Tag Archive for: apologetics

Seven Aspects of Jesus’s Life that are Historically Certain

Seven Aspects of Jesus’s Life that are Historically Certain

,

By Brian Chilton

When I had struggled with my faith, it was not in the area of science. I believed that science and faith can coexist, and I still do. The God who gave the special revelation of the Bible is also the same God who created the heavens and the earth from no materially existent thing. My struggles were in the area of history. In 1997, I came across a work by a group called the Jesus Seminar (composed of individuals such as John Dominic Crossan, Robert Funk, and Marcus Borg) which claimed that the majority of the words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels could not be historically verified. I later came to find that the Jesus Seminar had no evidence to support their claims, just their own presuppositions.

However, as I began studying the areas of history, philosophy, and theology, I came to realize that the core details of Jesus of Nazareth’s life can be known with great certainty. One of my professors at Liberty, Gary Habermas, developed what he calls the minimal facts approach. This approach lists out six areas of Jesus’s life that are universally accepted by all historians. He also adds a seventh which holds strong support, albeit less than the other six. So, what are these seven historical aspects of Jesus’s life that can be held with great certainty? They are as follows.

  1. Jesus died on a Roman cross. It is universally accepted that Jesus of Nazareth died by crucifixion. Even agnostic leaning atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman states that “The crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans is one of the most secure facts we have about his life.”[1] The Romans were efficient killers. They would ensure that the individuals whom they were instructed to kill died. Otherwise, their lives would have been taken in the victim’s place.
  2. The disciples had experiences that led them to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead. It may surprise you to discover that nearly all historians accept that the disciples had experiences that led them to believe in the resurrection of Jesus. Nearly all scholars agree that something happened on the first Easter Sunday. But what happened is where they differ.
  3. The disciples were transformed by their experiences to the point that they were willing to die for what they knew to be true. People die for what is false all the time. Many individuals have fallen in a war for nations that did not have noble causes. However, it is far different when the person dies for something they know to be true or false. The early disciples were willing to lay their lives on the line, and the lives of those they loved, for what they knew to be true or false. They literally believed that Jesus had risen from the dead.
  4. The resurrection message was promoted early in the church’s history. This is one of the points that excites me. I hope to write my dissertation on this very topic. Throughout the New Testament are early creeds that predate the New Testament documents. One of the earliest is 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 which tells of Jesus’s resurrection appearances to the disciples, James, and 500 witnesses at one time. The creedal formulation is extremely early. Bart Ehrman, an agnostic, holds that the material goes back “to the early 30s of the Common Era.”[2] James D. G. Dunn holds that the material dates to “within a year or two of the events themselves.”[3] More likely, the creed dates to the very year of Jesus’s death, burial, and resurrection. This along with Galatians 1:18-19 and the early creeds are among the earliest material in all of the New Testament record.
  5. Paul of Tarsus, the former opponent of Christianity, became a Christian after encountering the risen Jesus. No one denies that Paul of Tarsus had some experience on the road to Damascus which radically transformed his life. What could have transformed this Pharisee of Pharisee who was either a member of the Sanhedrin or one who was on his way to becoming a member (a position that paid extremely well)? Having an encounter with the risen Jesus would have brought such a transformation.
  6. James the brother of Jesus, a former skeptic, became a Christian after encountering the risen Jesus. The same holds true for James the brother of Jesus who was not a follower of Jesus until after the resurrection. James disproved of Jesus’s ministry (see Jn. 7:5) perhaps in part because it was expected that the oldest sibling would take over the family business. Jesus didn’t. Instead, he went on a preaching campaign. James probably felt great resentment towards Jesus during Jesus’s earthly ministry. However, his experience with the risen Jesus changed all that.
  7. The tomb was found empty. While this fact is not held as strongly as the other six, 75% of historical scholars accept that the tomb of Jesus was found empty on the first Easter Sunday. It is also interesting to note that the preaching of the resurrection happened early in Jerusalem. This is compelling because the skeptic would have known where the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea was located. The tomb could easily be checked. Jesus was not there.

More likely than not, as we approach the Easter season, you will encounter shows, books, and booklets that will try to dissuade you from believing that Jesus rose from the dead. The reality is, the best evidence supports not only that Jesus lived and that he died, but that he also rose again from the dead. As James and Paul were transformed by the resurrection of Jesus, so can you! Let us shout in triumph with the angels standing by the empty tomb of Jesus, “He is not here, but has risen” (Lk. 24:6).

Notes

[1] Bart D. Ehrman, Why Was Jesus Killed?, Kindle ed.

[2] Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? This Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York: HarperOne, 2012), 141.

[3] James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, Christianity in the Making, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids; Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2003), 864.

 

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/2HI5Bte

/by

Is the Quran the Word of God? w/ Dr. David Wood

Podcast: Play in new window

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

Dr. David Wood joins Frank during this episode of the Cross Examined Official Podcast. They tackled the question: Is the Quran the Word of God? David talks about how he became an expert on Islam and how that’s related to his friendship to the late Nabeel Qureshi.

Islam is the fastest growing (enforced) religion in the world and we as Christians should know how to speak intelligently with Muslims about the truth of Christianity.

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
Knowledge and Certainty Can You Know that God Exists

Knowledge and Certainty: Can You Know that God Exists?

, ,

Mikel Del Rosario

Do you have to be absolutely certain about something like “God exists” before you can say that you actually know it? Christians who talk about the evidence for God sometimes get frustrated when skeptics challenge a basic premise like “everything that begins to exist has a cause,” by saying that we haven’t explored the entire universe to know if that’s true. Maybe you’ve heard a friend say you can’t actually know anything about God unless you’re absolutely sure about it.

But saying this is an either-or kind of thing is a false dilemma. In this post, I’ll explain why you don’t have to have 100% certainty before you can know that God is real.

No good reason for either-or-thinking

In Philosophy, saying you have certainty about something means it’s impossible for you to be wrong. So, maybe saying “I exist” is one of the few things that fall into that category. But some skeptics say you can’t really know much about anything at all. Others say your beliefs aren’t justified even if they turn out to be true. For them, we can know almost nothing about God and our world since nobody can be absolutely certain about most things. But the idea that knowing something is the same as being absolutely sure about it turns out to be self-defeating. In fact, even though they say we can’t know much about anything, many seem to think they know enough to correct you if you say you know God is real. [1]

Think about it. The hyper-skeptical view is that you can’t say you know that God exists unless it’s impossible for you to be wrong about it. But is there any good reason to say that knowledge is the same as certainty? No. For example, I know that I’m writing this post on my computer. But it’s possible that I’m just dreaming about it. Still, does the mere fact that it’s possible that I’m dreaming means that I can’t know that I’m using my computer? Of course not.

Skeptics think they know something you don’t when they say you’re wrong

The thing is, skeptics, do claim to know certain things. For example, “Since we can’t go back in time to watch the big bang, we can’t know that the universe had a beginning” or “since we haven’t yet discovered every possible naturalistic option, we can’t know that God caused the universe.” These are actually claims to know something. But how do they know that?

Some skeptics have told me that in order for you to know something, you have to be 100% sure that you know it. But can’t you know something even if you aren’t entirely sure that you know it? Sure you can. For example, imagine that you memorized all the correct answers to the review questions in your textbook for class. Even if you’re not sure what questions will be on the quiz, you have a pretty good guess that some of them will be. Unbeknownst to you, every single one of those questions you studied actually make up the entirety of next week’s quiz.

In this scenario, you would actually know all the answers to the questions on next week’s quiz. You’d know the answers to a quiz you haven’t taken yet—even if you don’t realize that you actually know the answers! Turns out, you don’t have to be 100% sure (or even aware) that you know something in order for you to actually know it.

If the evidence for God’s existence seems compelling to you, there’s no need to be shy or tentative about your beliefs. You don’t have to have 100% certainty before you can know that God is real. [2]

 

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/2TOqFVg

/by
Book Review The Beauty of Intolerance

Book Review: The Beauty of Intolerance

,

By Luke Nix

Introduction

A few years ago, Sean McDowell gave a talk at the AMP Conference called “The Beauty of Intolerance.” In the talk, he spoke of two different views on tolerance that seem to be clashing in today’s society. He explained how the differences explain much of the political rhetoric of “hate” and “phobias” and “intolerance.” He focused specifically on the Church’s speaking truth in love and how this view is actually the most tolerant. This talk has been one of my favorites for a while. I discovered shortly after I first saw the talk that Sean and his father, Josh McDowell, coauthored a book, “The Beauty of Intolerance,” that went into the topic much deeper and focused on how Christian parents can effectively communicate moral truth to a morally relativistic generation. As a parent and one who defends the objectivity of morality (and, thus, the existence of God), this book was one I dare not pass on reading, which turns out was an excellent decision. Now, before I get to my usual chapter-by-chapter summary review and the remainder of my thoughts, here is the talk by Dr. Sean McDowell that originally caught my attention.

Chapter 1: True for You but Not for Me

The book begins with a fictional conversation between a college student coming home for the holidays and her parents. She and her boyfriend are expecting to be able to stay together in the same bedroom but her parents will not permit it. Both sides get into a heated discussion about morality and tolerance. The daughter wishes her parents to respect her moral decision and allow it even though they disagree, and her parents expect her to maintain the morality she grew up with. The conversation is designed to highlight the differences between the generations regarding the view of morality and tolerance. Josh and Sean McDowell use this as a springboard to begin their investigation into how the generations can respect one another yet still be guided by an objective moral compass.

They begin by pointing out that the different generations tend to recognize different sources for moral truth. One source of truth is God’s nature. It is objective and applies to every person whether they recognize it or not. The second source of moral truth is the individual. It is subjective and applies only to the person who maintains that particular view. The source that a person appeals to will not only affect the moral decisions they make, it will also affect their definitions of many words and phrases. Terms such as “tolerance” and “acceptance” are defined according to the source of moral truth. Drs. McDowell show the differences between the definitions of these words and several others. The two sources of moral truth often clash, and that is what causes much of the tension between the generations.

Chapter 2: When Tolerance Doesn’t Mean Tolerance

The second chapter starts with another fictional conversation; this one is meant to illustrate the difference between two radically different views of tolerance. The authors label the two views as “Traditional Tolerance” and “Cultural Tolerance.” They explain that Traditional Tolerance is grounded in the idea that morality is objective. This means that something is right or wrong whether someone believes it to be that way or not. It applies to all people in all cultures at all times. It has a hierarchy of morality that places some behaviors over others in objective goodness and truth value. Tolerance in this view means that even though people may not agree with another’s views, they are still to respect the other’s views and their decision to live by those views. Essentially, Traditional Tolerance is to love and respect the person despite what they believe and do.

Cultural Tolerance, on the other hand, is grounded in the idea that morality is relative and subjective. Morality is to be determined by the culture or the individual and does not apply equally to all people in all cultures at all times. Nor does this view hold a hierarchy of morality that places the goodness or truth value of one over another. In this view of tolerance, all behaviors and beliefs are equally good, equally true, and should be equally accepted by all people in all cultures at all times. Essentially, Cultural Tolerance is to celebrate the person’s behaviors and beliefs regardless of what they believe and do.

Chapter 3: The Irony: Intolerance in the Name of Tolerance

Ironically, many of those who hold to the cultural view of tolerance end up violating their own view in that they not only refuse to celebrate but instead condemn those who behave and believe differently from them. Yet, these same people do not believe themselves to be in such violation. So, who is truly being intolerant of whom, here? Josh and Sean explain that to answer this question, a standard of morality (thus tolerance) must be recognized by both sides. Just as claims of truth about reality must be tested against the standard of reality, truths about morality must be tested against the standard of morality. The source of morality that all humans are subject to (and can answer this question) is the biblical God. They explain that morality that is grounded in God is not decided by God moment-by-moment but is grounded in His nature. God does not decide what is good and true; He is what is good and true.

There was a point in history when God, as the standard of morality, was accepted in general by western culture, but it has slowly changed over the centuries. The authors take the reader through different periods of time that gradually brought in the change- the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, Darwin’s publication of his book on evolution, and modern rapid technological advancement. They explain how in these periods of time the source for answers in the culture gradually shifted from God to man, encouraged by many legitimate recognitions and much progress in the arts and sciences. However, despite the advancements in these areas, philosophy was regressing from recognizing the existence of objective moral truth to settling for subjective moral truth. This “modernist” philosophy is what many in the culture have adopted today and is the source for the cultural view of tolerance.

Chapter 4: When Anything Goes

Because God is no longer seen as the source of objective moral truth, the Bible cannot possibly contain objective moral truth. In the rejection of objective moral truth by this new culture, the Bible has become more of a “self-help” book. One that is not taken to have any objective truth, but one that is to be subjectively interpreted and applied where the reader is comfortable. Because there is no source by which to judge one action as “good” and another as “evil,” anything goes. Anything and everything a person wishes to do can be considered “good.” Everything from the beheadings carried out by ISIS to the dismemberment of babies moments before they are delivered into this world–all of these behaviors cannot be judged as objective evil because it is the culture, not a source above the culture that determines what is good and what is evil.

Further, because there is no objective “good” or “evil,” what is to be made of injustice? Without an objective standard by which to judge actions, what is “just” and “unjust” cannot be identified either. What we observe and positively identify as “unjust” cannot truly be considered unjust when differing cultures believe that opposite behaviors are “good.” This is one of the many ways that the idea of cultural tolerance goes against our better judgment as human beings. We know that certain actions are objectively evil, and we want to fight to right the wrong and see that injustice is stopped. The authors take the reader back to the early Church and point out that their intolerance of the injustices of the Roman Empire (leaving unwanted children in the streets to die) was objectively evil. No one, who holds to the cultural view of tolerance, can consistently believe that any act is evil or unjust. When they make such a claim of true evil and injustice, they are borrowing capital from the traditional view of tolerance.

Chapter 5: Love Makes It Right

One of the major tenants of the cultural view of tolerance is that love makes everything right. The way that this is expected to be applied is that if you love someone you will affirm whatever behavioral choices they make, no matter how strongly you disagree with them. While Drs. McDowell do agree that love does make right, they highlight the fact that cultural tolerance forces a truncated definition of love, one that focuses merely on the current feelings of the loved one and not their future wellbeing. The one who loves should not affirm a destructive behavior in the name of “love;” for to do so would be to send the “loved” one to their own destruction. This is the exact opposite of the goal of the person who loves them. By not including the future wellbeing of the loved person, cultural tolerance turns love upside down.

The authors explain that the biblical love that one must show involves the ideas of cherishing and nourishing the other person. And in the context of romantic love, one must cherish and nourish the other as they do themselves. These involve not just the present moment but also guarding against things that can hurt in the future and promoting things that will grow the person in the future. The marriage commitment is a commitment to cherish and nourish the spouse. The authors began the chapter with a fiction conversation between two parents and their daughter who wished to be affirmed in her sexual relationship with her boyfriend because they are in love (a fairly common situation in today’s world where the parents’ ideas of traditional tolerance and the children’s ideas of cultural tolerance are at odds). The problem is that the love protects security and commitment, which neither are in place because no commitment has been made between the boyfriend and girlfriend. To claim “love” at that point in their relationship is truly inaccurate, thus to have sexual relations would actually contradict what love is, and for the parents to affirm the relationship would also contradict their love for their daughter.

Chapter 6: True Love

But how do parents deal with such a situation? If they press too hard, they risk alienating their daughter. Can the truth be spoken and love demonstrated in such a way that the daughter can accept it and appreciate it? Josh and Sean emphasize the difference between “doing” and “being.” They explain that every person is created in God’s Image and that gives them intrinsic worth. They also explain that every person is sinful by nature, so that means that they will make wrong choices. Further, the environment and even some genes may make certain choices more difficult for some people than others, but we are still responsible for our choices. This makes for a legitimate distinction between who a person is and what they do. This is the view of traditional tolerance- Personal worth and personal choices are judged independently of the other. Cultural tolerance does not allow such a distinction, so it holds that judgment of one necessarily judges the other the same. To illustrate the beauty and importance of this distinction, the authors take the reader through Jesus’ encounter with the woman at the well in John 4. Jesus showed this culturally outcast woman love, respect, dignity, and value, yet he called out her sin- a message that she understood (as evidenced by her reaction) to be loving.

Chapter 7: Know the Truth and Speak It in Love

Every loving parent desires to protect their children from harm. The traditional view of tolerance allows a parent to love their child AND protect (or attempt to protect) them from harmful behaviors, where as the cultural view does not. A truly loving parent wants what is best for their child, and if they do not recognize that the child is making a wrong decision yet they do not address it and allow them to continue on the path, the “love” comes into question. Again, the traditional view of tolerance is quite intolerant of wrong choices yet alerts the person out of love and concern- that is beautiful. Ironically, the cultural view requires that even if a harmful decision is identified that we must permit and even encourage continuing on the harmful path. This is NOT loving and is NOT beautiful. Even though a parent may disagree with a child’s beliefs or behaviors, the traditional view of tolerance allows them to lovingly guide them away from harm.

To conclude the chapter, the fictional conversations that began the previous chapters were revisited. This time the conversations were guided by the parents’ intentional purpose of communicating their disagreement in the context of their desire for what is best (true love- the traditional view of tolerance) and keeping the lines of communication open about the wrong decisions. The new versions of these conversations were successful in keeping minds open and love being communicated. The authors caution that even though these fictional conversations seemed almost effortless, that in reality they require much patience and a long-suffering heart. Sometimes such a parent will be required to walk through the “hometown” of those who they disagree with in order to demonstrate their love and willingness to properly understand where that person is coming from to appropriately communicate the truth that their decision is, in fact, wrong.

Chapter 8: Cultural Tolerance and Education

The cultural view of tolerance is not just an idea that some people in society possess; it has permeated everything from education to government to the Church. The effect on the education system is quite evident when the cirricula are examined. Every subject, from math to history is taught through the lens of cultural tolerance. In many cases, the education system goes so far as to teach that if something cannot be tested then nothing about it can be known factually. Because many different cultures believe certain things that cannot be tested, it is taught, not only that these beliefs have not factual value but, that they are merely opinion, and students must simply accept that.

This is projected onto the students as well. They are taught that their thoughts, feelings, and beliefs have no claim on truth over another student’s thoughts, feelings, and beliefs. According to modern education, these are all just the product of opinions, and everyone needs to accept and even celebrate everyone else’s opinions. The authors are careful to emphasize that not every teacher is attempting to indoctrinate our kids; however, they do recognize that there are many in the system who are and who do so quite aggressively. This caution is provided not to cause alarm and to pull our kids from the public education system but to encourage us as parents to recognize that we are responsible for our kids’ education and that means that we need to prepare our kids at home to understand that and how such views are incorrect.

Chapter 9: Cultural Tolerance and the Government

Cultural tolerance has also greatly impacted governments in the West. But this is not to be a surprise for the Christian, for there are two kingdoms: the earthly kingdom and the Heavenly Kingdom, each having its own standards. Most of the time, both kingdoms’ standards are similar enough that Christians can live both objectively right and legally right at the same time, but if it ever comes to the time in which they are in conflict, the Christian must follow the Heavenly Kingdom because it is the one that holds to the objective standards that even earthly governments are supposed to follow. Our allegiance should lie with God, the foundation of objective moral truth; not the government, which is subject to the foundation of objective moral truth.

But how are we to respond when the time comes that the relative laws of the land come into conflict with the objective laws of God (such as when same-sex marriage was legalized a few years ago)? Drs. McDowell emphasize that our response must not just be a factual one but one given in love- a love that tells the truth with the person’s best interest in mind and in the context of a loving relationship, with traditional tolerance, not cultural tolerance, at the heart of our communication.

Chapter 10: Cultural Tolerance and Society

Because of the impact that cultural tolerance and moral relativism have had on our society, it is quite common for parents to feel helpless. This feeling of helplessness is often the cause of heated exchanges between parents and their children that leave both sides feeling unloved and disrespected. However, parents can increase their moral impact in their children’s lives by continually reminding them that God ultimately has their best interests and purposes in mind (true love), and His moral commandments are given so that those interests and purposes can be realized in their lives.

How can parents guide their children in their moral choices and focus on God’s loving interests and purposes for their lives? Josh McDowell takes parents through his process of the 4-Cs that he expounds on even more in his book “10 Commitments for Dads,” which has now been added to this reviewers reading list. The 4-Cs are:

1. Consider the choice

2. Compare it to God

3. Commit to God’s way

4. Count on God’s protection and provision

By equipping our children with this process and how to use it, our children can successfully identify when cultural tolerance is guiding them in the wrong direction and can adjust accordingly to God’s perfectly loving interests and purposes for their lives. It is not only important that parents teach this process but model it in their lives, so that their children not only hear it but see it and its results in real-life situations with real people.

Chapter 11: Cultural Tolerance and the Church

One of the things that makes teaching the correct view of tolerance (the traditional view) so difficult is that some of the concepts of the cultural view of tolerance have infiltrated the Chuch. This is not something that was (or even is) intended nor is it something that was (or is) blatant. Church leaders, while holding strong to the inerrancy of Scripture, have unwittingly adopted some of the language of cultural tolerance which communicates the concepts contradictory to what the leaders intend to communicate. Josh and Sean McDowell look at five common phrases that we hear in today’s church that are problematic:

1. The Old and New Testaments are the Bible of the Jewish and Christian faiths.

2. The Bible contains truth designed just for me.

3. There are 101 ways to interpret the Bible.

4. What’s true for you isn’t necessarily true for me.

The Bible is God’s Word, but experience determines interpretation.

Each of those contains is partially true, but they also contain error. Each one, in its own way, implies that either Christianity is not true for all people across all generations and/or that truth is relative. It is important that parents recognize when the language is used and reinforce with their children and in their own minds where the truth is and how it can lead to error if not properly understood.

Chapter 12: You Can Make a Difference

In the concluding chapter, Josh and Sean offer three ways that Christians can be effective in our culture in changing the view of tolerance back to the correct view. They recount instances in their own lives where each one has been successful. They also recommend resources, beyond their own work, that the Christian can use in their efforts. They emphasize that there is no “silver bullet” that will convert a culture or even a single person. This is an effort that can take days, month, or even years. We are called not to convert people overnight but to patiently build truly loving relationships with them and show them the love of Christ not only in our words but also in our lives.

Reviewer’s Thoughts

“The Beauty of Intolerance” certainly did not disappoint. The conversational style (and conversations) that the McDowells used made this book’s deep philosophical ideas easy to comprehend and see how to apply in everyday life. The book keeps the reader engaged from beginning to end. As a parent, at nearly every turn of a page I discovered new ways to effectively communicate truth to my children and teach them how to discern moral truth from error in our relativistic culture. And as someone who discusses moral and political issues frequently with friends, family, and coworkers, I found the content to be extremely valuable. I, no doubt, will be referring readers of this blog back to this book in future posts.

As you can tell, I highly recommend this book for every Christian and especially Christian parents. Whether your kids are still at home or your children are now adults, this book will be invaluable for you and for them as you and they navigate through today’s culture. Once I got through the third or fourth chapter, I placed one of my Top 5 Books posts on hold simply to trade out one of the recommendations for this one. I also have the audiobook on MP3 CD and multiple copies to borrow out and give to fellow parents. Parents, DO NOT pass up this book; you will find it engaging and encouraging, and the philosophical and biblical insights throughout its pages will enhance your relationship with your kids and help you keep their eyes on Christ and remind them that God truly loves them by always having their best interests at heart.

 

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

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

/by

10 Things Every Christian Should Know For College

Podcast: Play in new window

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

In this episode, Frank interviews author Austin Gentry about his book titled: 10 Things Every Christian Should Know For College: A Student’s Guide on Doubt, Community, & Identity. This book stands at the intersection of the Christian faith and the college life. 10 Things Every Christian Should Know For College is a replete guide for not merely surviving in college, but more importantly, thriving in college.

Make sure to forward this podcast to all your friends and family member that would benefit from it.

In the last section of this episode, Frank answer questions from our Q&A email “Hello@CrossExamined.org” send your questions now!

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
Reconciling a God of Love with the Problem of Evil

Reconciling a God of Love with the Problem of Evil

,

By Daniel Merritt

Theologians and philosophers when engaged in explaining the mysteries of life, wrestle with two mysteries that challenge the mind and the soul. Those mysteries have to do with the problem of evil, which has two components: moral evil and natural evil. Of the two, moral evil poses the easiest solution, as we grasp that bad things happen as a result of man’s capacity to choose between good and evil. The choices one makes brings about consequences; bad choices bringing about consequence that can adversely affect the individual who made the choice and have a ripple effect that affects the lives of others.

It is a lot more difficult, though, to provide satisfactory answers in the face of natural evil. Natural evil would include “evil” or “acts” that is the result from natural events that would include floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, typhoons, tornadoes, disease and other “events” that occur which bring in our lives tragedy, pain, suffering, and even death. Devastating natural disasters in life often leave one pondering: “Where is God in the midst of all this suffering, loss of life, and destruction? It is not fair or just that these often disastrous acts occur (insurance companies call them ‘acts of God’)!”

The age-old dilemma was posed by Epicurus (341-270 BC): “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil, is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” While simplistic answers are not forthcoming, approaching the subject from a Christian perspective does yield some thought-provoking insight. Six will be considered.

First insight, the Bible teaches that the sometimes “bipolar behavior” of nature is the result of The Fall. Natural evil is a result of man’s sin, the consequences of having a ripple affect which reverberates throughout creation. The Bible teaches that natural evil is a consequence of deliberate rebellion against his Creator, the result being that in addition to man being affected by sin, creation suffered negative consequences, as well. The present world is not the way it was created to be. As a result of man’s disobedience to God, pain, suffering and death entered the world. Paul tells us that all creation was affected by The Fall and that all creation groans and is in travail from the consequences of man’s sin and awaits the time when it is freed from the bondage of sin and death (Romans 8:20-22). The sometimes-unpredictable acts of nature were not present prior to sin entering the world. The world is broken as the result of man’s rebellion against his Creator. Creation has been subjected to the curse of man’s sin and as a result, the present world is functioning abnormally from God’s original design, bringing forth “acts” that are a distortion from the way God originally created the world and man.

Regarding the consequences of the curse of sin that affects man and creation, Francis Schaefer succinctly writes, “I do not think Christians take the Fall and the present abnormality of the world with practical comprehension and seriousness. I mean by this that although Bible-believing Christmas certainly do hold to a historical Fall and the present abnormality of the world as a theological truth, when it comes down to living, this is often forgotten. In other words, we forget that everything is abnormal today and that much of the sickness in the world and sorrows in other areas are a result of this abnormality. or to say it another way, there is so much in history that God did not mean to be there, in the way that He created the world and created

man” (Schaeffer, Letters, IL: Crossway Books, 1985, 157). Schaefer’s words are most insightful in regard to the “why?” of natural evil.

Second insight, God respects the freedom of man to choose, whose decisions can lead to dangerous acts of nature being destructive. It is understood there is natural evil/acts in nature that arise through no fault of man, but man’s choices, actions, and neglect can sometimes put people in harm’s way when nature turns dangerous. When man builds houses, and cities on fault lines in earthquake-prone areas the inevitable will happen. When homes are built on the side of mountains that are prone to mudslides the house will eventually disappear from the mountainside. When one builds businesses and homes near flood-prone areas or on the ocean front there is the risk that hurricanes will sooner or later bring devastation. Human freedom allows one to construct homes, businesses and cities being in places susceptible to earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes; however, when one does, acts of nature can result in grave damage and loss of life. Also, if corners are cut on building materials or construction in order to build quickly or cut expenses, the devastation can be even worse. The Lord respects our freedom to plan and create where we choose, even though eventual disaster may lurk in the future. We want the Lord to intervene in such cases, but for Him to do so, He would have to suspend our freedom to choose (John Hick, Evil and the God of Love, London: Saffron House, 1966, 12).

Third insight, God created the world to operate according to certain laws, and even though sin may have skewed some of nature’s laws as originally designed, there is a cause and effect in nature in regard to how the world works. These are more than impersonal forces; behind it all there lays the Creator God. Scientist-theologian John Polkinghorne advocates that God has created a universe with particular natural laws that make life on earth possible for the existence of humanity. Polkinghorne states that while our “knowledge of the physical world is patchy and incomplete,” the same weather systems that create F-5 tornadoes also creates rainstorms that bring water to the needed soil and plants. The same wind patterns that refresh us on a hot day can turn into destructive gale force winds. The same earthquakes that destroy buildings are part of the very dynamic in the regulation of soils and surface temperatures needed for human life. The same kinds of bacteria that can make one sick and even bring death also yields substances that are used to bring healing. As Creator, God has created the world to work in a certain way and even though creation has been affected by sin, what we assume to be inherently bad or unjust contains within its processes that which also brings about good and sustains life (Polkinghorne, Science and Providence: God’s Interaction with the World, Boston: New Science Library, 1989, 3-7). That our Creator God doesn’t change the laws of nature to coincide with our idea of what is good and just brings us to our fourth thought-provoking insight

Fourth insight, in addressing the problem of “natural evil” one must approach it from the perspective that the problem is not with God, but the problem begins with our assumptions about who we think God ought to be, what God ought to do, and how we determine what is just or unjust. We expect God to act in a certain way according to the way we perceive Him. We presuppose that if God is good and omnipotent then “bad” shouldn’t happen, that God should be and act in the way our mind conceives Him to be. However, we define just and unjust from a near-sighted, sin-tainted perspective. Basing whether something is good or bad, just or unjust on the premise of whether it fits into one’s own understanding what those terms mean is not the basis on which such a judgment should be made. One is not to affirm the goodness of God’s

character according to one’s own experience and presupposing. Surely God, who sees all thing from the beginning to the end, sees the bigger picture. His thoughts and ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8).

What appears to be unjust or bad from our rationale, experience and perspective could actually be something that is very good from a longer-range perspective, but we are only seeing from our short-sighted perspective. In our view of God, we tend to project our narrow-sighted view and experiential definitions of good and bad onto God and assume that if He is good, He must be good by our own limited standards of what constitutes good and just. When one says God needs to be “just,” most often one makes such a statement in terms of what one thinks justice ought to be or in relation to what one perceives to be just from one’s restricted viewpoint. In the process, one doesn’t grasp how justice for one might be an injustice to someone else in a different setting or vice-versa. After all, do we only want a God that fits into our box of understanding or One whose basis for what is just and unjust goes beyond one’s limited intellectual capacity?

We also impose within our narrow scope of God’s omnipotence, that He should use His power to conform to our understanding of how His power ought to work in the world and in individual lives. When we superimpose our concept of how God’s omnipotence should operate in the world, we have reduced Him to our level. God’s power is not subservient to our thinking or our whims of how we perceive He ought to operate in the world and in our lives. Our conception of God too often projects our preconceived assumptions onto God whose omnipotence we contend should be within the scope of our control. What we actually want is to manipulate God to fit into our parameters of how we think He ought to flex His powerful muscle over the forces of nature. How much better it is to come to terms with the understanding that God desires to work in us and with us in the world, and help us to better reflect the image of God He has stamped on each soul even when we encounter “acts” that from our perspective are deemed unfair, unjust, or bad (Dennis Bratcher, The Problem of Natural Evil, The Voice, www.crivoice.org, 2018).

Fifth insight, “Natural evil fulfills a higher divine purpose” (Augustine) (Robert Francis Allen, “St. Augustine’s Free Will Theodicy and Natural Evil,” Ars Disputandi, 3:1, 2003, 84-90). Pain, suffering, and disorder associated with natural evil providentially bring about a higher divine purpose in the larger plan of the Lord. Natural disasters often bring out in humanity the very best of human character, as neighbors and strangers aid one another in recovery. While natural disasters are often tragic, glimpses of the marred image of God within us is seen sparkling in the wreckage. As well, it is only after such natural disasters that some people actually have their hearts made tender enough to call on the Lord for help and strength in daily life. Many times only when one’s present situation is drastically changed does one find themselves thinking about the brevity of life, eternity and one’s accountability before the Lord. Further, it is in the aftermath of “acts of God” that one develops positive and strong character traits that would not have been formed if the disaster had not occurred. If difficult times one is prompted to grow stronger and become better human beings. So, even in the midst of disaster, the Lord can direct what appears to be bad or unjust to fulfill a higher divine purpose (Romans 8:28) (Barry L. Whitney, What are they Saying about Evil? Paulist Printing, 1989, 6, 25)

Sixth insight, one whose reasoned reaction to the calamitous effects of natural disasters, instead of disproving the existence of a benevolent and omnipotent God is in reality strong evidence for

His existence. In his book Mere Christianity, former atheist C.S. Lewis acknowledged he thought the injustice he perceived in the world was an ironclad argument against the truth of Christianity. But as he reflected on what he considered injustice in the world, he asked himself, “How had I gotten the idea that just and unjust existed?” How can one appeal to an objective standard of just and unjust, if there is not a standard outside of one’s self? For if there is no God and we are only the sum total of a collection of random atoms, one’s appeal to events or acts being declared just and unjust is no better or worse than that of anyone else. Such deducing resulted in C.S. Lewis becoming a Christian and one of the great Christian thinkers and writers of the twentieth century.

While we have sought to look at six insights in regard to the problem of natural evil, ultimately we must acknowledge our inability to answer every question posed. Our finite minds can only take us so far, and we will never be able to penetrate the infinite mind of our benevolent and omnipotent God. It is not a weakness to admit that we do not have all the answers, but this know…in the midst of disastrous acts of nature, God is able, willing and desirous to bring comfort, hope, and encouragement to the hurting heart. He is a God who walked among us in Jesus Christ and He is not oblivious to our pain. Having wept through human eyes (John 11:35), He comes to embrace us in our pain that in His divine providence will bring treasure out of a tragedy.

 

Daniel Merritt received his Ph.D. in Ministry from Luder-Wycliffe Seminary and a Th.D. from Northwestern Seminary. He also received his M.Div. from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and studied philosophy and religion at Campbell University. Dr. Merritt has pastored six churches in North Carolina and is currently the Director of Missions for the Surry Baptist Association in Mount Airy, North Carolina. Dr. Merritt has written several books including A Sure Foundation: Eight Truths Affirming the Bible’s Divine Inspiration; Writings on the Ground: Eight Arguments for the Authenticity of John 7:53-8:11; and Bitter Tongues, Buried Treasures. 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2F5ftcx

/by
If Christianity is True, Why Do So Many Kids Have Doubts Today

If Christianity is True, Why Do So Many Kids Have Doubts Today?

,

By Natasha Crain

Christianity Today recently featured an article titled, “The Biggest Hindrance to Your Kids’ Faith Isn’t Doubt. It’s Silence.”

The article summarized the findings of researchers Kara Powell and Steven Argue on the faith of youth group graduates. They found that:

  • 70 percent of churchgoing high schoolers report having serious doubts about faith.
  • Less than half of those with doubt shared their struggle with an adult or friend.
  • Opportunities to express and explore doubts were correlated with greater faith maturity.

Powell and Argue concluded that, “It’s not doubt that’s toxic to faith; it’s silence.” They go on to explain how important it is for parents to regularly have conversations about faith with their kids, and I couldn’t agree more.

I saw this article shared a lot on social media, with people rightly encouraging one another to have more faith conversations with their kids. But each time I saw it, an underlying question glared at me:

If Christianity is true, why is there so much doubt to be addressed in the first place?

Quite frankly, if I were a skeptic, that’s the question I would be asking after reading this research.

Skeptics often claim that Christians believe what we do in the face of serious cognitive dissonance; that is, they say we have to hold contradictory beliefs in tension because the evidence is against us. This article at least seemed to support the idea that if there is so much doubt, it should make us think twice about the validity of our views.

I’m always happy to think twice, so let’s do it. This is such an important subject for parents to understand today, but I rarely see it addressed.

Why So Much Doubt?

People throughout history have had questions and doubts about their beliefs, and that includes Christians. Christians have long grappled with big theological issues like the problem of pain and suffering, the morality of hell, and why God is seemingly so hidden. These things have led many thoughtful people—adults and kids alike—to have doubts.

But I believe much of the doubt we see today among youth and young adults is very different in nature. It’s doubt that is specifically a product ofcultural factors—not doubt that has arisen after a deep grappling with theology.

Here are five key factors I see.

  1. Kids today have the expectation that knowledge requires absolute certainty.

A dad emailed me recently because he had started to work through my book, Talking with Your Kids about God, with his skeptical 9-year-old daughter. After reading the chapters on the evidence for God’s existence, he said his daughter concluded there’s no certainty in her belief in God, and the discouraged dad promptly put the book away. He felt that I wasn’t forceful enough in my presentation and that, as a parent, he needs to be a more authoritative instructor to share what he knows “with absolute certainty.”

This dad’s revised approach is a tragic conclusion that falls prey to the same common error his daughter made: believing “absolute certainty” is both possible and necessary when it comes to a person’s worldview. This is often the assumption of kids who are analytically-minded, and it’s reinforced by some popular misunderstandings of the role of science today.

As a matter of definition, “absolute certainty” is something reserved for mathematics and logic. Even science—often heralded today as the way of knowing what’s true—does not provide “certain” conclusions. As (atheist) philosopher Walter Kaufmann put it, “What distinguishes knowledge is not certainty but evidence.” There is almost nothing we are “absolutely certain” about in life. If that’s what our kids believe the standard is for evaluating the evidence for the truth of Christianity (or any worldview), they have a dangerous misunderstanding. They’ll have a standard of proof that we don’t use for anything else in our daily lives and our bound to conclude they have too many doubts to believe in God just because uncertainties exist.

This dad’s “authoritative” doubling down on teaching with absolute certainty will likely only serve to push his daughter further away from God because he is setting her up to accept his conviction of certainty rather than help her evaluate the evidence herself. Had I concluded in my chapters that the evidence in nature points to God with absolute certainty, as I think the dad wanted, I would have mischaracterized the nature of evidence. That helps no one, but rather sets kids up to have unreasonable expectations.

Remember: Biblical faith is trusting in what you have good reason—evidence—to believe is true. Hebrews 11:1 says, “Faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” The reason we can have confidence and assurance in our beliefs is because of the strong evidence God has given us for their truth.

  1. Today’s culture validates feelings as objective truth.

At the other end of the spectrum, many kids today completely throw out the idea of evidence and buy into the secular narrative that our feelingsdetermine truth.

If you feel you’ve been wronged, you’ve been wronged.

If you feel something isn’t true, it isn’t true.

If you feel you should have the right to do something, you should.

So what happens if I don’t feel anything during prayer? Or I don’t feel like God was loving enough for my personal standards in the Old Testament? Or I don’t feel like God’s moral commands are fair? Or I don’t feel hell is reasonable?

I then feel the Bible must not be true—without ever looking at the evidence.

Kids who haven’t been shown the weakness of feelings as the arbiter of truth may apply the “feelings test” to their faith and end up struggling with doubt because they haven’t learned to think more deeply about these questions.

  1. When you’re in an ideological minority, it’s human nature to question your views.

Last year, new research showed that committed Christians are now a minority. (I wrote a post about the implications of that for parents here.) When you believe something that is vastly different than what the majority believes, it’s simply natural to question it. Questioning, to some degree, is a function of which side of the numbers you’re on. Though the number of people who hold a worldview doesn’t have any bearing on what’s actually true, it’s human nature to give weight to what more people believe.

Those who hold majority views sometimes don’t question enough, while those who hold minority views sometimes question more than what may be warranted.

  1. The secular viewpoint is quickly becoming the only viewpoint taught in public schools.

This is related to the previous point because the primary place many kids experience the feeling of being in an ideological minority is in the public school system.

Every day, millions of kids head to school, only to be taught a worldview that is directly in conflict with that of Christianity. The breadth of that conflict is rapidly growing as states like California make sweeping revisions to curricula that affirms unbiblical views as the only acceptable views in multiple subject areas. Many people are championing the changes as being inclusive and diverse, but do not be fooled: There is only one view being taught, and it’s not the one held by millions of Christians. Sean McDowell recently wrote an excellent piece on this here. I encourage every parent to read it (not just Californians).

When we send kids to school for an education, they assume they should trust their teachers as authorities. We shouldn’t be surprised when their “authoritative” secular curriculum causes them to doubt what they learn at home.

[Please note that this is not to suggest that all Christians should pull their kids out of public school. There are many factors that go into educational decisions and I don’t believe one solution fits everyone.]

  1. Our culture raises questions about the religious worldview while ignoring the questions raised by a secular worldview.

Having read the many studies done on kids abandoning a belief in God, I’m fully convinced that they’re only thinking through the reasons they’re walking away from Christianity but not the reasons they’re walking toward atheism.

You see, it’s not just a Christian worldview that leaves questions unanswered. There is room for doubt in every worldview because no worldview answers every question. This is why I spent the last six chapters in Talking with Your Kids about God explaining the logical implications of an atheistic worldview, and how that compares with a Christian worldview. I show, for example, that in an atheistic world:

  • There can be no objective meaning of life;
  • There is little reason to believe free will (in any meaningful sense) is possible;
  • There can be no moral obligation to live in or treat others in any particular way; and
  • There can be no “right” or “wrong” in any objective sense (everything can only be a matter of personal opinion because there’s no higher-than-human moral authority).

All of these things are granted by many atheist philosophers—this isn’t my personal “criticism” of an atheistic worldview; it’s the logical outworking of the implications of a godless world.

An honest person should rightly have doubts about a worldview that implies these conclusions.

They go against our most basic intuitions.

But the secular world only questions the religious worldview. Popular culture rarely raises the questions inherent in atheism. This leads kids to a false sense that doubt is specific to religion, or that doubt in itself is a cognitive warning of falsehood. It’s not. When we’re honest, doubt is part of being human. It’s part of how we process the world.

It shouldn’t surprise us at all that so many kids doubt Christianity today, given these and other cultural factors.

It just means we, as parents, undoubtedly have work to do.

If you’re interested in the subject of doubt, I highly recommend Bobby Conway’s book “Doubting Toward Faith” and Travis Dickinson’s blog, where he writes often on these subjects.

 

Natasha Crain is a blogger, author, and national speaker who is passionate about equipping Christian parents to raise their kids with an understanding of how to make a case for and defend their faith in an increasingly secular world. She is the author of two apologetics books for parents: Talking with Your Kids about God (2017) and Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (2016). Natasha has an MBA in marketing and statistics from UCLA and a certificate in Christian apologetics from Biola University. A former marketing executive and adjunct professor, she lives in Southern California with her husband and three children.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2O2W7cp

/by
Is There a Difference Between Apologetics and Evangelism

Is There a Difference Between Apologetics and Evangelism?

By Robby Hall

Many have an idea that the discipline of Apologetics is limited to showing some esoteric point to be true or getting into long debates with atheists. The truth is, apologetics is about one thing – bringing people to Christ. Some see evangelism and apologetics as differing from each other in their end goal. But is this the case?

The late Dr. Francis Schaeffer referred to apologetics as “pre-evangelism”. He believed that most were not ready to hear the Gospel as they had many questions or objections that were in their way. Apologetics was the way to prepare the person to hear the Gospel so that they could respond without the obstacles of those questions. One could say that apologetics correctly done would be the “handmaiden” of evangelism. Apologetics is there to help our evangelistic efforts, not to get into fights over doctrine or ideas about evolution.

In, The God Who Is There[1], Dr. Schaeffer wrote:

​They (non-Christians) are valuable, so we should meet them in love and compassion. Thus, we meet the person where he or she is. Consequently, if I were with Paul and Silas in the Philippian jail, and the Philippian jailer said to me, “sir, what must I do to be saved?” for me to start talking about epistemology would be horrible. I would say what Paul said, “Believe on the LORD Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved” because the jailer was, on the basis of previous knowledge and events, ready for that answer.  ​Now on the other hand, if we are dealing with someone who has honest problems and who really believes that truth is truth – things are true and things are false, it would then be a different need.  In that situation, if he or she had questions on the historicity of Christ’s resurrection and so on, we would deal with those questions – because he or she already accepts that truth is truth.

Evangelism and Apologetics go hand in hand and we should, as Christians, be prepared beforehand to engage in both disciplines so that we can follow the command of Christ to make disciples of all nations.

Notes

[1] Scheaffer, Francis A. , The God Who Is There, InterVarsity Press, 1968.

 

Robby Hall is in the Secure Access industry for Information Technology. He has been married for 3 years and has just welcomed his first child, Bridget. He is graduate of the Cross Examined Instructor’s Academy and leads apologetics small groups at his local church.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2TL2SEW

/by

Is the Bible all you need?

Podcast: Play in new window

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

Frank responds to an email from a person who actually believes the earth is flat and the sun goes around the earth based on his “interpretation” of the scriptures. During this episode, Frank lovingly refutes this position and shares some great tools to interpret the Bible properly. He points out that you need to know a lot of information from general revelation before you can understand the Bible (or any other book). Listen to this insightful episode you’ll be better equipped to understand Scripture after this show. God bless!

Keep us busy by sending your questions to Hello@CrossExamined.org and don’t miss this episode!

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
Responding to Sam Burke's Argument That Christianity Entails Anti-Natalism

Responding to Sam Burke’s Argument That Christianity Entails Anti-Natalism

By Evan Minton 

In the comment section of one of the posts on the Cerebral Faith facebook page, Sam Burke commented “If I found out Christianity was true, I would do everything in my power to stop people from having kids so that more people don’t go to Hell. According to Matthew 7:13 only a few people will find the way to Heaven. Almost everyone who is born will end up being burned in eternal conscious pain for eternity according to the Bible. A trillion years and the person will not be a second closer to being out of Hell. Any parent who truly believes and understands this, and knows their kids will statistically probably end up in Hell and has kids anyway hates them. Having children violates “love your neighbor as yourself” on that viewpoint. If Hell, then Anti-Natalism.

And not to mention if the Age of Accountability is true we should conceive kids just for the sake of aborting them and therefore “populating Heaven.” And I am Pro-Life!! Or infants are damned unless they accept Jesus as their savior from the time they are born. Christianity is utterly hopeless, depressing, etc. No compassionate person could want Christianity and all that it entails to be true.”

Is this the case? If Christianity is true, does it entail that you should either abort your children or refrain from even having them? I’ve already dealt with the Age-Of-Accountability-Entails-That-Abortion-is-ok argument in this blog post here and in chapter 4 of my book A Hellacious Doctrine: A Biblical Defense Of The Doctrine Of Hell. So I won’t rehash those answers here. Rather, I’ll address the more modest argument that if Christianity is true, and if more people statistically end up in Hell instead of Heaven, then it’s basically our moral obligation to refrain from even conceiving!

First, God Has Made Salvation Available to All, Anyone Damned Has Only Themselves to Blame

Jesus said that “For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only son so that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. Everyone who believes in Him will not perish but whoever does not believe in Him is already condemned because he has not believed in God’s one and only son.” – John 3:16-18 (emphasis mine).

God The Father gave up God the Son (i.e., Jesus) to die for the sins of the world! The Greek word translated “world” here is kosmos, and it is most often used to either describe all of humanity, the entire planet, or the entire physical universe. If you are a part of the world, then God loves you and became a man to atone for your sins. I’m a part of the world. You’re a part of the world. Adolf Hitler was a part of the world. Osama Bin Laden was a part of the world. The random person who drove by my house yesterday is a part of the world. Every human being is included in this passage. Moreover, whosoever out of the group that God loved (i.e., the world) who places their faith in Jesus will not perish but have eternal life. Jesus said that God didn’t send His Son into the world to condemn it, but to save the world through him.

Because “God so loved the world”, he therefore “wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4), and is “not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). As a result of this love and desire, He “gave his only begotten son” and by that is meant that Jesus “gave himself as a ransom for all people” (1 Timothy 2:6, cf. 1 John 2:2, Hebrews 2:9).

God offers this salvation to all. We’re not able to accept it on our own (see John 6:44, John 6:65), so God sends His Holy Spirit to enable us and persuade us to receive His offer of salvation at the preaching of the gospel (Acts 16:14, John 12:32). This grace can be resisted (Acts 7:51), resulting in the persons own damnation if they continue to resist God’s grace until they die (John 3:36). The choice is up to you. Will you resist The Holy Spirit or will you yield to Him?

God became incarnate, died on the cross to take the punishment we deserved and then rose from the dead. God sends grace to all people to draw them to salvation. Some choose to resist God’s grace and others choose not to. The ones who resist cannot indict either God or their parents for the choice they made. They have no one to blame but themselves. This is why it is often said that God doesn’t send people to Hell, but rather, people send themselves. No one who ends up in Hell has to be there. Their damnation could have been avoided.

Secondly, He Is Assuming That Parents Have No More Say in The Eternal Destiny of their Children Than Birthing Them. 

Sam Burke is assuming that parents have no more say in the eternal destiny of their children than merely birthing them and letting them decide for themselves. However, Proverbs 22:6 says “Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.”

It is generally true that if you raise your child right, he’ll grow up right. Theologically, one should expose their children to sound doctrine at a young age, and teach them apologetics from a young age. You can start with having them read books like “The Case For Christ For Kids” by Lee Strobel, “The Case For Faith For Kids” by Lee Strobel, “The Mystery Of The Picture: Where Did The Universe Come From? Did It Come From Nothing?” by Mary Katherine Mammen and Neil Mammen, and “The Awesome Book Of Bible Answers For Kids” by Josh McDowell and Kevin Johnson. When they enter high school, you can move them on to more advanced material like the regular “The Case For Christ” by Lee Strobel, “My Redeemer Lives: Evidence For The Resurrection Of Jesus” by Evan Minton, and others. See my blog post “Teach Your Children Apologetics” for a larger list.

While your kids should look at the evidence for Christianity’s truth, You should be a well-informed Christian and be able their questions as well. As J. Warner Wallace once said, you are the first apologist your child will ever be exposed to. I think fewer young people would leave the church if we were prepared to make a reasonable case for Christianity instead of emphasizing feeling based experiences, and (this especially goes for youth pastors) entertainment. When I become a father, I will ensure that if my child grows up and apostatizes, it won’t be for intellectual reasons (John 3:19-20).

The answer to the problem of your offspring going to Hell isn’t to refrain from having them, but to make sure that they know the Living God.

Thirdly, While Jesus Said More Would Be In Hell Than Heaven, He Never Gave Exact Numbers

You have no idea the ratio of damned to saved and neither do I.  It’s difficult to read Matthew 7:13-14 and not get the idea that Jesus said there would be more damned than saved. However, Jesus didn’t give an exact ratio. For example, Jesus never said that for every 1 person who is saved, 100 are lost. For all we know, for every 1 saved, only 2 or 3 are lost. You can’t calculate the probability that your offspring will, by the end of his life, have spurned The Holy Spirit. We’re not in a position to tally the exact number of saved to lost. All Jesus said is that many would enter the death gate and few would enter the life gate. That’s not exactly what I’d call mathematical precision.

Revelation 7:9 observes, “After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands.” Millions and millions of people will be in Heaven from all over the world.

Finally, Annihilationism Is an Option

Burke’s criticism presupposes a very specific view of Hell; the Eternal Conscious Torment view. However, what if Annihilationism is true? Annihilationism is the view that the damned do not, in fact, suffer eternal conscious torment. Rather, on some forms of annihilationism, they suffer for a little while are eventually annihilated, or they annihilated immediately upon being judged by God. Thus, annihilationism is absolutely no different than Atheism and Deism concerning the afterlife. The only difference is that Atheists and Deists believe that everyone is annihilated, whereas the Christian annihilationist only believes some are.
Since I do not adhere to annihilationism, I have tried to respond to Burke’s argument while presupposing ECT. However, in the case that Burke or others find my response unsatisfying, I would advise them to look into the case for annihilationism. I don’t want Burke or others to reject Christianity on the basis of a secondary doctrine that I could be wrong about. If I did that, I’d be no different than Christians who require people to give up assent to Darwinian Evolution. If I’m wrong and annihilationism is true, then it has even less force than it would on ECT.

 

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/2tXr0Wu

/by