apologetics Archives - Page 80 of 138

Tag Archive for: apologetics

Judaism 101 with Dr. Michael Brown

Here is our list of questions (we might not get to them all, but we will try to give people an overview of what Jews believe today and how we can best reach them for Jesus).

What were the major sects of Judaism in the first century?
1. Pharisees
2. Sadducees
3. Essenes
4. Zealots
5. Others
Where did they come from and how did they differ in what they believed?
When did synagogues begin, and why did they exist during the Temple period?
Once the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, how did Judaism change?
How can one obey the OT law if the Temple does not exist?
What are the current denominations of Judaism and how do they differ from one another?
What are the writings outside the OT that Jewish believers think are authoritative? Talmud?
Where did these writings come from and why do Jews believe they are authoritative?
How do traditional Jews view the Law, as a burden or a blessing?
What are the main Jewish views of the Messiah?
What do the majority of Jews think regarding the afterlife? Why?
What do Jewish scholars think about the evidence for the Resurrection? Alternative theory? Why would the Jewish writers of the NT invent it?
What are the three biggest theological obstacles to a Jewish person accepting Jesus?
How do you overcome them?
If Jesus is the Messiah, why didn’t he bring in world peace?
What are some questions you can ask a Jewish person to get them to begin to consider Jesus as the Messiah?

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

January 24, 2020/by Guest

Apologetics and a Different Kind of Persuasion

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Mikel Del Rosario

A Different Kind of Persuasion

Have you ever found yourself “in debate mode” while talking to a skeptical friend about Christianity? Perhaps this is because many of us have been equipped with apologetic content (arguments for God’s existence, the reliability of the Gospels, etc.) with less of a focus on an apologetic method for use in everyday conversations.

Sometimes, we can get so concerned about winning or making a certain point, that we lose the credibility that an ambassador of Christ should have. Others you don’t notice may be watching and listening to your conversation. If the exchange gets heated, some may be thinking, “I don’t care if Christianity is true if it’s not good.” So, is there a different kind of persuasion to employ?

At the Hendricks Center, Darrell Bock and I invited John Dickson, the Founding Director of the Centre for Public Christianity, to join us in discussing what persuasion and apologetics can look like when Christians function as cultural minorities in a society.

In this post, I share three quick tips I learned from his visit on how to use a different kind of persuasion in our apologetic encounters:

Give ’em pause
Have conversations, not debates
Show truth and goodness.

Give ’em Pause

Instead of walking into a conversation in “debate mode,” Christians should seek to persuade others by provoking two things: Reflection and a longing for the truth of the gospel. On an episode of the Table Podcast called “Keys to Effective Cultural Engagement,” Bock talked about what he calls “a different kind of persuasion.” He says:

My initial goal…is to get the person to pause and reflect. “Might there be another way to think about what we’re talking about?” with the hope that what I’m putting out on the table is something they can recognize the potential merit of, and then consider what is being said, because it’s different than what they’re used to hearing.

Instead of relying on a more forceful kind of attempt at persuasion, he suggests an approach that communicates something like, “What I’m putting out on the table for you is a helpful way to think about how humans should interact and live with one another…” He says, “There’s certain effectiveness of living that’s being represented. I want to give them pause so they’ll start to think.”

Dickson agrees. He explains how this applies not just in conversations, but even in televised public debate situations:

If I lose well in a debate or discussion with a journalist, but I’ve done it so well that I know that the audience is thinking, “That Christian guy was reasonable and level headed and pretty nice.” That commends the gospel. I don’t go around trying to lose, but I’m not so concerned about losing… losing well is sometimes a beautiful representation of the gospel for those looking on…

Richard Dawkins is doing us a favor in the long term because he is so extreme…If the average, thoughtful doubter thinks, “That’s not an approach I like. I thought the Christian did a little bit better there.” That is winning.

Have Conversations, not Debates

You probably won’t yourself defending the faith on TV or in a literal academic debate. But even in everyday conversations, other people may be watching you interact with someone who sees Christianity differently. How do you compose yourself? Rather than being consumed with winning the debate, let’s engage in a real conversation. Remind yourself, “I’m in a conversation, not a debate.” Bock elaborates:

The first rule is, “I’m engaged in a conversation versus a debate. I’m not trying to win anything. All that I’m trying to do is demonstrate what I hope is the reasonableness of what I believe in a way that will draw people in to consider what it is that’s being said…” I’m probably not going to convince the guy on the other side of the microphone but I’m interested in the person who’s trying to decide, “Which microphone am I going to believe?” and hopefully draw them in my direction as opposed to the direction of the person who I may be pitted against.

Show Truth and Goodness

Today, many people are wondering not if Christianity is true, but if Christianity is even good. They reason, “If it’s not good, then should I, why to care if it’s true?” Don’t forget that persuasion is always person-relative. While you may not be able to help someone consider the truth of a certain Christian truth claim, you may be able to show them by the tone of your conversation and the way you treat them that Christianity is good.

Dickson notes that this was the approach of C.S. Lewis:

Lewis came to believe that if he could convey the beauty of Christianity to people, it opens them up to the truth…He wanted to convey the beauty of ideas to allow people to open up to the possibility that they’re also true. To want it to be true is a step along the path to knowing it’s true…

He goes on to say:

The Greek word epikeia, which you find in Paul’s letters is translated as “gentleness,” but it really means “humanitarian regard,” that moderate, fair, just character. We trust…the good-hearted person more than anyone else on all topics.

