate something wrong, you were ritually defiled. These hand-washing traditions of the Pharisees went beyond what the Law actually prescribed — as if accidentally eating something microscopically unclean is sinful.

The Pharisees were constantly criticizing Jesus for healing on the Sabbath. Jesus called them out for their hypocrisy of adding traditions on top of the word of God, which ended up negating the point of the law, which was loving their neighbor ⁠— including their mother and father. He saw people as more important than religious traditions.

I saved this example for last because I find some irony here. Mehta’s blog is chock full of posts dedicated to calling out religious hypocrisy. He should find that Jesus hated phony religious hypocrisy as an admirable trait, not as a character flaw.

Calling Jesus a jerk isn’t a real friendly thing to do, especially when you take a more “friendly” way to look at these texts. I’d argue that it’s probably more of a jerk move to dump a list of gripes against Jesus’ character with no explanation of the context. Contrary to Mehta, we don’t have “plenty of evidence” contrary to the traditional understanding of Jesus’ sinless perfection.

Does Abortion Trump Everything Else?

Podcast

Does Abortion Trump Everything Else?

Have you heard people say that you’re just a one-issue voter? You’re pro-life on abortion but you need to be pro-life until natural death. You need a more biblically balanced view and address other issues that are just as important, such as racism, poverty, and healthcare. Dr. Ron Sider, a politically liberal evangelical, makes that case in a new blog.

Frank responds that equating all those issues makes four major mistakes, including ignoring the teaching of Jesus. This is an important show as we enter the home stretch of the election season.

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

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

August 21, 2020/by Frank Turek

Tag Archive for: apologetics

1. Ask good questions

2. Listen to Understand

3. Consider Your Character

4. Reflect God’s Heart

The “How” of Apologetics Matters

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Biblical Interpretation

The Apostle Paul’s Apologetic Method

Biblical Reasons for the Existence of God

Reference

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Affirm The Divine Image

Acknowledge Our Collective Sinfulness

Know Jesus’s Universal Expectation

Recognize That Holiness Is The Goal

Be People Of Love

Be Like Their Family

Find Our Identity In Christ

Concluding Thoughts

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Process of Knowing

Why Is This Important?

Reference

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Learning from Zombies

An Un-Perfect Analogy with the Un-Dead

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Was Jesus angry when he cursed the fig tree?

So what about the pigs?

Was Jesus getting snippy over hand-washing?

Recommended resources related to the topic: