Tag Archive for: apologetics

The Education of Jesus of Nazareth

The Education of Jesus of Nazareth

,

By Brian Chilton

Often, critical scholars make Jesus of Nazareth out to be a country bumpkin, one who was uneducated and unsophisticated. However, when one evaluates his life and teaching style, it appears that Jesus of Nazareth was a well-polished individual who spoke and taught with great authority and wisdom. The Jewish leaders marveled at Jesus, saying, “How is this man so learned, since he hasn’t been trained” (Jn. 7:14, CSB)? While this writer holds that Jesus was the divine Son of God, the human aspect of Jesus does not indicate that Jesus was an uneducated hillbilly, but rather one who had at least some formal education. The following are five reasons to believe that Jesus was a well-educated man.

  1. Jesus could read. The Synoptic Gospels indicate that Jesus stood in the synagogue of Nazareth. Luke notes that Jesus “entered the synagogue on the Sabbath day and stood up to read” (Lk. 4:16, CSB). The text indicates that he read from the prophet Isaiah. In Jewish culture, Hebrew boys were expected to be able to read from the Scriptures. In Jesus’s case, it is clear that he had the ability to read, which was better than 90% of the society at the time. The reading level for Jews was higher than the those of the Greco-Roman world due to the emphasis of schools in the synagogues, at least for boys.
  2. Jesus could write on some level. While John 7:53-8:11 is not found in the earliest manuscripts of John, it is generally accepted to be historically genuine since it has all the earmarks of the historical stories told of Jesus. What makes the passage of Scripture so fascinating is that on two occasions, Jesus is said to have written something in the sand (Jn. 8:6, 8). The term used for Jesus’s writing does not indicate some abstract doodling, but the writing of words. Graphō is used for writing that is found in books and scrolls. According to Louw and Nida, “Since the knowledge of writing is almost universal, there is usually no difficulty in obtaining a satisfactory term for writing” (Louw & Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the NT, 395).
  3. Jesus taught according to rabbinic styles. Jesus also used rabbinic styles of teaching. Jesus often answered questions by asking them. When the rich young ruler asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life while calling Jesus good, Jesus responded by asking, “Why do you call me good” (Lk. 18:19, CSB)? In another case, Jesus is asked whether people should pay taxes. Jesus responds with the question after taking a denarius, “Whose image and inscriptions does it have” (Lk. 20:24)? Jesus also uses a rabbinical style of teaching called Remez, which alludes to a passage of Scripture. Remez is a Haggadic method of interpretation. Since many people memorized the Scripture, it wasn’t necessary to quote the entire passage of Scripture. Rather, one could recall part of the Scripture or allude to the Scripture. When the allusion to the Scripture is given, the entire passage is referenced. When Jesus answers the disciples of John the Baptist as to whether he is the Messiah, Jesus replies by saying, “The blind receive their sight, the lame walk, those with leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor are told the good news, and blessed is the one who isn’t offended by me” (Mt. 11:5). In this one statement, Jesus references Isaiah 29:18; 35:5-6; 42:7; and 61:1. John the Baptist would have understood Jesus’s citation (Blizzard and Bivin, org, 2013). Not only does Jesus use extensive rabbinic techniques, Jesus uses tremendous methodologies of logic in his teaching as well as various picturesque expressions in his teaching, including similes (Mt. 7:24, 26), metaphors (Mt. 13:19-22), hypocatastates (comparison of two unlike things in naming, Lk. 13:32), metonymies (word or phrase is substituted for another word or phrase associated with it, Mt. 10:34; 11:21, 23), synecdoche (like metonymies but that this substitutes a part for a whole or vice versa, Lk. 23:29), hyperboles (exaggerations to prove a point, Mt. 5:29-30), personification (Mt. 6:3, 6:34, 11:2), apostrophes (addresses an object as if it were a person, Mt. 11:21, 23; Lk. 10:13), euphemisms (substitution of an inoffensive expression with a bold one, Mt. 9:24; Jn. 11:11), ironies (Mk. 2:17; Mk. 7:9), paradoxes (Mt. 5:2-5; Mt. 19:29; Mt. 23:11), puns (Lk. 21:11; Jn. 3:3), humor (Mt. 6:2; 7:3; 19:24), enigmas (Mt. 8:22; Mt. 10:34), aphorisms (Mt. 5:13-14; 6:34; Lk. 12:34), repetitions (“Blessed” in the Beatitudes; “I tell you” in Mt. 18:3, 10, 18-19, 22; 26:21, 29, 34), a fortiori (Mt. 6:26; 10:29-30), reductio ad absurdium (Mt. 5:46-47; 12:24-26), excluded middle (Mt. 12:30; 21:25-27), noncontradiction (Lk. 6:39) analogies (Mt. 12:40), contrasts (Mt. 23:23-24), and Hebrew forms of poetry (Mt. 10:24, 26) (Zuck, Teaching as Jesus Taught, 183-234). The high level of logic and reasoning in addition to his rabbinical style of teaching seems to preclude that Jesus of Nazareth was well educated.
  4. Jesus knew the Hebrew Bible well. This point does not need a lot of exposition. It is evident even upon a casual reading of the Gospels that Jesus knew the Scriptures well. He even segments the Scriptures into the classical way of segmenting them as the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms (Lk. 24:44). Jesus quoted from Deuteronomy, Isaiah, the Psalms, and other prophets frequently indicating that he had memorized large segments of Scripture.
  5. Jesus lived in a region that had schools. Finally, it should be noted that according to Professor Shmuel Safrai, the number of Galilean rabbis eclipsed those of Judean rabbis in the first century (Safrai, Jewish People of the First Century). Archaeologists have uncovered synagogues in the Galilean area as found within the first century. Jesus would have received his education at the synagogues by the rabbis of the area in addition to his earthly father, Joseph of Nazareth. While not much is known about Joseph, if James, the half-brother of Jesus, is any indication, it would seem that Joseph would have been quite knowledgeable of the Scriptures himself as he would have passed along an education to Jesus and James.

When Jesus was called unlearned, it is most likely that the Jewish leaders noted that Jesus had not been trained in the approved schools in Judea. He had, however, been educated in Galilee. Each synagogue had its own bet-sefer, that is, a school of learning. While Jesus may not have received the training that a scribe would have received in Jerusalem, Jesus would most certainly been educated during his early years as was evidenced by Jesus’s reading, writing, and teaching skills. Many people ask, “What was Jesus doing in his early years?” I think the answer is quite simple. Jesus was memorizing and learning the Scriptures in preparation for his ministry, which was to come. If Jesus, the Son of God, needed to study the Scriptures, what does that say of our need to study them?

Sources

Blizzard, Roy B., and David Bivin. “Study Shows Jesus as Rabbi.” Bible Scholars.org (May 2013). Accessed on April 29, 2019. https://www.biblescholars.org/2013/05/study-shows-jesus-as-rabbi.html.

Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Albert Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. New York: United Bible Societies, 1996.

Safrai, Shmuel. The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural, and Religious Life and Institutions. Volume 2. Boston: Brill, 1988.

Zuck, Roy B. Teaching as Jesus Taught. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1995.

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as the Senior Pastor of Westfield Baptist Church in northwestern, North Carolina.

Original Blog Source:http://bit.ly/2w51gbs

/by
When C.S. Lewis Warned Us About Alfie Evans and Charlie Gard

When C.S. Lewis Warned Us About Alfie Evans and Charlie Gard

By Bob Perry

Unfortunately, everybody has heard about Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans. They were both born with eerily similar and rare genetic disorders. They both died before they reached age two. Sadly, those kinds of things happen too often. But neither of them are the reason you’ve heard of Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans. You’ve heard of them because they became icons for the inherent dangers of a state-controlled health care system. C. S. Lewis warned us about this more than 70 years ago.

Charlie Gard

Charlie Gard was born in England on August 4, 2016, with an exceptionally rare genetic disorder. His prognosis was not good, but his parents found a hospital in the U.S. that agreed to offer an experimental treatment for the disease. They even raised the 1.3 million Pounds (about $1.74 million) required for the treatment. But the hospital where Charlie was born, and the grossly misnamed European High Court of “Human Rights” (ECHR), would not allow him to go receive the treatment. They didn’t want his case to set a precedent. Charlie Gard died on July 26, 2017.

Alfie Evans

In a more recent but similar story, Alfie Evans was born in England on May 9, 2016. Shortly thereafter, Alfie was diagnosed with another rare degenerative genetic disease. Once again, the prognosis was dire, but Alfie’s parents arranged for their son to be treated at a hospital in Italy. Again, the British hospital refused to allow him to go. The case was appealed to the same ECHR (Family Division) and got the same response. Alfie died on April 28, 2018.

Remember, the families of both of these children were not allowed to seek treatments outside the state-controlled health care system, Britain’s National Health Service. The power of a state bureaucracy trumped the wishes of the family, even when the family had raised the money for treatments on their own.

The Prescience of C. S. Lewis

Many people are unaware that C. S. Lewis wrote a three-book science fiction series called The Space Trilogy. The third installment of that series was titled, That Hideous Strength. In that book, the main character (Mark Studdock) was seduced to corruption by the promise of joining the inner ring of a powerful English society. It was an organization of men who used questionable tactics to establish an “efficient” state bureaucracy run by controllers who saw themselves as being a cut above the rest of the world. The name of the society Mark yearned to join was the National Institute of Co-ordinated Experiments — N.I.C.E. Lewis described N.I.C.E. as:

the first fruits of that constructive fusion between state and laboratory on which so many thoughtful people base their hopes for a better world. It was to be free from almost all the tiresome restraints… which have hitherto hampered research in this country. It was also largely free from the restraints of economy…

This was a fictional foreshadowing of what Lewis feared would become a socio-political reality. Some of his reviewers begged to differ. At the time, the New York Times described That Hideous Strength as “superlatively nonsensical excitement, challenging implications,” while Time magazine called it a “well-written, fast-paced satirical fantasy.” That was in 1946.

Fast forward to 2009. Writing in National Review on September 21, 2009, John C. Goodman reported on the contemporary Britain’s National Health Commission:

“which currently recommends against any treatment that costs more than $45,000 to save a year of life. Because of [the commission], British cancer patients are denied access to drugs that are routinely available in the U.S. and on the European continent, and thousands die prematurely.”

The name of the commission he is talking about is the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The British people refer to it by the more commonly recognized acronym: N.I.C.E.

I wish I could make this stuff up. In fact, when I read this story, I assumed that Mr. Goodman had made it up. He hadn’t. But the creepy stuff doesn’t stop there.

N.I.C.E. Roots of a State-Controlled Health Care System

Mr. Goodman’s story was about the fact that some American politicians thought N.I.C.E. was a great model to use in America. Then Senator Tom Daschle said so in his book, Critical: What We Can Do About The Health-Care Crisis.

Ten years later, the relentless pursuit of state-controlled health care systems continues. And make no mistake. Even though the issue is currently on the back burner of American politics, it won’t stay there for long. Politicians of both parties will revivify it. They will tout a better system. There will be promises of no “death panels.” They will sell it as a more economically efficient system.

Your Children Are Not Your Own

I am reminded of the late Senator Phil Gramm. During hearings about education reform in the 1990s, he was bantering with a bureaucrat who was defending government control. Gramm stated that his policies were based on the fact that “I care more about my children than you do.”

The bureaucrat responded, “No, you don’t.”

To which Gramm replied, “Okay, What are their names?”

The State Has No Moral Conscience

Senator Gramm’s pithy response illuminates the obvious. No government bureaucrat cares more about your family than you do. And the implications of that are inevitable. Behind all the N.I.C.E. talk you hear there will be budget constraints and bureaucrats tasked with keeping them. There will be medical review boards and “human rights” courts happy to enforce them. The state will decide which persons are worthy of living. And the state will replace your family and doctor as the moral authority for the decision.

But the state has no moral accountability or conscience. The state seeks only to be efficient. And when the time comes, you will have no say in the matter. Some bureaucrat will be responsible for deciding who gets what treatment.

Someone like Mark Studdock.

That is a hideous strength for anyone to wield. Just ask the parents of Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans.

 

Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and the culture at: truehorizon.org. He is a Contributing Writer for the Christian Research Journal, and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of military and commercial flying experience. He has a B.S., Aerospace Engineering from the U. S. Naval Academy, and a M.A., Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown sons.

Original Blog Source:http://bit.ly/2JSWlm2

/by

So the Next Generation will Know

Podcast: Play in new window

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

Whether you’re a Christian parent, youth leader, or educator who works with Generation Z, you got to listen to this interview. As powerful ideas in our increasingly secular culture shape more of this generation, trusted leaders must share what they know about Jesus in ways that will reach them. Frank interview J. Warner Wallace and Sean McDowell about their new book. This book is backed by the latest research and first hand experience, and it shows how to share biblical truth with a generation that desperately needs to hear it in a way that draws them in instead of pushing them away. Make sure you listen to this insightful interview.

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 Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

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

/by

Pastor leaves the faith?

Podcast: Play in new window

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

After 40 years, ‘megachurch’ pastor slams Christianity and quits… This is part of the headline of an article in the Christian Post about former pastor Dave Gass who recently renounce his faith publicly on social media. Frank takes a look at the reasons Mr. Gass gives for rejecting the faith to see if they are good reasons for waking away from Christianity. Please let’s pray for Mr. Gass and his family.

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 Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

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

/by
The Kalam Cosmological Argument NOT Debunked

The Kalam Cosmological Argument NOT Debunked

, ,

By Evan Minton

I discovered a YouTuber called “Rationality Rules” very recently. One of his many videos is “The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked – (First Cause Argument Refuted)” which you can watch here. One of my patrons brought this video to my attention and requested that I respond to it, so here we go.

For the uninitiated, The Kalam Cosmological Argument is formulated as follows:

1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2: The universe began to exist.

3: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Let’s look at each of Rationality Rules’ rebuttals.

Objection 1: The Argument Doesn’t Support Theism 

Rationality Rules (RR) says “Even if the Cosmological Argument were accepted in its entirely, all it would prove is that there was a cause of the universe, and that’s it. It doesn’t even suggest, let alone prove that this cause was a being, and it certainly doesn’t suggest that that cause was a being that is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, personal and moral. That is one hell of a leap. Hence, even if accepted, the argument doesn’t even remotely support theism.” 

I really couldn’t believe what I was hearing. Has RR even paid the slightest bit attention to apologists’ defenses of The Cosmological Argument? This is patently false. Given that everything that has a beginning has something that caused it to come into being, and since Big Bang cosmology, the second law of thermodynamics, and the two arguments against actual infinites establish that the universe came into being out of nothing a finite time ago, it follows that a cause transcendent to matter, energy, space, and time must have caused matter, energy, space, and time (i.e the universe) to come into existence. Now, granted, the syllogism doesn’t define this cause as “God”. It only asserts “Therefore, the universe has a cause”. However, in every defense of The Kalam Cosmological Argument I’ve ever heard given, this is not where the argument stops. Once it is established that the universe a transcendent cause, the apologist (William Lane Craig, Frank Turek, Lee Strobel, Myself) do a conceptual analysis of what it means to be a cause of the universe. The conceptual analysis part of the argument is being totally ignored by RR.

When you do a conceptual analysis of what attributes or properties the universe’s cause must have, you do indeed end up with a being heavily resembling God.

The cause must be

Spaceless – Because space came into being and did not exist until this cause brought it into existence, the cause cannot be a spatial being. It must be spaceless or non-spatial. You cannot be inside of something if you are that something’s cause. You cannot be inside of something if that something did not exist until you brought it into existence.

Timeless – Since time did not exist until The Big Bang, the cause cannot be inside of time. It must be a timeless being.

Immaterial – The cause’s non-spatiality entails immateriality. How so? Because material objects cannot exist unless space exists. Material objects have mass and ergo occupy spatial dimensions. If there is no space, matter cannot exist. This means that because the cause is non-spatial, it is therefore non-material.

Unimaginably Powerful (if not omnipotent) – Anything able to create all matter, energy, space, and time out of absolutely nothing must be extremely powerful, if not omnipotent.

Supernatural – “Nature” and “The universe” are synonyms. Nature did not begin to exist until The Big Bang. Therefore, a natural cause (a cause coming, by definition, from nature) cannot be responsible for the origin of nature. To say otherwise would be to spout incoherence. You’d basically be saying “Nature caused nature to come into being.”

Uncaused – Given that the cause of the universe is timeless, the cause cannot itself have a beginning. To have a beginning to one’s existence entails a before and after relationship. There’s a time before one existed and a time after one came into existence. But a before and after of anything is impossible without time. Since the cause existed sans time, the cause, therefore, cannot have a beginning. It’s beginningless.

Personal – This is an entailment of the cause’s immateriality. There are two types of things recognized by philosophers that are immaterial: abstract objects (such as numbers, sets, or other mathematical entities) or unembodied minds. Philosophers realize that abstract objects if they exist, they exist as non-physical entities. However, abstract objects cannot produce any effects. That’s part of what it means to be abstract. The number 3 isn’t going to be producing any effects anytime soon. Given that abstract objects are causally impotent, it, therefore, follows that an unembodied mind is the cause of the universe’ beginning. Two other arguments for the personhood of the universe’s cause can be given, and I’ve unpacked these in my book The Case For The One True God: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Historical Case For The God Of Christianity available on Amazon.com in both paperback and Kindle.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause, given that the universe began to exist, if follows that the universe has a cause of its existence. The cause of the universe must be a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, supernatural, uncaused, personal Creator.

This being that is demonstrated to exist by this argument is consistent with The Christian God. The Bible describes God as spaceless (see 1 Kings 8:27, 2 Chronicles 2:6), timeless (1 Corinthians 2:7, 2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2), immaterial (John 4:24, 1 Timothy 1:17, 1 Timothy 6:16), powerful (Psalm 62:11-12, Job 9:14, Matthew 19:26), uncaused (Psalm 90:2, Isaiah 57:15, 1 Timothy 1:17, Revelation 1:8), supernatural, and is a personal being (John 1:12, James 4:8). Moreover, The Bible credits Him with being the Creator of all physical reality (John 1:1-3).

Additionally, as I point out in my book The Case For The One True God: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Historical Case For The God Of Christianity a study of comparative religions demonstrates that only 4 religions are consistent with the Cosmological argument’s conclusion: Judaism, Christianity, Islam (that’s why Ghazali defended it), and Deism. All other religions involve either an eternal cosmos that have God or gods bringing order out of the eternally existing matter, energy, space and time, or else their god is the universe itself (pantheism). Therefore, if you’re picking a view about God based on the cosmological argument alone, your list of options consistent with the evidence is limited to just 4 options, Christianity being among them. Only the Abrahamic religions (and Deism) teach that a God like the one described above brought all physical reality into existence from nothing.

Rationality Rules complains that the argument doesn’t demonstrate the omniscience, omnipresence, or the moral character of the universe’s cause, but the argument was never designed to get those qualities. Richard Dawkins made this same complaint about the argument. Dawkins said it like this “Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading innermost thoughts.”[1] and Dr. William Lane Craig responded to it thusly:

“Apart from the opening slur, this is an amazingly concessionary statement! Dawkins doesn’t dispute that the argument successfully proves the existence of an uncaused, beginningless, changeless, timeless, spaceless, and unimaginably powerful personal Creator of the universe. He merely complains that this cause hasn’t also been shown to be omnipotent, omniscient, good, creative of design, listening to prayers, forgiving sins, and reading innermost thoughts. So what? The argument isn’t intended to prove those things. It would be a bizarre form of atheism, indeed an atheism not worth the name, which admitted that there exists an uncaused, beginningless, changeless, timeless, immaterial, spaceless, unimaginably powerful, personal Creator of the universe who may (for all we know) also possess the properties listed by Dawkins. So we needn’t call the personal Creator of the universe “God” if Dawkins finds this unhelpful or misleading. But the point remains that such a being as described by this argument must exist”[2]

This is just a pitiful objection to The Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Objection 2: It Doesn’t Prove The Universe’s Cause Was The First Cause. 

I facepalmed even harder at this objection than I did the previous one. Rationality Rules said “A second problem that even we accepted the argument. It wouldn’t prove that the universe itself was without a cause. Or in another words, it wouldn’t prove that first cause existed, which for a first cause argument is pretty damn ridiculous. To be fair, the proponents of this argument do indeed offer additional arguments in an attempt to assert that the cause of the universe must be without a cause. But the point that I’m trying to make here and now is that The Kalam Cosmological Argument, by itself, is pretty damn trivial. And hence, the proponents of this argument almost always employ additional arguments to reach their conclusions including the likes of Craig” 

There are good reasons given as to why the cause of the universe must be uncaused. I’ve given one of them above. I wrote “Given that the cause of the universe is timeless, the cause cannot itself have a beginning. To have a beginning to one’s existence entails a before and after relationship. There’s a time before one existed and a time after one came into existence. But a before and after of anything is impossible without time. Since the cause existed sans time, the cause, therefore, cannot have a beginning. It’s beginningless.” Another reason is that if you do not allow for an uncreated Creator, if you insist that God must have a Creator, you get thrown into an infinite regression. For God to come into being, His creator must have come into being, and before that creator could come into being, the creator before him had to come into being, and before that creator could come into being, the creator before him had to come into being, and so on back into infinity. No creator could ever come into being because there would always have to be a creator before him to bring him into being. In fact, no creator in the entire infinite past series of creators could ever come into being because each would have to be preceded by a previously created creator. And since no creator could ever come into being, the specific creator that brought our universe into existence couldn’t have come into being. But obviously, here we are. This suggests that there wasn’t an infinite regression of creators begetting creators. But if there was no infinite regression of creators begetting creators, then that logically brings us to an uncreated Creator, a Creator without beginning.

Even Rationality Rules admits that Kalam proponents back up the assertion that the cause is uncaused by arguments, as you can see in the quotation above. However, he doesn’t dispute the arguments. He doesn’t even say what the arguments are. He seems to think that merely having to bolster the conclusion “the universe had a cause” with additional arguments is an invalid move. But why think a thing like that? Yes, the syllogism by itself only gets you to “The universe had a cause”, but why take Christian Apologists to task for unpacking the implications of that conclusion with additional arguments?

The question RR should be asking is not whether additional arguments are needed, but whether the additional arguments given are good. RR’s objection is pretty damn trivial.

Objection 3: It Commits The Fallacy Of Equivocation

Rationality Rules indicts The Kalam Cosmological Argument for committing the fallacy of equivocation. What is the fallacy of equivocation? The fallacy of equivocation is when an argument uses the exact same word, but employs two different definitions of the word. It would be like if someone argued “God made everything. Everything is made in China. Therefore, God is Chinese”. The word being equivocated on here is the word “everything”. In the first premise, it means literally everything that exists, whereas, in premise 2, it only refers to everything that American consumers purchase.

Rationality Rules says that in the second premise, what we mean by the term “Universe” is the scientific definition of universe (i.e all matter, energy, space, and time), whereas in the conclusion, we employ the colloquial usage of the term “Universe”, meaning literally everything that ever was, is, and ever will be. Thus, RR says that steps 2 and 3 of the argument employ the same words with different meanings.

This objection is just as underwhelming as the previous two. For one thing, why isn’t “all matter, energy, space, and time) not synonymous with “everything that ever was, is, or will be”? Perhaps RR is assuming The Mother Universe theory whereby The Big Bang was not the absolute origin of all material objects, but only the birth of one of many “baby” universes” that come into being inside of a much wider Mother Universe. In that case, the origin of our universe would indeed not be “everything that ever was, is, or will be”.

But as I argue in my blog posts “Does The Multi-Verse Explain Away The Need For A Creator?” and “Is The Universe A Computer Simulation?” not to mention chapter 1 of The Case For The One True God, this Mother Multiverse scenario cannot be extended into past eternity. The Borde-Guth-Velinken Theorem, as well as the impossibility of traversing actual infinites, bring us to an absolute beginning of literally everything at some point, whether that be the beginning of our universe, The Mother Universe, The Grandmother Universe, or whatever.

This leads to my next point; we do mean literally everything in both steps 2 and 3. We mean all matter, energy, space, and time that ever was, is or will be in both steps 2 and 3. Now, RR can dispute whether premise 2 is true, but if I, William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, Frank Turek, Hugh Ross, etc. mean literally everything in both steps, then a charge of the fallacy of equivocation cannot stand. We mean the same thing by “universe” in both steps 2 and 3.

Objection 4: Nothing Has Ever Been Demonstrated To Come Into Being From Nothing 

RR says “And this brings us comfortably to another critical flaw with the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It asserts that something can indeed come from nothing – a concept in philosophy known as Creatio Ex Nihilo (creation out of nothing), when this has never been demonstrated to occur. In fact, to the contrary, everything we know about cause and effect overwhelmingly and unanimously tells us that when a new thing is created it is due to the rearrangement of energy and matter that already existed… that is, everything is the result of Creatio Ex Materia (creation out of material).”

Another underwhelming objection. Before I give my response, let me inform my readers that I distinguish causes via Aristotelian Causation. The ancient philosopher Aristotle recognized that there are different types of causes. A “material cause” is the stuff out of which something is made. For example, a chair’s material cause is the wood gathered from chopped down trees. An efficient cause of the chair would be the carpenter who fashioned the chair from the wood. Another type of cause Aristotle identified was Final Causality. This is the teleology, the purpose or end goal of bringing something into being. In the example of the chair, the final cause would be the purpose of sitting. But for this discussion, only efficient and material causes need to be distinguished.

The objection here is that the inductive evidence is overwhelmingly against the idea that things can come into being without a material cause. The conclusion of The Kalam Cosmological Argument is that the universe came into being via an efficient cause (God), but with no material cause. God didn’t use previously existing material to manufacture the universe.

Now, I would agree that our experience shows us that whenever something comes into being, it had a material cause as well as an efficient cause, thus rendering us with as much inductive evidence for material causation, but this inductive evidence can be overridden if we have powerful evidence that all physical reality came into being out of nothing a finite time ago. The Big Bang demonstrates just that. To look at the evidence, see my blog posts “The Kalam Cosmological Argument” and “Is The Big Bang The Origin Of The Universe?”

As I explain in the above blog posts, we do in fact have powerful scientific evidence as well as philosophical arguments which show us that the whole of physical reality (space, time, matter, and energy) had an absolute beginning.

Objection 5: Special Pleading Fallacy 

RR says that Kalam proponents commit the special pleading fallacy. What is that? The Special Pleading Fallacy occurs whenever you make an exception to an established rule without justification. RR says “they [Kalam proponents] assert that the cause of the universe didn’t begin to exist and therefore it didn’t have a cause, without adequately justifying why this cause is an exception.”

My face is hurting from all the facepalming I’ve been doing throughout watching this dude’s videos. First of all, there’s no exception to even be made! The argument is that “Whatever begins to exist has a cause.” The Kalam proponent would only be special pleading if he or she said that God began to exist, but made him the exception by saying he came into being uncaused. However, all proponents of The Kalam Cosmological Argument hold that (A) God is uncaused, uncreated. And (B) we give arguments for that. I’ve given arguments for that above.

Objection 6: Argument From Ignorance

Of course. The overused “God Of The Gaps” objection. This is not based on what we don’t know. It’s based on what we do know. As I explained in subheader 1, the cause of the universe must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, uncaused, and personal. And I didn’t just arbitrarily assign these attribute’s to the universe’s cause, I gave positive arguments for why the universe’s cause must have these attributes. I, nor has any proponent of this argument ever said, “Scientists can’t explain how the universe came into being, so it must be God” or anything of that sort. One must suppose that atheists continue to illegitimately accuse the Kalam of committing this fallacy because they just don’t pay attention when it is explained to them. If you keep falling asleep in class, it’s no surprise that you don’t know what you’re talking about when it’s time to do your essay.

As for being the specific God I believe in, I’d recommend a look at The Case For The One True God. I admit that The Kalam doesn’t get you to the uniquely Christian conception of God, but it does get you to a conception of God that doesn’t match the majority of the ones most religions out there. Abrahamic religions and Deism are consistent with this argument, but polytheistic, animistic, and pantheistic religions are not. And atheism certainly is not consistent with the argument’s conclusion.

Conclusion 

When my patron Kevin Walker, asked me to make a response to this video, I was actually bracing myself for some pretty hard-hitting rebuttals, if not refutations. I was like “Boy, I hope I can handle these responses.” I never expected the pitiful, flimsy objections RR put forth.

Notes 

[1] Richard Dawkins, “The God Delusion” p. 158.

[2] William Lane Craig, “Deconstructing New Atheist Objections To The Arguments For God,” https://www.reasonablefaith.org/videos/short-videos/deconstructing-new-atheist-objections-to-the-arguments-for-god/

 

Evan Minton is a Christian Apologist and blogger at Cerebral Faith (www.cerebralfaith.blogspot.com). He is the author of “Inference to The One True God” and “A Hellacious Doctrine.” He has engaged in several debates which can be viewed on Cerebral Faith’s “My Debates” section. Mr. Minton lives in South Carolina, USA.

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

/by
How Can God be Sovereign over Evil and not Morally Culpable for It

How Can God be Sovereign over Evil and not Morally Culpable for It?

By Ryan Leasure

It’s not uncommon to hear those in the non-Reformed tradition make the claim that Reformed belief necessarily makes God blameworthy for evil. After all, if God has sovereignly decreed everything whatsoever to come to pass — including evil — how is he not morally culpable for it? It’s certainly a good question, but as I’ll try to point out, it’s one that misunderstands the Reformed view.

I believe that when we evaluate Scripture, we find a God who is meticulously sovereign over every detail. At the same time, though, he is praiseworthy for the good and not blameworthy for the bad. Allow me to explain.

God’s Meticulous Sovereignty

When I say “meticulous sovereignty,” I mean two things: 1) God has decreed before the foundation of the world everything that will happen, and 2) he actively works in his creation to ensure that his sovereign decrees are carried out. This is even true with respect to human free will.

Who can speak and have it happen if the LORD has not decreed it? — Lamentations 3:37

In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps. — Proverbs 16:9

Many are the plans in a man’s heart, but it is the LORD’s purpose that prevails. — Proverbs 19:21

It seems clear from these texts, that we can only do what God has decreed. We can make plans, the proverb says, but ultimately God determines our steps. No one can act outside the bounds of God’s sovereign will.

Furthermore, nobody can frustrate God’s plans. That is, his plan is always what happens. Consider these texts:

I know you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted. — Job 42:2

I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please. — Isaiah 46:10

In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will. — Ephesians 1:11

Nothing can thwart God’s sovereign plan. Everything he decrees will happen, and when he acts, no one can reverse it.

God Sovereignty over Good and Evil

It’s not uncommon to hear people say things like: “In God’s good providence, I met my spouse.” Or, “God providentially provided a job for me.” It’s highly unusual for people to make comments like: “In God’s providence, I got cancer.” You see, we’re quick to acknowledge God’s role in good circumstances. We’re hesitant to do so during the bad ones. Yet the Bible says God is in control of both.

When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other. — Ecclesiastes 7:14

I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things. — Isaiah 45:7

Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come? — Lamentations 3:38

Many Christians work diligently to get God off the hook for evil. The Biblical authors, however, don’t seem to share that same concern.

God’s Good Nature

Before we can explain how God should be praiseworthy for the good and not blameworthy for the evil, we need to address a couple more issues. The first issue is God’s character. The Bible unequivocally affirms that God is morally pure and good in every way. Consider these texts:

This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all. — 1 John 1:5

For you are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not dwell with you. — Psalm 5:4

Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God.” For God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. — James 1:13

So while God controls both good and evil, he does not delight in wickedness. Nor does evil dwell in him, nor does he cause or tempt anyone to sin. In short, God is good and not evil, though he controls both good and evil.

God’s Asymmetrical Relationship to Good and Evil

Building off the previous section, we must now ask ourselves an important question. If God is, indeed, meticulously sovereign over both good and evil, what is his relationship to the two respectively? Is his sovereignty over good and evil equally ultimate? Or is his relationship to both different? I submit that his role in both is different. And because it’s different, we should view his relationship to good and evil as asymmetrical.

God’s Role in Good

In the case of the good, we can say that God’s good nature actively causes all the good that happens. Nothing good in the world occurs apart from God’s good nature breathing it into existence. As James 1:17 tells us, “Every good gift and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights.” Notice James says that every good gift is from God. Not just some or most, but every.

We can call God’s control of the good direct-causative.1 That is, God directly causes every good act, and every good act is an extension of his good character. This is why Jesus says in Matthew 5:16, “Let your light shine before others, so they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.” God rightly deserves the credit for all the good because he actively brings it about by his grace.

God’s Role in Evil

When respect to evil, we must affirm that God sovereignly controls it as we read above in Isaiah 45:7, Lamentations 3:38, and Ecclesiastes 7:14. We must, however, say that God’s relationship to it is different than his relationship to good. As we just saw, all the good in the world is a direct extension of God’s good character. Evil, however, does not flow from God’s character as it stands opposed to his goodness.

Since evil does not flow from God’s character, and he doesn’t actively cause it to happen like he does the good, we can refer to his control over evil as indirect-permissive.2 Unlike the active role God plays to bring about good; he merely allows evil to occur that will accomplish his ultimate purposes.

The idea that God doesn’t actively cause evil but merely allows it is found in Scripture.

Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death. But if he did not lie in wait for him, but God let him fall into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place to which he may flee. — Exodus 21:12-13

In past generations he allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways. — Acts 14:16

Let me reiterate that God permits only the evils that serve his ultimate purposes. This implies that God could stop any evil from occurring if he deemed in his good wisdom to do so. Thus, all evil occurs under his watch, but he doesn’t cause any of it to happen.

What About Free Will?

If God does meticulously control all things, how does that square with human freedom? I believe the two are compatible if we hold to the right definition of freedom. One popular view of freedom — known as Libertarian Freedom — argues that we are only free if we have the ability to do otherwise. That is, we must possess the freedom of contrary choice if we’re to be considered truly free.

I don’t think this view of freedom squares with the meticulous sovereignty of God outlined in the previous sections. There’s another view of freedom; however, that fits nicely with God’s sovereignty. This view is known as the Freedom of Inclination. It states that humans are free if they choose what they most want to choose in the moment of choice. That is, they choose from the desires of their hearts.

Paul tells us in Romans 8:7-8, “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” The picture Paul gives us here is of someone without the Spirit of God who is unable to please God. In other words, they don’t have the ability to do otherwise.

My contention is that the person in the flesh freely chooses not to please God. The reason? They don’t want to in their fallen state. As Jesus tells us elsewhere, a bad tree will only produce bad fruit (Matt. 7:17). If God’s sovereignty over this person’s actions in the flesh is indirect-permissive, as I’ve previously argued, we can, therefore, lay the blame at the person’s feet because they’re simply doing what they want to do.

For the person who does good, the Freedom of Inclination view argues that they only do good because God has sovereignly worked in that person’s heart (Phil. 2:12-13; Jn. 15:5). In other words, God’s sovereignty is direct-causative in softening a person’s heart so that they freely want to do good. And because of this, God, not humans, gets all the glory for the good (Matt. 5:16).

God’s Middle Knowledge and Evil

Perhaps you’re wondering how can God guarantee that people freely choose to do the evil that is part of his ultimate plan if he doesn’t actively bring it about himself?

Here is where I think an understanding of God’s Middle Knowledge is really helpful. Theologians dating back to Luis Molina (1535-1600) have argued that God not only knows what will happen (Free Knowledge), he also knows what could happen (Natural Knowledge), and he knows what would happen if the circumstances were different (Middle Knowledge). It’s this last category that is especially applicable to our topic.

The Bible speaks of God’s Middle Knowledge in several places. Let me give you a couple of examples:

Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. — Matthew 11:21

When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them by the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near. For God said, “Lest the people change their minds when they see war and return to Egypt.” — Exodus 13:17

In both instances, God knew how people would respond if the circumstances were different. With respect to Tyre and Sidon, Jesus knew that they would have repented if they would have received the same amount of revelation as Chorazin and Bethsaida. In the case of Israel, God knew they would have turned back to Egypt if he had led them by the land of the Philistines.

Since God knows exactly how we will respond in every situation, he is able to guarantee that free creatures will do the evil that accomplishes his greater purposes without directly causing them to do it.

Consider a sting operation as an example. When done properly, law enforcement orchestrates a situation so that a person who wants to sell drugs freely does so. The law enforcement doesn’t have to coerce him to do it. They simply set up certain “factors” so that the drug dealer chooses to do what he most wants to do, and therefore, he is held morally responsible for his actions. All the while, this person did exactly as the law enforcement planned for him to do.

While many of my Libertarian friends also affirm God’s Middle Knowledge, I believe it makes the most sense within the Freedom of Inclination framework. After all, how can God truly know what free creatures would do in a hypothetical situation if they had the power of contrary choice? But if people choose according to their strongest desires, God can know exactly what evil choices people will make because he knows their heart’s desires (1 Sam. 16:7).

What you Meant for Evil, God Meant for Good

Let’s apply God’s Middle Knowledge to the story of Joseph. All sorts of evil occurred in that story, especially Joseph’s brothers selling him into slavery. At the end of the story, Joseph declares to his brothers “you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive” (Gen. 50:20).

As we think back through the story, we can see how God orchestrated the circumstances in such a way to guarantee that Joseph made it to Egypt. He made Joseph the favorite child and gave him certain dreams. He had him sent out to check on his brothers, made sure Reuben was there, so Joseph wasn’t killed, and had Reuben conveniently missing when the slave traders came traveling by. You see, God knew that Joseph’s brothers would sell Joseph into slavery when all of these “factors” were present.

God’s good purpose of getting Joseph to Egypt was so he could save the nation of Israel from extinction. Yet he worked through the evil choices of Joseph’s brothers — choices they wanted to make, and choices God knew they would make if the circumstances were just right. As Joseph stated in the end, his brothers were morally responsible for their evil despite the fact that they carried out God’s good sovereign plan.

With Joseph, my hope is that we’ll all be able to see that even though God has sovereignly ordained evil, he isn’t evil for doing so. He merely allows humans to do the evil that is in their hearts in ways that accomplish his greater purposes.

 

Ryan Leasure holds a M.A. from Furman University and a M.Div. 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/2YsJyev

/by
Who Made God A Cosmological Argument for Kids

Who Made God? A Cosmological Argument for Kids

,

By Mikel Del Rosario

Who Made God? Here’s a Simple Answer

Watching Phil Vischer’s Jelly Telly show with my little boy reminded me that accessible apologetics training is for kids, too! One day after church, we sat down to watch a little clip online. There was a puppet newscaster hosting a segment called “Buck Denver’s Mail Bag.”

At first, I wasn’t too excited about it. But then, Buck said that an 11-year old boy asked this question: “Who made God?” My ears perked up and began to lean forward.

What came next was something I’d never seen before: a puppet engaged in apologetics and using the cosmological argument to teach kids!

Video Transcript

Who made God? Easy answer: No one. You say, “How could that be? Everything I’ve ever known has been made by someone. How could God not be made by anyone?” Well, here’s the thing. Something has to have been not made.

Cause if you start with like, um, your car. Who made your car? Well, it came out of the factory. Who made the factory? Well, it was built by the builders. Who made the builders? Well, their mommies, kind of. And um, who made them? Their mommies and their mommies and going way, way, way, way back. It can’t go back forever. So at some point, it had to start with something that was not made. Something that just always was. That is God. God always was. He was never made. Pretty cool, huh? Something had to have started it all, and that something is God.

This reminded me of William Lane Craig’s wife, Jan, who responded in a similar way to a student who said she did not believe in God. Jan’s quoted in Reasonable Faith: “Everything we see has a cause, and those causes have causes and so on. But this can’t go back forever. There had to be a beginning and a first cause which started the whole thing. This is God” (122).

Here’s how William Lane Craig himself responded to the question, “Where did God come from?” He explained, “God didn’t come from anywhere. He is eternal and has always existed. So he doesn’t need a cause. But now, let me ask you something. The universe has not always existed but had a beginning. So where did the universe come from?”

Simple is Good

Whether it’s responding to kids, college students or anyone else, it’s not enough to have an answer to a tough question like, “Who Made God?” It’s also important to share it simply—at least at first. If the conversations get more technical, so be it. But let’s take a cue from Buck Denver and start with something simple.

Like This?

You’re gonna love this. The Jelly Telly crew got together and produced an awesome DVD series which incorporates accessible apologetics and theology for kids: Buck Denver Asks What’s in the Bible?

When it comes to introducing the Bible, theology, and apologetics to children in a way they can understand, this seriously rocks. It’s Bible literacy for a new generation. Whether you’re a parent, grandparent, Sunday School teacher, or just looking for a gift for that Christian kid on your list, check out Buck Denver Asks What’s in the Bible?

My kid loves this series. And I do, too!

 

Mikel Del Rosario helps Christians explain their faith with courage and compassion. He is a doctoral student in the New Testament department at Dallas Theological Seminary. Mikel teaches Christian Apologetics and World Religion at William Jessup University. He is the author of Accessible Apologetics and has published over 20 journal articles on apologetics and cultural engagement with his mentor, Dr. Darrell Bock. Mikel holds an M.A. in Christian Apologetics with highest honors from Biola University and a Master of Theology (Th.M) from Dallas Theological Seminary where he serves as Cultural Engagement Manager at the Hendricks Center and a host of the Table Podcast. Visit his Web site at ApologeticsGuy.com.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2HcDa3U

/by

Is Progressive Christianity really “Good News”?

Podcast: Play in new window

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

The emergent (and dangerous) phenomenon of “Progressive Christianity” is coming to a church near you. Our guest host Alisa Childers is not only an expert in the topic, but she has experienced it first hand. We’re going to list a few symptoms of a progressive church here, but you will have to listen to this episode to learn more. Here are the symptoms:

∙ A lowered view of the Bible
∙ Feelings are emphasized over facts
∙ Essential Christian doctrines are open for reinterpretationHistoric terms are redefined
∙ The heart of the gospel message shifts from sin and redemption to social justice

Uh oh! If this sounds familiar, you really need to listen to this podcast with Alisa Childers. Don’t miss it and make sure to share it with a friend that may need to hear this!

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 Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

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

 

/by
Desire and God Should I Always Do What I Feel

Desire and God: Should I Always Do What I Feel?

,

By Robby Hall

The debate over homosexual behavior has taken many surprising turns. The national debate has involved a Fast Food franchise and a maker of Duck Calls.  It has involved extremes from Fred Phelps and his clan to groups like GLAAD comparing the whole thing to the civil rights movement of the mid-20th century.

What is missing from all of this is honest discourse. And what is missing from those who tell us that what they are doing is ok is “why it’s ok?”.

We hear arguments like:

  • “I was born this way.”
  • “My Love is real.”
  • “Why would I choose to be gay?”

So, for the Christian who believes that God teaches homosexual behavior is sin and that those who practice this need repentance and forgiveness, the message they give to LGBTQ people is very important.

Ultimately, the discussion boils down to desire.  It’s at this point that the discussion breaks down most often because neither side really understands their desires, their position as a human being in a fallen world, and how God views all of humanity.

So let’s take a look at desire.  Most homosexuals would say that they desire romantic/sexual relationships with those of the same sex and that they did not choose these desires any more than a heterosexual chooses their desires for opposite-sex relationships.  I believe this is true, but not for the reasons most homosexuals or Christians believe. [though, I believe these homosexual desires developed at an early age rather than a person being born with them “out of the box”]

I do not believe God created people with homosexual desires.  Homosexual desires are a result of the fallen, sinful state every person finds themselves in.  It’s no different than my desire to sleep with multiple women or someone’s desire to get as drunk as they can, etc.  Desire is not the benchmark for God’s holiness or His creation.  People desire many things – Money, Sex, Power.  All of our sinful actions can be traced back to a desire.  As a Christian, we must see ourselves before our salvation.  The bible says we were “enemies of God.”  Enemies.  At our hearts, we were evil.  So it should not be surprising that people have sinful desires.

A big question here is “how do I know my desires are sinful?”.  The only real answer to that is to put it up against God’s standards.  We know from Romans 1 that homosexual behavior is sinful.  Now, notice that I said homosexual behavior.  Having a desire and entertaining that desire are two different things.  Simply being attracted to the same sex is not sinful in itself [that is, that the desire exists] unless you were to dwell on such thoughts [as Jesus says, “if a man lusts in his heart…].  This is an important distinction for a Christian to make as he/she approaches those in the LGBTQ community in conversation about this issue.  It is no more sinful than being tempted.  Jesus was tempted in all things but did not sin.

Now, instantly, someone will say “well, Jesus never said homosexual behavior was a sin!”.  Well, what did Jesus say?  In Matthew 19, the Pharisees asked Jesus about the lawfulness of divorce.  His response tells us many things about the Old Testament:

“He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning, it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Here, Jesus not only affirms the OT, but He also tells us what God’s design for marriage is.  Held up against this standard, the only holy marital desire is that of a heterosexual nature.  We must ask ourselves if we should give in to any desire we have?  If I have a desire for lying, should I lie and not be held accountable because I was born that way?  What about theft?  We could list many more, but you understand the point.

So, when someone says they can’t help the way they feel, they are correct.  Only the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as a result of salvation through faith and repentance can change desires.  But, desire is not an excuse for sin.  And it may be that the desire itself does not change, so the Christian must then choose to remain pure and, perhaps, unmarried.

When we as Christians see our own selfish desires that are to be crucified daily, we can understand a homosexual’s position and can offer understanding. Truth with gentleness and respect.

And for those in the LGBTQ community, understand that God does love you just as you are.  But you are in no different a position than I or anyone else.  Salvation comes by grace through faith in Christ alone.  And repentance leads to faith.

Be prepared to have honest conversations.  Discard bumper sticker slogans.  Let go of the Us vs. Them mentality.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2UUQ8bn

/by
Transcending Spiritual Gymnastics

Transcending Spiritual Gymnastics

,

By Nathan Howe

“Spiritual” people, specifically non-believers, can have some pretty comical explanations of the supernatural as they come out of Atheism. Coming from a perspective that attributes no part of existence by any Spiritual guidance or conscious force, is a horrible building block to start learning about spirituality. Truly, the case consists of individuals who fight tooth and nail to believe that existence is a freak accident, then turn right around and contribute omnipotent characteristics to things like, Nature, or create moral rebounds by a force known as “Karma.”

I’m reading an article someone wrote about the Law of Transcendence, Where the author correlates it to Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that everything in existence is moving in one direction or another, completely incapable of remaining in the condition it was created in.

Well, that would make sense considering that since sin entered the world, we have lived in a constant state of Decay. But Non-believer’s don’t see the Second Law of Thermodynamics from the Bible’s perspective. They state that things can actually move forward, getting better by means of health or wealth. The issue with that is that wealth isn’t always applicable to the quality of life, this is made evident by the countless millionaires who met their end by their own hand, as well as commonly circulated phrases such as, “Money doesn’t buy happiness.”

The problem with this word, “Transcendence,” is that it’s incredibly vague by definition. The dictionary defines it as, “existence or experience beyond the normal or physical level.” By this definition, we experience transcendence just about every time we take a wrong turn on our way home from work, (Does anybody actually do that?)

However, the point where this reaches “Maximum Silliness,” is when the writer states: “This chain of events is put in place because nature’s desire is for all forms of existence to improve upon themselves.”

Did you catch it? See, this is something Atheism, as well as New Agers, do quite commonly. “There is no God; your God isn’t real. We are the higher power.” And in the same breath, will turn around and give conscious characteristics to “Nature,” describing it as a conscious force that has a will for existence.

This is literally a description of God, but at the same time, they’re dancing around the title “God,” for peer approval, all the while pursuing spirituality. This is a people who will embrace Satanism under whatever guise it comes to the world as.

Watch the author do it again here, where they write, “It is not nature’s desire for any form of existence to stand still, and therefore, no being is permitted by nature to remain in any one condition for very long.” That time, it should have been pretty easy to catch. Not only does Nature have a desire for all things in existence to move about altering their conditions for better or for worse, but that the force (in a sense) doesn’t leave people where it finds them. It comes into their lives and moves them towards transcendence… The author just described God and called him “Nature,” That’s all they did.

We started with calling it the “State of Decay” caused by Sin and death entering the world, then the secular scientists redefined it as “The Second Law of Thermodynamics,” and after it watered down peoples philosophical understanding of the world we live in, the New Agers come along only to call it, “The Law of Transcendence,” completely cutting God out of the picture and replacing it with a conscious all-powerful force of their own. Are people catching this sleight of hand? Or are we now being blown around by any doctrine we hear? Never grab hold of a doctrine that cuts God out of the picture and tries to replace him with an all-powerful force who doesn’t pay mind to wrongdoing. The Law of Transcendence ought to be packed away with Astrology, the New Age Movement, New Thought, and other forms of teachings that cut God out of the picture He created.

 

Nathan Howe is a 26-year-old Male from Seattle, WA. He is relocated to Phoenix, AZ over 2 years ago, and currently, participate in his church (Vineyard Church North Phoenix) by playing the Bass guitar in the 18-25 Small Group band. He currently works at Arizona Autism as an HCBS Coordinator overseeing the North Phoenix Area; they are pediatric therapy specialists providing Respite, Habilitation and Therapy Services for Children with Developmental Disabilities.

/by