The key to persuasion is if you are someone who is trustworthy, …that moves belief. Aristotle said this ethos is the primary part of persuasion because we believe those who we perceive to be credible and fair-minded far more easily than we do anyone else.

I agree. Our skeptical friends and neighbors are more likely to give Christianity a fresh hearing if we can, through our actions, show them that Christianity is good. I like how Dickson describes goodness as “morally credible, loving, generous, compassionate, humble—things that flow out of the gospel.” Sometimes, just getting someone to want that goodness, to long for that goodness, is a step in the right direction—even if they are not fully persuaded of its truth just yet. As Christian ambassadors, we need to help people see the beauty and goodness of Christianity, in addition to the truthfulness of its claims.

Reflection and Persuasion

I enjoyed putting this episode of the Table Podcast together and getting Bock and Dickson together to discuss a different kind of persuasion. These insights are applicable to both personal discussions and square public conversations. Rather than being primarily concerned about winning a debate, let’s focus on getting people to pause and reflect on the effectiveness of living God’s way. Yes, we should defend the faith with confidence. But let’s also be mindful of our demeanor and the way it affects those who may be watching and listening.

The next time you find yourself operating in “debate mode,” take a step back. Consider these tips and try using a different kind of persuasion.

Natural-ly There Is A Problem With Evil

Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Alex McElroy

One of the most difficult issues to reconcile in life is the presence of evil. This is the case whether one has a theistic, agnostic or atheistic worldview. The existence of evil is undeniable both in our witness and experience but is evil objective in nature or merely an apparition. Even atheist J.L. Mackie recognized a dilemma. In one book, he writes, “There are no objective values.”[1] Elsewhere, he writes, “We might well argue…that objective, intrinsically prescriptive features, supervenient upon natural ones, constitute so odd a cluster of qualities and relations that they are most unlikely to have arisen in the ordinary course of events, without an all-powerful god to create them.”[2]

This poses a problem for the naturalist or the atheist because whatever evil does exist in people cannot be attributed to anything other than misfiring neurons. Well, known atheist Richard Dawkins has stated, “DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”[3] However, if we are just dancing to our DNA, then no one can ultimately be held responsible for any actions, and evil becomes a term without an ontic point of reference. Ravi Zacharias wrote, “Atheists often blunder into the right by borrowing from assumptions that are not logically deduced from their own worldview. But their opinion is so strong that they straddle the two worlds and make up a bridge because they have reached an unbridgeable chasm, given their starting point.”[4] That starting point of random, unguided natural processes is hardly the building blocks for a moral framework.

Sam Harris, an atheist who is both a philosopher and neuroscientist, has much to say on how humans can arrive at life-sustaining moral standards simply through biological evolution. He writes, “Many people imagine that the theory of evolution entails selfishness as a biological imperative. This popular misconception has been harmful to the reputation of science. In truth, human cooperation and its attendant moral emotions are fully compatible with biological evolution.”[5] First, it should be noted that many scientists, most notably Biochemist Michael Behe, have shown a flaw in the premise being proposed by Mr. Harris in regard to the selfishness of biological evolution. With regard to the underlying theory contained within Harris’ assertion, Behe writes, in Darwin Devolves, about two groups of extended evolutionary synthesis scientists who propose a similar theory:

The first speculates that once master genes and their regulatory networks of connections were in place, perhaps novel complex features could be developed mostly by random changes that accidentally form new signature sequences near various genes….The second group…emphasizes the ease of deploying an array of machinery to different locations, which, like ectopic fly eyes, would generate a lot of variation much more easily than Darwin might have imagined. Maybe that would give selection more to choose from. If all that sounds distressingly vague, I’m afraid that is the gist of the argument…The unanticipated discovery of layers of control – master switches and the stunningly sophisticated genetic regulatory networks they activate – does not make the putative undirected development of life any easier to explain, evo-devo (Evolutionary developmental biology) enthusiasts seem to imagine. It makes it harder. The need for a foreman and subcontractors to coordinate construction does not make it easier to explain how unintelligent processes could make a building out of bricks and wood and pipes and wiring. It shows it to be impossible.[6]

Behe is indicating that an external infusion of sorts, in fact, a number of external infusions would be required in order to advance biological evolution. Who or what could that provide that infusion? If not God, it seems unlikely that unintelligent and unguided natural forces could be responsible for natural evolution, not to mention moral evolution. Additionally, Sam Harris simply assumes that “human cooperation and its attendant moral emotions” would be natural outgrowths of a macroevolutionary process. But that’s a large assumption considering that one component of Darwinian evolutionary theory is survival of the fittest, not survival of the most cooperative.

Mr. Harris goes on to write, “The work of evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers on reciprocal altruism has gone a long way toward explaining cooperation among unrelated friends and strangers…Because moral virtue is attractive to both sexes, it might function as a kind of peacock’s tail: costly to produce and maintain, but beneficial to one’s genes in the end.”[7] Even if we accept Harris’ premise that moral virtue is attractive or beneficial, it still does not allow us to assign an objective value to what morality is in its essence. How are we to know if what we are attracted to in another is being accurately perceived as high moral character? What standard are we comparing their moral virtue to in order to determine where they measure up? How do we define what is most beneficial to us or to humanity at large? These are metaphysical questions that cannot simply be reduced to physical or naturalistic foundations.

In reviewing the works of C.S. Lewis, David Bagget noted, “Moral language today is so peculiar, in fact, that Lewis suggests that this is why many people try to explain it away. Some attempt to reduce moral impropriety to an instrumental matter – as we do with a tree, for our purposes, does not shade us well and is, for this reason, and in this sense, a ‘bad tree.’”[8] Terms such as good, bad, or evil simply lose all substantive value in a purely naturalistic worldview. This does not mean that an atheist cannot be a good person. Of course they can and most of them are morally upright. The issue is not that you cannot be good or do good things if you do not believe in God or the God of the Bible. The issue is that such a thing as good cannot objectively exist if God does not exist. If evil exists, good exists, and if good exists, God exists.

Notes

[1] J.L. Mackie, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. (Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1977), 15.

[2] Ravi Zacharias & Vince Vitale, Why Suffering: Finding Meaning and Comfort When Life Doesn’t Make Sense. (New York, NY: Hatchette Book Group, 2014)142.

[3] Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life. (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1995)133.

[4] Turek, Stealing From God, ix.

[5] Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. (New York, NY: Free Press, 2010), 56.

[6] Michael Behe, Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution. (New York, NY: Harper Collins, 2019)118.

[7] Harris, The Moral Landscape, 56.

[8] Gregory Bassham, C.S. Lewis’s Christian Apologetics: Pro and Con. (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2015), 127-28.

How to Respond to People who Mock Christianity

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

How would you answer these questions?

How do you know what is important in the Bible?
How can I find out if someone is a Christian without sounding confrontational?
How can I deal with coworkers who mock Christianity?
Does design lose its meaning if you’re saying everything is designed?
What do you say to people who claim God is a bad designer?
Should Christians boycott certain businesses?

These are questions sent in by listeners that Frank answers on this show.

While Frank can’t get to all of them if you have a question you can submit it to Hello@Crossexamined.org. Also, check out these resources: the CrossExamined YouTube channel has answers to hundreds of questions, and several others are answered on the CrossExamined app and CrossExamined website.

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

January 20, 2020/by Guest

Putting God on Trial

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

“I can’t believe in a God who would allow so much evil and suffering in the world.”

Have you encountered this challenge? Most anyone who has tried to defend the Christian worldview surely has. The person bringing this challenge will often claim to be atheist, but when you dig in a bit this challenger is more often someone who knows there is a creator but who is deeply offended by the world, and angry at the God who set all this – the carnage, the anguish, the pain – in motion.

In my last post, I restated the traditional Christian response to this problem of evil. God did not create the evil that surrounds us because evil is not a thing. Evil is a departure- a deviation- from the good which God did create, and which God defines. This answer serves a particular purpose: it shows that the Christian belief system is internally coherent. For if God did create evil, he could not be the God described in the Bible because an all-powerful, all-good, and all-loving God could not be the creator of evil.

But, the atheist insists, even if I grant that God did not create evil, He created this universe and everything in it. Isn’t He, therefore, still responsible for all the evil that we see around us? In other words, if God isn’t guilty of the crime of actually creating evil, is He not still liable as an aider and abettor?

C.S. Lewis wrote about those who put God “in the dock.” It seems a natural human tendency to find fault with the way others have acted or decisions they have made. As a criminal prosecutor, I found that I would often slip into this kind of thinking too, silently building a case against God, accusing Him in my inner thoughts of not doing things the way He should have, the way I would have. The created order is filled with so much beauty, so much elegance, so much to admire and to be awed by….yet, we know that something is also very much amiss. Every beautiful thing God has created has been marred in some way. Out of every good in the world, there springs forth, weed-like, much that is bad, much that is evil. Why has God allowed this?

By satisfying the demands of logic, the traditional explanation of the nature of evil helps to make sense of our faith. But notice what it does not attempt to do: it does not seek to defend God, which is, in essence, what this challenge is asking us to take on. Nor does it provide an emotionally satisfying explanation to the one who is suffering, no easy answer to make it all quickly better.

What, then, can the Christian to say in response to this challenge?

Perhaps the answer should begin with the recognition that we need not – that indeed we cannot – defend God. Yes, God is responsible, ultimately. It is His creation, His universe, His set of rules to which both conform. For reasons that make sense to Him, He endowed us with free will, knowing that we would use it in inappropriate ways, in ways that displeased Him and would cause harm to others. True, this answer is not satisfying emotionally. It is instead a logical answer, and while logic has its place, we are not strictly logical beings. We feel, and when we experience evil, we suffer. As beings who love, we grieve when we see those whom we love suffer.

The challenger may argue that a God who allows suffering cannot be loving but is it not the case that suffering may serve a purpose. We grasp this intuitively: we know that hard work can often lead to much gain; we see that the cure of the physician or surgeon may at first be quite painful; we note the agony of labor that precedes the birth of a child. Everywhere in nature, we see the source of the expression “no pain, no gain.” We also know, at a more profound level, that none of this, neither the pain nor the glory, lasts forever. We are on the road to …somewhere…and there are indeed many obstacles, many pitfalls, along the way.

And yet, are we really in a place to put God on trial? With what arrogance would the pot stand in the well to accuse the potter of poor workmanship? How would the robot, constructed to complete a particular job, rightly complain that the tasks to which it is put are not just? That it should instead rule the world into which it was placed.

At present, we see through darkened and distorted lenses. Free will and suffering. These concepts will never make complete sense to us. But as the created and not the creator, perhaps all we can do is remember that they make sense to Him.

How I Got into Apologetics (And How You Can Too!)

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

I am often asked, “how did you get into apologetics?” For some believers, they’ll get interested in apologetics because of a crisis of faith. They’ll have intellectual hurdles that come up that they have to overcome. For me, I never was plagued with doubts. While I spent several years of my life as an atheist, I had a powerful encounter with the Holy Spirit. As I walked with God, the inner witness of the Holy Spirit was a real and regular experience.

After coming to faith, I felt burdened to share my faith. I would share my testimony with anyone who would give me the time of day and led several of my friends to Christ. (And even a handful of strangers.) I felt, for the most part, confident when it came to evangelism.

Failing Forward

That all changed several years later when I met Ian and Chris.

Ian and Chris were co-worker friends of mine. They were both were more educated than I was, and both were very bright. One day, during our break time the conversation shifted to spiritual things. So I took the opportunity to try and share.

They shot me to shreds.

Ian was very scientifically-minded and thought modern science, and the Bible were incompatible. Chris was an ex-Christian and the son of missionaries. He grew up in church and lived on the mission field overseas. He later renounced his faith in favor of Buddhism.

They raised a host of issues that I couldn’t answer. I felt helpless and felt that I had failed not only them but my own Savior. So, I set out on a quest. I didn’t know much about Christian apologetics. I had read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis years ago, and that was about the extent of my knowledge.

So, I started Googling away. My search led me to a host of great materials. I found dozens of debates. A legion of lectures. A plethora of podcasts. A bonanza of books. Free college courses through seminaries and colleges.

The Problem: Info Overload

There was only one problem: There was too much information. It felt daunting and overwhelming. I sensed a call to do more with apologetics but didn’t understand where to begin or how to begin.

So, I prayed and asked for help. And God answered by way of a philosophy professor. I had joined a group on Facebook called the Christian Apologetics Alliance. In the group, I shared my frustration with sensing a call in this area. I had neither the time or money to go back to college.

A guy by the name of Tim McGrew replied. If you don’t know, Dr. McGrew is a philosophy professor at Western Michigan University. He’s a walking encyclopedia when it comes to the argument from miracles and historical apologetics. He’s debated some atheistic heavyweights like Bart Ehrman (Misquoting Jesus, Jesus, Interrupted) and Peter Boghossian. (A Manual for Creating Atheists)

Tim graciously provided me with a bibliography to get started. This list of books helped me get the knowledge that I needed to get seriously get going.

Starting Where I Was At

These sources provided me the ability to have something to say in the main areas of apologetics. Defensive apologetics as well as offensive apologetics. In other words, I could have something to say about the main objections to God’s existence or the Bible.

Doesn’t science disprove Christianity?
Aren’t miracles the worst explanation for anything?
Why does an all-powerful and all-loving God allow horrible evils in the world?
How could God send people to hell for a lack of information?
Is Yahweh evil? After all, didn’t He command Israel to kill the Canaanites?
Why are there contradictions and historical errors in the Bible?

Answering these questions is defensive apologetics.

I also learned how to make a positive case for God’s existence and the resurrection of Jesus. (Positive apologetics) Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15, the resurrection is the lynchpin of Christianity. Without it, nothing else matters. So making that case is indispensable.

Setting the Right Goals

The goal wasn’t to master everything. But I did have something to say to the main objections against the faith. Tim also encouraged me to master one argument for God’s existence to start out. Now, this did involve work and commitment. And it required that I stretch my mind and make my brain work.

But if eternal destinies are at stake, this was something I had to take seriously. Plus, as a father, I didn’t want to pass onto my children a brittle “don’t think, only believe” type of faith.

It still meant I still had to invest time and money. However, it didn’t lead thousands of dollars of college debt. Furthermore, it didn’t call for me spending hours burning the midnight oil studying. I only needed to spend an hour or so per day reading.

As a result, the increase of knowledge led to an increase in confidence. Instead of being intimidated by tough objections, I felt like I could handle them. My conversations in these areas became more “in control” rather than me getting flustered and defensive.

“Bringing Out of His Treasure What Is New and What Is Old”

So, without further ado, I want to pass on the list of books that Tim gave me. The good news is that some of them are older works that you can read free online because they are public domain.

Don’t assume old means “out of date.” It’s tempting to fall into the chronological snobbery fallacy. But these older works have arguments that hold up today. When it came to reading older books, C.S. Lewis once advised:

“It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones.”

CS Lewis, Intro to On the Incaration by Athanasius

Lewis went on to say:

“Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old. And I would give him this advice precisely because he is an amateur and therefore much less protected than the expert against the dangers of an exclusive contemporary diet.

Here’s my experience: Lewis is right. I learned more about defending the argument from miracles from reading old books. I’d say the same for defending the Gospels. He also gave me some other supplemental books and references that I’ve linked here.

I’ve added a few more books to supplement the list that I found helpful.

B = Beginner

I = Intermediate

DR. TIM MCGREW’S READING LIST

CONVERSATIONAL APOLOGETICS:

Greg Koukl, Tactics(B)
Norman and David Geisler, Conversational Evangelism(B)

BASIC REASONING SKILLS:

JP Moreland, Love God With All Your Mind(B)
Peter Kreeft, Between Heaven and Hell(B)

DEFENSIVE GENERAL APOLOGETICS:

THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Section X (Free! Hume is presenting the skeptical view) (B)
William Lane Craig, Hard Questions, Real Answers, chapters. 4 and 5 (I)
S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain(B)
Clay Jones, Why Does God Allow Evil? (My recommendation) (B)

THE CHALLENGE OF SCIENCE

S. Lewis, Miracles: A Preliminary Study, ch. 3 (B)
John Lennox, God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?(B)
Arthur James Balfour, The Foundations of Belief(Free!) (I)
Mitch Stokes, How to Be an Atheist: Why Many Skeptics Aren’t Skeptical Enough (My recommendation) (I)

THE INCREDIBILITY OF MIRACLES

David Hume, “Of Miracles”(Free! Hume is presenting the skeptical view) (B)
William Adams, An Essay in Answer to Mr. Hume’s Essay on Miracles(Free!) (B)
George Campbell, A Dissertation on Miracles(Free!) (B)
Habermas and Geivett, eds., In Defense of Miracles(B)
John Douglas, The Criterion(Free!) (B)
S. Lewis, Miracles: A Preliminary Study(B)
Craig Keener, Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts(My recommendation) (I)

POSITIVE GENERAL APOLOGETICS:

(Note: I focused on the Moral Argument. Other arguments are featured in these recommendations. Again, for a complete recommendation list, go here.)

S. Lewis, Mere Christianity(B)
Craig and Copan, eds., Contending with Christianity’s Critics(B)
William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith(I)
David Baggett and Marybeth Baggett, The Morals of the Story: Good News About a Good God(My recommendation) (I)

POSITIVE BIBLICAL APOLOGETICS:

S. Lewis, “Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism”(Free!) (B)
Edmund Bennett, The Four Gospels from a Lawyer’s Standpoint(Free!) (B)
F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?(B)
William Paley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity(Free!) (B)
John James Blunt, Undesigned Coincidences(Free!) (B)
Samuel Tregelles, Historic Evidence of the New Testament(Free!) (B)
Eddy and Boyd, The Jesus Legend(I)
Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Wallace, Reinventing Jesus(B)
Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament(My recommendation) (I)
Brant Pitre, The Case for Jesus(My recommendation) (B)
Lydia McGrew,Hidden in Plain View (B)
Peter J. Williams, Can We Trust the Gospels?(My recommendation) (B)

DEFENSIVE BIBLICAL APOLOGETICS:

Richard Watson, An Apology for the Bible(Free!) (B)
Paul Copan,Is God a Moral Monster? (B)
Joseph Butler, The Analogy of Religion(Free!) (I)
F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament(Free!) (I)
Köstenberger and Kruger, The Heresy of Orthodoxy(I)
Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties(B)
Geisler and Howe, The Big Book of Bible Difficulties(B)
Michael Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, 5 Volumes (B)

WHAT IF I’M ON A SERIOUS BUDGET?

You could load up on all the freebies still, and that would keep you reading for months. But if you had about $100 and just want to get started as easily as possible while covering all the main topics, I’d recommend:

William Lane Craig, On Guard (A beginner’s version of Reasonable Faith)
CS Lewis, Mere Christianity
Brant Pitre, The Case for Jesus
Lydia McGrew,Hidden in Plain View
Greg Koukl, Tactics
John Lennox, Has Science Buried God?
Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster?
Clay Jones, Why Does God Allow Evil?

Jesus: The Greater Moses

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

An untrained eye might miss it, but the Old Testament, properly read, points to Jesus. From Genesis forward, we see reference after reference to a coming Messiah who would one day crush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15).

Certainly the covenants with both Abraham (Gen. 12, 15, 17) and David (2 Sam. 7) point to a coming Messiah, but it’s another covenant mediator I want to draw our attention to — Moses. Outside of Abraham, Moses is probably the most significant figure in the Old Testament, because it was through Moses that God gave his Law to the nation of Israel.

As special as Moses was, though, God promised Israel that he would send another prophet who was going to be just as, if not more, significant than Moses himself.

The Promise of A Future Prophet Like Moses

As Israel approached the end of its forty years in the wilderness, God made a promise to them about a future prophet to come. We read Moses’ words in Deuteronomy 18:

The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him… The LORD said to me: “I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him” (v. 15-18).

I can only imagine that at this moment, Israel was fearful of what they were going to do after Moses departed. After all, the people relied on Moses to hear from God as they didn’t dare approach Him themselves. But what would a prophet like Moses look like? Numbers 12:6-8 gives us a clue. The text reads:

Listen to my words: “When there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, reveal myself to them in visions, I speak to them in dreams. But this is not true of my servant Moses; he is faithful in all my house. With him, I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the LORD.”

Notice the LORD’s words here in response to Miram and Aaron’s complaints about Moses. The LORD says that Moses is not only a prophet; he’s an exulted prophet. Other prophets only get dreams or visions from God. But Moses can see God and speak with him face to face.

Did the Future Prophet Come?

Before we can answer this question, I need to address Mosaic authorship briefly. I realize several folks reject that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, but I am not one of them. After all, it seems as if Jesus was persuaded of Mosaic authorship (Jn. 5:46-47; Mk. 10:3-5; 7:10; 12:26; Mt. 8:4; Lk. 16:29).

Nobody, however, disputes that someone else wrote the end of the Pentateuch which describes Moses’ death. While the dating of the end of the Pentateuch isn’t clear cut, most commentators lean toward the post-exilic era (between 500-400 BC). Meaning, whoever wrote the ending did so about 1,000 years after Moses. We know it wasn’t soon after Moses because the author tells us that no one even knows where Moses’ body is buried (Deuteronomy. 34:6).

I raise this authorship and dating issue because the person who penned Deuteronomy 34 wasn’t convinced that the prophet like Moses had come yet. Verses 10-12 state:

Since then (the time of Moses), no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face, who did all those signs and wonders the LORD sent him to do in Egypt — to Pharaoh and to all his officials and to his whole land. For no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of Israel.

As far as the author of Deuteronomy 34 goes, the prophet promised in Deuteronomy 18 had yet to come. Even great prophets like Elijah, Elisha, or Isaiah didn’t make the cut. No, Israel still waited patiently for the prophet who would communicate with God face to face, speak the very words of God, and perform public miracles. Certain prophets had met some of the criteria, but none had met all of them.

Jesus: The Prophet Like Moses

It’s no wonder that so many first-century Jews expected the Messiah to be the great Prophet. After Jesus fed the 5,000, we read in John 6:14, “After the people saw the sign Jesus performed, they began to say, “Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world.” In other words, these people recognized that the author of Deuteronomy 34 was correct. A prophet like Moses had yet to come at that point. But he’s here now!

Peter makes the connection abundantly clear in Acts 3. While preaching to a crowd in Jerusalem, Peter proclaimed:

Now, fellow Israelites, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Messiah would suffer. Repent, then, and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord…and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. For Moses said, The Lord, your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you.

Of course, this Jewish audience would have been familiar with Deuteronomy 18. Peter emphatically tells the crowd that the great Prophet like Moses has finally come. It’s Jesus of Nazareth.

After all, Jesus meets all the criteria. As the Son of God, he’s the only one who had communicated with God face-to-face. As John 1:18 tells us, “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship to the Father.” Furthermore, he not only communicated the very words of God; he was the Word of God incarnate (Jn. 1). And, of course, his public miracles are well documented.

Similarities Between Jesus And Moses

The prophecy of Deuteronomy 18 states that the coming prophet would be like Moses. But in what sense? Consider some of the similarities now:

Both were born under death decree (Ex. 1-2; Mt. 2:16-18).

Both escape into the heart of Egypt (Ex. 2; Mt. 2:13-15).

Both are described in detail in four books, beginning with their births and ending with their deaths (Exodus—Deuteronomy; Matthew—John).

Both were covenant mediators (Moses of the Old, Jesus of the New).

Both gave or received instruction on a mountain (Ex. 20; Mt. 5-7)

Both are transfigured on a mountain (Ex. 34:29-35; Mk. 9:2-13)

Both are isolated for 40 days without food or water (Ex. 34:28; Mt. 4:2)

Both are rebelled against by Israelites (Num. 16; Lk. 22-23).

Truly, Jesus was the prophet like Moses.

Differences Between Jesus And Moses

Despite their similarities, it’s their differences that matter the most. Consider these two:

First, like any prophet, Moses repeatedly said, “thus saith the LORD.” The LORD had communicated to him in some form or fashion, and he then communicated those same words to the people.

Jesus, on the other hand, never used the phrase “thus saith the LORD.” Instead, he said something radical — “truly, truly, I say unto you.” In other words, Jesus didn’t need to receive a word from the LORD because he was the LORD himself! Jesus spoke with authority, unlike any other prophet — including Moses.

Second, God accepted Jesus’ atoning sacrifice but not Moses’. In Exodus 32, after Israel sinned by worshipping the golden calf, God was going to consume them. Moses, however, sought to spare the people by offering up himself as an atoning sacrifice. We read in verses 30-33:

The next day Moses said to the people, You have sinned a great sin. And now I will go up to the LORD; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin. So Moses returned to the LORD and said, Alas, this people has sinned a great sin. They have made for themselves gods of gold. But now, if you will forgive their sin — but if not, please blot me out of your book that you have written. But the LORD said to Moses, Whoever has sinned against me, I will blot out of my book.

Even at this early stage, Moses recognized atonement must be made for Israel’s sins, and thus he offers up himself! But God rejected his offer. After all, Moses himself was just a man — a sinful one at that. He couldn’t possibly atone for the people’s sins.

But Jesus could. Being divine and sinless, Jesus could bear the sins of the world. And unlike Moses, God accepted Jesus’ sacrifice and demonstrated his acceptance by raising him from the dead.

So, while Jesus was a prophet like Moses, he was certainly greater.

Jesus Is Greater Than Moses

The author of Hebrews saw this comparison and didn’t hesitate to elevate Jesus above Moses. His words seem an appropriate ending to this article:

Therefore, holy brothers and sisters, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, whom we acknowledge as our apostle and high priest. He was faithful to the one who appointed him, just as Moses was faithful in all God’s house. Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses, just as the builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself. For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything. “Moses was faithful as a servant in all God’s house,” bearing witness to what would be spoken by God in the future. But Christ is faithful as the Son over God’s house (Heb. 3:1-5).

Did Jesus Really Claim to Be God?

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

Sometimes you’ll hear Muslim apologists and other skeptics of Christianity ask, “Where does Jesus say, ‘I am God, worship me’”? You won’t find Jesus using those words anywhere in the New Testament documents. Instead, we read Jesus kept calling Himself “The Son of Man.” On the face of it, that sounds more human than divine. Is that right? Did Jesus really claim to be God in words and actions other than “I am God, worship me”? And if He did claim to be God, why wasn’t He more overt about it? Why not just come out and say it plainly?

Frank invites Crossexamined.org board member, and budding apologist, Ryan Crews to the show to answer those questions and more. Join them for a fascinating discussion about the self-identity of Jesus, and how to answer objections to the divinity of Jesus.

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

January 13, 2020/by Guest

How Jeremiah 29:11 is Far Better When You Properly Interpret It

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

Certain verses in the Bible have become so popularized that they are often removed from their context. In so doing, the biblical passage loses the impact that it holds. Worse yet, the text may be given a message that it never intended to carry. Jeremiah 29:11 is one such example.

The verse is a promise of God which states, “For I know the plans I have for you’—this is the Lord’s declaration—‘plans for your well-being, not for disaster, to give you a future and a hope’” (Jer. 29:11, CSB). The verse has been often misapplied as it has become a staple for graduation Hallmark cards, plaques, and knick-knacks. For some, the verse holds a promise that God will never allow the person to suffer bad experiences or trouble. The graduate who receives such things may think that God will only bring good things to his or her life. But is that really what the passage says? Proper biblical interpretation unveils three theological truths that exceed the kitschy cliché that the verse has become.

Jeremiah 29:11 Indicates that God Can Be Found in Difficult Days. It is critically important to note that Jeremiah 29:11 is part of Jeremiah’s letter to the Israelites who would become Babylonian exiles. This is key to understanding the context of the verse. If the interpreter misses this point, he or she will not comprehend the nature of the verse. Quite frankly, I do not know that anyone would want this to be their graduation theme because God is telling the nation that they are about to experience difficult days ahead.

Living in an era of self-entitlement and luxury, it is easy to think that God will only bring good things to our lives. We almost view God as if he is a self-improvement coach rather than a Heavenly Father. Perhaps some would even like God better if God were the former rather than the latter. Nevertheless, God never promises that a believer’s walk will be easy. Rather, God promises us that God’s presence will never leave us in good times or bad. If you continue reading the text, God tells those who are about to suffer the exile, “You will call me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you search for me with all your heart” (Jer. 29:12–13, CSB). God’s presence is always with his children (Matt. 28:20).

Jeremiah 29:11 Indicates that God is Sovereign Over the Good Times and Bad. Jeremiah 29:11 is comparable to Romans 8:28 in the fact that the prophet holds that God is sovereign over all times and occasions. Why does God allow evil to occur? This issue, otherwise called theodicy, is beyond the scope of this present article. However, it must be understood that God may allow bad things to occur to bring about a greater end.

I spoke with a church member today about the book of Job and the primary theological theme of the book. God tells Job that he must trust him because he set everything in motion since the beginning of creation. Life and the operation of the universe are far more complex than anyone could imagine. In a similar fashion, God is telling the soon-to-be Babylonian exiles the same, saying, “Trust me.” The author of Hebrews notes that one should not “take the Lord’s discipline lightly or lose heart when you are reproved by him, the Lord disciplines the one he loves and punishes every son he receives. Endure suffering as discipline: God is dealing with you as sons” (Heb. 12:5–7, CSB). When divine discipline comes, it is never to harm us. But rather, God’s discipline is always to make us better. Psalm 94 notes that a person is blessed when they receive the Lord’s discipline because they are being taught how to keep the law (Ps. 94:12, ESV). God even tells Jacob, “Fear not … for I am with you. I will make a full end of all the nations to which I have driven you, but of you, I will not make a full end. I will discipline you in just measure, and I will by no means leave you unpunished” (Ps. 118:18, ESV). The people of Jeremiah’s day had not been faithful which led to God’s disciplinary actions. However, God notes that God is still sovereign in the bad times as he is in the good times. He is telling the people, “Trust me.”

Jeremiah 29:11 Indicates that God Will Bless His Faithful Children in the End. Here again, Jeremiah 29:11 can be likened to Romans 8:28 which states, “We know that all things work together for the good of those who love God, who are called according to his purpose” (Rom. 8:28, CSB). In like manner, God tells those who would be exiled, “I will restore your fortunes and gather you from all the nations and places where I banished you … I will restore you to the place from which I deported you” (Jer. 29:14, CSB). While the people would face severe difficulty in their days ahead, they could live with the assurance that God would restore the fortunes of their people and their land. Similarly, we are part of the community of God’s people. We do not always get things right. Quite honestly, we probably mess up more than do right. Nonetheless, God has a better day coming for his children—a day where there will be no more tears, no more pain, no more heartache, no more divisions, and no more death (Rev. 21:3–4). Most importantly, that day will be a time where there will be no more separation from God (Rev. 22:4–5). Our faith will be sight (2 Cor. 5:7).

Jeremiah 29:11 is a wonderful verse. But the depth of its theological mines cannot be dug unless one takes the time to understand the verse in its proper context. While it may not be that this verse will be as desirable to place on graduation cards as it once was, the verse becomes more intense and stronger especially when troubles come. God’s ultimate plan for our lives is to bring great blessings. But those blessings may often become shrouded in the heartaches of life. By placing us in the pressures of life, God makes us into diamonds.

Living In A Post-Truth Culture

1. Does Truth Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

I’ve made the case that truth, goodness, and beauty are objective features of the world we live in. Hopefully, you’ve found that to be interesting. But please don’t think this is just an esoteric triviality. It’s not. We are living in a post-truth culture. But it’s a place where the objective nature of truth, goodness, and beauty are deeply relevant. Our view of objective truth affects everything about how we live our lives. It’s the antidote to moral relativism. Truth matters. And understanding the profundity of that simple fact will revolutionize the way you interact with our world.

Here’s why.

The Assumptions of the Culture

Consider the three topics I’ve been talking about. And think about how you’re used to hearing about them:

Truth — “That may be true for you, but it’s not for me.”

Goodness — “Don’t impose your morality on me!”

Beauty — “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”

Despite thousands of years of human knowledge and experience, our contemporary culture has made every one of these subjective. Suddenly, they’ve each become things we decide for ourselves.

In fact, if you were to express the notion that anyone of these is not subjective, you would be considered arrogant. Oppressive. A Neanderthal who wants to impose your personal values on the rest of the world.

Who are you to do that?!

The World Turned Upside Down

This is cultural relativism. A place where we are supposed to accept the idea that everyone’s opinion about every topic is equally valid.

And remember that pesky definition of truth as: “correspondence to reality”? That’s out the window. The new normal tells us that our highest calling is to “be true to ourselves.”

But what does that mean, exactly?

Follow Your Heart

When your standard for truth and virtue is the person you see in the bathroom mirror, it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to see what’s coming. Feelings rule. You are encouraged to “follow your heart.” And following your heart means you evaluate reality based on emotion instead of reason and logic.

If it feels good, you do it.

“If it makes you happy, it can’t be that bad …”

Sheryl Crow

Conforming to reality becomes passé. An archaic inconvenience.

But there is a problem with that. And the problem is that the “persistent belief in something that does not conform to reality” is called a delusion.

Our culture has elevated delusion to an art form.

Philosophy Is About The Real World

It turns out that the whole discussion of truth, goodness, and beauty is more than the hobby of navel-gazing philosophers. These things have real-world consequences. Ideas always do. Good or bad, we live in a world where those ideas will play themselves out.

And so, we see the consequences of bad thinking in our politics and in the family and community relationships on which our politics depend. We read about them in the news — and in the “fake news” generated at both ends of the political spectrum. We suffer the repercussions of denying reality in our economics. And our children and grandchildren will — quite literally — pay the price for those willful delusions.

Most of all, we see it in the glorification of sexual autonomy that has infiltrated every corner of our culture. Denying reality is at the core of issues like abortion, sexual libertinism, transgenderism, and same-sex behavior. Defending each of them is nothing but a persistent delusion.

Faith Communities Are Not Immune

The Church is most certainly not immune to the corrosive acid of bad thinking. The vacuous nonsense you can find in the Word-Faith Movement, Universalism, and so-called “Progressive” Christianity is proof enough of that. And every societal ill listed above has also found its way into the church.

But when you boil it all down, the problems we see in our culture are nothing new. In fact, they’re as old as mankind. The denial of truth, goodness, and beauty started soon after we came on the scene. The Fall of Man was simply the first instance where human beings made the free-will decision to exchange the truth of God for a lie. Since then, we’ve only pushed the limits of that futile exercise even further.

The good news is that the antidote to bad thinking has always been the same. Seek truth in all its forms. Then align your life with it.

The Church should never be a safe space for bad ideas. It must be a place where people are treated with gentleness and respect, but also a place where corrupted thinking goes to die.

Tag Archive for: apologetics

A Different Kind of Persuasion

Give ’em Pause

Have Conversations, not Debates

Show Truth and Goodness

Reflection and Persuasion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Failing Forward

The Problem: Info Overload

Starting Where I Was At

Setting the Right Goals

“Bringing Out of His Treasure What Is New and What Is Old”

DR. TIM MCGREW’S READING LIST

CONVERSATIONAL APOLOGETICS:

THE CHALLENGE OF SCIENCE

THE INCREDIBILITY OF MIRACLES

POSITIVE GENERAL APOLOGETICS:

POSITIVE BIBLICAL APOLOGETICS:

DEFENSIVE BIBLICAL APOLOGETICS:

WHAT IF I’M ON A SERIOUS BUDGET?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Promise of A Future Prophet Like Moses

Did the Future Prophet Come?

Jesus: The Prophet Like Moses

Similarities Between Jesus And Moses

Differences Between Jesus And Moses

Jesus Is Greater Than Moses

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Assumptions of the Culture

The World Turned Upside Down

Follow Your Heart

Philosophy Is About The Real World

Faith Communities Are Not Immune

Recommended resources related to the topic: