Tag Archive for: apologetics

What’s an easy way to do evangelism? With Dr. Rice Broocks

About 70% of young people leave the church after they leave home, and only 3% of churches grow through evangelism. Why aren’t we sharing the world’s most important truth? One reason is that we simply don’t know how to share the truth without sounding like a religious nut. It’s awkward in our culture. But there’s an easy way to share Christ.

Dr. Rice Broocks, author of God’s Not Dead (the book that inspired the movie), joins Frank along with Addison Tweedy of ThinkEvangelism.org, to show you the SALT method of sharing the world’s most important truth.

Start a conversation

Ask questions

Listen

Tell the story

It’s time to be salt and light with the SALT method. There’s even an app that will help you do this. Go to the app store and download “The God Test”. You can also invite Rice, Addison, or someone from their team, to your church by going to www.ThinkEvangelism.org.

In the second half of the show, Frank answers a question about how to answer a scientist who won’t trust the Bible because she says that the Bible teaches that the earth is young.

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 14, 2019/by Guest

5 Steps Every Christian Should Take When Talking with Skeptics about Miracles

3. Are Miracles Possible?, Atheism

By Jeremy Linn

When talking with skeptics about the resurrection of Jesus, it seems obvious to go straight to the historical evidence for the resurrection. But for many skeptics, there is an intellectual barrier that needs to be broken down before historical evidence can even be considered.

The barrier is: A strong skepticism towards miracles.

I came across this barrier in a discussion I had with a skeptic about Jesus’ resurrection. When the discussion began, I immediately started talking about historical sources that provide the best evidence for the resurrection. The skeptic responded back with a request for empirical evidence in order to show an event like the resurrection – a miracle – could actually happen.

At this point, I knew we would need to talk about miracles before getting any further in our discussion about historical evidence. I requested permission to turn the conversation towards miracles. When the skeptic agreed, I ran through five steps – all of which are important to incorporate conversations with skeptics about the topic of miracles:

1. Define what you’re talking about

Both people involved in a discussion need to agree on the definition of keywords they will use in the discussion before significant progress can be made in the discussion. With the topic of miracles, a keyword that needs to be defined is, of course, “miracle.” The agreed-upon definition of miracle will impact discussion on the possibility of them occurring, evidence needed to verify them, and other topics that could come up in the course of conversation.

In my discussion with a skeptic, I asked immediately for a definition of a miracle, knowing the definition would impact the rest of our discussion. The skeptic did not have a definition for a miracle in mind and asked me to provide my own definition. He agreed to use my understanding of miracles – which involves natural laws as we understand today being altered or broken into by a supernatural force – as a starting point for our discussion.

2. Understand what evidence is required by the skeptic

With the definition of “miracle” set, it’s now time to understand what type and degree of evidence for a miracle the skeptic would require. This step provides an excellent opportunity to listen as you ask a question like, “What evidence would you need in order to be convinced that a miracle occurred?” The key here is to understand and ask clarifying questions if needed, rather than to assess or go on the attack.

In my conversation with a skeptic, it took a while to get to the specifics of what “convincing evidence” for a miracle would look like. For this skeptic, the only acceptable evidence would be repeatable events, tested and verified by a team of scientists multiple times under the same conditions. Now I understood exactly what evidence would be required for the skeptic, and could continue on to the next step.

3. Assess if the required level of evidence is reasonable

This step helps you determine which direction to take at this point in the discussion. If the skeptic’s requirement for evidence exceeds a level that is reasonable or even possible, then the skeptic likely won’t be convinced no matter what evidence is presented. In that case, it may not be worth continuing discussion about evidence for miracles. Instead, the discussion may need to turn to the nature of evidence itself.

In my discussion, I didn’t know exactly how to assess the requirement for a team of scientists to repeatedly test miracle events – it’s a requirement I had never heard before. But upon later reflection, it became clear that the requirement in not reasonable. If a repeatable event was tested and verified by groups of scientists over time, that event would be considered by the skeptic to be a natural event – not a miraculous one. Thus, the potential for miracles is immediately ruled out by the skeptic’s requirement.

4. Provide any case examples that could satisfy the requirement of evidence

If the skeptic does provide a requirement for evidence that appears reasonable, then you can provide some case examples which may satisfy the requirement. There are a few ways to approach this part of the discussion. One way is to bring up a miracle account that is based on eyewitness testimony and ask how the skeptic would explain the details of the account. Many eyewitness accounts are provided in books like Miracles by Craig Keener and The Case for Miracles by Lee Strobel. For another idea, you could point the skeptic to miracle accounts that include medical documentation people can view for themselves, such as the miracle story of Sean George.

In my discussion with a skeptic, I didn’t provide specific miracles examples since I didn’t come prepared with examples. That is one thing I would change in my next discussion about any topic related to miracles – to have specific examples written down or memorized so they can be used when needed.

5. Don’t expect the evidence will immediately convince the skeptic

This “step” may be more of a principle to keep in mind as you enter into a discussion about miracles. Even if a skeptic requests a specific level of evidence, and you provide satisfactory examples, don’t expect the skeptic to suddenly embrace the miraculous. Factors beyond evidence can hold someone back from accepting the reality of miracles – factors like a naturalistic bias, a difficult emotional experience in the past, or a negative perception of the supernatural.

Ultimately, God is the one to change someone’s mind and heart regarding spiritual topics such as miracles. We have a role to play in this process, but our goal is not to convince a skeptic by our own power. Our goal is to listen, to understand, and to be open to God using us in leading a skeptic one step closer to the truth.

There Is No Rise Unless He Is Risen

3. Are Miracles Possible?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Alex McElroy

If you are creating a building, the structure is important, but the foundation is most important. If a rock goes through the window, it can be replaced. If there is a leak in the roof, it can be patched. However, if there is a crack in the foundation, the building will be condemned. The foundation is the most vital part of the structure. In the Christian worldview, that foundation is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. What happens if that foundation is removed? Would Christianity exist without it? The answer is no. Christianity would not have expanded if the earliest and closest followers of Jesus weren’t certain that He was no longer dead but alive. There is no rise in Christianity if He is not risen.

It often seems like skeptics feel that simply disbelieving in or disagreeing with the resurrection is enough to invalidate it. I was with Vince Vitale, Director of RZIM (Ravi Zacharias International Ministries), and heard him say, “Disagreement is ok but disagreement without an alternative is empty.” Because Christianity does exist many have engaged in revisionist history to explain away the obvious reasons, among which are that people who knew Jesus Christ believed that they had encountered a risen Christ days after they saw Him die. The underlying premise being, we know there was no resurrection, so why did these Jewish men make up this claim and start a new religion? The fact is – they wouldn’t. The first-century Jews who became the earliest followers of Christ, later called Christians at Antioch had nothing to gain by ‘inventing’ a religion.

The non-Christian may assume that they wanted a Messiah so badly that they picked this guy, Jesus. However, the Jewish people were good with God. They thought of themselves as God’s chosen nation. Nobody makes up a conspiracy in order to have a worse life full of familial abandonment, torture, financial struggle, and eventual martyrdom.

Therefore, the question isn’t just ‘did Jesus Christ rise from the grave’ but why does Christianity exist at all? The rise of Christianity is foundationally centered on the claim that Jesus is risen. Christians didn’t create an event and then write about it. The event created Christians.

Is He Risen

In The Case For The Resurrection of Jesus, Prof. Gary Habermas writes, “There is a virtual consensus among scholars who study Jesus’ resurrection that, subsequent to Jesus’ death by crucifixion, his disciples really believed that he appeared to them risen from the dead. This conclusion has been reached by
data that suggest that (1) the disciples themselves claimed that the risen Jesus had appeared to them, and (2) subsequent to Jesus’ death by crucifixion, his disciples were radically transformed from fearful, cowering individuals who denied and abandoned him at his arrest and execution into bold proclaimers of the gospel of the risen Lord. They remained steadfast in the face of imprisonment, torture, and martyrdom. It is very clear that they sincerely believed that Jesus rose from the dead.”

In first Corinthians, a letter that even the harshest critics and the most liberal theologians agree is most assuredly a Pauline epistle, the Apostle Paul writes, “Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that, He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remains to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that, He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all, He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.”

When people lie, they don’t place such an enormous burden of proof on themselves as Paul did. Paul claims that as he is writing, there are close to five hundred people alive and well who can verify or refute his statement. Furthermore, this passage is an early Christian creed who some say can be dated to within 8 months of Jesus’ crucifixion.

The Rise Occurs Because He Is Risen

This brings us to what is probably the most difficult issue for the skeptic to explain away. Why was this belief in Christ being God in the flesh and the savior of the world being preached from Jerusalem to Rome before any New Testament documents existed? In almost all other religions, the text creates the followers. Think of the Book of Mormon, the Quran (although Mohammed did have adherents before his death), or the Sutras and The Tripitaka. The earliest Christians had no text to follow because none had yet been composed. However, Christianity spread far and wide in spite of that.

Furthermore, why were people who knew Jesus in the flesh and would certainly have recognized if someone else was impersonating Him be willing to die for their belief that they had seen, encountered, ate with and learned from a risen Christ? Not just to die, but to die in horrible ways.

Additionally, the geographic distance that separated the earliest and closest followers of Jesus prevented them from knowing if their peers had given up “the lie.” All of them died a martyr’s death in places such as India, Africa, Italy, and other territories, fully convinced that the message they were sharing was true. Under the torture and oppression that each of them experienced, someone would have caved had this actually been a conspiracy.

Jesus’ claim was also easily falsifiable, which means that Christianity could easily have been stamped out at the outset. All the Sanhedrin or Jewish authorities had to do was go to His tomb, get His body, and drag it through the streets. The only logical reason why they didn’t do this is because His body wasn’t there. This has caused some to speculate that the body was stolen or that He wasn’t fully dead and somehow got up at night moved the boulder and walked out of His tomb, a beaten and bloodied mess. And that he did this in front of Roman guards. This seems unlikely at best.

If He Is Risen

I understand that belief in a bodily resurrection can be difficult. However, if we compile the evidence as any good detective would do and that evidence points to the most reasonable explanation being a bodily resurrection (assuming one does not have an unfounded disbelief in the miraculous), it seems logical to accept what the evidence suggests. Here, that is that Jesus of Nazareth walked out of His tomb alive and well.

Some may not like the implications of the fact of the resurrection. If Jesus did rise from the grave, solidifying His claim of being our Savior and God incarnate, then that means He deserves our love, loyalty, and life. Much more evidence could and has been offered through a myriad of historians and theologians, but many still remain unconvinced. At the end of the day, belief in a risen Christ may not be a head issue, but a heart issue.

Why the Gospel of Thomas isn’t in the Bible

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

There’s a common refrain among liberal scholars that says the church suppressed dozens of Gospels. The reason they say? It’s because those books share scandalous information about Jesus that the church wanted to hide. They didn’t want the world to know sketchy details like Jesus tortured other kids as a child or that he had a wife.

Of all these “suppressed” Gospels, far and away the poster child is the Gospel of Thomas. Liberal scholars such as John Dominic Crossan and Elaine Pagels faun over this work. The Jesus Seminar even published a book titled The Five Gospels, which includes the canonical four-plus Thomas.

Yet there’s a bit of irony here. If these scholars would treat the canonical Gospels with half the amount of charity they give to Thomas, they’d all be Christians! Instead, they date Thomas very early and the canonical Gospels late. They claim Thomas’ view of Jesus is reliable, while the canonical Gospels contain myths and legends.

By contrast, I’m going to demonstrate, in the remaining pace, that the Gospel of Thomas is unreliable, was never considered as Scripture by the early church, and thus shouldn’t be included in our canon.

The Gospel of Thomas

In 1945, some farmers in Nag Hammadi Egypt were digging and came across an earthenware jar in the ground. The farmers, hoping to find treasure, were deeply disappointed when they found a bunch of texts instead. Little did they know those texts would be more valuable than any treasure they could hope to find.

Among the cache of texts was one that begins, “These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down,” and ends with “The Gospel According to Thomas.”

Unlike the canonical Gospels, Thomas doesn’t follow a narrative structure. It doesn’t report major parts of Jesus’ life — his birth, death, and resurrection. Instead, Thomas contains 114 esoteric sayings of Jesus, purporting to record the secrets Jesus taught to his disciples.

Canonical Attributes

Before we can answer why Thomas doesn’t belong in the canon, we need to know what the early church looked for in a canonical book. In sum, the church looked for three different attributes — apostolic authority, divine qualities, and corporate reception.1 These three attributes formed a type of canonical grid by which to test a book.

By apostolic authority, the church only received books that could be traced to apostolic eye-witness testimony. This would include books written by both apostles and their close associates. For example, the church obviously received John’s writings because he was one of the apostles. But they also received Mark, based on the fact that he was Peter’s close associate.

By divine qualities, the church looked for books that gave evidence of God’s fingerprints. One such piece of evidence was consistency with other authoritative books. Since Christians believe the Holy Spirit inspired all the biblical texts, they knew none of them would contradict each other.

By corporate reception, the church only received books that the universal church also received as authoritative. In other words, if only one pocket of Christianity affirmed the authority of a book, that book was rejected. The reception had to stretch across all of Christendom.

So does the Gospel of Thomas possess these canonical attributes? Let’s test it by putting it through the canonical grid.

Apostolic Authority?

Did an apostle or close associate write the Gospel of Thomas? In a word, no. In fact, the consensus among scholarship is that the book dates to the middle of the second century — long after the apostles had died out. That is to say, Jesus’ disciple Thomas did not write this book.

A few reasons exist for dating this work late into the second century. First, the text reflects a type of Gnosticism (more on that in a minute) that wasn’t prevalent until the middle second century.2

Additionally, the Gospel of Thomas demonstrates a deep dependance on large parts of the New Testament. It quotes or alludes to all four Gospels, Acts, most of Paul’s letters, and Revelation.3 Only someone who had access to all these works could pen this work, and we know that it took time for these works to circulate the Roman Empire.

Even more, some scholars suggest that Thomas relied heavily on the Diatessaron — a four Gospel harmony produced by Tatian around AD 170.4 If that’s the case, Thomas dates even later.

Even if Thomas is independent of the Diatessaron, it’s mid-second century dating would have ruled it out for canonical consideration. Take the Shepherd of Hermas — a mid-second century work — for example. The early church loved this book. But as the Muratorian Fragment states, the church rejected its canonical authority because it was written “quite recently, in our own times,” and thus not backed by apostolic authority.5

Strike one for Thomas.

Divine Qualities?

What about divine qualities? Does Thomas show God’s fingerprints and align with other authoritative books? Again, the answer is no. Thomas was one of several Gnostic texts in the Nag Hammadi discovery.

Gnosticism was polytheistic. It taught that the god who created the world was evil, and by extension, his entire creation was evil too. Salvation, then, was the liberation of the soul from the physical realm into a spiritual realm. One can achieve this salvation only through a secret knowledge (gnosis in Greek).

This secret knowledge, according to the Gnostics, comes from Jesus. Of course, Jesus was radically different from the god of the Old Testament. Jesus was a warm and inviting god while the one of the Old Testament was hostile and angry.

Furthermore, since everything physical is evil, Jesus didn’t really have a physical body. He only appeared to have a human body, and thus he didn’t die on the cross — a view known as Docetism.

The Gospel of Thomas makes no qualms about its Gnostic leanings with all its emphasis on learning the secrets of Jesus. The prologue begins, “These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke.” Moreover, the first saying states, “Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death.” Again, the Gnostic salvation came through obtaining a secret knowledge.

Of course, the early church rejected Gnosticism as heretical. Orthodoxy taught salvation by faith. Thomas taught salvation came through knowledge of secret information.

Thomas also veers away from orthodoxy in how it views women. At the close of the book, Jesus states, “Look, I will guide her (Mary) to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven.”

This statement clearly contradicts how Jesus views women in the canonical Gospels. Furthermore, it contradicts Genesis 1, which declares that God made both men and women in his image. Thus, women are not inferior, as the Gospel of Thomas suggests.

Strike two for Thomas.

Corporate Reception?

Did the universal church affirm the authority of Thomas? There’s not a shred of evidence to suggest that it did. If you think about it, since Thomas lacks the first two attributes — apostolic authority and divine qualities — the early church had no motivation to think it was Scripture.

Their rejection of this book is evidenced in two ways. First, the early church never includes Thomas in any of its early canonical lists. In all the lists, we have four, and only four, Gospels.

Second, the church specifically rejected Thomas as heretical. Meaning, it didn’t even come close. This rejection is contrasted with other books, like the Shepherd of Hermas or the Didache, that at least gained a hearing. The church enjoyed these books as they promoted Christian orthodoxy, but as I alluded to earlier, the church didn’t receive them as Scripture because they lacked apostolic authority.

Thomas was so far out in left field that it wasn’t even up for discussion. Eusebius, for example, includes Thomas in the “heretical books” section and suggests that it “ought not to be reckoned even among the spurious books but discarded as impious and absurd.”6

Strike three for Thomas.

The Gospel of Thomas Rejected

Despite the best efforts of some, Thomas doesn’t even come close to Scripture. It wasn’t backed by apostolic authority. Its contents contradict the orthodox texts. And the church never even came close to considering it as authoritative.

Unlike the real Thomas, we have good reasons to doubt here.

What Makes Something Right or Wrong?

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

Is it just human opinion? Are values just subjective preferences or is there a really objective standard of rightness, goodness, and justice beyond us?

This show delves into questions on morality and others you’ve emailed to Frank such as:

What moral standard are political parties using when they address the conflict between so-called LGBTQ rights and religious rights?
Do rights come from God or the government?
What kind of God does the moral argument prove? Could it be a pantheistic God?
What is the true nature of love?
Did Moses really write the first five books of the Bible?

Frank also responds to a couple of amazing letters, one from a divorced woman and another from a pastor. You don’t want to miss this one!

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

Transcript

September 7, 2019/by Guest

Respectfully Engaging with Hindus

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Mikel Del Rosario

Let’s talk about respectfully engaging with Hindus. Why? More than a billion people around the world say they’re Hindus. That’s about 15 percent of the world. So if you haven’t met someone at least interested in some aspect of Hindu culture, you may soon. The more we engage with our neighbors, the more we see that religion is a core part of many people’s lives. I like how Win Corduan once said, “Loving our neighbors means getting to know them. And getting to know them means getting to know their religion.” We need discover what makes their religion attractive to them. Why did they convert? It they were born into it, what keeps them loyal?

At the Hendricks Center, we produced a Table podcast series focused on respectfully engaging with Hindus. I invited William Subash, who pastors Crossroad Church in Bangalore, India and teaches New Testament Studies at the South Asia Institute of Advanced Christian Studies to help us think through Hinduism and what respectful engagement looks like.

In this post, I’ll the answers to three questions we discussed: What compels Hindus to stay Hindus? What attracts non-Hindus to Hinduism? How can engaging with Hindus happen respectfully?

Respectfully Engaging with Hindus

Before engaging with Hindus, you might ask, “What exactly is Hinduism?” The diversity represented by Hinduism means you’re going to get a range of responses. And they vary widely depending on who you talk to. For example, many Indians see Hinduism as a group of people, rather than a religion. In this context, Hindu practices are linked to cultural and family loyalty. In India, where about 80% of the population is Hindu, you’ll find agnostics, atheists, and polytheists all identifying as Hindus. Subash explains:

Hinduism is a conglomeration of many religions, many world views that often change, adapt, but will never have one claim. Indian Hinduism is different from the Hinduism practiced in Central America or Singapore, for example.

What Keeps Hindus Loyal to Hinduism?

Many Hindus remain because of cultural loyalty. There’s unity amidst diversity, and anyone who leaves loses their spot in the caste system— That’s a huge deterrent. The caste system is something you’re born into, and it dictates who you can marry, who you can work for, and even who you can talk to. There’s discrimination that still goes on today. For example, marriages usually only happen within your caste. And this whole system is supported by Hindu Scriptures: The Bhagavad Gita is part of Mahabharata scripture, which is divided into 18 chapters which talk about various tenets of the caste-based religion. People who violate these rules or leave Hinduism are sometimes even murdered. Keep this in mind when engaging with Hindus, as rejecting deeply held beliefs can be seen as a serious form of defection. Subash says:

They can go to the extent of “honor killing” …When a person marries from one caste to another caste or one Hindu religion to another religion, it becomes a major issue.

Why Do People Convert to Hinduism?

Many non-Hindus like the pluralistic nature of Hinduism. It accommodates the beliefs of animists, polytheists, and others who are sensitive to spiritual realities. But something you might not initially expect to find when engaging with Hindus is that agnostic scientists, atheist philosophers, or naturalists fit in, too. Beyond this, some are also fascinated by the idea of becoming a god or realizing their own divinity. Subash notes:

The ultimate desire of educated Hindus is to realize that they are gods. They say Aham Brahmasmi, “I am God.” …People get attracted because their fate is not properly defined. It is very attractive. They say, “One day, I am going to be God.”

While many Hindus incorporate Jesus into their worldview, Christianity’s exclusive nature challenges the extent of Hindu inclusivism. Still, many Hindus have responded to the gospel demonstrated through compassionate Christians meeting medical and educational needs, especially for those in the lowest castes. Even the promise of divinity falls short, as Hindu gods also suffer from imperfections. Those who recognize their need for freedom from sin may also discover the biblical concepts of atonement and redemption absent from Hinduism and come to find freedom in Christ.

What Respectfully Engaging with Hindus Looks Like

Humbly ask questions

When it comes to engaging with Hindus, begin by building a relationship, asking questions, and then gently begin to discuss spiritual things. Ask questions that help you understand who the person is and why they do the things they do, and why they believe what they believe. Be very careful not to come off like you think you’re better than your Hindu friend. The only way to break the stereotype of the “proud, know-it-all, triumphalist Christian” when talking to our Hindu neighbors is to consistently demonstrate humility.

Listen to their answers openly and honestly, without rushing into apologetic arguments. As you listen, understand what they mean by any Christian-sounding terms like “God” or “salvation.” For example, some Hindus use the term “born again” in the context of reincarnation. So don’t just think about engaging with Hindus as Hindus. Remember, some are agnostics or atheists. So engage each person as an individual. Get a spiritual GPS on your friend, so you can empathize and really get where they’re coming from.

Humbly talk about Jesus

Since most Hindus love talking about spiritual things, talking about your faith or their spirituality may not be as awkward as you might expect. Many Hindus are actually interested in Jesus’ teachings—especially his teachings about money.

Take it slow. Don’t rush into a gospel presentation or begin by critiquing Hinduism. It can’t look like an “us versus them.” Despite the exclusive nature of Christianity, it is important to note that Jesus is inclusive. Jesus is for everyone, and you don’t need to give up your cultural or ethnic identity to follow him.

As you continue engaging with Hindus, gently tell your story and explain how you came to know Jesus’s love. Unlike a God who is an impersonal force, Jesus forgives everyone who repents. While some schools of Bhakti Hinduism might suggest a loose concept of grace, you can’t get forgiveness for sin in that context. But this shouldn’t be a cause for arrogance. Jesus didn’t claim to be the only way as a pride thing. It’s just that he’s the only one who can step into the human condition and deal with the sin problem we all have. Hindu deities have no righteousness to give us. How can they get rid of anyone’s bad karma?

Engaging with Hindus: Conclusion

Here’s what I want you to take away from this post on engaging with Hindus: While many remain loyal to Hinduism for cultural and social reasons, converts are attracted to its pluralistic, adaptable nature. Hinduism can accommodate a spectrum of views, from atheism to the idea that you can become a God one day. Still, some people recognize their struggle with imperfection and find true atonement or grace absent from Hinduism. Many Hindus have become Christians through real relationships and a personal encounter with Jesus. Engaging with Hindus requires courage and compassion. And it’s best done by following Jesus’ example of not only speaking the truth but loving people well.

Is It Biblical to Have an Evidential Faith?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

Is biblical faith blind or reasonable? This is one of the most hotly debated questions between believers and unbelievers. While most who say that faith is blind are unbelievers, I have also heard many Christians claim this as well. The claim is that faith and reason are at odds with one another and that the more evidence or reason that you have to believe something, the less faith that you need.

Is Faith Blind or Evidential?

In his book “Forensic Faith: A Homicide Detective Makes The Case For A More Reasonable Evidential Faith,” J. Warner Wallace emphasizes the evidential nature of Jesus’ ministry on earth. Jesus never asked people to believe His claims without a good reason to: the miracles that He performed. He performed miracles to demonstrate that His claims to be God (such as is found in His claim to be able to forgive sins in Matthew 9). Based on His followers’ witnessing His miracles (eyewitness evidence), He asked them to have faith in Him. This was not a request for blind faith, but an evidentially-based faith.

In the book, Wallace not only appeals to the entire ministry of Christ on earth but also to specific passages of Scripture where Jesus explicitly identifies this specific purpose for His miracles and where other New Testament authors also encouraged their readers to test claims:

John 10:25- “‘I did tell you, and you don’t believe,’ Jesus answered them. ‘The works that I do in My Father’s name testify about Me.'”

John 10:37-38- “If I am not doing My Father’s works, don’t believe Me. But if I am doing them and you don’t believe Me, believe the works.”

Acts 1:3- “After He had suffered, He also prested Himself alive to them by many convincing proofs, appearing to them during 40 days and speaking about the kingdom of God.”

1 Thessalonians 5:19-21- “Don’t stifle the Spirit. Don’t despise prophecies, but test all things. Hold on to what is good.”

1 John 4:1- “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”

These passages do not ask for someone to believe just anything based simply on the word of the person making the claim (“…because I said!”- a blind faith) but based on the actions of the person making the claim. Notice, too, that in the 1 Thessalonians and 1 John passages, the authors are so confident that the claims will pass evidential tests that they openly invite testing! None of these passages ask for blind faith; in fact, they encourage the exact opposite: a faith that is not blind rather a faith that is grounded in evidence and reason.

A Biblical Faith and The Resurrection

Biblical faith, correctly understood from Scripture, is not blind; it is tested and firmly grounded. In fact, today, we can test the central claim of Christianity: that Jesus rose bodily from the dead (1 Corinthians 15). As we investigate the evidence, based on tried and true investigative methods (as outlined in J. Warner Wallace‘s book “Cold-Case Christianity“) and historiographical methods (as outlined in Gary Habermas‘ books “The Historical Jesus” and “The Risen Jesus and Future Hope“), we discover that the only explanation that consistently explains all the evidence is that Jesus rose from the grave, as is claimed in the gospels.

Conclusion

Because this central claim passes the evidential test, faith in Christ is not blind or because “the Bible tells me so;” it is firmly grounded in proven methods used for discovering the truth of claimed events of the past. There simply is no reasonable reason to reject the Resurrection. While we certainly are free to reject the conclusion of the evidence and arguments, we should not fool ourselves into believing that the rejection is anything more than an emotional leap of blind faith despite evidence to the contrary.

What Christian Parents Should Learn from Marty Sampson Losing Faith

Apologetics for Parents

By Natasha Crain

My blog has been quiet since earlier this year because I was finishing my next book (Talking with Your Kids about Jesus; March 2020). Now that I’ve turned it into the publisher and my kids are heading back to school, it’s time to resume blogging!

I debated what my first post should be as I start back up, but decided there were some especially important things to address with the headlines this week about Marty Sampson of Hillsong United saying he’s losing his faith. Hillsong is one of the most popular worship bands today, and Sampson’s announcement has led to endless discussions on social media this week. Last month, a similar high-profile announcement was made by Joshua Harris, a pastor, and author known for his book, I Kissed Dating Goodbye.

If you haven’t seen it, here’s what Sampson posted on Instagram:

“Time for some real talk. I’m genuinely losing my faith, and it doesn’t bother me. Like, what bothers me now is nothing. I am so happy now, so at peace with the world. It’s crazy.

This is a soapbox moment so here I go… How many preachers fall? Many. No one talks about it. How many miracles happen. Not many. No one talks about it. Why is the Bible full of contradictions? No one talks about it. How can God be love yet send four billion people to a place, all ‘coz they don’t believe? No one talks about it. Christians can be the most judgmental people on the planet—they can also be some of the most beautiful and loving people. But it’s not for me.

I am not in any more. I want genuine truth. Not the “I just believe it” kind of truth. Science keeps piercing the truth of every religion. Lots of things help people change their lives, not just one version of God. Got so much more to say, but for me, I keeping it real. Unfollow if you want, I’ve never been about living my life for others.

All I know is what’s true to me right now, and Christianity just seems to me like another religion at this point. I could go on, but I won’t. Love and forgive absolutely. Be kind absolutely. Be generous and do good to others absolutely. Some things are good no matter what you believe. Let the rain fall, the sun will come up tomorrow.”

Some of the takeaways from Sampson’s announcement are obvious and have already been dissected ad nauseum this week (for example, no one should esteem Christian leaders to the point that if they fall away from Jesus, it impacts their own faith). However, there is a less obvious point I want to highlight today with implications for Christian parents specifically.

It’s not enough for kids to know that answers to faith questions are available.

As many have pointed out this week, Sampson’s claim that “no one” is talking about the various faith questions he raised is absurd if taken literally. Of course, people are talking about those questions, and they’ve done so for thousands of years. In fact, they’re so common that I’ve written about every point he raised in one or more of my books. He certainly didn’t stumble upon some kind of unexplored territory.

But I’m pretty sure he knows that, and it’s not what he meant.

In fact, he later posted a list of some apologists (authors and speakers who defend the truth of Christianity) for people to check out if they have similar questions.

Sampson clearly knew that answers to his questions were available. The problem here is not a question of available answers…it’s a question of available processing.

Building a Home Where Kids Process the Big Questions

When I talk to people after speaking engagements, a lot of parents will say something like, “It’s so good to know that the answers are out there! I want my kids to know that!” There’s no indication that they have any intention of personally digging into those answers with their kids. They feel it’s enough to point them to some ethereal box of knowledge when a need eventually arises.

Sampson’s statement attests to the serious problem with that idea.

He knew answers were out there, but was apparently living in a Christian climate that never really engaged with them. That silence screamed, “The Christians around me aren’t thinking about faith as deeply as I am, otherwise they would be talking about this more and questioning too.”

For adults like Sampson, this tends to be a function of the climate in the church you attend and the believers you fellowship with. For kids, it’s in large part a function of the climate in your home.

In homes that foster a thinking climate, parents:

Proactively raise big questions for discussion—even when their kids aren’t asking them. (If you don’t know what those should be, there are seventy conversations to have with your kids in my first two books.)
Explicitly tell their kids that questions are welcome and regularly ask what questions they have.
Share their own questions about faith, and how they’ve searched for answers.
Make it clear that biblical faith isn’t blind, and that God has given us much evidence for the truth of Christianity.
Explore the beliefs and logical implications of other worldviews, so their kids better understand Christianity in context.
Press kids to explain why they believe what they do, not just reiterate their viewpoints (on any topic, not just spiritual matters).
Engage in conversation about hot cultural topics from a biblical worldview rather than avoid them.
Model intellectual curiosity about faith by reading/listening to/watching content that grows their own understanding.
Study the Bible with their kids for understanding, not just to memorize isolated verses.

In homes that don’t necessarily foster a thinking climate, parents tend to:

Instill the idea that when we have questions, we just have to have more faith (but biblical faith is trusting in what you have good reason to believe is true).
Assume kids will learn what they need about the Bible in Sunday school (but they won’t).
Equate discipleship with raising kids with “good values” (but Christianity is far more than a set of values).
Fear their kids’ questions, believing they will lose credibility if they can’t answer them (but kids can learn just as much from exploring answers with you).
Believe they have no other spiritual responsibility than to pray for their kids (but we are called to be active disciplers).

Every Christian parent should take a hard look at whether they’re fostering a “thinking climate” in their home. Giving your kids opportunities to process questions (not just telling them answers are available) so they don’t conclude “no one” is talking about these things is a critical part of discipleship today.

And there’s one other related point I want to note from Sampson’s statement. He said, “Lots of things help people change their lives, not just one version of God.”

A lot of kids today—and clearly adults, too—are looking for the worldview that “works” for them. The one that “changes their life.” The one that “feels” the best. The one that “helps.”

The problem is, that’s not the decision-making criteria we should use when considering worldviews. The question should always be, What is true? What is the true picture of reality?

If Christianity changes my life, but Jesus wasn’t raised from the dead, Christianity is still a false worldview, and I shouldn’t hold it. It’s not true.

If atheism changes my life, but Jesus was raised from the dead, atheism is still a false worldview, and I shouldn’t hold it. It’s not true.

Kids not only need opportunities to process big questions of faith, but they also need direction on how to weigh the answers; they need to clearly understand that the search should always be about discovering what is true…not about what subjectively “works.”

I was sitting in a church group recently that was discussing the need for teaching kids these things. One parent very honestly acknowledged his doubts about all this, saying, “It just seems like one more thing we’re supposed to do.”

If that’s how you feel, I want to leave you with this thought. If your child’s math teacher only wanted to teach them addition because subtraction is just “one more thing,” you’d think they were crazy. Subtraction is an integral part of math. In the same way, raising your kids in a home that presses in on deep questions of faith is not one more thing for Christian parents… it’s an integral part of discipleship today, whether you feel like engaging in that process or not.

As you begin this school year, consider what the temperature is in your own home’s thinking climate. If it’s been cold, don’t feel guilty—just turn up the heat. If you don’t, the secular world will… before you even realize your kids have burned out of Christianity.

Sex and Your Commanding Officer

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

Who is your commanding officer? Is it Jesus or someone else? Is it Jesus or yourself? Is it Jesus or the culture? If you say it’s Jesus, well Jesus said, “If you love me you will keep my commands.” Yet we see people in the church today not only failing to keep his commands but denying they are commands at all, especially when it comes to sexual behavior.

Join Frank for completely politically incorrect, but biblically correct, insights into what’s right and true regarding sexual behavior. The show starts with LT Hiroo Onoda, a member of the Japanese imperial army, who refused to believe WWII was over and the continued to fight on a Philippine Island until relieved of his duty in 1974!

What relevance does that have? Listen.

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

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

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

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

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

August 30, 2019/by Guest

Can We Be Good Without God?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

This past weekend, two mass-scaled shootings transpired on American soil. El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio experienced unspeakable carnage. Two men, fueled by hatred for mankind, slaughtered dozens of innocent people in cold blood.

In response, people of all stripes spoke out against these atrocities. Men and women, democrat and republican, Christian and atheist, all condemned these crimes. In other words, the denunciation of these senseless and cowardly acts has been universal.

But doesn’t this universal agreement fly in the face of our relativistic cultural values? “Don’t force your morality on others” suddenly doesn’t sound so appealing in situations like this. Don’t we all want everyone else to adopt our same moral position on murder?

This, of course, raises important questions. Does objective morality exist? That is, were those two men objectively wrong in what they did over the weekend? And if so, where does this agreed-upon morality come from?

Objective Morality?

Relativists argue that there is no such thing as objective morality. Rather, morality is subjective — dependent on individual opinions. So in situations like these mass shootings, the relativist cannot say that the shooters were wrong. If so, that would imply that an objective standard exists that these two individuals missed.

Rather, the relativist can only say they didn’t care for these events. They found them distasteful. “Murder is wrong,” and “rape is evil” are just opinions on par with “pepperoni is better than sausage.”

But isn’t it self-evident that mass murder is in a different category than pizza toppings? The very fact that society has universally condemned these acts ought to tip us off that something more than mere opinion is at work here. When we all cry “foul” in unison, we’re implicitly affirming that “fair” exists.

C. S. Lewis made this argument years ago. He wrote:

[As an atheist] my argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe to when I called it unjust?¹

What Lewis and so many others have argued is that objective morality exists, and this is most evident when people don’t live up to that moral standard.

If we learn, for example, that a man raped a little girl, brutally murdered her, and dismembered her body, would we say that he committed evil? If yes, then we recognize an objective moral standard exists that was not met. Our senses tell us that acts such as abuse, rape, theft, deceit, murder, etc., all fail to measure up to a standard of some sort.

This moral standard seems so patently obvious; it’s odd when people try to deny it. A quick rule of thumb is that when a certain group can’t condemn the Holocaust as evil, we conclude that their views are absurd. Of course, if those same relativists had been in those concentration camps, they’d drop their relativism and recognize evil for what it is.

Even the most committed relativist will come around if you steal his wallet or spread false rumors about him. Phrases like “that’s not right” or “that’s not fair” will come spewing out faster than you can blink your eye.

Where Does Objective Morality Come from?

The reality of objective morality raises a significant question. Where does it come from? For the naturalists (those that believe only the natural world exists), these objective morals are mere illusory by-products of evolution and social conditioning.

For most naturalists, science is the only begetter of knowledge. But science itself is amoral. Science cannot tell us how things ought to be. It can only tell us how things are. That is, science can tell us how to make chemical weapons, but it cannot tell us whether we should use them.

Objective morals simply cannot derive from something morally neutral like science. And they certainly don’t arise from Darwinian evolution. According to Darwinists, people only do good because it aids in their survival. But if that’s the case, can we really call their actions morally good? Fundamentally, the motivation behind “good” acts is self-serving, and thus not worthy of praise.

Also, doesn’t Darwinism, on the whole, make morality arbitrary? Couldn’t the human race have found rape or killing each other for food acceptable if it would have evolved like other species from the animal kingdom? Sharks do this all the time, but are they immoral?

Darwinists who find this notion uncomfortable typically adopt humanism — the belief that humans are the center of the universe and morality is based on what helps them flourish. But again, isn’t humanism purely arbitrary in a Darwinian world?

Darwin, after all, taught that every living species descended from the same common ancestor in the primordial soup. Thus, humans are simply one small branch on his tree of life. Other branches include crickets, lions, fungus, and every other living species. Why should we think the human branch is the most valuable? Why are we more important than crickets? Doesn’t this make us guilty of speciesism?

Ultimately, atheism’s understanding of morality is purely arbitrary. It simply cannot account for objective morality.

In the end, God is the best explanation for objective morality. God’s very nature grounds morality so that anything done that goes against his character is wrong and/or evil. Furthermore, because God made humans in his image, each person possesses intrinsic value.

Answering the Skeptics’ Objections

Without a doubt, the first objection raised to the claim that objective morality doesn’t exist without God is that atheists do good without believing in God. But this misses the point. Of course, people can still do good things without believing in God. The question is not: do we have to believe in God to do good? Rather, the question is: if God doesn’t exist, is anything objectively good at all? As I’ve argued, moral categories are arbitrary in an atheistic world.

If we acknowledge, however, that the two mass-shooters committed evil, then objective moral categories exist. And if objective moral categories exist, then a transcendental lawgiver is the best explanation.

Which leads to the second objection — the Euthyphro Dilemma. The dilemma goes like this: Is something good because God wills it? Or does God will something because it is good? Skeptics raise this objection to put the theist between a rock and a hard place.

For if we say something is good because God wills it, then good is ultimately arbitrary. But if we say God wills something because it’s good, then the objective standard exists beyond God. But the skeptic presents us with a false dilemma here. A third option exists which states God wills something because he is good. That is to say; he is the standard by which we get all moral categories.

Another frequent objection is that we don’t need the Bible to know that we shouldn’t murder or steal. After all, other religious books tell us the same as do most legal codes. But again, this is not the argument theists make.

Nobody’s arguing you need to read the Bible to know right from wrong. Rather, we’re arguing that objective right and wrong don’t exist in a world without a transcendent moral law. But the very fact that every world religion and legal code agree on basic fundamental morals suggests that a moral law exists that transcends the human race.

The Apostle Paul tells us in Romans 2:14-15. He writes, “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.”

That is to say; people don’t need the Bible to know right from wrong. God has instilled this moral code in the hearts of all people.

Which raises a final objection. If a moral law exists, why is there so much disagreement on morality? Disagreements certainly exists around issues like abortion and sexuality. But does that imply no right view exists? Of course not. Which is why we strive to make our views the accepted ones. In fact, if culture adopts our views, we’ll say things like our culture is progressing. Progressing toward what? The moral standard we believe to be right.

Be that as it may, the human race generally agrees on several basic points. People have certain rights. We should treat others with respect. Love is better than hate. Honesty is better than deceit. Courage is better than cowardice. And so forth. As C. S. Lewis aptly states:

Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five.²

The universal agreement on the most basic moral categories suggests a transcendent moral law.

The Moral Argument for God

I believe that objective morality is one of the strongest arguments for God’s existence. Perhaps a more helpful way of looking at it would be this syllogism:

If God does not exist, objective morality does not exist.
Objective morality does exist.
Therefore, God exists.

This argument is logically air tight. If premises 1 and 2 are true, then 3 necessarily follows. I’ve made a case for 1 and 2 in this article. It concludes then that God exists.

So can we be good without God? No, because if he doesn’t exist, nothing objectively good exists either.

Ryan Leasure Holds a Master of Arts from Furman University and a Masters of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He currently serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2KJFXnY

August 27, 2019/by Guest

Tag Archive for: apologetics

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Is He Risen

The Rise Occurs Because He Is Risen

If He Is Risen

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Gospel of Thomas

Canonical Attributes

Apostolic Authority?

Divine Qualities?

Corporate Reception?

The Gospel of Thomas Rejected

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Transcript

Respectfully Engaging with Hindus

What Keeps Hindus Loyal to Hinduism?

Why Do People Convert to Hinduism?

What Respectfully Engaging with Hindus Looks Like

Engaging with Hindus: Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Introduction

Is Faith Blind or Evidential?

A Biblical Faith and The Resurrection

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Building a Home Where Kids Process the Big Questions

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Objective Morality?

Where Does Objective Morality Come from?

Answering the Skeptics’ Objections

The Moral Argument for God